Siyaset Alanında Konu ve Yöntemdeki Değişimler: Bibliyometrik Bir Analiz

Öz

Bu çalışmada, politika çalışmalarının toplumsal değişimlerden hızla etkilenen interdisipliner doğası gereği, tarihsel gelişimine kısaca değinilmiştir. Günümüzün dijitalleşen toplumuna ayak uyduran politika hem kamuoyunu şekillendirme hem de rıza üretme aşamalarında tüm dijital araçları kullanmaktadır. Bu nedenle özellikle literatürde değişen konulara ve kullanılan metodolojilerdeki değişimlere değinilerek esasen değişen politik alanının da fotoğrafının çekilmesi hedeflenmektedir. Çalışmanın yöntemini literatür taraması ve bibliyometrik analiz oluşturmaktadır. Bu amaçla, Web of Science üzerinden American Political Science Review (APSR), Journal of Politics (JOP), ve British Journal of Political Science (BJPolS) dergileri seçilerek bibliyometrik analiz yapılmıştır. Bu dergilerin yayınlandığı ilk yirmibeş ile son yirmibeş yılları karşılaştırmalı Analiz için ayrıştırılmıştır. Ardından Türkçe literatürde bulunan Uluslararası İlişkiler (International Relations); Turkish Studies ve Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences dergileri ülkemizde politika alanında yayın üreten dergiler olarak seçilmiş ve yapılan bibliyometrik analizle çalışma konuları ve yöntem bakımından bir kıyaslamaya gidilmiştir. Çalışmanın sonucunda hem yerli hem de yabancı literatürde metodolojik olarak yeni yaklaşımların kullanılmaya başlandığı, medya içeriklerinin verileri analiz etme şeklini değiştirdiği görülmüştür. Konu olarak da yıllar içerisinde kuramsal düzeyde toplumsal ve hatta bireysel düzeye doğru bir geçiş olduğu görülmektedir. Türkiye’deki literatürde de bir değişim görülmekle birlikte, literatürün ana belirleyici gücünü yerel politik olaylardan aldığı görülmüştür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bibliyometrik Analiz
• Siyaset Çalışmaları
• Dijital Dönüşüm
• Metodolojik Değişim

CHANGES IN SUBJECT MATTER AND METHODOLOGY IN THE POLITICAL FIELD: A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS

Öz

This study briefly examines the historical development of political studies, emphasizing their interdisciplinary nature that is quickly influenced by social changes. In today’s digitalized society, politics employs digital tools to shape public opinion and generate consent. The study aims to capture the evolving political field by examining changes in topics and methodologies in the literature. The research methodology includes a literature review and a bibliometric analysis. The American Political Science Review (APSR), Journal of Politics (JOP), and British Journal of Political Science (BJPolS) were selected from the Web of Science, and the first and last twenty-five years of their publications were analysed comparatively. The Turkish journals Uluslararası İlişkiler (International Relations), Turkish Studies, and Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences were chosen as significant sources in Turkey’s political field, allowing for a comparative analysis of research topics and methods. The findings show that domestic and international literature have adopted new methodological approaches, with media content changing how data is analysed. There has been a thematic shift from theoretical to societal and individual levels. Although similar changes are seen in Turkish literature, local political events are the dominant forces influencing the field.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bibliometric Analysis
• Political Studies
• Digital Transformation
• Methodological Change.

Kaynakça

1. Almond, G A., Bellquist, E C., Ray, J M., Roche, J P., Stewart, I., Wagenen, R W V., & Millett, J D. (1962, June 1). Political Science as a Discipline: A Statement by the Committee on Standards of Instruction of the American Political Science Association. Cambridge University Press, 56(2), 417-421. https://doi.org/10.2307/1952376
2. American Political Science Association. (n.d.). About the American Political Science Review. Retrieved from https://www.apsanet.org/APSR.
3. Ankara University. (n.d.). About Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/siyasal.
4. Bhowmick, D. (1975, January 1). Political Development in India and Bureaucracy: An Attitude Study. SAGE Publishing, 21(1), 109-118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019556119750109
5. Bryce, J. (1909, February 1). The Relations of Political Science to History and to Practice: Presidential Address, Fifth Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Cambridge University Press, 3(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.2307/1945905
6. Cambridge University Press. (n.d.). About the British Journal of Political Science. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science.
7. Çarkoğlu, A., & Kalaycıoğlu, E. (2020). Turkish Politics in a Changing World. Istanbul: Bilgi University Press.
8. Castells, M. (2012). Networks of Outrage and Hope. Social Movements in the Internet age. Cambridge: Polity Press.

9. Çelik, N. (2020). Kadın YouTuberlar ve Toplumsal Cinsiyet: Etkileşim, Dramaturji, Kamusal Alan, Göstergebilim ve Temsil. Konya: Literatürk Academia Publications.
10. Cerulo, K A. (1997, August 1). Identity Construction: New Issues, New Directions. Annual Reviews, 23(1), 385-409. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.23.1.385
11. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Steps in conducting a scholarly mixed methods study. DBER Speaker Series. 48. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ dberspeakers/48
12. Edelmann, A., Wolff, T., Montagne, D., & Bail, C A. (2020, July 30). Computational Social Science and Sociology. Annual Reviews, 46(1), 61-81. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054621
13. Elias, A., Mansouri, F., & Sweid, R. (2020, October 6). Public Attitudes Towards Multiculturalism and Interculturalism in Australia. Springer Science+Business Media, 22(3), 1063-1084. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-020-00784-z
14. Fowler, J H., & Schreiber, D. (2008, November 7). Biology, Politics, and the Emerging Science of Human Nature. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 322(5903), 912-914. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1158188
15. Friedrich, C J., & Trackett, M C. (1937, June 1). Suggestions for a General Index for Political Science. Cambridge University Press, 31(3), 517-525. https://doi.org/10.2307/1948170
16. Goodin, R. (2017). British Journal of Political Science: A Legacy of Scholarly Excellence. Cambridge University Press. Habermas, J. (1984) The Theory of Communicative Reason, vol. 1, trans. Thomas McCarthy, Boston: Beacon Press.
17. Hull, A P. (1999, March 1). Comparative Political Science: An Inventory and Assessment since the 1980's. Cambridge University Press, 32(01), 117-124. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096500048952
18. İçduygu, A., & Yükseker, D. (2012). "Rethinking Migration and Integration in Turkey: Changing Policies and Changing Conditions." Mediterranean Politics, 17(2), 177-195.
19. Ilonszki, G., & Roux, C. (2021, December 17). Introduction: The Then and Now of Political Science Institutionalisation in Europe—A Research Agenda and Its Endeavour. Springer Nature, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79054-7_1
20. Janoski, T., Alford, R R., Hicks, A., & Schwartz, M A. (2003, January 20). The Handbook of Political Sociology. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511818059
21. Janoski, T., Leon, C D., Misra, J., & Martin, I. (2020, February 22). The New Handbook of Political Sociology. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108147828
22. Johnson, J. (2020). The American Political Science Review: A Century of Innovation and Excellence. American Political Science Association.
23. Kalaycıoğlu, E. (2020). "Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences: A Leading Platform for Political Science Research in Turkey". Ankara University, Faculty of Political Science.
24. Karpat, K. (1973). Social Change and Politics in Turkey: A Structural-Historical Analysis. Leiden: Brill.
25. Kaufman-Osborn, T V. (2006, January 1). Dividing the Domain of Political Science: On the Fetishism of Subfields. University of Chicago Press, 38(1), 41-71. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.polity.2300035
26. Kaufman-Osborn, T V. (2006, January 1). Dividing the Domain of Political Science: On the Fetishism of Subfields. University of Chicago Press, 38(1), 41-71. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.polity.2300035
27. Kim, J., & Fallon, K M. (2020, March 5). The Political Sociology of Democracy. Cambridge University Press, 538-563. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108147828.021
28. Lazer, D., Pentland, A., Adamic, L., Aral, S., Barabási, A. L., Brewer, D., ... & Van Alstyne, M. (2009). Computational social science. Science, 323(5915), 721-723.
29. Longo, S B., Isgren, E., Clark, B., Jorgenson, A K., Jerneck, A., Olsson, L., Kelly, O., Harnesk, D., & York, R. (2021, October 27). Sociology for sustainability science. Springer Nature, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-021-00056-5
30. Lyotard, J.-F. (1984) The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
31. March, J G. (1955, June 1). An Introduction to the Theory and Measurement of Influence. Cambridge University Press, 49(2), 431-451. https://doi.org/10.2307/1951813
32. March, J G., & Olsen, J P. (1983, December 1). The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life. Cambridge University Press, 78(3), 734-749. https://doi.org/10.2307/1961840
33. Mardin, Ş. (1971). "Religion and Secularism in Turkey." Daedalus, 120(4), 113-128.
34. McLendon, M K., & Hearn, J C. (2003, January 1). Introduction: The Politics of Higher Education. SAGE Publishing, 17(1), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904802239283
35. Özbudun, E. (2014). The Politics of Populism in Turkey. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36. Paasi, A. (2003, August 1). Region and place: regional identity in question. SAGE Publishing, 27(4), 475-485. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132503ph439pr
37. Pogge, T. (2008). Growth and inequality: understanding recent trends and political choices. Dissent, 55(1), 66-75.
38. Roberts, T. J., & Parks, B. C. (2007). Fueling injustice: Globalization, ecologically unequal exchange and climate change. Globalizations, 4(2), 193-210.
39. Sassen, S. (2007). The places and spaces of the global: an expanded analytic terrain. In: D Held and A McGrew (eds) Globalization Theory: Approaches and Controversies. Cambridge: Polity.
40. Scott, W R. (1996, January 1). Norms, culture, and world politics: insights from sociology's institutionalism Martha Finnemore. https://home.gwu.edu/~finnemor/articles/1996_institutionalism_io.pdf
41. Sharaby, R. (2022, January 1). Cultural Syncretism in Definitional Ceremonies of Iranian Immigrants. Scientific Research Publishing, 12(03), 112-129. https://doi.org/10.4236/aa.2022.123009
42. Shih, M., & Sanchez, D T. (2009, January 21). When Race Becomes Even More Complex: Toward Understanding the Landscape of Multiracial Identity and Experiences. Wiley, 65(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.01584.x
43. Smith, R. (2018). Journal of Politics: Decades of Scholarly Influence. Southern Political Science Association. Southern Political Science Association. (n.d.). About the Journal of Politics. Retrieved from https://www.journalofpolitics.org.
44. Wasserman, S. & Faust, K. (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications (Structural Analysis in the Social Sciences), Cambridge University Press.
45. Wilson, M. (2017, October 1). Trends in Political Science Research and the Progress of Comparative Politics. Cambridge University Press, 50(04), 979-984. https://doi.org/10.1017/s104909651700110x
46. Yavuz, H. (2003). Islamic Political Identity in Turkey. Oxford: Oxford University Press.