A Semiotic Network Comparison of Technocratic and Populist Discourses in Turkey

  • Ahmet K. Süerdem
Part of the Studies in Public Choice book series (SIPC, volume 15)


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.


Political Discourse Semiotic System High Betweenness Centrality Connotative Meaning Semiotic Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Belsey, C.1980. Critical practice. London: MethuenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Borgatti, S. P., M. G. Everett, et al. 2002. UCINET 6 for windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard: Analytic Technologies. Accessed 23 April 2006.
  3. Boyatzis, R. E. 1998. Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Carley, K. M. 1997. Extracting team mental models through textual analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior 18: 533–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. D'Andrade, R. G. 1995. The development of cognitive anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. 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. Accessed 14 October 2007.
  9. Doornbos, M. 2003. “Good governance”: The metamorphosis of a policy metaphor. Journal of International Affairs 57(1): 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dunleavy, P. 1994. The globalization of public services production: Can government be ‘best in world’? Public Policy and Administration 9(2): 36–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eco, U. 1976. A theory of semiotics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  12. 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.∼iiqm/backissues/5_1/html/fereday.htm/ Accessed 26 November 2007.
  13. Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  14. Geertz, C. 1973. The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  15. Gibson, E. 1997. The populist road to market reform: Policy and electoral coalitions in Mexico and Argentina. World Politics 49(2): 339–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Halliday, M. A. K. and J. R. Martin. 1993. Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hanneman, R. A. and M. Riddle 2005. Introduction to social network methods. Riverside, CA: University of California Press, Riverside˜hanneman/ Accessed 26 September 2008.
  18. Holmes, M. 1992. Public sector management reform: Convergence or divergence? Governance 5(4): 472–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hood, C. 1991. A public management for all seasons? Public Administration 69(1): 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hood, C. 1994. Contemporary public management: A new global paradigm? Public Policy and Administration 10(2): 104–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Jameson, F. 1972. The prison-house of language. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  23. Knight, A. 1998. Populism and neo-populism in Latin America, especially Mexico. Journal of Latin American Studies 30: 223–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krippendorff, K. 2003. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Leiss, W., S. Kline, et al. 1990. Social communication in advertising: Persons, products and images of well-being. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Lincoln, Y. and E. G. Guba. 1995. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Martinet, A. 1964. Elements of general lingusitics. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
  29. McKenna, B. J. and P. Graham. 2000. Technocratic discourse: A primer. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 30(3): 219–247.Google Scholar
  30. Meynaud, J. 1968. Technocracy. London: Faber.Google Scholar
  31. Murillo, V. 2002. Political bias in policy convergence: Privatization choices in Latin America. World Politics 54: 462–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Osborne, D. and T. Gaebler. 1993. Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  33. Parker, I. 1999. Critical textwork: An introduction to varieties of discourse and analysis. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Peledeau, N. 2004. QDA Miner: User's guide. Montreal: Provalis Research.Google Scholar
  35. Pollitt, C. 2002. Clarifying convergence: Striking similarities and durable differences in public management reform. Public Management Review 4(1): 471–492.Google Scholar
  36. Popping, R. 2000. Computer-assisted text analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Rhees, R., Ed. 1999. Wittgenstein and the possibility of discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Roberts, K. 1995. Neoliberalism and the transformation of populism in Latin America. World Politics 48(1): 82–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Saussure, F. de. [1916] 1983. Course in general linguistics. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Sturrock, J. (1986). Structuralism. London: PaladinGoogle Scholar
  43. Swidler, A. 1986. Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review 51(2): 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Weyland, K. 1996. Neopopulism and neoliberalism in Latin America. Studies in Comparative International Development 31(1): 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Young, M. D. 1996. Cognitive mapping meets semantic networks. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 40(3): 395–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business AdministrationIstanbul Bilgi UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations