Türkiye'de Nitel Araştırma Yöntemi: Eğitim Bilimleri Alanında Yapılan Doktora Tezlerinin Sistematik Bir İncelemesi

Year 2025, Issue: 59

Rahime Çelik Görgüt , Eda Öz , Aysun Colak , Nurgün Varol , Adem Yurdunkulu , Yeliz Yazıcı Demir , Sevgi Tiryaki

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Türkiye'de eğitim bilimleri alanında nitel araştırma yöntemlerini kullanan doktora tezlerinin sistematik bir genel görünümünü sunmaktadır. Kapsamlılığı ve erişilebilirliği sağlamak için ulusal tez veri tabanı incelenmiştir. Anahtar kelime aramaları yoluyla nitel araştırma paradigmasına uygun toplam 491 doktora tezi belirlenmiştir. Veriler, araştırma tasarımı, örnekleme yöntemleri ve grupları, veri toplama araçları, veri analiz yöntemleri, güvenilirlik kriterleri, araştırmacının rolü ve bulguların sunumu gibi çeşitli yönlere odaklanarak içerik analizi teknikleri kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Sonuçlar, nitel tasarım türleri, örnekleme stratejileri ve veri analiz teknikleri gibi belirli unsurların yaygın olarak kullanılırken, diğer bileşenlerin daha az dikkat çektiğini göstermiştir. Özellikle, güvenilirliğin ve araştırmacının rolünün sunumu genellikle belirsiz veya eksikti ve bu da tezler arasında tutarsızlığa işaret etmektedir. Çalışmaların çoğunda nitel araştırmalarda beklenen metodolojik titizlik konusunda yeterli ayrıntı bulunmamaktadır. Genel olarak, bulgular Türkiye'de eğitim bilimleri alanındaki doktora tezlerinde nitel araştırma yöntemlerinin etkili ve tutarlı kullanımında çeşitli metodolojik eksiklikler ve iyileştirme ihtiyacı olduğunu göstermektedir. Çalışmada, bu alanda gelecekte yapılacak araştırmaların kalitesini ve güvenilirliğini artırmak için ayrıntılı metodolojik bilgi sağlamanın ve nitel araştırma standartlarına uymanın önemi vurgulanmaktadır.

Keywords

Nitel araştırma yöntemleri , sistematik inceleme , eğitim bilimleri , tanımlayıcı analiz

Ethical Statement

İncelenen tüm araştırma makaleleri açık erişimli olduğundan etik kurul onayına gerek duyulmamıştır. Tüm araştırma makaleleri açık erişimli olduğundan, araştırmacıların bilgi ve araştırma elde etmek için izin verdiği varsayılmıştır.

Supporting Institution

Bu araştırma makalesi herhangi bir kuruluş tarafından desteklenmemektedir.

Qualitative Research Method in Türkiye: A Systematical Overview of Doctoral Theses in Educational Sciences

Abstract

This study provides a systematic overview of doctoral theses in the field of educational sciences in Türkiye that use qualitative research methods. To ensure both comprehensiveness and accessibility, the national theses database was reviewed. A total of 491 doctoral theses aligned with the qualitative research paradigm were identified through keyword searches. The data were analyzed using content analysis techniques, focusing on various aspects such as research design, sampling methods and groups, data collection tools, data analysis methods, trustworthiness criteria, the researcher’s role, and presentation of findings. The results showed that while certain elements—such as qualitative design types, sampling strategies, and data analysis techniques—were commonly used, other components received less attention. Notably, the presentation of trustworthiness and the role of the researcher were often vague or missing, indicating inconsistency across the theses. Most of the studies lacked sufficient detail regarding the methodological rigor expected in qualitative research. Overall, the findings suggest several methodological shortcomings and a need for improvement in the effective and consistent use of qualitative research methods in doctoral theses in the field of educational sciences in Türkiye. The study emphasizes the importance of providing detailed methodological information and adhering to qualitative research standards to enhance the quality and credibility of future research in this field.

Keywords

Qualitative research method , systematical review , educational sciences , descriptive analysis

Ethical Statement

Ethics committee approval was not necessary because all the research papers studied were open access. All research papers had open access so it was assumed that the researchers give permission to obtain information and research.

Supporting Institution

There is no supporting institution for this research paper.

References

• Akdemir, A. B., and Kılıç, A. (2021). Method analysis of qualitative articles. Journal of Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University Faculty of Education, 8(2), 486–502. https://doi.org/10.21666/muefd.834707
• Artut, P. D., and Yetkin, N. (2022). Trends in primary and secondary school studies on mathematical modeling in turkey between 2011- 2020: A content analysis. Journal of National Education, 2(2),322-345. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6782554
• Başkale, H. (2016). Determination of validity, reliability and sample size in qualitative studies. Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Nursing Electronic Journal, 9(1), 23-28.
• Battal, A., and Çalışkan, A. (2021). Investigating the Studies Conducted between 2015-2019 in the Field of Computer Assisted Mathematics Instruction. OPUS International Journal of Society Research, 18(40), 2258-2287. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.837465
• Bıkmaz, F. H., Aksoy, E., Tatar, Ö., and Altınyüzük, C. A. (2013). The content analiysis of PhD theses completed in the field of curriculum and instruction (1974-2009). Eğitim ve Bilim, 38(168).
• Bogdan, R., and Biklen, S. K. (1997). Qualitative research for education. Allyn and Bacon. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
• Creswell, J. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach (4th ed.). SAGE.
• Creswell, J. W., and Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design (4th ed.). CA: Sage.
• Cleary, M., Horsfall, J., and Hayter, M. (2014). Data collection and sampling in qualitative research: Does size matter? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 70(3), 473-475. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12163
• Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 4th ed., Sage Publications
• Collingridge, D. S., and Gantt, E. E. (2008). The quality of qualitative research. American Journal of Medical Quality, 23(5),389–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/106286061987318
• Council of Higher Education Thesis Center. (n.d.). National Thesis Center. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/
• Çakmak, Z., Taşkıran, C., and Bulut, B. (2015). Examining Attitudes of Social Studies Pre-Service Teachers Towards Scientific Research. Adıyaman University Educational Sciences, 5(2), 266-287. https://doi.org/10.17984/adyuebd.02575
• Çalışkan, M., and Serçe, H. (2018). Action research articles on education in Turkey: A content analysis. Ahi Evran University Kirşehir Educational Journal, 19(1), 57-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.29299/kefad.2018.19.003 Çelik, M., and Yucel, C. (2021). Examination of the PhD theses prepared in the field of educational administration in Turkey and in USA. MANAS Social Research Journal, 10(3), 1632-1651. https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.932041
• Daymon, C., and Holloway, I. (2010). Qualitative research methods in public relations and marketing communications. London: Routledge.
• Demir, E. (2024). A descriptive study on qualitative research technics in social sciences. Uludağ Unıversity Social Sciences and Sciences Journal, 25(46), 313-328. https://dx.doi.org/10.21550/sosbilder.1340355
• Demir, T. T., and Çalışkan, G. (2021). Tendencies in doctoral theses using qualitative research methods in the field of Turkish language education. International Turkish Literature Culture Education Journal (TEKE), 10(4), 1412-1429.
• Denzin, N. K., and Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Deveci, Ö., and Aykaç, N. (2019). Evaluation of studies examining the problems experienced in basic: A meta-syntheses study. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 7(1), 277-301. https://doi.org/10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.7c1s.13m
• Eysenbach, G., and Köhler, C. (2002). How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. BMJ, 324(7337), 573-577. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7337.573
• Ezzy, D. (2002). Qualitative analysis: Practice and innovation. Routledge.
• Farrugia, B. (2019). WASP (write a scientific paper): Sampling in qualitative research. Early Human Development, 133, 69-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2019.03.016
• Fazlıoğulları, O., and Kurul, N. (2012). The characteristics of doctoral dissertations of educational sciences in Turkey. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Educational Faculty,1(24),43-75. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/181394
• Gill, S. L. (2020). Qualitative sampling methods. Journal of Human Lactation, 36(4), 579-581. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890334420949218
• Grix, J. (2010). The foundations of research. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Gough, D. (2007). Weight of evidence: A framework for the appraisal of the quality and relevance of evidence. Research Papers in Education, 22(2), 213-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520701296189
• Göktaş, Y., Hasançebi, F., Varışoğlu, B., Akçay, A., Bayrak, N., Baran, M., and Sözbilir, M. (2012). Tendencies in Educational Research in Turkey: A Content Analysis. Education Sciences in Theory and Application, 12(1), 455-459. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ978453.pdf
• Gündüz, M., Başpınar, Z., and Büyükkarcı, A. (2017). Content analysis of doctoral theses on values education published between 2000 and 2015. Dicle University Ziya Gokalp Educational Faculty Journal, (31), 705-718. http://dx.doi.org/10.14582/DUZGEF.1817
• Hennink, M. M., Kaiser, B. N., and Marconi, V. C. (2016). Code saturation versus meaning saturation: How many interviews are enough? Qualitative Health Research, 27(4),591-608.
• Hennink, M. M., Kaiser, B. N., and Weber, M. B. (2019). What influences saturation? Estimating sample sizes in focus group research. Qualitative Health Research, 29(10), 1483-1496. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318821692
• Higgins, J. PT., and Green, S. (Eds.). (2008). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Cochrane Book Series. A John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., Publication. Print ISBN:9780470699515. Online ISBN:9780470712184. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470712184
• Holloway, I., and Wheeler, S. (1996). Qualitative research for nurses. Blackwell Science Ltd. ISBN: 9780632037650, 0632037652.
• Hyett, N., Kenny, A., and Dickson-Swift, V. (2014). Methodology or method? A critical review of qualitative case study reports. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v9.23606
• Ilgar, M. Z., and Ilgar, S. C. (2013). Embedded theory as a qualitative research method (grounded theory. İstanbul Zaim University Journal of Social Sciencesi, 2(3), 197-247. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12436/111
• Jeff R., and Corey W. Johnson. (2020). Contextualizing reliability and validity in qualitative research: Toward more rigorous and trustworthy qualitative social science in leisure research. Journal of Leisure Research, 51(4), 432-451.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2020.1722042
• Johnson, R., and Miller, T. (2020). Qualitative Research Methods in U.S. Doctoral Dissertations: A Meta-Analysis of Data Collection Techniques. Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 36(4), 221-239.
• Kambouri-Danos, Maria and Pieridou, Myria (2020). Qualitative doctoral research in educational settings: Reflecting on meaningful encounters. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 9(1) pp. 21–31. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v9i1.20360
• Karadağ, E. (2010). Research models used in doctoral dissertations in education sciences in Turkey: Quality of research and analytical errors. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 16(1), 49-71. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/108243
• Karataş, Z. (2017). Paradigm transformation in social sciences research: Rise of qualitative approach. Journal of Türkiye Social Services Research, 1(1), 68-86. https://doi.org/10.3390/tushad11010009
• Keskinkılıç, S., and Ertürk, A. (2009). Statistical competency of postgraduate students. Ahi Evran University Kırşehir Journal of Faculty of Education (KEFAD), 10(1), 141-151. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/149491
• Küçüközer, A. (2016). An overview of the doctoral theses in science education. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education], 10(1),107-114: https://doi.org/10.17522/nefefmed.54132
• Lee, S., & Kim, E. (2020). Influencer Marketing on Instagram: How Sponsorship Disclosure, Influencer Credibility, and Brand Credibility Impact the Effectiveness of Instagram Promotional Post. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 11, 232-249. https://doi.org/10.1080/20932685.2020.1752766
• Lee, V., and Landers, R. N. (2022). Sampling strategies for quantitative and qualitative business research. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.216
• Leech, N. L., and Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). An array of qualitative data analysis tools: A call for data analysis triangulation. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 557-584
• Lincoln, Y. S., and Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8
• Maxwell, J. A. (2008). Designing a qualitative study. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of applied social research methods (2nd ed., pp. 214-253). Sage.
• Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation: revised and expanded from qualitative research and case study applications in education. The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series.
• Mertkan, S., and Bayrakli, H. (2017). Re-inventing researcher identity: When the individual interacts with the contextual power dynamics. Higher Education Research and Development, 37(2),316-327. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1355891
• Meyer, C. B. A. (2001). Case in case study methodology. Field Methods, 13(4), 329–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x0101300402
• Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage Publications, Inc.
• Miles, M., Huberman, A. M., and Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE.
• Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., and Prisma Group. (2009). Reprint—preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Physical Therapy, 89(9), 873-880. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/89.9.873
• Onwuegbuzie, A. J., and Leech, N. L. (2007). A Call for qualitative power analyses. Quality and Quantity, 41, 105-121. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11135-005-1098-1
• Özdemir, M., and Aypay, A. (2022). The academic home of Turkish higher education research: A demographic, thematic and methodological examination of doctoral dissertations. Research in Educational Administration and Leadership, 7(1), 81-130. https://doi.org/10.30828/real.972966
• Özdemir, M. (2010). Qualitative data analysis: A study on method problems in social sciences. Eskişehir Osmangazi University Journal of Social Sciences, 11(1), 323-343. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/113287
• Özkal, N. (2020). Examining the doctoral dissertations in the education and teaching programs: 2015-2019. OPUS International Journal of Society Research, 15(25), 3415-3442. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.647030
• Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitavie study and evaluation methods. M. Bütün and S. B. Demir, (Çev. Ed.). Pegem Akademi.
• Petersen, K., and Gencel, C. (2013, October). Worldviews, research methods, and their relationship to validity in empirical software engineering research. In 2013 joint conference of the 23rd international workshop on software measurement and the 8th international conference on software process and product measurement (pp. 81-89). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IWSM-Mensura.2013.22
• Pieridou, M., & Kambouri-Danos, M. (2020). Qualitative doctoral research in educational settings: Reflecting on meaningful encounters. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 9(1), 21-31.
• Poni, M. (2014). Research paradigms in education. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 4(1), 407-413. https://doi.org/10.5901/jesr.2014.v4n1p407
• Prabhu, G. N. (2020). Teaching the scope and limits of generalizability in qualitative research. New Trends in Qualitative Research, 1, 186-192. https://doi.org/10.36367/ntqr.1.2020.186-192 Sandelowski, M. (1995). Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing and Health, 18(2), 179–183. doi:10.1002/nur.4770180211
• Reay, T., Zafar, A., Monteiro, P., and Glaser, V. (2019). Presenting findings from qualitative research: One size does not fit all! In T. B. Zilber, J. M. Amis, and J. Mair (Eds.), The production of managerial knowledge and organizational theory: New approaches to writing, producing and consuming theory (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 59, pp. 201-216). Emerald Publishing Limited.https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733558X20190000059011
• Roberts, P., and Priest, H. (2006). Reliability and validity in research. Nursing Standard, 20, 41-45.
• Saban, A., Eid, B. N. K., Saban, A., Alan, S., Doğru, S., Ege, İ., ... and Tunç, P. (2010) Analysis of articles conducted with qualitative research methodology in the field of educational science. Selçuk University Ahmet Keleşoğlu Education Faculty Journal, 30, 125-142
• Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4), 465-478.
• Silverman, D. (2016). Qualitative research. Sage.
• Streubert, H. J., and Carpenter, D. R. (2011). Qualitative research in nursing (5th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.
• Şayak, H., Karataş, K., and Yılmaz, E. (2023). Examining of the research studies on foreign students in Turkiye: A content analysis. Electronic Education Sciences Journal, 12(23), 47-63.https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/articlefile/2774356
• Stanley, S. D., and Robertson, W. B. (2024). Qualitative research in science education: A literature review of current publications. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(1), 175-199. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/14293
• Savela, T. (2018). The advantages and disadvantages of quantitative methods in school escapes research. Linguistics and Education, 44, 31-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2017.09.004
• Senay, H. H., Şengül, M., and Seggie, F. N. (2020). Higher education studies in Türkiye: Tendencies and suggestions. Journal of University Research Studies, 3(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.32329/uad.697415
• Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction. London: SAGE Publication.
• Sölpük, N. (2016). Conceptualization of research approaches and the doctoral dissertation process: A comparative study in the context of doctoral students and their advisors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Eskişehir Osmangazi University, Eskişehir.
• Sönmez, V. (2011). The scientific research process and achievement. International Journal of Curriculum and Instructional Studies (IJOCIS), 1(1), 49-59.
• Sönmez, V., and Alacapınar, F. G. (2019). Illustrated scientific research methods. Ani Publishing.
• Sukmawati, S. (2023). Development of quality instruments and data collection techniques. Journal Pendidikan Dan Pengajaran Guru Sekolah Dasar (JPPGuseda), 6(1), 119-124. DOI: 10.55215/jppguseda.v6i1.7527
• Suri, H. (2011). Purposeful sampling in qualitative research syntheses. Qualitative Research Journal, 11(2), 63-75.
• Stahl, N. A., and King, J. R. (2020). Expanding approaches for research: Understanding and using trustworthiness in qualitative research. Journal of Developmental Education, 44(1), 26-28. https://www.jstor.org/stable/45381095
• Şenyurt, S., and Özer Özkan, Y. (2017), A Thematic and Methodological Analysis of Masters Dissertations in the Field of Measurement and Evaluation in Education. Elementary Education Online, 16(2), 628-653. http://ilkogretimonline.org.tr10.17051/ilkonline.2017.304724
• Taherdoost, H. (2021). Data collection methods and tools for research; a step-by-step guide to choose data collection technique for academic and business research projects. International Journal of Academic Research in Management (IJARM), 10(1), 10-38
• Takaoğlu, Z. B. (2023). Examination of Post Graduate Theses Related to Socio-Scientific Topics: A Systematic Analysis. National Education Journal, 52(237), 547-576. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.1075185
• TDK. (2024). TDK Turkish Dictionary. Institution of Turkish Language
• Tight, M. (2004). Research into higher education: An a‐theoretical community of practice? Higher Education Research and Development, 23(4), 395-411. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436042000235439
• Tirado, F., and Galvez, A. (2008). Positioning theory and discourse analysis: Some tools for social analysis. Historical Social Research, 33, 224-251. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-8.2.248
• Toraman Turk, S., and Dudu, S. (2022). Action research. H. Tabak, B. Aksu Dünya, and F. Şahin (Eds.) in Research methods in education (pages. 265-287). Pegem Academy.
• Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837-851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410364618
• Tutar, H. (2023). Qualitative research designs determination criteria and justification. Kastamonu University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences Journal, 25(1), 334-355. https://doi.org/10.21180/iibfdkastamonu.1190123
• Türkoğlu, M. E. (2015). Teacher accountability: Case study at a private school. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Osmangazi University, Eskişehir
• Türnüklü, A. (2001). Using different research techniques for the same question in educational science. Education and Science,26(120). https://egitimvebilim.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/article/view/5242/1404
• Ulum, Ö. G. (2016). Epistemology in qualitative education research: published article reviews. journal of Education and Human Sciences: Theory and Practice, 7(13), 19-28.
• Usta, A. (2012). The process of scientific research from problematic to results: Model example of research report. ODU Social Sciences Institution Research Journal, 3(5), 135-161.
• Uyanık, G. (2018). Attitudes of classroom teacher candidates towards scientific research. International Social Sciences Education Journal, 4(2), 112-127.
• Uysal, Ş. (2013). Investigation of dissertations the fields in field of educational administration supervision planning and economics in Turkey. (PhD Theses).Osmangazi University Institute of Educational Sciences, Eskişehir.
• Ültay, E., Akyurt, H., and Ültay, N. (2021). descriptive content analysis in social sciences. IBAD Social Sciences Journal, 10, 188-201. https://doi.org/10.21733/ibad.871703
• Yabaş, D. (2018). The role of mathematical communication in maintaining cognitive demand in primary school mathematics lessons: A case study. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Yıldız Teknik University, Social Sciences Institution, İstanbul.
• Yağmur Şahin, E., Kana, F., and Varışoğlu, B. (2013). The research trends of postgraduate dissertations in Turkish education departments. International Journal of Human Sciences, 10(2), 356-378.
• Yağar, F., and Dökme, S. (2018). Planning of qualitative researches: research questions, samples, questions, samples, validity and reliability. Gazi Health Sciences Journal,3(3),1-9. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/563245
• Yaşar, M. (2018). Qualitative problem in qualitative research. MSKU Journal of Education, 5(2), 55-73. https://doi.org/10.21666/muefd.426318 Yıldırım, A. (1999). Basic features of qualitative research methods and their place and importance in educational research. Education and Sciences, 23(112), 7-17.
• Yıldırım, A., and Şimşek, H. (2016). Qualitative research sciences in social sciences. Ankara: Seçkin.
• Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Young, D. S., and Casey, E. A. (2019). An examination of the sufficiency of small qualitative samples. Social Work Research,43(1),53–58. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/svz025
• Yüksel, E. (2019). Applications of content analysis in communication research in Turkey, problems and solution suggestions. G. İbrahimova and T. Nagiyeva (Eds.). International Euroasia Congress on Scientific Research and Recent Trends in (s. 134-152). Bakü: Hazar University.
• Watts, L. L., Todd, E. M., Mulhearn, T. J., Medeiros, K. E., Mumford, M. D., and Connelly, S. (2017). Qualitative evaluation methods in ethics education: A systematic review and analysis of best practices. Accountability in Research, 24(4),225-242. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2016.1274975
• Willig, C. (2013). Introducing qualitative research in psychology. Maidenhead: McGraw Hill/Open University Press.
• Wolcott, H. F. (1990). On seeking–and rejecting–validity in qualitative research. E. W. Eisner and A. Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate in (ss. 121–152). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
• Zhang, T.H. (2021). Chinese parents’ perception of emergency remote K-12 teaching-learning in China during the COVID-19 pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 16(1), 16-30. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4567480