Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Akademisyenlerin Karma Yöntem Kalite Standartlarına Yönelik Farkındalıklarının Çeşitli Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi

Yıl 2023, , 638 - 652, 28.09.2023

Bünyamin İspir , Suat Çelik , Ali Yıldız

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

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

karma yöntem kalite standartları farkındalık anket geliştirme

Destekleyen Kurum

-

Proje Numarası

-

Teşekkür

-

Kaynakça

  • 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

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

Yıl 2023, , 638 - 652, 28.09.2023

Bünyamin İspir , Suat Çelik , Ali Yıldız

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

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

mixed method quality standards awareness questionnaire development

Proje Numarası

-

Kaynakça

  • 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
Toplam 62 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular Eğitim Üzerine Çalışmalar (Diğer)
Bölüm Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar

Bünyamin İspir 0000-0002-0428-8887

Suat Çelik 0000-0001-9858-2165

Ali Yıldız 0000-0001-6241-2316

Proje Numarası -
Yayımlanma Tarihi 28 Eylül 2023
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2023

Kaynak Göster

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

e-ISSN: 2147-1606

14550        14551