Derleme
PDF EndNote BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Qualitative Research / Flexible Design Research in Social Sciences: Field Challenges, Problems and Opportunities

Yıl 2019, Cilt 1, Sayı 1, 31.12.2019

Öz

This paper primarily focuses on a number of prejudices regarding qualitative research and the challenges faced in qualitative research processes. In particular, it aims to examine certain aspects of a set of problems, accompanied by a series of discussions around the question “for what reasons is a qualitative research method preferred?”. In addition, despite increased interest in qualitative research in recent years in Turkey, problems arising from the general dominance of quantitative methods amongst researchers will be touched upon. The paper will then use these discussions and evaluations to attempt to make inferences about the current situation of qualitative research.

It is relatively recently that qualitative research has been accepted as a remarkable and widespread research method. Nevertheless, it should be emphasized that if social sciences disciplines such as educational sciences and psychology, where qualitative methods are frequently used, are excluded, negative and discouraging attitudes towards qualitative methods continue to exist as a reality. Within academic circles focussed on quantitative research what distinguishes qualitative research from quantitative research and makes it worthwhile (although this expression includes a subjective judgment) is that it deals with the phenomena that are the subject of research, in their natural environment. Therefore, each phenomenon, situation and attitude can be interpreted in terms of the meanings attributed to them by individuals through qualitative research. It also makes it possible to capture the emotionsal aspect of these subjective meanings, albeit to a certain limitation.

In qualitative research processes guided by the intention and purpose to present perceptions and events in a realistic and holistic way, there are some problems. These exist both in the choice of the method, in the application phase of the research, and in the sharing of the study via academic platforms. While some of these problems arise from the nature of qualitative research, some of them appear to be the product of external factors. In both cases, qualitative research processes are adversely affected. Especially in a developing academic environment like Turkey, said problems may become even more complicated, annoying and discouraging.

A large reason why qualitative research can in some contexts be preferable to quantitative research, is the researcher's expectations about the research aims. In other words, the main determinant of a researcher's preference for a qualitative study over quantitative research should not be merely to avoid the handicaps of quantitative research, but as a result of an assessment of what kind of findings (can it be figurative-statistical, generalizable, etc., or is it away to make an in-depth assessment possible, to reveal meaning?) the research hopes to achieve.

Although the advantages and disadvantages to both qualitative and quantitative research should always be taken into consideration, the preferred research method ought to be determined primarily by the researcher's interests, the results he wants to achieve and his priorities (for example, revealing patterns of behavior or identifying the meanings imposed on events and situations.). Therefore, the question “why qualitative or quantitative research”, ought to be answered by considering these contextual issues, as well as general advantages and disadvantages.

Although the use of qualitative research methods in fields such as education, anthropology, and psychology have gained momentum in Turkish academia, with interest growing amongst researchers at various levels, especially postgraduate students, this preference is limited. Resources, examples of local research, theoretical background, presentations, articles evaluating the implementation process, undergraduate and graduate courses made available in response to this increasing demand are relatively few.

In some fields, such as political science, qualitative research is almost non-existent, compared to other fields of social sciences. This lack of research and theoretical studies available to form a methodological path in the application process makes it difficult to start and conduct qualitative studies in the field. Beyond this specific problem for developing environments, it is possible to group the emerging challenges related to qualitative studies in the social sciences under two main headings: internal problems and external problems. The first constitutes the challenges and problems arising from the nature of qualitative research itself. The second comprises the challenges and problems in which the qualitative research processes, components and the researcher are not the underlying causes (for example, problems encountered during the publication of a final article). Qualitative research, once it has been thoroughly comprehended, is not a method for maintaining standardized uniformity across the research. Although this may make the design more difficult, it also represents a great opportunity for qualitative researchers to develop themselves continuously at any level.

Qualitative research is mainly based on understanding, description, and interpretation. Qualitative research can also provide more promising results in terms of understanding socio-political issues and providing healthier solutions in terms of trying to understand phenomena within its habitat. For example, in political events (elections, street demonstrations, etc.), what percentage of people participate in these events, what percentage of the preferences they choose, and what percentage of these reasons are explained are superficially examined by some studies. However, qualitative research makes it possible to elaborate on the motives that guide people to these preferences/reactions, exploring the why not just the how many.

People’s basic motivations and expectations contain subjectivities that qualitative research can reveal. Qualitative research also addresses questions such as how people are influenced by events and how those events affect them- situations involving understanding, interpretation and interpretation. It is therefore clear that such research is highly functional in order to enable a better understanding of the nature of socio-political issues, and the heterogeneity of human experience, behaviour and attitudes.


Kaynakça

  • Altunışık, R. vd. (2007). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri. (5. Baskı). Sakarya: Sakarya Yayıncılık.Arastaman, G., Fidan, İ. Ö. Ve Fidan, T. (2018). Nitel araştırmada geçerlik ve güvenirlik: kuramsal bir inceleme. YYÜ Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15 (1): 37-75.Balcı, A. (2005). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma: yöntem, teknik ve ilkeler. Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık.Başkale, H. (2016). Nitel araştırmalarda geçerlik, güvenirlik ve örneklem büyüklüğünün belirlenmesi. DEÜHFED, 9(1): 23-28.Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: qualitative and quantitative approaches. London: SAGE Publications.Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: a user-friendly guide for social scientists. London: Routledge Publications.Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Adline Publishing Company.Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding relaiability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8 (4), 597-607.Karataş, Z. (2017). Sosyal bilim araştırmalarında paradigma değişimi: nitel yaklaşımın yükselişi. Türkiye Sosyal Hizmet Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(1): 1-19.Lincoln, Y. S. ve Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. N. K. Denzin ve Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2.baskı) içinde (163-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Marshall, C., Rossman, G. B. (1995). Designing qualitative research (Second Edition). London: SAGE Publications.Özdemir, M. (2010). Nitel veri analizi: sosyal bilimlerde yöntembilim sorunsalı üzerine bir çalışma. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11 (1): 323-243.Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage Publications.Robson, C. (2017). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri gerçek dünya araştırması. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.Smith, J. A., Eatough, V. (2007). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In E. Lyons ve A. Coyle (Eds.). Analysing Qualitative Data In Psychology. (p. 35-50). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.Storey, L. (2007). Doing interpretative phenomenological analysis. In E. Lyons ve A. Coyle (Eds.). Analysing Qualitative Data In Psychology. (p. 51-64). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.Tanyaş, B. (2014). Nitel araştırma yöntemlerine giriş: genel ilkeler ve psikolojideki uygulamaları. Eleştirel Psikoloji Bülteni, 5: 25-38.Vergin, N. (2003). Siyasetin sosyolojisi: kavramlar, tanımlar, yaklaşımlar. İstanbul: Bağlam Yayıncılık.Wade, C., Tavris, C. (1990). Psychology. (2nd Eds.). London: Harper and Row Publishing Com.Yaşar, M. (2018). Nitel araştırmalarda nitelik sorunu. MSKU Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(2): 55-73.Yıldırım, A., Şimşek, H. (2003). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.

Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma/Esnek Desen Araştırması: Alana İlişkin Zorluklar, Sorunlar ve İmkânlar

Yıl 2019, Cilt 1, Sayı 1, 31.12.2019

Öz

Makale öncelikli olarak, nitel araştırmalara ilişkin birtakım önyargılar ile nitel araştırma süreçlerinde karşılaşılan zorluklara odaklanmaktadır. Özellikle bir çalışmada “hangi nedenlerle nitel araştırma yönteminin tercih edileceği” sorusu etrafında şekillenen bir dizi tartışmanın eşlik ettiği bir sorunlar bütününün belli boyutlarının irdelenmesi amaçlanmaktadır. İlave olarak Türkiye’de özellikle son yıllarda nitel araştırmaya dönük ilginin artmasına rağmen, nicel araştırmanın/araştırmacıların akademik egemenliklerinin/tahakkümlerinin neden olduğu zorluklar ve sorunlara da değinilecektir. Tüm bu tartışmaların ve değerlendirmelerin nihayetinde ise nitel araştırmanın hali hazırdaki durumuna ilişkin çıkarımlarda bulunulmaya çalışılacaktır.

Kaynakça

  • Altunışık, R. vd. (2007). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri. (5. Baskı). Sakarya: Sakarya Yayıncılık.Arastaman, G., Fidan, İ. Ö. Ve Fidan, T. (2018). Nitel araştırmada geçerlik ve güvenirlik: kuramsal bir inceleme. YYÜ Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15 (1): 37-75.Balcı, A. (2005). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma: yöntem, teknik ve ilkeler. Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık.Başkale, H. (2016). Nitel araştırmalarda geçerlik, güvenirlik ve örneklem büyüklüğünün belirlenmesi. DEÜHFED, 9(1): 23-28.Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: qualitative and quantitative approaches. London: SAGE Publications.Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: a user-friendly guide for social scientists. London: Routledge Publications.Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Adline Publishing Company.Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding relaiability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8 (4), 597-607.Karataş, Z. (2017). Sosyal bilim araştırmalarında paradigma değişimi: nitel yaklaşımın yükselişi. Türkiye Sosyal Hizmet Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(1): 1-19.Lincoln, Y. S. ve Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. N. K. Denzin ve Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2.baskı) içinde (163-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Marshall, C., Rossman, G. B. (1995). Designing qualitative research (Second Edition). London: SAGE Publications.Özdemir, M. (2010). Nitel veri analizi: sosyal bilimlerde yöntembilim sorunsalı üzerine bir çalışma. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11 (1): 323-243.Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage Publications.Robson, C. (2017). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri gerçek dünya araştırması. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.Smith, J. A., Eatough, V. (2007). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In E. Lyons ve A. Coyle (Eds.). Analysing Qualitative Data In Psychology. (p. 35-50). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.Storey, L. (2007). Doing interpretative phenomenological analysis. In E. Lyons ve A. Coyle (Eds.). Analysing Qualitative Data In Psychology. (p. 51-64). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.Tanyaş, B. (2014). Nitel araştırma yöntemlerine giriş: genel ilkeler ve psikolojideki uygulamaları. Eleştirel Psikoloji Bülteni, 5: 25-38.Vergin, N. (2003). Siyasetin sosyolojisi: kavramlar, tanımlar, yaklaşımlar. İstanbul: Bağlam Yayıncılık.Wade, C., Tavris, C. (1990). Psychology. (2nd Eds.). London: Harper and Row Publishing Com.Yaşar, M. (2018). Nitel araştırmalarda nitelik sorunu. MSKU Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(2): 55-73.Yıldırım, A., Şimşek, H. (2003). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular Beşeri Bilimler, Ortak Disiplinler
Bölüm Derleme
Yazarlar

Fatih ERTUGAY> (Sorumlu Yazar)
NUH NACİ YAZGAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ
0000-0001-8469-4393
Türkiye

Yayımlanma Tarihi 31 Aralık 2019
Yayınlandığı Sayı Yıl 2019, Cilt 1, Sayı 1

Kaynak Göster

APA Ertugay, F. (2019). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma/Esnek Desen Araştırması: Alana İlişkin Zorluklar, Sorunlar ve İmkânlar . Nitel Sosyal Bilimler , 1 (1) , . Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/nsb/issue/51274/643977