-

Abstract

This article examines the methodological and theoretical basis of the institutional ethnography approach introduced by Canadian sociologist Dorothy E. Smith. Institutional ethnography refers to the empirical investigation of linkages within the local context of “everyday world” organizations and the trans-local process of governance. For institutional ethnography, the everyday world is the material context of each embodied subject. The “works” done by each embodied subject in everyday life is just a starting point for institutional ethnography. The notion of “institution” indicates the clusters * Arş. Gör. Dr., Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, İİBF, Siyaset Bilimi ve Uluslararası İlişkiler Bölümü. İletişim: [e-mail] “text mediated” relations organized around specific functions such as education or welfare. Smith proposes institutional ethnography as a part of an empirically strong alternative methodology and as a politically empowering research strategy. This approach combines Marx’s materialist method with ethnomethodology, feminist standpoint theory and Foucauldian discourse theory. This article shows how institutional ethnography links micro and macro settings by giving empirical examples and compares it with some other qualitative research approaches such as the extended case method by Burawoy or feminist standpoint theory.

Keywords

• Institutional Ethnography, Methodology, Feminist Methodology

DOROTHY SMITH'İN SOSYAL BİLİM YAKLAŞIMI VE KURUMSAL ETNOGRAFYA

Abstract

Bu makalede Dorothy Smith tarafından geliştirilen kurumsal etnografya yaklaşımının yöntemsel öneri ve teorik dayanakları incelenmektedir. Kurumsal etnografya gündelik yaşamın ve örgütlenmelerim yerel bağlamı ile yerel ötesindeki yönetme ilişkileri ve yönetişim süreçlerini birbirine bağlamayı hedefleyen ampirik bir araştırma yöntemi önermektedir. Kurumsal etnografyacı için gündelik hayat, öznelerin konumlandığı maddi bağlamdır. Gündelik yaşam içinde konumlanmış öznelerce yapılan «işler» kurumsal etnografya için yalnızca başlangıç noktasıdır. Kurum düşüncesi eğitim, sağlık, refah gibi spesifik bir işlev çerçevesinde örgütlenmiş bir dizi metin-dolayımlı ilişkiler ağına işaret eder. Kurumsal etnografya nitel sosyal bilimin kimi standart pratiklerinden farklılaşmakta, ampirik ancak güçlendirici bir sosyal bilim önerisi sunmaktadır. Bu çalışmada öncelikle, yaklaşımın feminist yöntem, Marksizm ve söylem teorileri ile etkileşimi incelenmektedir. Kurumsal etnografyanın, mikro ve makro düzeyleri bağlama çabası ile yöntemsel stratejisi araştırma pratikleri üzerinden örneklenerek açıklanmaktadır. Ayrıca genişletilmiş örnek olay, feminist bakış açısı yaklaşımı gibi nitel araştırma yaklaşımları ile ilişkisi tartışılarak, kurumsal etnografyanın ampirik açıdan güçlü aynı zamanda insanlar için güçlendirici bir sosyal bilim önerisi olarak farklılığı ortaya konmaktadır. 

Anahtar Kelimeler: Kurumsal Etnografya, Metodoloji, Feminist Yöntem.

 

DOROTHY SMITH'S SOCIAL SCIENCE APPROACH AND INSTITUTIONAL ETHNOGRAPHY

Abstract

This article examines the methodological and theoretical basis of the institutional ethnography approach introduced by Canadian sociologist Dorothy E. Smith. Institutional ethnography refers to the empirical investigation of linkages within the local context of “everyday world” organizations and the trans-local process of governance. For institutional ethnography, the everyday world is the material context of each embodied subject. The “works” done by each embodied subject in everyday life is just a starting point for institutional ethnography. The notion of “institution” indicates the clusters of “text mediated” relations organized around specific functions such as education or welfare. Smith proposes institutional ethnography as a part of an empirically strong alternative methodology and as a politically empowering research strategy. This approach combines Marx's materialist method with ethnomethodology, feminist standpoint theory and Foucauldian discourse theory. This article shows how institutional ethnography links micro and macro settings by giving empirical examples and compares it with some other qualitative research approaches such as the extended case method by Burawoy or feminist standpoint theory. 

Keywords: Institutional Ethnography, Methodology, Feminist Methodology 

Keywords

• Kurumsal Etnografya, Metodoloji, Feminist Yöntem.

References

1. Bora, A. (2005), Kadınların Sınıfı: Ücretli Ev Emeği ve Kadın Öznelliğinin İnşası, İstanbul: İletişim.
2. Brooks, A. (2007), “Feminist Standpoint Epistemology”, Feminist Research Practice, S.N. Hesse Biber ve P. Leavy (der), Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications.
3. Campbell, M. L. (1984), Information Systems And Managment of Hospital Nursing, A Study In Social Organization Of Knowledge, PhD diss., University of Toronto, Ontario
4. — (1998), “Institutional Ethnography and Experience as Data”, Qualitative Sociology, 21(1), s. 55-73.
5. — (2003), “Dorothy Smith and Knowing the World We Live”, Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 30(1) s. 3-22).
6. Campbell, M.L. ve Gregor, F. (2004), “Mapping Social Relations: A Primer In Doing Institutional Ethnography (Book Review”), Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness and Medicine, 8 (1) s. 129-136.
7. Caroll, W. K. (2006), “Marx’s Method and Contributions of Institutional Ethnography”, Sociology of Changing the World, G. Kinsman vd. (der), N.S.: Black Point.
8. Castells, M. (2000), The Rise of Network Society, Blackwell Publications. Connell, R. W. (2000), “New Directions In Theory and Research”, s.1535, The Man and the Boys içinde, Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

9. De Montigny, G. (1995). Social Working: An Ethnography Of FrontLine Practice. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
10. De Vault, M. L. (1991), Feeding the Family: The Social Organization Of Caring As Gendered Work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DeVault, M. L. and L. McCoy. (2002). “Institutional Ethnography: Using Interviews to Investigate Ruling Relations.” s. 751-776 Jaber F. Gubrium and James A. Holstein (der.), Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Method içinde. Sage.
11. Diamond, T. (1992), Making Grey Gold: Narratives of Nursing Home Care, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12. Doran, C. (1993), “The Everyday is Problematic: Ideology and Recursion in Dorothy Smith’s Micro-Sociology”, Canadian Journal of Sociology 18: 43-63.
13. Giddens, A. (1976), New Rules of Sociological Method. London: Hutchinson.
14. Glenn, E.N. (1998), “Gender, Race and Class. Bridging the languagestructure divide”, Social Science History, 22(1), s. 29-38.
15. — (1985), “Racial Ethnic Women’s Labor: The Intersection of Race, Gender and Class Oppression”, Review of Radical Political Economics, 17 (3), s. 86-108.
16. Grahame, K. M. (2003), “For the Family’: Asian Immigrant Women’s Triple Day”, Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 30(1), s. 65Grahame, P. R. (1998), “Ethnography, Institutions, and the Problematic of the Everyday World”, Human Studies 21 s. 347-360.
17. Griffith, A., Smith, D. (1987), “Constructing Cultural Knowledge: Mothering As Discourse”, Women and Education: A Canadian Perspective, J. Gaskell ve A. McLaren (der), Calgary, Alberta: Detselig, s. 87-103.
18. Harding, S. (1993), “Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: What Is Strong Objectivity”, Feminist Epistemologies, L. Alcoff , E. Potter (der), Routledge: NY ve London, s. 49-82.
19. Haraway, D. (1991), “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective”, Simians, Cyborgs, and Women, Free Association Books: London, s. 1832
20. McCoy, L. (2002), “Dealing With Doctors. Making Care Visible: Antiretroviral Therapy and The Health Work of People Living With HIV/AIDS”, M. Bresalier, L. Gillis vd. (der), Making Care Visible Group, Toronto Ont., s. 1-36.
21. Mykhalovskiy, E. vd. (2004), “Compliance/Adherence, HIV/AIDS and The Critique of Medical Power”, Social Theory and Health, 2(4), s. 315-340.
22. Ng, R. (1981), “Constituting Ethnic Phenomenon: An Account from the Perspective of Immigrant Women”, Canadian-Ethnic-Studies / Etudes-Ethniques-au-Canada, 13(1), s. 97-108. — (1996), The Politics of Community Services: Immigrant Women, Class and State, Fernwood Publishing, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
23. Otis, E. (2001), “The Reach and Limits of Asian Panetnic Identity”, Qualitative Sociology 24(3), s. 349-79.
24. Pence, E. (2001), “Safety for Battered Women in a Textually Mediated Legal System”, Studies in Cultures, Organizations and Societies, 7(2), s.199-229
25. Smith, D. E. (1974), “Women’s Perspective as a Radical Critique of Sociology”, Sociological Inquiry, 44(1), 7-13.
26. — (1987), Texts, Facts and Femininity: Exploring the Relations of Ruling, Routledge: New York.
27. — (1988), The Everyday World As Problematic: A Feminist Sociology, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
28. — (1990), On Sociological Description: A Method from Marx. Texts, Facts and Feminity: Exploring the Relations of Ruling, 12-51. London: Routledge;
29. — (1999), “Telling the Truth After Postmodernism”. Writing the Social: Critique, Theory, and Investigations, D. E. Smith (der). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
30. — (2000), “Schooling for Inequality”, Signs, 25, s. 1147-1151.
31. — (2004a), “Ideology, Science, and Social Relations: A Reinterpretation of Marx’s Epistemology», Journal of Social Theory, 7 (1), s. 455-62. — (2004b), Institutional Ethnography – Towards a Productive Sociology: An Interview with Dorothy E. Smith, Karin Widerberg, PhD, Prof. Dep of Sociology and Human Geography, University of Oslo. (http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/sv/iss/ SOS4000/v06/forelesningsnotater/Karin%20Widerberg%20 intervju%20med%20Dorothy%20Smith.doc )
32. — (2005), Institutional Ethnography. A Sociology for People. NY: Altamira.
33. Smith, G. W. (1990), “Political Activist as Ethnographer”, Social Problems, 37(4): 629–648.
34. — (1998), “Policing the Gay Community: An Inquiry Into Textually Mediated Relations”, International Journal of Sociology and the Law 16, s. 163-83.
35. Spence, N. D. (2002), “Publicly Engaged Knowledge: Dorothy Smith’s Proposed Sociology”, The Western Journal of Graduate Research, 11, s. 28-47.
36. Swift, K. (1995), Manufacturing Bad-Mothers: A Critical Perspective, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
37. Vallas, S. P. ve J. Beck(1996), “The Transformation of Work Revisited: The Limits of Flexibility in American Manufacturing”, Social Problems, 3(3), s. 339-61.
38. Walby, K. T. (2005), “Institutional Ethnography and Surveillance Studies An Outline for Inquiry”, Surveillance & Society, 3, s. 158-172.
39. SEÇİLMİŞ YAYINLAR 2013, “Domesticity of Neo-liberalism: Family, Sexuality and Gender in Turkey”, in: A. Bekmen, İ. Akça and B. A. Özden (eds.), Politics in Turkey: Constitution of Neoliberal Hegemony, Pluto Press. 2012, “Çokkültürlü Cennetten Çokkültürlü Drama’ya Hollanda ve Göçmen Entegrasyonu, Küreselleşme Çağında Göç-Kavramlar, Tartışmalar, Der. S.G. Ihlamur ve A. Şirin, İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul, s: 161-182. 2010, “Cumhuriyetçi Yurttaşlık, Çokkültürlülük ve Kadın Yurttaşlar”, İdea İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri, 2(2), 85-114. 2010, “Göçmen Kadınlar ve Anneliğin Düzenlenmesi: Amsterdamlı Türkiye Kökenli Kadınların Annelik Deneyimleri”, Toplum ve Bilim, Sayı: 119, s. 111-140. 2010, “Unutulan bir Göç ve Yurttaşlık Deneyimi: İlk Kuşak Göçmen Kadınlar ve Hollanda Türkiyeli Kadınlar Birliği,” Fe Dergi: Feminist Eleştiri, 2, no. 2 (2010): 31-49, (DOI: 10.1501/Fe0001_0000000031).