Araştırma Makalesi


DOI :10.26650/4boyut.2023.1257609   IUP :10.26650/4boyut.2023.1257609    Tam Metin (PDF)

Demokrasinin Gündelik Kavramsallaştırması: Keşifsel Bir İnceleme

Canan ÇelikadamSevim Cesur

Gündelik kavramsallaştırmalar sıradan insanların bazı konularda uzmanların akademik yaklaşımlarından farklı olarak kendilerine özgü anlayışlarını içermekte olup; karmaşık yapıdaki kavramlarla ilgili daha iyi bir anlayış için incelenmesi önem taşımaktadır. Bu çalışmada Türkiye’de yaşayan ve farklı demografik özelliklere sahip bireylerden oluşturan katılımcı grubunun demokrasiyi nasıl kavramsallaştırdığını ve bu kavramsallaştırmalardaki benzerlik ve farklılıkları nitel bir yöntemle keşifsel olarak incelemek amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaçla yaşları 18-48 arasında değişen (Ort.= 30.27, SS= 6.59), 10’u kadın ve 20’si erkek olmak üzere toplam 30 kişiyle yarı yapılandırılmış derinlemesine görüşmeler yürütülmüştür. Katılımcılara “Demokrasi deyince aklınıza ne geliyor?, Size göre demokrasi ne demektir?” şeklindeki açık uçlu sorular yöneltilmiş ve cevaplar tematik analiz açık kodlama yöntemiyle analiz edilmiştir. Analizler sonucunda elde edilen veriler şu temalar altında toplanmıştır: ‘Liberal değerlerle tanımlanan demokrasi’, ‘yönetim süreçleriyle tanımlanan demokrasi’, ‘kurumsal yapılarla tanımlanan demokrasi’, ‘sosyal-ekonomik faydaları açısından tanımlanan demokrasi’, ‘batıya özgü bir sistem olarak tanımlanan demokrasi’, ‘eleştirilen bir sistem olarak demokrasi’. Elde edilen bu temalara göre demokrasi farklı ve çeşitli boyutlar üzerinden tanımlanmaktadır. Kurumlar ve prosedürler ile özgürlük ve haklar gibi Batıya özgü liberal tanımların yanı sıra sosyal ve ekonomik faydalar gibi demokrasinin sonuçları üzerinden yapılan tanımlar da ortaya çıkmıştır. Aynı zamanda, alan yazındaki çoğu çalışmadan farklı olarak, olumlu-olumsuz ve nötr değerlendirmeleri içeren demokrasi eleştirileriyle yapılan tanımlar da elde edilmiştir. Bu çalışmanın sınırlılıklarından biri verilerin az sayıda soruyla elde edilmiş olmasıdır. Bundan sonraki çalışmalarda demokrasinin farklı boyutlarını içeren daha fazla soruyla görüşmeler yürütülmesi demokrasi kavramsallaştırmasına dair daha kapsamlı bir anlayış için faydalı olacaktır. 

DOI :10.26650/4boyut.2023.1257609   IUP :10.26650/4boyut.2023.1257609    Tam Metin (PDF)

The Naturalistic Conceptualizations of Democracy: An Exploratory Investigation

Canan ÇelikadamSevim Cesur

Naturalistic conceptualizations involve lay people’s own understanding about a subject and differ from experts’ academic approaches. Examining these conceptualizations is important for being able to better understand complex concepts. This study uses a qualitative method with the aim of exploratively examining how a participant group consisting of individuals with different demographic characteristics living in Türkiye conceptualize democracy, as well as the similarities and differences in their conceptualizations. The study conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews for this purpose with a total of 30 people between 18-48 years of age (M = 30.27, SD = 6.59; 10 females, 20 males). The interviews asked the participants what comes to mind when they say democracy and what democracy means to them as open-ended questions and analyzed the answers using thematic analyses alongside the open coding method. As a result of the analyses, the data were gathered under the following themes: democracy defined by liberal values, democracy defined by government processes, democracy defined by institutional structures, democracy defined in terms of social-economic benefits, democracy defined as a Western system, and democracy as a criticized system. According to these themes, the participants defined democracy through different various dimensions, with a Western liberal meaning emerging involving institutions, procedures, freedoms, and rights, as well as definitions based on the consequences of democracy, such as social and economic benefits. Unlike most studies in the literature, definitions were at the same time observed to have been made that criticized democracy and included positive, negative, and neutral evaluations. One of the limitations of this study is that the data were obtained from a small number of questions. Having future studies conduct interviews with more questions that involve different dimensions of democracy will be beneficial for a more comprehensive understanding of naturalistic conceptualizations of democracy.


GENİŞLETİLMİŞ ÖZET


Despite democracy’s long history, no consensus yet exists in the literature on its meaning (Andersen et al., 2018). The most widely used scientific definitions of democracy focus on the processes and institutions of democratic government (e.g., Dahl, 1971). Meanwhile, other researchers have emphasized in their definitions the relations between the state and citizens (Tilly, 2011), alongside the equal and full participation of citizens in governmental processes rather than its procedural structures (Moghaddam, 2016). While scientific approaches to democracy occur in this way, studies investigating what democracy means for lay people have become quite common in recent years. Various definitions of democracy have emerged in studies conducted with people living in various parts of the world, with liberal definitions involving rights and freedoms having come to the fore in most of these studies (Baviskar & Malone, 2004; Bratton & Mattes, 2001a, 2001b; Dalton et al., 2007; Kemahlıoğu & Keyman, 2011; Ottomoeller, 1998; Schedler & Sarsfield, 2007), while other definitions have involved institutional structures, governmental processes, and socio-economic characteristics beyond these liberal definitions (Canache, 2012; Dalton et al., 2007; Ottomoeller, 1998; Regt, 2013). Many researchers consider citizens’ knowledge about democracy and pro-democratic attitudes to be important and necessary for democratic consolidation in any country (e.g., Cho, 2012; Inglehart, 2000). Therefore, examining naturalistic conceptualizations of democracy is important in this respect. Therefore, this study aims to exploratively examine using a qualitative method how a participant group consisting of individuals with different demographic characteristics living in Türkiye conceptualize democracy, as well as the similarities and differences in their conceptualizations. For this purpose, the study has conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with participants living in Istanbul, the most crowded heterogeneous location in the country that receives massive numbers of immigrants from different geographical regions. The participants consist of a total of 30 people between the ages of 18-48 (M = 30.27, SD = 6.59; 20 males, 10 females). The participants were reached by purposive sampling method. The study asked the participants what comes to their mind when they say democracy and what democracy means to them as open-ended questions. The study at the same time asked the participants to fill out a demographic form involving questions about gender, age, education level, and ethnicity. The study then analyzed the obtained data using the thematic analyses method in the program MAXQDA. The study first obtained codes using the open coding method and then arrived at the themes by combining these common codes. According to the general findings, the participants were seen to have defined democracy in a variety of different ways, with the following themes having emerged: democracy defined by liberal values, democracy defined by government processes, democracy defined by institutional structures, democracy defined in terms of social-economic benefits, democracy defined as a Western system, and democracy as a criticized system. Accordingly, while the participants’ definitions of democracy resembled Western liberal meanings, they also included dimensions related to the results of democracy, such as social and economic benefits. This finding also overlaps with the general findings from studies in the literature that have examined how lay people conceptualize democracy (Baviskar & Mallone, 2004; Bratton & Mattes, 2001a, 2001b; Canache, 2012; Tessler et al., 2012). Three dimensions have been seen to constitute the primary choice of the meaning of democracy for participants in different countries, namely institutions and procedures, freedom and rights, and economic and social benefits (Dalton et al., 2007). Another different theme this study obtained is the theme of democracy as a criticized system, which involves positive, negative, and neutral evaluations of democracy. Under this theme, the participants evaluated democracy as a system with some disadvantages, as a system that can only be good under certain conditions, or as the system with the most ideal form compared to other systems. Previous studies have revealed the political, social, and economic environment of individuals (Bratton & Mattes, 2001a; Tessler et al., 2012) and their personal experiences (Akboğa & Şahin, 2018) to have a decisive influence on their definitions of democracy. From this point of view, these definitions may be understandable for participants who have experienced problematic democratic systems or othter systems different from democracy. This study is thought to contribute to the literature in terms of its exploratory analyses of the meanings of democracy for individuals living in Türkiye, in addition to the emergent similarities and differences between these meanings. Another contribution is the study’s use of a qualitative method, which allowed participants to make individual assessments in their own words. Conducting focus group interviews as well as individual interviews allowed the participants to be able to create meanings for democracy together, and this is how the study attempted to examine the concept in depth. One of the limitations of this study is that the data were obtained using a limited number of questions. Conducting interviews with broader questions about democracy will be useful for future studies. 


PDF Görünüm

Referanslar

  • Akboğa, S. ve Şahin, O. (2018). Türkiye’de demokrasi algıları: Cinsiyet, etnik ve dini dinamikler. Journal of Economy Culture and Society, 57, 1-28. https://dx.doi.org/10.26650/JECS356672 google scholar
  • Aktaş, M. (2015). Demokrasi kavramına eleştirel bir bakış. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5(1), 87-105. D0I:10.18506/anemon.92965 google scholar
  • Alacapınar, F. G. (2020). Üniversite öğrencilerinin demokrasi konusundaki değerleri. Pearson Journal, 5(5), 117-131. https://doi.org/10.46872/pj.26 google scholar
  • Andersen, R. H., Schulze, J. L. ve Seppel, K. (2018). Pinning down democracy: A Q-method study of lived democracy. Polity, 50(1), 4-42. D0I:10.1086/695417 google scholar
  • Baviskar, S. ve Malone, M. F. T. (2004). What democracy means to citizens- and why it matters. Revista Europea de EstudiosLatinoamericanosy del Caribe, 76, 3-23. http://doi.org/10.18352/erlacs.9682 google scholar
  • Bogdan, R. C. ve Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (3. Bs.). Boston, Allyn and Bacon. google scholar
  • Bratton, M. (2003). Briefing: Islam, democracy and public opinion in Africa. African Affairs, 102, 493501. D0I:10.1093/afraf/adg049 google scholar
  • Bratton, M. ve Mattes, R. (2001a). Support for democracy in Africa: Intrinsic or instrumental. British Journal of Political Science, 51(3), 447-474. D0I:10.1017/S0007123401000175 google scholar
  • Bratton, M. ve Mattes, R. B. (2001b). How people view democracy: Africans’ surprising universalism. Journal of Democracy, 12, 107-121. google scholar
  • Braun, V. ve Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101. D0I:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa google scholar
  • Canache, D. (2012). Citizens’ conceptualizations of democracy: Structural complexity, substantive content, and political significance. Comparative Political Studies, 45(9), 1132-1158. https://doi. org/10.1177/0010414011434009 google scholar
  • Canache, D., Mondak, J. J. ve Seligson, M. A. (2001). Meaning and measurement in cross-national research on satisfaction with democracy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65(4), 506-528. https://doi. org/10.1086/323576 google scholar
  • Cho, Y. (2012). How well ordinary citizens understand democracy: The case of South Korean electorate. Democratization, 21(2), 195-219. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2012.734808 google scholar
  • Çokluk, Ö., Yılmaz, K. ve Oğuz, E. (2011). Nitel bir görüşme yöntemi: Odak grup görüşmesi. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim, 4(1), 95-107. google scholar
  • Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. google scholar
  • Dahl, Robert A. (2001). Demokrasi üzerine (B. Kadıoğlu, Çev.). Ankara: Phoenix Yayınları. google scholar
  • Dalton, R. J., Shin, D. C. ve Jou, W. (2007). Understanding democracy: Data from unlikely places. Journal of Democracy, 18(4), 142-156. google scholar
  • Dixon, J. C. (2008). A clash of civilizations? Examining liberal-democratic values in Turkey and the European Union 1. The British Journal of Sociology, 59(4), 681-708. google scholar
  • Fuchs, D. ve Roller, E. 2006. “Learned democracy? Support for democracy in Central and Eastern Europe.” International Journal of Sociology, 36(3), 70-96 google scholar
  • Gagnon, J. P. (2018). 2,234 descriptions of democracy: An update to democracy’s ontological pluralism. Democratic Theory, 5(1), 92-113. D0I:10.3167/dt.2018.050107 google scholar
  • Huntington, S. P. (1991). The third wave: Democratization in the late 20th century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. google scholar
  • Huntington, S. P. (2020). The clash of civilizations?. The New Social Theory Reader içinde (s. 305-313). Routledge. google scholar
  • Inglehart, R. (2000). Culture and democracy. E. Harrison ve P. Huntington (Ed.), Culture matters: How values shape human progress içinde (s. 80-97). New York: Basic Books. google scholar
  • Işık, E. ve Semerci, Ç. (2019). Eğitim alanı nitel araştırmalarında veri üçgenlemesi olarak odak grup görüşmesi, bireysel görüşme ve gözlem. Turkish Journal of Educational Studies, 6(3), 53-66. google scholar
  • Karl, T. L. (1990). Dilemmas of democratization in Latin America. Comparative Politics, 23(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.2307/422302 google scholar
  • Keane, J. (2022). Kısa demokrasi tarihi. (A. Nalbant, çev.) Ankara: Say Yayınları. google scholar
  • Kemahlıoğlu, Ö. ve Keyman, F. (2011). Türkiye’de demokrasi algısı. Istanbul: Istanbul Policy Center. google scholar
  • Kim, S. (2010). Exploring naturalistic conceptions of ‘a moral person’for Koreans (Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi). Teksas Üniversitesi. google scholar
  • Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (2. Bs.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. google scholar
  • Linz, J. J. ve Stepan, A. (1978). The breakdown of democratic regimes: Latin America. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Univesity Press. google scholar
  • Mishra, L. (2016). Focus group discussion in qualitative research. TechnoLearn: An International Journal of Educational Technology, 6(1), 1-5. google scholar
  • Moghaddam, F. M. (2018). The road to actualized democracy: A psychological exploration. B. Wagoner, google scholar
  • I. Bresco de Luna, ve V. Glaveanu (Ed.), The road to actualized democracy: A psychological exploration içinde (s. 3-23). Information Age Publishing, Inc. google scholar
  • Montiel, C. ve Wessells, M. (2001). Democratization, psychology and the construction of cultures of peace. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 7(2), 119-129. https://doi.org/10.1207/ S15327949PAC0702_03 google scholar
  • Moodie, E. (2005). Different meanings of democracy in post-communist Europe (Doktora Tezi). Retrieved from https://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/178/1/moodiethesis1.pdf google scholar
  • Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2. Bs.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. google scholar
  • Norris, P. (Ed.). (1999). Critical citizens: Global support for democratic government. OUP Oxford. google scholar
  • Osterberg-Kaufmann, N. ve Stadelmaier, U. (2020). Measuring meanings of democracy—methods of differentiation. Zeitschrift für VergleichendePolitikwissenschaft, 14, 401-423. DOI:10.1007/s12286-020-00461-6 google scholar
  • Ottemoeller, D. (1998). Popular perceptions of democracy: Elections and attitudes in Uganda. Comparative Political Studies, 31(1), 98-124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414098031001005 google scholar
  • Regt, S. D. (2013). Arabs want democracy, but what kind?. Advances in Applied Sociology, 3(01), 37-46. DOI: 10.4236/aasoci.2013.31005 google scholar
  • Rose, R., Mishler, W. ve Haerpfer, C. (1998) Democracy and its Alternatives: Understanding PostCommunist Societies. Oxford & London: John Baltimore Press. google scholar
  • Schedler, A. ve Sarsfield, R. (2007). Democrats with adjectives: Linking direct and indirect measures of democratic support. European Journal of Political Research, 46(5), 637-659. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1475-6765.2007.00708.x google scholar
  • Schumpeter, J. (1943). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. London: George Allen and Unwin. google scholar
  • Sternberg, R. J., Conway, B. E., Ketron, J. L. ve Bernstein, M. (1981). People’s conceptions of intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(1), 37- 55. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.1.37 google scholar
  • Şahin, O. (2016). Perceptions of democracy in the world: Do different understandings held by the people shape political systems? (Doktora tezi). Sabancı Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul. google scholar
  • Tessler, M., Jamal, A. ve Robinson, M. (2012). New findings on Arabs and Democracy. Journal of Democracy 23(4), 89-103. google scholar
  • Tilly, C. (2011). Demokrasi. (E. Arıcan, çev.) Phoenix Yayınları, Ankara. google scholar
  • Yıldırım, A., ve Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (10. Basım). İstanbul: Seçkin Yayıncılık. google scholar

Atıflar

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


DIŞA AKTAR



APA

Çelikadam, C., & Cesur, S. (2023). Demokrasinin Gündelik Kavramsallaştırması: Keşifsel Bir İnceleme. 4. BOYUT Medya ve Kültürel Çalışmalar Dergisi, 0(22), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.26650/4boyut.2023.1257609


AMA

Çelikadam C, Cesur S. Demokrasinin Gündelik Kavramsallaştırması: Keşifsel Bir İnceleme. 4. BOYUT Medya ve Kültürel Çalışmalar Dergisi. 2023;0(22):1-19. https://doi.org/10.26650/4boyut.2023.1257609


ABNT

Çelikadam, C.; Cesur, S. Demokrasinin Gündelik Kavramsallaştırması: Keşifsel Bir İnceleme. 4. BOYUT Medya ve Kültürel Çalışmalar Dergisi, [Publisher Location], v. 0, n. 22, p. 1-19, 2023.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Çelikadam, Canan, and Sevim Cesur. 2023. “Demokrasinin Gündelik Kavramsallaştırması: Keşifsel Bir İnceleme.” 4. BOYUT Medya ve Kültürel Çalışmalar Dergisi 0, no. 22: 1-19. https://doi.org/10.26650/4boyut.2023.1257609


Chicago: Humanities Style

Çelikadam, Canan, and Sevim Cesur. Demokrasinin Gündelik Kavramsallaştırması: Keşifsel Bir İnceleme.” 4. BOYUT Medya ve Kültürel Çalışmalar Dergisi 0, no. 22 (Jul. 2024): 1-19. https://doi.org/10.26650/4boyut.2023.1257609


Harvard: Australian Style

Çelikadam, C & Cesur, S 2023, 'Demokrasinin Gündelik Kavramsallaştırması: Keşifsel Bir İnceleme', 4. BOYUT Medya ve Kültürel Çalışmalar Dergisi, vol. 0, no. 22, pp. 1-19, viewed 25 Jul. 2024, https://doi.org/10.26650/4boyut.2023.1257609


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Çelikadam, C. and Cesur, S. (2023) ‘Demokrasinin Gündelik Kavramsallaştırması: Keşifsel Bir İnceleme’, 4. BOYUT Medya ve Kültürel Çalışmalar Dergisi, 0(22), pp. 1-19. https://doi.org/10.26650/4boyut.2023.1257609 (25 Jul. 2024).


MLA

Çelikadam, Canan, and Sevim Cesur. Demokrasinin Gündelik Kavramsallaştırması: Keşifsel Bir İnceleme.” 4. BOYUT Medya ve Kültürel Çalışmalar Dergisi, vol. 0, no. 22, 2023, pp. 1-19. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/4boyut.2023.1257609


Vancouver

Çelikadam C, Cesur S. Demokrasinin Gündelik Kavramsallaştırması: Keşifsel Bir İnceleme. 4. BOYUT Medya ve Kültürel Çalışmalar Dergisi [Internet]. 25 Jul. 2024 [cited 25 Jul. 2024];0(22):1-19. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/4boyut.2023.1257609 doi: 10.26650/4boyut.2023.1257609


ISNAD

Çelikadam, Canan - Cesur, Sevim. Demokrasinin Gündelik Kavramsallaştırması: Keşifsel Bir İnceleme”. 4. BOYUT Medya ve Kültürel Çalışmalar Dergisi 0/22 (Jul. 2024): 1-19. https://doi.org/10.26650/4boyut.2023.1257609



ZAMAN ÇİZELGESİ


Gönderim28.02.2023
Kabul11.04.2023
Çevrimiçi Yayınlanma24.05.2023

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.