Reflections of Doctoral Students' Creative Thinking Skills on Their Dissertation Preparation Process

Öz

The importance attached to graduate education is increasing to meet the demands of preparing qualified manpower. Training researchers aims to build the skill sets of mastering scientific research and critical thinking, being an expert in a field while generating and grasping knowledge. Additionally, creative thinking skills are highly valued in producing original and authentic studies. In this respect, dissertations (for PhD) are reported to include more of these skill sets compared to the theses (for MSc). This research aims to examine how creative thinking skills of doctoral students are reflected in their dissertation preparation process. This case study investigates these processes experienced by five doctoral students who are in the stage of dissertation proposal submission. With a semi-structured interview, their reflection on their use of creative thinking skills in dissertation processes are comprehensively analyzed. It is concluded that these students utilize various strategies to produce original work by integrating creative thinking skills such as fluency, flexibility, elaboration, combinational and exploratory creativity to their dissertation processes. At the same time, personal, environmental, financial, and implementation related challenges that would adversely affect their creative thinking skills are reported along with the approaches of their advisors towards the originality and limitations of dissertations.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• PhD studies
• Dissertation
• Creativity
• Creative thinking
• Originality

Doktora Öğrencilerinin Yaratıcı Düşünme Becerilerinin Tez Hazırlama Süreçlerine Yansımaları

Öz

Günümüzde ülkelerin nitelikli insan gücü yetiştirme stratejileri doğrultusunda lisansüstü eğitime verilen önem giderek artmaktadır. Bilim insanı yetiştirme süreci, bilimsel araştırma ve eleştirel düşünme yeteneklerini geliştirme, bir alanda uzmanlaşma ve bilgi üretme konularında beceriler kazandırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Aynı zamanda yaratıcı düşünme becerileri, özgün ve gerçek çalışmalar üretmede büyük bir öneme sahiptir. Bu doğrultuda, yüksek lisans tezlerinden çok doktora tezlerinden büyük bir beklentinin olduğu alanyazında belirtilmektedir. Bu araştırma, doktora öğrencilerinin yaratıcı düşünme becerilerinin tez hazırlık süreçlerine nasıl yansıdığının incelenmesini amaçlamaktadır. Nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden durum çalışması yönteminin kullanıldığı araştırmada, bir devlet üniversitesinde doktora eğitimi alan ve tez önerisini henüz vermiş 5 doktora öğrencisi ile çalışılmıştır. Öğrencilerin yaratıcı düşünme becerilerini tez hazırlık süreçlerine yansıtmalarının belirlenmesi amacıyla yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu kullanılmış, bu sayede süreç hakkında derinlemesine bilgi alınabilmiştir. Araştırma sonucunda öğrencilerin, akıcılık, esneklik, ayrıntılandırma, birleştirici ve keşfedici yaratıcılık gibi becerileri tez hazırlık süreçlerine entegre ederek özgün çalışmalar üretmek için çeşitli stratejiler kullandıkları sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Aynı zamanda, kişisel, çevresel, mali ve uygulamaya yönelik zorluklar da rapor edilmiş, bu zorlukların öğrencilerin yaratıcı düşünme becerilerini olumsuz etkileyebileceği belirtilmiştir. Öğrencilerin danışmanlarının, tezlerin orijinalliğine ve sınırlılıklarına yönelik nasıl bir tutum sergilediklerine yönelik sonuçlara da yer verilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Doktora çalışmaları
• Tez
• Yaratıcılık
• Yaratıcı düşünme
• Orijinallik

Kaynakça

1. Aaltio, I. (2009). How to become a knowledge holder: creating a piece of scientific knowledge with originality. Tamara: Journal for Critical Organization Inquiry, 7(3), 9-25. https://www.tamarajournal.com/index.php/tamara/article/view/54
2. Altbach, P. G. (2007). Doctoral education: Present realities and future trends. In J. J. F. Forest, P. G. Altbach (Eds.). International Handbook of Higher Education (pp. 65-81). Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4012-2_5
3. Baptista, A., Frick, L., Holley, K., Remmik, M., & Tesch, J. (2015). The Doctorate as an original contribution to knowledge: Considering relationships between originality, creativity, and innovation. Frontline Learning Research, 3(3), 55–67. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v3i3.147
4. Bargar, R. R., & Duncan, J. K. (1982). Cultivating creative endeavor in doctoral research. The Journal of Higher Education, 53(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1982.11780422
5. Bargar, R. R., & Duncan, J. K. (1987). Creativity in doctoral research: A reasonable expectation?, The Educational Forum, 51(1), 33-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131728609335683
6. Boden, M. A. (2004). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. (2nd ed.). Routledge.
7. Brabazon, T. (2020). The specificity of creative-led theses. In T. Brabazon, T. Lyndall-Knight, & Hills (Ed.), The creative PhD: Challenges, opportunities, reflection (1st ed., pp. 9–48). Emerald Group Publishing.
8. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Using thematic analysis in psychology, qualitative research in psychology. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 3(2), 77–101. http://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

9. Brodin, E. M. (2016). Critical and creative thinking nexus: learning experiences of doctoral students. Studies in Higher Education, 41(6), 971-989. http://doi.org/ 10.1080/03075079.2014.943656
10. Brodin, E. M., & Frick, L. (2011). Conceptualizing and encouraging critical creativity in doctoral education. International Journal for Researcher Development, 2(2), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1108/17597511111212727
11. Brown, G. & Atkins, M. (1998). Effective Teaching in Higher Education (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203221365
12. Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Sawyer, K. (2014a). Shifting the focus from individual to organizational creativity. In M. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), The systems model of creativity (pp. 67-72). Springer. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-94-017-9085-7
13. Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Sawyer, K. (2014b). Creative insight: The social dimension of a solitary moment. In M. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), The systems model of creativity (pp. 73-98). Springer. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-94-017-9085-7
14. Creswell, J. W. (2021). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods]. M. Bütün & S. B Demir, (Trans. Eds.). İstanbul: Siyasal Kitapevi.
15. Cryer, P. (2006). The Research Student's Guide to Success (3st ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. Denicolo, P. (2003). Assessing the PhD: A constructive view of criteria. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(2), 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880310471506
16. DiYanni, R. (2015) Critical and creative thinking: A brief guide for teachers (1st ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
17. Doğan, N. (2020). Yaratıcı düşünme ve yaratıcılık [Creative thinking and creativity]. Ö. Demirel (Eds.), Eğitimde yeni yönelimler [New directions in education], (pp. 169-199). Pegem Akademi.
18. Dunleavy, P. (2003). Authoring a PhD: How to plan, draft, write and finish a doctoral thesis or dissertation. Bloomsbury Publishing.
19. Edwards, M. (2014). What does originality in research mean? A student’s perspective. Nurse Researcher, 21(6), 8–11. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.21.6.8.e1254
20. European University Association (2010, 29 October). Salzburg II – Recommendations: European universities’ achievements since 2005 in implementing the Salzburg Principles. https://www.eua.eu/resources/publications/615:salzburg-ii-%E2%80%93-recommendations.html
21. Feist, G. J. (2011). Creativity in science. Encyclopedia of creativity : Two-Volume Set : Online version (2nd ed., pp. 296-302). Elsevier Science & Technology.
22. Finn, J. (2005). Getting a PhD: An action plan to help manage your research, your supervisor and your project. Routledge.
23. Frick, B. L. (2011). Supervisors’ conceptualisations of creativity in education doctorates. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 19(2), 495-507.
24. Gallo, D. (1994), Educating for empathy, reason and imagination. In K.S. Walters (Eds.), Re-Thinking Reason: New Perspectives in Critical Thinking, (pp. 43-60). Albany: State University of New York Press.
25. Gelling, L., & Rodríguez-Borrego, M. A. (2014). Originality in doctoral research. Nurse Researcher, 21(6), 6–7. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.21.6.6.s2
26. Guilford, J. P. (1973). Characteristics of creativity. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED080171
27. Hockey, J. (1996). Strategies and tactics in the supervision of UK social science PhD students. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 9(4), 481-500. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839960090409
28. Ingledew, J. (2016). How to Have Great Ideas: A Guide to Creative Thinking, Laurence King Publishing.
29. Karadağ, N., & Özdemir, S. (2017). The views of faculty members and PhD students on the processes of doctoral education in Turkey. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 7(2), 267. https://doi.org/10.5961/jhes.2017.206
30. LaPidus, J. B. (1997). Doctoral education: Preparing for the future. Washington: ERIC Clearinghouse.
31. Lovitts, B. E. (2007). Making the implicit explicit: Creating performance expectations for the dissertation. Stylus Publishing, LLC.
32. Mauch, J., & Park, N. (2003). Guide to the successful thesis and dissertation: A handbook for students and faculty. CRC Press.
33. Meng, Y., & Zhao, C. (2018). Academic supervisor leadership and its influencing mechanism on postgraduate creativity in China. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 29, 32-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.05.006
34. Neumann, C. J. (2007). Fostering creativity: A model for developing a culture of collective creativity in science. EMBO reports, 8(3), 202-206.
35. Ulibarri, N., Cravens, A., Svetina Nabergoj, A., Kernbach, S., & Royalty, A. (2019). Creativity in research: Cultivate clarity, be innovative, and make progress in your research journey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108594639
36. University of Melbourne. (n.d). Developing originality. https://students.unimelb.edu.au/academic-skills/explore-our-resources/developing-an-academic-writing-style/developing-originality
37. University of Nottingham. (n.d). Creative and exploratory thinking. https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/studyingeffectively/studying/creativecriticalthinking/creativeexploratory.aspx
38. Özmen, Z. M., & Aydın-Güç, F. (2013). Challenges in doctoral education and coping strategies: A case study. Journal of Higher Education and Science, (3), 214-219. https://doi.org/10.5961/jhes.2013.079
39. Patton, M. Q. (2018). Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemleri. [Qualitative research and evaluation methods]. (Trans. Eds. M. Bütün & SB Demir). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
40. Petre, M. & Rugg, G. (2010). Unwritten rules of Phd research (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
41. Phillips, E. M. & Pugh, D. S. (2010). How to get a PhD: A Handbook for students and their supervisors (5th ed.). McGrawHill: Open University Press.
42. Ramalingam, D., Anderson, P., Duckworth, D., Scoular, C., & Heard, J. (2020). Creative thinking: Definition and structure. Australian Council for Educational Research. https://research.acer.edu.au/ar_misc/43
43. Runco, M. A., Illies, J. J., & Eisenman, R. (2005). Creativity, originality, and appropriateness: What do explicit instructions tell us about their relationships? Journal of Creative Behavior, (39), 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2005.tb01255.
44. Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal 24(1), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092
45. Seligman, A. I. (2012). Is graduate school really for you?: The whos, whats, hows, and whys of pursuing a master's or Ph. D. JHU Press.
46. Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
47. Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized. Cambridge University Press.
48. Şuteu, C. (2022). The assessment of originality in academic research. Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai, Musica, 67(1), 165 – 173. https://doi.org/10.24193/subbmusica.2022.1.11
49. T.C. Resmi Gazete. (2016, April). Lisansüstü eğitim ve öğretim yönetmeliği [Postgraduate education and training regulation] (No:29690). https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuat? MevzuatNo=21510&MevzuatTur=7&MevzuatTertip=5
50. Torrance, E. P. (1972). Predictive validity of the Torrance tests of creative thinking. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 6(4), 236–262. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1972.tb00936.x
51. Torrance, E. P. (2002). Manifesto: A guide to developing a creative career. Greenwood Publishing Group.
52. Truran, P. (2016). The development of creative thinking in graduate students doing scientific research. Educational Technology, 41-46. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44430507 University of the Arts. (n.d). The PhD in creativity. https://www.uarts.edu/academics/phd-program
53. Üstündağ, T. (2020). Yaratıcılığa yolculuk [Journey to creativity] (8th ed.). Pegem Akademi.
54. Weisberg, R. (2020). Creativity: What it is. In Rethinking Creativity: Inside-the-Box Thinking as the Basis for Innovation (pp. 41-72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108785259.002
55. Wisker, G., & Robinson, G. (2016). The ‘creative-minded supervisor: gatekeeping and boundary breaking when supervising creative doctorates. M. Fourie-Malherbe, R. Albertyn, C. Aitchison, E. Blitzer (Eds.), Postgraduate Supervision-Future Foci for the knowledge society (pp.335-348). Stellenbocsh: Sun Press. https://doi.org/10.18820/9781928357223/20
56. Yıldırım, E. (2007). Bilgi çağında yaratıcılığın ve yaratıcılığı yönetmenin önemi [The importance of creativity and managing creativity in the information age]. Karamanoglu Mehmetbey University Journal of Social and Economic Research, 2007(1), 109-120. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/kmusekad/issue/10224/125706
57. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in the social sciences]. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
58. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
59. Ziman, J. (2000). Real science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/10/1/701