Scientific impact of the Turkish educational dissertations

Abstract

This study investigates the impact of the Turkish educational dissertations through the scientific impact criterion dealing with the scientific publications extracted from the dissertations in peer-reviewed indexed journals and their citation counts. 124 dissertations completed in 12 Turkish public universities between 2014 and 2017 were selected through criterion sampling. Authors’ websites, ERIC, Google Scholar, Researchgate, ScienceDirect and Web of Science databases were scanned to identify the scientific publications extracted from the dissertations, whereas Google Scholar, Researchgate and Web of Science databases were searched to determine their citation counts. 64 scientific publications were extracted from 124 dissertations, no information was found for 60 dissertations. Furthermore, only 34 of 64 scientific publications were cited and the total number of citations was 115. Since most of these publications and their citation counts were seen in the low impact factor indexed journals, it can be concluded that the scientific impact of these dissertations is low. Due to the core contributions of the field of education to the other fields, some suggestions were made to increase the scientific impact of the Turkish dissertations in line with the concrete findings of this study.

Keywords

• Educational PhD dissertation
• Impact factor
• Qualitative research
• Scientific impact criterion

Türkiye’deki eğitim bilimleri doktora tezlerinin bilimsel etkisi

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye’deki eğitim bilimleri doktora tezlerinin etkisini ilgili tezlerden üretilen bilimsel çalışmaların hakemli dizinli dergilerde yayınlanması ve yayınlanan bu çalışmalara yapılan atıf sayılarını kapsayan bilimsel etki ölçütüyle ortaya çıkarmaktır. Çalışmada Türkiye’deki 12 devlet üniversitesinde 2014-2017 yılları arasında tamamlanan 124 doktora tezi incelenmiştir. Örneklem ölçüt örneklemi yöntemiyle belirlenmiştir. Doktora tezlerinden üretilen bilimsel yayınları belirlemek için tez yazarlarının internet sayfaları, ERIC, Google Scholar, Researchgate, ScienceDirect ve Web of Science veritabanları taranmış olup bu çalışmalara yapılan atıf sayılarını saptamak için Google Scholar, Researchgate ve Web of Science veritabanlarına bakılmıştır. Böylelikle, 124 doktora tezinden 64 bilimsel yayın üretildiği belirlenmiş ve geri kalan 60 teze ilişkin herhangi bir veriye ulaşılamamıştır. Dahası, 64 bilimsel yayından sadece 34’üne atıf yapıldığı tespit edilmiş olup toplam atıf sayısının 115 olduğu görülmüştür. Tezlerden üretilen bilimsel yayınlar ile bu yayınlara yapılan atıfların çoğu etki değeri düşük dizinli dergilerde gerçekleştiği için Türkiye’de eğitim bilimleri alanındaki doktora tezlerinin bilimsel etki değerinin düşük olduğu ortaya konmuştur. Ayrıca, eğitim bilimleri alanının diğer alanlara sağladığı temel katkılarından dolayı Türkiye’de doktora tezlerinin bilimsel etkisini artırmak için bu çalışmanın somut bulguları doğrultusunda çeşitli önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

Keywords

• Bilimsel etki ölçütü
• Eğitim doktora tezi
• Etki faktörü
• Nitel araştırma

References

1. Alves, M. G., Azevedo, N. R., & Gonçalves, T. N. R. (2012). Educational research and doctoral dissertations: a review within a research community. Qualitative Inquiry, 18(7), 626-637. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800412450156
2. Academic Ranking of World Universities. (2019). Ranking universities in the world. http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU
3. Academic Ranking of World Universities. (2020). Academic Ranking of World Universities: Methodology. http://www.shanghairanking.com/arwu-methodology-2011.html#2.
4. Bowen, G. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. https://doi.org/ 10.3316/QRJ0902027
5. Buchanan, A. L., & Herubel, J.-P. V. M. (1994). Profiling PhD Dissertation Bibliographies. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, 13(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1300/J103v13n01_01
6. Cloete, N., Mouton, J., & Sheppard, C. (2015). Doctoral education in South Africa. Cape Town: African Minds.
7. Council of Higher Education. (2018a). National thesis center. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/.
8. Council of Higher Education. (2018b). 2017-2018 statistics for the higher education. https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/.

9. Council of Higher Education. (2018c). Regulations to collect, arrange and making graduate theses electronically. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/dosyalar/kilavuz.pdf
10. Council of Higher Education. (2020a). Turkish higher education qualifications. http://www.tyyc.yok.gov.tr/?pid=23
11. Council of Higher Education. (2020b). The general report for the tracking and evaluation criteria for the Turkish universities 2019. Ankara University Publishing.
12. European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training. (2020). European qualification framework. https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/events-and-projects/projects/european-qualifications-framework-eqf
13. European Commission. (2020a). National qualifications framework. https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/national-qualifications-framework-103_en
14. European Commision (2020b). Eurostat. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/nuts/background
15. European Higher Education Area. (2020). European higher education area and Bologna process. http://www.ehea.info/pid34244/ehea.html
16. European Qualifications Framework. (2020). European qualifications framework. https://ec.europa.eu/ploteus/content/descriptors-page
17. Ercan, İ., & Kan, İ. (2004). Ölçeklerde güvenirlik ve geçerlik [Reliability and validity in scales]. Uludağ Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(3), 211-216.
18. Granovsky, Y. V., Luibimova, T. N., Murashova, T. I., & Myatlev, V. D. (1992). Information-based evaluation of the quality of doctoral theses. Scientometrics, 23(3), 361-376.
19. Hasgall, A., Saenen, B., & Borrell-Damian, L. (2019). Doctoral education in Europe today: approaches and institutional structures. European University Association.
20. Hyland, K. (2004). Graduates’ gratitude: the generic structure of dissertation acknowledgements. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 303-324. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(03)00051-6
21. Knight, J. (2008). Higher Education in Turmoil: The Changing World of Internationalization. Sense Publisher.
22. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2019). Can Google Scholar and Mendeley help to assess the scholarly impacts of dissertations? Journal of Informetrics, 13(2), 467-484. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOI.2019.02.009
23. Kozikoğlu, İ. & Senemoğlu (2015). Eğitim programları ve öğretim alanında yapılan doktora tezlerinin içerik analizi (2009-2014) [The content analysis of dissertations completed in the field of curriculum and instruction (2009-2014)]. Eğitim ve Bilim, 40(182), 29-41. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2015.4784
24. Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2005). The new division of labor how computers are creating the next job market. Princeton University Press.
25. Lovitts, B. E. (2005). How to grade a dissertation. Academe, 91(6), 18-23.
26. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1996). The knowledge-based economy. OECD.
27. Quacquarelli Symonds World University Ranking. (2019). World University Rankins. https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2019
28. Quacquarelli Symonds World University Ranking. (2020). THE World University Rankings: Methodology. https://www.topuniversities.com/qs-world-university-rankings/methodology
29. Richards, J., Dykeman, C., & Bender, S. (2016). Historical trends in counsellor education dissertations. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 44(5), 550-561. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069885.2016.1213373
30. Rust, V. D., & Kim, S. K. (2012). The global competition in higher education. World Studies in Education, 13(1): 5-20. https://doi.org/10.7459/wse/13.1.02
31. Scimago Journal Rank. (2020). Social Sciences Country Rank. https://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php?category=3304®ion=OECD
32. Stewart, V. (2010). A classroom as wide as the world. In H. Hayes Jacobs (Ed.), Curriculum 21: Essential Education for a Changing World (pp. 97-114). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
33. Sum, N.-L., & Jessop, B. S. (2013). Competitiveness, the knowledge-based economy, and higher education. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 4(1), 24-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-012-0121-8
34. Suri, H. (2011). Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis. Qualitative Research Journal, 11(2), 63-75. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ1102063
35. Swales, J., & Feak, C. (2000). English in today’s research world: a writing guide. University of Michigan Press.
36. The Times Higher Education World University Ranking. (2019). Ranking universities in the world. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings
37. The Times Higher Education World University Ranking. (2020). THE World University Rankings 2021: Methodology. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/world-university-rankings-2021-methodology
38. Interuniversity Council. (2018). The basic criteria in the field of the educations. http://www.uak.gov.tr/?q=node/92#2019M
39. Vocational Qualifications Authority. (2015). Turkish Qualifications Framework. https://www.myk.gov.tr//TRR/File6.pdf
40. Web of Science. (2020). Statistics for the Turkish publications and citations in the field of education. https://wcs.webofknowledge.com/RA/analyze.do?product=WOS&SID
41. Wilmarth, S. (2010). Five socio-technology trends that change everything in learning and teaching. In H. Hayes Jacobs (Ed.), In Curriculum 21: Essential education for a changing world (pp.80–96). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
42. Yağan, S. A. (2018). The evaluation of curriculum and instruction doctoral programs. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Eskişehir Osmangazi University.
43. Yetkiner, A., Erdol, T. A., & Ünlü, Ş. (2019). Content analysis of PhD dissertations on curriculum and evaluation (1996-2017). Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(1), 247-269. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.443298
44. Ziman, J. (1993). Competition undermines creativity. The Times Higher Education Supplement, p.16