Knowledge Production in The Field of Educational Administration in Turkey: Evaluation of Dissertations within The Context of Habermas' Knowledge Taxonomy

Abstract

In recent years, there have been significant efforts by Turkish researchers to contribute to the knowledge production to the field of educational administration like the scholarly endeavor of their international peers. The main purpose of these scientific studies including dissertations is to contribute to the production of knowledge, and to offer original alternatives to solving problems through several philosophical approaches. Consistent with this effort, the present study aims to evaluate the dissertations produced in the field of educational administration epistemologically, and ontologically in respect of Habermas' knowledge taxonomy. The research was carried out using document, and discourse analysis, which are qualitative research methods, and 215 dissertations prepared in 23 different universities accessed from Council of Higher Education Thesis Center database were analyzed. Results show that Eskisehir Osmangazi, Hacettepe, and Ankara Universities take the lead in the production of dissertations. It was found the number of males was higher in both researcher, and supervisor positions, mainly quantitative research methods are used, and empirical-analytical knowledge is produced. The limitation of historical-hermeneutical/interpretative, and critically oriented knowledge types is another original finding. The data set included only dissertations and excluded other sources from Turkey. Authors believe this study serve as a base for better understanding the current features of the field. In addition, this study, which was conducted in a non-western country, is expected to affect the knowledge production trend in the field of educational administration, and support the diversity of knowledge in dissertations, which are detailed studies shed light to the future.

Keywords

• Knowledge production
• educational administration
• Turkey
• dissertations
• Habermas

References

1. Aksu, M. (2020). Egitim yonetimi alaninda teori-uygulama boslugu (637769) [Dissertation, Eskisehir Osmangazi University]. CoHETC.
2. Archbald, D. (2008). Research versus problem solving for the education leadership doctoral thesis: Implications for form, and function. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 704–739.
3. Aydin, A., & Uysal, S. (2014). Turkiye‘de egitim yonetimi teftisi planlamasi ve ekonomisi alanindaki doktora tezlerinin incelenmesi. Abant Izzet Baysal Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 14(1), 177-201.
4. Ayyildiz, P. (2019). Egitim yonetimi ogretim elemanlarinin alanin bilgisine dair epistemik inanclari (565399) [Dissertation, Hacettepe University]. CoHETC.
5. Balci, A. (2008). Turkiye’de egitim yonetiminin bilimlesme duzeyi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Yonetimi, 54, 181–209.
6. Balci, A. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde arastirma: Yontem, teknik ve ilkeler (12th ed.). PEGEM.
7. Balci, A., & Apaydin, C. (2009). Turkiye’de egitim yonetimi arastirmalarinin durumu: Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Yonetimi Dergisi ornegi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Yonetimi, 15(59), 325–343.
8. Balkiz, B. (2004). Frankfurt okulu ve elestirel teori: Sosyolojik pozitivizmin elestirisi. Sosyoloji Dergisi, 12, 135–158.

9. Baykara, B. (2019). Turkiye’de egitim yonetimi programlarinin ontolojik elestirisi (548574) [Dissertation, Eskisehir Osmangazi University]. CoHETC.
10. Bellibas, M.S., & Gumus, S. (2019). A systematic review of educational leadership, and management research in Turkey: Content analysis of topics, conceptual models, and methods. Journal of Educational Administration. 57(6), 731-747.
11. Beycioglu, K., & Donmez, B. (2006). Egitim yonetiminde kuramsal bilginin uretimine ve uygulanmasina iliskin bir degerlendirme. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Yonetimi, 47, 317–342.
12. Bottomore, T. (2013). Frankfurt okulu ve elestirisi (2nd ed.; U.H. Yolsal, Trans.). Say.
13. Bourdieu, P. (2016). Akademik aklin elestirisi (B. Yalim, Trans.) Metis. (Original work published 1997)
14. Bush, T. (2020). Knowledge production in educational leadership, and management: Broadening the base. Educational Management Administration, & Leadership, 48(2), 207-208.
15. Celik, H., & Eksi, H. (2008). Soylem analizi. Marmara Universitesi Ataturk Egitim Fakultesi Egitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 27(27), 99–117.
16. Cevizci, A. (2018). Bilgi felsefesi (4th ed.). Say.
17. Chen, W., & Hirschheim, R. (2019). A paradigmatic, and methodological examination of information systems research from 1991 to 2001. Information Systems Journal, 14(3), 197–235.
18. Cimen, I., Kilinc, A.C., Bektas, F., & Karadag, E. (2020). Misconceptions in phenomenological research educational administration: An analysis based on theses. Research in Educational Administration, & Leadership, 5(1), 139-196.
19. Demirhan, G. (2015). Turkiye’de egitim yonetimi alaninda arastirma gelenegi ve paradigmalarin gomulu teori baglaminda degerlendirilmesi (414497) [Dissertation, Eskisehir Osmangazi University]. CoHETC.
20. Dijk, T.A. (1985). Introduction: Levels, and disseminations of discourse analysis. In T.A. Dijk (Eds.), Handbook of discourse analysis (pp.1–11). Academic.
21. Eacott, S. (2019). The relational approach, and social epistemology in educational leadership: A rejoinder. Research in Educational Administration, & Leadership, 4(1), 166-193.
22. Elliott, R. (1996). Discourse analysis: Exploring action, function, and conflict in social texts. Marketing Intelligence, and Planning, 14(6), 65–68.
23. Engels, F., & Marx, K. (2013). Alman ideolojisi (O. Geridonmez, & T. Ok, Trans.). Evrensel. (Original work published 1846)
24. Evans, L. (2022). Is educational leadership (still) worth studying? An epistemic worthiness-informed analysis. Educational Management Administration, & Leadership, 50(2), 325-348.
25. Evers, C.W., & Lakomski, G. (1991). Knowing educational administration. Pergamon.
26. Evers, C.W., & Lakomski, G. (1996). Postpozitivist conceptions of science in educational administration: An introduction. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(3), 341–343.
27. Fazliogullari, O. (2012). Turkiye’deki egitim bilimleri doktora tezlerinin karakteristikleri (396179) [Dissertation, Ankara University]. CoHETC.
28. Fazliogullari, O., & Kurul, N. (2013). Turkiye'deki egitim bilimleri doktora tezlerinin ozellikleri. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 12(24), 43–75.
29. Feyerabend, P. (2011). Bilgi uzerine uc soylesi (3rd ed.; C. Guzel, & L. Kavas, Trans). Metis. (Original work published 1991)
30. Fitt, M.R.H. (2011). An investigation of the doctoral dissertation literature review: From the materials we use to prepare students to the materials that students prepare (3489432) [Dissertation, Utah State University]. ProQuest.
31. Gee, J.P. (2010). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory, and method (3rd ed.). Routledge.
32. Griffiths, D.E. (1959). Research in educational administration. Teacher College.
33. Guba, E.G. (1990). The Paradigm dialog. SAGE.
34. Gulmez, D., Ozteke, I., & Gumus, S. (2020). Uluslararasi dergilerde yayimlanan Turkiye kaynakli egitim arastirmalarinin genel gorunumu: Bibliyometrik analiz. Egitim ve Bilim, 46(206), 213-239.
35. Gumus, S., Bellibas, M. S., Gumus, E., & Hallinger, P. (2020). Science mapping research on educational leadership, and management in Turkey: a bibliometric review of international publications. School Leadership, & Management, 40(1), 23-44.
36. Gunter, H. (2006). Knowledge production in the field of educational leadership: A place for intellectual histories. Journal of Educational Administration, & History, 38(2), 201-215.
37. Guo, Z., & Sheffield, J. (2008). A paradigmatic, and methodological examination of knowledge management research: 2000 to 2004. Decision Support Systems, 44, 673–688.
38. Habermas, J. (1994). Bilgi ve insansal ilgiler. Kuyerel.
39. Habermas, J. (2005). Knowledge, and human interests: A general perspective. In G. Gutting (Eds.), Continental Philosophy of Science (pp.310–321). Blackwell.
40. Habermas, J. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerin mantigi uzerine (C.A. Kanat, Trans.). Kabalci.
41. Hallinger, P., & Kovacevic, J. (2021). Mapping the intellectual lineage of educational management, administration, and leadership, 1972–2020. Educational Management Administration, & Leadership, 1-25.
42. Heck, R.H., & Hallinger, P. (2005). The study of educational leadership, and management: Where does the field stand today? Educational Management Administration, & Leadership, 33(2), 229–244.
43. Isci, S. (2013). Turkiye’de egitim yonetimi alaninda yapilmis lisansustu tezlerin tematik, metodolojik ve istatistiksel acidan incelenmesi (344302) [Master thesis, Eskisehir Osmangazi University]. CoHETC.
44. Karaca, O. (2018). Turkiye’de egitim yonetimi alaninda yazilan lisansustu tezlerin metodolojik incelemesi (506299) [Master thesis, Usak University]. CoHETC.
45. Karadag, E. (2009). Egitim bilimleri alaninda yapilmis doktora tezlerinin tematik acidan incelemesi. Ahi Evran Universitesi Kirsehir Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 10(3), 75–87.
46. Karadag, E. (2010). Egitim bilimleri doktora tezlerinde kullanilan arastirma modelleri: Nitelik duzeyleri ve analitik hata tipleri. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Yonetimi, 1(1), 49-71.
47. Kaya, Y.K. (1984). Insan yetistirme duzenimiz: Politika, egitim, kalkinma (4th ed.). Hacettepe University.
48. Koksal, D. (2019). Egitim yonetimi alaninda 2005-2018 yillari arasinda yurutulen lisansustu tezlerin incelenmesi (590766) [Dissertation, Adnan Menderes University]. CoHETC.
49. Kosar, S., & Calik, T. (2011). Okul yoneticilerinin yonetimde gucu kullanma stilleri ile orgut kulturu arasindaki iliski. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Yonetimi, 17(4), 581–603.
50. Kuhn, T.S. (1995). Bi̇li̇msel devri̇mleri̇n yapisi (4th ed.; N. Kuyas, Trans.). Alan. (Original work published 1962)
51. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N.K. Denzin, & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp.191–215). SAGE.
52. Merriam, S.B. (2018). Nitel arastirma: Desen ve uygulama için bir rehber (3rd ed.) (S. Turan, Trans. Eds.). Nobel.
53. Mertkan, S., Arsan, N., Inal Cavlan, G., & Onurkan Aliusta, G. (2016). Diversity, and equality in academic publishing: The case of educational leadership. Compare: A Journal of Comparative, & International Education, 47(1), 46-61.
54. Mialaret, G. (2018). Egitim bilimlerinin epistemolojisi ve metodolojisi. In L.I. Unal, & S. Ozsoy (Eds.), Egitim bilimleri felsefesi (2nd ed., pp.75–87). Siyasal.
55. O’Connor, M. (2006). Discourse analysis examinining the potential research in palliative care. Pallative Medicine, 20, 829–834.
56. Oplatka, I. (2016). Egitim yonetiminin mirasi (S. Turan, F. Bektas, & M. Yalcin, Trans.). PEGEM.
57. Oplatka, I., & Khalid, A. (2016). The field of educational administration as an arena of knowledge production: Some implications for Turkish field members. Research in Educational Administration, & Leadership, 1(2), 161-186.
58. Orucu, D. (2006). An analysis of the present state of educational administration scholarship in Turkey from the perceptions of the scholars in Ankara (204686) [Dissertation, Middle East Technical University]. CoHETC.
59. Osguthorpe, R.T., & Wong, M.J. (1993). The Ph.D. versus the Ed.D.: Time for a decision. Innovative Higher Education, 18(1), 47–63.
60. Ozdemir, M. (2017). Egitim yonetiminde epistemik bunalimin arkeolojisi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Yonetimi, 23(2), 281–304.
61. Ozdemir, M. (2018). Egitim yonetimi. Ani.
62. Ozdemir, M., & Aypay, A. (2022). The academic home of Turkish higher education research: A demographic, thematic, and methodological examination of doctoral dissertations. Research in Educational Administration, & Leadership, 7(1), 81-130.
63. Ozmantar Keser, Z. (2018). Ornekleme yontemi ve orneklem sureci. In K. Beycioglu, N. Ozer, & Y. Kondakci (Eds.), Egitim yonetiminde arastirma (pp.87–110). PEGEM.
64. Patton, M.Q. (2015). Qualitative research, & evaluation methods: Integrating theory, and practice (4th ed.). SAGE.
65. Popper, K.R. (2017). Bilimsel arastirmanin mantigi (7th ed.). Yapi Kredi.
66. Russell, B. (2013). Egitim uzerine (A. Ugur, Trans.). Cem. (Original work published 1926)
67. Sahin, F. (2018). Egitim yonetiminin bilimsel sinirlari: Alan kitaplari baglaminda epistemolojik bir karsilastirma (527621) [Dissertation, Gazi University]. CoHETC.
68. Sozen, E. (2017). Soylem: Belirsizlik, mubadele, bilgi, guc ve refleksivite. Profil.
69. Terry, P.R. (1997). Habermas, and education: Knowledge, communication, discourse. Curriculum Studies, 5(3), 269–279.
70. Tinmaz, A.K. (2020). Egitim yonetiminde kuram, arastirma ve uygulama butunlugunun incelenmesi (610792) [Dissertation, Gazi University]. CoHETC.
71. Turan, S., Karadag, E., Bektas, F., & Yalcin, M. (2014). Turkiye’de egitim yonetiminde bilgi uretimi: Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Yonetimi Dergisi 2003-2013 yayinlarinin incelenmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Yonetimi, 20(1), 93–119.
72. Turan, S., & Sisman, M. (2013). Egitim yonetimi alaninda uretilen bilimsel bilgi ve batili bilis tarzinin elestirisine giris. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Yonetimi, 19(4), 505–514.
73. Uslu Cetin, O., & Ozdemir, M. (2021). Bir disiplin olarak egitim yonetiminin kavram haritasi uzerine boylamsal bir inceleme. Inonu Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 22(3), 1864-1897.
74. Uysal, S. (2013). Turki̇ye’de egi̇ti̇m yoneti̇mi̇ tefti̇si̇ planlamasi ve ekonomi̇si̇ alanindaki̇ doktora tezleri̇ni̇n i̇ncelenmesi̇ (344312) [Dissertation, Eskisehir Osmangazi University]. CoHETC.
75. Wittgenstein, L. (2015). Felsefi sorusturmalar (H. Bariscan, Trans.). Totem. (Original work published 1953)
76. Wulf, C. (2010). Egitim bilimi: Yorumsamaci yontem, gorgul arastirma, elestirel teori (H. H. Aksoy, Trans.). Dipnot.
77. Yildirim, A., & Simsek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel arastirma yontemleri (10th ed.). Seckin.