Journals / Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 2

An Evaluation of the Cultural Domain in Turkey in the Context of Lifelong Learning

Pages
137–166
Publication Date
2021-04-27
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In summary, a general evaluation of the present state of productivity and participation in the cultural domain and its course over the years gives way to the argument that the cultural domain in Turkey is far from offering a source of possibilities and tools that would allow for the wider dissemination of the culture of learning.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The cultural domain may be defined as a sphere of influence that involves all cultural activities, whether economic or social in nature.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In the context of lifelong learning, cultural and artistic environments represent tools and media of significance for formal and informal adult learning.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In summary, a general evaluation of the present state of productivity and participation in the cultural domain and its course over the years gives way to the argument that the cultural domain in Turkey is far from offering a source of possibilities and tools that would allow for the wider dissemination of the culture of learning.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:cultural domain · cultural participation · lifelong learning

Abstract

The cultural domain may be defined as a sphere of influence that involves all cultural activities, whether economic or social in nature. In the context of lifelong learning, cultural and artistic environments represent tools and media of significance for formal and informal adult learning. The availability of learning opportunities in the cultural domain, the achievement of cultural competence by all individuals, and their cultural participation are strongly associated with lifelong learning. The research study employed a descriptive survey model with a view to establishing the data available in Turkey with respect to cultural productivity and participation. The study was structured on the basis of the data in Turkey as pertains to the budget allocated to culture and cultural expenditure, as well as performing arts, printed media, libraries, and museums. In summary, a general evaluation of the present state of productivity and participation in the cultural domain and its course over the years gives way to the argument that the cultural domain in Turkey is far from offering a source of possibilities and tools that would allow for the wider dissemination of the culture of learning.

🔖

Cite This Article

TUTAR, P. (2021). An Evaluation of the Cultural Domain in Turkey in the Context of Lifelong Learning. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi, Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 2, 137–166. https://ajindex.com/articles/134557

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Access to Culture Platform (2011). Cultural participation in education and lifelong learning: A catalyst for personal advancement, community development, social change and economic growth, Erişim adresi: http://www.houseforculture.eu
  2. Adorno, T. W., (2007). Kültür endüstrisi kültür yönetimi. (N. Ülner, M. Tüzel, E. Gen, Çev.). İstanbul:
  3. İletişim Yayınları.
  4. Ahponen, P. (2009). Perspectives for cultural political research: Keywords from participation through creativity and alienation to self-expression and competition, İn M. Pyykkönen, N. Simanainen and S. Sokka (Eds.), What about cultural policy? (pp. 75-96). Helsinki: Minerva. Altunbaş, A.ve Özdemir, Ç. (2012). Çağdaş müzecilik anlayışı ve ülkemizde müzeler. Erişim adresi: http://teftis.kulturturizm.gov.tr/Eklenti/4655,makale.pdf, erişim tarihi: 12.11.2018.
  5. And, M. (1981). Kültürel etkinlikler ve büyük kuruluşlar. (ss. 1-86),
  6. M. And, E. Şenlik ve E. Canak (Ed.). Ankara: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
  7. Bourdieu, P. (2015). Ayrım: Beğeni yargısının toplumsal eleştirisi. (D. F. Şannan ve A. G. Berkkurt, Çev.). Ankara:
  8. Heretik Yayınları.
  9. Büyükyazıcı, D. (2016). Kültür ve sanat ekonomisi kapsamında talep analizleri yardımı ile kültür politikasına teorik yaklaşım: Türkiye örneği. Uluslararası Bilimsel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 1(1), 71-83. doi: 10.21733/IBAD.13 Canak, E. (1981). Kültürel etkinlikler ve büyük kuruluşlar. (ss: 131-170),
  10. M. And, E. Şenlik ve E. Canak (Ed.). Ankara: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları. Cnntürk Gazetesi (2018, 5 Şubat). UNESCO: Türkiye, kitap okuma oranında 86'ıncı sırada. Erişim adresi: https://www.cnnturk.com/dunya/dw/unesco-turkiye-kitap-okuma-oraninda-86incisirada, erişim tarihi: 21.12.2018.
  11. Çalışlar, A. (1992, 6 Nisan). Kitle kültürüne bakış. Halk Sahnesi Oyuncuları. Erişim adresi: http://www.halksahnesi.org/1992/04/06/kitle-kulturune-bakis-aziz-calislar/,erişim tarihi: 15.12.2019.
  12. Dinçer, İ., Enlil, Z. ve Ünsal, D. (2011). Tarihi ve kültürel miras. S. Ada (Ed.), Sivil Toplum Gözüyle Türkiye Kültür Politikası Raporu (ss. 35-42). İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  13. Enlil, Z., Uşakierali, C., Dinçer, İ., Evren, Y., Dervişoğlu Okandan, G., … Kozaman Som S., (2011). Kültür Endüstrileri. S. Ada (Ed.), Sivil toplum gözüyle Türkiye kültür politikası raporu (ss. 87-103). İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  14. Erder, N. (2003). Kültürel gelişme ve devlet. İçinde: Türkiye’de kültür politikaları (2. Basım) (s. 89-115). İstanbul:
  15. Doğan Kitapçılık. EUCIS-LLL, ACP, CAE