Methodological Trends of Basketball Theses and Dissertations in Türkiye

Abstract

This content analysis aims to examine the basketball theses and dissertations in Türkiye to reveal their methodological trends. In the literature review conducted in the Turkish Council of Higher Education thesis center database with the word "basketball", 793 documents were reached between 1982 and 2020. Using the criterion sampling technique, 673 documents were examined, including 554 theses and 119 dissertations. An increasing knowledge production trend was found in the number of theses and dissertations over the years. Male authors were dominant in the production. While the quantitative research methods (especially causal comparison, quasi-experimental, correlational, and survey methods) predominate than other research methods; athlete and student samples were the most studied groups in all methods. The results show that the number of both basketball theses and dissertations has grown rapidly and basketball theses and dissertations in Türkiye are produced with a greater variety of research samples in many research approaches.

Keywords

• Postgraduate education
• Knowledge production
• Scientific production
• Basketball methodology

Kaynakça

1. Açıkada, C. (1997). Reorganization of the sport education institutions and refereed publications in Turkey. Hacettepe Journal of Sport Sciences, 8(1), 17–42.
2. Büyükergün, A. (2020). Between the years 1990-2018 graduate thesis examination of tennis made in the sectors in Turkey. Journal of Sports Education, 4(1), 20–29.
3. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2014). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (16th ed.). Pegem Akademi.
4. Can, M., & Afyon, Y. A. (2024). Bibliometric analysis of postgraduate theses written in the field of volleyball. Aegean J Med Sci, 3, 59–66.
5. Doğar, Y., Akarsu, M., & Sert, T. (2021). Investigation of published scientific papers and thesis related to badminton sport in Turkey. Gaziantep University Journal of Sport Science, 6(1), 1–14. [CrossRef]
6. Döşyilmaz, E., Öztürk, O., Atilgan, D., & Kara, H. (2023). Türkiye’de e-spor alanında yayımlanmış lisansüstü tezlerin incelenmesi. Akdeniz Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 6(2), 564–580. [CrossRef]
7. Ellmer, E., Rynne, S., & Enright, E. (2020). Learning in action sports: A scoping review. European Physical Education Review, 26(1), 263–283. [CrossRef]
8. Elmas, S., Açıkgöz, S., & Aşçı, F. H. (2018). The research paradigms of graduate theses in social sub-disciplines of sports. Hacettepe Journal of Sport Sciences, 29(2), 53–66. [CrossRef]

9. Hall, J. M. (1991). Tourism as the subject of post-graduate dissertations in Australia. Annals of Tourism Research, 18(3), 520–523.
10. Hernández-González, V., De Pano-Rodríguez, A., & Reverter-Masia, J. (2020). Spanish doctoral theses in physical activity and sports sciences and authors’ scientific publications (LUSTRUM 2013–2017). Scientometrics, 122(1), 661–679. [CrossRef]
11. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26. [CrossRef]
12. Karaman, S., & Bakırcı, F. (2010). Postgraduate study in Turkey: Problems and proposed solutions. The Journal of Social Sciences Research, 5(2), 94–114.
13. Khaldi, K. (2017). Quantitative, qualitative or mixed research: Which research paradigm to use? Journal of Educational and Social Research, 7(2), 15–24. [CrossRef]
14. Kozak, M. (2015). Bilimsel araştırma: Tasarım, yazım ve yayım teknikleri (2nd ed.). Detay Yayıncılık.
15. Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. SAGE Publications, Inc. [CrossRef]
16. Kuter, F. Ö., & Öztürk, Y. (2012). The analysis of the postgraduate theses written on racket sports in Turkey (1990-2010 period). Sport Sciences, 7(2), 46–58.
17. Leppink, J. (2017). Revisiting the quantitative–qualitative-mixed methods labels: Research questions, developments, and the need for replication. Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences, 12(2), 97–101. [CrossRef]
18. Maxcy, S. J. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 51–89). Sage.
19. McCusker, K., & Gunaydin, S. (2015). Research using qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods and choice based on the research. Perfusion, 30(7), 537–542. [CrossRef]
20. Queirós, A., Faria, D., & Almeida, F. (2017). Strengths and limitations of qualitative and quantitative research methods. European Journal of Education Studies, 3(9), 369–387. [CrossRef]
21. Robson, C., & McCartan, K. (2016). Real world research (4th ed.). John Wiley and Sons.
22. Şahin, E., & Evli, F. (2020). Investigation of graduate thesis with different variables about traditional turkish sports in Turkey between 2009-2019. International Journal of Physical Education Sport and Technologies, 1(1), 34–41.
23. Sevim, Y., Sevim, O., Şemşek, Ö., & Şinoforoğlu, T. (2004). Türkiye’de basketbol yüksek lisans ve doktora çalışmaları (1st ed.). Türkiye Basketbol Federasyonu Yayınları.
24. Sevim, Y., Şinoforoğlu, T., Bilge, M., & Sevim, O. (2004). Türkiye’de bilimsel hentbol tezleri (1st ed.). G. S. G. M. Spor Eğitimi Dairesi Başkanlığı.
25. Sözbilir, M., Kutu, H., & Yaşar, M. D. (2012). Science education research in Turkey: A content analysis of selected features of published papers. In J. Doris & D. Justin (Eds.), Science Education Research and Practice in Europe. Cultural Perpectives in Science Education (pp. 341–374). SensePublishers. [CrossRef]
26. Stead, G. B., Perry, J. C., Munka, L. M., Bonnett, H. R., Shiban, A. P., & Care, E. (2012). Qualitative research in career development: Content analysis from 1990 to 2009. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 12(2), 105–122. [CrossRef]
27. Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 7(17),1–6.
28. Taşçıoğlu, R. (2024). Winter sport theses (M. Aygün, Ed.; 1st ed.). Özgür Publications.
29. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Sage.
30. Ünlü, Ç., Çeviker, A., & Çamiçi, F. (2024). Basketbol branşı ile ilgili lisansüstü tezlere yönelik bir içerik analizi. International Journal of Sport, Exercise & Training Sciences, 10(1), 36-44. [CrossRef]
31. Üstdal, M., Vuillaume, R., Gülbahar, K., & Gülbahar, Y. (2004). Bilimsel araştırma kılavuzu projeden makaleye. Pelikan Yayıncılık.
32. Yıldız, R., & Yıldırım, E. (2017). Soru-cevap tekniğiyle tez yazma, makale hazırlama ve yayınlama kılavuzu (6th ed.). Detay Yayıncılık.
33. YÖK. (2017). Yükseköğretimde uluslararasılaşma strateji belgesi 2018-2022. https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/AnaSayfa/Yuksekogretimde_Uluslararasilasma_Strateji_Belgesi_2018_2022.pdf
34. YÖK. (2021). Ulusal tez merkezi. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/IstatistikiBilgiler?islem=4.
35. Yüce, M., & Aytuna, F. (2020). Türkiye Basketbol Tarihi (2nd ed.). Türkiye Basketbol Federasyonu.