Türkiye'deki Psikoloji Araştırmalarının Metodolojik Haritasının Çıkarılması

Bu araştırmanın amacı, Türkiye'de yapılan Psikoloji alanına dair araştırmaların metodolojik incelemesini yapmaktır. Araştırma örneklem olarak Eğitim Psikolojisi (n=44) ve Sosyal Psikoloji (n=40) alanlarından seçilen çalışmaları içermektedir. Araştırma sonucunda (a) incelenen çalışmalardan 74 (%88.1) tanesinin metodolojisinin pozitivist ve nicel paradigmalardan etkilendiği, (b) 53 (%63.1) çalışmada kullanılan metodoloji ve araştırma soruları veya hipotezler arasında zayıf bir ilişki olduğu ve (c) 81 araştırmada (% 96.4) tek bir zaman ve mekanda veri toplandığı ve (d) eğitim psikolojisi alanındaki çalışmalardan 24 (%54.5) tanesinde tek bir okulda bulunan örneklemden, sosyal psikolojisi alanındaki çalışmalardan 34 (%85) tanesinde de tek bir şehirde bulunan örneklemden veri toplandığı tespit edilmiştir. Araştırma bulgular, Psikoloji alanındaki araştırmalar hakkında bilgi vererek bu alanda metodolojinin nasıl kullanılabileceğine dair farkındalık yaratmayı amaçlamaktadır.

Mapping Out the Methodology of Psychology Research in Turkey

The aim of this study is to discuss the research literature of psychology in Turkey. The paper consists of two subfields, 'educational psychology' and 'social psychology,' as a case study and focuses on the methodology employed in these researches. 84 research studies (n=44 for educational psychology and n=40 for social psychology) were included within the current study. Findings of the analysis have revealed that (a) the methodological approach was based on quantitative and positivist paradigms in 74 (88.1%) studies, (b) the methodology employed in 53 (63.1%) studies were found to employ a methodology having little connection with the purpose and questions of the research study, (c) the implemented procedure contained crosssectional data collection in 81 (96.4%) studies, and (d) the sample in 24 (54.5%) studies in the field of educational psychology was located only in one school while the sample in 34 (85%) studies in the field of social psychology was located in one city. Findings of the current study help to shed light on the psychology researches and create awareness in regards to how methodology is utilized in these researches by providing a detailed description of these studies.

PDF

___

Altheide, D. L. & Johnson, J. M. (1994). Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative qesearch (pp. 485-499). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). London: Sage publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). London: Sage publications.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1-17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage publications.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hammersley, M. (1995). The politics of social research. London: Sage.
LeBreton, J. M., Barksdale, C. D., Robin, J., & James, L. R. (2007). Measurement issues associated with conditional reasoning tests: indirect measurement and test faking. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London: Sage publications.
Mertens, D. M. (2014). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. London: Sage Publications.
Michael, J. (1999). Measurement in psychology: a critical history of a methodological concept. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Michell, J. (2004). The place of qualitative research in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 1, 307-319. doi: 10.1191/1478088704qp020oa Michell, J. (2003). The Quantitative Imperative: Positivism, Naive Realism and the Place of Qualitative Methods in Psychology. Theory Psychology, 13, 7-31. doi: 10.1177/0959354303013001758
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. London: Sage publications.
Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 48-76.
Morse, J. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing research, 40, 120-123.
Neuman, W. L. (2007). Basics of social research: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Robson, C. (2002). Real world research (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Rogers, A. G. (2000). When methods matter: Qualitative research issues in psychology. Harvard Educational Review, 70, 75-85.
Smith, J. K. (1983). Quantitative versus qualitative research: An attempt to clarify the issue. Educational Researcher, 12, 6-13.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Inc.