Türkiye'de Uluslararası Öğrenciler Biricikliği Nasıl Anlamaktadır? Yorumlayıcı Bir Fenomenolojik Analiz

Öz

Biriciklik konusunda yapılan çalışmalar, genel olarak biriciklik olgusunun Batı kültürlerinde yaygın olduğunu gösterse de son yıllarda Doğu kültürlerinde de biriciklik ihtiyacının yaygınlaştığı görülmektedir. Bu nedenle, bu çalışma, biriciklik kavramının uluslararası öğrenciler tarafından nasıl anlaşıldığını araştırarak konuya dair daha derinlemesine bilgi elde etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Temel olarak, biricikliğin başka kültürlerden katılımcılar tarafından nasıl algılandığı ve değerlendirildiği incelenmektedir. Veri, Türkiye'de okuyan yedi uluslararası lisans öğrencisinden toplanmış ve yorumlayıcı fenomenolojik analiz (YFA) ile incelenmiştir. YFA, belirli deneyimlerin anlamlarını araştırmayı amaçlayan nitel bir analiz aracıdır. Sonuçlar, katılımcıların yanıtlarında üç tema olduğunu ortaya çıkardı: “Kim benzersiz? Olağanüstü, zeki ve farklı” “Sıradan: Güvendesin ama rutinsin” ve “Türkiye ve memleket: Bizim Nelson Mandela'mız var; sizin Mustafa Kemal Atatürk‟ünüz”. Katılımcılar tarafından biriciklik istisnai ve ayırt edici göründüğü, ancak zaman içinde başarılması gereken bir şey olduğu belirtildi. Öte yandan, sıradan insanlar rahat bir yaşamın avantajını yaşamanın yanı sıra normlara uydukları için eleştirilmişlerdir. Sonuçlar, uluslararası öğrencilerin deneyimleri ve kültürler arasındaki farklılıklar ile ilgili olarak tartışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Biriciklik
• Sıradanlık
• Uluslararası Öğrenciler
• Kültürlerarası Karşılaştırma
• Yorum-layıcı Fenomenolojik Analiz

How is Uniqueness Understood among International Students in Turkey? An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis

Öz

Although the literature on uniqueness has emphasized that it is unique to the Western culture, recent studies have indicated that the need for uniqueness is getting more familiar to the Eastern culture. The current study aimed to get a deeper understanding of uniqueness by investigating the concept among international students. Primarily, the perception and evaluation of uniqueness by participants from other cultures is investigated. The data were collected from seven international undergraduate students studying in Turkey. The interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) was used to analyze the participant accounts. The IPA is a qualitative analysis tool that aimed to investigate the meanings of particular experiences. The results revealed that there were three final themes: “Who is unique? Extraordinary, intelligent and different” “Ordinary: You are safe but routine” and “Turkey and home country: We have Nelson Mandela; you have Mustafa Kemal Atatürk”. It was indicated that uniqueness is seen as exceptional and distinctive, but it is something to be achieved in time. On the other hand, ordinary people were criticized for conforming to the norms, besides the advantage of a comfortable life. The results were discussed in relation to the experiences of international students and the differences between cultures.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Uniqueness
• Ordinariness
• International Students
• Cross-Cultural Comparisons

Kaynakça

1. Angelova M. & Riazantseva A. (1999). “ „If You Don't Tell Me, How Can I Know?‟ A Case Study of Four International Students Learning to Write the US Way”. Written Communication 16/4 (1999) 491-525.
2. Asch S. E. (1951). “Effects of Group Pressure on the Modification and Distortion of Judgments”. Ed. H. Guetzkow. Groups, Leadership and Men (1951) 177-190. Pennsylvania.
3. Bian Q. & Forsythe S. (2012). “Purchase Intention for Luxury Brands: A Cross Cultural Comparison”. Journal of Business Research 65/10 (2012) 1443–1451.
4. Brunsden V. & Hill R. (2009). “Firefighters‟ Experience of Strike: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis Case Study”. The Irish Journal of Psychology 30/1-2 (2009) 99-115.
5. Causse E. & Félonneau M. L. (2014). “Within-Culture Variations of Uniqueness: Towards an Integrative Approach Based on Social Status, Gender, Life Contexts, and Interpersonal Comparison”. The Journal of Social Psychology 154/2 (2014) 115-125.
6. Cemalcılar Z., Falbo T. & Stapleton L. M. (2005). “Cyber Communication: A New Opportunity for International Students‟ Adaptation?” International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29/1 (2005) 91-110.
7. Cai H., Zou X., Feng Y., Liu Y. & Jing Y. (2018). “Increasing Need for Uniqueness in Contemporary China: Empirical Evidence”. Frontiers in Psychology 9 (2018) 1-7.
8. Conroy D. & de Visser R. (2014). “Being a Non-Drinking Student: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis”. Psychology and Health 29/5 (2014) 536-551.

9. Cope J. (2011). “Entrepreneurial Learning from Failure: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis”. Journal of Business Venturing 26/6 (2011) 604-623.
10. Çetinkaya-Yıldız E., Çakır S. G. & Kondakçı Y. (2011). “Psychological Distress among International Students in Turkey”. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35/5 (2011) 534-539.
11. Deutsch M. & Krauss R. M. (1965). Theories in social psychology. New York 1965.
12. Griskevicius V., Goldstein N. J., Mortensen C. R., Cialdini R. B. & Kenrick D. T (2006). “Going Along Versus Going Alone: When Fundamental Motives Facilitate Strategic (Non)conformity”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91/2 (2006) 281–294.
13. Heine S. J. & Lehman D. R. (1997). “The Cultural Construction of Self-Enhancement: An Examination of Group-Serving Biases”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72 (1997) 1268-1283.
14. Hofstede G. (2001). Culture‟s consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. California 2001.
15. Imhoff R. & Erb H. P. (2009). “What Motivates Nonconformity? Uniqueness Seeking Blocks Majority Influence”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 35 (2009) 309–320.
16. Kenrick D. T., Li N. P. & Butner J. (2003). “Dynamical Evolutionary Psychology: Individual Decision Rules and Emergent Social Norms”. Psychological Review 110 (2003) 3–28.
17. Kim H. & Markus H. R. (1999). “Deviance or Uniqueness, Harmony or Conformity? A Cultural Analysis”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77 (1999) 785-800.
18. Kim H. S. & Sherman D. K. (2007). “„Express Yourself‟: Culture and the Effect of Self-Expression on Choice”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92 (2007) 1–11.
19. Kim H. S. & Sherman D. K. (2008). “What Do We See in A Titled Square? A Validation of the Figure Independence Scale”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34 (2008) 47-60.
20. Kinias Z., Kim H. S., Hafenbrack A. C. & Lee J. J. (2014). “Standing out as a Signal to Selfishness: Culture and Devaluation of Non-Normative Characteristics”. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 124/2 (2014) 190-203.
21. Koca-Atabey M. (2007). “Flow Experience and Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Motivation Among Graduate Students: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis”. Pedagogical Research in Maximizing Education (PRIME) Journal 2 (2007) 111-121.
22. Koca-Atabey M. (2016). “The Representations of Disability Within Turkish Cinema (Yeşilçam): Tragic, Medical, and Ill Timed”. Ayna Clinical Psychology Journal 3/1 (2016) 16-27.
23. Larkin M. & Griffiths M. D. (2002). “Experiences of Addiction and Recovery: The Case for Subjective Accounts”. Addiction Research and Theory 10/3 (2002) 281-311.
24. Markus H. R. & Kitayama S. (1991). “Cultural variation in the self-concept”. Eds. G. R. Goethals & J. Strauss. Multidisciplinary Perspectives on the Self (1991) 18-48. New York.
25. Markus H. R., Mullally P. & Kitayama S. (1997). “Selfways: Diversity in Modes of Cultural Participation”. Ed. U. Neisser & D. A. Jopling. The Conceptual Self in Context: Culture, Experience, Self-Understanding (1997) 13-61. Cambridge.
26. Milgram S. (1963). “Behavioral Study of Obedience”. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67 (1963) 371-378.
27. O‟Toole P. (2013). “Capturing Undergraduate Experience through Participant-Generated Video”. The Qualitative Report 18/33 (2013) 1-14.
28. Palmer M., Larkin M., De Visser R. & Fadden G. (2010). “Developing an Interpretative Phenomenological Approach to Focus Group Data”. Qualitative Research in Psychology 7/2 (2010) 99–121.
29. Sawir E., Marginson S., Deumert A., Nyland C. & Ramia G. (2008). “Loneliness and International Students: An Australian Study”. Journal of Studies in International Education 12/2 (2008) 148-180.
30. Schumpe B. M., Herzberg P. Y. & Erb H. P. (2016). “Assessing the Need for Uniqueness: Validation of the German NfU-G scale”. Personality and Individual Differences 90 (2016) 231-237.
31. Smith J. A. (2011). “Evaluating the Contribution of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis”. Health Psychology Review 5/1 (2011) 9-27.
32. Smith J. A. & Osborn M. (2003). “Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis”. Ed. J. A. Smith. Qualitative Psychology. A Practical Guide to Research Methods. London (2003) 218-240.
33. Snyder C. R. (1992). “Product Scarcity by Need for Uniqueness Interaction: A Consumer Catch-22 Carousel?” Basic and Applied Social Psychology 13 (1992) 9-24.
34. Snyder C. R. & Endelman J. R. (1979). “Effects of Degree of Interpersonal Similarity on Physical Distance and Self-Reported Attraction: A Comparison of Uniqueness and Reinforcement Theory Predictions”. Journal of Personality 47 (1979) 492–505.
35. Snyder C. R. & Fromkin H. L. (1977). “Abnormality as a Positive Characteristic: The Development and Validation of a Scale Measuring Need for Uniqueness”. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 86 (1977) 518-527.
36. Sun G., Chen J. & Li J. (2015). “Need for Uniqueness as a Mediator of the Relationship between Face Consciousness and Status Consumption in China”. International Journal of Psychology 52/5 (2015) 349-353.
37. Tafarodi R. W., Marshall T. C. & Katsura H. (2004). “Standing out in Canada and Japan”. Journal of Personality 72 (2004) 785–814.
38. Takemura K. (2014). “Being Different Leads to Being Connected: On the Adaptive Function of Uniqueness in „Open' Societies”. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 45 (2014) 1579–1593.
39. Todd D., Simpson J. & Murray C. (2010). “An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of Delusions in People with Parkinson's Disease”. Disability and Rehabilitation 32/15 (2010) 1291-1299.
40. Triandis H. C. (2001). “Individualism‐Collectivism and Personality”. Journal of Personality 69/6 (2001) 907-924.
41. Twenge J. M., Abebe E. M. & Campbell W. K. (2010). “Fitting in or Standing Out: Trends in American Parents‟ Choices for Children‟s Names, 1880–2007”. Social Psychological and Personality Science 1 (2010) 19–25.
42. Weir H. B. (1971). Deprivation of the Need for Uniqueness and Some Variables Moderating Its Effects. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Georgia, Georgia 1971.
43. Vignoles V. L., Owe E., Becker M., Smith P. B., Easterbrook M. J., Brown R. ... & Lay S. (2016). “Beyond the „East–West‟ Dichotomy: Global Variation in Cultural Models of Selfhood”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 145/8 (2016) 966-1000.
44. Yamagishi T., Hashimoto H. & Schug J. (2008). “Preferences versus Strategies as Explanations for Culture-Specific Behavior”. Psychological Science 19/6 (2008) 579-584.