Journals / Türkiye İletişim Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2018 / Sayı: 31

An Anthropomorphistic Approach to Measuring Civil Society Organization's Reputation: A Semantic Network Analysis

Sivil Toplum Kuruluşu İtibarının İnsan Biçimcilik Yaklaşımı ile Ölçümü: Bir Anlamsal Ağ Analizi

Pages
77–102
Publication Date
2018-12-30
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)

The results of the research can contribute to the development of an appropriate measure of CSO 's reputation for Turkish society.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of the study is to reveal common meaning of reputation and disreputableness for civil society organizations (CSOs) by utilizing anthropomorphism.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Accordingly, 212 individuals living in İzmir were asked to personify the CSOs they deemed reputable and disreputable, and provide adjectives that best described CSOs.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results of the research can contribute to the development of an appropriate measure of CSO 's reputation for Turkish society.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:sivil toplum kuruluşu (STK) itibarı · insan biçimcilik · itibar ölçümü

Abstract

The aim of the study is to reveal common meaning of reputation and disreputableness for civil society organizations (CSOs) by utilizing anthropomorphism. Accordingly, 212 individuals living in İzmir were asked to personify the CSOs they deemed reputable and disreputable, and provide adjectives that best described CSOs. In this study which was designed as descriptive research, semantic network analysis was employed and reputable and disreputable networks were visualized using a social network analysis software named Pajek. The relational analysis was performed using the measures of m-core, clique, articulation point, in-out degree, in-out closeness and betweenness. The first study to uncover the shared meaning of the CSO 's reputation adopting the anthropomorphism approach reveals both positive and negative personality traits such as being helpful, honest, reliable and self-seeking, trickster, liar, and untrustworthy. The results of the research can contribute to the development of an appropriate measure of CSO 's reputation for Turkish society.

Özet

Çalışma, sivil toplum kuruluşları (STK) için itibar ve itibarsızlığın ortak anlamını insanbiçimcilik yaklaşımından yararlanarak belirlemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu doğrultuda İzmir’de yaşayan 212 kişiden itibarlı ve itibarsız olduklarını düşündükleri STK’ları kişileştirerek, onları tanımlayan sıfatlar vermeleri istenmiştir. Betimleyici bir araştırma olarak tasarlanan çalışmada, anlamsal ağ analizinden yararlanılmış, itibarlı ve itibarsız ağlar Pajek isimli bir sosyal ağ analizi yazılımı kullanılarak görselleştirilmiştir. Gerçekleştirilen ilişkisel analizde m-core, klik, eklemlenme noktası, gelen-giden derece, gelen-giden yakınlık ve aradalık merkeziliği ölçüleri kullanılmıştır. ‘Yardımsever’, ‘dürüst’, ‘güvenilir’ gibi olumlu; ‘çıkarcı’, ‘düzenbaz’, ‘güvenilmez’ ve ‘yalancı’ gibi olumsuz kişilik özelliklerinin öne çıktığı bu araştırma, STK’ itibarına dair paylaşılan anlamı insan biçimcilik yaklaşımıyla saptayan ilk çalışmadır. Araştırma sonuçlarının, Türk toplumuna uygun bir STK itibarı ölçümü geliştirilmesine katkı sağlayabileceği düşünülmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

TÜRKEL, S. (2018). An Anthropomorphistic Approach to Measuring Civil Society Organization's Reputation: A Semantic Network Analysis. Türkiye İletişim Araştırmaları Dergisi, Sayı: 31, 77–102. https://ajindex.com/articles/4067

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Aaker, J., & Fournier, S. (1995). A brand as a character, a partner and a person: three perspectives on the question of brand personality. F. R. Kardes & M. Sujan (Haz.), Advances in consumer research içinde (ss. 391-395).
  2. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research. Aula, P., & Heinonen, J. (2016). The reputable firm: how digitalization of communication is revolutionizing reputation management. Switzerland: Springer. Baygül, Ö. Ş. (2008). Kurumsal itibarın ölçümü: Türkiye’ye yönelik ölçek geliştirme çalışması (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Eskişehir. Bennett, R. & Gabriel, H. (2000). Charity affiliation as a determinant of product purchase decisions, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9 (4), 255-70.
  3. Bennett, R., & Gabriel, H. (2003). Image and reputational characteristics of UK charitable organizations: an empirical study. Corporate Reputation Review, 6(3), 276–289.
  4. Bennett, R., & Rentschler, R. (2003). Foreword by the guest editors. Corporate Reputation Review, 6(3), 207-210.
  5. Benoit, W. L. (2013). Image repair theory. R. L. Heath (Haz.), Encyclopedia of public relations içinde (ss. 436-439). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Berens, G., & Van Riel, C. B. (2004). Corporate associations in the academic literature: Three main streams of thought in the reputation measurement literature. Corporate Reputation Review, 7(2), 161-178.
  6. Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110(2), 305-314.
  7. Borgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., & Labianca, G. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323, 892-895.
  8. Bromley, D. B. (2001). Relationships between personal and corporate reputation. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), 316-334.
  9. Brown, W. A. (2015). Strategic management in nonprofit organizations. Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Chen, W. (2017). A comparative study of funding shareholder litigation. Shanghai: Springer. Chew, C. (2009). Strategic positioning in voluntary and charitable organizations. New York: Routledge. Chun, R. (2005). Corporate reputation: meaning and measurement. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(2), 91-109.
  10. Chun, R., & Davies, G. (2006). The influence of corporate character on customers and employees: exploring similarities and differences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 138-146.
  11. Coltman, T., Devinney, T. M., Midgley, D. F., & Venaik, S. (2008). Formative versu