Examining the Knowledge Produced in Educational Administration Doctoral Theses with Respect to Functions of Science

Year 2022, , 358 - 393, 29.06.2022

Yılmaz Tonbul , Nurdan Ödemiş Keleş

https://doi.org/10.30828/real.1022169

Abstract

This study examines the contribution of the knowledge produced in educational administration doctoral theses to the functions of science, concept and model development, theory formation, scale development/adaptation and application. Content analysis, one of the qualitative methods, was used in conducting the research, which analyzed 122 doctoral theses dated between 2017 and 2020. These compositions were produced at 27 universities that ranked in the top 500 globally in CWUR (Center for World University Ranking) 2020. The results showed that the knowledge produced in the theses was mostly descriptive. However, there were a few experimental theses that reached the control level and contributed to the application with a concept, model, theory creation and scale development/adaptation. The findings offer implications that can guide future research in the field of educational administration.

Keywords

Doctoral dissertation, Educational administration, Knowledge production, Function of science

References

• Ahmed, E. (2020). Systematic review of research on educational leadership and management in Muslim societies. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 1741143220973658.
• Archbald, D. (2008). Research versus problem solving for the education leadership doctoral thesis: Implications for form and function. Educational Administration Quarterly 44(5), 704-739.
• Aydın, A. & Uysal, Ş. (2011). Evaluation of doctoral theses on educational administration in Turkey and abroad, in terms of subjects, methods, and results. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 42, 1-14.
• Aypay, A., Çoruk, A., Yazgan, D., Kartal, O., Çağatay, M., Tunçer, B., & Emran, B. (2010). The status of research in educational administration: An analysis of educational administration journals, 1999-2007. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 39(1), 59-77.
• Ayyıldız, P. (2019). Epistemic Beliefs of lecturers Pertaining to the knowledge of field in educational administration (Unpublished PhD Thesis). Hacettepe University, Ankara.
• Balcı, A. (1991). Theory and research in educational administration. Journal of Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences, 24(2), 735-746.
• Balcı, A. (2008). Scientificization level of educational administration in Turkey. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 54, 181-209.
• Balcı, A. (2021). Research in social sciences. Methods, techniques and principles. Ankara: PegemA Publications.
• Berkovich, I. & Eyal, O. (2017). Methodological review of studies on educational leaders and emotions (1992-2012) Insights into the meaning of an emerging research field in educational administration. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 55(5), 469-491.
• Beycioğlu, K., & Dönmez, B. (2006). Issues in Theory Development and Practice in Educational Administration. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 47, 317-342.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. A., Karadeniz, Ş. & Demirel, F. (2019). Scientific research methods. Ankara: Pegem Academy Publishing.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2020). Handbook of data analysis for the social sciences. Ankara: Pegem Academy Publishing.
• Castillo, F. A. & Hallinger, P. (2018). Systematic review of research on educational leadership and management in Latin America 1991–2017. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(2), 207-225.
• Coburn, C. E., & Stein, M. K. (2010). Research and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
• Çalık, M. & Sözbilir, M. (2014). Parameters of content analysis. Education And Science. 39(174), 33-38. Çelik, V. (1997). Theoretical developments in educational administration. Journal of Educational Administration, 3(1), 31-43.
• Creswell, J. W. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method approaches. Ankara: Eğiten Book.
• Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications.
• Demirhan, G. (2015). Evaluating research tradition and paradigms in the field of educational administration in Turkey in the context of grounded theory (Unpublished PhD Thesis). Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Turkey.
• Donmoyer, R. (2020). Why is everything old new again? Revisiting debates about the form and function of research in educational administration. Journal of Educational Administration.
• English, F. W. (2003). The postmodern challenge to the theory and practive of educational administration. İllinois: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.
• Erkuş, A. (2020). Behavioral science scientific research process. Ankara: Seçkin.
• Evers, C. W., & Lakomski, G. (2012). Science, systems, and theoretical alternatives in educational administration: The road less travelled. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(1), 57-75.
• Fairweather, J. S. (1996). Faculty work and public trust: Restoring the value of teaching and public service in American academic life. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
• Fitz, J. (1999). Reflections on the field of educational management studies. Educational Management & Administration, 27(3), 313-321.
• Geltner, B. B., & Hackmann, D. G. (1996). The field-based comprehensive examination: An authentic assessment. In J. L. Burdin, J. S. Yoon, R. Morris, P. V. Bredeson, & J. P. Scribner (Eds.), Prioritizing instruction (pp. 208-215). Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing Company.
• Greenfield, T. B. (1973). Organizations as social inventions: Rethinking assumptions about change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 9(5), 551-574.
• Gümüş, S., Bellibaş, M. S., Esen, M., & Gümüş, E. (2018). A systematic review of studies on leadership models in educational research from 1980 to 2014. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(1), 25-48.
• Gümüş, S., Bellibas, M. S., Gümüş, E., & Hallinger, P. (2020). Science mapping research on educational leadership and management in Turkey: a bibliometric review of international publications. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 23-44.
• Haller, E. J. (1979). Questionnaires and the dissertation in educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 15(1), 47-66.
• Hallinger, P. (2014). Reviewing reviews of research in educational leadership: An empirical assessment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(4), 539-576.
• Hallinger, P., & Chen, J. (2015). Review of research on educational leadership and management in Asia: A comparative analysis of research topics and methods, 1995–2012. Educational management administration & leadership, 43(1), 5-27.
• Hallinger, P., & Kovačević, J. (2021). Science mapping the knowledge base in educational leadership and management: A longitudinal bibliometric analysis, 1960 to 2018. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(1), 5-30.
• Hammad, W., Samier, E. A., & Mohammed, A. (2020). Mapping the field of educational leadership and management in the Arabian Gulf region: A systematic review of Arabic research literature. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 1741143220937308.
• Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2005). The study of educational leadership and management: where does the field stand today? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 33(2), 229-244.
• Karadağ, E. (2009). A Thematic and metohodologicial reviewing on doctoral thesis which made at the area of education science in Turkey: A case study (Unpublished PhD Thesis). Marmara University, Turkey. Karasar, N. (2007). Scientific research methods. Ankara: Nobel Publishing.
• Kelecioğlu, H., & Göçer Şahin, S. (2014). Validity from past to present. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 5(2), 1-11.
• Kısa, N. (2016). Reason and solution suggestion about theory-practise gap ın educational administration field (Master Thesis). Hacettepe University, Turkey.
• Kline, P. (2000). Handbook of psychological testing. London and New York: Routledge.
• Marczyk, G. R., DeMatteo, D., & Festinger, D. (2010). Essentials of research design and methodology (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons.
• Neuman, L. (2014). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches volume I (S. Özge, Trans.). Ankara: Publish Room.
• Oplatka, I. (2008). The field of educational administration: A historical overview of scholarly attempts to recognize epistemological identities, meanings and boundaries from the 1960s onwards. Journal of Educational Administration.
• Oplatka, I. (2016). Eğitim yönetiminin mirası (S. Turan, F. Bektaş, M. Yalçın, Çev.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi. Oral, B., & Çoban, A. (2020). Scientific research methods in education from theory to practice. Ankara: Pegem.
• Ödemiş Keleş, N. & Tonbul, Y. (2020). Evaluation of the knowledge produced in educational administration doctoral theses in terms of the functions of science. In. 7th Euroasian Research Congress, Eskişehir, Turkey, 10-13 September 2020, pp.666-685. Eskişehir: Anı Publishing.
• Örücü, D., & Şimşek, H. (2011). The state of educational administration scholarship in Turkey from the scholars’ perspectives: A qualitative analysis. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 17(2), 167-197.
• Özdemir, M. (2017). Archeology of epistemic crisis in Educational Administration. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 23(2), 281-304.
• Özdemir, M. (2018). Fundamentals of educational administration and contemporary trends. Ankara: Anı Publishing.
• Polat, G. (2010). Examination of postgraduate thesis studies in the department of educational administration and supervision (Unpublished Master Thesis). Maltepe University, Turkey.
• Suri, H., & Clarke, D. (2009). Advancements in research synthesis methods: From a methodologically inclusive perspective. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 395-430.
• Swafford, G. L. (1990). Window or mirror? A content analysis of the first 25 years of the journal of educational administration. Journal of Educational Administration.
• Şahin, F. (2018). Scientific boundaries of educational administration: An epistemological comparison ın the contex of texbooks (Ph.D. Thesis). Gazi University, Turkey.
• Takmak, H. (2019) The originality and autonomy problem of educational administration. Ege Journal of Education, 20(1), 113–126.
• Trafford, V., Leshem, S., & Bitzer, E. (2014). Conclusion chapters in doctoral theses: some international findings. Higher Education Review, 46(3).
• Turan, S. (2004). Educational administration as a balancing discipline in the human sciences between modernity and post-modernity. Akdeniz University Journal of Faculty of Education, 1(1), 1-8.
• Turan, S., Bektaş, F., Yalçın, M., & Armağan, Y. (2016). Knowledge Production in Educational Administration: An Evaluation on the Role and Adventure of Congresses on Educational Administration in Turkey. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 22(1), 81-108.
• Turan, S., & Sisman, M. (2013). Scientific knowledge production and westernized cognitive style in educational administration: an introduction and critique. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 19(4), 505-514.
• Turan, S., Karadağ, E., Bektaş, F., & Yalçın, M. (2014). Knowledge production in educational administration in Turkey: An overview of researches in journal of educational administration: theory and practice-2003 to 2013. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 20(1), 93-119.
• Walliman, N. (2010). Research methods: The basics. Routledge.
• Willower, D. J. (1985). Philosophy and the study of educational administration. Journal of Educational Administration, 23(1), 5-22.
• Yıldırım, H., & Şimşek, M. (2016). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences. (10th ed.). Ankara: Seçkin Publishing.
• Yılmaz, K. (2018). A critical view to the studies related to the field of educational administration in Turkey. Journal of Human Sciences, 15(1), 123-154.