A Semiotic Network Comparison of Technocratic and Populist Discourses in Turkey
This chapter argues that despite the convergence of their superficial contents, political and technical discourses are still substantially different in terms of the semiotic structures embodying their logic of articulation. The semiotic structures of populist and technocratic discourses are empirically elicited and compared through a semiotic mapping methodology based on the principles of mathematical network analysis and interpretive semiotic analysis. Findings suggest evidence about the differentiation of populist and technocratic discourses in terms of their semiotic structures for the samples collected from the Turkish political context. Despite its limitations, the semiotic mapping approach developed in this study offers promising methods for bridging the quantitative and qualitative methods for the analysis of policy discourses.
KeywordsPolitical Discourse Semiotic System High Betweenness Centrality Connotative Meaning Semiotic Analysis
- Borgatti, S. P., M. G. Everett, et al. 2002. UCINET 6 for windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard: Analytic Technologies. http://www.analytictech.com/downloaduc6.htm/ Accessed 23 April 2006.
- Boyatzis, R. E. 1998. Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Clay, E. J. and B. B. Schaffer. 1986. Room for manoeuvre: An explanation of public policy in agriculture and rural development. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
- Crabtree, B. F. and W. L. Miller 2005. Clinical Research. In The Sage handbook of qualitative research. eds. N. K. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, 605–650. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- D'Andrade, R. G. 1995. The development of cognitive anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Diesner, J. and K. M. Carley. 2004. Using network text analysis to detect the organizational structure of covert networks. Proceedings of the NAACSOS 2004 Conference, Pittsburgh, PA. http://www.cos.cs.cmu.edu/papers.php/. Accessed 14 October 2007.
- Eco, U. 1976. A theory of semiotics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
- Fereday, J. and E. Muir-Cochrane. 2006. Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5(1), Article 7. http://www.ualberta.ca/∼iiqm/backissues/5_1/html/fereday.htm/ Accessed 26 November 2007.
- Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Geertz, C. 1973. The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Halliday, M. A. K. and J. R. Martin. 1993. Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
- Hanneman, R. A. and M. Riddle 2005. Introduction to social network methods. Riverside, CA: University of California Press, Riverside http://faculty.ucr.edu/˜hanneman/ Accessed 26 September 2008.
- Jakobson, R. 1971. Language in relation to other communication systems. In Selected Writings , Vol. 2. ed. R. Jakobson, 570–579. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
- Jameson, F. 1972. The prison-house of language. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
- Krippendorff, K. 2003. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Laclau, E. 2005. Populism: What's in a name? In Populism and the mirror of democracy. ed. F. Panizza, 32–50. London: Verso.Google Scholar
- Leiss, W., S. Kline, et al. 1990. Social communication in advertising: Persons, products and images of well-being. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
- Lincoln, Y. and E. G. Guba. 1995. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Martinet, A. 1964. Elements of general lingusitics. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
- McKenna, B. J. and P. Graham. 2000. Technocratic discourse: A primer. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 30(3): 219–247.Google Scholar
- Meynaud, J. 1968. Technocracy. London: Faber.Google Scholar
- Osborne, D. and T. Gaebler. 1993. Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
- Parker, I. 1999. Critical textwork: An introduction to varieties of discourse and analysis. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
- Peledeau, N. 2004. QDA Miner: User's guide. Montreal: Provalis Research.Google Scholar
- Pollitt, C. 2002. Clarifying convergence: Striking similarities and durable differences in public management reform. Public Management Review 4(1): 471–492.Google Scholar
- Popping, R. 2000. Computer-assisted text analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Rhees, R., Ed. 1999. Wittgenstein and the possibility of discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Rubin, I. S. and J. Kelly. 2005. Budget and accounting reforms. In The Oxford handbook of public management. eds. E. Ferlie, L. E. Lynn-Jr. and C. Pollitt, 562–590. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Saussure, F. de.  1983. Course in general linguistics. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
- Sewell, W. H. 1999. The concept(s) of culture. In Beyond the cultural turn. eds.V. E. Bonnell and L. Hunt, 35–62. Riverside, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Sturrock, J. (1986). Structuralism. London: PaladinGoogle Scholar