Kriz Dönemlerinde Niteliksel Çalışma Tasarımı: Araştırmacıların Deneyimleri

Öz

Arka Plan: Kriz dönemlerinde nitel veri toplama süreçleri, araştırmacılar için ciddi etik, yöntemsel ve duygusal zorluklar barındırmaktadır. Bu durum, veri toplama yaklaşımlarının yeniden düşünülmesini ve mevcut yöntemlerin kriz bağlamına uyarlanmasını gerekli kılmaktadır. Ancak literatürde, bu süreçleri doğrudan araştırmacı deneyimlerine dayanarak ele alan çalışmalar sınırlıdır. Amaç: Bu çalışma, krizlerin (örneğin pandemi ve deprem gibi olayların) nitel veri toplama süreçlerini nasıl etkilediğini ortaya koymayı; veri toplama sürecinde karşılaşılan zorluklar ve olanakları tanımlamayı; araştırmacıların geliştirdiği stratejileri analiz etmeyi ve gelecekteki krizler için uygulanabilir etik ve esnek yöntem önerileri sunmayı amaçlamaktadır. Yöntem: Araştırmayı Araştırma, farklı akademik kariyer evrelerinde (yüksek lisans, doktora, doktora sonrası) kriz döneminde nitel veri toplayan araştırmacıların deneyimlerini incelemek amacıyla yürütülmüştür. Görüşme, odak grup ve gözlem gibi yöntemleri kullanan araştırmacılarla derinlemesine görüşmeler yapılmış; veriler tematik analiz ile çözümlenmiştir. Bulgular: Kriz dönemleri, veri toplama süreçlerini doğrudan etkilemekte ve esnek, bağlama duyarlı stratejiler geliştirilmesini zorunlu kılmaktadır. Araştırmacıların akademik düzeyine bağlı olarak karşılaştıkları zorluklar ve başa çıkma biçimleri farklılaşmaktadır. Ayrıca, etik hassasiyetler ve katılımcı güvenliği kriz koşullarında daha öncelikli hâle gelmektedir. Sonuç: Bu çalışma, kriz koşullarında nitel veri toplamanın yalnızca yöntemsel değil, aynı zamanda etik ve duygusal boyutlarıyla da yeniden ele alınması gerektiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Esnek ve güvenli veri toplama stratejilerinin geliştirilmesi, kriz dönemlerinde nitel araştırmaların sürdürülebilirliği açısından kritik önemdedir. Çalışma, gelecekteki krizlerde araştırma yürütmek isteyenler için rehberlik edici bir kaynak sunmayı hedeflemektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Nitel araştırma
• kriz
• krizler çağı
• kriz dönemlerinde araştırma
• metodoloji.

Designing Qualitative Research In The Age Of Crises: Researchers' Experiences

Öz

Background: Qualitative data collection during crisis periods presents significant ethical, methodological, and emotional challenges for researchers. These circumstances necessitate a reconsideration of data collection approaches and an adaptation of existing methods to crisis contexts. However, the literature contains limited studies that directly examine these processes based on researchers' lived experiences. Aim: This study aims to explore how crises—such as pandemics and earthquakes—affect qualitative data collection processes; to identify the challenges and opportunities encountered in the field; to analyze the strategies developed by researchers; and to propose flexible and ethical methodological recommendations applicable to future crises. Method: The research was conducted to examine the experiences of researchers who collected qualitative data during crises at different stages of their academic careers (master's, PhD, and postdoctoral). In-depth interviews were held with researchers employing qualitative methods such as interviews, focus groups, and observation. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Findings: Crisis conditions directly influence data collection processes and necessitate the development of flexible and context-sensitive strategies. The challenges encountered and the coping mechanisms employed vary depending on the researchers' academic level. Ethical sensitivity and participant safety also become more prominent concerns during times of crisis. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that qualitative data collection under crisis conditions must be reconsidered not only methodologically, but also in ethical and emotional dimensions. Developing flexible and secure data collection strategies is critical for the sustainability of qualitative research during crises. The study aims to serve as a guiding resource

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Qualitative research
• crisis
• age of crises
• research during crises
• methodology.

Kaynakça

1. Aimaganbetovaa, O. Sagnayevab, T. Zholdassovac, M. Ahmetovad, M. Nurbekovae, Zh. Naurzalina, D. (2015). Empirical Research of Psychological Readiness for Student Psychologists’ Professional Activity. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 171. 190-197
2. Alostath, K. (2021). Graduate Students' Challenges in Academic Writing. [Unpublished master dissertation]. İstanbul Aydın University. Institute of Graduate Studies.
3. Alvi, M. (2014): A Manual for Basic Techniques of Data Analysis and Distribution. MPRA Paper. Basit, T. (2003). Manual or electronic? The role of coding in qualitative data analysis. Educational Research, 45(2), 143-154.
4. Bauman, Z. (2007). Liquid Times: Living in an Age of Complexity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
5. Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: SAGE Publications.
6. Boin, A., Hart, P., Stern, E., & Sundelius, B. (2021). The Politics of Crisis Management: Public Leadership Under Pressure (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
7. Boscarino, J. A. (2015). Community Disasters, Psychological Trauma, and Crisis Intervention. International Journal of Emergency Mental Health and Human Resilience. 17(1). 369-371.
8. Castells, M. (2010). The Rise of the Network Society. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

9. Charmaz, K. Belgrave, L. L. (2012). Qualitative Intervieving and Grounded Theory Analysis, In: J.F. Gubirum. J. A.
10. Holstein. A. B. Marvasti. K. D. McKinney. The Sage Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft. Pp. 347-364. Sage.
11. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
12. Cohen, S. (2001). States of Denial: Knowing About Atrocities and Suffering. Cambridge: Polity Press.
13. Collins, L. R. (2000). Disaster Management and Preparedness. CRC Press.
14. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
15. 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.
16. Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17. Forrester, M. A. and Sullivan, C. (2018). Doing qualitative research in psychology: A practical guide. New York: Sage.
18. Fukuyama, F. (2018). Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
19. Gaule, P. Piacentini, M. (2017). An Advisor Like Me? Advisor Gender and Post-graduate Careers in Science. SSRN. Working Paper Series 594.
20. Gergen, K. J. McNamee, S. Barrett, F. J. (2001). Toward transformative dialogue. International Journal of Public Administration. 24(7-8). 679-705.
21. Giddens, A. (1990). Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
22. Gorrell, A. (2023). The impact of digital transformation on academic work. Studies in Technology Enhanced Learning. 3(2). 1-13.
23. Gostin, L. O. Hodge, J. G. (2020). COVID-19 and the Law. JAMA, 323(21), 2190-2191.
24. Grunig, J. E. (1997). Public relations as a strategic management function. Central European Journal of Communication. 1. 11-31.
25. Hoey, J. J. (2008). Tools and Assessment Methods Specific to Graduate Education. Routledge.
26. Jain, N. Brockova, K. (2022). Adapting Data Collection Tools for Qualitative Research in Times of COVID-19 Pandemic. MAP Social Sciences, 2(1), 18-27.
27. Kathuria, S. (2021). A Qualitative Inquiry into the Challenges faced by the Researchers and possible threat to Quality of Research in India. Journal of Teacher Education and Research. 16(1). 12-18.
28. Klenke, K. (2016). Qualitative research in the study of leadership. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
29. Kümbetoğlu, B. (2020). Niteliksel Araştırmalarda Analiz. Bağlam Yayınları
30. Lazarus, R. S. Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. Springer Publishing Company.
31. Liamputtong, P. (2007). Researching the Vulnerable: A Guide to Sensitive Research Methods. London: SAGE Publications.
32. Malterud, K. (2001). Qualitative research: Standards, challenges, and guidelines. The Lancet, 358 (9280), 483-488.
33. Merriam, S. B., and Grenier, R. S. (2019). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
34. Miles, M. B. Huberman, A. M. (2015). Nitel Veri Analizi. Trans. Sadegül Akbaba ve Altun Ali Ersoy. PEGEM Yayıncılık.
35. Miller, G. Dingwall, R. (Eds.). (1997). Context and method in qualitative research. Sage.
36. Mkandawire, S. B. (2019). Selected Common Methods and Tools for Data Collection in Research. In: M. K. Banja (Ed.). Selected Readings in Education Volume 2. (pp.143-153).
37. Neuman, W. L., and Robson, K. (2014). Basics of social research. Pearson Canada Toronto.
38. Norris, F. H., Stevens, S. P., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K. F., & Pfefferbaum, R. L. (2008). Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(1-2), 127-150.
39. Perrow, C. (1984). Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. New York: Basic Books.
40. Polat, I. Anuk, D. Özkan, M. Bahadır, G. (2023) Mental health in the aftermath of disasters; psychological effects, treatment approaches and coping. J Ist Faculty Med, 86(4), 393-401. doi: 10.26650/IUITFD.1322896
41. Prayag, G. Ozanne, L. K. Spector, S. (2021). A psychological wellbeing perspective of long-term disaster recovery following the Canterbury earthquakes. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 63. 102438.
42. Punch, K. F. (2011) Sosyal Araştırmalara Giriş Nicel ve Nitel Yaklaşımlar. Trans. Dursun Bayrak, H. Bader Arslan, Zeynep Akyüz. Siyasal Kitabevi.
43. Quarantelli, E. L. (1998). What is a Disaster? New York: Routledge.
44. Quinlan, K.M., Male, S., Baillie, C. Stamboulis, A. Fill, J. Jaffer, Z. (2013). Methodological challenges in researching threshold concepts: a comparative analysis of three projects. Higher Education. 66, 585-601
45. Rahman, S. A. Tuckerman, L. Vorley, T. Gherhes, C. (2021). Resilient Research in the Field: Insights and Lessons from Adapting Qualitative Research Projects During the COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20. 1-16.
46. Sciaky, E. S. Lenaburg, L. A. Seshadri, R. Pak, D. K. (2024). Interdisciplinary research center programs positively impact graduate and postdoctoral training. MRS Bulletin. 49. 1300-1304.
47. Seidman, I. (2013) Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences. Teachers College Press, New York.
48. Sjoberg, G., & Miller, P. J. (1973). Social Research on Bureaucracy: Limitations and Opportunities. Social Problems, 21(1), 129-143.
49. Smith, J. Blanchet, K. (2019). Research Methodologies in Humanitarian Crises. Elrha: London
50. Schütz, A. (2018). Fenomenoloji ve Toplumsal İlişkiler. Trans. Adnan Akan, Seyda Kesikoğlu. Heretik Yayınları.
51. Stiglitz, J. E. (2010). Freefall: America, Free Markets, and the Sinking of the World Economy. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
52. Sztompka, P. (2000). Trust: A Sociological Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53. Teddlie, C. and Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of mixed methods research, 1(1), 77-100.
54. Tight, M. (2013). Discipline and methodology in higher education research. Higher Education Research & Development, 32(1), 136-151.
55. Tilly, C. (2003). The Politics of Collective Violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56. van der Weijden, I., Teelken, C., de Boer, M. et al. (2016). Career satisfaction of postdoctoral researchers in relation to their expectations for the future. High Educ 72, 25-40.
57. Wallerstein, I. (2011). The Modern World-System. Berkeley: University of California Press.