NİTEL VE NİCEL ARAŞTIRMA YÖNTEMLERİNİN BİR ARADA KULLANILMASI “KARMA ARAŞTIRMA YÖNTEMİ”

Year 2016, Volume: 24 Issue: 2, 106 - 112, 01.06.2016

Selen Butgel Tunalı , Ömer Gözü Göktuğ Özen

Abstract

Bu çalışmada nitel ve nicel araştırma yöntemlerinin, araştırmada birlikte kullanılmasını yöntem edinen, ‘karma araştırma yöntemi’ yöntem tanımı, üstünlük ve sınırlılıkları, karma araştırma yöntemi kullanım sebepleri ile karma araştırma yöntem tasarımlarına yer verilmiştir. Ayrıca, İPSOS tarafından ön testlerinde kullanılan nicel ve nitel yöntemleri birleştiren AdLab ön araştırma yöntemine de çalışmada yer verilmiştir

Keywords

nitel, nicel, araştırma, karma yöntem, adlab

USING A COMBINATION OF QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE METHODS “MIXED RESEARCH METHOD”

Abstract

In this study, mixed research method 's which means using a combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods in a particular research, definition, advantages and disadvantages are discussed. In addition the reason of using mixed method and mixed research method design in researches are also examined. Finally, the pre-test method that is used by IPSOS, AdLAb method, which makes combination of quantitative and qualitative research method is mentioned in this study

Keywords

quantitative, qualitative, research, mixed method, adlab

References

• Brannen, J. (2005). Mixing Methods: The entry of qualitative and quantitative approaches into the research process. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(3), 173–184.
• Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Fielding, N., ve Fielding, J. (1986). Linking Data: the articulation of qualitative and quantitative methods in social research. Sage, London and Beverly Hills.
• Giannakaki, M. S. (2005). Using Mixed-Methods to Examine Teachers' Attitudes to Educational Change: The case of the Skills for Life Strategy for Improving Adult Literacy and Numeracy Skills in England. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11(4): 323- 348.
• 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.
• Greene, J. C. (2005). The generative potential of mixed methods inquiry. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 28(2): 207 – 211.
• Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7): 14-26.
• Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzıe, A. J., & Turner, L.A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133.
• Ipsos Türkiye, http://www.ipsos.com.tr/node/1076, (Erişim Tarihi: 27 Mayıs 2016)
• Leech, N. L. ve Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Qual Quant. 43, 265–275
• Morse, J. M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 189–208.
• Popper, K (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Routledge, London.
• Rossman, G. B., & Wilson, B. L. (1994). Numbers and words revisited: Being “shamelessly eclectic”. Quality and Quantity, 28(3), 315-327.
• Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (Eds). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.