Nitel Araştırmalarda Örnekleme Yöntemleri ve Örnek Hacmi Sorunsalı Üzerine Kavramsal Bir İnceleme

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1, 231 - 274, 28.06.2018

Ali Baltacı

Öz

Toplumsal ve bireysel dünyaya ilişkin araştırmalarda kullanılabilecek iki
ana yaklaşım ve bu kapsamda iki temel örnekleme yöntemi vardır. Bunlar nicel ve
nitel araştırma ile olasılıklı ve olasılıksız örnekleme yöntemleridir. Alanyazında
alternatif yaklaşımlar arasındaki farklılıkları tartışan araştırma ve örnekleme
yöntemleri üzerine kitaplar olmasına rağmen, örneklem yöntemlerini inceleyen
araştırmalar oldukça sınırlıdır. Kavramsal tarama modelinde desenlenen
çalışmanın temel gerekçesi, özellikle Türkçe alanyazındaki nitel yöntemleri
kullanan çalışmalarda karşılaşılan örnek seçimi, örnek belirleme yöntemi ve
örnek hacmi sorunlarıdır. Bu bağlamda, hatalı örnek veya yöntem seçimi sonucu birçok
nitel desenli araştırmanın geçerlik, güvenirlik, tutarlık ve inandırıcılığı da
sorunlu olmaktadır. Bu çalışma özellikle nitel araştırmaların sıklıkla
yapıldığı sosyal bilimler alanyazınında karşılaşılan örnek belirleme, örnek
hacmi ve örnekleme yöntemlerinin kavramsallaştırılması amacıyla yapılmıştır.
Ayrıca çalışma ile güncel tartışmalar eşliğinde nitel araştırmalar için
kuramsal ve uygulamaya dönük bir altyapı hazırlanması da amaçlanmıştır. Bu
çalışmada öncelikle araştırmanın doğası, nitel ve nicel araştırmanın yapısı ile
her iki araştırma yönteminin örnekleme kuramları ele alınmış; ardından, nitel
araştırmalarda kullanılan temel örnekleme yöntemleri incelenmiştir. Araştırmada
ayrıca, örnek hacmi ve örneklemin uygulanması ile alanyazındaki çeşitli
çalışmalarda araştırmacıların sıklıkla yaptıkları hatalar da tartışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Araştırma yöntemleri, Nitel araştırma, Örnek, Örneklem, Örnek hacmi

A Conceptual Review of Sampling Methods and Sample Size Problems in Qualitative Research

Öz

There are two major approaches, and two basic sampling
methods to research that can be used in the study of the social and the
individual world. These are quantitative and qualitative research, and
probability and nonprobability sampling. Although there are books on research
methods that discuss the differences between alternative approaches and
sampling methods, it is rare to find an article that examines the design issues
at the intersection of the quantitative and qualitative divide and especially
sampling methods based on eminent research literature. The main reason for this
study, which is modeled in the conceptual review model, is that it is
problematic to choose the sample that is encountered in studies using
qualitative methods in the Turkish literature. In this context, the validity,
reliability, consistency, and credibility of many qualitative research studies
resulting in the selection of faulty samples or methods are also problematic. This study was carried out to conceptualize sample
determining, sample volume and sampling methods encountered in the social
sciences literature, where qualitative studies are frequently performed. It is also aimed to prepare a theoretical and
practical infrastructure for qualitative studies in the context of contemporary
discussions. This study has been carried out to provide a theoretical and
practical background at the point of conceptualization of sampling methods,
sample size problems and sampling methods encountered in the social sciences
literature, in which qualitative studies are carried out. In this study, primarily the nature of the research,
the structure of the qualitative and quantitative research and sampling
theories of both research methods are discussed; Followed by basic sampling
methods used in qualitative research. The research also discusses the frequent
mistakes made by researchers in various studies involving sample size and
sample implementation.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Research methods, Qualitative research, Sample, Sampling, Sample size

Kaynakça

• Baltacı, A. (2017). Nitel veri analizinde Miles-Huberman modeli. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi (AEÜSBED, 3(1), 1-15.
• Bernard, H. R. (2011). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. New York: Rowman Altamira.
• Britten, N. (1995). Qualitative research: qualitative interviews in medical research. Bmj, 311(6999), 251-253.
• Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of mixed methods research, 1(1), 8-22.
• Charmaz, K. (2011). Grounded theory methods in social justice research. The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 4, 359-380.
• Cochran, W. G. (2007). Sampling techniques. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
• Coyne, I. T. (1997). Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful and theoretical sampling; merging or clear boundaries?. Journal of advanced nursing, 26(3), 623-630.
• Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
• Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2016). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. New York: Sage.
• Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). The landscape of qualitative research Sage.
• Duffy, M. E. (1985). Designing nursing research: the qualitative‐quantitative debate. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 10(3), 225-232.
• Erkuş, A. (2015). “Nitel” ve Türevleri (“Alternatif ölçme”,“Çoklu” ve “Duygusal zekâ”): Ne, Niçin ve Nereye Doğru?. İlköğretim Online, 14(3).
• Eysenbach, G., & Till, J. E. (2001). Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities. Bmj, 323(7321), 1103-1105.
• Flick, U. (2014). An introduction to qualitative research. New York: Sage.
• Gelo, O., Braakmann, D., & Benetka, G. (2008). Quantitative and qualitative research: Beyond the debate. Integrative psychological and behavioral science, 42(3), 266-290.
• Grix, J. (2010). The foundations of research. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry. Educational Technology Research and Development, 30(4), 233-252.
• Haverkamp, B. E. (2005). Ethical perspectives on qualitative research in applied psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 146.
• Henwood, K. (2014). Qualitative research. Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology, 1611-1614.
• Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2010). The practice of qualitative research. Sage.
• Holloway, I., & Galvin, K. (2016). Qualitative research in nursing and healthcare. John Wiley & Sons.
• Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Sage.
• Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (1999). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Harcourt College Publishers.
• Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology: Methods and techniques. New Age International.
• Lewis, S. (2015). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Health promotion practice, 16(4), 473-475.
• Liamputtong, P. (2013). Qualitative Research Methods (4th ed.). South Melbourne, Vic.: Oxford University Press.
• Luborsky, M. R., & Rubinstein, R. L. (1995). Sampling in qualitative research: Rationale, issues, and methods. Research on aging, 17(1), 89-113.
• Marczyk, G., DeMatteo, D., & Festinger, D. (2005). Essentials of research design and methodology. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
• Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family practice, 13(6), 522-526.
• Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2014). Designing qualitative research. New York: Sage.
• Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (Vol. 41). Sage publications.
• Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2000). Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 320(7226), 50.
• McMillan, J. H. (1996). Educational research: Fundamentals for the consumer. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.
• McNabb, D. E. (2015). Research methods for political science: Quantitative and qualitative methods. Routledge.
• Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. Jossey-Bass.
• Mertens, D. M. (2014). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. New York: Sage.
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. New York: Sage.
• Morgan, D. L., & Morgan, R. K. (2008). Single-case research methods for the behavioral and health sciences. SAGE publications.
• Neuman, L. W. (2014). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (Seventh ed.). Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
• Neuman, W. L., & Robson, K. (2014). Basics of social research. Toronto: Pearson Canada.
• Newman, I., & Benz, C. R. (1998). Qualitative-quantitative research methodology: Exploring the interactive continuum. SIU Press.
• Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International journal of social research methodology, 8(5), 375-387.
• Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Collins, K. M. (2007). A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research. The qualitative report, 12(2), 281-316.
• Owen, S. (2001). The practical, methodological and ethical dilemmas of conducting focus groups with vulnerable clients. Journal of advanced nursing, 36(5), 652-658.
• Patton, M. Q. (2005). Qualitative research. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
• Popper, K. (2005). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Routledge.
• Punch, K. F. (2013). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Sage.
• Reichardt, C. S., & Rallis, S. F. (1994). The Qualitative-Quantitative Debate: New Perspectives. New directions for program evaluation, 61, 1-98.
• Rolfe, G. (2006). Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: quality and the idea of qualitative research. Journal of advanced nursing, 53(3), 304-310.
• Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. R. (2016). Empowerment series: Research methods for social work. Cengage Learning.
• Sale, J. E., Lohfeld, L. H., & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: Implications for mixed-methods research. Quality and quantity, 36(1), 43-53.
• Sandelowski, M. (1986). The problem of rigor in qualitative research. Advances in nursing science, 8(3), 27-37.
• Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2014). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. New York: Sage publications.
• Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for information, 22(2), 63-75.
• Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. Columbia: Teachers college press.
• Silverman, D. (2013). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. New York: Sage.
• Smith, J. K., & Heshusius, L. (1986). Closing down the conversation: The end of the quantitative-qualitative debate among educational inquirers. Educational Researcher, 15(1), 4-12.
• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2014). Basics of qualitative research techniques. New York: Sage publications.
• Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Travers, M. (2001). Qualitative research through case studies. Sage.
• Trotter, R. T. (2012). Qualitative research sample design and sample size: Resolving and unresolved issues and inferential imperatives. Preventive medicine, 55(5), 398-400.
• Vogt, W. P., Gardner, D. C., & Haeffele, L. M. (2012). When to use what research design. New York: Guilford Press.
• Watson, K., Handal, B., Maher, M., & McGinty, E. (2017). Globalising the class size debate: myths and realities. Journal of International and Comparative Education (JICE), 72-85.
• West, W. (2001). Beyond grounded theory: The use of a heuristic approach to qualitative research. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 1(2), 126-131.
• Whittemore, R., Chase, S. K., & Mandle, C. L. (2001). Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative health research, 11(4), 522-537.