Nitel Araştırmalarda Nitelik Sorunu

Year 2018, Volume: 5 Issue: 2, 55 - 73, 01.11.2018

Mustafa Yaşar

https://doi.org/10.21666/muefd.426318

Cited By: 16

Abstract

Nitel
araştırmanın popülerliğinin bilim camiasında son yıllardaki hızlı yükselişi,
epistemolojik, felsefi ve yöntemsel alanlarda tartışmaları beraberinde
getirmiştir. Nitel araştırmaya getirilen eleştiriler özellikle üç konuda
yoğunlaşmaktadır: nesnel olamama, geçerlik ve güvenirlik konusunda titiz
olamama,  genellenememe. Bu eleştiriler,
bir yandan nitel araştırmaların ne kadar özen ve titizlik içerisinde yapıldığına
yönelik geçerli kaygıları dile getirirken, bir yandan da altında yatan
nicel/pozitivizist bir felsefi yaklaşımı ve dünya görüşünü yansıtmaktadır.
Nitel araştırmaları eleştirenler çoğunlukla, genellikle pozitivist deneysel
yöntemi temel kabul ederek ve sadece bir araştırma yönteminin ya da desenin
bilim anlayışına uyduğunu varsayarak bu eleştirileri yapmaktadırlar. Nitel
araştırmaların öznel yönünü vurgulayan pek çok araştırmacı, nicel kalite
ölçütlerinin nitel araştırmaya uygun olmadıkları ve nitel araştırmaların
kaliteyi belirlemede kendi ölçütlerinin olması gerektiği görüşündedirler. Nitel
araştırma sürecinin doğru ve uygun bir şekilde yapılmasının bir formülü ya da
bir reçetesi yoktur; nitel araştırmaların güvenilir ve geçerli olmasını
garantilemek için tek bir test ya da kontrol listesi bulunmamaktadır. Nitel
araştırmalarda geçerliliği ve kaliteyi artırmada alanyazında üçgenleme, ek
kodlayıcı, katılımcı onayı, gömülü kuram, araştırma ortamında uzun zaman
geçirmek, ayrıntılı betimleme, olumsuz durum analizi ve kontrollü öznellik gibi
pek çok öneri sunulmaktadır. Fakat, yapılandırmacı/yorumlamacı paradigma
içselleştirilmeden, pozitivist bakış açısını yansıtan kaliteyi arttırmaya
yönelik geçerlik stratejilerinin kullanıldığı durumlarda ortaya çıkan sonuç
tatmin edicilikten uzak olmaktadır. 

Keywords

Nitel Araştırma, Kalite, Geçerlilik, Güvenirlik

References

• Altheide, D. L.,&Johnson, J. M. (1994). Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin&Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 485-499). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.
• Ambert, A. M., Adler, P. A., Adler, P., & Detzner, D. F. (1995). Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 879-893.
• Amstrong, D., Gosling, A., Weinman, J., & Marteau, T. (1997). The place of inter-rated reliability in qualitaive research: An empirical study. Sociology, 31(3), 597-606.
• Atkinson, P. (1997). Narrative Turn or Blind Alley? Qualitative Health Research, 7, 325-344.
• Auerbach, C. F. ve Silverstein, L. B. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and analysis. New York: NYU Press.
• Bailey, P. H. (1996). Assuring quality in narrative analysis. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 18, 186-194.
• Barbour, R. S.(2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? British Medical Journal 322(1), 115-117.
• Başkale, H. (2016). Nitel araştırmalarda geçerlik, güvenirlik ve örneklem büyüklüğünün belirlenmesi. DEUHFED, 9(1), 23-28.
• Blaikie, N. W. H. (1991). A critique of the use of triangulation in social research. Quality & Quantity, 25, 115-136.
• Brock-Utne, B. (1996). Reliability and validity in qualitative research within education in Africa, International review of education 42,(6), 605-621.
• Borman, K. M., LeCompte, M. D. & Goetz, J. P., (1986), Ethnographic and qualitative research design and why it doesn't work, American Behavioral Scientist, 30, 42-57.
• Creswell, J.W. (1999). Mix-method research: Introduction and aplication. In Gregory J. Cizek (Ed.) Handbook of educational Policy (455-472). California: Academic Press.
• Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. California: Sage Publications Inc.
• Davies, D. & Dodd, J. (2002). Qualitative research and the question of rigor. Qualitative Health Research, 12(2), 279-289.
• Denzin, N. K. (1978). The Research act: A theoretical ıntroduction to sociological methods. Chicago: Aldine.
• Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Eisenhart, M. A., & Howe, K. R. (1992). Validity in educational research. In M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 643-680). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
• Emden, C. &Sandelowski, M. (1998). The good, the bad and the relative, part one: Conceptions of goodness in qualitative research. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 4, 206-212.
• Erickson, F. (1973). What makes school ethnography “ethnographic?” Antropology & Education Quarterly, 4(2), 10-19.
• Erkuş, A. (2017). Davranış bilimleri için bilimsel araştırma süreci (5. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Finlay, L. (2002). “Outing” the researcher: The provenance, process, and practice of reflexivity. QualitativeHealth Research, 12, 531-545.
• Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
• Graneheim, U.H. & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve. Nurse Education Today, 24, 105–112.
• Guba, E. G., ve Lincoln, Y. S. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry. Educational Communication and Technology, 30(4), 233-252.
• Guba, E. G., ve Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). London: Sage.
• Hammersley, M. (1987). Some notes on the terms 'validity' and 'reliability'. British Educational Research Journal, 13(1), pp. 73-81.
• Johnson, M. (1999). Observations on positivism and pseudoscience in qualitative nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 30, 67-73.
• Kahn, D. L. (1993).Ways of discussing validity in qualitative nursing research. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 15, 122-126.
• Lather, P. (1993). Fertile obsession: Validity after poststructuralism. Sociological Quarterly, 34(4), 673-693.
• LeCompte, M. D. & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research Spring, 52(1), 31-60.
• Lincoln, Y. S. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research, Qualitative Inquiry, 1(3), 275-289.
• Lincoln,Y. S. & Denzin, N. K. (1994). The fifth moment. In N. K. Denzin&Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 575-586). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
• Long, T. & Johnson, M. (2000). Rigour, reliability and validity research. Clinical Effectiveness in Nursing, 4 (1), 30–37.
• Maggs-Rapport, F. (2000). Combining methodological approaches in research: ethnography and interpretive phenomenology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31(1), 219-225.
• Marshall, C. (1990). Goodness criteria: Are they objective or judgement calls? In E. G. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 188-197). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 279-299.
• Mays, N. & Pope, C. (1995). Rigour and qualitative research. BMJ, 311, 109-112.
• Mays, N. & Pope, C. (2000). Qualitative research in health care:Assessing quality in qualitative research. British Medical Journal 320 (1) 50-52.
• Merriam, S. B. (1995). What can you tell from an Nof 1?: Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 4. 51-60.
• Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Morse, J. M. (1999). Qualitative generalizability, Qualitative Health Research, 9(1), 5-6.
• Moss, P. A., Phillips, D. C., Erickson, F. D., Floden, R. E., Lather, P. A. & Schneider, B. L. (2009). Learning from our differences: A dialogue across perspectives on quality in education research. Educational Researcher, 38(7), 501-517.
• Myers, M. (2000). Qualitative research and the generalizability question: standing firm with proteus. The Qualitative Report 4(3), Retrieved from ttp://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol4/iss3/9.
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Phillips, D. C. (1987). Validity in qualitative research: Why the worry about warrant wil not wane? Education and Urban Society, 20(1), 9-24.
• Phillips, D. C. (2006). A guide for the perplexed: Scientific educational research, methodolatry, and the gold versus the platinum standards. Educational Research Review, 1, 15–26.
• Popay, J., Rogers, A. & Williams, G. (1998). Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research. Qualitative Health Research, 8, 341-351.
• Pyett, P. M. (2003). Validation of qualitative research in the “Real World.” Qualıtatıve Health Research, 13 (8), 1170-1179.
• Rubin, H. ve Rubin, I. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Sandelowski, M. (1986). The problem of rigor in qualitative research. Advances in Nursing Science, 8, 27-37.
• Sandelowski, M. (1998). The call to experts in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 21, 467–471.
• Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4), 465-478.
• Sharts-Hopko, N. C. (2002). Assessing rigor in qualitative research. Journal Of The Association Of Nurses In Aids Care, 13(4), 84-86.
• Silverman, D. (2015). Interpretting qualitative data (5th Ed.). London: Sage.
• Thompson, A. (2007). Research after poststructuralism. TASA & SAANZ Joint Conference, 4-7 December, 2007, Auckland, New Zealand. Retrieved August 16, 2012 from: http://www.tasa.org.au/conferences/conferencepapers07/papers/350.pdf
• Walker, D. & Myrick, F. (2006). Grounded theory: An exploration of process and procedure, Qualitative Health Research, 16(4), 547-559.
• Whittemore, R., Chase, S. K., & Mandle, C. L. (2001). Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 11, 522-537.
• Wolcott, H. (1975). Criteria for an ethnographic approach to research in schools. Human Organizatıon, 34(2), 111-127.
• Yin, R. K. (2010). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
• Yıldırım, K. (2010). Nitel araştırmalarda niteliği artırma. İlköğretim Online, 9(1), 79-92.
• Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2005). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştrma yöntemleri. (5. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.