KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi / 2026 / Sayı: YZ (AI) ve Gelecek Perspektifler Özel Sayı

Kurtarıcı mı, yeni yük mü? Yapay zekâ çağında kadınların ev içi emeğinin dönüşümü üzerine fenomenolojik bir inceleme

Savior or new burden? A phenomenological study on the transformation of women’s domestic labor in the age of artificial intelligence

Gıyasettin Yıldız(HARRAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-5191-509X
Sayfa
1–22
Yayın Tarihi
2025-12-07
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Bulgular, YZ’nin ev içi alanda yarattığı karmaşık ve çelişkili dinamikleri ortaya koymaktadır: Teknoloji, bir yandan kadınların fiziksel emek yükünü hafifletip onlara yeni zaman alanları açarken, diğer yandan “yönetimsel emek” ve “dijital bakıcılık” gibi yeni zihinsel yükler getirmektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Bu makale, yapay zekâ (YZ) destekli ev teknolojilerinin, Türkiye’nin geleneksel ve ataerkil yapısıyla bilinen Şanlıurfa ilindeki kadınların gündelik yaşam deneyimleri üzerindeki çok katmanlı etkilerini fenomenolojik bir yaklaşımla incelemektedir.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Feminist teknoloji çalışmaları, teknolojinin evcilleştirilmesi ve görünmez emek kuramlarından beslenen bu çalışma, 25 kadınla yapılan derinlemesine görüşmelere dayanmaktadır.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Bulgular, YZ’nin ev içi alanda yarattığı karmaşık ve çelişkili dinamikleri ortaya koymaktadır: Teknoloji, bir yandan kadınların fiziksel emek yükünü hafifletip onlara yeni zaman alanları açarken, diğer yandan “yönetimsel emek” ve “dijital bakıcılık” gibi yeni zihinsel yükler getirmektedir.
🔬Tür:Literatür & Derleme Çalışması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Yapay Zekâ · Ev İçi Emek · Toplumsal Cinsiyet

Özet

Bu makale, yapay zekâ (YZ) destekli ev teknolojilerinin, Türkiye’nin geleneksel ve ataerkil yapısıyla bilinen Şanlıurfa ilindeki kadınların gündelik yaşam deneyimleri üzerindeki çok katmanlı etkilerini fenomenolojik bir yaklaşımla incelemektedir. Feminist teknoloji çalışmaları, teknolojinin evcilleştirilmesi ve görünmez emek kuramlarından beslenen bu çalışma, 25 kadınla yapılan derinlemesine görüşmelere dayanmaktadır. Bulgular, YZ’nin ev içi alanda yarattığı karmaşık ve çelişkili dinamikleri ortaya koymaktadır: Teknoloji, bir yandan kadınların fiziksel emek yükünü hafifletip onlara yeni zaman alanları açarken, diğer yandan “yönetimsel emek” ve “dijital bakıcılık” gibi yeni zihinsel yükler getirmektedir. Ayrıca, teknolojinin erkeklerin ev işi sorumluluğundan çekilmesi için bir “bahane” olarak kullanıldığı, ancak aynı zamanda teknolojik meraka dayalı “seçici” bir erkek katılımına da kapı araladığı gözlemlenmiştir. Kadınların, bu cihazları kişileştirerek ve onlarla duygusal bağlar kurarak “evcilleştirmesi”, teknolojinin sadece işlevsel bir araç değil, aynı zamanda sosyal bir aktör olduğunu göstermektedir. Çalışma, küresel bir teknolojik olguyu, kesişimsel (intersectionality) bir mercekle yerel bir bağlamda analiz ederek, teknolojinin toplumsal cinsiyet rollerini hem yeniden ürettiğini hem de müzakereye açtığını ortaya koymakta ve literatüre özgün bir katkı sunmaktadır.

Abstract

This article uses a phenomenological approach to examine the multi-layered effects of artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled home technologies on the everyday life experiences of women in Şanlıurfa, a city in Turkey known for its traditional and patriarchal structure. Drawing on feminist technology studies, domestication of technology and invisible labor theories, this study is based on in-depth interviews with 25 women. The findings reveal the complex and contradictory dynamics that AI creates in the domestic sphere: On the one hand, technology alleviates women’s physical labor burden and opens up new time spaces for them, while on the other hand, it brings new mental burdens such as “managerial labor” and “digital caregiving”. It has also been observed that technology is used as an “excuse” for men to withdraw from housework responsibilities, but it also opens the door to a “selective” male participation based on technological curiosity. Women’s “domestication” of these devices by personifying them and forming emotional bonds with them shows that technology is not only a functional tool but also a social actor. By analyzing a global technological phenomenon in a local context through an intersectionality lens, the study reveals that technology both reproduces and negotiates gender roles and makes an original contribution to the literature.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Yıldız, G. (2025). Kurtarıcı mı, yeni yük mü? Yapay zekâ çağında kadınların ev içi emeğinin dönüşümü üzerine fenomenolojik bir inceleme. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi, Sayı: YZ (AI) ve Gelecek Perspektifler Özel Sayı, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.30783/nevsosbilen.1742030

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (55)

  1. Aagaard, L. (2023). When smart technologies enter household practices: The gendered implications of digital housekeeping. Housing, Theory and Society, 40(1), 60-77. https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2022.2094460
  2. Aagaard, L., & Madsen, L. (2022). Technological fascination and reluctance: gendered practices in the smart home. Buildings and Cities, 3(1), 677–691. https://doi.org/10.5334/bc.205
  3. Alozie, N., & Akpan‐Obong, P. (2016). The digital gender divide: confronting obstacles to women’s development in africa. Development Policy Review, 35(2), 137-160. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12204
  4. Anthias, F. (2012). Hierarchies of social location, class and intersectionality: towards a translocational frame. International Sociology, 28(1), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580912463155
  5. Backåberg, S., Kåreholt, I., & Östergren, P. O. (2025). Predictors of physical activity level in older adults: A study based on the Swedish National Public Health Survey. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 33(1), 1-10.
  6. Bano, A., Tabassum, S., Khan, F., & Saleem, A. (2025). Unpaid domestic care provided by women factory workers: a survey study. HNJSS, 6(1), 137-160. https://doi.org/10.71016/hnjss/e1h8xj52
  7. Bastian, B., Metcalfe, B., & Zali, M. (2019). Gender inequality: entrepreneurship development in the mena region. Sustainability, 11(22), 6472. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226472
  8. Beltran-Figueroa, L. (2024). Understanding the second shift: Have technological advances reduced chore-time? Evidence from Colombia. University of Utah.
  9. Berker, T., Hartmann, M., Punie, Y., & Ward, K. (Eds.). (2005). Domestication of media and technology. Open University Press.
  10. Bittman, M., Rice, J. M., & Wajcman, J. (2004). Appliances and their impact: The ownership of domestic technology and time spent on household work. The British Journal of Sociology, 55(3), 401-423. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2004.00026.x
  11. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  12. Carlson, D. L., Petts, R. J., & Pepin, J. R. (2022). Changes in US parents’ domestic labor during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Sociological Inquiry, 92(3), 1217–1244. https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.12459
  13. Christian, M., & Namaganda, A. (2018). Transnational intersectionality and domestic work: The production of ugandan intersectional racialized and gendered domestic worker regimes. International Sociology, 33(3), 315–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580918764059
  14. Collins, P. H. (2019). Intersectionality as critical social theory. Duke University Press.
  15. Cowan, R. S. (1985). More work for mother: The ironies of household technology from the open hearth to the microwave. Basic Books.
  16. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
  17. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications. Çakıroğlu Çevik, A., & Con Wright, G. (2023). Hane içi karşılıksız emeğin zihinsel yük boyutu. Fe Dergi, 15(2), 50-83. https://doi.org/10.46655/federgi.1183599
  18. Forlizzi, J. (2007). The product ecology: Understanding social interaction and information in the use of domestic robots. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(8), 735-746.
  19. Haddon, L. (2007). Roger Silverstone’s legacies: domestication. New Media & Society, 9(1), 25-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807075201
  20. Haddon, L. (2011). Domestication analysis, objects of study, and the centrality of technologies in everyday life. Canadian Journal of Communication, 36(2), 311-323.
  21. Hargreaves, T., Wilson, C., & Hauxwell-Baldwin, R. (2018). Learning to live in a smart home. Building Research & Information, 46(1), 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2017.1286882
  22. Henwood, F., & Wyatt, S. (2019). Technology and in/equality, questioning the information society. Digital Culture & Society, 5(1), 183-194. https://doi.org/10.14361/dcs-2019-0111
  23. Kandiyoti, D. (1988). Bargaining with patriarchy. Gender & Society, 2(3), 274–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124388002003004
  24. Kelan, E. K. (2025). Patterns of inclusion: Exposing the gendered logics of digitalisation, automation and AI. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003427100
  25. Kennedy, J., Nansen, B., Arnold, M., Wilken, R., & Gibbs, M. (2015). Digital housekeepers and domestic expertise in the networked home. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 21(4), 408–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856515579848
  26. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.
  27. Luo, Y. (2023). Intergenerational digital support and older adults’ smart device use: The mediating role of digital literacy and the moderating role of social support. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 42(10), 2045-2055.
  28. Martens, M., Abeele, M. V., & Wolf, R. D. (2025). Home maintainer, guardian or companion? Three commentaries on the implications of domestic AI in the household. Family Relations, 74(3), 1098–1108. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.13162
  29. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. SAGE.
  30. Oakley, A. (1974). The sociology of housework. Policy Press.
  31. Oliver, S. (2023). Ann Oakley: new learning and global influence from working across conventional boundaries. London Review of Education, 21(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.14324/LRE.21.1.11
  32. Ovacık, B. (2025). Digital authority and the reproduction of gender inequality: Addressing gender bias in voice assistant development. Journal of AI, 15.
  33. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
  34. Petts, R. J., & Carlson, D. L. (2023). Managing a household during a pandemic: cognitive labor and parents’ psychological well-being. Society and Mental Health, 13(3), 187–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/21568693231169521
  35. Rode, J. A., & Poole, E. S. (2018). Putting the gender back in digital housekeeping. Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3196839.3196845
  36. Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). SAGE.
  37. Savcı, İ. (1999). Toplumsal cinsiyet ve teknoloji. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 54(1), 123-136.
  38. Schneiders, E., Kanstrup, A. M., Kjeldskov, J., & Skov, M. B. (2021). Domestic robots and the dream of automation: Understanding human interaction and intervention. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘21). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445629
  39. Silverstone, R., & Haddon, L. (1996). Design and the domestication of information and communication technologies: Technical change and everyday life. In R. Mansell & R. Silverstone (Eds.), Communication by design: The politics of information and communication technologies (pp. 44-74). Oxford University Press.
  40. Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. SAGE.
  41. Strengers, Y., & Kennedy, J. (2020). The smart wife: Why we need to talk about how the home is becoming a workplace. MIT Press.
  42. Strengers, Y., & Nicholls, L. (2017). The new digital housekeeping: How digital technologies are shaping and sharing domestic labour. First Monday, 22(10). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v22i10.8030
  43. Strengers, Y., Sadowski, J., & Nicholls, L. (2019). Protection, productivity and pleasure in the smart home: Emerging expectations and gendered insights from Australian early adopters. CHI ‘19: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300587
  44. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic Books.
  45. Turquet, L., et al. (2023). Feminist climate justice: A framework for action. UN Women.
  46. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu [TÜİK]. (2021). Ulusal eğitim istatistikleri veri tabanı.
  47. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu [TÜİK]. (2023a). Hanehalkı bilişim teknolojileri (BT) kullanım araştırması.
  48. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu [TÜİK]. (2023b). İstatistiklerle kadın, 2023.
  49. Üner, M. E. (2015). Şeriyye sicillerine göre Urfa’da kadın ve aile (XVII-XVIII. yüzyıllar). Harran Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 20(34), 22-38.
  50. van Manen, M. (2016). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy (2nd ed.). Routledge.
  51. Vindegg, M., & Julsrud, T. E. (2025). Digitised demand response in practice: The role of digital housekeeping for smart energy technologies. Energy Efficiency, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-024-10280-3
  52. Wajcman, J. (2000). Reflections on gender and technology studies: In what state is the art? Social Studies of Science, 30(3), 447-464. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631200030003005
  53. Wajcman, J. (2007). From women and technology to gendered technoscience. Information, Communication & Society, 10(3), 287–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180701409770
  54. Wajcman, J., & Young, E. (2023). Feminism confronts AI: The gender relations of digitalisation. In J. Browne, S. Cave, E. Drage, & K. McInerney (Eds.), Feminist AI: Critical perspectives on data, algorithms and intelligent machines (pp. 47–64). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192889898.003.0004
  55. Yapici, N. B., Tuglulular, T., & Basoglu, N. (2022). Assessment of human-robot interaction between householders and robotic vacuum cleaners. 2022 IEEE Technology and Engineering Management Conference (TEMSCON EUROPE) (pp. 204–209). https://doi.org/10.1109/TEMSCONEUROPE54743.2022.9802007