SOSYAL ARAŞTIRMALARDA SESSİZLİK KAVRAMINA METODOLOJİK BİR BAKIŞ

Öz

Sosyal bilimler literatürünün önemli bir bölümünde sessizlik; sesin yokluğu veya veri kaybı olarak nitelendirilse de özellikle nitel araştırma metodolojisi için sembolik anlamlarla bezeli, önemli bir veri kaynağı niteliği taşımaktadır. Bu çalışma; sessizliğin bilişsel, duygusal ve stratejik boyutlarını metodolojik bir perspektifle kavramsal düzeyde tartışmaya açarak, nitel araştırmanın saha ve analiz pratiklerindeki görünürlüğünü artırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Makale kapsamında sessizlik, sahadaki etkileşim süreçlerinden transkripsiyon aşamasına, kültürel kodların analizinden araştırmacının yazım sürecindeki sansür ve otosansür deneyimlerine uzanan çok boyutlu bir çerçevede ele alınmaktadır. Ayrıca sessizlik analizi sürecinin barındırdığı metodolojik riskler de bu kapsamda değerlendirilmektedir. Çalışmada, sessizliğin başlı başına bir analiz birimi olarak kabul edilmesinin ve toplumsal olgularla olan ilişkisel bağının kurulabilmesinin önemi vurgulanmaktadır. Sonuç olarak sessizlik, nitel araştırma metodolojisinde katılımcının özerkliğine ve aktif failliğine saygı gösteren etik ve bağlamsal bir sınır ve araştırmacının kendi pratiğiyle yüzleştiği bir refleksivite imkânı olarak düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sessizlik
• Duygu
• Bilinçli sessizlik
• Nitel araştırma
• Araştırma etiği

Destekleyen Kurum

Çalışma için herhangi bir kurum ve projeden destek alınmamıştır.

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma, kavramsal ve teorik bir çerçevede yürütülen bir literatür incelemesi niteliğindedir. Bu nedenle, etik kurul onayı gerektiren bir durum bulunmamaktadır. Çalışma süresince bilimsel araştırma ve yayın etiği kurallarına titizlikle uyulmuştur.

A METHODOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE CONCEPT OF SILENCE IN SOCIAL RESEARCH

Öz

While a significant portion of the social sciences literature characterizes silence as the absence of voice or a loss of data, it constitutes an essential source of data imbued with symbolic meanings, particularly for qualitative research methodology. By opening the cognitive, emotional, and strategic dimensions of silence to debate through a methodological perspective and at a conceptual level, this study aims to enhance its visibility within the field and analysis practices of qualitative research. Within the scope of the article, silence is addressed in a multidimensional framework extending from interactional processes in the field to the transcription stage, from the analysis of cultural codes to the researcher’s experiences of censorship and self-censorship during the writing process. Furthermore, the methodological risks inherent in the process of analyzing silence are evaluated within this context. The study emphasizes the significance of recognizing silence as an analytical unit in its own right and establishing its relational link with social phenomena. Consequently, silence in qualitative research methodology is conceptualized as an ethical and contextual boundary that respects the participant's autonomy and active agency, as well as an opportunity for reflexivity through which the researcher confronts their own practice.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Silence
• Emotion
• Deliberate silence
• Qualitative research
• Research ethics

Destekleyen Kurum

The study received no support from any institution or project.

Etik Beyan

This study is a literature review conducted within a conceptual and theoretical framework. Therefore, it does not require ethical committee approval. Scientific research and publication ethics were strictly followed throughout the study.

Kaynakça

1. Back, L. (2007). The art of listening. Berg.
2. Bailey, J. (2008). First steps in qualitative data analysis: transcribing. Family practice, 25(2), 127-131. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmn003
3. Basso, K. H. (1970). "To give up on words": Silence in western apache culture. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 26(3), 213-230. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3629378
4. Bauman, Z. (2013). Liquid modernity. John Wiley & Sons.
5. Bengtsson, T. T., & Fynbo, L. (2018). Analysing the significance of silence in qualitative interviewing: Questioning and shifting power relations. Qualitative Research, 18(1), 19-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941176942
6. Bonner, A., & Tolhurst, G. (2002). Insider-outsider perspectives of participant observation. Nurse Researcher, 9(4), 7-19.
7. Bruneau, T. J. (1973). Communicative silences: Forms and functions. Journal of Communication, 23(1), 17-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1973.tb00929.x
8. Bucholtz, M. (2000). The politics of transcription. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1439-1465.

9. Candela, A. G. (2019). Exploring the function of member checking. The Qualitative Report, 24(3), 619-628.
10. Cannella, G. S. (2015). Qualitative research as living within/transforming complex power relations. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(7), 594-598. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414554907
11. Čapek, S. M. & Ruiz-Junco, N. (2025). Liberating silence: Sociological explorations. Humanity & Society, 49(2), 277-303. https://doi.org/10.1177/01605976251314428
12. Caruth, C. (2016). Unclaimed experience: Trauma, narrative, and history. JHU Press.
13. Cheney, K. E. (2015). Suffering, silence, and status: The importance and challenges of qualitative research on AIDS orphanhood. AIDS Care, 27(1), 38- 40. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540121.2014.963010
14. Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Unwin Hyman
15. Davidson, C. (2009). Transcription: Imperatives for qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(2), 35-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800206
16. De Haene, L., Rousseau, C., Kevers, R., Deruddere, N., & Rober, P. (2018). Stories of trauma in family therapy with refugees: Supporting safe relational spaces of narration and silence. Clinical Child Psychology And Psychiatry, 23(2), 258-278. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910451875671
17. DiPietro, S. M., & Douglas, H. L. (2026). Of things said and unsaid: Silence, disclosure and gendered processes of meaning-making in the aftermath of atrocity. Qualitative Sociology, 49, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-025-09633-w
18. Finlay, L. (2002). “Outing” the researcher: The provenance, process, and practice of reflexivity. Qualitative Health Research, 12(4), 531-545. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973202129120052
19. Flick, U. (2018). An introduction to qualitative research. Sage Publications.
20. Foucault, M. (1987). Söylemin düzeni (T. Ilgaz, Çev.). Hil Yayınları.
21. Foucault, M. (1999). Bilginin arkeolojisi (V. Urhan, Çev.). Birey Yayıncılık.
22. Foucault, M. (2007). Cinselliğin tarihi (H. U. Tanrıöver, Çev.). Ayrıntı Yayınları.
23. Foucault, M. (2019). Hapishanenin doğuşu (M.A. Kılıçbay, Çev.). İmge Kitabevi.
24. Glenn, C. (2004). Unspoken: A rhetoric of silence. SIU Press.
25. Glenn, C. (2010). Rhetoric and feminism: The possibilities of women and beyond. African Yearbook of Rhetoric, 1(1), 42-51.
26. Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 261-280. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780040326236
27. Hall, E. T. (1973). The silent language. Anchor Academic.
28. Harding, S. (2013). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is “strong objectivity”? L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist epistemologies (pp. 49-82). Routledge.
29. Hartsock, N. C. (2017). The feminist standpoint: Developing the ground for a specifically feminist historical materialism. B. Ollman & K. B. Anderson (Eds.), Karl Marx (pp. 565-592). Routledge.
30. Henderson, H. (2018). Difficult questions of difficult questions: The role of the researcher and transcription styles. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 31(2), 143-157. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2017.1379615
31. Isobel, S. (2021). Trauma‐informed qualitative research: Some methodological and practical considerations. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 30, 1456-1469. https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.12914
32. Jansen, C. (2026). The shadow side of silence: On restraint, withdrawal, and ethical presence. (Working paper), 10.5281/zenodo.18258911
33. Jaworski, A. (1992). The power of silence: Social and pragmatic perspectives. Sage Publications.
34. Jaworski, A. (2014). Silence and small talk. J. Coupland (Ed.), Small talk (pp. 110-132). Routledge.
35. Jefferson, G. (1989). Preliminary notes on a possible metric which provides for a "standard maximum" silence of approximately one second in conversation. D. Roger & P. Bull (Eds.), Conversation: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 166–196). Multilingual Matters.
36. Kaçar Tunç, G. (2020). Nitel araştırmalarda konumsallık ve düşünümsellik: Yakınlık ve mesafe arası müzakere. Humanitas- Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(16), 249- 266. https://doi.org/10.20304/humanitas.690347
37. Karnieli-Miller, O., Strier, R., & Pessach, L. (2009). Power relations in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 19(2), 279-289. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323083293
38. Kavedžija, I. (2025). Silence as presence: Affective spaces of silence and care. Medicine Anthropology Theory, 12(2), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.17157/mat.12.2.9873
39. Kawabata, M., & Gastaldo, D. (2015). The less said, the better: Interpreting silence in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(4), 1- 9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406915618
40. Kempner, J., Merz, J. F., & Bosk, C. L. (2011). Forbidden knowledge: Public controversy and the production of nonknowledge. Sociological Forum, 26(3), 475-500. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1573-7861.2011.01259.x
41. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Sage Publications.
42. Ladany, N., Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., & O'Brien, K. M. (2004). Therapist perspectives on using silence in therapy: A qualitative study. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 4(1), 80- 89. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733140412331384088
43. Levitt, H. M. (2001). Sounds of silence in psychotherapy: The categorization of clients’ pauses. Psychotherapy Research, 11(3), 295–309.
44. Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative researching. Sage Publications.
45. Matheson, J. L. (2007). The voice transcription technique: Use of voice recognition software to transcribe digital interview data in qualitative research. Qualitative Report, 12(4), 547-560. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2007.1611
46. Mazzei, L. A. (2003). Inhabited silences: In pursuit of a muffled subtext. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(3), 355-368. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004030090030
47. McLellan, E., MacQueen, K. M. & Neidig, J. L. (2003). Beyond the qualitative interview: Data preparation and transcription. Field methods, 15(1), 63-84.
48. Nakane, I. (2007). Silence in intercultural communication: Perceptions and performance. John Benjamins.
49. Newton, B. J., Rothlingova, Z., Gutteridge, R., LeMarchand, K. & Raphael J. H. (2012). No room for reflexivity? Critical reflections following a systematic review of qualitative Fresearch. Journal of Health Psychology, 17(6), 866-885. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105311427615
50. Oliver, D. G., Serovich, J. M., & Mason, T. L. (2005). Constraints and opportunities with interview transcription: Towards reflection in qualitative research. Social Forces, 84(2), 1273–1289. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2006.0023
51. Orhon, G. (2014). Alan araştırması deneyimini tartışmaya açmak: İçeriden ya da dışarıdan olmak, çoğul kimlikler ve toplumsal cinsiyet. Fe Dergi, 6(1), 53-67. https://doi.org/10.1501/Fe0001_0000000112
52. Peacock, J. (1971). The silent language. College Composition & Communication, 22(2), 137-139.
53. Pfeifer, E., & Wittmann, M. (2020). Waiting, thinking, and feeling: variations in the perception of time during silence. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00602
54. Poland, B. D. (2002). Transcript quality as an aspect of rigor in qualitative research. J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 629–649). Sage Publications.
55. Poland, B., & Pederson, A. (1998). Reading between the lines: Interpreting silences in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 4(2), 293-312. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049800400209
56. Probst, B. (2015). The eye regards itself: Benefits and challenges of reflexivity in qualitative social work research. Social Work Research, 39(1), 37-48. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/svu028
57. Rapley, T. J. (2001). The art(fulness) of open-ended interviewing: some considerations on analysing interviews. Qualitative Research, 1(3), 303-323. https://doi.org/10.1177/146879410100100303
58. Sans Pinillos, A. (2025). Silence as a cognitive tool to comprehend the environment. Foundations of Science, 30(3), 849-875. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-023-09925-w
59. Saunders, B., Kitzinger, J., & Kitzinger, C. (2015). Anonymising interview data: Challenges and compromise in practice. Qualitative Research, 15(5), 616- 632. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794114550439
60. Scarry, E. (2020). The body in pain: The making and unmaking of the world. Routledge.
61. Sciubba, M. E. (2011). How transcription may influence analysis: The case of silences. Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata, 40, 63-79.
62. Scott, J. C. (1990). Domination and the arts of resistance: Hidden transcripts. Yale University Press.
63. Simmel, G. (2023). The metropolis and mental life. W. Longhofer & D. Winchester (Eds.). Social theory re-wired: New connections to classical and contemporary perspectives (pp. 438-445). Routledge.
64. Simpson, R., & Lewis, P. (2005). An investigation of silence and a scrutiny of transparency: Re-examining gender in organization literature through the concepts of voice and visibility. Human Relations, 58(10), 1253-1275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726705058940
65. Sio, U. N., & Ormerod, T. C. (2009). Does incubation enhance problem solving? A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 135(1), 94-120. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014212
66. Spall, S. (1998). Peer debriefing in qualitative research: Emerging operational models. Qualitative Inquiry, 4(2), 280-292. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049800400208
67. Spivak, G. C. (2023). Can the subaltern speak? P. H. Cain & M. Harrison (Eds.), Imperialism (pp. 171-219). Routledge.
68. Subramani, S. (2019). Practising reflexivity: Ethics, methodology and theory construction. Methodological Innovations, 12(2), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2059799119863276
69. Tan, M. (2021). Modernite, gürültü ve sessizlik: Sosyolojik bir eleştiri. Sosyolojik Bağlam Dergisi, 2(2) 107-118.
70. Tannen, D. (1990). Silence: Anything but. D. Tannen & M. Saville-Troike (Eds.), The perspectives on silence, (pp. 93-111). Erlbaum.
71. Wacquant, L. J. (1989). Towards a reflexive sociology: A workshop with Pierre Bourdieu. Sociological theory, 26-63.
72. Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. Jonathan Cape Books.
73. Whitaker, E., & Atkinson, P. (2019). Reflexivity. Sage Publications.
74. Woolley, A. (2017). Wholly sound: A Feminist reframing of the ‘problem’of interview silence as a methodology for discovering new knowledge. N. Slee, F. Porter & A. Phillps (Eds.), Researching Female Faith (pp. 154-169). Routledge.