Techno-Cultural Narrations: How did the Media Technologies Impact Social Life in Turkey?

Gulseren Sendur Atabek 1, Umit Atabek 1 *
More Detail
1 Yasar University, TURKEY
* Corresponding Author
Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, Volume 10, Issue 4, Article No: e202026.
OPEN ACCESS   1327 Views   687 Downloads   Published online: 29 Nov 2020
Download Full Text (PDF)


Oral history narrations give a detailed account of how social change actually happened. Subscribing to a holistic view, this paper pursues the directions of the historical changes in the Turkish media ecosystem since 1980’s through the narrations of 50 media professionals and media consumers. We used Nvivo for qualitative analyses and KNIME for quantitative analysis of narrations. These narrations gave us important clues on how people adapted themselves to such fundamental changes in media technologies. Our analysis revealed that media professionals were crafty enough to be innovative in adapting themselves into the new work practices, and had developed personal practical solutions to certain emerging technical problems. Media consumers on the other hand, were enthusiastic enough towards the new technologies. It is evident that the Turkish society in general adapted itself to a sweeping change in media technology and created a kind of techno-culture typical to developing countries which principally import such technologies as a part of their modernization processes.


Sendur Atabek, G., & Atabek, U. (2020). Techno-Cultural Narrations: How did the Media Technologies Impact Social Life in Turkey?. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 10(4), e202026.


  • Adaklı G. (2006). Türkiye’de Medya Endüstrisi: Neoliberalizm Çağında Mülkiyet ve Kontrol İlişkileri [Turkey in the Media Industry: Neoliberalism and Control in an Age of Property Relations]. Ankara: Ütopya-Utopia.
  • Aguiar M. (2007). Nazim Hikmet’s Modernism of Development. Journal of Modern Literature. 30(4), 105-121.
  • Akbulut H. (2018). Kültürel ve Toplumsal Bir Pratik Olarak Sinemaya Gitmek: Türkiye’de Seyirci Deneyimleri Üzerine Bir Sözlü Tarih Çalışması [Going to the movies as a cultural and social practice: An oral history on audience experience in Turkey]. TÜBİTAK Project No: 115K269, Ankara.
  • Arslan, S. (2011). Cinema in Turkey: A New Critical History. Oxford University Press.
  • Atabek Ü. (2017). Matbaadan Bilgisayara: Türkiye’nin İletişim Teknolojileri Serüveni [From printing to computer: Communications technologies adventure of Turkey]. In K. Alemdar (ed.). Türkiye’de Kitle İletişimi: Dün-Bugün-Yarın [Mass Communication in Turkey: Yesterday-Today-Tomorrow] (Vol. 1). Ankara: Gazeteciler Cemiyeti Yayını-Journalists Association Publication.
  • Atabek, Ü. (2020). Tarihten Geleceğe İletişim Teknolojileri [Communication Technologies from History to the Future]. Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.
  • Bakos, G. (2013). KNIME Essentials: Perform accurate data analysis using the power of KNIME. Birmingham: Pact Publishing.
  • Bazeley P., & Jackson K. (2013). Qualitative Analysis with Nvivo. Los Angeles: Sage.
  • Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.), Boston, MA: Pearson A & B.
  • Boratav, K. (2005). 1980’li Yıllarda Türkiye’de Sosyal Sınıflar ve Bölüşüm [Social classes and distrubition in 1980s in Turkey]. Ankara: İmge.
  • Bozdoğan S. (2012). Modernizm ve Ulusun İnşası: Erken Cumhuriyet Türkiye’sinde Mimari Kültür [Modernism and Nation Building: Architectural Culture in the Early Republic of Turkey]. İstanbul: Metis Publications.
  • Budak, A. (2012). The French Revolution’s Gift to the Ottomans: The Newspaper, The Emergence of Turkish Media. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(19), 157-169.
  • Cankaya, Ö. (2003). TRT: Bir Kitle İletişim Kurumunun Tarihi 1927-2000 [TRT: History of a Mass Communication Institution 1927-2000]. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Publications.
  • Celik B. (2011). Technology and National Identity in Turkey: Mobile Communications and the Evolution of a Post-Ottoman Nation. London: I. B. Tauris.
  • Christensen C. (2007). Breaking the news: Concentration of ownership, the fall of unions and government legislation in Turkey. Global Media and Communication, 3(2), 179-199.
  • Cooper, T. (2004). Inadequate Life? Evidence of Consumer Attitudes to Product Obsolescence. Journal of Consumer Policy, 27(4), 421-449.
  • De Luna K. (2018). Inciteful language: knowing and naming technology in south central Africa. History and Technology, 34(1), 41-50.
  • Felix, R., Rauschnabel, P. A., & Hinsch, C. (2017). Elements of strategic social media marketing: A holistic framework. Journal of Business Research, 70, 118-126.
  • Ford, S. (2010). Technological Obsolescence: Insights from the PC industry (Working Paper). Research Gate.
  • Fuchs, C. (2020). Everyday Life and Everyday Communication in Coronavirus Capitalism. triple, 18(1), 375-399.
  • Glacer, B.G. (2004). Remodeling grounded theory. The Grounded Theory Review: An International Journal, 4(1), 1-24.
  • Haake, S. (2016). Narrative Modes of Cinemagoing Memories. Alphaville: Journal of Film and Screen Media, 11, 78-91.
  • Kaba, B., & Osei-Bryson, K. (2013). Examining influence of national culture on individuals’ attitude and use of information and communication technology: Assessment of moderating effect of culture through cross countries study. International Journal of Information Management, 33(3), 441-452.
  • Kabacalı, A. (1998). Cumhuriyet Öncesi ve Sonrası Matbaa ve Basın Sanayi [Printing and Press Industry Before and After the Republic]. Istanbul: Cem Offset.
  • Kejanlıoğlu B. (2004). Türkiye’de Medyanın Dönüşümü [Transformation of the media in Turkey]. Ankara: İmge.
  • Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. New Delhi: New Age International.
  • Lefebvre, H. (2002). Critique of Everyday Life. Volume II: Foundations for a Sociology of the Everyday. London: Verso.
  • Li, H. (2016). “The Days When Ideals Shined”: Journalistic nostalgia and the myth of golden age in China. Communication and the Public, 1(4), 452-470.
  • Maher, C., Hadfield, M., Hutchings, M., & de Eyto, A. (2018). Ensuring Rigor in Qualitative Data Analysis: A Design Research Approach to Coding Combining NVivo With Traditional Material Methods. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 1-13.
  • Marx, K. (1992). Early Writings. London: Penguin Classics.
  • McCarthy, J., & Wright, P. (2004). Technology as Experience. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
  • Morgan, D. L. (2008). Snowball Sampling. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods (pp. 815-816).
  • Myllyntaus, T. (2010). Prologue: Constructing Technology for Everyday Life. Icon: Special Issue: Technology in Everyday Life, 16, 3-21.
  • Niedbalski, J., & Ślęzak, I. (2019). The Main Features of Nvivo Software and the Procedures of the Grounded Theory Methodology: How to Implement Studies Based on GT Using CAQDAS. In: A. Costa, L. Reis, & A. Moreira (eds.), Computer Supported Qualitative Research. WCQR 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing (Vol 861). Springer.
  • O’Donnell, P., Zion, L., & Sherwood, M. (2016). Where do journalists go after newsroom job cuts?, Journalism Practice, 10(1), 35-51.
  • Özgüç, A. (1990). Başlangıcından Bugüne Türk Sinemasında İlkler [Firsts in Turkish Cinema since the Beginning], Istanbul: Yilmaz Publications.
  • Pavlik, J. V. (2001). Journalism and New Media. New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Penley, C., & Ross, A. (1997). Technoculture (3rd. Ed.). University of Minnesota Press.
  • Pinch, T. (2009). The social construction of technology (SCOT): The old, the new and the nonhuman. In P. Vannini (ed.), Material Culture and Technology in Everyday Life: Ethnographic Approaches. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
  • Pinch, T., & Bijker, W. E. (2012). The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. Pinch (eds.) The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  • Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York: Vintage Books.
  • Ritchie, D. A. (2003). Doing oral history: A practical guide. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Romano, F. (2004). An Investigation into printing industry trends. Rochester Institute of Technology.
  • Scolari, C. A. (2012). Media ecology: Exploring the metaphor to expand the theory. Communication Theory, 22(2), 204-225.
  • Shaw, D. B. (2008). Technoculture: The Key Concepts. New York: Berg.
  • Silverstone, R., & Haddon, L. (1996). Design and the domestication of information and communication technologies: technical change and everyday life. In: Mansell, Robin and Silverstone, Roger, (eds.) Communication by Design: The Politics of Information and Communication Technologies (pp. 44-74). Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  • Thompson, P. (2000). The Voice of the Past Oral History (3rd Ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Tilic, D. (2001). Turkey 2001: Crisis of the Country, Crisis of the Media. Brussels: Association of European Journalists.
  • Tiryakioğlu, M. (2011). Teknoloji Transferi, Teknoloji Yoksulluğu mu? [Technology Transfer, Technology Poverty?]. Ankara University Journal of the Faculty of Political Sciences, 66(02), 169-199.
  • Tursi, V. & Silipo, R. (2018). From words to wisdom: An introduction to text mining with KNIME. Zurich: KNIME Press.
  • Wallman, S. (1979). Social Anthropology of Work. London Academic Press.
  • Winston, B. (1998). Media Technology and Society--A History: From the Telegraph to the Internet. London: Routledge.
  • Yeldan, E. (2001). Küreselleşme Sürecinde Türkiye Ekonomisi: Bölüşüm, Birikim ve Büyüme [Turkish Economy in Globalization Process: Distribution, Accumulation and Growth]. Istanbul: İletişim.