Chicago Sosyoloji Okulu’nun Etnografik Mirasını Yeniden Okumak: Dijital Etnografi Çağında Sembolik Etkileşimcilik

Year 2017, Volume: 4 Issue: 1 - Ethnography, 135 - 154, 15.06.2017

Oya Morva

Abstract

Chicago Sosyoloji Okulu’nun etnografi çalışmalarına, teorik ve metodolojik olarak önemli katkıları olmuştur. Metodolojik özgünlükleri ile erken dönem kent monografileri ve sembolik etkileşimcilik teorisi bu katkıların en bilinenleridir. Bu çalışmanın odağında, söz konusu etnografik mirasın, özellikle sembolik etkileşimcilik perspektifinin, günümüz dijital etnografi çalışmaları açısından ne anlama geldiği sorusu yer alır. Bu doğrultuda, bu çalışma (i) Chicago etnografi literatürünü ana hatları ile ele alır; (ii) sembolik etkileşimcilik teorisini, Chicago Okulu’nun etnografi geleneği açısından konumlar; (iii) sembolik etkileşimciliğin, dijital etnografi araştırmalarıyla nasıl ilişkilendiğini analiz eder.

Keywords

Chicago Okulu, etkileşimci sosyal teori, sembolik etkileşimcilik, etnografi, dijital etnografi

Rereading the Ethnographic Legacy of the Chicago School of Sociology: Symbolic Interactionism in The Age of Digital Ethnography

Abstract

The Chicago School of Sociology has made important theoretical and methodological contributions to the field of ethnographic studies. The urban monographs of the early Chicago School and the theory of symbolic interactionism are the most recognised of these contributions. The focus of this study is on the following question: What does the Chicago School’s ethnographic legacy in general and in particular its theory of symbolic interactionism mean for the current digital ethnographic studies? Hence, this study (i) discusses the outlines of the literature of the Chicago ethnographic research; (ii) indicates the position of the theory of symbolic interactionism in the school’s tradition of ethnography; (iii) analyses how the theory of symbolic interactionism relates to the digital ethnographic studies. 

Keywords

Chicago School, interactionist social theory, symbolic interactionism, ethnography, digital ethnography

References

• Abbott, A. (1999). Department and disciplin at one hundred. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Alyanak, B. A. (2014). Etnografi ve çevrimiçi etnografi. Mutlu Binark (Der.), içinde, Yeni medya çalışmalarında araştırma yöntem ve teknikleri (s. 117-164). İstanbul: Ayrıntı.
• Anderson, N. (1923). The hobo: The sociology of the homeless man. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Benzies, K. M. ve Allen, M. N. (2000). Symbolic interactionism as a theoretical perspective for multiple method research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 33(4), 541-541.
• Binark, M. (2007). Yeni medya çalışmalarında yeni sorular ve yöntem sorunu. Mutlu Binark (Der.), içinde, Yeni medya çalışmaları. (s. 21-44). Ankara: Dipnot.
• Binark, M. ve Bayraktutan-Sütcü, G. (2009). Practicing identity in the digital game world: The Turkish tribes’ community practices in “silkroad online”. Yasmine Abbas ve Fred Dervin (Der.), içinde, Digital technolgies of the self (s. 61-84). New Castle: Cambridge Scholar.
• Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Boyd, D. (2015). Making sense of teen life: Strategies for capturing ethnographic data in a networked era. Eszter Hargittai ve Christian Sandvig (Der.), içinde, Digital research confidential: The secrets of studying behavior online (s. 79-103). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Bulmer, M. (1984). The chicago school of sociology: Institutionalization, diversity, and the rise of sociological research. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Bullingham, L. ve Vasconcelos, A. C. (2013). The presentation of self in the online world: Goffman and the study of online identities. Journal of Information Science, 39 (1), 1-12. doi:10. 1177/0165551512470051.
• Castells, M. (2001). The internet galaxy: Reflections on the internet, business, and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Cressey, P. G. (1932). The taxi dance hall: A sociological study in commercialized recreation and city life. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Cuff E. C., Sharrock,W. W. ve Franciss, D. W. (1998). Perspectives in sociology. Londra ve New York: Routledge.
• Deegan, M. J. (2001). The Chicago School of ethnography. Paul Atkinson, Amanda Coffey, Sara Delamont, John Lofland, Lyn Lofland (Der.), içinde, The handbook of ethnography (s. 11-25). Londra: Sage.
• Ergül, H. (2013). Sahanın sesleri: İletişim araştırmalarında etnografik yöntem. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
• Faris, R. E. (1967). Chicago Sociology: 1920-1932. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Gatson, S. N. ve Zweerink, A. (2004). Ethnography online: ‘Natives’ practising and inscribing community. Qualitative Research, 4 (2), 179–200.
• Goffman, E. (2009). Günlük yaşamda benliğin sunumu. (B. Cezar, Çev.). İstanbul: Metis.
• Goodwin, J. (2012). Secondary data analysis. Londra: Sage.
• Hammersley, M. (1992). What is wrong with ethnography? Methodological explorations. Londra ve New York: Routledge.
• Hine, C. M. (2000). Virtual ethnography. Londra, Thousand Oaks ve Calif: Sage.
• Hine, C. M. (2005). Virtual methods. Oxford ve New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
• Hjorth, L. (2005). Postal presence: The persistence of the post metaphorcin current sms/mms practices. Fibreculture Journal. Issue 6. Erişim http://journal.fibreculture.org/issue6/issue6_hjorth_print.html
• Joas, H. (1993). Pragmatism and social theory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Jones-Scott, J. ve Watt, S. (2010). Ethnography in social science practice. Oxford: Routledge.
• Kalinowski, C. ve Matei, S. A. (2011). Goffman meets online dating: Exploring the virtually socially produces self. Journal of Social Informatics, (16), 6-20.
• Kozinets, R. V. (2009). Netnography: Doing ethnographic research online. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
• Kurtz, L. R. (1984). Evaluating Chicago Sociology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Kuş, O. (2016). Dijital nefret söylemini anlamak. İÜ İletişim Fakültesi Dergisi. 51 (2), 97-121.
• Mead, G. H. (1992). Mind, self and society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Miller, H. (1995). The presentation of self in electronic life: Goffman on the internet. Embodied Knowledge and Virtual Space Conference Proceedings, Goldsmiths' College. http://www.dourish.com/classes/ics234cw04/miller2.pdf.
• Milne, E. (2010). Letters, postcards, email: Technologies of presence. New York ve Oxon: Routledge.
• McKinney, J. C. (1966). Constructive typlogy and social theory. New York: Meredith Publishing Co.
• Murthy, D. (2011) Emergent digital ethnographic methods for social research. Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber (Der.), içinde, The handbook of emergent technologies in social research (s. 158-179). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Musof, G. R. (2003). The Chicago School. Lary T. Raynolds ve Nancy J. Hermann-Kinney (Der.), içinde, Handbook of symbolic interactionism (s. 91-119). Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.
• Morva O. (2014). Goffman’ın dramaturjik yaklaşımı ve dijital ortamda kimlik tasarımı: Sosyal paylaşım ağı Facebook üzerine bir inceleme. Süreyya Çakır (Der.), içinde, Medya ve tasarım (s. 231-255). İstanbul: Urzeni.
• O’Reilly, K. (2009). Key concepts in ethnography. Londra: Sage.
• Pink, S., Horst, H., Postill, J., Hjorth, L., Lewis, T., Tacchi, J. (2015). Digital ethnography: Princibles and practice. Londra: Sage.
• Prus, R. (1996). Symbolic interaction and ethnographic research: Intersubjectivity and the study of human lived experience. Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Rainie, L. ve Wellman, B. (2012). Networked: the new social operating system. Londra: The MIT Press.
• Reid, E. (1995). Virtual worlds: Culture and imagination. Stephen C. Jones (Der.), içinde, Cybersociety: Computer-mediated communication and community (s. 164–93). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
• Robinson L, ve Schulz J. (2011). New fieldsites, new methods: new ethnographic opportunities. Sharlane Nagy Hesse-Biber (Der.), içinde, The handbook of emergent technologies in social research. (s. 180-198). OX: Oxford University Press.
• Rock, P. (2001). Symbolic interactionism and ethnography. Paul Atkinson, Amanda Coffey, Sara Delamont, John Lofland, Lyn Lofland (Der.), içinde, The handbook of ethnography (s. 26-39). London: Sage.
• Rogers, E. (1973). Mass media and interpersonal communications. Ithiel De Sola Pool (Der.), içinde, Handbook of communication (s. 290-310). Chicago: Rand McNally.
• Sinatti, G. (2008). The polish peasant revisited: Thomas and znaniecki’s classic in the light of contemporary transnational migration theory. Sociologica (2). Erişim http://www.sociologica.mulino.it/journal/article/index/Article/Journal:ARTICLE:253.
• Skidmore, W. (1979). Theoretical thinking in sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Thomas W. I. ve Znaniecki F. (1918). The polish peasant in europe and america. Boston: The Gorham Press.
• Tan, M., Zhu, L. ve Wang, X. (2003). Symbolic interactionist ethnography: Toward congruence and trustworthiness. AMCIS 2003 Proceedings. Paper 377. Erişim http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2003/377/.
• Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the internet. New York: Simon & Schuster.
• Van Krieken, R., Habibis, D., Smith, P., Hutchins, B., Martin, G., Maton, K. (2014). Sociology: Themes and perspectives, 5th edition. Sydney: Pearson Education.
• Wiley, N. (1986). Early American sociology and the polish peasant. Sociological Theory, 4 (1), 20-40.
• Zhao, S. (2005). The digital self: through the looking glass of telecopresent others. Symbolic Interaction, 28(3), 387-405.