Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

BİLİMSEL ÇALIŞMALARDA KARMA YÖNTEM NASIL KULLANILIR?:

Year 2021, , 1 - 15, 16.02.2021

Aylin Aydın Çakır , Selin Türkeş

https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.802568
Cited By: 5

Abstract

Sosyal bilimlerde nicel ve nitel yöntemleri bir arada kullanan çalışmaların sayısında son yıllarda ciddi bir artış gözlemlenmektedir. Karma yöntem olarak tanımlanan bu araştırma stratejisi, nitel ve nicel verilerin gelişigüzel bir arada kullanılmasının ötesinde farklı yaklaşımların tek çalışma içinde bütünleştirilmesini mümkün kılacak bir araştırma tasarımı ve kuramsal çerçeve gerektirir. Bu makale, alanyazında giderek artan bir ağırlığa sahip olan ve üçüncü ana araştırma yöntemi olarak kabul gören karma yöntemlerin uygulanmasına dair esasları kapsamlı bir tartışmayla ortaya koymayı amaçlar. Karma yöntemin tanımı, amacı, avantajları üzerine tanıtıcı bir bölümü takiben karma yöntemin nasıl kullanılabileceğine dair farklı araştırma tasarımları üzerinde durulacaktır. Bu tasarımlar siyaset bilimi ve uluslararası ilişkiler alanından çalışmalarla örneklenecektir. Sonuç bölümünde karma yönteme yöneltilen eleştiriler ve yöntemin uygulanmasında karşılaşılabilecek zorluklar üzerinde durulacaktır. Böylece karma yönteme ilgi duyan araştırmacılar için bir yol haritası sunulacaktır.

Keywords

Karma yöntem Üçgenleme İç içe geçmiş tasarım

References

  • Anguera, T.M., Blanco-Villasenor A., Losada L. J., Sanchez-Algarra P. ve Onwuegbuzie A. J. (2018). “Revisiting the Difference Between Mixed Methods and Multimethods: Is it all in the name?”, Quality & Quantity, 52/6, 2757-2770.
  • Barnes, B. R. (2019). “Transformative Mixed Methods Research in South Africa: Contributions to Social Justice”, Transforming Research Methods in the Social Sciences: Case Studies from South Africa, (Ed: S. Laher, A. Fynn ve Sherianne Kramer), Wits University Press, Johannesburg, 303–316.
  • Braumoeller, B. F. (2003). “Causal Complexity and the Study of Politics”, Political Analysis, 11/3, 209–233. doi:10.1093/pan/mpg012.
  • Campbell, D. T. ve Fiske, D. W. (1959). “Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix”, Psychological Bulletin, 56/2, 81–105. doi:10.1037/h0046016.
  • Caracelli, V. J. ve Greene, J. C. (1997). “Crafting Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs”, Advances in Mixed-Method Evaluation: The Challenges and Benefits of Integrating Diverse Paradigms, (Ed: V. J. Caracelli ve J. C. Greene), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 19-32.
  • Collier, D. (2011). “Understanding Process Tracing”, PS - Political Science and Politics, 44/4, 823–830. doi:10.1017/S1049096511001429.
  • Collier, D., Brady, H. E. ve Seawright, J. (2004). “Introduction to the Second Edition: A Sea Change in Political Methodology”, Rethinking Social Inquiry: diverse tools, shared standards, (Ed: H. E. Brady ve D. Collier), 2. Baskı, Rowman&Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, Maryland, 3-20.
  • Collins, K. M. T. ve O’Cathain, A. (2009). “Ten points about mixed methods research to be considered by the novice researcher”, International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 3/1, 2–7. doi:10.5172/mra.455.3.1.2.
  • Creswell, J. W. ve Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed Method Research, 1.Baskı, CA: Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
  • Creswell, J. W. ve Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and Conducting Mixed Method Research, 3.Baskı, CA: Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
  • Driscoll, D. L., Appiah-Yeboah, A., Salib, P. ve Rupert, D. J. (2007). “Merging Qualitative and Quantitative Data in Mixed Method Research: How To and Why Not”, Ecological and Environmental Anthropology, 3/1, 19–28.
  • Dunning, T. (2007). “The Role of Iteration in Multi-Method Research”, Qualitative Methods, 5/1, 22–24.
  • Genç Tetik, E. (2020). “Karma Yöntem Araştırma Tasariminin Kamu Yöneti̇mi̇ Alanında Kullanımı Üzeri̇ne Bi̇r İnceleme”, Hitit Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 13/1, 169–186. doi:10.17218/hititsosbil.692925.
  • Goertz, G. ve Mahoney, J. (2012). A tale of two cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in Social Sciences, Princeton University Press.
  • 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.
  • Greenhill, B. ve Strausz, M. (2014). “Explaining nonratification of the genocide convention: A nested analysis”, Foreign Policy Analysis, 10/4, 371–391. doi:10.1111/fpa.12013.
  • Ingelgom, V. Van. (2014). Integrating Indifference: A Comparative, Qualitative and Quantitative Approach to the Legitimacy of European Integration, Colchester: ECPR Press.
  • Jervis, R. (1997). System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, Princeton. doi:10.2307/2654457.
  • Jick, T. D. (1979). “Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 24/4, 602. doi:10.2307/2392366.
  • Johnson, R. B. ve Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). “Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come”, Educational Researcher, 33/7, 14–26. doi:10.3102/0013189X033007014.
  • Johnson, R. B. ve Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). “Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research”, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1/2, 112–133. doi:10.1177/1558689806298224.
  • Johnson, R. B. ve Turner, L. (2003). “Data collection strategies in mixed methods research”, Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, (Ed: A. Tashakkori ve C. Teddlie), CA: Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, 297–319.
  • Johnstone, J. H. (2009). “Reviewed Work: Taxation, Wage Bargaining, and Unemployment by Isabela Mares”, Review of Social Economy, 67/2, 258–262.
  • Kapur, S. P. (2007). Dangerous deterrent: Nuclear weapons proliferation and conflict in South Asia, CA: Stanford University Press, Stanford.
  • King, G., Keohane, R. O. ve Verba, S. (1994). Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, Princeton. doi:10.2307/2076556.
  • Lieberman, E. S. (2005). “Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research”, The American Political Science Review, 99/3, 435–452.
  • Lijphart, A. (1971). “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method”, The American Political Science Review, 65/3, 682–693. Mansfield, E. D., & Snyder, J. (2005). Electing to fight: Why emerging democracies go to war, Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Maoz, Z. (2004). “Conflict Management and Conflict Resolution: A Conceptual and Methodological Introduction”, Multiple Paths to Knowledge in International Relations, (Ed: R. J. S. Zeev Maoz, Alex Mintz, T. Clifton Morgan, Glenn Palmer), Maryland: Lexington, 1–32.
  • Mares, I. (2006). Taxation, wage bargaining, and unemployment, New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Maxwell, J. A. ve Loomis, D. M. (2003). “Mixed methods design: An alternative approach”, Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research, (Ed: A. Tashakkori, C. Teddlie), CA: Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, 241–263.
  • Mazur, A. G. ve Parry, J. (1998). “Choosing not to choose in comparative policy research design: The case of the Research Network on Gender, Politics, and the State”, Policy Studies Journal, 26/3, 384–397. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.1998.tb01908.x.
  • McBride, S. D. ve Mazur, A. G. (1995). Comparative state feminism, CA: Sage Publications, Newbury Park.
  • Mintz, A. (2003). “Integrating Cognitive and Rational Theories of Foreign Policy Decision Making: A Poliheuristic Perspective”, Integrating Cognitive and Rational Theories of Foreign Policy Decision Making: The Polyheuristic Theory of Decision, (Ed: A. Mintz), New York: Springer, 1–9. doi:10.1007/978-1-137-07848-3.
  • Morse, J. M. ve Niehaus, L. (2009). Mixed Method Design: Principles and Procedures, New York: Routledge.
  • Onwuegbuzie, A.J. , & Johnson, R.B. (2006). “The validity issue in mixed research”, Research in the Schools, 13/1, 48-63
  • Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 2.Baskı, CA: Sage Publications, Newbury Park.
  • Rathbun, B. C., Kertzer, J. D. ve Paradis, M. (2017). “Homo Diplomaticus: Mixed-Method Evidence of Variation in Strategic Rationality”, International Organization, 71/1, 33–60. doi:10.1017/S0020818316000412.
  • Rohlfing, I. (2008). “What You See and What You Get”, Comparative Political Studies, 41/11, 1492–1514. doi:10.1177/0010414007308019.
  • Sale, J. E. M. ve Brazil, K. (2004). “A Strategy to Identify Critical Appraisal Criteria for Primary Mixed-Method Studies”, Quality & Quantity, 38/4, 351-365
  • SenGupta, S. (1993). “A Mixed-Method Design for Practical Purposes--Combination of Concept Mapping, Questionnaire and Interviews”, AEA Conference, 2-17.
  • Shapiro, I. ve Green, D. P. (1994). Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science, New Haven: Yale University Press.
  • Söyler, M. (2020). “Nitel ve Nicel Yöntem Farkına Çoğulcu Yaklaşım: KKV-Sonrası Dönemde Nitel Yöntem ve Kazanımları”, Amme İdaresi, 53/2, 99-127.
  • Tarrow, S. (1995). “Review : Bridging the Quantitative-Qualitative Divide in Political Science”, The American Political Science Review, 89/2, 471–474.
  • Teddlie, C. ve Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of Mixed Methods Research, CA: Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
  • Thaler, K. M. (2017). “Mixed Methods Research in the Study of Political and Social Violence and Conflict”, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11/1, 59–76.
  • Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D. ve Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive research in the social sciences, Chicago: Rand McNally & Company.
  • Wittenberg, J. (2007). “Peril and Promise: Multi-Method Research in Practice”, Qualitative Method, 5/1, 19-22.

HOW TO USE MIXED-METHOD IN SCIENTIFIC STUDIES?

Year 2021, , 1 - 15, 16.02.2021

Aylin Aydın Çakır , Selin Türkeş

https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.802568
Cited By: 5

Abstract

In recent years, a significant proliferation has been observed in the number of studies combining quantitative and qualitative methods in social sciences. This research strategy, defined as a mixed-method, requires a research design and theoretical framework that will enable the integration of different approaches in a single study, beyond the random use of qualitative and quantitative data. This article aims to put forward the principles of the application of mixed methods, which have an increasing weight in the literature and are accepted as the third main research method, with a comprehensive discussion. Following an introductory chapter on the definition, purpose, and advantages of the mixed method, different research designs on how the mixed method can be used will be discussed. These designs will be exemplified by studies from the field of political science and international relations. In the conclusion section, the criticisms directed to the mixed-method, and the difficulties that may be encountered in the application of the method will be emphasized. Thusly, a road map will be presented for researchers who are interested in the mixed method.

Keywords

Mixed-method Triangulation Sequential design Explanatory design Exploratory design Nested design

References

  • Anguera, T.M., Blanco-Villasenor A., Losada L. J., Sanchez-Algarra P. ve Onwuegbuzie A. J. (2018). “Revisiting the Difference Between Mixed Methods and Multimethods: Is it all in the name?”, Quality & Quantity, 52/6, 2757-2770.
  • Barnes, B. R. (2019). “Transformative Mixed Methods Research in South Africa: Contributions to Social Justice”, Transforming Research Methods in the Social Sciences: Case Studies from South Africa, (Ed: S. Laher, A. Fynn ve Sherianne Kramer), Wits University Press, Johannesburg, 303–316.
  • Braumoeller, B. F. (2003). “Causal Complexity and the Study of Politics”, Political Analysis, 11/3, 209–233. doi:10.1093/pan/mpg012.
  • Campbell, D. T. ve Fiske, D. W. (1959). “Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix”, Psychological Bulletin, 56/2, 81–105. doi:10.1037/h0046016.
  • Caracelli, V. J. ve Greene, J. C. (1997). “Crafting Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs”, Advances in Mixed-Method Evaluation: The Challenges and Benefits of Integrating Diverse Paradigms, (Ed: V. J. Caracelli ve J. C. Greene), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 19-32.
  • Collier, D. (2011). “Understanding Process Tracing”, PS - Political Science and Politics, 44/4, 823–830. doi:10.1017/S1049096511001429.
  • Collier, D., Brady, H. E. ve Seawright, J. (2004). “Introduction to the Second Edition: A Sea Change in Political Methodology”, Rethinking Social Inquiry: diverse tools, shared standards, (Ed: H. E. Brady ve D. Collier), 2. Baskı, Rowman&Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, Maryland, 3-20.
  • Collins, K. M. T. ve O’Cathain, A. (2009). “Ten points about mixed methods research to be considered by the novice researcher”, International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 3/1, 2–7. doi:10.5172/mra.455.3.1.2.
  • Creswell, J. W. ve Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed Method Research, 1.Baskı, CA: Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
  • Creswell, J. W. ve Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and Conducting Mixed Method Research, 3.Baskı, CA: Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
  • Driscoll, D. L., Appiah-Yeboah, A., Salib, P. ve Rupert, D. J. (2007). “Merging Qualitative and Quantitative Data in Mixed Method Research: How To and Why Not”, Ecological and Environmental Anthropology, 3/1, 19–28.
  • Dunning, T. (2007). “The Role of Iteration in Multi-Method Research”, Qualitative Methods, 5/1, 22–24.
  • Genç Tetik, E. (2020). “Karma Yöntem Araştırma Tasariminin Kamu Yöneti̇mi̇ Alanında Kullanımı Üzeri̇ne Bi̇r İnceleme”, Hitit Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 13/1, 169–186. doi:10.17218/hititsosbil.692925.
  • Goertz, G. ve Mahoney, J. (2012). A tale of two cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in Social Sciences, Princeton University Press.
  • 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.
  • Greenhill, B. ve Strausz, M. (2014). “Explaining nonratification of the genocide convention: A nested analysis”, Foreign Policy Analysis, 10/4, 371–391. doi:10.1111/fpa.12013.
  • Ingelgom, V. Van. (2014). Integrating Indifference: A Comparative, Qualitative and Quantitative Approach to the Legitimacy of European Integration, Colchester: ECPR Press.
  • Jervis, R. (1997). System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, Princeton. doi:10.2307/2654457.
  • Jick, T. D. (1979). “Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 24/4, 602. doi:10.2307/2392366.
  • Johnson, R. B. ve Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). “Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come”, Educational Researcher, 33/7, 14–26. doi:10.3102/0013189X033007014.
  • Johnson, R. B. ve Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). “Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research”, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1/2, 112–133. doi:10.1177/1558689806298224.
  • Johnson, R. B. ve Turner, L. (2003). “Data collection strategies in mixed methods research”, Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, (Ed: A. Tashakkori ve C. Teddlie), CA: Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, 297–319.
  • Johnstone, J. H. (2009). “Reviewed Work: Taxation, Wage Bargaining, and Unemployment by Isabela Mares”, Review of Social Economy, 67/2, 258–262.
  • Kapur, S. P. (2007). Dangerous deterrent: Nuclear weapons proliferation and conflict in South Asia, CA: Stanford University Press, Stanford.
  • King, G., Keohane, R. O. ve Verba, S. (1994). Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, Princeton. doi:10.2307/2076556.
  • Lieberman, E. S. (2005). “Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research”, The American Political Science Review, 99/3, 435–452.
  • Lijphart, A. (1971). “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method”, The American Political Science Review, 65/3, 682–693. Mansfield, E. D., & Snyder, J. (2005). Electing to fight: Why emerging democracies go to war, Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Maoz, Z. (2004). “Conflict Management and Conflict Resolution: A Conceptual and Methodological Introduction”, Multiple Paths to Knowledge in International Relations, (Ed: R. J. S. Zeev Maoz, Alex Mintz, T. Clifton Morgan, Glenn Palmer), Maryland: Lexington, 1–32.
  • Mares, I. (2006). Taxation, wage bargaining, and unemployment, New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Maxwell, J. A. ve Loomis, D. M. (2003). “Mixed methods design: An alternative approach”, Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research, (Ed: A. Tashakkori, C. Teddlie), CA: Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, 241–263.
  • Mazur, A. G. ve Parry, J. (1998). “Choosing not to choose in comparative policy research design: The case of the Research Network on Gender, Politics, and the State”, Policy Studies Journal, 26/3, 384–397. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.1998.tb01908.x.
  • McBride, S. D. ve Mazur, A. G. (1995). Comparative state feminism, CA: Sage Publications, Newbury Park.
  • Mintz, A. (2003). “Integrating Cognitive and Rational Theories of Foreign Policy Decision Making: A Poliheuristic Perspective”, Integrating Cognitive and Rational Theories of Foreign Policy Decision Making: The Polyheuristic Theory of Decision, (Ed: A. Mintz), New York: Springer, 1–9. doi:10.1007/978-1-137-07848-3.
  • Morse, J. M. ve Niehaus, L. (2009). Mixed Method Design: Principles and Procedures, New York: Routledge.
  • Onwuegbuzie, A.J. , & Johnson, R.B. (2006). “The validity issue in mixed research”, Research in the Schools, 13/1, 48-63
  • Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 2.Baskı, CA: Sage Publications, Newbury Park.
  • Rathbun, B. C., Kertzer, J. D. ve Paradis, M. (2017). “Homo Diplomaticus: Mixed-Method Evidence of Variation in Strategic Rationality”, International Organization, 71/1, 33–60. doi:10.1017/S0020818316000412.
  • Rohlfing, I. (2008). “What You See and What You Get”, Comparative Political Studies, 41/11, 1492–1514. doi:10.1177/0010414007308019.
  • Sale, J. E. M. ve Brazil, K. (2004). “A Strategy to Identify Critical Appraisal Criteria for Primary Mixed-Method Studies”, Quality & Quantity, 38/4, 351-365
  • SenGupta, S. (1993). “A Mixed-Method Design for Practical Purposes--Combination of Concept Mapping, Questionnaire and Interviews”, AEA Conference, 2-17.
  • Shapiro, I. ve Green, D. P. (1994). Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science, New Haven: Yale University Press.
  • Söyler, M. (2020). “Nitel ve Nicel Yöntem Farkına Çoğulcu Yaklaşım: KKV-Sonrası Dönemde Nitel Yöntem ve Kazanımları”, Amme İdaresi, 53/2, 99-127.
  • Tarrow, S. (1995). “Review : Bridging the Quantitative-Qualitative Divide in Political Science”, The American Political Science Review, 89/2, 471–474.
  • Teddlie, C. ve Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of Mixed Methods Research, CA: Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
  • Thaler, K. M. (2017). “Mixed Methods Research in the Study of Political and Social Violence and Conflict”, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11/1, 59–76.
  • Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D. ve Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive research in the social sciences, Chicago: Rand McNally & Company.
  • Wittenberg, J. (2007). “Peril and Promise: Multi-Method Research in Practice”, Qualitative Method, 5/1, 19-22.

BİLİMSEL ÇALIŞMALARDA KARMA YÖNTEM NASIL KULLANILIR?

Year 2021, , 1 - 15, 16.02.2021

Aylin Aydın Çakır , Selin Türkeş

https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.802568
Cited By: 5

Abstract

Sosyal bilimlerde nicel ve nitel yöntemleri bir arada kullanan çalışmaların sayısında son yıllarda ciddi bir artış gözlemlenmektedir. Karma yöntem olarak tanımlanan bu araştırma stratejisi, nitel ve nicel verilerin gelişigüzel bir arada kullanılmasının ötesinde farklı yaklaşımların tek çalışma içinde bütünleştirilmesini mümkün kılacak bir araştırma tasarımı ve kuramsal çerçeve gerektirir. Bu makale, alanyazında giderek artan bir ağırlığa sahip olan ve üçüncü ana araştırma yöntemi olarak kabul gören karma yöntemlerin uygulanmasına dair esasları kapsamlı bir tartışmayla ortaya koymayı amaçlar. Karma yöntemin tanımı, amacı, avantajları üzerine tanıtıcı bir bölümü takiben karma yöntemin nasıl kullanılabileceğine dair farklı araştırma tasarımları üzerinde durulacaktır. Bu tasarımlar siyaset bilimi ve uluslararası ilişkiler alanından çalışmalarla örneklenecektir. Sonuç bölümünde karma yönteme yöneltilen eleştiriler ve yöntemin uygulanmasında karşılaşılabilecek zorluklar üzerinde durulacaktır. Böylece karma yönteme ilgi duyan araştırmacılar için bir yol haritası sunulacaktır.

Keywords

Karma yöntem Üçgenleme Sıralı tasarım Açıklayıcı tasarım Keşfedici tasarım İç içe geçmiş tasarım

References

  • Anguera, T.M., Blanco-Villasenor A., Losada L. J., Sanchez-Algarra P. ve Onwuegbuzie A. J. (2018). “Revisiting the Difference Between Mixed Methods and Multimethods: Is it all in the name?”, Quality & Quantity, 52/6, 2757-2770.
  • Barnes, B. R. (2019). “Transformative Mixed Methods Research in South Africa: Contributions to Social Justice”, Transforming Research Methods in the Social Sciences: Case Studies from South Africa, (Ed: S. Laher, A. Fynn ve Sherianne Kramer), Wits University Press, Johannesburg, 303–316.
  • Braumoeller, B. F. (2003). “Causal Complexity and the Study of Politics”, Political Analysis, 11/3, 209–233. doi:10.1093/pan/mpg012.
  • Campbell, D. T. ve Fiske, D. W. (1959). “Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix”, Psychological Bulletin, 56/2, 81–105. doi:10.1037/h0046016.
  • Caracelli, V. J. ve Greene, J. C. (1997). “Crafting Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs”, Advances in Mixed-Method Evaluation: The Challenges and Benefits of Integrating Diverse Paradigms, (Ed: V. J. Caracelli ve J. C. Greene), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 19-32.
  • Collier, D. (2011). “Understanding Process Tracing”, PS - Political Science and Politics, 44/4, 823–830. doi:10.1017/S1049096511001429.
  • Collier, D., Brady, H. E. ve Seawright, J. (2004). “Introduction to the Second Edition: A Sea Change in Political Methodology”, Rethinking Social Inquiry: diverse tools, shared standards, (Ed: H. E. Brady ve D. Collier), 2. Baskı, Rowman&Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, Maryland, 3-20.
  • Collins, K. M. T. ve O’Cathain, A. (2009). “Ten points about mixed methods research to be considered by the novice researcher”, International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 3/1, 2–7. doi:10.5172/mra.455.3.1.2.
  • Creswell, J. W. ve Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed Method Research, 1.Baskı, CA: Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
  • Creswell, J. W. ve Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and Conducting Mixed Method Research, 3.Baskı, CA: Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
  • Driscoll, D. L., Appiah-Yeboah, A., Salib, P. ve Rupert, D. J. (2007). “Merging Qualitative and Quantitative Data in Mixed Method Research: How To and Why Not”, Ecological and Environmental Anthropology, 3/1, 19–28.
  • Dunning, T. (2007). “The Role of Iteration in Multi-Method Research”, Qualitative Methods, 5/1, 22–24.
  • Genç Tetik, E. (2020). “Karma Yöntem Araştırma Tasariminin Kamu Yöneti̇mi̇ Alanında Kullanımı Üzeri̇ne Bi̇r İnceleme”, Hitit Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 13/1, 169–186. doi:10.17218/hititsosbil.692925.
  • Goertz, G. ve Mahoney, J. (2012). A tale of two cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in Social Sciences, Princeton University Press.
  • 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.
  • Greenhill, B. ve Strausz, M. (2014). “Explaining nonratification of the genocide convention: A nested analysis”, Foreign Policy Analysis, 10/4, 371–391. doi:10.1111/fpa.12013.
  • Ingelgom, V. Van. (2014). Integrating Indifference: A Comparative, Qualitative and Quantitative Approach to the Legitimacy of European Integration, Colchester: ECPR Press.
  • Jervis, R. (1997). System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, Princeton. doi:10.2307/2654457.
  • Jick, T. D. (1979). “Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 24/4, 602. doi:10.2307/2392366.
  • Johnson, R. B. ve Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). “Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come”, Educational Researcher, 33/7, 14–26. doi:10.3102/0013189X033007014.
  • Johnson, R. B. ve Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). “Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research”, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1/2, 112–133. doi:10.1177/1558689806298224.
  • Johnson, R. B. ve Turner, L. (2003). “Data collection strategies in mixed methods research”, Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, (Ed: A. Tashakkori ve C. Teddlie), CA: Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, 297–319.
  • Johnstone, J. H. (2009). “Reviewed Work: Taxation, Wage Bargaining, and Unemployment by Isabela Mares”, Review of Social Economy, 67/2, 258–262.
  • Kapur, S. P. (2007). Dangerous deterrent: Nuclear weapons proliferation and conflict in South Asia, CA: Stanford University Press, Stanford.
  • King, G., Keohane, R. O. ve Verba, S. (1994). Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, Princeton. doi:10.2307/2076556.
  • Lieberman, E. S. (2005). “Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research”, The American Political Science Review, 99/3, 435–452.
  • Lijphart, A. (1971). “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method”, The American Political Science Review, 65/3, 682–693. Mansfield, E. D., & Snyder, J. (2005). Electing to fight: Why emerging democracies go to war, Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Maoz, Z. (2004). “Conflict Management and Conflict Resolution: A Conceptual and Methodological Introduction”, Multiple Paths to Knowledge in International Relations, (Ed: R. J. S. Zeev Maoz, Alex Mintz, T. Clifton Morgan, Glenn Palmer), Maryland: Lexington, 1–32.
  • Mares, I. (2006). Taxation, wage bargaining, and unemployment, New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Maxwell, J. A. ve Loomis, D. M. (2003). “Mixed methods design: An alternative approach”, Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research, (Ed: A. Tashakkori, C. Teddlie), CA: Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, 241–263.
  • Mazur, A. G. ve Parry, J. (1998). “Choosing not to choose in comparative policy research design: The case of the Research Network on Gender, Politics, and the State”, Policy Studies Journal, 26/3, 384–397. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.1998.tb01908.x.
  • McBride, S. D. ve Mazur, A. G. (1995). Comparative state feminism, CA: Sage Publications, Newbury Park.
  • Mintz, A. (2003). “Integrating Cognitive and Rational Theories of Foreign Policy Decision Making: A Poliheuristic Perspective”, Integrating Cognitive and Rational Theories of Foreign Policy Decision Making: The Polyheuristic Theory of Decision, (Ed: A. Mintz), New York: Springer, 1–9. doi:10.1007/978-1-137-07848-3.
  • Morse, J. M. ve Niehaus, L. (2009). Mixed Method Design: Principles and Procedures, New York: Routledge.
  • Onwuegbuzie, A.J. , & Johnson, R.B. (2006). “The validity issue in mixed research”, Research in the Schools, 13/1, 48-63
  • Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 2.Baskı, CA: Sage Publications, Newbury Park.
  • Rathbun, B. C., Kertzer, J. D. ve Paradis, M. (2017). “Homo Diplomaticus: Mixed-Method Evidence of Variation in Strategic Rationality”, International Organization, 71/1, 33–60. doi:10.1017/S0020818316000412.
  • Rohlfing, I. (2008). “What You See and What You Get”, Comparative Political Studies, 41/11, 1492–1514. doi:10.1177/0010414007308019.
  • Sale, J. E. M. ve Brazil, K. (2004). “A Strategy to Identify Critical Appraisal Criteria for Primary Mixed-Method Studies”, Quality & Quantity, 38/4, 351-365
  • SenGupta, S. (1993). “A Mixed-Method Design for Practical Purposes--Combination of Concept Mapping, Questionnaire and Interviews”, AEA Conference, 2-17.
  • Shapiro, I. ve Green, D. P. (1994). Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science, New Haven: Yale University Press.
  • Söyler, M. (2020). “Nitel ve Nicel Yöntem Farkına Çoğulcu Yaklaşım: KKV-Sonrası Dönemde Nitel Yöntem ve Kazanımları”, Amme İdaresi, 53/2, 99-127.
  • Tarrow, S. (1995). “Review : Bridging the Quantitative-Qualitative Divide in Political Science”, The American Political Science Review, 89/2, 471–474.
  • Teddlie, C. ve Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of Mixed Methods Research, CA: Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
  • Thaler, K. M. (2017). “Mixed Methods Research in the Study of Political and Social Violence and Conflict”, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11/1, 59–76.
  • Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D. ve Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive research in the social sciences, Chicago: Rand McNally & Company.
  • Wittenberg, J. (2007). “Peril and Promise: Multi-Method Research in Practice”, Qualitative Method, 5/1, 19-22.
There are 47 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Political Science, International Relations
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Aylin Aydın Çakır 0000-0002-3481-4876

Selin Türkeş 0000-0002-2767-3649

Publication Date February 16, 2021
Acceptance Date November 23, 2020
Published in Issue Year 2021

Cite

APA Aydın Çakır, A., & Türkeş, S. (2021). BİLİMSEL ÇALIŞMALARDA KARMA YÖNTEM NASIL KULLANILIR?. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi(42), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.802568
AMA Aydın Çakır A, Türkeş S. BİLİMSEL ÇALIŞMALARDA KARMA YÖNTEM NASIL KULLANILIR?. PAUSBED. February 2021;(42):1-15. doi:10.30794/pausbed.802568
Chicago Aydın Çakır, Aylin, and Selin Türkeş. “BİLİMSEL ÇALIŞMALARDA KARMA YÖNTEM NASIL KULLANILIR?”. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, no. 42 (February 2021): 1-15. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.802568.
EndNote Aydın Çakır A, Türkeş S (February 1, 2021) BİLİMSEL ÇALIŞMALARDA KARMA YÖNTEM NASIL KULLANILIR?. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 42 1–15.
IEEE A. Aydın Çakır and S. Türkeş, “BİLİMSEL ÇALIŞMALARDA KARMA YÖNTEM NASIL KULLANILIR?”, PAUSBED, no. 42, pp. 1–15, February 2021, doi: 10.30794/pausbed.802568.
ISNAD Aydın Çakır, Aylin - Türkeş, Selin. “BİLİMSEL ÇALIŞMALARDA KARMA YÖNTEM NASIL KULLANILIR?”. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 42 (February 2021), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.802568.
JAMA Aydın Çakır A, Türkeş S. BİLİMSEL ÇALIŞMALARDA KARMA YÖNTEM NASIL KULLANILIR?. PAUSBED. 2021;:1–15.
MLA Aydın Çakır, Aylin and Selin Türkeş. “BİLİMSEL ÇALIŞMALARDA KARMA YÖNTEM NASIL KULLANILIR?”. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, no. 42, 2021, pp. 1-15, doi:10.30794/pausbed.802568.
Vancouver Aydın Çakır A, Türkeş S. BİLİMSEL ÇALIŞMALARDA KARMA YÖNTEM NASIL KULLANILIR?. PAUSBED. 2021(42):1-15.

Cited By

Eğitim Alanındaki Dijital Öyküleme Araştırmaları: Bibliyometrik ve Sistematik Analiz
Pamukkale University Journal of Education
https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.1432331
YARATICILIK BAĞLAMINDA PROBLEM KURMA BECERİSİNİN PROBLEM ÇÖZME BECERİSİNE ETKİSİ
EKEV Akademi Dergisi
https://doi.org/10.17753/sosekev.1392298
KARMA YÖNTEM ARAŞTIRMA SORULARININ DOĞASINI KEŞFETMEK
Pamukkale University Journal of Social Sciences Institute
https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.1384311
Okul Öncesi Öğretmen Adaylarının Üstbiliş Farkındalıkları
Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi
https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.1317779
İletişim Araştırmalarında Üçüncü Bir Yöntembilimsel Yaklaşımın Olanakları: Karma Yöntem Araştırması ve İletişim Çalışmaları
İletişim Kuram ve Araştırma Dergisi
https://doi.org/10.47998/ikad.1061943