Journals / Uluslararası Politik Araştırmalar Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 1

ACCOUNTABILITY AS A POLITICAL ISSUE IN SOCIAL RESEARCH AND RESEARCH EXPERIENCES

SOSYAL ARAŞTIRMALARDA POLİTİK BİR MESELE OLARAK HESAPVEREBİLİRLİK VE ARAŞTIRMA DENEYİMLERİ

Pages
1–16
Publication Date
2017-04-15
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)

Finally it is asserted that research experiences can be handled as means of accountability by mentioning its meaning in qualitative researches -interviews as face to face ones, in particular- related to dialogue and deliberation.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Despite we come accross “accountability” as a concept in relation to politics and public administration, accountability is one of the sources of legitimation not only for political and managerial practices but also for various ones.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Discussion of accountability in terms of “power” and “trust” relations is the main reason of it.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Finally it is asserted that research experiences can be handled as means of accountability by mentioning its meaning in qualitative researches -interviews as face to face ones, in particular- related to dialogue and deliberation.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Hesapverebilirlik · James Bohman · Nitel Araştırma

Abstract

Despite we come accross “accountability” as a concept in relation to politics and public administration, accountability is one of the sources of legitimation not only for political and managerial practices but also for various ones. Discussion of accountability in terms of “power” and “trust” relations is the main reason of it. Topics based on deliberation and dialogue regarding these relations, are also available tools for interpretation of social sciences. James Bohman, especially, is an eminent one in linking a “power” based forge between democracy and social research. In this framework, first of all, accountability is taken into account as a political practice and it is followed by seeking for comprehensing its meaning in social sciences through Bohman’s discussion of democracy. Finally it is asserted that research experiences can be handled as means of accountability by mentioning its meaning in qualitative researches -interviews as face to face ones, in particular- related to dialogue and deliberation.

Özet

Hesapverebilirlik kavramı daha çok siyaset ve kamu yönetimi tartışmalarında karşımıza çıksa da sadece siyaset ve onla ilişkili olarak yönetimin değil pek çok başka pratiğin meşruiyet kaynaklarından biridir. Bunun ana nedeni ise hesapverebilirliğin “iktidar” ve “güven” ilişkisi temelinde tartışılmasıdır. Söz konusu ilişkilerin gündeme geldiği müzakere ve diyalog temelli konular, sosyal araştırmaların açıklanması noktasında da elverişlidir. Özellikle James Bohman, demokrasi ve sosyal araştırma arasındaki “iktidar” temelli geçişi sağlamada önemli bir isimdir. Bu nedenle bu çalışmada öncelikle kısaca politik bir pratik olarak hesapverebilirlikten bahsedilecek, sonrasında ise James Bohman’ın demokrasi tartışması aracılığıyla bunun sosyal araştırmalar için ne anlama geldiği anlaşılmaya çalışılacaktır. Diyalog ve müzakerenin söz konusu olduğu nitel araştırmalarda -özellikle görüşmeler gibi yüz yüze gerçekleşenlerde- hesapverebilirliğin anlamına değinilerek araştırma deneyimlerinin görüşme temelli nitel araştırmalarda hesap verebilirlik için bir araç olabileceği önerisinde bulunulacaktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜLENER, E. M. (2017). ACCOUNTABILITY AS A POLITICAL ISSUE IN SOCIAL RESEARCH AND RESEARCH EXPERIENCES. Uluslararası Politik Araştırmalar Dergisi, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 1, 1–16. https://ajindex.com/articles/221082

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Ahmad, Reyaz (2016). “Re-Conceptualization of Accountability: From Government to Governance”, International Journal of Multidisciplinary Approach&Studies, C.3, S.5, ss. 1-11.
  2. Auerbach, Carl F. ve Lousie B. Silverstein (2003). Qualitative Data: An Introduction to Coding and Analysis, New York University Press,
  3. New York ve Londra. Ballinger, Claire (2008). “Accountability”, The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods, Edt: Lisa M. Given, C:1&2, Sage, Los Angeles ve Londra, pp.3-4.
  4. Barbour, Rosaline S. ve John Schostak (2005). “Interviewing and Focus Groups”, Research Methods in the Social Sciences, Edt: Bridget Somekh ve Cathy Lewin, Londra, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks ve New Delhi, ss. 41-48.
  5. Behn, Robert D. (2001).
  6. Rethinking Democratic Accountability, Brookings Institution Press,
  7. Washington, D.C. Bloor, Michael ve Fiona Wood (2006). Keywords in Qualitative Methods: A Vocabulary of Research Concepts, Sage, Londra ve New Delhi. Bohman, James (2009). “Epistemic Value and Deliberative Democracy”, The Good Society, C.18, S.2, ss. 28-34.
  8. Bohman, James (2007a). Democracy Across Borders: From Demos to Demoi, MIT. Bohman, James (2007b). “Political Communication and Epistemic Value of Diversity: Deliberation and Legitimacy in Media Societies”, Communication Theory, S.17, ss. 348-355.
  9. Bohman, James (2005). “We, Heirs of Enlightenment: Critical Theory, Democracy and Social Science”, International Journal of Philosophical Studies, C.13, S.3, ss. 353-377.
  10. Bohman, James (2004). “Realizing Deliberative Democracy as a Mode of Inquiry: Pragmatism, Social Facts, and Normative Theory”, Journal of Speculative Democracy, C.18, S.1, ss. 23-43.
  11. Bohman, James (2003). “Critical Theory as Practical Knowledge: Participants, Observers, and Critics”, The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Edt: Stephen P. Turner ve Paul A. Roth, Blackwell, ss. 91-109.
  12. Bohman, James (2001). “Participants, Observers, and Critics: Practical Knowledge, Social Perspectives, and Critical Pluralism”, Pluralism and the Pragmatic Turn: The Transformation of Critical Theory (Essays in Honor of Thomas McCarty),Edt: William Rehg ve James Bohman, the MIT Press,
  13. Cambridge ve Londra. Bohman, James (2000). Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy, MIT. Bohman, James (1999). “Democracy as Inquiry and Inquiry as Democratic: Pragmatism, Social Science, and Cognitive Divison of Labor”, American Journal of Political Science, C.43, N.2, ss. 590-607.
  14. Bohman, James (1997a