Burhan FINDIKLI

8936

İstisnailik, Olağanlık ve Melezlik: Organizasyon Teorisinde Üniversite

Bu çalışmanın temel hedefi, organizasyon teorisinin üniversiteyi bir araştırma nesnesi olarak nasıl inşa ettiğine dair eleştirel ve sistematik bir tartışma sunmaktır. Makalenin ilk kısmında üniversitenin kendine has ve istisnai bir örgütsel form olduğunu iddia eden klasik üniversite modellerinin temel varsayımları ve açıklamaları değerlendirilmekte, ardından yükseköğretim reformlarının etkisiyle üniversitenin dört başı mamur bir organizasyonel fail haline geldiğini ileri süren araştırmacıların temel argüman ve kanıtları ele alınmaktadır. Makalede, söz konusu iki kutup arasındaki dikotomilerin verimsiz olduğu ve üniversitenin farklı sosyo-ekonomik bağlamlar ve politik-idari rejimler içerisinde nasıl örgütlendiğini anlamak için daha sofistike teorik çerçevelerin ampirik araştırmalarda işe koşulması gerektiği savunulmaktadır.

Singularity, Normality, and Hybridity: The University in Organization Theory

This study seeks to provide a critical and systematic discussion of how organization theory has constructed the university as a research object. In the first part of the article, the main assumptions of the classical university models which claim that the university is to be regarded as an idiosyncratic and exceptional organizational form are evaluated. Then, the fundamental arguments and evidence propounded by scholars who suggest that universities have transformed into organizational actors as a consequence of the higher education reforms are discussed. The article argues that the dichotomies between the two propositions are unproductive and should be transcended by operationalizing more sophisticated theoretical frameworks in empirical research to understand how universities are organized in different socio-economic settings and under different politico-administrative regimes.

___

  • Arlı, A. (2016). “Yükseköğretimde Büyüme, Farklılaşma ve Reorganizasyon: İstanbul Örneği (1980-2015)”. Sosyoloji Konferansları, 54, 199-243.
  • Austin, I. ve Jones, G. A. (2016). Governance of Higher Education: Globel Perspectives, Theories, and Practices. New York: Routledge.
  • Baldridge, J. V. (1971). Power and Conflict in Uhe University: Research in the Yociology of Complex Organizations, New York: John Wiley.
  • Baldridge, J.V., Curtis, D. V., Ecker, G. P. ve Riley, G. L. (2000) [1974]. “Alternative Models of Governance in Higher Education”. Organization & Governance in Higher Education. Boston: Pearson Custom.
  • Becher, T. (1989). Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
  • Birnbaum, R. (1988). How Colleges Work: The Cybernetics of Academic Organization and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Blau, P. M. (1955). The Dynamics of Bureaucracy: A Study of Interpersonal Relations in Two Government Agencies. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Blau, P. M. (1970). “A Formal Theory of Differentiation in Organizations”. American Sociological Review, 35(2), 201-218.
  • Blau, P. M. (1994) [1973], The Organization of Academic Work. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
  • Bleiklie, I., ve Kogan, M. (2007). “Organisation and Governance of Universities”. Higher Education Policy, 20(4), 477-493.
  • Bleiklie, I., Enders, J. ve Lepori, B. (2015). “Organizations as Penetrated Hierarchies: Environmental Pressures and Control in Professional Organizations”. Organization Studies, 36(7), 873-896.
  • Bleiklie, I., Enders, J. ve Lepori, B. (2017). “Organizational Configurations of Modern Universities, Institutional Logics and Public Policies-Towards an Integrative Framework”. Managing Universities: Policy and Organizational Change from a Western European Comparative Perspective. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Brown, M. C. (Ed.) (2000). Organization & Governance in Higher Education. Boston: Pearson Custom.
  • Brunsson, N. ve Sahlin-Andersson, K. (2000). “Constructing Organizations: The Example of Public Sector Reform”. Organization Studies, 21(4), 721-746.
  • Capano, G. (2011). “Government Continues to Do Its Job: A Comparative Study of Governance Shift in The Higher Education Sector”. Public Administration, 89(4), 1622- 1642.
  • Clark, B. R. (2009) [1970]. The Distinctive College. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
  • Clark, B. R. (1972). “The Organizational Saga in Higher Education”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(2), 178-184.
  • Cohen, M. D., March, J. G. ve Olsen, J. P. (1972). A Garbage can Model of Organizational Choice”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1-25.
  • Cohen, M. D. ve March, J. G. (1974). Leadership and Ambiguity: The American College President. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Dahl, R. A. (1961). Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  • Dahrendorf, R. (1959). Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  • DiMaggio, P. J. ve Powell, W. W. (1983). “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields”. American Sociological Review, 48(1), 147-160.
  • Fındıklı, B. (2017). “Exploring Higher Education Governance: Analytical Models and Heuristic Frameworks”. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 7(2), 392-402.
  • Glassman, R. B. (1973). “Persistence and Loose Coupling in Living Systems”. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 18(2), 83-98.
  • Goodman, P. (1962). The Community of Scholars. New York: Random House.
  • Gornitzka, A., Kogan, M. ve Amaral, A. (Eds.) (2005). Reform and Change in Higher Education: Analysing Policy Implementation. Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Hearn, J. C. ve McLendon, M. K. (2011). “Governance Research: From Adolescence Toward Maturity”. The Organization of Higher Education: Managing Colleges for a New Era. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Kehm, B. M. (2012). “Hochschulen Als Besondere und Unvollständige Organisationen? Neue Theorien zur Organisation Hochschule”. Hochschule als Organisation. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
  • Kerr, C. (2001). The Uses of the University. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Krücken, G. ve Meier, F. (2006). “Turning the University into an Organizational Actor”. Globalization and Organization: World Society and Organizational Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Meier, F. (2009). Die Universität als Akteur: zum Institutionellen Wandel der Hochschulorganisation. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
  • Meyer, J. W., Boli, J., Thomas, G. M. ve Ramirez, F. O. (1997). “World Society and the Nation-State”. American Journal of Sociology, 103(1), 144-181.
  • Millett, J. D. (1962). The Academic Community: An Essay on Organization. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Mouzelis, N. P. (1981). Organisation and Bureaucracy: An Analysis of Modern Theories. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  • Musselin, C. (2007). “Are Universities Specific Organisations?”. Towards a Multiversity?: Universities Between Global Trends and National Traditions. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.
  • Musselin, C. ve Teixeira P. N. (Eds.) (2014). Reforming Higher Education: Public Policy Design and Implementation. Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Olsen, J. P. (2007). “The Institutional Dynamics of the European University”. University Dynamics and European Integration. Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Padgett, J. F. (1980). “Managing Garbage can Hierarchies”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(4), 583-604.
  • Pelikan, J. (1992). The Idea of the University: A Reexamination. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  • Peterson, M. W. (1974). “Organization and Administration in Higher Education: Sociological and Social-Psychological Perspectives”. Review of Research in Education, 2(1), 296-347.
  • Peterson, M. W. (2007). The Study of Colleges and Universities as Organizations. Sociology of Higher Education: Contributions and Their Contexts. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the Grass Roots. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Strang, D. ve Meyer, J. W. (1993). “Institutional Conditions for Diffusion”. Theory and Society, 22(4), 487-511.
  • Stroup, H. H. (1966). Bureaucracy in Higher Education. New York: Free Press.
  • Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W. ve Lounsbury, M. (2012). The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure, and Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Trow, M. (2010) [1973]. “Problems in the Transition from Elite to Mass Higher Education”. Tweentieth-century Higher Education: Elite to Mass to Universal. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Weber, M. (1946). “Bureaucracy”. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Weick, K. E. (1976). “Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1-19.
  • Whitley, R. (2008). “Universities as Strategic Actors: Limitations and Variations”. The University in the Market. London: Portland Press.
Amme İdaresi Dergisi-Cover
  • ISSN: 1300-1795
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 4 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 1968
  • Yayıncı: -
Arşiv
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

Doğu Akdeniz’de Tanzimat: Lübnan’da Çift Kaymakamlık Sisteminin Tesis Edilmesi ve 19. Yüzyıl Güç Dengesi

İRŞAT SARIALİOĞLU

Türk Kamu Yönetiminde Ofis Sistemi: E-Devlet Uygulamalarından Dijital Dönüşüm Ofisine

TEKİN AVANER, RECEP FEDAİ

Küreselleşme, Neoliberalizm ve Yaratıcı Endüstriler: Alternatif Bir Yönetişim Önerisi Üzerine Bir Not

AHMET SERHAT KAYMAS

İstisnailik, Olağanlık ve Melezlik: Organizasyon Teorisinde Üniversite

Burhan FINDIKLI

Dijital Çağda Devlet Memurlarının Eğitimini Yeniden Düşünmek

HAKAN DULKADİROĞLU

Kitle ve Lider İlişkisini Politik Teoloji Üzerinden Yeniden Düşünmek

H. Bahadır TÜRK