Nitel Araştırmalarda Geçerlilik ve Güvenilirlik: Bir Model Önerisi

Öz

Bilimsel bir çalışmanın niteliği, araştırmanın güvenilir ve geçerli olmasıyla yani bilimsel bir çalışmanın sonuçlarının olgusal dünyada olup-bitenleri açıklama ve temsil edebilme yeteneği ile doğrudan ilişkilidir. Araştırma bulgularının hangi bilimsel temelde elde edildiğini gösteren geçerlik ve güvenirlik ölçütü tüm görgül çalışmalar için önemli bir bilimsellik ölçütüdür. Nicel araştırmalarda geçerlilik ve güvenirlik ile ilgili belirsizlik olmamakla birlikte nitel araştırmalarda geçerlilik ve güvenirlikle ilgili önemli belirsizlik alanları bulunmaktadır. Bu kavramsal incelemenin temel amacı, nitel araştırmalar için geliştirilmiş olan geçerlilik ve güvenirlik ölçütlerinin ne ölçüde güvenilir ve geçerli olduğunu tartışarak işlevselliği yüksek bir model geliştirmenin imkânını sorgulamaktır. Araştırma amacı ve konuya uygunluğu nedeniyle kavramsal inceleme olarak tasarlanmıştır. Araştırma için geniş bir literatür taraması yapılarak ve konunun sorun alanları eleştirel bir incelemeye tabi tutularak söz konusu sorunun giderilmesine dair eşitli önerilerde bulunulmuştur. Araştırmada nitel araştırmaların geçerlilik ve güvenirliği konusunda ileri sürülen önerilerin, literatürdeki boşluğun doldurulmasına ve bundan sonraki araştırmalarda yol gösterici olmasına katkı sağlayabileceği düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Nitel Araştırma
• Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik
• Nitel Araştırmalarda Geçerlik
• Nitel Araştırmalarda Güvenirlik

Kaynakça

1. Angen, M. J. (2000). Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue. Qualitative Health Research, 10, 378- 395. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973200129118516
2. Abbate, J. (2011). İnternetin popülerleşmesi. in: Crowley, D. ve Heyer, P.(ed.), İletişim Tarihi, (Çev. Berkay Ersöz), Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.
3. Barbour, R. S.(2001). Checklists for improving rigor in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog? British Medical Journal 322(1), 115-117. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115
4. Baxter, P., ve Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13, (4), 544-559. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2008.1573
5. Bengtsson, M. (2016). How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. NursingPlus Open, 2, 8-14; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.npls.2016.01.001
6. Bondas, T., ve Hall, E. O. (2007). Challenges in approaching metasynthesis research. Qualitative Health Research, 17(1), 113-121. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732306295879
7. Borman, K. M., LeCompte, M. D. ve Goetz, J. P., (1986), Ethnographic and qualitative research design and why it doesn't work, American Behavioral Scientist, 30, 42-57. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276486030001006
8. Braun, V. ve Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. Thousand Oaks: SAGE

9. Cioffi-Revilla, C. (2014). Introduction to computational social science. London and Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5661-1
10. Charmaz, K. (2015). Gömülü (Grounded) teori yapılandırması. Hoş, R. (Çev.). Ankara: Seçkin.
11. Christensen, L. B., Johnson, B., ve Turner, L. A. (2015). Araştırma yöntemleri: Desen ve analiz. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık
12. Coşkun, R. (2022). Nitel Araştırmalarda Sorunlar: Seçilmiş Makalelerin Eleştirel Bir İncelemesi ve Bazı Öneriler. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 23(1), 165-189.
13. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks: SAGE
14. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: SAGE
15. Creswell, J. W. ve Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124-130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
16. Daymon, C. ve Holloway, I. (2003). Qualitative research methods in public relations and marketing communications, London: Routledge
17. Denscombe, M. (2010). The good research guide for small-scale social research projects. Berkshire: Open University Yayınları.
18. Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: a theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: McGraw-Hill,
19. Denzin, N. K. ve Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
20. Eysenbach, G. ve Köhler, C. (2002). Does the internet harm health? Database of adverse events related to the internet has been set up. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 324(7331), 239. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7337.573
21. Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice., New York: Macmillan Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L. ve Allen, S. T. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
22. Erkuş, A. (2017). Erkuş, A. (2011). Davranış bilimleri için bilimsel araştırma süreci. (5. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
23. Finfgeld, D. L. (2003). Metasynthesis: The state of the art so far. Qualitative Health Research, 13(7), 893-904. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732303253462
24. Firestone, W. A. (1993). Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied to qualitative research. Educational researcher, 22(4), 16-23. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X022004016
25. Forrester, M. A. ve Sullivan, C. (2018). Doing qualitative research in psychology: A practical guide. New York: SAGE.
26. Fusch, P., Fusch, G. E. ve Ness, L. R. (2018). Denzin's paradigm shift: revisiting triangulation in qualitative research. Journal of Social Change, 10(1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.5590/JOSC.2018.10.1.02
27. Gibbs, G. R. (2002). Qualitative data analysis. Buckingham: Open University Press.
28. Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Technology Research and Development, 29(2), 75-91. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766777
29. Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. ve Guba, E. G. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In The SAGE Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE
30. Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M. ve Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied thematic analysis. Thousand Oaks: SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483384436 Hammersley, M. ve Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice (3rd.ed). London: Routledge.Hancock, D. R., ve Algozzine, B. (2016). Doing case study research: A practical guide for beginning researchers. New York: Teachers College Press.
31. Holloway, I. ve Wheeler, S. (1996). Qualitative research for nurses. Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd.
32. Houser, J. (2016). Nursing Research: Reading, Using and Creating Evidence: Reading, Using and Creating Evidence. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
33. Johnson, B. ve Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Thousand Oaks: SAGE
34. Jungherr, A. (2016). Twitter use in election campaigns: A systematic literature review. Journal of information technology and politics, 13(1), 72-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2015.1132401
35. Jungherr, A. (2015). Analyzing political communication with digital trace data: The role of Twitter messages in social science research. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20319-5
36. Kothari, C. R. (2013). Research methodology: Methods and techniques. New Delhi, India: New Age International Pvt Ltd Publishers. Kumar, R. (2011). Araştırma yöntemleri (Çeviri Editörü: Ömay Çokluk). Ankara: Edge Akademi.
37. Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks: SAGE
38. Leung, L. (2015). Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 4(3), 324-327. https://doi.org/10.4103/2249-4863.161306
39. Lewis, S. (2015). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Health Promotion Practice, 16(4), 473-475. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839915580941
40. Lincoln, Y. S. ve Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions For Evaluation, (30), 73-84. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1427
41. Lincoln, Y. S. ve Guba, E. G. (1985). Establishing trustworthiness. Naturalistic inquiry, 289(331), 289-327. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8
42. Marshall, B., Cardon, P., Poddar, A. ve Fontenot, R. (2013). Does sample size matter in qualitative research?: A review of qualitative interviews in IS research. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 54(1), 11-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2013.11645667
43. Matteson, S. M. (2021). Chex MixTM data analysis activity. College Teaching, 69(3), 121-125. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2020.1843389
44. Maxwell, J. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard educational review, 62(3), 279-301, https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.62.3.8323320856251826
45. Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
46. Merriam, S. (1995). What can you tell from an N of 1? Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 4, 50- 60. Erişim adresi: https://www.iup.edu/pse/files/programs/graduate_programs_r/instructional_design_and_technology_ma/paace_journal_of_lifelong_learning/volume_4,_1995/merriam1995.pdf.
47. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Hoboken, New Jersey: Jossey-Bass.
48. Merriam, S. B. (2013). Nitel araştırma: Desen ve uygulama için bir rehber. (S. Turan, Çev. Ed.) Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
49. Merriam, S. B. ve Grenier, R. S. (2019). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
50. Mertens, D. M. (2014). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
51. Miles, B. W. ve Jozefowicz-Simbeni, D. M. H. (2010). Naturalistic inquiry, (Editor: Thyer, B. A.), in, The Handbook of social work research methods, 722-745. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
52. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. ve Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. (3. Baskı). Thousand Oaks. SAGE.
53. Mills, A. J., Durepos, G. ve Wiebe, E. (2010). Encyclopedia of case study research (Vol. 1-0). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
54. Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 52(2), 250-260, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.250
55. Morse, J. M. (1994). Designing funded qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin ve Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 220-235). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
56. Morse, J. M. (2000). Determining sample size. Qualitative Health Research, 10(1), 3-5. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973200129118183
57. Neuman, W. L. ve Robson, K. (2014). Basics of social research. Toronto: Pearson Canada.
58. Onwuegbuzie, A. J. ve Collins, K. M. (2007). A Typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research. The Qualitative Report, 12(2), 281-316. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2007.1638
59. Onwuegbuzie, A. J. ve Leech, N.L. (2007). A Call for qualitative power analyses. Quality & Quantity, 41, 105-121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-005-1098-1
60. Ormston, R., Spencer, L., Barnard, M. ve Snape, D. (2014). The foundations of qualitative research. Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers, 2(7), 52-55. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.41-1319Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluations. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
61. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks: SAGE
62. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemleri. (Cev. M. Bütün ve S. B. Demir). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
63. Phillips, B. D. (2014). Qualitative disaster research. New York: Oxford University Press
64. Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of counseling psychology, 52(2), 126- 136. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.126
65. Punch, K. F. (2016). Introduction to social research. (D. Bayrak, HB Arslan and Z. Akyüz, Trans.). Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.
66. Punch, K. F. (2014). Sosyall araştırmalara giriş: Nicel ve nitel yaklaşımlar (D. Bayrak, HB Arslan, ve Z. Akyüz, Çev., Z. Etöz, Düzelti). Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi
67. Robson, C. (2015). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri: Gerçek dünya araştırması, (Cev. S. Çınkır and N. Demirkasımoğlu), Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık
68. Rolfe, G. (2006). Validity, trustworthiness, and rigor: Quality and the idea of qualitative research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(3), 304-310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03727.x
69. Rubin, A. and Babbie, E. R. (2016). Empowerment series: Research methods for social work. Boston: Cengage Learning
70. Sandelowski, M. ve Barroso, J. (2007). Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. NewYork: Springer Publishing
71. Sandelowski, M. ve Barroso, J. (2002). Reading qualitative studies. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(1), 74-108. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690200100107
72. Schwandt, T. A. (2015). The SAGE dictionary of qualitative inquiry. (4. Baskı). SAGE publications.
73. Silverman, D. (2013). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Sim, J., Saunders, B., Waterfield, J., ve Kingstone, T. (2018). Can sample size in qualitative research be determined a priori? International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21(5), 619-634. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1454643
74. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
75. Speziale, H. S., Streubert, H. J. ve Carpenter, D. R. (2011). Qualitative research in nursing: Advancing the humanistic imperative. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
76. Streubert, H. J. ve Carpenter, D. R. (2011). Qualitative research in nursing. (5th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams ve Wilkins
77. West, W. (2001). Beyond grounded theory: The use of a heuristic approach to qualitative research. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 1(2), 126-131 https://doi.org/10.1080/14733140112331385168
78. Whittemore, R., Chase, S. K. ve Mandle, C. L. (2001). Validity in qualitative research, Qualitative Health Research, 11(4), 522-537, https://doi.org/10.1177/104973201129119299
79. Wolcott, H. F. (1994). On Seeking--and Rejecting--Validity in Qualitative Research. Transforming Qualitative Data. Description, Analysis, and Interpretation, Thousand Oaks: SAGE
80. Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
81. Yaşar, M. (2018). Nitel araştırmalarda nitelik sorunu. Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(2), 55-73. https://doi.org/10.21666/muefd.426318
82. Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish. A Division of Guilford Publications. Inc: New York, NY, 10012.
83. Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.