Review
BibTex RIS Cite

Investigation of Doctoral Dissertations on Argumentation in Türkiye in Terms of Validity and Reliability Measures

Year 2025, Volume: 15 Issue: 2, 425 - 440, 07.08.2025

Bünyamin İspir , Ali Yıldız

https://doi.org/10.53478/yuksekogretim.1336695

Abstract

The purpose of the study is to reveal the validity and reliability measures of doctoral theses that were carried out with the argumentation method and made available between 2017-2022. In addition, examining and comparing the validity and reliability measures taken in quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method studies is among the aims of the study. The data set of this study, which was conducted with the systematic review method, consists of doctoral dissertations in the field of education in Türkiye and published in Council of Higher Education Thesis Centre. Forty-eight doctoral theses were analysed throughout the study. Among these, theses that did not have a title on validity and reliability, were determined to be the same and were not conducted in the field of education were eliminated. In addition, a pilot study was conducted with 3 theses that were determined to be in English in order to foresee the negative situations that may arise during the coding process and to take precautions. Therefore, 27 studies were analysed within the scope of the research. The data obtained were summarised according to the themes determined in the previous studies and analysed according to the descriptive analysis method. As a result, it was found that the measures used as validity in some theses were given under the title of reliability in some theses. Therefore, it can be said that there is no consensus in the literature for validity and reliability measures and a consistent classification is not made.

Keywords

Validity Reliability Credibility Transferability Consistency Verifiability Systematic Review

Project Number

-

References

  • Arslan, E. (2022). Nitel araştırmalarda geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 51, 395–407. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.1116878
  • Atılgan, H., Kan, A., & Doğan, N. (2009). Ölçme araçlarında bulunması gereken nitelikler. H. Atılgan (Ed.), Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme (Geliştirilmiş 3. baskı, s. 23–80) içinde. Anı.
  • Babbie, E. (2007). The practice of social research. Thomson Learning.
  • Balat, Ş., Kayalı, B., Gündüz, A., & Göktaş, Y. (2019). Doktora tezlerinde alınan geçerlik ve güvenirlik önlemleri [Sözlü bildiri]. 28. Uluslararası Eğitim Bilimleri Konferansı, Ankara.
  • Bartko, J. J., & Carpenter, W. T. (1976). On the methods and theory of reliability. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 163(5), 307–317. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005053-197611000-00003
  • Başkale, H. (2016). Nitel araştırmalarda geçerlik, güvenirlik ve örneklem büyüklüğünün belirlenmesi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi, 9(1), 23–28.
  • Bruton, A., Conway, J. H., & Holgate, S. T. (2000). Reliability: What is it, and how is it measured. Physiotherapy, 86(2), 94–99.
  • Bryman, A. (2006). Paradigm peace and the implications for quality. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 9(2), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570600595280
  • Bryman, A., Becker, S., & Sempik, J. (2008). Quality criteria for quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research: A view from social policy. Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(4), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701401644
  • Chen, Y. C. (2020). Dialogic pathways to manage uncertainty for productive engagement in scientific argumentation: A longitudinal case study grounded in an ethnographic perspective. Science & Education, 29(2), 331–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00111-z
  • Christensen, L. B., Johnson, R. B., & Turner, L. A. (2014). Research methods, design, and analysis (12th ed.). Pearson.
  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2021). Eğitimde araştırma yöntemleri (E. Dinç & K. Kıroğlu, Çev. Ed.). Pegem Akademi.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2015). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (2. baskı). Sage.
  • Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
  • Creswell, J. W., & Plano-Clark, V. L. (2020). Karma yöntem araştırmaları: Tasarımı ve yürütülmesi (Y. Dede & S. B. Demir, Çev. Ed.). Anı.
  • Dellinger, A. B., & Leech, N. L. (2007). Toward a unified validation framework in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(4), 309–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689807306147
  • Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic review. D. Buchanan & A. Bryman (Eds.), The sage handbook of organizational research methods (s. 671–689) içinde. Sage.
  • Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2nd ed.). Praeger.
  • Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Qualitative research (3rd ed.). Sage.
  • Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933.
  • Faize, F. A., Husain, W., & Nisar, F. (2017). A critical review of scientific argumentation in science education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(1), 475–483. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/80353
  • Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw Hill.
  • Furlong, J., & Oancea, A. (2005). Assessing quality in applied and practice based educational research: A framework for discussion. Review of Australian Research in Education, 6, 89–104.
  • Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. W. (2012). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (10th ed.). Pearson.
  • Greenhalgh, T. (1997). How to read a paper: Assessing the methodological quality of published papers. British Medical Journal, 315(7103), 305–308. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7103.305
  • Güçlü, İ. (2019). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri: Teknik, yaklaşım, uygulama. Nobel.
  • Gül, Ş., & Sözbilir, M. (2015). Thematic content analysis of scale development studies published in the field of science and mathematics education. Education and Science, 40(178), 85–102. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2015.4070
  • Heale, R., & Twycross, A. (2015). Validity and reliability in quantitative studies. Evidence-Based Nursing, 18(3), 66–67. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2015-102129
  • İliç, U., & Arıkan, Y. D. (2016). Second life ortamında yabancı dil öğrenimine yönelik öğrenci görüşlerinin incelenmesi. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 7(4), 364–395. https://doi.org/10.17569/tojqi.84832
  • İspir, B., & Yıldız, A. (2021). Argümantasyon yönteminin uygulanması sürecinde karşılaşılan sınırlılıkların tartışılması. Sosyal Araştırmalar ve Davranış Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(13), 236–258. https://doi.org/10.52096/jsrbs.6.1.7.13.13
  • Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele University.
  • Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45(3), 214–222. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.45.3.214
  • Lancaster, G. A., Dodd, S., & Williamson, P. R. (2004). Design and analysis of pilot studies: Recommendations for good practice. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 10(2), 307–312.
  • Lee, H. S., Liu, O. L., Pallant, A., Roohr, K. C., Pryputniewicz, S., & Buck, Z. E. (2014). Assessment of uncertainty-infused scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(5), 581–605. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21147
  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
  • Maxwell, J. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62(3), 279–301.
  • McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (7th ed.). Pearson.
  • McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2009). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203–229. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20364
  • Merriam, S. B. (2013). Nitel araştırma: Desen ve uygulama için bir rehber (S. Turan, Çev. Ed.). Nobel.
  • Metin, M. (2014). Kuramdan uygulamaya eğitimde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem Akademi.
  • Metin, O., & Ünal, Ş. (2022). İçerik analizi tekniği: İletişim bilimlerinde ve sosyolojide doktora tezlerinde kullanımı. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 22(Özel Sayı 2), 273–294. https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.1227356
  • Morgan, A. (2006). Argumentation, geography education and ICT. Geography, 91(2), 126–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2006.00612.x
  • Mork, S. M. (2005). Argumentation in science lessons: Focusing on the teacher’s role. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 1(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.463
  • Morveli-Espinoza, M., Nieves, J. C., Possebom, A., Puyol-Gruart, J., & Tacla, C. A. (2019). An argumentation-based approach for identifying and dealing with incompatibilities among procedural goals. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 105, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2018.10.015
  • Mueller, M., & Yankelewitz, D. (2014). Fallacious argumentation in student reasoning: Are there benefits? European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9398
  • Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(3), 384–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00038-3
  • O’Cathain, A. (2010). Assessing the quality of mixed methods research: Toward a comprehensive framework. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2. baskı, s. 531–555). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335193.n21
  • O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2007). Why, and how, mixed methods research is undertaken in health services research: A mixed methods study. BMC Health Services Research, 7, Article 85. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-7-85
  • O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2008). The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 13(2), 92–98. https://doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007074
  • Oliver-Hoyo, M., & Allen, D. (2006). The use of triangulation methods in qualitative educational research. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(4), 42–47. https://www.jstor.org/stable/i40116251
  • Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Johnson, R. B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48–63.
  • Özden, M. Y., & Durdu, L. (2016). Eğitimde üretim tabanlı çalışmalar için nitel araştırma yöntemleri (1. baskı). Anı.
  • Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. (N. Çınar & G. Hür, Çev.). BMJ.
  • Patton, M. Q. (2014). Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemleri (M. Bütün & S. B. Demir, Çev. Ed.). Pegem Akademi.
  • Robson, C. (2015). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri: Gerçek dünya araştırması (Ş. Çıngır & N. Demirkasımoğlu, Çev. Ed.). Anı.
  • Sale, J. E. M., & Brazil, K. (2004). A strategy to identify critical appraisal criteria for primary mixed method studies. Quality and Quantity, 38(4), 351–365. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QUQU.0000043126.25329.85
  • Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2. baskı). Sage.
  • Topu, F. B., Baydas, Ö., Turan, Z., & Göktaş, Y. (2013). Common reliability and validity strategies in instructional technology research. Çukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 42(1), 110–126.
  • Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
  • von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101–131. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20213
  • Winter, G. (2000). A comparative discussion of the notion of ‘validity’ in qualitative and quantitative research. The Qualitative Report, 4(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2000.2078
  • Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (11. baskı). Seçkin.
  • Yıldırım, K. (2010). Nitel araştırmalarda niteliği artırma. İlköğretim Online, 9(1), 79–92.

Türkiye’de Argümantasyonla İlgili Yapılan Doktora Tezlerinin Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Önlemleri Açısından İncelenmesi

Year 2025, Volume: 15 Issue: 2, 425 - 440, 07.08.2025

Bünyamin İspir , Ali Yıldız

https://doi.org/10.53478/yuksekogretim.1336695

Abstract

Araştırmanın amacı, 2017-2022 yılları arasında argümantasyon yöntemiyle gerçekleştirilmiş ve erişime açılmış doktora tezlerinin geçerlik ve güvenirlik önlemlerini ortaya çıkarmaktır. Ayrıca nicel, nitel ve karma yöntemli araştırmalarda alınan geçerlik ile güvenirlik önlemlerinin incelenerek karşılaştırılması araştırmanın amaçları arasında yer almaktadır. Sistematik inceleme yöntemiyle gerçekleştirilen bu araştırmanın veri setini, Türkiye’de eğitim alanında yapılmış ve Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi’nde yayımlanmış doktora tezleri oluşturmaktadır. Çalışma sürecinde 48 doktora tezi incelenmiştir. Bunlardan geçerlik ve güvenirlik üzerine bir başlığı bulunmayan, aynı olduğu belirlenen ve eğitim alanında yapılmayan tezler elenmiştir. Ayrıca kodlama sürecinde çıkabilecek olumsuz durumları önceden görebilmek ve önlem alabilmek adına İngilizce olduğu belirlenen 3 tez ile pilot uygulama yapılmıştır. Dolayısıyla araştırma kapsamında 27 çalışma analiz edilmiştir. Elde edilen veriler, önceden yapılan çalışmalarda belirlenen temalara göre özetlenmiş ve betimsel analiz yöntemine göre çözümlenmiştir. Sonuç olarak incelenen bazı tezlerde geçerlik olarak kullanılan önlemlerin, bazı tezlerde güvenirlik başlığı altında verildiği saptanmıştır. Bu nedenle geçerlik ve güvenirlik önlemleri için alan yazınında fikir birliğine varılmadığı ve tutarlı bir sınıflamanın yapılmadığı söylenebilir.

Keywords

Geçerlik Güvenirlik İnandırıcılık Aktarılabilirlik Tutarlık Doğrulanabilirlik Sistematik İnceleme

Supporting Institution

-

Project Number

-

Thanks

-

References

  • Arslan, E. (2022). Nitel araştırmalarda geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 51, 395–407. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.1116878
  • Atılgan, H., Kan, A., & Doğan, N. (2009). Ölçme araçlarında bulunması gereken nitelikler. H. Atılgan (Ed.), Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme (Geliştirilmiş 3. baskı, s. 23–80) içinde. Anı.
  • Babbie, E. (2007). The practice of social research. Thomson Learning.
  • Balat, Ş., Kayalı, B., Gündüz, A., & Göktaş, Y. (2019). Doktora tezlerinde alınan geçerlik ve güvenirlik önlemleri [Sözlü bildiri]. 28. Uluslararası Eğitim Bilimleri Konferansı, Ankara.
  • Bartko, J. J., & Carpenter, W. T. (1976). On the methods and theory of reliability. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 163(5), 307–317. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005053-197611000-00003
  • Başkale, H. (2016). Nitel araştırmalarda geçerlik, güvenirlik ve örneklem büyüklüğünün belirlenmesi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi, 9(1), 23–28.
  • Bruton, A., Conway, J. H., & Holgate, S. T. (2000). Reliability: What is it, and how is it measured. Physiotherapy, 86(2), 94–99.
  • Bryman, A. (2006). Paradigm peace and the implications for quality. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 9(2), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570600595280
  • Bryman, A., Becker, S., & Sempik, J. (2008). Quality criteria for quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research: A view from social policy. Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(4), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701401644
  • Chen, Y. C. (2020). Dialogic pathways to manage uncertainty for productive engagement in scientific argumentation: A longitudinal case study grounded in an ethnographic perspective. Science & Education, 29(2), 331–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00111-z
  • Christensen, L. B., Johnson, R. B., & Turner, L. A. (2014). Research methods, design, and analysis (12th ed.). Pearson.
  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2021). Eğitimde araştırma yöntemleri (E. Dinç & K. Kıroğlu, Çev. Ed.). Pegem Akademi.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2015). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (2. baskı). Sage.
  • Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
  • Creswell, J. W., & Plano-Clark, V. L. (2020). Karma yöntem araştırmaları: Tasarımı ve yürütülmesi (Y. Dede & S. B. Demir, Çev. Ed.). Anı.
  • Dellinger, A. B., & Leech, N. L. (2007). Toward a unified validation framework in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(4), 309–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689807306147
  • Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic review. D. Buchanan & A. Bryman (Eds.), The sage handbook of organizational research methods (s. 671–689) içinde. Sage.
  • Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2nd ed.). Praeger.
  • Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Qualitative research (3rd ed.). Sage.
  • Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933.
  • Faize, F. A., Husain, W., & Nisar, F. (2017). A critical review of scientific argumentation in science education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(1), 475–483. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/80353
  • Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw Hill.
  • Furlong, J., & Oancea, A. (2005). Assessing quality in applied and practice based educational research: A framework for discussion. Review of Australian Research in Education, 6, 89–104.
  • Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. W. (2012). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (10th ed.). Pearson.
  • Greenhalgh, T. (1997). How to read a paper: Assessing the methodological quality of published papers. British Medical Journal, 315(7103), 305–308. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7103.305
  • Güçlü, İ. (2019). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri: Teknik, yaklaşım, uygulama. Nobel.
  • Gül, Ş., & Sözbilir, M. (2015). Thematic content analysis of scale development studies published in the field of science and mathematics education. Education and Science, 40(178), 85–102. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2015.4070
  • Heale, R., & Twycross, A. (2015). Validity and reliability in quantitative studies. Evidence-Based Nursing, 18(3), 66–67. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2015-102129
  • İliç, U., & Arıkan, Y. D. (2016). Second life ortamında yabancı dil öğrenimine yönelik öğrenci görüşlerinin incelenmesi. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 7(4), 364–395. https://doi.org/10.17569/tojqi.84832
  • İspir, B., & Yıldız, A. (2021). Argümantasyon yönteminin uygulanması sürecinde karşılaşılan sınırlılıkların tartışılması. Sosyal Araştırmalar ve Davranış Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(13), 236–258. https://doi.org/10.52096/jsrbs.6.1.7.13.13
  • Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele University.
  • Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45(3), 214–222. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.45.3.214
  • Lancaster, G. A., Dodd, S., & Williamson, P. R. (2004). Design and analysis of pilot studies: Recommendations for good practice. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 10(2), 307–312.
  • Lee, H. S., Liu, O. L., Pallant, A., Roohr, K. C., Pryputniewicz, S., & Buck, Z. E. (2014). Assessment of uncertainty-infused scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(5), 581–605. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21147
  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
  • Maxwell, J. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62(3), 279–301.
  • McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (7th ed.). Pearson.
  • McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2009). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203–229. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20364
  • Merriam, S. B. (2013). Nitel araştırma: Desen ve uygulama için bir rehber (S. Turan, Çev. Ed.). Nobel.
  • Metin, M. (2014). Kuramdan uygulamaya eğitimde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem Akademi.
  • Metin, O., & Ünal, Ş. (2022). İçerik analizi tekniği: İletişim bilimlerinde ve sosyolojide doktora tezlerinde kullanımı. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 22(Özel Sayı 2), 273–294. https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.1227356
  • Morgan, A. (2006). Argumentation, geography education and ICT. Geography, 91(2), 126–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2006.00612.x
  • Mork, S. M. (2005). Argumentation in science lessons: Focusing on the teacher’s role. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 1(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.463
  • Morveli-Espinoza, M., Nieves, J. C., Possebom, A., Puyol-Gruart, J., & Tacla, C. A. (2019). An argumentation-based approach for identifying and dealing with incompatibilities among procedural goals. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 105, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2018.10.015
  • Mueller, M., & Yankelewitz, D. (2014). Fallacious argumentation in student reasoning: Are there benefits? European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9398
  • Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(3), 384–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00038-3
  • O’Cathain, A. (2010). Assessing the quality of mixed methods research: Toward a comprehensive framework. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2. baskı, s. 531–555). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335193.n21
  • O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2007). Why, and how, mixed methods research is undertaken in health services research: A mixed methods study. BMC Health Services Research, 7, Article 85. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-7-85
  • O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2008). The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 13(2), 92–98. https://doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007074
  • Oliver-Hoyo, M., & Allen, D. (2006). The use of triangulation methods in qualitative educational research. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(4), 42–47. https://www.jstor.org/stable/i40116251
  • Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Johnson, R. B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48–63.
  • Özden, M. Y., & Durdu, L. (2016). Eğitimde üretim tabanlı çalışmalar için nitel araştırma yöntemleri (1. baskı). Anı.
  • Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. (N. Çınar & G. Hür, Çev.). BMJ.
  • Patton, M. Q. (2014). Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemleri (M. Bütün & S. B. Demir, Çev. Ed.). Pegem Akademi.
  • Robson, C. (2015). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri: Gerçek dünya araştırması (Ş. Çıngır & N. Demirkasımoğlu, Çev. Ed.). Anı.
  • Sale, J. E. M., & Brazil, K. (2004). A strategy to identify critical appraisal criteria for primary mixed method studies. Quality and Quantity, 38(4), 351–365. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QUQU.0000043126.25329.85
  • Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2. baskı). Sage.
  • Topu, F. B., Baydas, Ö., Turan, Z., & Göktaş, Y. (2013). Common reliability and validity strategies in instructional technology research. Çukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 42(1), 110–126.
  • Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
  • von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101–131. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20213
  • Winter, G. (2000). A comparative discussion of the notion of ‘validity’ in qualitative and quantitative research. The Qualitative Report, 4(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2000.2078
  • Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (11. baskı). Seçkin.
  • Yıldırım, K. (2010). Nitel araştırmalarda niteliği artırma. İlköğretim Online, 9(1), 79–92.
There are 63 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Higher Education Studies (Other)
Journal Section Literature Review
Authors

Bünyamin İspir 0000-0002-0428-8887

Ali Yıldız 0000-0001-6241-2316

Project Number -
Publication Date August 7, 2025
Published in Issue Year 2025 Volume: 15 Issue: 2

Cite

APA İspir, B., & Yıldız, A. (2025). Türkiye’de Argümantasyonla İlgili Yapılan Doktora Tezlerinin Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Önlemleri Açısından İncelenmesi. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 15(2), 425-440. https://doi.org/10.53478/yuksekogretim.1336695
 Download Cover Image

TÜBA Higher Education Research / Review (TÜBA-HER) is indexed in ESCI, TR Dizin, EBSCO, and Google Scholar.

Publisher
34633
112 Vedat Dalokay Street, Çankaya , 06700 Ankara, Türkiye

3415434156  34153 34146 34148 34155 34157 3415834160

TÜBA-HER Turkish Academy of Sciences Journal of Higher Education Research/Review (TÜBA-HER) does not officially endorse the views expressed in the articles published in the journal, nor does it guarantee any product or service advertisements that may appear in the print or online versions. The scientific and legal responsibility for the published articles belongs solely to the authors.

Images, figures, tables, and other materials submitted with manuscripts must be original. If previously published, written permission from the copyright holder must be provided for reproduction in both print and online versions. Authors retain the copyright of their works; however, upon publication in the journal, the economic rights and rights of public communication— including adaptation, reproduction, representation, printing, publishing, and distribution rights—are transferred to the Turkish Academy of Sciences (TÜBA), the publisher of the journal. Copyright of all published content (text and visual materials) belongs to the journal in terms of usage and distribution. No payment is made to the authors under the name of copyright or any other title, and no article processing charges are requested. However, the cost of reprints, if requested, is the responsibility of the authors.

In order to promote global open access to scientific knowledge and research, TÜBA allows all content published online (unless otherwise stated) to be freely used by readers, researchers, and institutions. Such use (including linking, downloading, distribution, printing, copying, or reproduction in any medium) is permitted under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License, provided that the original work is properly cited, not modified, and not used for commercial purposes. For permission regarding commercial use, please contact the publisher.