The Image of Turkey in The Eyes of Dutch University
Students
Hollandalı Üniversite Öørencilerinin Gözünde Türkiye ùmajı
ÖmerȱBAKAN ȱ ABSTRACT ThereȱareȱvariousȱimagesȱofȱTurkeyȱinȱtheȱeyesȱofȱDutchȱuniversityȱstudents.ȱThereȱmightȱbeȱaȱ lotȱofȱdifferentȱfactorsȱeffectingȱtheȱformationȱofȱtheseȱimages.ȱTheȱaimȱofȱthisȱstudyȱisȱtoȱdeterȬ mineȱtheȱimageȱofȱTurkeyȱinȱtheȱeyesȱofȱDutchȱstudentsȱofȱtheȱUniversityȱofȱAmsterdam.ȱȱ Inȱtheȱstudy,ȱfieldȱsurveyȱmethodȱhasȱbeenȱused.ȱDataȱhasȱbeenȱcollectedȱfromȱ280ȱstudentsȱbyȱ faceȬtoȱfaceȱsurveyȱtechnique.ȱAȱquestionnaire,ȱwithȱquestionsȱaimedȱtoȱdetermineȱtheȱattitudesȱ andȱimpressionsȱtowardsȱTurkey,ȱhasȱbeenȱapplied.ȱInȱtheȱanalysisȱofȱdata,ȱfrequencyȱdistribuȬ tions,ȱchiȬsquare,ȱandȱtȱtestsȱhaveȱbeenȱused.ȱTheȱfindingsȱofȱtheȱresearchȱindicateȱthatȱIstanbulȱ isȱtheȱfirstȱthingȱamongȱthoseȱcomeȱtoȱtheȱmindȱaboutȱTurkey.ȱMostȱofȱtheȱrespondentsȱlikeȱ TurkishȱpeopleȱandȱTurkeyȱasȱaȱstate.ȱTurkeyȱhasȱbeenȱperceivedȱasȱaȱfavorableȱcountryȱwithȱitsȱ food,ȱculture,ȱclimate,ȱhospitality,ȱseaȱandȱsun.ȱMaleȱstudentsȱhaveȱmoreȱpositiveȱattitudesȱ towardsȱTurkishȱpeopleȱthanȱfemaleȱstudentsȱhave.ȱȱ • ANAHTAR KELúMELER Image,ȱcountryȱimage,ȱTurkish,ȱTurkey,ȱimageȱofȱTurkey,ȱstudents,ȱDutchȱuniversityȱstudentsȱ • ÖZET HollandalıȱüniversiteȱöÂrencilerininȱgözündeȱTürkiye’yeȱiliókinȱçeóitliȱimajlarȱmevcuttur.ȱBuȱ imajlarınȱóekillenmesindeȱpekȱçokȱfarklıȱunsurunȱetkisiȱolabilir.ȱBuȱçalıómanınȱamacıȱAmsterȬ damȱÜniversitesiȱöÂrencilerininȱgözündekiȱTürkiyeȱimajınıȱbelirlemektir.ȱȱ Çalıómadaȱsahaȱaraótırmasıȱyöntemiȱkullanılmıótır.ȱVerilerȱ280ȱöÂrenciȱileȱyüzyüzeȱanketȱtekȬ niÂindenȱyararlanılarakȱtoplanmıótır.ȱVerilerinȱanalizindeȱfrekansȱdaÂılımları,ȱkiȬkareȱveȱtȱ ȱȱȱ BuȱçalıómaȱRusyaȱFederasyonu’nunȱTverȱóehrindeȱ7Ȭ12ȱEylülȱ2010ȱtarihleriȱarasındaȱdüzenlenenȱ FifthȱInternationalȱConferenceȱofȱtheȱRussianȱCommunicationȱAssociationȱCommunicationȱSpaces:ȱRanȬ ges,ȱ Limits,ȱ Resourcesȱ (Communicationȱ 2010)ȱisimliȱ sempozyumdaȱ bildiriȱ olarakȱ sunulanȱ metninȱ yenidenȱgözdenȱgeçirilerekȱgeliótirilmióȱhâlidir.ȱ
testleriȱkullanılmıótır.ȱTürkiye’yeȱyönelikȱtutumȱveȱizlenimleriȱbelirlemeyeȱyönelikȱsorulardanȱ oluóanȱbirȱsoruȱformuȱuygulanmıótır.ȱAraótırmaȱbulguları,ȱTürkiyeȱhakkındaȱaklaȱgelenȱilkȱ unsurlarȱarasındaȱGstanbul’unȱbirinciȱsıradaȱyerȱaldıÂınıȱortayaȱkoymaktadır.ȱAraótırmayaȱ katılanlarınȱçoÂuȱTürkȱinsanınıȱveȱülkeȱolarakȱTürkiye’yiȱbeÂenmektedir.ȱTürkiyeȱyemekleri,ȱ kültürü,ȱmisafirperverliÂi,ȱdenizȱveȱgüneóiȱileȱolumluȱbirȱülkeȱolarakȱalgılanmaktadır.ȱErkekȱ öÂrencilerinȱTürkȱinsanınaȱyönelikȱtutumlarıȱbayanȱöÂrencilereȱnazaranȱdahaȱolumludur.ȱȱ •ȱ KEY WORDS Gmaj,ȱülkeȱimajı,ȱTürk,ȱTürkiye,ȱTürkiyeȱimajı,ȱöÂrenciler,ȱHollandalıȱüniversiteȱöÂrencileriȱ
1.ȱIntroductionȱ
Imageȱisȱaȱconceptualȱpictureȱinȱtheȱmindȱofȱaȱpersonȱaboutȱaȱperson,ȱthingȱ orȱaȱcountry.ȱItȱmayȱbeȱaȱproductȱofȱsomeȱspecificȱpolitical,ȱsocial,ȱorȱreligiousȱ backgroundȱ orȱ circumstancesȱ (Saleemȱ 2007:ȱ 136).ȱ Imageȱ canȱ beȱ consideredȱ asȱ theȱmeaningȱsystemȱthatȱaȱpersonȱattachȱtoȱaȱphenomenonȱ(KemmingȱandȱSanȬ dikciȱ2007:ȱ34).ȱ MartinȱandȱErogluȱ(1993:ȱ193)ȱdefinedȱcountryȱimageȱasȱ“theȱtotalȱofȱallȱdeȬ scriptive,ȱinferentialȱandȱinformationalȱbeliefsȱoneȱhasȱaboutȱaȱparticularȱcounȬ try”.ȱȱ CountryȱimageȱmayȱbeȱconsideredȱasȱaȱspecialȱtypeȱofȱimageȱwhichȱincluȬ desȱtheȱcountryȇsȱproducts,ȱbrands,ȱcompaniesȱandȱmuchȱmore.ȱCountryȱimageȱ isȱ madeȱ onȱ theȱ basisȱ ofȱ experiencesȱ andȱ opinionsȱ aboutȱ theȱ nationȱ orȱ countryȱ andȱ on,ȱ primarily,ȱ informationȱ receivedȱ throughȱ theȱ variousȱ channelsȱ suchȱ asȱ politicsȱ (internalȱ affairsȱ andȱ foreignȱ policy),ȱ telecommunication,ȱ entertainmentȱ (movies)ȱandȱrumarȱ(JenesȱandȱMalotaȱ2010:ȱ5).ȱ ThereȱisȱaȱTurkeyȱimageȱinȱtheȱeyesȱofȱDutchȱpeople.ȱThereȱmightȱbeȱaȱlotȱ ofȱdifferentȱelementsȱeffectingȱtheȱformationȱofȱthisȱimage.ȱTheȱaimȱofȱthisȱstudyȱ isȱtoȱdetermineȱtheȱimageȱofȱTurkeyȱinȱtheȱeyesȱofȱDutchȱstudentsȱofȱtheȱUniverȬ sityȱofȱAmsterdam.ȱȱ TheȱnumberȱofȱtheȱacademicȱstudiesȱconcerningȱtheȱimageȱofȱTurkeyȱinȱtheȱ eyesȱ ofȱ Dutchȱ peopleȱ isȱ veryȱ limited.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ respect,ȱ theȱ studyȱ hasȱ realȱ imȬ portance.ȱTheȱfindingsȱandȱrecommendationsȱaboutȱtheȱimageȱofȱTurkeyȱwillȱbeȱ usefulȱ forȱ someȱ instutionsȱ bothȱ inȱ Turkeyȱ andȱ Netherlands.ȱ Theȱ governmentsȱ andȱ theȱ universitiesȱ ofȱ bothȱ countriesȱ mayȱ benefitȱ fromȱ theȱ findingsȱ ofȱ theȱ studyȱtoȱeliminateȱtheȱmisapprehensions,ȱtoȱchangeȱtheȱimpressionsȱandȱtoȱimȬ proveȱtheȱmutualȱunderstandingȱandȱrelations.ȱ
2.ȱTheoreticalȱBackgroundȱ
Countryȱ imageȱ isȱ theȱ cumulativeȱ beliefsȱ andȱ ideasȱ surroundingȱ informaȬ tionȱgatheredȱfromȱorȱaboutȱaȱparticularȱcountryȱ(PowersȱandȱFetscherin,ȱ2008:ȱ 148).ȱItȱisȱpossibleȱtoȱdefineȱcountryȱimageȱasȱpeople’sȱbeliefs,ȱideasȱandȱimpresȬ sionsȱaboutȱaȱparticularȱcountryȱ(Kotlerȱetȱal.ȱ1993:ȱ141).ȱ
Countryȱimageȱisȱlessȱfrequentlyȱmentionedȱinȱliteratureȱthanȱmoreȱwidelyȱ knownȱimageȱtypesȱ(JenesȱandȱMalotaȱ2010:ȱ3).ȱButȱmanyȱdisciplinesȱdealȱwithȱ
theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ countryȱ image.ȱ Theȱ conceptȱ hasȱ beenȱ usedȱ inȱ theȱ studiesȱaboutȱ placeȱbrandingȱ(AmineȱandȱChaoȱ2005:ȱ187),ȱinternationalȱmarketingȱ(Balabanisȱ et.all.ȱ 2002:ȱ 582;ȱ Parameswaranȱ andȱ Pisharodi,ȱ 2002:ȱ 259;ȱ Larocheȱ etȱ all.,ȱ 2005:ȱ 97),ȱinternationalȱpublicȱrelationsȱ(Kunczikȱ1997;ȱBecerikliȱ2005:ȱ12),ȱpublicȱrelaȬ tionsȱ(PeltekoÂluȱ2007:ȱȱ576),ȱmediaȱstudiesȱ(Saleemȱ2007:ȱ130),ȱdestinationȱimȬ age,ȱbrandȱimage,ȱcountryȱofȱorigin,ȱcountryȱbranding.ȱ
CountryȱimageȱmightȱbeȱconsideredȱaȱspecialȱtypeȱofȱimageȱwhichȱisȱshaȬ pedȱbyȱaȱwideȱrangeȱofȱfactorsȱ(Lopezȱ2011:ȱ1608).ȱHistoryȱ(Bouldingȱ1959:ȱ122),ȱ nature,ȱ geography,ȱ nationalȱ symbols,ȱ cultureȱ (Kolossovȱ 2002:ȱ 133),ȱ tourism,ȱ brands,ȱ economicȱ conditions,ȱ famousȱ citizens,ȱ people,ȱ foreignȱ andȱ domesticȱ policies,ȱcities,ȱandȱnaturalȱresourcesȱareȱtheȱimportantȱfactorsȱwhichȱcanȱshapeȱ theȱimageȱofȱaȱcountry.ȱ
Regardingȱ toȱ itsȱ direction,ȱ theȱ countryȱ imageȱ canȱ beȱ internalȱ imageȱ (selfȱ image)ȱ andȱ externalȱ imageȱ (mirrorȱ image).ȱ Theȱ internalȱ countryȱ imageȱ meansȱ whatȱcitizensȱthinkȱaboutȱtheirȱownȱcountry,ȱandȱtheȱexternalȱcountryȱimageȱisȱ whatȱothersȱorȱforeignersȱthinkȱaboutȱtheȱcountry.ȱ(JenesȱandȱMalota,ȱ2010:ȱ5).ȱȱ
Aȱsignificantȱpartȱofȱtheȱideasȱaboutȱtheȱforeignȱworldȱisȱformedȱduringȱtheȱ processȱ ofȱ initialȱ socialisation,ȱ firstȱ ofȱ allȱ underȱ theȱ influenceȱ ofȱ theȱ educationȱ systemȱ(Kolossovȱ2002:ȱ122).ȱ
Theȱ impressionsȱ aboutȱ aȱ particularȱ countryȱ mayȱ notȱ alwaysȱ matchȱ theȱ truth.ȱ Sometimesȱ theseȱ impressionsȱ mayȱ dependȱ onȱ stereotypesȱ orȱ prejudice.ȱ Interculturalȱcommunicationȱmayȱbeȱeffectedȱbyȱtheseȱsterotypesȱandȱprejudicesȱ (Kartarıȱ2006:ȱ217).ȱȱȱ
SimonȱAnholtȱdevelopedȱtheȱNationȱBrandȱIndexȱasȱaȱwayȱtoȱmeasureȱtheȱ imageȱ andȱ reputationȱ ofȱ theȱ world’sȱ nations.ȱ Theȱ questionnaireȱ forȱ allȱ surveyȱ countriesȱcontainsȱtheȱquestionsȱaboutȱtheȱawarenessȱofȱnationsȱandȱfavorabilityȱ toȱ theȱ nations.ȱ Thisȱ indexȱ measuresȱ countryȱ brandȱ valueȱ withȱ sixȱ dimensions.ȱ Theseȱdimensionsȱare;ȱȱexports,ȱgovernance,ȱcultureȱandȱheritage,ȱpeople,ȱtouȬ rism,ȱimmigrationȱandȱinvestmentsȱ(http://www.earthspeak.com).ȱȱ
Governmentsȱshouldȱgiveȱhighȱconcernȱtoȱtheirȱcountries’ȱimageesȱ(GaniȬ dehȱ 2012:ȱ 101).ȱ Forȱ improvingȱ theȱ country’sȱ image,ȱ theȱ stateȱ mustȱ achieveȱ deȬ mocracy,ȱimproveȱeconomy,ȱprotectȱheritageȱorȱdevelopȱinfrastructure.ȱ(Dagyteȱ andȱZykasȱ2008:ȱ68).ȱȱ
Aȱpositiveȱcountryȱimageȱbecomesȱanȱessentialȱforȱallȱcountries.ȱAȱcountryȱ mayȱ gainȱ economic,ȱ trade,ȱ andȱ politicȱ advantagesȱ byȱ aȱ positiveȱ imageȱ amongȱ
theȱotherȱinternationalȱplatformsȱ(AltınbaóakȱveȱYalçınȱ2008:ȱ2).ȱAȱpositiveȱimaȬ geȱ strengthenȱ theȱ countryȱ inȱ internationalȱ platforms.ȱ Developingȱ theȱ positiveȱ imagesȱ ofȱ theȱ countryȱ bringȱ comparativeȱ advantagesȱ toȱ theȱ countries.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ difficultȱ butȱ achievableȱ forȱ Turkey.ȱ Becauseȱ Turkeyȱ hasȱ reallyȱ valuableȱ andȱ strongȱassets.ȱȱ
TurkeyȱisȱknownȱasȱaȱnaturalȱbridgeȱbetweenȱAsiaȱandȱEuropeȱasȱtheyȱuniȬ teȱ inȱ theȱ Bosphorous.ȱ Importantȱ ancientȱ civilizations,ȱ whichȱ dateȱ backȱ toȱ 8000ȱ B.C.ȱandȱmadeȱtheirȱhomeȱinȱAnatolia,ȱhaveȱleftȱbehindȱcountlessȱarcheologicalȱ andȱ culturalȱ treasures.ȱ Inȱ additionȱ toȱ itsȱ wealthȱ historicalȱ andȱ culturalȱ inheriȬ tance,ȱTurkeyȱhasȱgreatȱdifferentȱrichnessesȱandȱvarietyȱinȱtermsȱofȱnaturalȱreȬ sourcesȱ(e.g.,ȱtheȱcountry’sȱ8,372ȱkmȱcoastlineȱincludesȱtheȱAegean,ȱMediterraȬ nean,ȱBlack,ȱandȱMarmaraȱSeas).ȱTurkey’sȱnaturalȱandȱculturalȱvariety,ȱcombiȬ nedȱwithȱtheȱwellȬknownȱtraditionalȱhospitalityȱofȱitsȱpeople,ȱmakesȱtheȱcountryȱ aȱveryȱimpressiveȱtouristȱdestinationȱ(SönmezȱandȱSırakayaȱ2002:ȱ186).ȱ
Theȱ countryȱimageȱ ofȱ Turkeyȱ sometimesȱ defiesȱ aȱ clearȱ delineationȱ dueȱ toȱ itsȱ geopoliticȱ location.ȱ Inspiteȱ ofȱ 99ȱ %ȱ Muslimȱ population,ȱ Turkeyȱ cannotȱ beȱ describedȱasȱaȱtypicalȱMiddleȱEasternȱcountry.ȱDifferentȱkindsȱofȱsourcesȱposiȬ tionȱ Turkeyȱaccordingȱ toȱtheirȱ ownȱ definitions.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱsomeȱ organizatiȬ ons,ȱTurkeyȱisȱinȱEurope;ȱaccordingȱtoȱothers,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱUnitedȱNations,ȱTurȬ keyȱisȱlocatedȱinȱAsiaȱorȱtheȱMiddleȱEast.ȱMeanwhileȱsomeoneȱthinksȱthatȱTurȬ keyȱ isȱ Europeanȱ andȱ someoneȱ thinksȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ Asianȱ (Sonmezȱ andȱ Sırakayaȱ 2002:ȱ188).ȱȱ
Theȱ resultsȱ ofȱ someȱ publicȱ opinionȱ surveysȱ indicateȱ thatȱ Turkeyȱ hasȱ anȱ imageȱ problemȱ amongȱ itsȱ targetȱ audiencesȱ (Kemmingȱ andȱ Sandikci,ȱ 2007:ȱ 33).ȱ ManyȱpeopleȱoppositeȱofȱTurkeyȱwhoȱliveȱinȱEuropeȱotheriseȱTurkeyȱasȱEasternȱ andȱ Muslim.ȱ Besidesȱ behavingȱ likeȱ this,ȱ theyȱ don’tȱ seeȱ theȱ realitiyȱ ofȱ todaysȱ Turkey.ȱ Theseȱ peopleȱ tryȱ toȱ attemptȱ reappearingȱ theȱ orientalistȱ prejudiceȱ andȱ imageȱthatȱmentionȱinȱtheȱpastȱespeciallyȱ19thȱcentury.ȱThisȱsituationȱdamagesȱ interculturalȱrelationshipsȱ(Yıldızȱ2006:ȱ44).ȱȱ TheȱgeneralȱimageȱofȱTurkeyȱseemsȱquiteȱgoodȱinȱEnglandȱandȱSpain,ȱbutȱaȱ mixedȱimageȱwasȱfoundȱforȱSwedenȱandȱSlovenia.ȱAlsoȱaȱclearlyȱnegativeȱpubȬ licȱimageȱofȱTurkeyȱwasȱobservedȱinȱTheȱNetherlandsȱandȱGermany.ȱTheȱgeneȬ ralȱimageȱofȱTurkeyȱinȱNetherlandsȱisȱnotȱgoodȱandȱbadlyȱmanagedȱbutȱimproȬ ving,ȱstrongȱandȱcolourfulȱ(KemmingȱandȱSandikciȱ2007:ȱ35Ȭ36).ȱȱ
Turkeyȱ mayȱ beȱ aȱ wellȬknownȱ countryȱ inȱ Netherlands.ȱ Becauseȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ largeȱTurkishȱpopulationȱinȱthisȱcountry.ȱAsȱofȱ2010,ȱTurksȱformȱtheȱlargestȱethȬ
nicȱ minorityȱ inȱ theȱ Netherlands.ȱ Theȱ Turkishȱ populationȱ inȱ Netherlandsȱ isȱ 384.164,ȱthusȱ2.31%ȱofȱtotalȱpopulation.ȱ
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Netherlands).ȱ
3.ȱMethodologyȱ
Inȱ thisȱ study,ȱ surveyȱ methodȱ wasȱ used.ȱ Theȱ dataȱ wasȱ collectedȱ fromȱ 280ȱ studentsȱofȱtheȱUniversityȱofȱAmsterdamȱbyȱfaceȬtoȬfaceȱsurveyȱtechnique.ȱTheȬ seȱstudentsȱwereȱfromȱ7ȱdifferentȱfacultiesȱofȱtheȱuniversity.ȱȱ
Today,ȱ withȱ moreȱ thanȱ 30,000ȱ students,ȱ 5,000ȱ staffȱ andȱ 250ȱ studyȱ progȬ rams,ȱUniversityȱofȱAmsterdamȱisȱoneȱofȱtheȱlargerȱcomprehensiveȱuniversitiesȱ inȱEurope.ȱTeachingȱandȱresearchȱatȱtheȱUniversityȱofȱAmsterdamȱareȱconducȬ tedȱinȱsevenȱfaculties:ȱtheȱHumanities,ȱSocialȱandȱBehaviouralȱSciences,ȱEconoȬ micsȱ andȱ Business,ȱ Law,ȱ Science,ȱ Medicineȱ andȱ Dentistryȱ (http://www.english.uva.nl/about_the_uva/).ȱȱ
TheȱsampleȱpopulationȱshowsȱtheȱgenderȱdistrubutionȱasȱhavingȱmoreȱfeȬ maleȱ thanȱ maleȱrespondents.ȱ Theȱ sampleȱ showsȱaȱdistributionȱ ofȱ ageȱ betweenȱ 18ȱandȱ37ȱ years.ȱ Theȱ followingȱ tablesȱ outlinesȱ theȱ demographicȱ characteristicsȱ ofȱtheȱsample.ȱȱ Tableȱ1:ȱDemographıcȱCharacterıstıcsȱ Genderȱ Nȱ (%)ȱ Maleȱ 115ȱ 41.1ȱ Femaleȱ 165ȱ 58.9ȱ Ageȱ ȱ ȱ 18Ȭ21ȱ 115ȱ 41.7ȱ 22Ȭ25ȱ 127ȱ 46.0ȱ 26ȱandȱaboveȱ 34ȱ 12.3ȱ Randomȱsamplingȱmethodȱwasȱusedȱinȱthisȱstudy.ȱFrequencyȱdistrubution,ȱ ChiȱSquare,ȱTȱTestsȱwereȱusedȱtoȱanalyzeȱdata.ȱȱ Principalȱquestionsȱofȱthisȱstudyȱare:ȱ
ȬWhatȱ isȱ theȱ firstȱ thingȱ thatȱ comesȱ toȱ theȱ mindsȱ ofȱ universityȱ studentsȱ whenȱtheyȱthinkȱaboutȱTurkey?ȱȱ
ȬWhoȱ isȱ theȱ mostȱ favoriteȱ Turkishȱ personolityȱ amongȱ Dutchȱ universityȱ students?ȱ
ȬDoȱtheȱstudentsȱlikeȱTurkeyȱandȱTurkishȱpeople?ȱȱ
ȬDoȱ theȱ attitudesȱ towardsȱ Turkeyȱ andȱ Turkishȱ peopleȱ differentiateȱ accorȬ dingȱtoȱgender,ȱhavingȱbeenȱtoȱTurkey,ȱstudents’ȱcommunicationsȱwithȱaȱTurȬ kishȱcitizenȱinȱtheȱpast?ȱ
4.ȱFindingsȱ
Basicȱ findingsȱ aboutȱ theȱ imageȱ ofȱ Turkeyȱ andȱ andȱ Turkishȱ peopleȱ inȱ theȱ eyesȱofȱDutchȱuniversityȱstudentsȱareȱpresentedȱbelow.ȱ
4.1.ȱTheȱStudents’ȱImpressionsȱaboutȱTurkeyȱandȱTurkishȱPeopleȱ
Inȱthisȱpartȱofȱtheȱstudy,ȱtheȱfirstȱthingȱthatȱcomesȱtoȱtheȱmindsȱofȱstudentsȱ whenȱ theyȱ thinkȱ aboutȱ turkey,ȱ theȱ mostȱ favoriteȱ featureȱ ofȱ Turkey,ȱ theȱ bestȱ brandsȱ ofȱ Turkeyȱ andȱ theȱ favoriteȱ Turkishȱ personalityȱ amongȱ Dutchȱ studentsȱ hasȱbeenȱmentioned.ȱȱȱ
4.1.1ȱ Theȱ Firstȱ Thingȱ thatȱ Comesȱ toȱ theȱ Mindsȱ ofȱ Studentsȱ Whenȱ Theyȱ
ThinkȱaboutȱTurkeyȱ
Aȱ questionȱ wasȱ askedȱ toȱ theȱ studentsȱ toȱ determineȱ theȱ firstȱ thingȱ thatȱ comesȱ toȱ theirȱ mindsȱ whenȱ theyȱ thinkȱ ofȱ aboutȱ Turkey.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ theȱ anȬ swers,ȱIstanbulȱ(%20.1)ȱisȱtheȱfirst,ȱholidayȱ(%11.0)ȱisȱtheȱsecond,ȱTurkishȱfoodȱ (%10,7)ȱ isȱ theȱ thirdȱ mostȱ givenȱ answer.ȱ Theȱ otherȱ answersȱ are;ȱ Donerȱ kebabȱ (%4.9),ȱ sunȱ (%4.9),ȱ Islamȱ (%4.2),ȱ Turkishȱ nationalȱ flagȱ (%4.2),ȱ Ataturkȱ (%3.8),ȱ Lahmacunȱ (%3.0),ȱ Turkishȱ communityȱ inȱ theȱ Netherlandsȱ (%2.7),ȱ cheapȱ vacaȬ tionȱ(%1.9),ȱmosquesȱ(%1.5),ȱniceȱweatherȱ(%1.5),ȱAnkaraȱ(%1.1),ȱAntalyaȱ(%1.1),ȱ beautifulȱcountryȱ(%1.1),ȱborderȱbetweenȱEuropeaȱandȱAsiaȱ(%1.1),ȱGalatasarayȱ (%1.1),ȱHagiaȱSophiaȱ(%1.1),ȱTurkishȱpeopleȱ(%1.1).ȱȱ
4.1.2ȱTheȱMostȱFavoriteȱFeatureȱofȱTurkeyȱ
Toȱ theȱ question,ȱ whatȱ isȱ theȱ mostȱ favoriteȱ featureȱ ofȱ Turkey,ȱ theȱ subjectsȱ answeredȱ asȱ following;ȱ ȱ %26.9ȱ ȱ Turkishȱ food,ȱ %15.5ȱ culture,ȱ %7.6ȱ itsȱ climate,ȱ %6.3ȱhospitality,ȱ%6.3ȱsun,ȱ%ȱ5.5ȱIstanbul,ȱ%ȱ5.5ȱholiday,ȱȱ%ȱ2.9ȱitsȱbeaches,ȱ%2,7ȱ niceȱ people,ȱ %2,1ȱ beautifulȱ country.ȱ Theȱ mostȱ favoriteȱ featureȱ ofȱ Turkeyȱ isȱ itsȱ food.ȱTheȱsecondȱmostȱimportantȱfeatureȱisȱculture.ȱ
4.1.3ȱTheȱBestȱbrandsȱofȱTurkeyȱȱ
Toȱ theȱ question,ȱ whatȱ isȱ theȱ bestȱ brandȱ ofȱ Turkeyȱ forȱ you,ȱ studentsȱ gaveȱ theȱfollowingȱanswers;ȱ%ȱ40.6ȱdon’tȱknowȱaȱspecificȱbrand,ȱ%ȱ9.8ȱdonerȱkebab,ȱ
%ȱ9.0ȱTurkishȱAirlines,ȱ%ȱ8.3ȱEfesȱPilsen,ȱ%ȱ6.8ȱGalatasaray,ȱ%ȱ2.3ȱFenerbahce,ȱ %ȱ2.3ȱOnurȱAir,ȱ%ȱ2.3ȱTarkan,ȱ%ȱ2.3ȱyoghurt.ȱAccordingȱtoȱtheȱstudentsȱtheȱbestȱ brandsȱofȱTurkeyȱareȱDonerȱkebabȱandȱTurkishȱAirlines.ȱ
4.1.4ȱTheȱMostȱFavoriteȱCitiesȱofȱTurkeyȱasȱaȱDestinationȱ
Whenȱ theȱ questionȱ “Whichȱ cityȱ inȱ Turkeyȱ isȱ aȱ goodȱ destination”ȱ wasȱ asȬ ked,ȱtheȱstudentsȱgaveȱtheȱfollowingȱanswers.ȱȱȱ Tableȱ2:ȱTheȱMostȱFavoriteȱCitiesȱofȱTurkeyȱasȱaȱDestinationȱ Orderȱ ȱ nȱ %ȱ 1ȱ Gstanbulȱ 189ȱ 75.9ȱ 2ȱ Alanyaȱ 23ȱ 9.2ȱ 3ȱ Antalyaȱ 12ȱ 4.8ȱ 4ȱ Bodrumȱ 9ȱ 3.6ȱ 5ȱ Ankaraȱ 5ȱ 2.0ȱ 6ȱ Marmarisȱ 5ȱ 2.0ȱ 7ȱ Othersȱ 6ȱ 2.5ȱ Totalȱ ȱ 249ȱ 100ȱ Asȱseenȱonȱtheȱtable,ȱaccordingȱtoȱ75,9ȱ%ȱofȱtheȱstudentsȱGstanbulȱisȱtheȱbestȱ destinationȱ inȱ Turkey.ȱ Althoughȱ theȱ conceptȱ “city”ȱ wasȱ usedȱ inȱ theȱ question,ȱ theȱ answersȱ ofȱ theȱ studentsȱ includedȱ someȱ districts’ȱ namesȱ suchȱ asȱ Alanya,ȱ Bodrumȱ andȱMarmaris.ȱ Theseȱ districtsȱ areȱ acceptedȱ asȱ popularȱ touristicȱ destiȬ nationsȱofȱTurkey.ȱȱȱȱȱ
4.1.5ȱFavoriteȱTurkishȱPersonalityȱamongȱDutchȱStudentsȱ
Aȱ questionȱ wasȱ askedȱ toȱ theȱ studentsȱ toȱ determineȱ theȱ favoriteȱ Turkishȱ personalityȱforȱthem.ȱ
Tableȱ3:ȱFavoriteȱTurkishȱPersonalityȱamongȱDutchȱStudentsȱ Orderȱ FavoriteȱTurkishȱPersonȱ nȱ %ȱ
1ȱ Tarkanȱ 48ȱ 33.6ȱ
3ȱ MyȱTurkishȱfriendȱ 18ȱ 12.6ȱ 4ȱ HakanȱSukurȱ 10ȱ 7.0ȱ 5ȱ OrhanȱPamukȱ 8ȱ 5.6ȱ 6ȱ NebahatȱAlbayrakȱ(DutchȱMinister)ȱ 4ȱ 2.8ȱ 7ȱ RustuȱRencberȱ 4ȱ 2.8ȱ 8ȱ Othersȱ 17ȱ 11.8ȱ Totalȱ ȱ 143ȱ 100ȱ Asȱseenȱonȱtheȱtableȱ3ȱtheȱstudentsȱgaveȱtheȱfollowingȱanswers;ȱTarkanȱ(%ȱ 33.6),ȱAtaturkȱ(%ȱ23.8),ȱmyȱTurkishȱfriendȱ(%ȱ12.6),ȱHakanȱSukurȱ(%ȱ7.0),ȱOrhanȱ Pamukȱ(%ȱ5.6),ȱNebahatȱAlbayrakȱ(%ȱ2.8),ȱRustuȱRencberȱ(%ȱ2.8).ȱTheȱmostȱfaȬ voriteȱpersonsȱofȱtheȱstudentsȱareȱTarkanȱandȱAtaturk.ȱȱ 4.2.ȱTheȱStudents’ȱAttitudesȱTowardsȱTurkeyȱ Inȱthisȱpartȱofȱstudyȱdistributionsȱofȱstudentsȱwhetherȱtheyȱlikeȱturkeyȱasȱaȱ stateȱorȱnot,ȱstudents’ȱattitudesȱaboutȱitemsȱtowardsȱTurkeyȱandȱdistributionsȱofȱ studentsȱwhetherȱtheyȱlikeȱTurkishȱpeopleȱorȱnotȱhasȱbeenȱdetermined.ȱȱ 4.2.1ȱDistributionsȱofȱtheȱStudentsȱWhetherȱTheyȱLikeȱTurkeyȱasȱaȱStateȱ orȱnotȱ
Toȱ theȱ question,ȱ “Doȱ youȱ likeȱ Turkeyȱ asȱ aȱ state”,ȱ %ȱ 85.8ȱ ofȱ theȱ studentsȱ answeredȱ asȱ “yes”,ȱ andȱ %ȱ 14.2ȱ ofȱ theȱ studentsȱ answeredȱ asȱ “no”.ȱ Mostȱ ofȱ theȱ studentsȱlikeȱTurkeyȱasȱaȱstate.ȱȱ Tableȱ4:ȱDistributionsȱofȱStudentsȱWhetherȱTheyȱLikeȱTurkeyȱasȱaȱStateȱ orȱnotȱ DoȱyouȱlikeȱTurkey?ȱ nȱ %ȱ Yesȱ 205ȱ 85.8ȱ Noȱ 34ȱ 14.2ȱ Totalȱ 239ȱ 100ȱ ChiȬsquareȱtestȱhasȱbeenȱappliedȱtoȱunderstandȱwhetherȱthereȱwasȱaȱsigniȬ ficantȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ communicatingȱ withȱ aȱ Turkishȱ citizenȱ andȱ likingȱ Turkeyȱasȱaȱstate.ȱȱ
ȱ ȱ
Tableȱ 5:ȱ Relationshipȱ Betweenȱ Communicatingȱ withȱ aȱ Turkishȱ Citizenȱ andȱLikingȱTurkeyȱȱ
ȱ DoȱyouȱlikeȱTurkeyȱasȱaȱstaȬ
te?ȱ
Totalȱ(%)ȱ Haveȱ youȱ everȱ communicatedȱ
withȱaȱTurkishȱcitizen?ȱ Yesȱ(%)ȱ Noȱ(%)ȱ Yesȱ 88.8ȱ 11.2ȱ 100ȱ Noȱ 60.0ȱ 40.0ȱ 100ȱ x²=12.93,ȱdf=1,ȱp<ȱ0.01ȱ Thereȱisȱaȱstatisticallyȱsignificantȱdifferenceȱbetweenȱcommunicatingȱwithȱaȱ Turkishȱ citizenȱ andȱ likingȱ Turkeyȱ asȱ aȱ state.ȱ Theȱ studentsȱ whoȱ communicateȱ withȱaȱTurkishȱcitizenȱlikeȱTurkeyȱmoreȱthanȱtheȱstudentsȱwhoȱdon’tȱcommuniȬ cateȱwithȱaȱTurkishȱcitizenȱ(x²=12.93,ȱdf=1,ȱp<ȱ0.01).ȱ
Thereȱ isȱ noȱ statisticallyȱ significantȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ havingȱ beenȱ inȱ TurkeyȱandȱlikingȱTurkeyȱasȱaȱstate.ȱThereȱisȱalsoȱnoȱstatisticallyȱsignificantȱrelaȬ tionshipȱbetweenȱlikingȱTurkeyȱandȱgender,ȱage,ȱdepartmentsȱofȱstudents.ȱ
4.2.2ȱTheȱStudents’ȱAttitudesȱaboutȱitemsȱtowardsȱTurkeyȱ
Someȱitemsȱhasȱbeenȱpresentedȱtoȱtheȱstudentsȱtoȱdetermineȱtheȱattitudesȱ ofȱ theȱ studentsȱ towardsȱ Turkey.ȱ Theȱ percentageȱ ofȱ theȱ studentsȱ whetherȱ theyȱ agreeȱ theȱ itemsȱ orȱ notȱ hasȱ beenȱ determined.ȱMeanȱ scoresȱ ofȱattitudesȱ towardsȱ Turkeyȱareȱshowedȱonȱtableȱ6.ȱȱ
Tableȱ 6:ȱ Students’ȱ Attitudesȱ towardsȱ Turkeyȱ (5=ȱ stronglyȱ agree,ȱ 1=stronglyȱdisagree)ȱ
ȱ Meanȱ Standartȱdeviationȱ
IȱcanȱvisitȱTurkeyȱasȱaȱtouristȱ 4.62ȱ 0.65ȱ
Turkeyȱ isȱ wellȱ developedȱ inȱ scienceȱ
3.06ȱ 0.63ȱ
Turkeyȱisȱaȱdemocraticȱcountryȱ 3.06ȱ 0.83ȱ
Turkeyȱhasȱaȱstrongȱeconomyȱ 3.04ȱ 0.67ȱ
AsȱseenȱonȱtheȱTableȱ6,ȱtheȱitemȱwhichȱhasȱtheȱhighestȱmeanȱscoreȱisȱ“Iȱcanȱ visitȱ Turkeyȱ asȱ aȱ tourist”ȱ ȱ withȱ 4.62.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ thisȱ resultȱ itȱ canȱ beȱ arguedȱ
thatȱ Turkeyȱ isȱ anȱ attractiveȱ touristicȱ countryȱ forȱ Dutchȱ students.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ theȱ itemȱ whichȱ hasȱ theȱ lowestȱ meanȱ scoreȱ isȱ “Turkeyȱ hasȱ aȱ strongȱ ecoȬ nomy”ȱwithȱ3.04.ȱȱ
Theȱ attitudeȱ “Turkeyȱ isȱ aȱ democraticȱ country”ȱ ȱ differentiateȱ accordingȱ toȱ genderȱ (t=2.19,ȱ df=ȱ 274,ȱ p<0.05).ȱ Theȱ meanȱ scoresȱ ofȱ maleȱ studentsȱ (3.19)ȱ areȱ higherȱthanȱfemaleȱstudentsȱ(2.96).ȱȱȱ
4.3ȱTheȱStudents’ȱAttitudesȱTowardsȱTurkishȱPeopleȱ
Inȱ thisȱ partȱ ofȱ study,ȱ theȱ students’ȱ attitudesȱ towardsȱ Turkishȱ peopleȱ hasȱ beenȱdetermined.ȱȱ
4.3.1ȱDistributionsȱofȱStudentsȱWhetherȱTheyȱLikeȱTurkishȱPeopleȱorȱnotȱ
Toȱ theȱ question,ȱ “Doȱ youȱ likeȱ Turkishȱ people”,ȱ %ȱ 96.5ȱ ofȱ theȱ studentsȱ answeredȱasȱ“yes”,ȱandȱ%ȱ3.5ȱofȱtheȱstudentsȱansweredȱasȱ“no”.ȱȱ Tableȱ7:ȱDistributionsȱofȱStudentsȱWhetherȱTheyȱLikeȱTurkishȱPeopleȱorȱ notȱ DoȱyouȱlikeȱTurkishȱpeople?ȱ nȱ %ȱ Yesȱ 247ȱ 96.5ȱ Noȱ 9ȱ 3.5ȱ Totalȱ 256ȱ 100ȱ Asȱseenȱonȱtableȱ7ȱtheȱpercentageȱofȱtheȱstudentsȱwhoȱlikeȱTurkishȱpeopleȱ isȱquiteȱhigh.ȱThus,ȱitȱcanȱbeȱunderstoodȱthatȱmostȱofȱtheȱstudentsȱlikeȱTurkishȱ people.ȱȱ Tableȱ8:ȱTheȱrelationshipȱBetweenȱCommunicatingȱwithȱaȱTurkishȱCitiȬ zenȱandȱȱȱLikingȱTurkishȱPeopleȱ ȱ DoȱyouȱlikeȱTurkishȱpeopleȱ Totalȱ(%)ȱ HaveȱyouȱeverȱcommuniȬ catedȱwithȱaȱTurkishȱcitiȬ zen?ȱ Yesȱ(%)ȱ Noȱ(%)ȱ Yesȱ 98.3ȱ 1.7ȱ 100ȱ Noȱ 73.7ȱ 26.3ȱ 100ȱ x²=31.01,ȱdf=1,ȱp<ȱ0.01ȱ
ThereȱisȱaȱstatisticallyȱsignificantȱdifferenceȱbetweenȱlikingȱTurkishȱpeopleȱ andȱcommunicatingȱwithȱaȱTurkishȱcitizen.ȱTheȱstudentsȱwhoȱhaveȱcommunicaȬ tedȱwithȱaȱTurkishȱcitizenȱlikeȱTurkishȱpeopleȱmoreȱthanȱtheȱstudentsȱwhoȱdon’tȱ communicateȱwithȱaȱTurkishȱcitizenȱ(x²=31.01,ȱdf=1,ȱp<ȱ0.01).ȱȱȱ
Thereȱ isȱ noȱ statisticallyȱ significantȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ havingȱ beenȱ inȱ TurkeyȱandȱlikingȱTurkishȱpeople.ȱThereȱisȱalsoȱnoȱstatisticallyȱsignificantȱrelaȬ tionshipȱbetweenȱlikingȱTurkishȱpeopleȱandȱageȱandȱdepartmentsȱofȱstudents.ȱȱ 4.3.2ȱTheȱStudents’ȱAttitudesȱTowardsȱTheȱItemsȱAboutȱTurkishȱPeopleȱȱ Meanȱscoresȱofȱtheȱstudents’ȱattitudesȱtowardsȱtheȱitemsȱaboutȱTurkishȱpeȬ opleȱareȱshowedȱonȱtheȱfollowingȱtable.ȱȱ Tableȱ9:ȱTheȱStudents’ȱAttitudesȱTowardsȱTheȱItemsȱAboutȱTurkishȱPeȬ opleȱ ȱ Meanȱ StandartȱdeviaȬ tionȱ IȱcanȱbeȱneighbourȱwithȱaȱTurkishȱcitizenȱ 4.51ȱ 0.63ȱ IȱcanȱmakeȱfriendsȱwithȱaȱTurkishȱcitizenȱ 4.50ȱ 0.58ȱ Iȱdon’tȱhesitateȱtoȱcommunicateȱwithȱaȱTurȬ kishȱcitizenȱ 4.49ȱ 0.63ȱ IȱcanȱbeȱaȱguestȱofȱaȱTurkishȱcitizenȱ 4.32ȱ 0.68ȱ IȱcanȱhostȱaȱTurkishȱcitizenȱ 4.15ȱ 0.79ȱ IȱcanȱmarryȱwithȱaȱTurkishȱcitizenȱ 3.34ȱ 1.13ȱ Asȱseenȱonȱtableȱ9,ȱtheȱitemȱ“IȱcanȱbeȱneighbourȱwithȱaȱTurkishȱcitizen”ȱhasȱ theȱhighestȱmeanȱscore.ȱTheȱitemȱ“IȱcanȱmarryȱwithȱaȱTurkishȱcitizen”ȱhasȱtheȱ lowestȱmeanȱscore.ȱSoȱitȱcanȱbeȱsaidȱthatȱDutchȱstudentsȱhaveȱstrongȱattitudeȱtoȱ beȱaȱneighbourȱwithȱaȱTurkishȱcitizen.ȱȱ TheȱresultsȱofȱstudyȱindicateȱthatȱthereȱareȱstaticticallyȱsignificantȱdifferenȬ cesȱbetweenȱsomeȱattitudesȱtowardsȱTurkishȱpeopleȱaccordingȱtoȱgender.ȱMeanȱ scoresȱofȱmaleȱstudentsȱareȱhigherȱthanȱfemaleȱstudentsȱwhoȱagreeȱwithȱtheȱfolȬ lowingȱattitudes:ȱȱ Theȱattitudeȱ“Iȱdon’tȱhesitateȱtoȱcommunicateȱwithȱaȱTurkishȱcitizen”ȱȱdifȬ ferentiateȱ accordingȱ toȱ genderȱ (t=ȱ 2.03,ȱ df=ȱ 275,ȱ p<ȱ 0.05).ȱ ȱ ȱ Theȱ meanȱ scoresȱ ofȱ maleȱstudentsȱ(4.58)ȱareȱhigherȱthanȱfemaleȱstudentsȱ(4.42).ȱȱ
Theȱattitudeȱ“IȱcanȱbeȱneighbourȱwithȱaȱTurkishȱcitizen”ȱȱdifferentiateȱacȬ cordingȱtoȱgenderȱ(t=ȱ2.72,ȱdf=ȱȱ277,ȱp<ȱ0.01).ȱTheȱmeanȱscoresȱofȱmaleȱstudentsȱ (4.63)ȱareȱhigherȱthanȱfemaleȱstudentsȱ(4.42).ȱȱ Theȱattitudeȱ“IȱcanȱmakeȱfriendsȱwithȱaȱTurkishȱcitizen”ȱȱdifferentiateȱacȬ cordingȱtoȱgenderȱ(t=ȱ3.93,ȱdf=ȱ277,ȱp<ȱ0.01).ȱTheȱmeanȱscoresȱofȱmaleȱstudentsȱ (4.66)ȱareȱhigherȱthanȱfemaleȱstudentsȱ(4.39).ȱ
Theȱ attitudeȱ “Iȱ canȱ marryȱ aȱ Turkishȱ citizen”ȱ ȱ differentiateȱ accordingȱ toȱ genderȱ (t=ȱ 3.54,ȱ df=ȱ 276,ȱ p<ȱ 0.01).ȱ Theȱ meanȱ scoresȱ ofȱ maleȱ studentsȱ (3.62)ȱ areȱ higherȱthanȱfemaleȱstudentsȱ(3.14).ȱ Theȱattitudeȱ“IȱcanȱhostȱaȱTurkishȱcitizen”ȱȱdifferentiateȱaccordingȱtoȱgenȬ derȱ(t=ȱ2.43,ȱdf=ȱ272,ȱp<ȱ0.01).ȱTheȱmeanȱscoresȱofȱmaleȱstudentsȱ(4.29)ȱareȱhigherȱ thanȱfemaleȱstudentsȱ(4.05).ȱ Theȱattitudeȱ“IȱcanȱbeȱaȱguestȱofȱaȱTurkishȱcitizen”ȱȱdifferentiateȱaccordingȱ toȱgenderȱ(t=ȱ2.18,ȱdf=ȱ273,ȱp<ȱ0.05).ȱTheȱmeanȱscoresȱofȱmaleȱstudentsȱ(4.42)ȱareȱ higherȱthanȱfemaleȱstudentsȱ(4.24).ȱ
Theseȱ findingsȱ indicateȱ thatȱ maleȱ studentsȱ tendȱ toȱ setȱ upȱ closeȱ relationsȬ hipsȱmoreȱthanȱfemaleȱstudents.ȱȱ
4.4ȱTheȱStudents’ȱBehavioursȱTowardsȱTurkeyȱandȱTurkishȱPeopleȱȱȱ
Inȱthisȱpartȱofȱtheȱstudy,ȱtheȱpercentagesȱofȱtheȱstudentsȱwhoȱhaveȱbeenȱinȱ Turkey,ȱ communicatedȱ withȱ aȱ Turkishȱ citizenȱ andȱ readȱ anyȱ literatureȱ fromȱ aȱ Turkishȱwriterȱhaveȱbeenȱdetermined.ȱȱ 4.4.1ȱTheȱPercentagesȱofȱtheȱStudentsȱWhoȱHaveȱBeenȱinȱTurkeyȱ ToȱdetermineȱtheȱpercentagesȱofȱtheȱstudentsȱwhoȱhaveȱbeenȱinȱTurkey,ȱaȱ questionȱwasȱasked.ȱ Tableȱ10:ȱTheȱPercentagesȱofȱtheȱStudentsȱWhoȱHaveȱBeenȱinȱTurkeyȱ Haveȱyouȱeverȱbeenȱinȱ Turkey?ȱ nȱ %ȱ Yesȱ 139ȱ 49.8ȱ Noȱ 140ȱ 50.2ȱ Totalȱ 279ȱ 100ȱ
Accordingȱtoȱtheȱgivenȱanswers,ȱ49.8ȱ%ȱofȱtheȱstudentsȱhaveȱbeenȱinȱTurȬ key.ȱ50.2ȱ%ȱofȱtheȱstudentsȱhaveȱneverȱbeenȱinȱTurkeyȱ(Tableȱ10).ȱTheȱimportantȱ resultȱ forȱ theȱ studyȱ isȱ theȱ studentsȱ whoseȱ aproximatelyȱ halfȱ ofȱ haveȱ beenȱ inȱ Turkey.ȱȱ
4.4.2ȱ Theȱ Percentagesȱofȱ theȱ StudentsȱWhoȱ HaveȱCommunicatedȱ withȱaȱ TurkishȱCitizenȱ
AȱquestionȱwasȱaskedȱtoȱdetermineȱwhetherȱtheȱstudentsȱhaveȱcommunicaȬ tedȱwithȱaȱTurkishȱcitizenȱorȱnot.ȱȱ
Tableȱ 11:ȱ Theȱ Percentagesȱ ofȱ theȱ Studentsȱ Whoȱ Haveȱ Communicatedȱ withȱaȱTurkishȱCitizenȱ Haveȱyouȱeverȱcommunicatedȱwithȱaȱ Turkishȱcitizen?ȱ nȱ %ȱ Yesȱ 251ȱ 91.9ȱ Noȱ 22ȱ 8.1ȱ Totalȱ 273ȱ 100ȱ
Asȱ seenȱ onȱ theȱ table,ȱ 91.9ȱ %ȱ ofȱ theȱ studentsȱ haveȱ communicatedȱ withȱ aȱ Turkishȱcitizen.ȱThisȱresultȱshowsȱthatȱmostȱofȱtheȱstudentsȱtendȱtoȱcommunicaȬ teȱwithȱTurkishȱcitizens.ȱȱ 4.4.3ȱTheȱPercentageȱofȱtheȱStudentsȱWhoȱHaveȱReadȱAȱLiteratureȱfromȱaȱ TurkishȱWriterȱ Aȱquestionȱwasȱaskedȱtoȱlearnȱwhetherȱtheyȱhaveȱreadȱaȱliteratureȱfromȱaȱ Turkishȱwriterȱorȱnot.ȱ Tableȱ12:ȱȱTheȱPercentageȱofȱtheȱStudentsȱWhoȱHaveȱReadȱAȱLiteratureȱ fromȱaȱTurkishȱWriterȱ Haveȱyouȱreadȱanyȱliteratureȱ fromȱaȱTurkishȱwriter?ȱ nȱ %ȱ Yesȱ 60ȱ 22.3ȱ Noȱ 209ȱ 77.7ȱ Totalȱ 269ȱ 100ȱ Asȱseenȱonȱtheȱtable,ȱtheȱpercentageȱofȱtheȱstudentsȱwhoȱhaveȱreadȱaȱliteraȬ tureȱfromȱaȱTurkishȱwriterȱisȱonlyȱ22.3ȱ%.ȱȱ
5.ȱResultsȱAndȱDiscussionȱ
Inȱ thisȱstudy,ȱ itȱisȱ observedȱ thatȱapproximatelyȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ universityȱstuȬ dentsȱhaveȱbeenȱtoȱTurkey.ȱMoreȱthanȱ90ȱ%ȱofȱtheȱstudentsȱhaveȱcommunicatedȱ withȱ aȱ Turkishȱ citizen.ȱ 22.3%ȱ ofȱ themȱ haveȱ readȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ Turkishȱ literatureȱ author’sȱwork.ȱTheȱmostȱfavoriteȱTurkishȱpeopleȱforȱthemȱareȱTarkanȱandȱAtaȬ turk.ȱTheȱbestȱTurkishȱbrandsȱforȱthemȱareȱDonerȱkebabȱandȱTurkishȱAirlines.ȱ Butȱ40.6ȱ%ȱofȱtheȱstudentsȱdon’tȱknowȱaȱspecificȱbrand.ȱȱȱȱ
Mostȱ ofȱ theȱ studentsȱ likeȱ Turkey,ȱ andȱ Turkishȱ people.ȱ Theȱ studentsȱ whoȱ haveȱcommunicatedȱwithȱaȱTurkishȱcitizenȱbefore,ȱlikeȱbothȱTurkeyȱandȱTurkishȱ peopleȱmoreȱthanȱtheȱstudentsȱwhoȱhaveȱnotȱcommunicatedȱwithȱaȱTurkishȱciȬ tizen.ȱ MaleȱstudentsȱfeelȱmoreȱcloseȱthemselvesȱtoȱtheȱTurkeyȱandȱTurkishȱpeopȬ leȱmoreȱthanȱfemaleȱstudents.ȱMaleȱstudentsȱtendȱtoȱsetȱupȱcloseȱrelationshipsȱ withȱTurkishȱcitizensȱmoreȱthanȱfemaleȱstudents.ȱ ItȱcanȱbeȱstatedȱthatȱtheȱimpressionsȱofȱtheȱstudentsȱonȱTurkeyȱareȱrelatedȱ withȱTurkey’sȱcities,ȱtouristȱattractions,ȱfoodȱculture,ȱreligion,ȱnationalȱflag,ȱcitiȬ zens,ȱgeographicalȱposition,ȱclimate,ȱleaders,ȱsport,ȱhistory,ȱsocialȱlifeȱandȱcultuȬ re.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ wordsȱ comeȱ toȱ theȱ students’ȱ mindȱ areȱ Istanbul,ȱ holidayȱ andȱ TurȬ kishȱfood.ȱTheȱmostȱlikedȱfeaturesȱofȱTurkeyȱareȱitsȱfood,ȱcultureȱandȱclimate.ȱ
Inȱtheȱlightȱofȱthisȱfindings;ȱinȱorderȱtoȱreinforceȱtheȱTurkey’sȱandȱTurkishȱ people’sȱ imageȱ inȱ theȱ eyesȱ ofȱ Dutchȱ universityȱ students,ȱ requirementsȱ canȱ beȱ orderedȱasȱfollowing:ȱȱȱ
ȬTheȱ universityȱ studentsȱ inȱ Netherlandsȱ andȱ theȱ Turkishȱ citizensȱ shouldȱ makeȱmoreȱcontactȱwithȱeachȱother.ȱȱ ȬTurkishȱenterprisesȱshouldȱmakeȱmoreȱeffortsȱtoȱproduceȱandȱpromoteȱinȬ ternationalȱbrands.ȱȱ ȬImageȱcampaignsȱshouldȱbeȱarrangedȱtowardsȱfemaleȱuniversityȱstudentsȱ inȱNetherlands.ȱStudiesȱshouldȱbeȱmadeȱtoȱgainȱtheȱsympathyȱofȱtheȱstudents.ȱȱȱ Acknowledgementsȱ Thisȱstudyȱwasȱsupportedȱbyȱ“SelcukȱUniversityȱCoordinatoryȱofȱScientificȱ ResearchȱProjects”ȱunderȱprojectȱnumberȱ10701440.ȱThereforeȱweȱthankȱSelcukȱ UniversityȱCoordinatoryȱofȱScientificȱResearchesȱProjectsȱforȱtheirȱsupport.ȱ©
KAYNAKLAR
ALTINBAûAK úpek ve YALÇIN Elem (2008), Avrupa Birliùi Üyeliùi Yolunda Türki-ye’nin Tanıtımı TÜSúAD Örneùi, ústanbul. 5 Mart 2008.
AMINE S.Lyn. and CHAO Mike C.H. (2005), “Managing Country Image to Long-term Advantage: The Case Taiwan and Acer”, Place Branding, 1 (2), s.187-204.
BALABANIS George, MUELLER Rene, MELEWAR, T.C. (2002), “The Human Values’ Lenses of Country of Origin Images”, International Marketing Review, 19 (6), s.582-610.
BALTA Peltekoùlu Filiz. (2007), Halkla úliükiler Nedir?, ústanbul, Beta Yayını
BECERIKLI Sema Yıldırım. (2005), Uluslararası Halkla úliükiler, Ankara: Nobel Yayını. BOULDING Kenneth.E. (1959), “National Images and International Systems”, The
Jour-nal of Conflict Resolution, 3 (2), s.120-131.
DAGYTE Ina and ZYKAS Aurelijus (2008), “Country Branding: Qualitatively New Shifts in Country Image Communication”, Sociologija, 23, ISSN: 1392-3358, s.58-70.
GANIDEH Saeb Farhan Al (2012), “Can Country Image Change after Likable Incident? The Case of Chile Miners’ Rescue Operation and the Middle East Consumers”,
In-ternational Business Research, 5 (3), s.100-106.
JENES Barbara and MALOTA Erzsebet (2010), “Measuring Country Image- Theory and Practice”,http://www.marketing-trends cong-ress.com/sites/default/files/papers/2010/2010_fr_Jenes_Malota.pdf, Access Date: 14 February 2013.
KARTARI Asker (2006), Farklılıklarla Yaüamak Kültürlerarası úletiüim, Ankara: Ürün Yayın-ları.
KEMMúNG Jan Dirk and SANDIKCI Ozlem (2007), “Turkey’s EU accession as a Ques-tion of NaQues-tion Brand Image”, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 3 (1), s.31-41. KOLOSSOV Vladimir (2002), “’High’ and ‘Low’ Geopolitics: Images of Foreign
Count-ries in the Eyes of Russian Citizens”, Geopolitics, 8(1), s.121-148.
KOTLER Philip, HAIDER Donald, REIN Irving (1993), “Marketing Places: Attracting Investment and Tourism to Cities, States and Nations”, The Free Press, 1993.
KUNCZIK Michael (1997), Image of Nations and International Public Relations, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
LAROCHE Michael, PAPADOPOULOS Nikolas, HESLOP Louise.A, MOURALI Mehdi (2005), “The Influence of Country Image Structure on Consumer Evaluations of Fo-reign Products”, International Marketing Review, 22 (1), s.96-115.
LOPEZ Carmen, GOTSI Manto, ANDRIOPOULOS Constantine (2011), “Conceptualising the Influence of Corporate Image on Country Image”, European Journal of Marketing, 45 (11/12), s.1601-1641.
MARTIN Ingrid M., Eroglu Sevgin (1993), “Measuring a Multi-dimensional Construct: Country Image, Journal of Business Research, 28 (3), 191-210.
PARAMESWARAN Ravi and PISHORADI R.Mohan. (2002), “Assimilation Effects in Country Image Research”, International Marketing Review, 19 (3), s.259-278.
POWERS Natalie and FETSCHERIN Marc (2008), “Measuring the Joint Effect of Country Image and Brand Perception in Consumer Evaluations of Televisions: The Case of China and Malaysia, The Business Review, 9 (2), s.145-152.
SALEEM Noshina (2007), “U.S. Media Framing of Foreign Countries Image: An Analyti-cal Perspective”, Canadian Journal of Media Studies, 2 (1), s.130-162.
SÖNMEZ Sevil and SIRAKAYA Ercan (2002), “A Distorted Destination Image? The Case of Turkey”, Journal of Travel Research, 41, s.185-196.
YILDIZ Süleyman (2006), “ Türk ve Alman Toplumlarında Kültürel úliükiler, úmgeler ve Medya”, Milli Folklör, Yıl:18, 72, s. 37-46.
únternet adresleri:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Netherlands, Access Date: 31 Au-gust 2010.
