SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Üniversite Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 4 Sayı: 2

Qualitative Research Methods: A Phenomenological Research on the Perception of Social Studies Post-Graduate Students

Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri: Sosyal Bilgiler Lisansüstü Öğrencilerinin Algısına İlişkin Fenomenolojik Bir Çalışma

Hüseyin Bayram(Ağrı İbrahim Çeçen Üniversitesi)0000-0001-6065-8865
Pages
108–118
Publication Date
2021-08-20
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

By the results, suggestions such as creating conditions in which students can learn more about qualitative research were made.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this research, it is aimed to show the perception intended science, the difference between research methods, the effects of qualitative research on science and the effects of post-positivism on the worldview.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In the research, the phenomenological pattern was used.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:By the results, suggestions such as creating conditions in which students can learn more about qualitative research were made.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Sosyal bilgiler · lisansüstü eğitim · nitel araştırma

Abstract

In this research, it is aimed to show the perception intended science, the difference between research methods, the effects of qualitative research on science and the effects of post-positivism on the worldview. In the research, the phenomenological pattern was used. The participant group is composed of fifteen post-graduate students who are studying social studies education at a university in Turkey by using criteria sampling method. The data collected by participant observation and semi-structured interview techniques were analyzed by content analysis. The findings reached are as follows; The scientific perception matches with fundamentals of science. The perception of the function of qualitative research is consistent with the goals of qualitative research. There is a similar perception about the impact of qualitative research on science and the impact of post-positivism on worldview. By the results, suggestions such as creating conditions in which students can learn more about qualitative research were made.

Özet

Bu araştırmada; bilime, araştırma yöntemleri arasındaki farklılığa, nitel araştırmanın bilime etkilerine ve post-pozitivizmin insanın dünya görüşü üzerindeki etkilerine yönelik algının ortaya konması amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmada nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden fenomenoloji deseni işe koşulmuştur. Araştırmanın katılımcı grubu, ölçüt örnekleme yöntemi kullanılarak Türkiye’deki bir üniversitede sosyal bilgiler eğitimi alanında lisansüstü öğrenim gören on beş kişiden oluşturulmuştur. Verilerin toplanmasında yapılandırılmamış gözlem ve yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme teknikleri kullanılmıştır. Toplanan veriler, içerik analizi ile çözümlenmiştir. Araştırma sonunda öğrencilerin bilimsel algısının bilimin evrensel ilkeleriyle uyuştuğu; nitel araştırmanın işlevine yönelik algısının nitel araştırmanın amaçlarına uygun olduğu; nicel ve nitel yöntemler arasındaki farkları yeterli düzeyde algıladıkları; nitel araştırmanın bilime etkisi ve post-pozitivist paradigmanın dünya görüşüne etkisi konularında benzer algılara sahip oldukları saptanmıştır. Araştırmada ulaşılan sonuçlar ışığında; öğrencilere nitel araştırmaya ilişkin daha fazla öğrenme yapabilecekleri koşullar oluşturulması gibi önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

Bayram, H. (2021). Qualitative Research Methods: A Phenomenological Research on the Perception of Social Studies Post-Graduate Students. Üniversite Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 2, 108–118. https://doi.org/10.32329/uad.883957

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (68)

  1. Allmendinger, P. (2002). The post-positivist landscape of planning theory. Planning Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory, 3-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/147309520200100105
  2. Annells, M. (1996). Grounded theory method: Philosophical perspectives, paradigm of inquiry, and postmodernism. Qualitative Health Research, 6(3), 379-393. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239600600306
  3. Ayvacı, H. Ş. ve Er Nas, S. (2010). Fen ve teknoloji öğretmenlerinin bilimsel bilginin epistemolojik yapısı hakkındaki temel bilgilerini belirlemeye yönelik bir çalışma. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 18(3), 691-704. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/kefdergi/issue/49056/625850 adresinden 20,11,2020 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  4. Baltacı, A. (2017). Nitel veri analizinde Miles-Huberman Modeli. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 3(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.31592/aeusbed.598299
  5. Barr, R., Barth, J. L. ve Shermis, S. S. (2013). Sosyal bilgilerin doğası (Çev. Ed. C. Dönmez). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  6. Berg, B. L., Lune, H. ve Lune, H. (2004). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston, MA: Pearson.
  7. Blank, G. (2004). Teaching qualitative data analysis to graduate students. Social Science Computer Review, 22(2), 187-196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439303262559
  8. Bogdan, R. ve Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education; An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Ally and Bacon.
  9. Borland, J. H. (1990). Postpositivist inquiry: Implications of the "new philosophy of science" for the field of the education of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34(4), 161-167. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629003400406
  10. Cho, J. ve Trent, A. (2006). Validity in qualitative research revisited. Qualitative Research, 6(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106065006
  11. Clark, A. M. (1998). The qualitative‐quantitative debate: moving from positivism and confrontation to post‐positivism and reconciliation. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 27(6), 1242-1249. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.00651.x
  12. Cox, R. D. (2012). Teaching qualitative research to practitioner–researchers. Theory into Practice, 51(2), 129-136. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2012.662868
  13. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  14. Creswell, J. W., Hanson, W. E., Clark Plano, V. L. ve Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative research designs: Selection and implementation. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(2), 236-264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006287390
  15. Daniele, M. A., Martinez-Alvarez, M., Etyang, A. K., Vidler, M., Salisbury, T., Makanga, P. T.,. ve Sandall, J. (2020). The contribution of qualitative research within The PRECISE study in Sub-Saharan Africa. Reproductive Health, 17(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-020-0875-6
  16. Delyser, D. (2008). Teaching qualitative research. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 32(2), 233-244. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098260701514074
  17. Denzin, N. K. ve Lincoln, Y. S. (1995). Transforming qualitative research methods: Is it a revolution? Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 24(3), 349-358. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124195024003006
  18. Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. ve Giardina, M. D. (2006). Disciplining qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(6), 769-782. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390600975990
  19. Dikmenli, M. (2010). Undergraduate biology students’ representations of science and the scientist. College Student Journal, 44(2), 579–588. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2150-1092.1965.tb00035.x
  20. Eastman, J. K., Aviles, M. ve Hanna, M. D. (2017). Determinants of perceived learning and satisfaction in online business courses: An extension to evaluate differences between qualitative and quantitative courses. Marketing Education Review, 27(1), 51-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2016.1259578
  21. Eisenhart, M. ve Jurow, A. S. (2011). Teaching qualitative research. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research içinde. (s. 699-714).(Ed. C. Willig ve W. Station-Rogers). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  22. Fetterman, D. M. (1989). Ethnography step by step. Newberry Park, CA: Sage.
  23. Glaser, B. ve Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
  24. Glesne, C. (2016). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. New Jersey: Pearson Publishing.
  25. Glesne, C. ve Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman.
  26. Goetz, J. P. ve LeCompte, V. MD (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. Orlando: Academic Press.
  27. Harlos, K. P., Mallon, M., Stablein, R. ve Jones, C. (2003). Teaching qualitative methods in management classrooms. Journal of Management Education, 27(3), 304-322. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562903027003003
  28. Henderson, K. A. (2011). Post-positivism and the pragmatics of leisure research. Leisure Sciences, 33(4), 341-346. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2011.583166
  29. Jackson, R. L., Drummond, D. K. ve Camara, S. (2007). What is qualitative research? Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 8(1), 21-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/17459430701617879
  30. Karataş, Z. (2015). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Manevi Temelli Sosyal Hizmet Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(1), 62-80. https://avys.omu.edu.tr/storage/app/public/kokdener/123091/13f.pdf adresinden 10,09,2020 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  31. Keen, M. F. (1996). Teaching qualitative methods: A face-to-face encounter. Teaching Sociology, 166-176. https://doi.org/10.2307/1318807
  32. Kihwele, J. E. (2014). Students’ perception of science subjects and their attitude in Tanzanian secondary schools. World Journal of Educational Research, 1(1), 1-8. http://www.wjer.org/WJER_Vol.%201,%20No.%201,%20January%202014/STUDENTS.pdf adresinden 09,07,2020 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  33. Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  34. Lapid, Y. (1989). The third debate: On the prospects of international theory in a post-positivist era. International Studies Quarterly, 33(3), 235-254. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600457
  35. Leavy, P. (2011). Oral history: Understanding qualitative research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  36. Malterud, K. (2001). Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. The Lancet, 358(9280), 483-488. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(01)05627-6
  37. Mason, O. J. (2002). Teaching Qualitative Research Methods: Some Innovations and Reflections on Practice. Psychology Teaching Review, 10(1), 68-75. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ876450 adresinden 09,11,2020 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  38. Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interpretive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  39. Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical background and procedures. Approaches to Qualitative Research in Mathematics Education, 365–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9181-6_13
  40. Mays, N. ve Pope, C. (1995). Qualitative research: Rigour and qualitative research. Bmj, 311(6997), 109-112. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.6997.109
  41. Merriam, S. B. (2002). Introduction to qualitative research. Qualitative Research in Practice: Examples for Discussion and Analysis, 1(1), 1-17. https://stu.westga.edu/~bthibau1/MEDT%208484-%20Baylen/introduction_to_qualitative_research/introduction_to_qualitative_research.pdf adresinden 07,11,2020 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  42. Miles, M. B. ve Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  43. Morgan, D. L. (1993). Qualitative content analysis: A guide to paths not taken. Qualitative Health Research, 3(1), 112-121. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239300300107
  44. Morse, J. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research, 40(2), 120-123. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-199103000-00014
  45. Nelson, I. A. (2010). From quantitative to qualitative: Adapting the life history calendar method. Field Methods, 22(4), 413-428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x10379793
  46. Nyden, P. (1991). Teaching qualitative methods: An interview with Phil Nyden. Teaching Sociology, 19(3), 396-402. https://doi.org/10.2307/1318206
  47. O'connor, D. L. ve O'neill, B. J. (2004). Toward social justice: Teaching qualitative research. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 24(3-4), 19-33. https://doi.org/10.1300/j067v24n03_02
  48. Ormston, R., Spencer, L., Barnard, M. ve Snape, D. (2014). The foundations of qualitative research. Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers içinde. (s. 1-27). (Ed. J. Ritchie, Jane Lewis, C. McNaughton-Nicholls ve R. Ormston). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  49. Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. New Bury Park, CA: Sage.
  50. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  51. Pile, S. (1992). Oral history and teaching qualitative methods. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 16(2), 135-143. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098269208709186
  52. Rifkin, S. ve Hartley, S. (2001). Learning by doing: Teaching qualitative methods to health care personnel. Education for Health, 14(1), 75-85. https://doi.org/10.1080/13576280010021905
  53. Roulston, K. ve Shelton, S. A. (2015). Reconceptualizing bias in teaching qualitative research methods. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(4), 332-342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414563803
  54. Rutberg, S. ve Bouikidis, C. D. (2018). Focusing on the fundamentals: A simplistic differentiation between qualitative and quantitative research. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 45(2), 209-213. http://www.homeworkgain.com/wp-content/uploads/edd/2019/09/20181009143525article2.pdf adresinden 09,10,2020 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  55. Saban, A. (2007). Lisansüstü öğrencilerin nitel araştırma metodolojisine ilişkin algıları. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1(17), 469-485. http://dergisosyalbil.selcuk.edu.tr/susbed/article/view/497 adresinden 02,10,2020 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  56. Schwandt, T. A. (1997). Qualitative inquiry: A dictionary of terms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  57. Shank, G. D. (2006). Qualitative research: A personal skills approach. New Jersey: Pearson
  58. Smith, N. (1979). Geography, science and post-positivist modes of explanation. Progress in Human Geography, 3(3), 356-383. https://doi.org/10.1177/030913257900300302
  59. Stanfield, J. H. (2006). The possible restorative justice functions of qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(6), 723-727. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390600975925
  60. Şenel, T. ve Aslan, O. (2014). Okul öncesi öğretmen adaylarının bilim ve bilim insanı kavramlarına ilişkin metaforik algıları. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(2). https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/mersinefd/issue/17394/181827 adresinden 15,10,2020 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  61. Tesch, R. (2013). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software. Oxon: Routledge.
  62. Tierney, W. G. ve Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Teaching qualitative methods in higher education. The Review of Higher Education, 17(2), 107-124. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.1994.0022
  63. Walsh, M. (2003). Teaching qualitative analysis using QSR Nvivo. The Qualitative Report, 8(2), 251-256. https://maaz.ihmc.us/rid=1GXNJDKX9-1VVYTHV-DGJ/nvivo.pdf adresinden 05,09,2020 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  64. Wertz, F. J. (2005). Phenomenological research methods for counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 167. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.167
  65. Wildemuth, B. M. (1993). Post-positivist research: Two examples of methodological pluralism. The Library Quarterly, 63(4), 450-468. https://doi.org/10.1086/602621
  66. Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  67. Yin, R. K. (2015). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York: Guilford Publications.
  68. Daniele, M. A., Martinez-Alvarez, M., Etyang, A. K., Vidler, M., Salisbury, T., Makanga, P. T.,. ve Sandall, J. (2020). The contribution of qualitative research within The PRECISE study in Sub-Saharan Africa. Reproductive Health, 17(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-020-0875-6