A QUALITATIVE STUDY ON THE EVALUATION OF BUREAUCRATIC EMPLOYMENT OF DISABLED PEOPLE IN THE CONTEXT OF SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION

Abstract

Symbolic representation, which is one of the types of representative bureaucracy theory, which claims that a more responsive public service will be provided with the participation of all demographic groups that make up the society in the bureaucracy, argues that even if the representative bureaucrats make no effort, they will benefit their own groups. Based on this statement, the present research aims to evaluate the employment of people with disabilities in public institutions in the context of symbolic representation. In this context, the symbolic effects of the bureaucratic representation of disabled individuals were tried to be revealed by using phenomenology, one of the qualitative research method designs. The study group of the research consists of 20 participants, including bureaucrats, politicians, academics and members of non-governmental organizations, who took an active role in the employment of the disabled. The data collected by the semi-structured interview technique in the research were analyzed with content analysis. The findings obtained as a result of the interviews showed that the bureaucratic representation of the disabled individuals, in parallel with the literature, provides symbolic representation in terms of "reducing prejudice against minority groups, being a role model, ensuring the legitimacy of the bureaucracy / providing a fair and reliable administration perception in the eyes of the citizens and increasing the motivation of the representative bureaucrats".

Keywords

• Representative Bureaucracy
• Symbolic Representation
• Employment of Disabled People in the Public Sector

ENGELLİ BİREYLERİN BÜROKRATİK İSTİHDAMININ SEMBOLİK TEMSİL BAĞLAMINDA DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİNE YÖNELİK NİTEL BİR ÇALIŞMA

Öz

Toplumu oluşturan bütün demografik grupların bürokraside yer almasıyla daha cevap verebilir bir kamu hizmeti sağlanacağını ileri süren temsili bürokrasi teorisinin türlerinden olan sembolik temsil, temsilci bürokratların hiçbir çaba sarf etmese dahi kendi gruplarına faydası olacağını ileri sürmektedir. Bu savdan hareketle mevcut araştırma engelli bireylerin kamu kurumlarında istihdamının sembolik temsil bağlamında değerlendirilmesini amaçlamaktadır. Bu kapsamda çalışmada nitel araştırma yöntemi desenlerinden fenomenoloji kullanılarak engelli bireylerin bürokratik temsilinin sembolik etkileri ortaya çıkarılmaya çalışılmıştır. Araştırmanın çalışma grubu engelli istihdamında aktif görev almış bürokrat, siyasi, akademisyen ve sivil toplum kuruluşu üyelerini içeren 20 katılımcıdan oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmada yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme tekniği ile toplanan veriler içerik analiziyle analiz edilmiştir. Görüşmeler sonucunda elde edilen bulgular engelli bireylerin bürokratik temsilinin literatürle paralel olarak “toplumun engellilere karşı önyargısını azaltma, rol model olma, bürokrasinin meşruiyetini sağlama/ vatandaş gözünde adil ve güvenilir bir yönetim algısı oluşturma ve temsilci bürokratların motivasyonunun artmasını sağlama” yönleriyle sembolik temsili sağladığını göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Temsili Bürokrasi
• Sembolik Temsil
• Engelli Bireylerin Kamu Sektöründe İstihdamı

Kaynakça

1. Andrews, R. (2005). Representative Bureaucracy, Organizational Strategy, and Public Service Performance: An Empirical Analysis of English Local Government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(4), 489–504. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui032
2. Atkins, D. N., & Wilkins, V. M. (2013). Going beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic: The effects of teacher representation on teen pregnancy rates. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(4), 771–790. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mut001
3. Bernard, H. R. (2017). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
4. Cuéllar, A., & Vega, A. (2007). Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities National Internship Program: A Means Toward Achieving a Representative Bureaucracy. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 6(1), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192706295376
5. Durmuş, M. (2021b). Sembolik Temsil Bağlamında Bürokrasinin Geleceğine Yönelik Bir Değerlendirme. Sinop Üniversitesi Boyabat İİBF Dergisi, 1(1), 81-94.
6. Gade, D. M., & Wilkins, V. M. (2013). Where Did You Serve? Veteran Identity, Representative Bureaucracy, and Vocational Rehabilitation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(2), 267–288. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus030 Giorgi, A. (2012). “The Descriptive Phenomenological Psychological Method”. Journal Of Phenomenological Psychology, 43(1), 3-12.
7. Kennedy, A. R., Bishu, S. G., & Heckler, N. (2020). Feminism, Masculinity, and Active Representation: A Gender Analysis of Representative Bureaucracy. Administration & Society, 52(7), 1101–1130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399719888470
8. Kennedy, B. A., Butz, A. M., Lajevardi, N., & Nanes, M. J. (2017). Race and Representative Bureaucracy in American Policing. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53991-1

9. Krislov, S. (1974). Representative Bureaucracy. New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs.
10. Larson, A. D. (1973). Representative bureaucracy and administrative responsibility: A reassessment. Midwest Review of Public Administration, 7(1), 79-89.
11. Lim, H.-H. (2006). Representative Bureaucracy: Rethinking Substantive Effects and Active Representation. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 193–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00572.x
12. Meier, K. J. (1975). Representative Bureaucracy: An Empirical Analysis. American Political Science Review, 69(2), 526–542. https://doi.org/10.2307/1959084
13. Meier, K. J., & Nicholson-Crotty, J. (2006). Gender, Representative Bureaucracy, and Law Enforcement: The Case of Sexual Assault. Public Administration Review, 66(6), 850–860. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00653.x
14. Meier, K. J. ve Stewart, Jr. (1991). The Politics of Hispanic Education: Un pas pa'lante y dos pa'tras Albany: SUNY Press.
15. Meier, K. J., Wrinkle, R. D., & Polinard, J. L. (1999). Representative Bureaucracy and Distributional Equity: Addressing the Hard Question. In Source: The Journal of Politics (Vol. 61, Issue 4). http://www.jstor.org
16. Mosher, F. (1968). Democracy and the Public Service. New York: Oxford University Press.
17. Nicholson-Crotty, J., & Miller, S. M. (2012). Bureaucratic Effectiveness and Influence in the Legislature. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(2), 347–371. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur054
18. Riccucci, N. M., & van Ryzin, G. G. (2017). Representative Bureaucracy: A Lever to Enhance Social Equity, Coproduction, and Democracy. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12649
19. Riccucci, N. M., van Ryzin, G. G., & Lavena, C. F. (2014). Representative bureaucracy in policing: Does it increase perceived legitimacy? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(3), 537–551. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu006
20. Riccucci, N. M., van Ryzin, G. G., & Li, H. (2016). Representative Bureaucracy and the Willingness to Coproduce: An Experimental Study. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12401
21. Selden, S. C., Brudney, J. L. ve Kellough, J. E. (1998). Bureaucracy as a representative institution: Toward a reconciliation of bureaucratic government and democratic theory. Representative bureaucracy: Classic readings and continued controversies, 134-154.
22. Sevinç, H. (2015). Kamu Çalışanlarının Motivasyonunda Kullanılan Araçlar. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 8(39), 944–964.
23. Sowa, J. E., & Selden, S. C. (2003). Administrative Discretion and Active Representation: An Expansion of the Theory of Representative Bureaucracy. In Public Administration Review (Vol. 63, Issue 6, pp. 700–710). https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00333
24. Subramaniam, V. (1967). Representative Bureaucracy: A Reassessment. American Political Science Review, 61(4), 1010–1019. https://doi.org/10.2307/1953403
25. Şen, M. (2018). Türkiye’de Engellilere Yönelik İstihdam Politikaları: Sorunlar ve Öneriler. Sosyal Güvenlik Dergisi, 8(2), 129–152. Theobald, N. A., & Haider-Markel, D. P. (2009). Race, bureaucracy, and symbolic representation: Interactions between citizens and police. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(2), 409–426. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mun006
26. Yıldırım, A. (1999). Nitel araştırma yöntemlerinin temel özellikleri ve eğitim araştırmalarındaki yeri ve önemi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 23, 7–12.
27. Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. London, ON: Althouse Press.
28. Yıldırım, A. (1999). Nitel araştırma yöntemlerinin temel özellikleri ve eğitim araştırmalarındaki yeri ve önemi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 23, 7–12.