Aile Odaklı Sosyal Politikaların Bilgi Yapısının Haritalandırılması: Küresel Bibliyometrik Analiz

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 26 Sayı: Özel Sayı, 2243 - 2264, 30.12.2025

Sergen Gürsoy , Ahmet Elnur

Öz

Bu çalışma, aile politikalarına yönelik akademik araştırmaların entelektüel yapısını, eğilimleri ve tematik çıktılarını belirlemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Web of Science veritabanı üzerinden ulaşılan 1.396 yayının R bibliometrix-biblioshiny kullanılarak yapılan analizi, yıllık %7,97'lik bir büyüme ve belge başına ortalama 24,1 atıf olduğunu göstermektedir. Yayın sayısı açısından önde gelen ülkeler Amerika Birleşik Devletleri ve Almanya iken, Thevenon, Neels ve Misra en üretken yazarlar arasında yer almakta, Gauthier ve Mandel ise en yüksek yerel atıf alan yazarlar olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Alandaki önemli dergiler arasında European Journal of Social Policy and Community Work ve Family dikkat çekmektedir. Tematik olarak, çalışma ilişkileri ve toplumsal cinsiyet konularının yoğun bir şekilde incelendiği görülmekte iken, odak noktası ise makro-politik tartışmalardan toplumsal cinsiyete özgü bakım işlerinin mikro-politik analizlerine kaymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Aile Politikaları , Bibliyometrik Analiz , Bilimsel Haritalama , Sosyal Politika , Trend Analizi

Mapping the Knowledge Structure of Family-Oriented Social Policies: A Global Bibliometric Perspective

Öz

This study aims to identify the intellectual structures, thematic outputs, and research trends in the field of family policies. Based on 1,396 publications from the Web of Science database, the analysis conducted using the R program bibliometrix-biblioshiny shows an annual growth of 7.97% and an average of 24.1 citations per contribution. The United States and Germany are the leading countries in terms of publication output; Thevenon, Neels, and Misra are among the most productive authors, while Gauthier and Mandel have the most local citations. Significant journals include the European Journal of Social Policy and Community Work and the Family. Thematically, labor relations and gender issues dominate; the focus shifts from macro-political debates to micro-political analyses of gender-specific care work.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bibliometric Analysis , Family Policies , Scientific Mapping , Social Policy , Trend Analysis

Kaynakça

• Abashah, A. (2024). Childcare research: A bibliometric analysis. Pakistan Journal of Life and Social Sciences, 22(1), 4955–4976. https://doi.org/10.57239/PJLSS-2024-22.1.00365
• Akkan, B. (2018). The politics of care in Turkey: Sacred familialism in a changing political context. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 25(1), 72–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxx011
• Alp, A. (2024). Toplumsal değişimin kıskacında “Aile”. Bitig Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(7), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.69787/bitigefd.1443004
• Amarante, V., Rossel, C., & Scalese, F. (2025). Beyond formal coverage: The true reach of family policies in Latin America. Social Policy & Administration. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.13149
• Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
• Backman, L., & Nieuwenhuis, R. (2025). Families with low resources striving for resilience in Sweden. In M. Daly (Ed.), Families, welfare states and resilience: Low-resource families navigating care, employment and welfare in Europe (pp. 137–156). Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization: Institutionalized individualism and its social and political consequences. Sage.
• Boduroğlu, G. (2025). A bibliometric analysis of scholarly research on single-parent families: Current status and trends (2000–2024). International Social Sciences Studies Journal, 11(9), 1437–1451. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.172
• Buğra, A. (2020). Politics of social policy in a late industrializing country: The case of Turkey. Development and Change, 51(2), 442–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12566
• Carradore, M. (2024). A bibliometric analysis on the topic of social policy. Social Sciences, 13(10), 524. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13100524
• Castells, M. (2010). The power of identity (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
• Cecchini, S. (2021). Social assistance: Conditional cash transfers. In N. Sátyro, E. del Pino, & C. Midaglia (Eds.), Latin American social policy developments in the twenty-first century (pp. 225–254). Springer.
• Chung, H., & Van der Lippe, T. (2020). Flexible working, work–life balance, and gender equality. Social Indicators Research, 151(2), 365–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-2025-x
• Craig, L., & Mullan, K. (2010). Parenthood, gender and work–family time. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(5), 1344–1361. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00769.x
• Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage.
• Daly, M. (2010). Shifts in family policy in the UK. Journal of European Social Policy, 20(5), 433–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928710380480
• Daly, M., & Clavero, S. (2002). Contemporary family policy. Institute of Public Administration.
• Dickey, H., & Miller, C. (2023). The impact of parental leave policies on labour market outcomes. Queen’s University Belfast.
• Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
• Drobnič, S., & Son, K. (2025). Family policy in Yugoslavia and successor states. In A. Heinrich et al. (Eds.), The generosity of social policies (pp. 93–118). Palgrave Macmillan.
• Dumon, W. A. (1991). National family policies in EC countries. Commission of the European Communities.
• Esping-Andersen, G. (2002). A child-centred social investment strategy. In Why we need a new welfare state (pp. 26–67). Oxford University Press.
• Esping-Andersen, G. (2009). The incomplete revolution. Polity Press.
• European Commission. (2006). A roadmap for equality between women and men 2006–2010.
• Fang, Y., Li, X., Mohtar, T. M., & Chekima, B. (2025). Work–family balance: A bibliometric analysis. Cogent Business & Management, 12(1), 2541041. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2025.2541041
• Freiberg, T. (2019). Effects of care leave. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 78(4), 1009–1037. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12293
• Gauthier, A. H. (1999). Comparative family policy research. Comparative Social Research, 18, 31–56.
• Gauthier, A. H. (2002). Family policies in industrialized countries. Population, 57(3), 447–474. https://doi.org/10.2307/3246635
• Gauthier, A. H. (2007). Family policies and fertility. Population Research and Policy Review, 26(3), 323–346.
• Gedikkaya, F. G. (2023). Karşılaştırmalı aile politikaları. İstanbul Gelişim Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10(1), 431–446. https://doi.org/10.17336/igusbd.878511
• Gunnarsson, Å. (2013). Gendered power over taxes. In M. Davies & V. E. Munro (Eds.), The Ashgate research companion to feminist legal theory (pp. 303–320). Ashgate.
• Hantrais, L. (2004). Family policy matters. Policy Press.
• Hussain, F., Tsang, D., & Rafique, Z. (2024). Policy advisory systems. Review of Policy Research, 41(5), 713–739. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12564
• Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. (2000). Modernization and values. American Sociological Review, 65(1), 19–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240006500103
• Jenson, J. (2009). Social investment and gender equality. Social Politics, 16(4), 446–483. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxp019
• Kagitcibasi, C. (2017). Family, self, and human development across cultures. Routledge.
• Korpi, W. (2000). Faces of inequality. Social Politics, 7(2), 127–191. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/7.2.127
• Lan, P. C. (2023). Childrearing and mobilities. The Sociological Review, 71(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380261221143586
• Lewis, J. (2006). Work/family reconciliation. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(3), 420–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760600560490
• Li, Z.-D., & Zhang, B. (2023). Family-friendly policy evolution. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01784-x
• Lister, R. (2009). Gender and social justice. Social Politics, 16(2), 242–278. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxp007
• OECD. (2007). Babies and bosses. OECD Publishing.
• OECD. (2011). Doing better for families. OECD Publishing.
• Saraceno, C. (2011a). Childcare needs and policies. Current Sociology, 59(1), 78–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392110385971
• Saraceno, C. (2011b). Family policies: Concepts, goals and instruments. Carlo Alberto Notebooks.
• Therborn, G. (2004). Between sex and power. Routledge.
• Thévenon, O. (2011). Family policies in OECD countries. Population and Development Review, 37(1), 57–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2011.00390.x
• Wang, D., Song, C., & Barabási, A. L. (2013). Quantifying scientific impact. Science, 342(6154), 127–132. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1237825
• Zhou, H., Wang, L., Cao, Y., & Li, J. (2025). AI and labor markets. Journal of Asian Economics, 98, 101926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asieco.2025.101926