Türkiye Yükseköğretim Alanında Rakip Kurumsal Mantıklar: Akademik Performans Kriterlerinde Çeşitlilik ve Yayın Üretkenliği Üzerine Etkisi

Örgütler rakip kurumsal mantıklar ile karşılaştıklarında sadece baskın olan mantığı kabullenebilecekleri gibi çatışan talepleri melez örgüt yapıları ile de yönetebilmektedirler. Çalışma Türkiye yükseköğretim alanında 'bilimci/evrenselci' ve 'kalkınmacı/yerelci' olarak adlandırılan iki rakip temel kurumsal mantığın varlığına vurgu yapmaktadır. İlk çalışmanın sonuçları üniversitelerin kurumsal taleplere verdikleri karşılıkların çeşitliliğini akademik performans değerlendirme kriterleri üzerinden resmetmektedir. İkinci çalışma ise performans kriterlerinde SSCI tipi yayınlara verilen önemin ve atama için gerekli yayın sayısının akademik üretkenlik üzerinde anlamlı bir etkisi olmadığını göstermektedir. Bulgular, akademik performans kriterlerindeki melez yapıya dikkat çekmekle birlikte bilimci/evrenselci mantığa törensel uyum sağlama eğilimine işaret etmektedir

Competing institutional logics in the higher education of Turkey: Diversity in academic performance criteria and its effect on academic productivity

When organizations face competing institutional logics they may choose to adopt the dominant logic or form hybrid structures to manage the competing demands. This study emphasizes ‘science/universalism’ and ‘development/localism’ as the two main competing logics in the higher education of Turkey. Results of the first study demonstrate the diversity of organizational responses to the competing logics through the academic performance criteria of the universities. The findings of the second study show that the importance of SSCI publications and the quantity of publications required for academic promotions do not have a significant effect on academic productivity. Results do not only demonstrate the hybrid nature of academic performance criteria but also provide evidence for the ceremonial adoption of science/universalist logic

___

  • Abrahamson, E. (1991), “Managerial fads and fashions: The diffusion and rejection of innovations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol.16, No:3, s. 586-612.
  • Abrahamson, E. & Rosenkopf, L. (1993), “Institutional and competitive bandwagons: Using mathematical modeling as a tool to explore innovation diffusion”, Academy of Management Review, Vol.18, No:3, s. 487-517.
  • Aldrich, H. E. & Ruef, M.(2006), Organizations evolving. Thousand Oaks, Sage.
  • Battilana, J. & Dorado, S. (2010). “Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations”, Academy of management Journal, Vol. 53, No:6, s.1419-1440.
  • Child, J. (1972), “Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice”, Sociology, Vol.6, No:1, s. 1-22.
  • Cohen, W. M. & Levinthal, D. A. (1990), “Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, No:1, s. 128-152.
  • Cooper, R. & Burrell, G. (1988), “Modernism, postmodernism and organizational analysis. An introduction”, Organization Studies, Vol 9, No:1, s.91-112.
  • DiMaggio, P. & Powell, W. W. (1983), “The iron cage revisited: Collective rationality and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields”, American Sociological Review, Vol.48, No:2, s. 147-60.
  • Dunn, M. B. & Jones, C. (2010), “Institutional logics and institutional pluralism: The contestation of care and science logics in medical education, 1967-2005”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 55, No: 1, s. 114-149.
  • Fombrun, C. J. (1986). Structural dynamics within and between organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 31, No:3, s. 403-421.
  • Friedland, R. & Alford, R. R. (1991), “Bringing Society back in: Symbols, Practices and Institutional Contradictions”, Powell, W. W. & Dimaggio, P. J. (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, s. 232- 263.
  • Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R. & Hinings, C. R. (2002). “Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields”, Academy of management Journal, Vol.45, No: 1, s. 58-80.
  • Greenwood, R., Díaz, A. M., Li, S. X. & Lorente, J. C. (2010), “The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses”, Organization Science, Vol.21, No:2, s. 521-539.
  • Gülgöz, S., Yedekçioglu Ö., A. & Yurtsever, E. (2002). “Turkey’s output in social science publications, 1970-1999”. Scientometrics, Vol 55, s. 103–121.
  • Hambrick, D. C. & Mason, P. A. (1984), “Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9, No:2, s. 193-206.
  • Hewlin, P. F. (2003), “And the award for best actor goes to…: Facades of conformity in organizational settings”, Academy of Management Review, Vol.28, No:4, s. 633-642.
  • http://tr.urapcenter.org/2016/, Erişim tarihi: 2016
  • http://ulakbim.tubitak.gov.tr/, Erişim tarihi: 2016
  • http://www.uak.gov.tr/?q=node/56, Erişim tarihi: 2016
  • https://apps.webofknowledge.com/WOS_GeneralSearch_input.do?product=WOS&search_mode= GeneralSearch&SID=S12dhllyhXe3aPdhjUY&preferencesSaved=, Erişim tarihi: 2016 https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/, Erişim tarihi: 2016
  • Keeley, M. (1984), “Impartiality and participant-interest theories of organizational effectiveness”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 29, No:1, s. 1-25.
  • Lawrence, P. R. & Lorsch, J. W. (1967), “Differentiation and integration in complex organizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 12, No:1, s. 1-47.
  • Leung, K., Smith, P. B., Wang, Z. & Sun, H. (1996), “Job satisfaction in joint venture hotels in China: An organizational justice analysis”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 27, No:5, s. 947-962.
  • Leong, F. T. & Leung, K. (2004), “Academic careers in Asia: A cross-cultural analysis”, Journal of Vocational behavior, Vol.64, No:2, s.346-357.
  • Lukes, S. (1974), Power. A radical view, London, U.K., MacMillian Press Ltd.
  • Marsden, R. (2005). ‘The politics of organizational analysis’, C. Grey and H. Willmott (Eds), Critical Management Studies, New York, Oxford University Press, s. 132-164.
  • Meyer, J. W. & Rowan, B. (1977), “Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83, No:2, s. 340-363.
  • Oliver, C. (1991), “Strategic responses to institutional processes”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16, No:1, s. 145-179.
  • Oliver, C. (1992), “The antecedents of deinstitutionalization”, Organization Studies, Vol. 13, No:4, s. 563-588.
  • Önder, Ç. & Erdil, S. E. (2015), “Aynı kurumsal beklentilere tabi aktörlerin farklılaşan davranışları: Öğretim üyelerinin bilimsel yayın üretkenliklerinin üniversite, bölüm ve birey düzeyindeki yordayıcıları”, METU Studies in Development, Vol. 42, No:3, s. 481-519.
  • Özen, Ş. & Öztürk, D. (2016), “Institutional logics and political networks: A theoretical framework for academic staffing in newly-founded management departments in Turkey”, Journal of Management and Organizations Studies, Vol.1, No:1, s. 5-46.
  • Pache, A. C. & Santos, F. (2010). “When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 35, No:3, s.455-476.
  • Pache, A. C. & Santos, F. (2013). “Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.56, No:4, s. 972-1001.
  • Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G. R. (1978), The external control of organizations, New York, Harper & Row.
  • Purdy, J. M. & Gray, B. (2009), “Conflicting logics, mechanisms of diffusion, and multilevel dynamics in emerging institutional fields. Academy of Management Journal, Vol.52, No:2, s. 355-380.
  • Ranson, S., Hinings, B. & Greenwood, R. (1980). “The structuring of organizational structures”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 25, No:1, s. 1-17.
  • Reay, T. & Hinings, C. R. (2009), “Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics”, Organization Studies, Vol.30, No:6, s. 629-652.
  • Reed, M. I. (1992). The Sociology of Organizations. Themes, perspectives and prospects, London, Harvester Wheat sheaf.
  • Salancik, G. R. & Pfeffer, J. (1977), “Who gets power - and how they hold on to it: A strategiccontingency model of power”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 5, No:3, s. 3-21.
  • Schneider, B. (1987), “The people make the place”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 40, No:3, s. 437- 453.
  • Schneider, B. & Reichers, A. E. (1983), “On the etiology of climates”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 36, No:1, s. 19-39.
  • Schweitzer, M., Ordonez, L. & Douma, B. (2004), “Goal setting as a motivator of unethical behavior”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47, No:3, s. 422-432.
  • Suchman, M. C. (1995), “Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No:3, s. 571-610.
  • Thornton, P. H. & Ocasio, W. (1999), “Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990”, American journal of Sociology, Vol. 105, No:3, s. 801-843.
  • Thornton, P. H. & Ocasio, W. (2008), “Institutional logics”, R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, s. 99-129.
  • Townley, B. (1993), “Foucault, power/knowledge, and its relevance for human resource management”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18, No:3, s. 518-545.
  • Townley, B. (1997), “The institutional logic of performance appraisal”, Organization Studies, Vol. 18, No:2, s. 261-285.
  • Uzun, A. (1998), “A scientometric profile of social sciences research in Turkey”, International Information Library Review, 30, s. 169-184.
  • Üsdiken, B. (2004), “The French, the German and the American: Higher education for business in Turkey, 1883-2003”, New Perspectives on Turkey, Vol. 31, October, s. 5-38.
  • Üsdiken, B., Topaler, B. & Koçak, Ö. (2013), “Yasa, piyasa ve örgüt tiplerinde çeşitlilik: 1981 sonrasında Türkiye’de üniversiteler”, Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, Vol. 68, No:3, s.191- 227.
  • Üsdiken, B. & Wasti, S. A. (2009), “Preaching, teaching and researching at the periphery: Academic management literature in Turkey, 1970-1999”, Organization Studies, Vol. 30, No:10, s. 1063-1082.
  • Weick, K. E. (1976) “Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 21, No:1, s. 1-19.