Ortak Çalışmayı Yeniden Düşünmek: Girişimcilik Mitleri ve Girişimci Seçkinciliğinin Ötesinde Kapsayıcı İnovasyon

Öz

Ortak çalışma alanları, serbest çalışma platformları ve girişimcilik ekosistemleri son yıllarda inovasyon, esneklik ve girişimci özerkliğin başlıca sembolleri hâline gelmiştir. Ancak bu altyapılar hareketlilik, sermaye, dijital bağlantı ve sosyal ağlara eşit olmayan erişim koşullarında işlediğinde, mevcut sosyal ve mekânsal eşitsizlikleri yeniden üretebilmektedir. Bu makale, Türkiye’de genç işsizliği ile NEET (istihdamda, eğitimde veya öğretimde olmayan) gençlerin dışlanmasını, girişimci benlik, mekânsal ve epistemik adalet, platform kooperatifçiliği ve kooperatif yapay zekâ tartışmaları üzerinden incelemektedir. Türkiye’ye ilişkin gençlik göstergeleri ve mevcut inovasyon politikaları, Barselona’daki Ateneu de Fabricació ağı ile Seul Gençlik Merkezi’nin sunduğu kurumsal örneklerle birlikte ele alınmaktadır. Analiz, merkezî konum, ücretli erişim, rekabetçi seçme biçimleri, bakım yükleri, dijital bağlantı eksikliği ve sembolik aidiyetsizliğin NEET gençleri inovasyon alanlarının dışında bırakabildiğini göstermektedir. Makale buna karşı, mahalle ölçeğinde konumlanan, kamusal olarak desteklenen ve gençlerin yönetime doğrudan katıldığı maker alanları ile topluluk yapay zekâ merkezlerinden oluşan bir politika çerçevesi önermektedir. Bu çerçevede kolektif veya çok paydaşlı mülkiyet, ücretsiz ya da destekli katılım, proje temelli öğrenme, bakım ve güvenlik mekanizmaları, topluluk veri hakları ve yerel sorunlara yönelik teknolojik üretim birbirini tamamlayan unsurlardır. Çalışmanın temel katkısı, ortak çalışma alanlarını girişimci seçkinlere hizmet eden üretkenlik mekânları olarak değil, NEET gençlerin teknik kapasite, aidiyet ve demokratik faillik geliştirebildiği kamusal-sivil altyapılar olarak yeniden kavramsallaştırmasıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ortak çalışma alanları
• kooperatif yapay zekâ
• NEET gençler
• platform kooperatifçiliği
• genç işsizliği

Destekleyen Kurum

Çalışmayı destekleyen kurum yoktur. Finansal destek bulunmamaktadır.

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışmada yayın öncesi ve yayın sonrası herhangi bir çıkar çatışması bulunmamaktadır. Bu çalışma için etik kurul iznine gerek yoktur. Buna ilişkin imzalı onam formu, makale süreç dosyasına eklenmiştir

Teşekkür

Teşekkür edilecek kişi ya da kurum bulunmamaktadır.

Rethinking Co-Working: Inclusive Innovation Beyond Startup Myths and Entrepreneurial Elitism

Öz

Co-working spaces, freelance platforms, and entrepreneurial ecosystems have become prominent symbols of innovation, flexibility, and entrepreneurial autonomy. Yet when these infrastructures operate amid unequal access to mobility, capital, digital connectivity, and social networks, they can reproduce existing social and spatial inequalities. This article examines youth unemployment and the exclusion of NEET (not in employment, education, or training) youth in Turkey through debates on the entrepreneurial self, spatial and epistemic justice, platform cooperativism, and cooperative AI. Official youth indicators and existing innovation policies in Turkey are considered alongside institutional examples offered by Barcelona’s Ateneu de Fabricació network and Seoul Youth Hub. The analysis shows how central location, fee-based access, competitive selection, care responsibilities, limited connectivity, and symbolic non-belonging can keep NEET youth outside spaces where technological futures are imagined and produced. In response, the article proposes a policy framework built around neighborhood-based, publicly supported maker spaces and community AI hubs in which young people participate directly in governance. Collective or multi-stakeholder ownership, free or subsidized participation, project-based learning, care and safeguarding arrangements, community data rights, and technological production oriented toward local problems form complementary elements of this model. The article’s principal contribution is to reconceptualize co-working not as a productivity environment for entrepreneurial elites, but as civic infrastructure through which NEET youth can develop technical agency, belonging, and democratic capacity.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• co-working spaces
• cooperative AI
• NEET youth
• platform cooperativism
• youth unemployment

Destekleyen Kurum

There is no institution supporting this study. No financial support was received.

Etik Beyan

There is no conflict of interest before or after publication in this study. Ethics committee approval is not required for this study. The signed consent form related to this has been added to the manuscript process file.

Teşekkür

There is no person or institution to be acknowledged.

Kaynakça

1. Açıkgöz, S., Haudenhuyse, R., & Aşçı, H. (2019). Social inclusion for whom and towards what end? A critical discourse analysis of youth and sport policies in Turkey. Journal of Youth Studies, 22(3), 330-345.
2. Ahl, H., & Marlow, S. (2021). Exploring the false promise of entrepreneurship through a postfeminist critique of enterprise policy discourse in Sweden and the UK. Human Relations, 74(1), 41-68.
3. Akgül, T. (2025). Family matters: Exploring gendered pathways into NEET status in Türkiye. Anadolu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 26(3), 575-603.
4. Alves, A., Klaus, V., & Loureiro, C. B. (2021). From dream to achievement: Entrepreneurial pedagogy, making education entrepreneurial, and neoliberal rationality. Educação e Pesquisa, 47, e226115.
5. Avander, T. (2025). The privileged appeal of freedom: Digital nomadism in Portugal [Master’s thesis, Lund University]. Lund University Student Papers. https://lup.lub.lu.se/studentpapers/search/publication/9203418
6. Ayaz, A., & Karacan Özdemir, N. (2023). A case study of a Turkish vocational high school, and the challenges for teachers. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 75(3), 459-478.
7. Bandinelli, C. (2020). The production of subjectivity in neoliberal culture industries: The case of coworking spaces. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 23(1), 3-19.
8. Barabasch, A., & Petrick, S. (2016). Multi-level policy transfer in Turkey and its impact on the development of the vocational education and training sector. In Global Reconstructions of Vocational Education and Training (pp. 119-144). Routledge.

9. Beyaz, H. (2025). The role of women entrepreneurs in Turkey: Challenges and the impact of policies on gender equality [Doctoral dissertation, Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestão].
10. Bozan, V., & Treré, E. (2024). When digital inequalities meet digital disconnection: Studying the material conditions of disconnection in rural Turkey. Convergence, 30(3), 1134-1148.
11. Bröckling, U. (2016). The entrepreneurial self. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473921283
12. Cabral, V. (2023). A look inside the coworking space: The social and entrepreneurial relevance of new flexible office space environments [Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam]. UvA-DARE.
13. Cheshmehzangi, A., Zou, T., Su, Z., Dawodu, A., Ardakani, S. P., Sedrez, M., & Tang, T. (2024). Growing digital divide for expatriate populations in China: A user-perspective analysis during the COVID19 pandemic. SAGE Open, 14(4), 21582440241274613.
14. Coll-Martínez, E., & Méndez-Ortega, C. (2023). Agglomeration and coagglomeration of co-working spaces and creative industries in the city. European Planning Studies, 31(3), 445-466.
15. Conitzer, V., & Oesterheld, C. (2023). Foundations of cooperative AI. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 37(13), 15359-15367.
16. Costanza-Chock, S. (2020). Design justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds we need. MIT Press.
17. Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). The costs of connection: How data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism. Stanford University Press.
18. Çelik, K., & Lüküslü, D. (2018). Unemployment as a chronic problem facing young people in Turkey. Research and Policy on Turkey, 3(2), 155-172.
19. Dardot, P., & Laval, C. (2014). The new way of the world: On neoliberal society. Verso.
20. De Peuter, G., Cohen, N. S., & Saraco, F. (2017). The ambivalence of coworking: On the politics of an emerging work practice. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 20(6), 687-706.
21. Dey, P., & Steyaert, C. (2010). The politics of narrating social entrepreneurship. Journal of Enterprising Communities, 4(1), 85-108.
22. Erdoğan, E., & Paabort, H. (2024). A more youth-centered policy development perspective in NEET policies. In NEETs in European Rural Areas (p. 89).
23. Erman, T., & Eken, A. (2004). The “other of the other” and “unregulated territories” in the urban periphery: Gecekondu violence in the 2000s with a focus on the Esenler case, İstanbul. Cities, 21(1), 57-68.
24. Fast, K. (2024). Who has the right to the coworking space? Reframing platformed workspaces as elite territory in the geomedia city. Space and Culture, 27(1), 48-62.
25. Flynn, J., Mader, P., Oosterom, M., & Ripoll, S. (2016). Failing young people? Addressing the supply-side bias and individualisation in youth employment programming. Institute of Development Studies. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12413/12715
26. Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.
27. Gagliardi, L., & Sorenson, O. (2025). Entrepreneurship and gentrification. Organization Science.
28. Galmangodage, L., Yu, A., & Costanzo, L. (2025). Not ready yet: Why accelerators may not close the gender gap in entrepreneurship as expected. Gender, Work & Organization.
29. Gönen, Z. (2016). The politics of crime in Turkey: Neoliberalism, police and the urban poor. Bloomsbury.
30. Görmüş, A. (2017). The micro determinants of informal youth employment in Turkey. In Unregistered Employment (pp. 157-169).
31. Grohmann, R. (2023). Not just platform, nor cooperatives: Worker-owned technologies from below. Communication, Culture and Critique, 16(4), 274-282.
32. Holleran, M. (2022). Pandemics and geoarbitrage: Digital nomadism before and after COVID-19. City, 26(5-6), 831-847.
33. Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review, 10, 18-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0
34. Kara, H., & Mullings, B. (2023). Navigating wait space in uncertain times: Young women and precarious labour in Turkey. Antipode, 55(4), 1047-1067.
35. Karaman, O. (2013). Urban neoliberalism with Islamic characteristics. Urban Studies, 50(16), 3412-3427.
36. Keim, J., Müller, S., & Dey, P. (2024). Whatever the problem, entrepreneurship is the solution! Confronting the panacea myth of entrepreneurship with structural injustice. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 21, e00440.
37. Khodabandeh Tousarvandani, M. (2024). Destination decision-making: A study of digital nomads’ preferences and motivations [Master’s thesis, University of Padua].
38. Lauermann, J., & Mallak, K. (2023). Elite capture and urban geography: Analyzing geographies of privilege. Progress in Human Geography, 47(5), 645-663.
39. Lorne, C. (2020). The limits to openness: Co-working, design and social innovation in the neoliberal city. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 52(4), 747-765.
40. Lüküslü, D., & Çelik, K. (2022). Gendering the NEET category: Young NEET women in Turkey. Turkish Studies, 23(2), 200-222.
41. MacNeil, H., & McAdam, M. (2025). Fostering inclusivity in startup accelerators: A literature review and research agenda. In H. MacNeil & M. McAdam (Eds.), Gendering entrepreneurial ecosystems: Levelling the field. Routledge.
42. Mancinelli, F., & Germann Molz, J. (2024). Moving with and against the state: Digital nomads and frictional mobility regimes. Mobilities, 19(2), 189-207.
43. Marttila, T. (2013). The culture of enterprise in neoliberalism: Specters of entrepreneurship. Routledge.
44. Mercan, B. A., & Şen, M. (2021). Advanced marginality and criminalization: The case of Altındağ. Turkish Studies, 22(4), 603-625.
45. Mitev, N., de Vaujany, F.-X., Laniray, P., Bohas, A., & Fabbri, J. (2019). Co-working spaces, collaborative practices and entrepreneurship. In K. Riemer, S. Schellhammer, & M. Meinert (Eds.), Collaboration in the digital age (pp. 15-43). Springer.
46. Mouratidis, G. (2018). Digital nomadism: Travel, remote work and alternative lifestyles [Master’s thesis, Lund University].
47. Müller, A. (2016). The digital nomad: Buzzword or research category? Transnational Social Review, 6(3), 344-348.
48. Neagu, G., Berigel, M., & Lendzhova, V. (2021). How digital inclusion increases opportunities for young people: The case of NEETs from Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey. Sustainability, 13(14), 7894.
49. Nerse, S. (2020). Dijital eğitimde eşitsizlikler: Kırsal-kentsel ayrımlar ve sosyoekonomik farklılaşmalar. İnsan ve Toplum, 10(4), 413-444.
50. OECD. (2024). Youth not in employment, education or training (NEET) (indicator). OECD Data.
51. https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/youth-not-in-employment-education-or-trainingneet.html
52. Özdemir, M. O., Ozcan, K. M., & Üçdoğruk, Ş. (2023). Youth not in employment, education, or training (NEET) in Turkey: A regional analysis. Ege Academic Review, 23(3), 409-426.
53. Özdemir, M. O., Metin Özcan, K., & Üçdoğruk Birecikli, Ş. (2025). What makes Turkish youth NEET? Journal of Youth Studies, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2024.2446967
54. Pazaitis, A., Kostakis, V., & Bauwens, M. (2017). Digital economy and the rise of open cooperativism: The case of the Enspiral Network. Transfer, 23(2), 177-192.
55. Recchi, E., Deutschmann, E., Gabrielli, L., & Kholmatova, N. (2021). The global visa cost divide: How and why the price for travel permits varies worldwide. Political Geography, 86, 102350.
56. Redmond, P., & McFadden, C. (2023). Young people not in employment, education or training (NEET): Concepts, consequences and policy approaches. Economic and Social Review, 54(4), 285-327.
57. Sargent, A. C., Yavorsky, J. E., & Sandoval, R. G. (2021). Organizational logic in coworking spaces: Inequality regimes in the new economy. Gender & Society, 35(1), 5-31.
58. Scharff, C. (2016). The psychic life of neoliberalism: Mapping the contours of entrepreneurial subjectivity. Theory, Culture & Society, 33(6), 107-122.
59. Schneider, N. (2018). An internet of ownership: Democratic design for the online economy. Sociological Review, 66(2), 320-340.
60. Scholz, T. (2016). Platform cooperativism: Challenging the corporate sharing economy. Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung.
61. Scholz, T. (2023). Own this! How platform cooperatives help workers build a democratic internet. Verso.
62. Scholz, T., & Tortorici, S. (2025). Five ways cooperatives can shape the future of AI. Harvard Business Review.
63. Schoonmaker, M. G., MacNeil, H., & McAdam, M. (2025). Beyond bars: The confining nature of hegemonic masculinity in venture accelerators. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 17(3-4), 375-393.
64. Sendhoff, B., & Wersing, H. (2020). Cooperative intelligence: A humane perspective. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Human-Machine Systems (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
65. Trip, J. J., & Romein, A. (2015). Work of the future and its implications for workers and entrepreneurs in the creative industries. Delft University of Technology.
66. Turkish Statistical Institute. (2025a). Statistics on youth, 2024. TurkStat Data Portal.
67. Turkish Statistical Institute. (2025b). Statistics on children brought to or taken to security units, 2024. TurkStat Data Portal.