Çocuk ve Gençlik Temalı Sosyal Hizmet Akademik Yayınlarının Etik Değerlendirilmesi: Meta Analiz

Öz

Amaç: Bu araştırma çocuk ve gençlik temalı sosyal hizmet akademik yayınlarının etik ilke ve standartlara uygunluğunun incelenmesini ve değerlendirilmesini amaçlamıştır. Yöntem: Araştırmanın amacı doğrultusunda meta analiz yöntemi tercih edilmiş ve örneklem olarak makale ve tezlerden oluşan 737 adet çalışma içerisinden dahil edilme kriterlerine uyum sağlayan 192 adet çalışma belirlenmiştir. Belirlenen kodlama yöntemi ile çalışmalar biçim ve içerik özelliklerine göre incelenmiş, etik ilke ve standartlara uygunlukları değerlendirilmiş ve etki büyüklükleri hesaplanmıştır. Bu hesaplama sürecinde grup farklılığı meta analiz yöntemi kullanılmış ve bu modelde standartlaştırılmış etki büyüklüğünü ortaya koyabilmek adına kadın-erkek gibi doğal gruplar oluşturulmuştur. Ayrıca etki büyüklüğünün hesaplanması için Hedges’s g değeri benimsenmiş ve rastgele etki modeli tercih edilmiştir. Bulgular: Araştırmada her bir örneklem grubundaki etki büyüklüğüne bakıldığında Hedges’s g değerinin küçük düzeyde olduğu bulgusu elde edilmiştir. Bu bulgu ise çalışmalarda yer alan kız ve erkek katılımcılar arasında etik ilke ve standartlar bağımlı değişkeni bağlamında farkın boyutunun oldukça küçük olduğunu ve cinsiyetler arasında anlamlı bir farklılık olmadığını göstermiştir. Sonuç: Araştırma sonucunda toplam 192 adet çalışmada yer alan araştırmacıların çocuk ve gençlere özgü etik ilke ve standartlar bağlamında çalışmadıkları genel olarak bilimsel araştırma etiğine özgü çalışmalar yaptıkları görülmüştür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Meta analiz
• çocuk ve genç
• araştırma
• etik

The Ethical Evaluation of Social Work Academic Publications with Children and Youth: Meta Analysis

Öz

Aim: This research aimed to examine the adherence to ethical principles and standards in academic social work publications focusing on children and youth. Method: To achieve the research objective, the meta-analysis method was employed. Out of 737 studies, including articles and theses, 192 studies met the inclusion criteria. Using the predetermined coding method, the studies were analyzed based on their form and content characteristics, their adherence to ethical principles and standards was evaluated. Effect sizes were then calculated accordingly. For this calculation, the group difference meta-analysis method was applied, which compares naturally occurring groups, such as men and women, to determine standardized effect sizes. Additionally, Hedges’s g value was utilized for effect size estimation, and the random effects model was chosen to account for variability across studies. Results: The study found that Hedges’s g value indicated a small effect size across perceptions. This finding suggests that the difference in ethical principles and standards between male and female participants is minimal, indicating no significant gender-based difference in adherence to ethical principles. Conclusion: The findings of this research indicate that, in the 192 studies analyzed, researchers did not specifically focus on ethical principles and standards tailored to children and young people. Instead, their studies primarily adhered to general scientific research ethics.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Meta analysis
• child and youth
• research
• ethic

Kaynakça

1. 1. Selcik O, Güzel B. Evaluation of social work profession and social work practice in Turkey. International Journal of Social Research. 2016;9(46):461-469.
2. 2. Duyan V. Functions and roles of social work. Society and Social Work. 2003;14(2):1-22.
3. 3. Özateş ÖS. Philosophical foundations of social work ethics. Society and Social Work. 2010;21(1):85-97.
4. 4. Congress E, McAuliffe D. Social work ethics professional codes in Australia and the United States. International Social Work. 2006;49(2):151–164.
5. 5. Şeker A. Ethics in Social Work. Ankara: SABEV; 2011.
6. 6. Selcik O. Social work research ethics: Reflections from a social work doctoral student. Turkish Journal of Social Work Research. 2017;1(1):22-34.
7. 7. Buz S, Akçay S. Ethics in social work research. Journal of Community and Social Work. 2015;26(1):140-160.
8. 8. Zengin O, Çalış N. Professional practices and working conditions of social workers. Society and Social Work. 2017;28(1):47-67.

9. 9. Ersoy Yılmaz S. An evaluation of social work ethics. Süleyman Demirel University Visionary Journal. 2015; Social Work Special Issue;122-136.
10. 10. Yiğitbaş Ç. Being both disadvantaged and a woman. Van Medical Journal. 2020;27(3):367-370.
11. 11. Mutlu Z. Ethical Principles in Working with Children. In: Artan, T, Zubaroğlu Yanardağ, M. eds. Social Work Ethics. 1nd ed. Ankara: Nika Publishing House; 2020.
12. 12. Çeviker A, Mumcu HE, Şekeroğlu MÖ, Bayrak M. According to UNICEF, ensuring social cohesion of groups considered disadvantaged in Turkey through sportive activities. Journal of the Institute of Social Sciences. 2018;12:221-238.
13. 13. Karataş K, Akbaş E, Erükçü Akbaş G, Çamuşcu E. Children who run away from home: An evaluation on children brought to the juvenile branch in Ankara. Society and Social Work. 2020;31(3):960-984.
14. 14. Karip S, Kesen N, Daşbaş S. A study on the relationship between emotion styles used by young adults and family belonging. Society and Social Work. 2020;31(3):823-848.
15. 15. Aynacı C. Investigation of the Effect of Parent-Adolescent Relationships on Self-Esteem and Behavioral Problems in High School Students in the Context of School Social Work. [master’s thesis]. Sakarya, Turkey: Social Work, Institute of Social Sciences; 2020.
16. 16. Yılmaz F. Investigation of University Students' Attitudes on Children's Rights and Solution Suggestions: The Case of Amasya University. [master's thesis]. Sivas, Turkey: Social Work, Institute of Social Sciences; 2019.
17. 17. Sayıl M, Yılmaz A. Ethical standards and discussed problems in developmental psychology research. Turkish Journal of Psychology. 2001;16(47):71-78.
18. 18. Çakmak Z. Ethics in research conducted with the participation of children. Turkish Psychological Writings. 2018;21(41):30-37.
19. 19. Sargeant J, Harcourt D. Ethics in Research with Children Ethics. Ankara: Nobel Publishing House; 2019.
20. 20. Graham A, Powell M, Taylor N, Anderson D, Fitzgerald R. Ethical Research Involving Children. Florence: UNICEF Office of Research-Innocenti; 2013.
21. 21. Glass GV. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher. 1976;5(10):3–8.
22. 22. Şen S. Yıldırım İ. Meta-Analysis Applications with CMA. Ankara: Anı Publishing; 2020.
23. 23. Field AP, Gillett R. How to do a meta-analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology. 2020;63(3):665-694.
24. 24. Pigott TD, Polanin JR. Methodological guidance paper: high-quality meta-analysis in a systematic review. Review of Educational Research. 2020;90(1):24-46.
25. 25. Kılınç Y, Önder A. Examining the relationship between early maladaptive schemas and emotion regulation methods of middle school students in terms of various variables. OPUS International Journal of Social Research. 2019;14(20):96-132.
26. 26. Atik G, Güçlüöver A. Investigation of the relationship between secondary school students' attitudes towards physical education and sports course and life satisfaction levels: The case of Kırıkkale province. OPUS International Journal of Social Research. 2020;15(23):1959-1975.
27. 27. Çıtak Bilgin N, Ak B, Cerit B, Ertem M, Çıtak Tunç G. Determination of healthy lifestyle behaviors of university students. Health Academy Kastamonu. 2019;4(3):188-210.
28. 28. Davulcu K. Approaches of Young People Receiving Services From Youth Centers Towards the Perception of Social Policy. [master's thesis]. Ankara, Turkey: Social Sciences Institute, Department of Social Policy;2020.
29. 29. Zubaroğlu Yanardağ M. An investigation on the positive negative emotion levels of students who receive services from social workers in psychological counseling units of universities. Society and Social Work. 2018;29(1):114-131.
30. 30. Özada A. The Effects of Demographic Characteristics, Family and Friendship Relationships and School Life on Peer Bullying. [doctoral thesis]. Ankara, Turkey: Institute of Health Sciences, Department of Social Work;2018.
31. 31. Akay B, Uslu A, Sancar M. Problems experienced by students studying tourism during the internship period: The case of undergraduate and secondary tourism students. OPUS International Journal of Social Research, Special Issue on Youth Research. 2018;212-236.
32. 32. Franklin C, Kim JS, Tripodi SJ. A meta-analysis of published school social work practice studies. Research on Social Work Practice. 2009;19(6):667-677.
33. 33. Lundahl B, Yaffe J. Use of meta-analysis in social work and allied disciplines. Journal of Social Service Research. 2007;33(3):1-11.
34. 34. Gorey KM, Thyer BA, Pawluck DE. Differential effectiveness of prevalent social work practice models: A meta-analysis. Social Work. 1998;43(3):269-278.
35. 35. Grenier AM, Gorey KM. The effectiveness of social work with older people and their families: A meta-analysis of conference proceedings. Social Work Research. 1998;22(1):60-64.
36. 36. Smidt GA, Gorey KM. Unpublished social work research: Systematic replication of a recent meta-analysis of published intervention effectiveness research. Social Work Research. 1997;21(1):58-62.
37. 37. Dumaine ML. Meta-analysis of interventions with co-occurring disorders of severe mental illness and substance abuse: Implications for social work practice. Research on Social Work Practice. 2003;13(2):142–165.
38. 38. Alparslan AM, Polatcı S, Yastıoğlu S. A research on the effect of COVID-19 pandemic and psychological resilience on alienation from academicianship. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences. 2021;8(1):312-338.
39. 39. Özdemir ZN. A Meta Analysis Study on the Effect of Realistic Mathematics Education on Mathematics Achievement in Turkey. [master's thesis]. İstanbul, Turkey: Mathematics Education, Institute of Educational Sciences; 2020.
40. 40. Kırmızı M. Factors Affecting the Achievement of Gifted Students: A Meta-Analysis Study. [master's thesis]. Çukurova, Turkey: Primary Education, Graduate School of Social Sciences; 2017.
41. 41. Kural E. The Effect of Science Teaching Based on Multiple Intelligences Theory on Academic Achievement and Attitude Towards the Course: A Meta-Analysis Study. [master's thesis]. Sivas, Turkey: Science Education, Institute of Educational Sciences; 2020.
42. 42. Demir S. The Effect of Computer Assisted Mathematics Instruction (CAIM) on Academic Achievement: A Meta Analysis Study. [master's thesis]. Gaziosmanpaşa, Turkey: Educational Sciences, Graduate School of Educational Sciences; 2013.
43. 43. Böke H. Investigation of the Effectiveness of Using Special Teaching Methods in Physical Education Lessons: A Meta Analysis Study. [doctoral thesis]. Malatya, Turkey: Institute of Physical Education and Sports, Health Sciences; 2020.
44. 44. Baysal YE. The Effect of Different Teaching Practices on Science Teaching Self-Efficacy Beliefs: A Meta Analysis Study. [doctoral dissertation]. Malatya, Turkey: Science Teacher Education, Institute of Educational Sciences; 2020.
45. 45. D'Cruz H, Jones M. Social Work Research: Ethical And Political Contexts. London: Sage; 2004.
46. 46. Butler I. A code of ethics for social work anda social care research. British Journal of Social Work. 2002;32:239-248.
47. 47. Webb NB. Social Work Practice with Children. Ankara: Nika Publishing House; 2017.
48. 48. Banks S. Everyday ethics in professional life: Social work as ethics work. Ethics and Social Welfare. 2016;10(1):35-52.
49. 49. Drake G. The ethical and methodological challenges of social work research with participants who fear retribution: To 'do no harm'. Qualitative Social Work. 2013;1-16.
50. 50. Peled E, Leichtentritt R. The ethics of qualitative social work research. Qualitative Social Work. 2002;1(2):145–169.
51. 51. Kyrsik JL, Finn J. Social Work Research for Effective Practice. Ankara: Nika Publishing House; 2015.