SavedAdd your journal

Journals / PESA Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi / 2024 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2

Migration and Communication: The Impact of Digital Dependency on Social Bonds

Göç ve İletişim: Dijital Bağımlılığın Sosyal Bağlar Üzerindeki Etkisi

Esra Demirci(BÜLENT ECEVİT ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İLETİŞİM FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-4485-1005
Pages
89–100
Publication Date
2024-12-30
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)

Findings reveal that digital dependency may hinder migrants' relationships with their new social environments, reduce face-to-face interactions, and result in negative outcomes such as loneliness and social isolation.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The phenomenon of migration is not merely a physical relocation but a complex process that necessitates the reconstruction of cultural, social, and emotional ties.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this context, digital platforms emerge as significant tools that enable migrants to maintain connections with their past while adapting to new societies.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Findings reveal that digital dependency may hinder migrants' relationships with their new social environments, reduce face-to-face interactions, and result in negative outcomes such as loneliness and social isolation.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Göç ve iletişim · dijital bağımlılık · sosyal bağlar

Abstract

The phenomenon of migration is not merely a physical relocation but a complex process that necessitates the reconstruction of cultural, social, and emotional ties. In this context, digital platforms emerge as significant tools that enable migrants to maintain connections with their past while adapting to new societies. Digital technologies transcend physical distances, facilitating seamless communication and allowing individuals to sustain their cultural ties with their homeland. However, excessive use of these digital tools increases the risk of digital dependency, leading to the superficiality of social bonds rather than their deepening. This study explores the effects of digital dependency on the social bonds and communication practices of migrants. Findings reveal that digital dependency may hinder migrants' relationships with their new social environments, reduce face-to-face interactions, and result in negative outcomes such as loneliness and social isolation. On the other hand, balanced use of digital technologies can help migrants preserve connections with their homeland while fostering meaningful relationships in their new communities. The study underscores the importance of conscious and moderate use of digital platforms to positively influence migrants’ social integration processes.

Özet

Göç olgusu, bireylerin yalnızca fiziksel bir yer değişimi değil, aynı zamanda kültürel, sosyal ve duygusal bağlarının yeniden yapılandırılmasını gerektiren karmaşık bir süreçtir. Bu bağlamda, göçmenlerin hem geçmişle bağlarını koruyabilmeleri hem de yeni topluma uyum sağlayabilmeleri için dijital platformlar önemli bir araç olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Dijital teknolojiler, fiziksel mesafeleri aşarak iletişimde kesintisizliği sağlarken, bireylerin anavatanlarındaki kültürel bağlarını sürdürmelerine olanak tanımaktadır. Bununla birlikte, dijital araçların aşırı kullanımı, dijital bağımlılık riskini artırarak sosyal bağların derinleşmesi yerine yüzeyselleşmesine neden olabilir. Bu çalışma, dijital bağımlılığın göçmenlerin sosyal bağları ve iletişim biçimleri üzerindeki etkilerini incelemektedir. Bulgular, dijital bağımlılığın göçmenlerin yeni toplumsal çevreleriyle kurdukları ilişkilerde bir engel teşkil edebileceğini, yüz yüze iletişimi azalttığını ve bireylerde yalnızlık, sosyal izolasyon gibi olumsuz durumlara yol açabileceğini ortaya koymaktadır. Öte yandan, dijital teknolojilerin dengeli kullanımı, göçmenlerin hem anavatanlarındaki bağlarını korumalarını hem de yeni sosyal çevrelerine uyum sağlamalarını destekleyebilir. Çalışma, dijital teknolojilerin bilinçli ve sınırlı bir şekilde kullanılmasının göçmenlerin sosyal entegrasyon süreçlerine olumlu katkıda bulunabileceğini vurgulamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Demirci, E. (2024). Migration and Communication: The Impact of Digital Dependency on Social Bonds. PESA Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2, 89–100. https://ajindex.com/articles/1536108

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (39)

  1. Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1990). "Social Identity Theory: Constructive and Critical Advances." Harvester Wheatsheaf. https://books.google.com.tr/books/about/Social_Identity_Theory.html?id=hJjZAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y.
  2. Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004). Metatheory: Lessons from social identity research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(2), 98–106. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0802_2.
  3. Adıgüzel, O. H., Hepkon, Z. (2023). İki Dünya Arasında: Türkiye’deki Suriyeli Göçmenlerin Medya Kullanım Eğilimleri. Üsküdar Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Akademik Dergisi Etkileşim, (12),60-83. doi.org/10.32739/etkilesim.2023.6.12.214.
  4. Androutsopoulos, J. (2016). Theorizing media, mediation, and mediatisation. In N. Coupland (Ed.), Sociolinguistics: Theoretical Debates (pp. 282–302). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://jannisandroutsopoulos.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/androutsopoulos_2016_theorizing_media_mediation_and_mediatization.pdf. E. T. 11.10.2024.
  5. Alonso, A., & Oiarzabal, P. J. (Eds.). (2010). Diasporas in the New Media Age: Identity, Politics, and Community. Reno: University of Nevada Press. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296408891_Diasporas_in_the_new_media_age_Identity_politics_and_community#fullTextFileContent.
  6. Andreassen, C. S., Torsheim, T., Brunborg, G. S., & Pallesen, S. (2012). Development of a Facebook Addiction Scale. Psychological Reports, 110(2), 501–517. https://doi.org/10.2466/02.09.18.PR0.110.2.501-517.
  7. Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. University of Minnesota Press.
  8. Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46(1), 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01087.x
  9. Binark, M., & Löker, M. (2011). Dijital Medya ve Kültür. İstanbul: Beta Yayınları.
  10. Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x
  11. Casilli, A. A. (2017). En attendant les robots: Enquête sur le travail du clic. Seuil.
  12. Çoban, S. (2020). Medya ve Göç: Kimlik, Mekân ve Aidiyet. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
  13. Dekker, R., & Engbersen, G. (2014). How social media transform migrant networks and facilitate migration. Global Networks, 14(4), 401–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/glob.12040
  14. Diminescu, D. (2008). The connected migrant: An epistemological manifesto. Social Science Information, 47(4), 565–579. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018408096447
  15. Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2011). Connection strategies: Social capital implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media & Society, 13(6), 873–892. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810385389.
  16. Gillespie, M., & Cheesman, T. (2010). Diasporas and communication: Global networks and local connections. Global Networks, 10(4), 461–478. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0374.2010.00296.x
  17. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469.
  18. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor Books.
  19. Horst, H. A. (2006). The blessings and burdens of communication: Cell phones in Jamaican transnational social fields. Global Networks, 6(2), 143–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0374.2006.00138.x
  20. Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç. (2010). Kültürel Psikoloji: Kültür Bağlamında İnsan ve Aile. İstanbul: Evrim Yayınları.
  21. Keles, B., McCrae, N., & Grealish, A. (2020). A systematic review: The influence of social media on depression, anxiety, and psychological distress in adolescents. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 25(1), 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2019.1590851
  22. Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukophadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017–1031. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.9.1017
  23. Komito, L. (2011). Social media and migration: Virtual community 2.0. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(6), 1075–1086. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21517.
  24. Levitt, P. (2001). Transnational migration: Taking stock and future directions. Global Networks, 1(3), 195–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0374.00013
  25. Lim, S. S. (2016). Mobile communication and the family: Asian experiences in technology domestication. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7440-3
  26. McGregor, J., & Siegel, M. (2013). Social media and migration research. International Migration Review, 47(4), 1190–1221. https://doi.org/10.1111/imre.12080
  27. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. McGraw-Hill.
  28. Madianou, M., & Miller, D. (2012). Migration and new media: Transnational families and polymedia. Routledge.
  29. Nedelcu, M., & Wyss, M. (2016). ‘Doing family’ through ICT‐mediated ordinary co‐presence: Transnational communication practices of Romanian migrants in Switzerland. Global Networks, 16(2), 202–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/glob.12110
  30. Oxford English Dictionary. (2024). "Brain Rot." Retrieved from https://corp.oup.com/news/brain-rot-named-oxford-word-of-the-year-2024/
  31. Przybylski, A. K., Orben, A., & Weinstein, N. (2021). Digital screen time and mental health: Evidence from a decade-long study. Psychological Science, 32(4), 530–548. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620969170
  32. Sarı, H., & Yüksel, D. L. (2023). “DİJİTAL YERLİ VE DİJİTAL GÖÇMEN” AİLE BİREYLERİNİN SOSYAL MEDYA KULLANIM FARKLARI. Uluslararası Toplumsal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(4), 175-192.
  33. Shin, D. H., & Dey, B. L. (2013). The effects of trust, security and privacy in social networking: A comprehensive model. Telematics and Informatics, 30(4), 381–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2013.04.003
  34. Turkle, S. (2015). Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in a digital age. Penguin Press.
  35. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Nelson-Hall.
  36. Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Basil Blackwell.
  37. Twenge, J. M., Haidt, J., Joiner, T. E., & Campbell, W. K. (2018). Screen time and loneliness: Understanding the associations. Developmental Psychology, 54(3), 556–571. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000427
  38. Vertovec, S. (2004). Cheap calls: The social glue of migrant transnationalism. Global Networks, 4(2), 219–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1
  39. Adıgüzel, O. H., Hepkon, Z. (2023). İki Dünya Arasında: Türkiye’deki Suriyeli Göçmenlerin Medya Kullanım Eğilimleri. Üsküdar Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Akademik Dergisi Etkileşim, (12),60-83. doi.org/10.32739/etkilesim.2023.6.12.214.