KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Yeni Medya / 2026 / Sayı: 16

Dijitalleşen Kentlerde e-Belediyecilik ve Halkla İlişkiler: TR42 Bölgesi Belediyeleri Üzerine Yorumlayıcı Bir İçerik Analizi

E-Municipality and Public Relations in Digitalized Cities: An Interpretive Content Analysis on TR42 Region Municipalities

Hasan Tutar(BOLU ABANT İZZET BAYSAL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-8383-1464
İlayda Uzun(BOLU ABANT IZZET BAYSAL UNIVERSITY)0009-0007-5908-8659
Sayfa
19–37
Yayın Tarihi
2024-06-29
🏛️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)

Araştırma sonuçları, e-Belediyenin dijitalleşen şehirlerde geleneksel halkla ilişkiler kavramlarını yeniden tanımladığını göstermektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Kentleşmeme anlayışının dijital düzleme taşındığı bir çağda, belediyelerde etkin yönetişim için dijital araçlardan yararlanma ihtiyacı e-belediyecilik olgusunu gündeme getirmektedir.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Bu araştırmanın temel amacı, dijitalleşen kentlerde e-Belediye ve Halkla İlişkiler arasındaki çok yönlü etkileşimi araştırmak ve teknoloji odaklı kentsel yönetişimin halkla ilişkiler dinamiklerini nasıl şekillendirdiğini incelemektedir.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Araştırma sonuçları, e-Belediyenin dijitalleşen şehirlerde geleneksel halkla ilişkiler kavramlarını yeniden tanımladığını göstermektedir.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:e-Devlet · e-belediye · halkla ilişkiler

Özet

Kentleşmeme anlayışının dijital düzleme taşındığı bir çağda, belediyelerde etkin yönetişim için dijital araçlardan yararlanma ihtiyacı e-belediyecilik olgusunu gündeme getirmektedir. Bu araştırmanın temel amacı, dijitalleşen kentlerde e-Belediye ve Halkla İlişkiler arasındaki çok yönlü etkileşimi araştırmak ve teknoloji odaklı kentsel yönetişimin halkla ilişkiler dinamiklerini nasıl şekillendirdiğini incelemektedir. Yorumsamacı içerik analizi yöntemi ile kurgulanan bu çalışmanın örneklemini, TR42 bölgesi olarak sınıflandırılan Bolu, Düzce, Sakarya, Kocaeli ve Yalova oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmada söz konusu belediyelerin web siteleri; Güvenlik/Gizlilik, Yurttaş ve Sosyal Etkileşim ile Operasyonel-Formal-Enformasyonel ve Stratejik Beceri değişkenleri açısından yorumlayıcı içerik analizi tekniği ile analiz edilerek çeşitli önerilerde bulunulmuştur. Araştırma sonuçları, e-Belediyenin dijitalleşen şehirlerde geleneksel halkla ilişkiler kavramlarını yeniden tanımladığını göstermektedir. Bulgular, bilgiye erişimi kolaylaştırmak, yerel demokrasiyi güçlendirmek, vatandaşların karar alma süreçlerine katılımını mümkün kılmak, şeffaflık ve hesap verebilirlik bakımından e-belediyecilik önemli fırsatlar sunmaktadır. E-Belediyecilik platformları, vatandaş-belediye etkileşimi için önemli fırsatlar sunduğu ve topluluk katılımı duygusunu teşvik etmesi bakımından güçlü bir halkla ilişkiler aracı olduğu anlaşılmaktadır. Dijitalleşen şehirlerde e-Belediyecilik ve halkla ilişkilerin entegrasyonu, kentsel yönetişimde dönüştürücü bir değişime işaret etmektedir. Bu süreçte etkili halkla ilişkiler stratejileri, yalnızca iletişimi değil, aynı zamanda aktif vatandaş katılımını da vurgulayarak bu dinamik ortama uyum sağlamanın önemi artmaktadır. Buradan hareketle politika yapıcıların ve yerel yönetimlerin dijital okuryazarlık eşitsizliklerini ortadan kaldırmaya yönelik tedbirler almalarının önemi artmaktadır.

Abstract

In an age where the understanding of non-urbanization has moved to the digital level, the need to benefit from digital tools for effective governance in municipalities brings the phenomenon of e-municipality to the agenda. The primary purpose of this research is to investigate the multifaceted interaction between e-municipality and Public Relations in digitalizing cities and examine how technology-oriented urban governance shapes public relations dynamics. The sample of this study, designed with the hermeneutic content analysis method, consists of Bolu, Düzce, Sakarya, Kocaeli, and Yalova, which are classified as the TR42 region. The websites of the municipalities in question in the research were analyzed with interpretive content analysis techniques regarding Security/Privacy, Citizen and Social Interaction, and operational-formal informational and Strategic Skill variables and various suggestions were made. Research results show that e-municipality redefines traditional public relations concepts in digitalizing cities. Findings show that e-municipality offers essential opportunities to facilitate access to information, strengthening local democracy, enabling citizens' participation in decision-making processes, transparency, and accountability. E-municipality platforms are a powerful public relations tool in that they provide essential opportunities for citizen-municipality interaction and encourage community participation. Integrating e-municipality and public relations in digitalizing cities points to a transformative change in urban governance. In this process, effective public relations strategies emphasize communication and active citizen participation, increasing the importance of adapting to this dynamic environment. From this point of view, the volume of policymakers and local governments to take measures to eliminate digital literacy inequalities increases.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Tutar, H., Uzun, İ. (2024). Dijitalleşen Kentlerde e-Belediyecilik ve Halkla İlişkiler: TR42 Bölgesi Belediyeleri Üzerine Yorumlayıcı Bir İçerik Analizi. Yeni Medya, Sayı: 16, 19–37. https://doi.org/10.55609/yenimedya.1366360

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (60)

  1. Ahuvia, A. (2001). Traditional, interpretive, and reception-based content analyses: Improving the ability of content analysis to address issues of pragmatic and theoretical concern. Social Indicators Research, 54(2), 139-172. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011087813505
  2. Bakardjieva, M. (2019). Platform politics in Europe| A tale of three platforms: Collaboration, contestation, and degrees of audibility in a Bulgarian e-municipality. ınternational Journal of Communication, (13), 5652-5670.
  3. Banks, M. (2001). Visual methods in social research. London: Sage.
  4. Barns, S., Cosgrave, E., Acuto, M., & Mcneill, D. (2017). Digital infrastructures and urban governance. Urban Policy and Research, 35(1), 20-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2016.1235032.
  5. Belil, E. F., Alhani, F., Ebadi, A., & Kazemnejad, A. (2018). Self-Efficacy of People With Chronic Conditions: A Qualitative Directed Content Analysis. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 7(11): 411. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm7110411
  6. Bergström, A. (2017). Digital equality and the uptake of digital applications among seniors of different age. Nordicom Review, 38(1), 79-91. https://doi.org/10.1515/nor-2017-0398
  7. Bojang, M. B., & Bwando, W. (2018). E-municipality applications in local government: prospects and challenges. The Proceedings & Abstracts of ICONASH 2018 Antalya, 86.
  8. Buchert, U., Wrede, S., & Kouvonen, A. (2023). Persisting inequalities in the digitalized society: migrant women facing coercive dimensions of everyday digitalization. Information, Communication & Society, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2023.2230265.
  9. Bulantseva, L. V. (2022). Digital PR and communication with B2B enterprises in the digital era. Russian Engineering Research, 42(10), 1089-1092. https://doi.org/10.3103/S1068798X22100070
  10. Chen, H., & Li, S. (2017). Sustainable urban development through smart city technologies. In A. Johnson (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Smart Cities (pp. 123-135). Springer.
  11. Churchill, N. (2020). Development of students' digital literacy skills through digital storytelling with mobile devices. Educational Media International, 57(3), 271-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2020.1833680
  12. Dastan, I. (2015). Digitalizing the municipality and factors affecting the acceptance of e-municipality: An empirical analysis. International Business Research, 8(12), 104. https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v8n12p104
  13. DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2016). From unequal access to differentiated use: A literature review and agenda for research on digital inequality. Social Inequality, 26(3), 355-400. https://doi.org/10.1086/678995
  14. Drisko, J. W. & Maschi, T. (2016). Content analysis. USA: Oxford University Press https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190215491.001.0001
  15. Elkhan, S. (2020). Problems and solutıons ın cıvıl relatıons wıthın the ımplementatıon of e-munıcıpalıty ın the republıc of Azerbaıjan. Economic and Social Development: Book of Proceedings, 4, 695-702.
  16. Erdemir, A. S. (2015). Digital pr in Turkey: How Turkısh brands ıntegrate content marketıng, socıal medıa and seo in pr campaıgns. Journal of Business & Behavioral Sciences, 27(2). 38-54.
  17. Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga, L., & Foronda-Robles, C. (2018). Digital governance and information technologies in local action groups (LAGs). Cogent Social Sciences, 4(1), 1528730. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2018.1528730.
  18. Ghaedi, Y., Mahdian, M., & Fomani, F. K. (2015). Identifying dimensions of creative thinking in preschool children during implementation of philosophy for children (P4C) program: A directed content analysis. American Journal of Educational Research, 3(5), 547-551.
  19. Ghaffari, M., Morowatisharifabad, M. A., Mehrabi, Y., Zare, S., Askari, J., & Alizadeh, S. (2019). What are the hemodialysis patients' style in coping with stress? a directed content analysis. International Journal of Community Based Nursing and Midwifery, 7(4), 309-318.
  20. Ghorbani, A., Sarmast, B., & Mahdi Pour, F. (2016). Examine the ınfrastructure of e-municipality in the metropolis Tabriz. Public Organizations Management, 4(2), 137-148.
  21. Giarelli, E., & Tulman, L. (2003). Methodological issues in the use of cartoons as data. Qualitative Health Research, 13(7), 945-956. doi: https://10.1177/1049732303253545
  22. Hauck, M. (2019). Virtual exchange for (critical) digital literacy skills development. European Journal of Language Policy, 11(2), 187-210. https://doi.org/10.3828/ejlp.2019.12
  23. Huang, Y. H. C., Wu, F., & Huang, Q. (2017). Does research on digital public relations indicate a paradigm shift? An analysis and critique of recent trends. Telematics and informatics, 34(7), 1364-1376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.08.012
  24. https://pitstop.com.tr/web-sayfasi-satir-uzunlugu/erişim 21.12.2023
  25. Johnson, A., & Davis, S. (2018). The role of social media in effective public relations. Public Relations Review, 44(3), 356-367.
  26. Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
  27. León, L. F. A., & Rosen, J. (2021). Technology as ideology in urban governance. In Smart Spaces and Places (pp. 166-175). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003145868-16
  28. Lisanti, A. J., Golfenshtein, N., & Medoff-Cooper, B. (2017). The pediatric cardiac ıntensive care unit parental stress model: refinement using directed content analysis. ANS. Advances in Nursing Science, 40(4), 319-336. https://doi.org/10.1097/ANS.0000000000000184
  29. Llorente Cejudo, M. D. C., Palacios Rodríguez, A. D. P., & Fernández Scagliusi, V. (2022). Learning landscapes and educational Breakout for the development of digital skills of teachers in training. Interaction Design and Architecture Journal, (53), 176-190. https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-053-009
  30. Lukas, M. (2019). Urban governance. The Wiley Blackwell encyclopedia of urban and regional studies, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0366
  31. Lyon, A. (2015). Political decentralization and the strengthening of consensual, participatory local democracy in the Republic of Macedonia. Democratization, 22(1), 157-178. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2013.834331
  32. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), Art. 20, Retrieved form http://nbnresolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0002204
  33. Nel-Sanders, D., & Malomane, A. (2022). Challenges and best practices for e-municipalities. Africa's Public Service Delivery & Performance Review, 10(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.4102/apsdpr.v10i1.646
  34. Neuendorf, K. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. London: Sage
  35. Nikolina, I. (2022). Democratic governance: local development. Humanization Concept of Public Administration: Theoretical and Methodological Fundamentals: Scientific Monograph. Riga. LaPra, 157-194. https://doi.org/10.30525/978-9934-26-202-9-8
  36. Norris, P. (2016). Digital divide: civic engagement, ınformation poverty, and the internet worldwide. Cambridge University Press.
  37. Ochoa, M., & Nonnecke, B. (2019, October). Increasing Human Development in Rural Mexico through Policies for Internet Access. In 2019 IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC) (pp. 1-6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/GHTC46095.2019.9033040
  38. Ozturan, M., Alacam, S., Coskun-Setirek, A., Hakyemez, T. C., Kebapci, H. A., Öztürk, E. & Taşan, E. (2017). Citizen-centric ıntegrated information system roadmap for municipalities. Journal of Public Administration and Governance, 7(4), 175-197.
  39. Perez-Escolar, M., & Canet, F. (2023). Research on vulnerable people and digital inclusion: toward a consolidated taxonomical framework. Universal Access in the Information Society, 22(3), 1059-1072. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-022-00867-x
  40. Phuapan, P., Viriyavejakul, C., & Pimdee, P. (2016). An analysis of digital literacy skills among Thai university seniors. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (Online), 11(3), 24. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v11i03.5301
  41. Pouralizadeh, M., Khankeh, H., Ebadi, A., & Dalvandi, A. (2017). Factors ınfluencing nursing students' clinical judgement: a qualitative directed content analysis in an ıranian context, Journal of Clinical And Diagnostic Research, 11(5), JC01-JC04. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2017/25753.9822
  42. Prabhakaran, V. M., Priyadharshini, S., Gayathri, R., & Kathiravan, T. (2018). Transformative and ınnovative e-municipality for the next generation using cloud. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, 5(2), 1-8.
  43. Raguvanshi, A., & Shrivastava, S. (2017). Status of social audit process for Mahatma Gandhi national rural employment guarantee act 2005 in chhattisgarh. International Journal of Social Sciences, 6(2), 137-142. https://doi.org/10.5958/2321-5771.2017.00015.1
  44. Reisdorf, B., & Rhinesmith, C. (2020). Digital inclusion as a core component of social inclusion. Social inclusion, 8(2), 132-137. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v8i2.3184
  45. Rodriguez, J. & Gomez, A. (2018). Smart city initiatives in Europe. Urban Studies, 45(6), 789-806.
  46. Sayed Ahmad, M. (2020). Assessment of development and application of e-municipality strategies in Palestine (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). An Najah National University.
  47. Sayımer, İ., Dondurucu, Z., & Küçüksaraç, B. (2019). Dijitalleşen kentlerde yönetişim: Marmara bölgesi büyükşehir belediyelerinin karşılaştırmalı e-belediyecilik uygulamaları. IBAD Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (5), 420-443. https://doi.org/10.21733/ibad.624340
  48. Smith, J. (2015). Smart cities: Transforming urban spaces. Academic Press.
  49. Staykova, E. (2023). The digital transformation of local democracy during the pandemic. ın participatory and digital democracy at the local level: European Discourses and Practices (pp. 347-360). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20943-7_21
  50. Torres-Toukoumidis, A., & Maeöts, M. (2019). Implementation of gamification strategies for the enhancement of digital competences. In INTED2019 Proceedings (pp. 9510-9518). IATED. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2019.2356
  51. Tutar, H. & Akar, F. (2023). The problem of digital disability in e-municipality: a study on metropolitan municipalities. İletişim Kuram ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, (62), 30-46.
  52. Tutar, H. & Parlak, İ. H. (2023). Sosyal medyanın halkla ilişkiler aracı olarak kullanımına ilişkin bazı tespitler: TR 42 Bölgesi belediyeleri örneği. Abant Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 23(1), 646-660. https://doi.org/10.11616/asbi.1219714
  53. Tutar, H., Parlak, İ. H., Tuzcuoǧlu, F., Başpinar, N. Ö., & Nam, S. (2023). Analyzing the web sites of metropolitan municipalities in Turkey in terms of digital access ındicators. Lex Localis, 21(2), 471-494. https://doi.org/10.4335/21.2.471-494(2023)
  54. Van Dijk, J.A.G.M. & Van Deursen, A.J.A.M. (2014). Digital skills, unlocking the information society. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137437037
  55. Van Dijk, J. A. (2017). Digital divide: Impact of access. The international encyclopedia of media effects, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0043
  56. Van Dijk, J., & Hacker, K. (2003). The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. The information society, 19(4), 315-326. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240309487
  57. Van Kalken, L., & Stamhuis, E. (2020). Digital equals public: assembly meetings under a lockdown regime. Eur. JL Reform, 22, 384. https://doi.org/10.5553/EJLR/138723702021022004005
  58. Wiig, A. (2016). The empty rhetoric of the smart city: from digital inclusion to economic promotion in Philadelphia. Urban Geography, 37(4), 535-553. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2015.1065686
  59. Williams, L. & Brown, M. (2019). Best practices in crisis communication: A study of effective public relations strategies. In S. White (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Public Relations (pp. 78-91). Springer.
  60. Záhorec, J., Hašková, A., & Munk, M. (2019). Teachers professional digital literacy skills and their upgrade. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 8(2), 378-393. https://doi.org/10.13187/ejced.2019.2.378