Araştırma Makalesi


DOI :10.26650/CONNECTIST2022-1040243   IUP :10.26650/CONNECTIST2022-1040243    Tam Metin (PDF)

Yeni Medya ve Kamusal Alan: İletişim Akademisyenlerinin Perspektifi

Onur DursunFiliz Yıldız

Günümüzde bireylerin iletişim eylemlerinin merkezinde yer alan yeni/sosyal medyanın kamusal alan olduğu tartışmalı bir konudur. Habermas’ın kamusal alan düşüncesi eşitlikçi, kapsayıcı, hiyerarşik olmayan ve aleniyet temelli yapısına karşın yeni/sosyal medya, teknoloji dolayımlı, sanal, anonim, aleniyetten uzak ve daha önemlisi siyasi ve iktisadi güçlerin yön verdiği bir mecradır. Yeni medyayı veya yeni medyanın kamusal alan potansiyelini sorgulayan çalışmalar, yeni medyanın ideal kamusal alan ölçütlerine ulaşamamış olsa da bir potansiyel barındırdığını vurgulamaktadır. Bu çalışmada yeni medyanın kamusal alan niteliği Habermas’ın kamusal alan ve ilişkili kavramlarıyla açıklanmaya ve iletişim akademisyenlerinin görüşleriyle birleştirilmeye çalışılmıştır. Bu bağlamda Türkiye’nin farklı üniversitelerinden, büyük ölçüde yeni medyayı ve Habermas’ı bilimsel çalışma alanı olarak belirlemiş iletişim akademisyenlerinin görüşlerine başvurulmuştur. Yargısal örnekleme tekniğiyle 15 farklı üniversiteden 18 iletişim akademisyeniyle görüşülmüştür. Görüşmelerin tamamlanmasının ardından; ‘kamusal alan olarak yeni medyayı kavramsallaştırma’, ‘yeni medyanın iletişimsel eyleme yatkınlığı’, ‘kamusal alana erişimde politik, ticari ve teknik engeller’, ‘yeni kamusallıkta bilginin niteli(ksiz)liği’ olmak üzere 4 analiz başlığı altında, konu ele alınmıştır. Araştırmada, yeni medyanın kamusal alan olarak önemli bir potansiyele sahip olmakla birlikte, mevcut haliyle, etkileşimsel bir iletişime izin vermediği, ticari ve teknik yapısının kamusallığı olumsuz etkilediği, denetim ve gözetim baskılarının kamusal alanda kaygılar yarattığı ve bilginin nitelik olarak sorun barındırdığı sonuçlarına ulaşılmıştır.

DOI :10.26650/CONNECTIST2022-1040243   IUP :10.26650/CONNECTIST2022-1040243    Tam Metin (PDF)

New Media and the Public Sphere: Perspectives of Communication Academics

Onur DursunFiliz Yıldız

Nowadays, new media as a public sphere is at the center of an individuals’ communication and has become a highly disputed territory. Contrary to Habermas’ public sphere, which is egalitarian, inclusive, non-hierarchical, and open-centered, new social media is a medium that is technologybased, virtual, anonymous, nonpublic, and considerably steered by political and economic powers. However, despite its deficiencies and precarious issues related to limits and procedures, new media enables its users to react to, share opinions on, and offer solutions on social subjects. Currently, it is debated whether it is a public sphere or not. Studies that question the eligibility of new media as a public sphere emphasize its potential even if they believe that it does not have the ideal public sphere criteria yet. Through Habermas’ public sphere and its related concepts, along with the views of communication academicians, this study attempts to explain the public sphere features of new media and its inclination toward communicative actions. By employing the judgment sampling technique, 18 academicians from 15 different universities are selected. The selected academicians have all conducted research on new media and Habermas. After the interview, the academicians’ responses to the questions are grouped under four titles: “Conceptualization of new/social media as a public sphere,” “inclination toward communication,” “technical, political, and commercial obstacles in accessing public sphere,” and “the essence and quality of knowledge in new publicity.” This study concludes that although new media has significant potential as a public sphere, it does not allow interactive communication in its current form; its commercial and technical structure affects publicity negatively; the pressures of control and surveillance cause concerns in the public sphere; and the information processes have a quality problem.


GENİŞLETİLMİŞ ÖZET


This study attempts to identify new media’s public sphere characteristics via the opinions of academicians studying communications. The study examines the history and approaches of the public sphere and then discusses the public sphere potential of the internet. The concept of the public sphere has been contemplated since the ancient days, even though it was not named such. Hannah Arendt was the first philosopher who envisioned the public sphere. Jürgen Habermas, influenced by her, profoundly scrutinized this concept and published his ideas in The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere and The Theory of Communicative Action (2001). Habermas pursued historical and denominational states of molding public opinion and the public reasoning process of the clustering subjects who live individually in society and examined communication structures satisfying public sphere model. Seyla Benhabib, another prominent name studying the public sphere in light of Arendt and Habermas, contributed deeply to the subject by classifying public sphere approaches, establishing challenges, and shedding light on the mechanism of deliberative democracy. 

Several works of research that have used Habermas’ public sphere to question the internet indicate that although new media has the potential, it encompasses too many complications to be a political public sphere at present. These works of research highlight that the internet has the potential to forge and support the public sphere, but it does not assure it. These works highlight that the internet offers global, non-hierarchical, complicated, and demanding interactions. On the other hand, there also are pieces of research that state that the internet is the most impeccable medium for the prospect of global access, freedom of speech, liberal communication, limitless agenda, attending public sphere beyond traditional political theories, and molding public opinion via discussion process. However, all these discourses emphasize that it may not completely satisfy the public sphere requirements.

Through Habermas’ public sphere and its related concepts and the views of communication academicians, this study attempts to explain the potential of new media/internet becoming a public sphere. Habermas’ public sphere approach is referred to here because it apprehends the public sphere as an abstract/imaginary and discursive/ communicational/deliberative political space. A healthy public sphere requires egalitarian, non-hierarchical, inclusive, liberal, honest/sincere, and qualified participation, and new media/internet has the potential to fulfill the mentioned requirements, even if not entirely.

For this study, 18 academicians from 15 different universities, mostly studying Habermas’ public sphere and new media, are chosen by using the judgment sampling method. Through semi-structured in-depth interviews conducted face-to-face or via phone, open-ended questions were asked to the participants. After the interviews, the topics are grouped under four titles: “Conceptualization of new/social media as a public sphere,” “inclination toward communication,” “technical, political, and commercial obstacles in accessing public sphere,” and “the essence and quality of knowledge in new publicity.”

The participants opined that new media has the potential for becoming a public sphere and handling communicative actions, but it cannot realize this potential yet. They think new media has deficiencies because it is not open to everyone due to technical and economic reasons. The medium is under the supervision of political and commercial authorities, the flow of information is unusually fast, it may contain disinformation and misinformation, and the knowledge verification process is long and complicated. 

The participants iterate that new media has not reached the level idealized by Habermas’ public sphere because of the aforementioned challenges. They emphasize that the medium hardly enables ideal communicative/deliberative actions and that its participation and inclusiveness are inequitable, dishonest, and illiberal. To solve the problems, the participants propose the use of inclusive, egalitarian, local, and global technologies and information policies. Finally, they advise that new media should be unbound from the hegemony of governmental authorities and/or capitalist organizations. 


PDF Görünüm

Referanslar

  • Arendt, H. (2008). İnsanlık Durumu. (B.S. Şener, Trans.) İletişim Yayınları. google scholar
  • Arendt, H. (2014). Geçmişle Gelecek Arasında. (B.S. Şener and O.E. Kara, Trans.) İletişim Yayınları. google scholar
  • Babacan, M. E. (2015). Yeni medya bağlamında toplumsal hareketler ve yeni insanın karakter analizi. Folklor/ Edebiyat, 21 (83), 295-307. google scholar
  • Baker, K. M. (1992). “Defining the Public Sphere in Eighteenth-Century France: Variations on a Theme by Habermas”. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere (pp.181-211). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. google scholar
  • Bauman, Z.& Lyon, D. (2013). Akışkan Gözetim. (E. Yılmaz, Trans.) Ayrıntı Yayınları. google scholar
  • Benhabib, S. (1992). Models of Public Space: Hannah Arendt, the Liberal Tradition, and Jürgen Habermas. In C. google scholar
  • Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere (pp.73-98). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. google scholar
  • Benhabib, S. (1997). The embattled public sphere: Hannah Arendt, Juergen Habermas and beyond. Theoria, 44(90), 1-24. google scholar
  • Bennett, W.L., Livingston, S. (2018). The disinformation order: Disruptive communication and the decline of democratic institutions. European Journal of Communication, 332(2), 122-139. google scholar
  • Benrazek, Y. (2021). The Role of Social Media as a Public Sphere in the Algerian Protests: An Analytical Study. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 1-21. google scholar
  • Binark, M., Arun, Ö., Özsoy, D., Kandemir, B. & Şahinkaya, G.(2020). Covid-19 Sürecinde Yaşlıların Enformasyon Arayışı ve Enformasyon Değerlendirmesi. Yaşlanma Çalışmaları Derneği Yayınları. google scholar
  • Bruns, A.& Highfield, T. (2015). Is Habermas on Twitter?: Social media and the public sphere. A.Bruns, G. Enli, E. Skogerbo, A. O. Larsson & C. Christensen (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Social Media and Politics (pp.56-73). Routledge Press. google scholar
  • Buchstein, H. (1997). Bytes that Bite: The Internet and Deliberative Democracy. Constellations, 4 (2), 248-263. google scholar
  • Castells, M. (2005). Enformasyon Çağı: Ekonomi, Toplum ve Kültür/ Ağ Toplumunun Yükselişi. (E. Kılıç, Trans.) İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları. google scholar
  • Castells, M. (2013). İsyan ve Umut Ağları: İnternet Çağında Toplumsal Hareketler. (E.Kılıç, Trans.) Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları. google scholar
  • Dahlberg, L. (2001). Computer-mediated communication and the public sphere: A critical analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7 (1). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol7/issue1/dahlbergold.html. google scholar
  • Dahlberg, L. (2007). The Internet and discursive exclusion: From deliberative to agonistic public sphere theory. L. google scholar
  • Dahlberg & E. Siapera (Eds.). Radical democracy and the Internet: Interrogating theory and practice (pp. 128147). Palgrave Macmillan. google scholar
  • Dahlberg, L. (2018). Visibility and The Public Sphere: A Normative Conceptualisation. Javnost-The Public, 25 (1-2), 35-42. google scholar
  • Dahlgren, P. (2001). Media and the transformation of democracy. B. Axford & R. Huggins (Eds), New Media and Politics (pp.64-88). Sage Publication. google scholar
  • Dean, J. (2003). Why the Net is not a Public Sphere. Constellations, 10(1), 95-112. google scholar
  • Dursun, O. (2018). Yaratıcı Endüstrilerin Aşkınsal Alanda Görünümü: Yaratıcı Endüstrilerin Yaşam Dünyasının Sömürgeleştirilmesine Etkisi. Moment Dergi, 5 (2),144-173. google scholar
  • Dursun, O. (2021). Neo’ Kamusallığın ‘Liberal’ Açmazları. Ç. Y. Ünlü & İ. Özdemir (Eds.), Siyasal İletişim: Politik Olanı Düşünmek ve Araştırmak (pp. 127-163). Siyasal Kitabevi. google scholar
  • Emirbayer, M. & Mimi S. (1998). Publics in history. Theory and Society, 27 (6), 727-779. google scholar
  • Fenton, N & Downey, J. (2003). New Media, Counter Publicity and the Public Sphere. New Media & Society, 5(2), 185-202. ISSN 14614448 [Article] google scholar
  • Fraser, N. (2007). Transnational public sphere: Transnationalizing the public sphere: On the legitimacy and efficacy of public opinion in a post-Westphalian world. Theory, culture & society, 24(4), 7-30. google scholar
  • Fraser, N. (1992). Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere (pp.109-142), Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. google scholar
  • Fuchs, C. (2009). The Role of Income Inequality in a Multivariate Cross-National Analysis of the Digital. Social Science Computer Review, 27(1), 41-58. google scholar
  • Fuchs, C. (2014). Social media and the public sphere. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 12(1), 57-101. google scholar
  • Fuchs, C. (2018). Sosyal Medya: Eleştirel Bir Giriş. (D. Saraçoğlu & İ. Kalaycı, Trans.) Nota Bene Yayınları. google scholar
  • Garnham, N. (1992). The media and the public sphere. C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere (pp.359-376), MIT Press. google scholar
  • Habermas, J. (2001). İletişimsel Eylem Kuramı. (M. Tüzel, Trans.) Kabalcı Yayınları. google scholar
  • Habermas, J. (2003). Kamusallığın Yapısal Dönüşümü (8th ed.). (T. Bora & M. Sancar, Trans.) İletişim Yayınları. google scholar
  • Habermas, J. (2004). Kamusal Alan. (M. Özbek, Trans), M. Özbek (Ed.), Kamusal Alan (pp.95-102). Hil Yayınları. google scholar
  • Habermas, J. (2009). Doğalcılık ve Din Arasında: Felsefi Denemeler. (A. Nalbant, Trans.) Yapı Kredi Yayınları. google scholar
  • Habermas, J. (2010). Öteki Olmak, Ötekiyle Yaşamak (4th ed.). (İ. Aka, Trans). Yapı Kredi Yayınları. google scholar
  • Habermas, Jürgen. 1992. Further Reflections on the Public Sphere. C. J. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere, (pp. 421-461). MIT Press. google scholar
  • Hartley, J. (1992). The Politics of Pictures: The Creation of the Public in the Age of Popular Media. New York: Routledge Press. google scholar
  • Hohendahl, P. U. (2016). The Institution of Criticism. Cornell University Press. google scholar
  • Holmes, D. (2005). Introduction-a second media age?. In D. Holmes (ed.), Communication theory: Media, technology, society (pp. 1-19). SAGE Publications Ltd. google scholar
  • Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York University Press. google scholar
  • Kavaklı, N. (2013). Kamusal Alan Olarak İnternet ve Geleneksel Medyanın Karşılaştırılması: Arama Motorları Örneğinde Kamusal Alanın Oluşumu (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi) Ankara Üniversitesi. https://tez.yok.gov. tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp. google scholar
  • Kızılkaya, S. (2019). Yeni Medya Eşitsizlikleri Arttırarak Sürdürüyor. VoA. https://www.amerikaninsesi.com/a/yeni-medya-e%C5%9Fitsizlikleri-art%C4%B1rarak-s%C3%BCrd%C3%BCr%C3%BCyor-/5111931.html. google scholar
  • Kruse, L.M., Norris, D. R.& Flinchum, J.R. (2018). Social Media as a Public Sphere? Politics on Social Media. The Sociological Quarterly. 59(1), 62-84. google scholar
  • Kuttan, A. & Laurance P. (2003). From Digital Divide to Digital Opportunity. Scarecrow Press. google scholar
  • Langley, P. & Leyshon, A. (2017). Platform capitalism: The intermediation and capitalisation of digital economic circulation. Finance and Society. 3(1), 11-31. google scholar
  • Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family practice, 13(6), 522-526. google scholar
  • Mutlu, E. (2004). İletişim Sözlüğü. Bilim ve Sanat Yayınları. google scholar
  • Narin, B..(2019). TikTok Paradoksu: Dijital Eşitsizlik İnternete Erişim Meselesi mi?. Journo, https://journo.com.tr/ dijital-esitsizlik-erisim. google scholar
  • Narin, B. (2021). Kalkınma Teorisi Adlı Peri Masalından Dijital Eşitsizlikler. Doğu Batı Dergisi, 97, 291-304. google scholar
  • O’Hara, K.& Stevens, D. (2015). Echo Chambers and Online Radicalism: Assessing the Internet’s Complicity in Violent Extremism. Policy & Internet, 7(4), 401-422. google scholar
  • Özbek, M. (2004). Giriş: Kamusal Alanın Sınırları. M. Özbek ( Ed.), Kamusal Alan (pp. 19-89). Hil Yayınları google scholar
  • Palczewski, C. H. (2001). Cyber-movements, new social movements, and counter publics. R. Asen & D. Brouwer (Eds.), Counterpublics and the State (pp.161-186). State University of New York. google scholar
  • Palermos, S. O. (2018). Epistemic Presentism. Philosophical Psychology 31 (3), 458-478. google scholar
  • Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The Virtual Sphere: The Internet as a Public Sphere. New Media &Society, 4(1), 9-27. Retrieved from https://zizi.people.uic.edu/Site/Research_files/VirtualSphere.pdf google scholar
  • Poor, N. (2005). Mechanisms of an online public sphere: The website Slashdot. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 10(2), JCMC1028. google scholar
  • Posetti, J. (2018). News Industry Transformation: Digital Technology, Social Platforms And The Spread of Misinformation And Disinformation. C. Ireton & J. Posetti (Eds), Journalism,’fake news’& disinformation / Handbook for journalism education and training ( pp.57-72). UNESCO. google scholar
  • Poster, M. (1995). The second media age. Polity Press. google scholar
  • Poster, M. (1997). Cyberdemocracy: Internet and the Public Sphere. D. Porter (Ed.), Internet Culture (pp. 201-218). Routledge. google scholar
  • Postone, M. (1992). Political Theory and Historical Analysis. C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere (pp.164-180). MIT Press. google scholar
  • Rutherford, P. (2000). Endless propaganda: The advertising of public goods. University of Toronto Press. google scholar
  • Schudson, M. (1992). Was There Ever a Public Sphere? If So, When? Reflections on the American Case. C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the PublicSphere (pp.143-163). MIT Press. google scholar
  • Selwyn, N. (2002). Defining the Digital Divide: Developing a Theoretical Understanding of Inequalities in the Information Age. Cardiff University. google scholar
  • Soules, M. (2007). Jurgen Habermas and the public sphere, Media Studies. Retrieved from http://www.mediastudies.ca/articles/habermas.htm google scholar
  • Squires, C. R. (2002). Rethinking the black public sphere: An alternative vocabulary for multiple public spheres. Communication Theory, 12 (4), 446-468. google scholar
  • Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform Capitalism. Polity Press. google scholar
  • Steinhoff, U. (2009). The Philosophy of Jürgen Habermas: A Critical Introduction. Oxford University Press. google scholar
  • Taherdoost, H. (2016). Sampling methods in research methodology; how to choose a sampling technique for research. International Journal of Academic Research in Management, (5)2, 15-27. google scholar
  • Timisi, N. (2003). Yeni İletişim Teknolojileri ve Demokrasi. Dost Yayınları. google scholar
  • van Dijk, J. &Hacker, K. (2003). The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. The information Society, 19(4), 315-326. google scholar
  • van Dijk, J. (2016). Ağ Toplumu. (Ö. Sakin, Trans.) Kafka Yayınevi. google scholar
  • We are Social. (2020). https://wearesocial.com/digital-2020. google scholar
  • Yıldız, F. & Dursun, O. (2020). Kamu Adaletinin Büyük Veri Aracılığı ile İnşası: Şule Çet Davası Üzerine Bir Twitter Analizi. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences, 58, 291-328. google scholar
  • YMK4. (2019). Yeni Medya Çalışmaları IV. Ulusal Kongre Genel Değerlendirme ve Sonuç Bildirgesi. http://yenimedya.org.tr/content/kongre-sonu%C3%A7-bildirgesi. google scholar
  • Yükseköğretim Kurulu (YÖK). (2022). https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/ google scholar
  • Yükselbaba, Ü. (2008). Kamusal Alan Modelleri ve Bu Modellerin Bağlamları. Journal of Istanbul University Law Faculty, 66(2), 227-271. google scholar

Atıflar

Biçimlendirilmiş bir atıfı kopyalayıp yapıştırın veya seçtiğiniz biçimde dışa aktarmak için seçeneklerden birini kullanın


DIŞA AKTAR



APA

Dursun, O., & Yıldız, F. (2022). Yeni Medya ve Kamusal Alan: İletişim Akademisyenlerinin Perspektifi. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences, 0(62), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.26650/CONNECTIST2022-1040243


AMA

Dursun O, Yıldız F. Yeni Medya ve Kamusal Alan: İletişim Akademisyenlerinin Perspektifi. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences. 2022;0(62):1-32. https://doi.org/10.26650/CONNECTIST2022-1040243


ABNT

Dursun, O.; Yıldız, F. Yeni Medya ve Kamusal Alan: İletişim Akademisyenlerinin Perspektifi. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences, [Publisher Location], v. 0, n. 62, p. 1-32, 2022.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Dursun, Onur, and Filiz Yıldız. 2022. “Yeni Medya ve Kamusal Alan: İletişim Akademisyenlerinin Perspektifi.” Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences 0, no. 62: 1-32. https://doi.org/10.26650/CONNECTIST2022-1040243


Chicago: Humanities Style

Dursun, Onur, and Filiz Yıldız. Yeni Medya ve Kamusal Alan: İletişim Akademisyenlerinin Perspektifi.” Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences 0, no. 62 (Dec. 2022): 1-32. https://doi.org/10.26650/CONNECTIST2022-1040243


Harvard: Australian Style

Dursun, O & Yıldız, F 2022, 'Yeni Medya ve Kamusal Alan: İletişim Akademisyenlerinin Perspektifi', Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences, vol. 0, no. 62, pp. 1-32, viewed 2 Dec. 2022, https://doi.org/10.26650/CONNECTIST2022-1040243


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Dursun, O. and Yıldız, F. (2022) ‘Yeni Medya ve Kamusal Alan: İletişim Akademisyenlerinin Perspektifi’, Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences, 0(62), pp. 1-32. https://doi.org/10.26650/CONNECTIST2022-1040243 (2 Dec. 2022).


MLA

Dursun, Onur, and Filiz Yıldız. Yeni Medya ve Kamusal Alan: İletişim Akademisyenlerinin Perspektifi.” Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences, vol. 0, no. 62, 2022, pp. 1-32. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/CONNECTIST2022-1040243


Vancouver

Dursun O, Yıldız F. Yeni Medya ve Kamusal Alan: İletişim Akademisyenlerinin Perspektifi. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences [Internet]. 2 Dec. 2022 [cited 2 Dec. 2022];0(62):1-32. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/CONNECTIST2022-1040243 doi: 10.26650/CONNECTIST2022-1040243


ISNAD

Dursun, Onur - Yıldız, Filiz. Yeni Medya ve Kamusal Alan: İletişim Akademisyenlerinin Perspektifi”. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences 0/62 (Dec. 2022): 1-32. https://doi.org/10.26650/CONNECTIST2022-1040243



ZAMAN ÇİZELGESİ


Gönderim23.12.2021
Kabul14.02.2022
Çevrimiçi Yayınlanma01.06.2022

LİSANS


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


PAYLAŞ




İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları, uluslararası yayıncılık standartları ve etiğine uygun olarak, yüksek kalitede bilimsel dergi ve kitapların yayınlanmasıyla giderek artan bilimsel bilginin yayılmasına katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır. İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları açık erişimli, ticari olmayan, bilimsel yayıncılığı takip etmektedir.