Türkiye’de Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Alanındaki Doktora Programlarının Süreç Değerlendirme Modeli ile İncelenmesi

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Türkiye’deki sosyal ve beşeri bilimler alanındaki doktora programlarının karma yöntem araştırması kullanarak süreç değerlendirme modeliyle incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Nicel ve nitel verilerin toplanmasında yakınsak karma yöntem yaklaşımı uygulanmıştır. Öncelikle nicel istatistiksel sonuçlar verilmiş, ardından yan yana karşılaştırma yaklaşımı dikkate alınarak nitel bulgular tartışılmıştır. Araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen anket 310 akademisyene doktora programlarını değerlendirmeleri için uygulanmış olup uygulamada katılımcıların doktora mezuniyet yılı, akademik unvan, çalışma alanı ve üniversite türü gibi değişkenler dikkate alınmıştır. T-testi ve ANOVA sonuçları akademisyenler arasında bu değişkenlere ilişkin anlamlı bir farklılaşmanın olmadığını göstermiştir. Diğer taraftan içerik analizi MAXQDA nitel veri analizi programı aracılığıyla 10 akademisyenden elde edilen nitel verilerin analizinde kullanılmıştır. İçerik analizi sonucunda belirlenen altı tema, katılımcıların neredeyse tamamının doktora programlarında yapısal bir sorun algıladığını ortaya koymuştur; Bu durum nicel bulgularda anlamlı bir farklılaşmanın neden görülmediğini açıklamaktadır. Bulgulara göre, araştırmacılara, akademisyenlere ve karar vericilere bu sorunun çözümüne yönelik bazı öneriler sunulmuştur.

Keywords

• karma yöntemler araştırması
• süreç değerlendirme modeli
• sosyal ve beşeri bilimler
• doktora programları

Examination of the Turkish Doctoral Programs in Social Sciences and Humanities Through a Process Evaluation Model

Abstract

This study aims to investigate Turkish doctoral programs in social sciences and humanities using a process evaluation model within a mixed methods research design. A convergent mixed methods approach was employed to gather both quantitative and qualitative data. Initially, the quantitative statistical results are presented, followed by a discussion of the qualitative findings, utilizing a side-by-side comparison approach. The survey, developed by the researchers, was administered to 310 academics to gather their assessments of doctoral programs, considering variables such as graduation year from the Ph.D. program, academic title, field of study, and university type. The t-test and ANOVA results revealed no significant differentiation among academics with respect to these variables. Conversely, content analysis was applied to examine qualitative data obtained from 10 academics through the MAXQDA qualitative data analysis program. Six themes identified through content analysis indicated that nearly all participants perceived structural issues in doctoral programs, explaining the lack of significant differentiation in the quantitative findings. Based on these findings, implications are suggested for researchers, academics, and decision-makers to address this issue.

Keywords

• Mixed methods research design
• Process evaluation model
• Social sciences and humanities
• Doctoral programs

References

1. Academic Ranking of World Universities. (2021). Academic ranking of world universities: Methodology. Retrieved from http://www. shanghairanking.com/methodology/arwu/2021
2. Aslan, A. , Açıkgöz, Ö. , Günay, A. & Koçak, K. (2020). Examination of the curriculum and instructional PhD dissertations in the field of educational sciences concerning theoretical framework, method and contributions of research dimensions. Turkish Journal of Education , 9(4) , 273-289.
3. Aslan, A., & Açıkgöz, Ö. (2022). Bibliometric analysis of the Turkish doctoral dissertations. A case study of economy, law, psychology, political science and international relations disciplines. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 12(2), 363-372.
4. Aslan, A., Açıkgöz, Ö., & Günay, A. (2021). Scientific impact of the Turkish educational dissertations. Turkish Journal of Education, 10(3), 237-250.
5. Baloğlu, M., & Bilgiç, Ş. (2021a). Türkiye’de akademisyenlerin bilimsel performansları. Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
6. Baloğlu, M., & Bilgiç, Ş. (2021b). Türkiye’de üniversitelerin WoS yayın performansları. Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
7. Batdı, V., & Talan, T. (2019). Augmented reality applications: a metaanalysis and thematic analysis. Turkish Journal of Education, 8(4), 276-297. DOI: 10.19128/turje.581424
8. Bartlett, M. S. (1950). Tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 3(2), 77–85.

9. Boud, D. & Lee, A. (2009). Introduction. In D. Boud & A. Lee (eds.). Changing practices of doctoral education. 12–17. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
10. Cloete, N., Mouton, J., & Sheppard, C. (2015). Doctoral education in South Africa. Cape Town: African Minds.
11. CoHE. (2020a). The evaluations of research and candidate research universities. Retrieved from https://www.yok.gov.tr/ Sayfalar/Haberler/2020/yok-ten-arastirma-ve-aday-arastirmauniversiteleri- degerlendirilmesi.aspx
12. CoHE. (2020b). The general report for the tracking and evaluation criteria for the Turkish universities 2020. Ankara University Publishing.
13. CoHE (2021). Higher Education Information Management System. Retrieved from https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/
14. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications. Dziuban, C. D. & Shirkey, E. C. (1974). When is a correlation matrix appropriate for factor analysis? Some decision rules. Psychological Bulletin, 81(6), 358–361.
15. EQF. (2005). Descriptors defining levels in the European Qualifications Framework. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/ploteus/tr/ node/1440
16. Forehand, M. (2005). Bloom’s Taxonomy: Original and Revised. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and Technology. Zurich, Switzerland: The Jacobs Foundation.
17. Harrison, A. S. (1993). An evaluation model for middle school counseling and guidance. (Doctoral Dissertation. Old Dominion University. DOI: 10.25777/whyh-4a61.
18. Hasselback JR & Reinstein A (1995). Assessing accounting doctoral programs by their graduates’ research productivity. Advances in Accounting, 13, 61–86.
19. Holdaway, E. (1997). Quality issues in postgraduate education. In: RG Burgess (ed) Beyond the First Degree. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
20. Karadağ, N., & Özdemir, S. (2017). Türkiye’de doktora eğitim sürecine ilişkin öğretim üyelerinin ve doktora öğrencilerinin görüşleri. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 7(2), 267-281.
21. Karataş, H. & Fer, S. (2009). Evaluation of English curriculum at Yildiz Technical University using CIPP model. Education and Science, 34(153), 47-60.
22. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
23. Küçükoğlu, H. (2015). An evaluation of PhD ELT programs in Turkey. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
24. Mertens, D. M. (2019). Research and evaluation in education and psychology integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (5th Edi.) Sage Publication.
25. Ornstein, A. C. & Hunkins, F. P. (2017). Curriculum, foundations, principles and issues. Seventh Edition Global Edition. England: Pearson Publishing.
26. Phillips E (1993). The concept of quality in the PhD. In: DJ Cullen (ed.) Quality in PhD Education. Canberra: Australian National University, Centre for Educational Development.
27. Quacquarelli Symonds World University Ranking. (2021). The world university rankings: Methodology. Retrieved from https://www. topuniversities.com/qs-world-university-rankings/methodology Scimago Journal Rank. (2020). Social sciences country rank. Retrieved from https://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php
28. Steyn, R. (2019). Changes in supervision, mentoring and pedagogical practices in doctoral education or training. Retrieved from https:// www.doctoral-education.info/dl/Workgroup-2_Institutional- Changes-in-Doctoral-Education.pdf
29. Stufflebeam, D.L. (1971). The Relevance of the CIPP evaluation model for educational accountability. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of School Administrators, Atlantic City, N.J., February 24.
30. Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research Science Education, 48, 1273-1296. DOI: 10.1007/s11165-016- 9602-2
31. The Times Higher Education World University Ranking. (2021). THE world university rankings 2021: Methodology. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-universityrankings/ world-university-rankings-2021-methodology
32. TQF. (2015). Turkish Qualifications Framework. Retrieved from https:// www.myk.gov.tr//TRR/File6.pdf
33. Turkish Graduate Education Regulation (2016). 29690 numbered Official Gazette.
34. TÜİK (2022). Adrese dayalı nüfus kayıt sistemi sonuçları, 2020. Retrieved from https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Adrese- D a y a l % C 4 % B 1 - N % C 3 % B C f u s - K a y % C 4 % B 1 t - S i s t e m i - Sonu%C3%A7lar%C4%B1-2020-37210&dil=1
35. Viera, A. J. & Garrett, J. M. (2005). Understanding interobserver agreement: The kappa statistic. Family Medicine, 37(5), 360-363.
36. World Bank (2022). World Bank open data: Gross Domestic Production (current US$). Retrieved from https://data.worldbank.org/ indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD
37. Yağan, S. A. (2018). Eğitim programları ve öğretim bilim dalı doktora programlarının değerlendirilmesi. (Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi.) Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi, Eskişehir, Türkiye.
38. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri (8. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.