Eğitim alanındaki 'nitel anket' araştırmalarının bibliyometrik yöntemlerle analizi

Year 2025, Volume: 14 Issue: 2, 193 - 212, 30.04.2025

Hatice Turan Bora , Sadegül Akbaba Altun

https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.1583238

Abstract

Nitel araştırmanın gelişen doğasından esinlenen bu çalışma, nitel veri toplama yöntemlerinde görüşme ve gözleme göre daha yeni bir teknik olan “nitel anket” kullanımını incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırma kapasitesi, işbirlikleri ve araştırma konularındaki eğilimlerin yanı sıra bu veri toplama yönteminin araştırmacılar arasında ne ölçüde yaygınlaştığı veya kabul gördüğüne bakmak, bu yöntemin geleceği hakkında fikir verebilecektir. Araştırmada Web of Science veri tabanından 1992-2024 yılları arasında eğitim alanında yayınlanmış 743 çalışma analiz edilmiştir. Web of Science veri tabanında nitel anket, açık uçlu anket ve açık uçlu soru formu anahtar kelimeleri ile arama yapılmıştır. Sonuçlar, nitel anketlerin eğitim araştırmalarında veri toplama aracı olarak kullanımında istikrarlı bir artış olduğuna dikkat çekmektedir. Özellikle 2005 yılından sonra yayın sayısı belirgin şekilde artmıştır. En çok yayın yapan ve uluslararası işbirliği kuran ülkeler ABD, Türkiye ve Avustralya’dır. En yaygın anahtar kelimeler yükseköğretim ve öğretmen eğitimi olmuştur. Analiz ayrıca en çok yayın yapan yazarlar, dergiler, yayıncılar, en çok atıf alan yazarlar ve makaleler gibi bulguları da ortaya koymuştur.

Keywords

Açık uçlu anket, Bibliyometrik analiz, Nitel anket, Web of Science (WoS), VOSviewer

Analysing ‘qualitative survey’ researches in the field of education with bibliometric methods

Abstract

Inspired by the evolving nature of qualitative research, this study aims to examine the use of “qualitative survey”, a newer technique in qualitative data collection methods than interviews and observation. In addition to trends in research capacity, collaborations and research topics, the extent to which this data collection method has become widespread or accepted among researchers can provide insight into the future of this method. In this study, 743 studies published in the field of education between 1992 and 2024 from the Web of Science database were analysed. Web of Science database was searched with the keywords qualitative survey, qualitative questionnaire, open-ended questionnaire and open-ended survey. The results indicate a steady increase in the use of qualitative surveys as a data collection tool in educational research. After 2005, the number of publications has increased significantly. The countries with the highest number of publications and international co-operation are the USA, Türkiye and Australia. The most common keywords were higher education and teacher education. The analysis also revealed findings such as the most published authors, journals, publishers, most cited authors and articles.

Keywords

Bibliometric analysis, Open-ended questionnaire, Qualitative survey, VOSviewer, Web of Science (WoS)

Ethical Statement

No data were collected, as the analysis was of publications in the Wos database. Therefore, ethical approval was not obtained.

References

• Ahmad, M.S., Nawaz, S., Khan, S., & Bukhari, Z. (2023) Digital Pakistan in COVID-19: Rethinking language use at social media platforms. Front. Educ., 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.967148
• Bikard, M., Murray, F., & Gans, J.S. (2015), Exploring trade-offs in the organization of scientific work: collaboration and scientific reward. Management Science, 61(7), 1473-1495. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.2052
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. Sage
• Braun, V., Clarke, V., Boulton, E., Davey, L., & McEvoy, C. (2021). The online survey as a qualitative research tool. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 24(6), 641-654. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1805550
• Chen, C., & Leydesdorff, L. (2014). Patterns of connections and movements in dual-map overlays: A new method of publication portfolio analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(2), 334-351. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22968
• Chen, X., Zou, D., Cheng, G., & Xie, H. (2020). Detecting latent topics and trends in educational technologies over four decades using structural topic modeling: A retrospective of all volumes of computers & education. Computers & Education, 151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103855
• Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
• Damaševičius, R., & Zailskaitė-Jakštė, L. (2023). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on researcher collaboration in business and economics areas on national level: a scientometric analysis. Journal of Documentation, 79(1), 183-202. https://doi.org/10.1108/jd-02-2022-0030
• Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Sage.
• Fink, A. (2003). The survey handbook. Sage.
• Frith, H., & Gleeson, K. (2011). Qualitative data collection: Asking the right questions. In D. Harper, A. R. Thomson (Eds.). Qualitative research methods in mental health and psychotherapy: A guide for students and practitioners (pp: 55-67). Wiley
• Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Sociology Press.
• Glesne, C. (2016). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Pearson.
• Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S., Eds., Handbook of qualitative research. Sage Publications, Inc.
• Hatch, J.A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. State University of New York Press.
• Jansen, H. (2010). The logic of qualitative survey research and its position in the field of social research methods. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 11(2). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-11.2.1450
• Kuş, E. (2007). Sosyal bilim metodolojisinde paradigma dönüşümü ve psikolojide nitel araştırma [Paradigm shift in social science methodology and qualitative research in psychology]. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 10(20), 9-41.
• Madill, A., & Gough, B. (2008). Qualitative research and its place in psychological science. Psychological Methods, 13(3), 254-271. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013220
• Madill, A., & Gough, B. (2016). Qualitative research and its place in psychological science. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Methodological issues and strategies in clinical research (4th ed., 437–458). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14805-028
• Maxwell, J.A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd Ed.). Sage.
• Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley and Sons.
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman , A.M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: a sourcebook of new methods. Sage Publications.
• Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source book (2nd ed): Sage.
• Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G. & PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264-269. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
• Munoz, D.A., Queupil, J.P., & Fraser, P. (2016), Assessing collaboration networks in educational research: a co-authorship-based social network analysis approach, International Journal of Educational Management, 30(3), 416-436. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijem-11-2014-0154
• Mutimukuru-Maravanyika, T., Madzudzo, E., & Songe, M. M. (2022). Researcher collaboration complexities in participatory action research. Krister Andersson, Professor of Political Science and Director, The Center for the Governance of Natural Resources, University of Colorado at Boulder, USA, 62.
• Patton. M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage.
• Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2014). Visualizing bibliometric networks. In Y. Ding, R. Rousseau, & D. Wolfram (Eds.), Measuring scholarly impact (pp. 285–320). Springer.
• Van Eck, N. J., Waltman, L., Dekker, R., & Van den Berg, J. (2008). An experimental comparison of bibliometric mapping techniques. In 10th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, Vienna.
• Veugelers, R., & Baltensperger, M. (2019). Europe The Global centre for excellent research, European Parliament, Brussels.
• Web of Science (2022). Impact factors of journals. Web of Science Database.
• Web of Science (2024). The number of qualitative studies in the WoS. Web of Science Database.