Abstract
In the previous chapters, various notions about social dialogue have been emphasized and the research outline about the theoretical framework was presented. At this stage, the primary issue that attracted attention was Turkish labour relations or more specifically social dialogue at the workplace level, which will be explained via existing theories and will be based on the historical background that is specific to Turkey. In this context, each of the existing theoretical approaches can explain a different aspect of the Turkish labour relations patterns. Moreover, there are forms of relations in which the theoretical approaches that are presented in the theoretical framework of the Turkish working life cannot be explained altogether. Therefore, there have been attempts to try and understand these forms of relations within both institutional traditions and personal expressions with the opinions of subjects representing working life. For this purpose, the hermeneutical approach has been selected as the method in this study and the in-depth interview is preferred as the basic research technique within the framework of the Delphi technique.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
As a result of the interviews conducted for this book, it has been clearly determined that there is no consensus amongst the social partners about the mechanism of social dialogue at the workplace level. For example, Türk-İş and the unions affiliated to it generally have a negative attitude towards workplace representation, whereas trade unions organized under the DİSK and Hak-İş Confederations and independent trade unions have presented positive opinions.
References
Akkaya, Y. (2006). Öyleyse ne yapmalı? http://www.kizilbayrak.net/sinif-hareke-ti/haber/artikel/54/oeyleyse-8220neya.html?no_cache=1&cHash=78208c65d8. Accessed December 18, 2008.
Buğra, A., Adaman, F., & İnsel, A. (2004). Çalışma Hayatında Yeni Gelişme- ler ve Türkiye’de Sendikaların Değişen Rolü. İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Sosyal Politika Forumu.
Danford, A., Richardson, M., Stewart, P., Tailby, S., & Upchurch, M. (2005). Workplace partnership and employee voice in the UK: Comparative case studies of union strategy and worker experience. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 26, 593–620.
Falzon, C. (2001). Foucault ve Sosyal Diyalog-Parçalanmanın Ötesi (H. Arslan, Trans.). İstanbul: Paradigma Yayınları.
Finlayson, J. G. (2007). Habermas (T. Kılıç, Trans.). Ankara: Dost Yayınları.
Grunberg, L., Moore, S., & Greenberg, E. (1996). The relationship of employee ownership and participation to workplace safety. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 17(2), 221–241.
Hardy, S., & Adnett, N. (2006). Breaking the ICE: Workplace democracy in a modernized social Europe. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(6), 1021–1031.
Karacaoğlu, Ö. C. (2009). İhtiyaç Analizi ve Delphi Tekniği; Öğretmenlerin Eğitim İhtiyacını Belirleme Örneği. In 1st International Conference on Educational Researches in Turkey, 1–3 May 2009, Çanakkale.
Kümbetoğlu, B. (2005). Sosyolojide ve Antropolojide Niteliksel Yöntem ve Araştırma. İstanbul: Bağlam Yayınları.
Lischeron, J. A., & Wall, T. D. (1975). Employee participation: An experimental field study. Human Relations, 28, 863–884.
Özdemir, Ş. (2006). MÜSİAD - Anadolu Sermayesinin Dönüşümü ve Türk Modernleşmesinin Derinleşmesi. Ankara: Vadi Publications.
Şahin, A. E. (2001). Eğitim Araştırmalarında Delphi Tekniği ve Kullanımı. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 20, 215–220.
Skulmoski, G. J., Hartman, F. T., & Krahn, J. (2007). The Delphi method for graduate research. Journal of Information Technology Education, 6, 1–21.
Uçkan, B. (2005). AB’de Sosyal Diyalog: Danışma Komitelerinden Çerçeve Antlaşmaları. İstanbul Universitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası, 55(1), 249–270.
Varçın, R. (1996) An analysis of conflict and cooperation in the informal sector of the economy in Turkey. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Oregon, Department of Sociology.
Varçın, R. (2004). İstihdam ve İşgücü Piyasası Politikaları. Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.
Wagner, J. A., Leana, C. R., Edwin, A. L., & Schweiger, D. M. (1997). Cognitive and motivational frameworks in U.S. research on participation: A metaanalysis of primary effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(1), 49–65.
Yıldırım, E. (1997). Endüstri İlişkileri Teorileri: Sosyolojik Bir Değerlendirme. Adapazarı: Değişim Yayınları.
Yıldırım, E., & Uçkan, B. (2010). İşverenlerin Sendikasızlaştırma Modelleri ve Türkiye Örneği. Çalışma ve Toplum, 2010(2), 163–184.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cam, E. (2019). Method. In: Social Dialogue and Democracy in the Workplace. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8482-9_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8482-9_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-8481-2
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-8482-9
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)