KARMA YÖNTEM ARAŞTIRMA TASARIMININ KAMU YÖNETİMİ ALANINDA KULLANIMI ÜZERİNE BİR İNCELEME

Öz

Karma metot yönteminin araştırmaların kalitesini ve güvenilirliğini arttırdığı, dolayısıyla ortaya çıkan bilginin daha sağlam bir bilimsel temele dayandığı yaygın olarak kabul edilmektedir. Bununla birlikte klasik bilimsel bilgi elde etme yöntemlerinden radikal bir dönüşümü ifade ettiği için, uygulaması tasarlandığı kadar kolay olmamaktadır. Kamu yönetimi alanında kullanılan metotların da henüz rasyonel bir zemine oturmamış olması konuyla ilgili bir analizi gerektirmektedir. Bu makalede, öncelikli olarak son yıllarda popülerliği ve buna paralel olarak kullanım oranı artan karma yöntem üzerine odaklanılacak ve kamu yönetimi alanında uygulanabilirliği tartışılacak; devamında ise yöntemin epistemolojik, metodolojik ve pratik uygulanabilirliği üzerine çalışma genişletilecektir. Bu inceleme üç temel sonuç ortaya koymaktadır: Birincisi, otuz yılı aşkın süredir kimlik sorunu yaşayan kamu yönetimi paradigmasının karma yöntem araştırma tekniğiyle desteklenebileceğidir. Ayrıca niceliksel yöntemin domine ettiği kamu yönetimi alanında karma yöntemin kullanılmasının, yöntem kullanımında tutarlılığı ve rasyonelliği arttıracağı ileri sürülebilir. Son olarak, kamu yönetimi disiplininin bir bilim alanı olmasının yanı sıra bir uygulama sahası da olması, karma yönteme ürettiği pragmatik ve yararlı bilgiyi etkin bir biçimde kullanılabileceği elverişli bir alan sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• karma yöntem
• kamu yönetimi
• yöntembilim
• araştırma felsefesi
• araştırma paradigması

An Investigation on the Application of Mixed-Methods Research Design in the Field of Public Administration

Abstract

It is widely acknowledged that mixed-methods design increases the quality and reliability of the studies, thus is based on a more solid scientific basis. Since it expresses a rather radical transformation from the regular methods, its implementation is not as easy as its design. Also, the methods applied in the public administration that have not yet settled on a rational ground require an analysis. The paper primarily focuses on the applications of the mixed-methods in the public administration. The discussion is expanded along with the analyses on the epistemological, methodological and practical suitability of the methods. This study provides three conclusions: The public administration paradigm taking shape over the last thirty years can be supported by the mixed-methods. It can be claimed that the usage of mixed-methods in the public administration -dominated by the quantitative methods- would increase the consistency and rationality. Finally, public administration discipline is not only a science, but also a field of application that the pragmatic knowledge generated by the mixed-methods can be undertaken effectively and applied in practice.

Keywords

• Mixed-methods
• Public Administration
• Methodology
• Research Philosophy
• Research Paradigms

Kaynakça

1. Andrews, R., Boyne, G. A., Law, J., ve Walker, R. M. (2009). Strategy formulation, strategy content and performance. Public Management Review, 11(1), 1-22. doi.org/10.1080/14719030802489989
2. Blaikie, N. (2010). Designing social research. Cambridge: Polity Press. Erişim adresi: https://www.academia.edu/1574282/Book_review_Norman_Blaikie_Designing_Social_Research
3. Brewer, G. A., Douglas, J. W., Facer, R. L., ve O'Toole, L. J. (1998). The state of doctoral education in public administration: Developments in the field's research preparation. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 4(2), 123-136. doi.org/10.1080/15236803.1998.12022018
4. Brewer, J., ve Hunter, A. (1989). Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. doi.org/10.4135/9781412984294
5. Bryman, A. (1988). Quality and quantity in social research. Boston: Unwin Hyman. doi.org/10.4324/9780203410028
6. Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Erişim adresi: https://www.academia.edu/35174091/Alan_Bryman_Social_Research_Methods_4th_Edition_Oxford_University_Press_2012_
7. Bryman, B., ve Bell, E. (2011). Business research methods (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Erişim adresi: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270820225_Business_Research_Method
8. Campbell, D. T., ve Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105. doi.org/10.1037/h0046016

9. Chien-Chen, B. (2007). Meta-analysis. K, Yang ve G. J. Miller (Ed.). Handbook of research methods in public management (s.705-720). Boca Raton: CRC Press. doi.org/10.1201/9781420013276.ch36
10. Collins, K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., ve Sutton, I. L. (2006). A model incorporating the rationale and purpose for conducting mixed methods research in special education and beyond. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4, 67-100. doi.org/10.1037/12079-006
11. Cook, T. D., ve Reichardt, C. S. (Ed.). (1979). Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publication. doi.org/10.2307/1174260
12. Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles: Sage. doi.org/10.2307/328794
13. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3th ed.). Los Angeles: doi.org/10.2307/3152153
14. Creswell, J. W. (2015). Concise introduction to mixed methods research. Los Angeles: Sage. doi.org/10.4135/9781506335193.n2
15. Creswell, J. W., ve Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Erişim adresi: https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=6tYNo0UpEqkC&dq=Creswell,+J.+W.+%26+Plano+Clark,+V.+L.+(2011).+Designing+and+conducting+mixed+methods+%09research+(2nd+ed.).+Thousand+Oaks,+CA:+Sage+Publications.&source=gbs_navlinks_s&redir_esc=y
16. Denzin, N. K. (1970). The research act in sociology: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. London: Butterworths. doi.org/10.4324/9781315134543
17. Denzin, N. M., (2010). Moments, mixed methods, and paradigm dialogs. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 419-427. doi.org/10.1177/1077800410364608
18. Donaldson, L. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations. USA: Sage Publication. doi.org/10.4135/9781452229249
19. Douglas, J. D. (1976). Investigative social research. USA: University of Chicago Press. doi.org/10.2172/7263263
20. Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., ve Jackson, P. R. (2008). Management research. London: Sage. doi.org/10.4135/9781446250488.n3
21. Funtowicz, S. ve Ravetz, J., (1993). Science for the post-normal age, Futures, 31(7), 735-755. doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-l
22. Fox, C. J. ve Miller, H. T. (1994). Postmodern public administration: Toward discourse. Sage: UK. doi.org/10.4324/9781315706962
23. Ghauri, P., ve Gronhaug, K. (2002). Research methods in business studies: A practical guide. Harlow, New York: Prentice Hall. doi.org/10.1017/9781108762427
24. Gibson, C. B. (2017). Elaboration, generalization, triangulation, and interpretation: On enhancing the value of mixed method research. Organizational Research Methods, 20(2), 193-223. doi.org/10.1177/1094428116639133
25. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge, UK: Policy Press. Erişim adresi: http://www.urbanlab.org/articles/anthropology/Giddens%201984%20-%20The%20Constitution%20of%20Society.pdf
26. Meier, K. ve Gill, J. (2000). Public administration research and practice: A methodological manifesto. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 157-200. doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024262
27. Gill, J., ve Johnson, P. (2002). Research methods for managers. London: Sage Publishing. Erişim adresi: https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/6349899
28. Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., ve Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274. doi.org/10.3102/01623737011003255
29. Groeneveld, S., Tummers, L., Bronkhorst, B., Ashikali, T., ve Van Thiel, S. (2015). Quantitative methods in public administration: Their use and development through time. International Public Management Journal, 18(1), 61-86. doi:10.1080/10967494.2014.972484
30. Hendren, K., Luo, Q. E. ve Pandey, S. K. (2018). The state of mixed methods research in public administration and public policy. Public Administration Review, 78(6), 904–16. doi.org/10.1111/puar.12981
31. Hesse-Biber, S. (2010). Qualitative approaches to mixed methods practice. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 455-468. doi.org/10.1177/1077800410364611
32. Hill, C. J., ve Lynn, L. E. (2005). Is hierarchical governance in decline? Evidence from empirical research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(2), 173-195. doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui011
33. Houston, D. J., ve Delevan, S. M. (1990). Public administration research: An assessment of journal publications. Public Administration Review, 50(6), 674.
34. Huczynski, A. A., ve Buchanan, D. A. (2007). Organizational behaviour. England: Pearson Education Limited. doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130709
35. Kaufman, H. (1960). The forest ranger: A study in administrative behavior. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi.org/10.4324/9781936331536
36. Köseoğlu., Ö ve Duyar, D. D. (2017). Kongre bildirileri üzerinden yöntem sorununu anlamak: KAYFOR örneği. Akademik İncelemeler Dergisi. 50(3), 183-211. Erişim adresi: https://www.academia.edu/35738567/Kongre_Bildirileri_%C3%9Czerinden_Y%C3%B6ntem_Sorununu_Anlamak_KAYFOR_%C3%96rne%C4%9Fi_Understanding_Methodology_Pr oblem_through_Conference_Papers_The_Case_of_KAYFOR
37. Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The Structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. doi.org/10.1086/ahr/68.3.700
38. Levin, K. A. (2006). Study design 3: Cross-sectional studies. Evidence-Based Dentistry, 7, 24-25. doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6400375
39. Lynn, L. E. (1996). Public management as art, science, and profession (Public administration and public policy). UK. Chatham House Publication. doi.org/10.1201/9781420016994.sec15
40. Lynn, L. E., Heinrich, C. J., ve Hill, C. J. (2001). Improving governance: A new logic for empirical research. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. doi.org/10.2307/3094922
41. McAuley, J., Johson, P., ve Duberley, J. (2007). Organization theory: Challenges and perspectives. UK: Prentice Hall. doi.org/10.1177/0170840608094705
42. McCurdy, H. E., ve Cleary, R. E. (1984). Why can't we resolve the research issue in public administration? Public Administration Review, 44(1), 49-55. doi.org/10.2307/975661
43. McNabb, D.E. (2002). Research methods in public administration and nonprofit management: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe. doi.org/10.4324/9781315181158-21
44. Meier, K. J. (2005). Public administration and the myth of positivism: The anti-christ’s view. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 27(4), 650-668. doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2005.11029511
45. Mele, V. ve Belardinelli, P. (2019). Mixed methods in public administration research: Selecting, sequencing, and connecting. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 334–347. doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy046
46. Meyerson, D., ve Martin, J. (1987). Cultural change: An integration of three different views. Journal of Management Studies, 24, 623-647. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1987.tb00466.x
47. Molina-Azorin, J. F. (2012). Mixed methods research in strategic management: Impact and applications, 15(1), 33-56. doi.org/10.1177/1094428110393023
48. Morgan, D. L. (1998). Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: Applications to health research. Qualitative Health Research, 8, 362-376. doi.org/10.1177/104973239800800307
49. Morse, J. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation, Nursing Research, 40, 120-123. doi.org/10.1097/00006199-199103000-00014
50. Morse, J. M., ve Niehaus, L. (2009). Mixed-method design: Principles and procedures. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. doi.org/10.4324/9781315424538
51. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., ve Johnson, R. B. (2004). Mixed methods research. R. B. Johnson ve L. B. Christensen (Ed.). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (s. 408-431). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. doi.org/10.3102/0013189x033007014
52. Osifo, O. C. (2015). Public management research and a three qualitative research strategy. Review Public Administration Management, 3(1), 1-8 doi: 10.4172/2315-7844.1000149
53. Perry, J. L. ve Kramer, K. L. (1986). Research methodology in the "public administration review," 1975-1984. Public Administration Review, 46(3), 215-226. doi.org/10.2307/3110436
54. Pitts, D. W., ve Fernandez, S. (2009). The state of public management research: An analysis of scope and methodology. International Public Management Journal, 12(4), 399–420. doi:10.1080/10967490903328170
55. Raimondo, Estelle, ve Kathryn Newcomer. (2017). Mixed-Methods inquiry in public administration: The interaction of theory, methodology, and praxis. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 37(2), 183-201. doi.org/10.1177/0734371x17697247
56. Riccucci, N. (1995). Unsung heroes: Federal execucrats making a difference. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. doi.org/10.5860/choice.33-4789
57. Riccucci, N. (2010). Public administration: Traditions of inquiry and philosophies of knowledge (Public Management and Change Series). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. doi.org/10.5354/0719-6296.2015.38493
58. Riccucci, N. (2008). The logic of inquiry in the field of public administration. K, Yang ve G. J. Miller (Ed.). Handbook of research methods in public management (s. 3-13). Boca Raton: CRC Press. doi.org/10.1201/9781420013276.ch1
59. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., ve Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. doi.org/10.1108/qmr.2000.3.4.215.2
60. Stallings, R. A., ve Ferris, J. A. (1988). Public administration research: Work in PAR, 1940-1984. Public Administration Review, 48(1). https://doi.org/10.2307/975522
61. Stivers, C. (2000). Bureau men, settlement women: Constructing public administration in the progressive era. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. doi.org/10.5860/choice.38-1230
62. Tashakkori, A., ve Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage. doi.org/10.2307/2655606
63. Thiel, S. V. (2014). Research methods in public administration and public management: An Introduction. London: Routledge. doi.org/10.4324/9780203078525
64. Wilson, J. (2010). Essentials of business research: A guide to doing your research project. UK: Sage Publications. doi.org/10.1177/097215091101200211
65. Yang, K. ve Miller, G. J. (2008). Handbook of research methods in public administration. UK: Taylor and Francis Group. doi.org/10.1201/9781420013276