Akademisyenlerin Karma Yöntem Kalite Standartlarına Yönelik Farkındalıklarının Çeşitli Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi

Bünyamin İspir; Suat Çelik; Ali Yıldız

doi:10.30703/cije.1245895

EN TR

Investigation in Terms of Various Variables of Academics' Awareness of Mixed Method Quality Standards

Abstract

The aim of the study is to develop a questionnaire that validly and reliably determines the awareness levels of academicians toward mixed-method quality standards. In addition, in the study, aimed to investigate the awareness of academicians about mixed method quality standards in terms of various variables. In this context, the survey method was preferred in the study. The sample of the research consists of 174 academicians working at various universities in Turkey. In the study, the awareness questionnaire for mixed method quality standards developed by the researcher was used as a data collection tool. The data obtained through the relevant questionnaire were analyzed with independent samples t-test and ANOVA analysis techniques. According to the findings obtained as a result of the analysis was determined that the awareness levels of the academicians towards mixed method quality standards were generally high. In addition, it was determined that the awareness of the mixed method quality standards of the academicians who have mixed method knowledge, have research about mixed methods, and learn lessons or training on mixed methods is higher. However, in terms of seniority and degree, it was seen that the average score of the academicians for awareness was equivalent. Based on these results, studies can be conducted to determine in which processes of mixed-method studies academics have greater difficulties in practice.

Keywords

Akademisyenlerin Karma Yöntem Kalite Standartlarına Yönelik Farkındalıklarının Çeşitli Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, akademisyenlerin karma yöntem kalite standartlarına yönelik farkındalıklarını çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmektir. Araştırmada tarama yöntemi tercih edilmiştir. Araştırmanın örneklemi, Türkiye’deki çeşitli üniversitelerde görev yapan 176 akademisyenden oluşmaktadır. Çalışmada araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen karma yöntem kalite standartlarına yönelik farkındalık anketi veri toplama aracı olarak kullanılmıştır. Anket aracılığıyla ulaşılan veriler ki-kare analiz tekniğiyle çözümlenmiştir. Analizler sonucunda elde edilen bulgulara göre akademisyenlerin karma yöntem kalite standartlarına yönelik farkındalık düzeylerinin genellikle yüksek olduğu saptanmıştır. Ayrıca karma yöntem bilgisine sahip olan, karma yöntemli çalışma yapan ve karma yönteme yönelik ders veya eğitim alan akademisyenlerin karma yöntem kalite standartlarına ilişkin farkındalıklarının bazı anket maddeleri açısından daha yüksek olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Ancak kıdem açısından akademisyenlerin farkındalığa yönelik puan ortalamalarının denk olduğu görülmüştür. Bu sonuçlardan hareketle, akademisyenlerin karma yöntemli çalışmaların uygulamaya yönelik hangi süreçlerinde daha büyük zorluklar yaşadıklarını tespit etmek için çalışmalar yapılabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

References

Akan, E., İspir, B., & Çelik, S. (b.t.). Evaluation of mixed method studies in Turkey according to quality standarts. [İncelemede].
Anderson, V. R. (2016). Mixed methods approaches. In L. A. Jason & D. S. Glenwick (Eds.), Handbook of methodological approaches to community-based research: Qualitative, quantative and mixed methos (pp. 232-367). Oxford University.
Aydın, E. (2014). Karma yöntem araştırmasını yazma ve değerlendirme (Y. Dede & S. B. Demir, Çev. Ed.). Karma yöntem araştırmaları: Tasarımı ve yürütülmesi içinde (ss. 265-288). Anı.
Aziz, A. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri ve teknikleri (4. baskı). Nobel.
Bryman, A. (2006). Paradigm peace and the implications for quality. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 9, 111-126. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570600595280
Bryman, A. (2014). June 1989 and beyond: Julia Brannen’s contribution to mixed methods research, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 17(2), 121-131, https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2014.892653 Bryman, A., Becker, S., & Sempik, J. (2008). Quality criteria for quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research: A view from social policy. Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(4), 261-276. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701401644
Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2005). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS 12 and 13. Psychology.
Burnett, B., Gottlieb, S., Grant, Z. J., & Heryudono, A. (2021). Performance evaluation of mixed-precision runge-kutta methods. IEEE Hight Performance Extreme Computing Conference, 1-6.

Burrows, T. J. (2013). A preliminary rubric design to evaluate mixed methods research (Publication No. 3585719) [Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
Cahyono, B. Y., & Amrina, R. (2016). Indonesian EFL students' perception on training in writing research articles for publication. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 7(5), 859. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0705.05
Can, Ş., & Ceyhan, B. (2015). Eğitim bilimleri enstitüsü lisansüstü öğrencilerinin bilimsel rapor yazma ve yayınlama konusundaki görüşleri (Muğla ili örneği). Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities Researches, 35, 43-53.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046016
Caracelli, V. J. & Riggin, L. J. C. (1994). Mixed-method evaluation: Developing quality criteria through concept mapping. Evaluation Practice, 15(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/109821409401500204
Christensen, L. B., Johnson, R. B., & Turner, L. A. (2014). Research methods, desing, and analysis (12nd ed.). Pearson.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson.
Creswell, J. W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano-Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed method research (3th ed.). Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano-Clark, V. L. (2020). Karma yöntem araştırmaları: Tasarımı ve yürütülmesi (Y. Dede & S. B. Demir, Çev. Ed.). Anı.
Cohen, L., Lawrence, M., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). Routledge.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2021). Eğitimde araştırma yöntemleri (E. Dinç & K. Kıroğlu, Çev. Ed.). Pegem Akademi.
Çelik, S. (2019). Karma yöntem araştırma tasarım adımları (M. Sözbilir, Çev. Ed.). Karma yöntem araştırmalarına giriş içinde (2. baskı, ss.11-22). Pegem Akademi.
Dellinger, A. B., & Leech, N. L. (2007). Toward a unified validation framework in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(4), 309-332. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689807306147
Doğan, M., Çelik, S., & Tomris, G. (2022). Analysis of mixed methods graduate thesis studies in special education programs in Turkey. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 29, 1-32. https://10.14689/enad.29.1
Fabregues, S., & Molina-Azorin, J. S. (2017). Addressing quality in mixed methods research: a reviewand recommendations for a future agenda. Qual Quant, 51, 2847–2863.
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to desing and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw Hill.
Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. W. (2012). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (10th ed.). Pearson.
Goodman, L. A. (1961). Snowball sampling. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 32(1), 148-170.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737011003255
Hadi, M. A., Alldred, D. P., Closs, S. J., & Briggs, M. (2014). Mixed-methods research in pharmacy practice: recommendations for quality reporting (part 2). International Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 22, 96–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijpp.12015
Halcomb, E. J., & Hickman, L. (2015). Mixed methods research. Nursing Standard, 29(32), 41-47. http://doi.org/10.7748/ns.29.32.41.e8858
Harrison, R., Jones, B., Gardner, P. & Lawton, R. (2021). Quality assessment with diverse studies: An appraisal tool for methodological and reporting quality in systematic reviews of mixed- or multimethod studies. BMC Health Services Research, 21(144), 2-20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06122-y
Hong, Q. N., Pluye, P., Fabregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., Gagnon, M.P., Griffiths, F., Nicolau, B., O’Cathain, A., Rousseau, M. C., & Vedel, I. (2018). Mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) version 2018. http://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/127916259/MMAT_2018_criteria-manual_2018-08-01_ENG.pdf adresinden 15.11.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
Huang, T., Zhuang, M., Zhuo, J., Hong, R., Sun, Y., & Liu, Q. H. (2021). Mixed spectral element method for electromagnetic secondary fields in stratifield inhomogeneous anisotrapic media. IEEE Access, 9, 218-225.
Ihantola, E. M., & Kihn, L. A. (2011). Threats to validity and reliability in mixed methods accounting research. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Manageme, 1, 39-58. http://doi.org/10.1108/11766091111124694
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a defination of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224
Kambara, H. (2021) Exploring japanese fourth graders’ motivation to read: A mixed-method study. Literacy Research and Instruction, 60(2), 180-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2020.1806416
Kana, F., & Kuluroğlu, M. (2018). Yüksek lisans öğrencilerinin bilimsel araştırma sürecinde karşılaştıkları zorluklar. Çukurova Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(1), 74-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.18560/cukurova.1095
Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45(3), 214-222. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.45.3.214
Leech, N. L., Dellinger, A. B., Brannagan, K. B., & Tanaka, H. (2010). Evaluating mixed research studies: a mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 4(1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809345262 Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate. Educational Researcher, 77(2), 13-17. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X017002013
Maudsley, G. (2011) Mixing it but not mixed-up: Mixed methods research in medical education (a critical narrative review). Medical Teacher, 33, 92-104. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159x.2011.542523
Mayyas, F., & Alzoubi, K. (2022). Awareness and knowledge of manuscript writing and research integrity: A cross sectional survey among graduate students. Heliyon, 8(11), 1-9.
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (7th ed.). Pearson.
Mertens, D. M. (2010). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (3th ed.). Sage.
Michael, T., Filc, D., & Davidovitch, N. (2022). What motivates physicians to propose private services in a mixed private-public healthcare system? A mixed methods study. BMC Health Servis Research, 22, 2-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-07474-9
Molina-Azorin, J., & Cameron, R. (2010). The application of mixed methods in organizational research: A literature review. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 8, 95–105.
Noortyani, R. (2016). Students' perception on training in writing research article for publication. Arab World English Journal, 7(4), 305-316. https://www.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol7no4.20
O’Cathain, A. (2010). Assessing the quality of mixed methods research: Toward a comprehensive framework. In A. Tassakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 531-555). Sage.
O'Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & NichoII, J. (2007). Why, and how, mixed methods research is undertaken in health services research: A mixed methods study. BMC Health Services Research, 7(85), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-7-85
O'Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & NichoII, J. (2008). The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 13(2), 92-98. https://doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007074
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Johnson, R. B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48-63.
Pluye, P., Gagnon, M. P., Griffiths, F., & Johnson-Lafleur, J. (2009). A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in mixed studies reviews. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46, 529–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.01.009
Sale, J. E. M., & Brazil, K. (2004). A strategy to identify critical appraisal criteria for primary mixed method studies. Quality and Quantity, 38(4), 351-365. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:ququ.0000043126.25329.85
Seçer, İ. (2015). Psikolojik test geliştirme ve uyarlama süreci: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Anı.
Sop, S. A., & Kozak, M. (2021). Araştırma yöntemleri bilgisinin önemi: turizm alanına yönelik bir gömülü teori çalışması. Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi, 32(2),171-183. https://doi.org/10.17123/atad.756946
Stadnick, N. A., Poth, C.N., Guetterman, T. C., & Gallo, J. J. (2021). Advancing discussion of ethics in mixed methods health services research. BMC Health Servis Research, 21, 2-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06583-1
Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). Editorial: The new era of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906293042
Unrau, Y. A., & Grinnell Jr, R. M. (2005). The impact of social work research courses on research self‐efficacy for social work students. Social Work Education, 24(6), 639-651.
Vankatesh, V., Brown, S. A., & Bala, H. (2013). Bridging the qualitative–quantitative divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 21-54. https://doi.org/10.25300/misq/2013/37.1.02
Wiggins, B. J. (2011). Confronting the dilemma of mixed methods. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 31, 44–60. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0022612
Wilson, V. (2014). Research methods: Triangulation. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 9(1), 74-75. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8WW3X

Details

Primary Language

Turkish

Subjects

Specialist Studies in Education (Other)

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Bünyamin İspir ^*
0000-0002-0428-8887
Türkiye

Suat Çelik
0000-0001-9858-2165
Türkiye

Ali Yıldız
0000-0001-6241-2316
Türkiye

Publication Date

September 28, 2023

Submission Date

February 1, 2023

Acceptance Date

August 22, 2023

Published in Issue

Year 2023 Volume: 12 Number: 3

DOI

https://doi.org/10.30703/cije.1245895

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA26EA42JZ

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

İspir, B., Çelik, S., & Yıldız, A. (2023). Akademisyenlerin Karma Yöntem Kalite Standartlarına Yönelik Farkındalıklarının Çeşitli Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi. Cumhuriyet Uluslararası Eğitim Dergisi, 12(3), 638-652. https://doi.org/10.30703/cije.1245895

Investigation in Terms of Various Variables of Academics' Awareness of Mixed Method Quality Standards

Abstract

Keywords

Akademisyenlerin Karma Yöntem Kalite Standartlarına Yönelik Farkındalıklarının Çeşitli Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

References

Details

Primary Language

Subjects

Journal Section

Authors

Publication Date

Submission Date

Acceptance Date

Published in Issue

DOI

IZ

Cite

© Cumhuriyet University, Faculty of Education