Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

EĞİTİM YÖNETİMİ ARAŞTIRMALARINDA GÖMÜLÜ TEORİ DESENİNİN KULLANIMINA İLİŞKİN BİR DEĞERLENDİRME

Year 2021, , 1 - 20, 30.12.2021
https://doi.org/10.29065/usakead.1021225

Abstract

Bu araştırmada, nitel araştırma desenlerinden biri olan gömülü teori deseninin felsefi arka planı ile ön plana çıkan özellikleri incelenerek eğitim yönetimi alanındaki kullanımına yönelik bir bakış açısı geliştirmek amaçlanmıştır. Olgu ve olaylara doğrudan deneyimleyenlerin gözünden anlam verme olanağı sunan gömülü teori, pek çok kavram ve kuramın da kendi bağlamı içinde, mevcut disiplin çerçevesinde yeniden tanımlanmasına veya oluşturulmasına aracılık etmektedir. Disiplinlerarası pek çok bilim dalının olduğu gibi eğitim yönetimi alanının da kendi kavram ve kuramlarının geliştirilmesine gereksinim duyduğu gerçeği, bu araştırmanın çıkış noktasını oluşturmaktadır. Bu doğrultuda eğitim yönetimi alanın kendine özgü kuramlarının ortaya koyulmasına katkıda bulunacak gömülü teorinin eğitim yönetimi alanındaki kullanılabilirlik durumu incelenmeye değer görülmüştür. Araştırma kapsamında öncelikle gömülü teori deseni ve özellikleri ile ilgili bilgilere yer verilmiştir. Ardından gömülü teorinin eğitim yönetimi alanında yapılan çalışmalarda kullanılabilirliğine ilişkin kuramsal bir tartışma yürütülmüştür. Gömülü teori deseninin, eğitim yönetimi alanında kullanımı, geçmişten geleceğe uzanan bir bakış açısıyla, alanın yöntembilimsel gelişimi dikkate alınarak tartışılmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda gömülü teori deseninin, eğitim yönetimi alanında kuram ve uygulama bütünlüğünün sağlanması ve alana özgü bir bilgi temeli oluşturulması sorunlarının her ikisi için de önemli çözümler sağlayacak bir araştırma deseni olduğu belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca gömülü teori deseninin, sosyal olgu ve olayların zamanla nasıl değiştiğine yönelik süreci açıklamaya yardımcı olarak eğitim yönetimi alanına katkı sağlayabileceği görülmüştür.

References

  • Akcan, F. (2016). Eğitimde etkili bir okul değişimi için okul liderliği: Okul liderliğine ilişkin bir temellendirilmiş kuram çalışması. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tez. Atalya: Akdeniz Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  • Aydın, A., Erdağ, C., & Sarıer, Y. (2010). A comparison of articles published in the field of educational administration in terms of topics, methodologies and results. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research (EJER), 39, 37-58.
  • Balcı, A. (2008). Türkiye’de eğitim yönetiminin bilimleşme düzeyi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 14(2), 181-209. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/108287
  • Balcı, A., & Apaydın, Ç. (2009). Türkiye’de eğitim yönetimi araştırmalarının durumu: Kuram ve uygulamada eğitim yönetimi dergisi örneği. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 15(3), 325-344. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/108254
  • Bellibaş, M. Ş., & Gümüş, S. (2019). A systematic review of educational leadership and management research in Turkey: Content analysis of topics, conceptual methods, and models. Journal of Educational Administration, 57(6), 731-747. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-01-2019-0004
  • Beycioğlu, K., & Dönmez, B. (2006). Eğitim yönetiminde kuramsal bilginin üretimine ve uygulanmasına ilişkin bir değerlendirme. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 12(3), 317-342. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/108335
  • Bitsch, V. (2005). Qualitative research: A grounded theory example ve evaluation criteria. Journal of Agribusiness, 23(1), 75-91. DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.59612
  • Charmaz, K. (2005). Grounded theory in the 21st century: Applications for advancing social justice studies. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna E. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed) içinde (s. 507-535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. (2nd Ed.). London: SAGE Publications.
  • Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988593
  • Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. (Second Edition). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
  • Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. (Third Edition), Lon Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.
  • Culbertson, J. (1983). Theory in educational administration: Echoes from critical thinkers. Educational Researcher, 12(10), 15-22. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X012010015
  • Demirhan, G. (2015). Türkiye’de eğitim yönetimi alanında araştırma geleneği ve paradigmaların gömülü teori bağlamında değerlendirilmesi. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Eskişehir: Osmangazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
  • Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. N. K. Denzin ve Y. S. Lincoln (Editörler). The Sage handbook of qualitative research içinde (s.1-32). (Third Edition). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
  • Dodman, S.L. (2011). School reform in a high poverty elementary school: A grounded theory case study of capacity building. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Florida: Florida Üniversitesi.
  • Dorion, J.A. (2017). A grounded theory of school of education futures. Yayınlammamış Doktora Tezi. Boston: Boston Üniversitesi.
  • English, F.W. (2002). The point of scientificity, the fall of the epistemological dominos, and the end of the field of educational administration. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 21(2), 109-136. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014432804622
  • English, F.W. (2006). The unintended consequences of a standardized knowledge base in advancing educational leadership preparation. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(3), 461-472. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X06289675
  • English, F.W. (2008). The art of educational leadership: Balancing performance and accountability. California: Sage Publications.
  • Engward, H. (2013). Understanding grounded theory. Nursing Standard, 28(7), 37-41. DOI:10.7748/ns2013.10.28.7.37.e7806.
  • Evers, C.W., & Lakomski, G. (2012). Science, systems, and theoretical alternatives in educational administration: The road less travelled. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(1), 57-75. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231211196069
  • Fielder, A. (2010). Elementary school teachers' attitudes toward professional development: A grounded theory study. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Arizona: Phoenix Üniversitesi.
  • Gedikoğlu, T. (1997). Eğitim yönetimi dün, bugün ve 2000li yıllara doğru. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 3(3), 299-307. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/108618
  • Gelmez-Burakgazi, S., & Yıldırım, A. (2017). Journey into doctoral candidacy: A grounded theory study of doctoral qualification exam process. Croatian Journal of Education, 19(1), 63-92. DOI: 10.15516/cje.v19i1.2017
  • Glaser, B.G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs forcing. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
  • Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (2017). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Routledge.
  • Glass, T.E., Mason, R., Carver, F.D., Eaton, W., & Parker, J.C. (2004). The history of educational administration viewed through its textbooks. Maryland: ScarecrewEducation.
  • Goulding, C. (2002). Grounded theory: A practical guide for management, business and market researchers. London: Sage Publications.
  • Greenfield, T.B. (1986). The decline and fall of science in educational administration. Interchange, 17(2), 57-80. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01807469
  • Greenfield Jr, W.D. (1995). Toward a theory of school administration: The centrality of leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(1), 61-85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X95031001005
  • Greenfield, T., & Ribbins, P. (1993). Greenfield on educational administration: Towards a humane science. New York: Routledge.
  • Hallinger, P., & Chen, J. (2015). Review of research on educational leadership and management in Asia: A comparative analysis of research topics and methods, 1995-2012. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(1), 5-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214535744
  • Hyung, P.S. (2001). Epistemological underpinnings of theory developments in educational administration. Australian Journal of Education, 45(3), 237-248. https://doi.org/10.1177/000494410104500303
  • Ilgar, M.Z., & Ilgar, S.C. (2013). Nitel bir araştırma deseni olarak gömülü teori: Temellendirilmiş kuram. İstanbul Sabahattin Zaim Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2(1), 197-247. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12436/111
  • Jones, J.W. (2009). Selection of grounded theory as an appropriate research methodology for a dissertation: One student's perspective. Grounded Theory Review, 8(2), 23-34.
  • Kern, B.E. (2010). Navigating: A grounded theory study of how school administrators prepare to lead. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The School of Educational Leadership and Change, Fielding Graduate University, California.
  • Köybaşı, F., & Uğurlu, C. T. (2019). Teacher candidates' socialization process: A grounded theory study. Asian Journal of Education and Training, 5(1), 213-223. DOI: 10.20448/journal.522.2019.51.213.223
  • Locke, K.D. (2001). Grounded theory in management research. London: SAGE Publications.
  • Martin, P.Y., & Turner, B. A. (1986). Grounded theory and organizational research. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22(2), 141-157. https://doi.org/10.1177/002188638602200207
  • Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (2nd Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Merriam, S.B., &Tisdell, E.J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. (Fourth Edition). San Francico: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  • Morabito, P.N. (2010). Grounded theory approach to understanding student perceptions of asynchronous high school learning environments. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). College of Education, Walden University, Minnesota.
  • Murphy, J., Vriesenga, M., & Storey, V. (2007). Educational Administration Quarterly, 1979-2003: An analysis of types of work, methods of investigation, and influences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(5), 612-628. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X07307796
  • Musick, K. (2010). Spirituality and school leadership a grounded theory study. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). the Morgridge College of Education, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado.
  • Nettles, E.L. (2011). How do principals retain teachers in urban secondary schools in central Alabama: A grounded theory study. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The School of Educational Leadership, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama.
  • Neuman, W.L. (2008). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (Çev. S. Özge). İstanbul: Yayın Odası.
  • Oplatka, I. (2009). The field of educational administration: A historical overview of scholarly attempts to recognize epistemological identities, meanings and boundaries from the 1960s onwards. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(1), 8-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230910928061
  • Oplatka, I., & Arar, K. (2016). The field of educational administration as an arena of knowledge production: Some implications for Turkish field members. Research in Educational Administration and Leadership (REAL), 1(2), 161-186. https://doi.org/10.30828/real/2016.2.1
  • Örücü, D., & Şimşek, H. (2011). Akademisyenlerin gözünden Türkiye’de eğitim yönetiminin akademik durumu: Nitel bir analiz. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 17(2), 167-197. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/108202
  • Özdemir, M. (2017). Eğitim yönetiminde epistemik bunalımın arkeolojisi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 23(2), 281-304. doi: 10.14527/kuey.2017.010
  • Özlem, D., Ökçesiz, H., & Argın, Ş. (2002). Felsefe tartışmaları. İstanbul: Everest Yayınları.
  • Patton, M.Q. (2014). Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemleri. (Çev. Editörleri: M. Bütün ve S.B. Demir), (3. Baskıdan Çeviri). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Sanocki, S.J. (2013). The process of how teachers become teacher leaders and how teacher leadership becomes distributed within a school: A grounded theory research study. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Western Michigan University, Michigan.
  • Scotland, J. (2012). Exploring the philosophical underpinnşngs of research: Relating ontology and epistemology to the methodology and methods of the scientific, interpretive and critical research paradigms. Englich Language Teaching, 5(9), s.9-16. DOI:10.5539/elt.v5n9p9
  • Silverstrone, D.M. (2011). A grounded theory of university leadership in community engagement. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Kingston University, United Kingdom.
  • Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633-642. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.22083020
  • Şişman, M. (1998). Eğitim yönetiminde kuram ve araştırmada alternatif paradigma ve yaklaşımlar. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 4(4), 395-422. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/kuey/issue/10380/127017
  • Takmak, H. (2019). Eğitim yönetiminin özgünleşme ve özerkleşme sorunsalı. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 20(1), 113-126. https://doi.org/10.12984/egeefd.452705
  • Turan, S., Bektaş, F., Yalçın, M., & Armağan, Y. (2016). Eğitim yönetimi alanında bilgi üretim süreci: Eğitim yönetimi kongrelerinin rolü ve serüveni üzerine bir değerlendirme. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 22(1), 81-108. . doi: 10.14527/kuey.2016.004
  • Van Maanen, J. (1979). Reclaiming qualitative methods for organizational research: A preface. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 520-526. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392358
  • Weick, K.E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative science quarterly, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391875
  • Weick, K.E. (1982). Administering education in loosely coupled schools. The Phi Delta Kappan, 63, 673-676. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20386508
  • Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde ni¬tel araştırma yöntemleri (Genişletilmiş 9. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Zeybekoğlu-Çalışkan, Z. (2011). A grounded theory of school as a social system in an atypical context. (Published doctoral dissertation). Graduate School of Social Sciences, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
Year 2021, , 1 - 20, 30.12.2021
https://doi.org/10.29065/usakead.1021225

Abstract

References

  • Akcan, F. (2016). Eğitimde etkili bir okul değişimi için okul liderliği: Okul liderliğine ilişkin bir temellendirilmiş kuram çalışması. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tez. Atalya: Akdeniz Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  • Aydın, A., Erdağ, C., & Sarıer, Y. (2010). A comparison of articles published in the field of educational administration in terms of topics, methodologies and results. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research (EJER), 39, 37-58.
  • Balcı, A. (2008). Türkiye’de eğitim yönetiminin bilimleşme düzeyi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 14(2), 181-209. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/108287
  • Balcı, A., & Apaydın, Ç. (2009). Türkiye’de eğitim yönetimi araştırmalarının durumu: Kuram ve uygulamada eğitim yönetimi dergisi örneği. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 15(3), 325-344. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/108254
  • Bellibaş, M. Ş., & Gümüş, S. (2019). A systematic review of educational leadership and management research in Turkey: Content analysis of topics, conceptual methods, and models. Journal of Educational Administration, 57(6), 731-747. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-01-2019-0004
  • Beycioğlu, K., & Dönmez, B. (2006). Eğitim yönetiminde kuramsal bilginin üretimine ve uygulanmasına ilişkin bir değerlendirme. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 12(3), 317-342. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/108335
  • Bitsch, V. (2005). Qualitative research: A grounded theory example ve evaluation criteria. Journal of Agribusiness, 23(1), 75-91. DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.59612
  • Charmaz, K. (2005). Grounded theory in the 21st century: Applications for advancing social justice studies. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna E. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed) içinde (s. 507-535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. (2nd Ed.). London: SAGE Publications.
  • Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988593
  • Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. (Second Edition). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
  • Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. (Third Edition), Lon Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.
  • Culbertson, J. (1983). Theory in educational administration: Echoes from critical thinkers. Educational Researcher, 12(10), 15-22. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X012010015
  • Demirhan, G. (2015). Türkiye’de eğitim yönetimi alanında araştırma geleneği ve paradigmaların gömülü teori bağlamında değerlendirilmesi. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Eskişehir: Osmangazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
  • Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. N. K. Denzin ve Y. S. Lincoln (Editörler). The Sage handbook of qualitative research içinde (s.1-32). (Third Edition). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
  • Dodman, S.L. (2011). School reform in a high poverty elementary school: A grounded theory case study of capacity building. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Florida: Florida Üniversitesi.
  • Dorion, J.A. (2017). A grounded theory of school of education futures. Yayınlammamış Doktora Tezi. Boston: Boston Üniversitesi.
  • English, F.W. (2002). The point of scientificity, the fall of the epistemological dominos, and the end of the field of educational administration. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 21(2), 109-136. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014432804622
  • English, F.W. (2006). The unintended consequences of a standardized knowledge base in advancing educational leadership preparation. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(3), 461-472. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X06289675
  • English, F.W. (2008). The art of educational leadership: Balancing performance and accountability. California: Sage Publications.
  • Engward, H. (2013). Understanding grounded theory. Nursing Standard, 28(7), 37-41. DOI:10.7748/ns2013.10.28.7.37.e7806.
  • Evers, C.W., & Lakomski, G. (2012). Science, systems, and theoretical alternatives in educational administration: The road less travelled. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(1), 57-75. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231211196069
  • Fielder, A. (2010). Elementary school teachers' attitudes toward professional development: A grounded theory study. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Arizona: Phoenix Üniversitesi.
  • Gedikoğlu, T. (1997). Eğitim yönetimi dün, bugün ve 2000li yıllara doğru. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 3(3), 299-307. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/108618
  • Gelmez-Burakgazi, S., & Yıldırım, A. (2017). Journey into doctoral candidacy: A grounded theory study of doctoral qualification exam process. Croatian Journal of Education, 19(1), 63-92. DOI: 10.15516/cje.v19i1.2017
  • Glaser, B.G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs forcing. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
  • Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (2017). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Routledge.
  • Glass, T.E., Mason, R., Carver, F.D., Eaton, W., & Parker, J.C. (2004). The history of educational administration viewed through its textbooks. Maryland: ScarecrewEducation.
  • Goulding, C. (2002). Grounded theory: A practical guide for management, business and market researchers. London: Sage Publications.
  • Greenfield, T.B. (1986). The decline and fall of science in educational administration. Interchange, 17(2), 57-80. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01807469
  • Greenfield Jr, W.D. (1995). Toward a theory of school administration: The centrality of leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(1), 61-85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X95031001005
  • Greenfield, T., & Ribbins, P. (1993). Greenfield on educational administration: Towards a humane science. New York: Routledge.
  • Hallinger, P., & Chen, J. (2015). Review of research on educational leadership and management in Asia: A comparative analysis of research topics and methods, 1995-2012. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(1), 5-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214535744
  • Hyung, P.S. (2001). Epistemological underpinnings of theory developments in educational administration. Australian Journal of Education, 45(3), 237-248. https://doi.org/10.1177/000494410104500303
  • Ilgar, M.Z., & Ilgar, S.C. (2013). Nitel bir araştırma deseni olarak gömülü teori: Temellendirilmiş kuram. İstanbul Sabahattin Zaim Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2(1), 197-247. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12436/111
  • Jones, J.W. (2009). Selection of grounded theory as an appropriate research methodology for a dissertation: One student's perspective. Grounded Theory Review, 8(2), 23-34.
  • Kern, B.E. (2010). Navigating: A grounded theory study of how school administrators prepare to lead. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The School of Educational Leadership and Change, Fielding Graduate University, California.
  • Köybaşı, F., & Uğurlu, C. T. (2019). Teacher candidates' socialization process: A grounded theory study. Asian Journal of Education and Training, 5(1), 213-223. DOI: 10.20448/journal.522.2019.51.213.223
  • Locke, K.D. (2001). Grounded theory in management research. London: SAGE Publications.
  • Martin, P.Y., & Turner, B. A. (1986). Grounded theory and organizational research. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22(2), 141-157. https://doi.org/10.1177/002188638602200207
  • Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (2nd Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Merriam, S.B., &Tisdell, E.J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. (Fourth Edition). San Francico: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  • Morabito, P.N. (2010). Grounded theory approach to understanding student perceptions of asynchronous high school learning environments. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). College of Education, Walden University, Minnesota.
  • Murphy, J., Vriesenga, M., & Storey, V. (2007). Educational Administration Quarterly, 1979-2003: An analysis of types of work, methods of investigation, and influences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(5), 612-628. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X07307796
  • Musick, K. (2010). Spirituality and school leadership a grounded theory study. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). the Morgridge College of Education, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado.
  • Nettles, E.L. (2011). How do principals retain teachers in urban secondary schools in central Alabama: A grounded theory study. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The School of Educational Leadership, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama.
  • Neuman, W.L. (2008). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (Çev. S. Özge). İstanbul: Yayın Odası.
  • Oplatka, I. (2009). The field of educational administration: A historical overview of scholarly attempts to recognize epistemological identities, meanings and boundaries from the 1960s onwards. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(1), 8-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230910928061
  • Oplatka, I., & Arar, K. (2016). The field of educational administration as an arena of knowledge production: Some implications for Turkish field members. Research in Educational Administration and Leadership (REAL), 1(2), 161-186. https://doi.org/10.30828/real/2016.2.1
  • Örücü, D., & Şimşek, H. (2011). Akademisyenlerin gözünden Türkiye’de eğitim yönetiminin akademik durumu: Nitel bir analiz. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 17(2), 167-197. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/108202
  • Özdemir, M. (2017). Eğitim yönetiminde epistemik bunalımın arkeolojisi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 23(2), 281-304. doi: 10.14527/kuey.2017.010
  • Özlem, D., Ökçesiz, H., & Argın, Ş. (2002). Felsefe tartışmaları. İstanbul: Everest Yayınları.
  • Patton, M.Q. (2014). Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemleri. (Çev. Editörleri: M. Bütün ve S.B. Demir), (3. Baskıdan Çeviri). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Sanocki, S.J. (2013). The process of how teachers become teacher leaders and how teacher leadership becomes distributed within a school: A grounded theory research study. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Western Michigan University, Michigan.
  • Scotland, J. (2012). Exploring the philosophical underpinnşngs of research: Relating ontology and epistemology to the methodology and methods of the scientific, interpretive and critical research paradigms. Englich Language Teaching, 5(9), s.9-16. DOI:10.5539/elt.v5n9p9
  • Silverstrone, D.M. (2011). A grounded theory of university leadership in community engagement. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Kingston University, United Kingdom.
  • Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633-642. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.22083020
  • Şişman, M. (1998). Eğitim yönetiminde kuram ve araştırmada alternatif paradigma ve yaklaşımlar. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 4(4), 395-422. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/kuey/issue/10380/127017
  • Takmak, H. (2019). Eğitim yönetiminin özgünleşme ve özerkleşme sorunsalı. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 20(1), 113-126. https://doi.org/10.12984/egeefd.452705
  • Turan, S., Bektaş, F., Yalçın, M., & Armağan, Y. (2016). Eğitim yönetimi alanında bilgi üretim süreci: Eğitim yönetimi kongrelerinin rolü ve serüveni üzerine bir değerlendirme. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 22(1), 81-108. . doi: 10.14527/kuey.2016.004
  • Van Maanen, J. (1979). Reclaiming qualitative methods for organizational research: A preface. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 520-526. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392358
  • Weick, K.E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative science quarterly, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391875
  • Weick, K.E. (1982). Administering education in loosely coupled schools. The Phi Delta Kappan, 63, 673-676. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20386508
  • Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde ni¬tel araştırma yöntemleri (Genişletilmiş 9. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Zeybekoğlu-Çalışkan, Z. (2011). A grounded theory of school as a social system in an atypical context. (Published doctoral dissertation). Graduate School of Social Sciences, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
There are 66 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Other Fields of Education
Journal Section Makaleler
Authors

Niyazi Can 0000-0003-4373-0719

Beyza Himmetoğlu 0000-0003-0757-232X

Publication Date December 30, 2021
Submission Date November 9, 2021
Published in Issue Year 2021

Cite

APA Can, N., & Himmetoğlu, B. (2021). EĞİTİM YÖNETİMİ ARAŞTIRMALARINDA GÖMÜLÜ TEORİ DESENİNİN KULLANIMINA İLİŞKİN BİR DEĞERLENDİRME. Uşak Üniversitesi Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(3), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.29065/usakead.1021225

open-access-logo-png-transparent.png  by.png    welson_2.jpg

Uşak Üniversitesi Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisinde yayımlanan makaleler, Creative Commons Atıf 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı (CC BY 4.0) ile lisanslanmıştır.