Türkiye’deki üniversite senatolarının rolleri ve işlevleri

The aim of this study is to understand the decision-making processes in higher education institutions by examining the functions of university senates which is the highest decision making organ in universities. In this study, a mixed design is used. Nine universities located in Istanbul constitute the sample of the study. To collect the qualitative data, document analysis was conducted and the presidents of these universities were asked to send all of the agenda items of the university senate meetings they had held in the 2010-2011 academic year. To collect the quantitative data, the presidents were asked to reply to the open-ended survey that had 2 open-ended questions on the observed functions of the universities. Although university senates are comprised of only academic faculty and described as the academic decision making body by law, the tasks they perform are less limited than it would be expected of the governance models of academic staff observed in some European countries. The results show that university senates mainly assume academic roles and functions; however, many of the decisions they take financial responsibility and accountability, which they do not have. Decisions related with student affairs and institutionalization and strategic direction constitute a very small portion of the discussions held at the university senate meetings.

PDF

___

Aarrevaara, T., Dobson, I. R. & Elander, C. (2009). Brave new world: Higher education reform in Finland. Higher Education Management and Policy, OECD, 21(2), 89-106.
Baskan, G. A. (2001). Türkiye’de Yüksek Öğretimin Gelişimi. G.Ü. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 21(1), 21-32.
Birnbaum, R. (1989). The cybernetic institution: Toward an integration of governance theories. Higher Education, 18(2), 423-443.
Birnbaum, R. (2004). The end of shared governance: looking ahead or looking back. New Directions for Higher Education, 127, 5-22.
Boer, de H., Huisman, J., & Meister-Scheytt, C. (2010). Supervision in ‘modern’ university governance: boards under scrutiny. Studies in Higher Education, 35(3), 317-333.
Bradshaw, P. & Fredette, C. (2009). Academic governance of universities: reflections of a senate chair on moving from theory to practice and back. Journal of Management Inquiry, 18(2), 123-133.
Coaldrake, P., Stedman, L. & Little, P. (2003). Issues in Australian university governance. Brisbane: QUT.
Cornforth, C. (2003). The governance of public and non-profit organizations. What do boards do? London: Routledge
Cresswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd Ed.). New Jersey: Pearson.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Dobbins, M., Knill, C., & Vögtle, E. M. (2011). An analytical framework for the cross-country comparison of higher education governance. Higher Education, 62, 665-683.
Eurydice. (2000). Two decades of reform in higher education in Europe: 1980 onwards. Brussels: European Commission.
Eurydice. (2005). Focus on the structure of higher education in Europe 2004/05. National trends in the Bologna Process. Brussels: Eurydice.
Eurydice. (2008). Higher education governance in Europe: Policies, structures, funding and academic staff. Brussels: Eurydice.
Fama, E.F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 301-26.
Kauko, J. & Diogo, S. (2011). Comparing higher education reforms in Finland and Portugal: different contexts, same solutions? Higher Education Management and Policy, OECD, 23(3), 115-133.
Kelleher, M. F. (2006). “The effectiveness of governing bodies.” OECD and IMHE Seminar on governing bodies of higher education institutions: roles and responsibilities. OECD Headquarters. Paris: OECD
Kreysing, M. (2002). Autonomy, accountability, and organizational complexity in higher education: the Goettingen model of university reform. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(6), 552-560.
Minor, J. T. (2003). Assessing the senate: critical issues considered. American Behavioral Scientist, 46(7), 960-977.
MODERN. (2009). Modern Project: Higher education governance reforms across Europe. Brussels: ESMU
Morrow, W. (1998). Stakeholders and senates: the governance of higher education institutions in South Africa. Cambridge Journal of Education, 28(3), 385-405.
NCIHE. (1997). “Higher education in the learning society: report of the national committee.” [Online] Retrieved on 04-March-2013, at URL: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/.
OECD. (2008). Tertiary education for a knowledge society. Paris: OECD
Ozcan, Y. Z. (2011). “Challenges to the Turkish higher education System.” Paper presented at the 22nd International Conference on Higher Education, Bilkent University, Ankara.
Ricci, E. A. (2001). The policymaking function of the faculty senate in a comprehensive liberal arts university: a case study. [Online] retrieved on 12-February-2013, at URL: http://www. newfoundations.com/Policy/Ricci.html
Rowlands, J. (2012). Accountability, quality assurance and performativity: the changing role of the academic board. Quality in Higher Education, 18 (1), 97-110.
Scott, R. K. (1984). “An analysis of the structure and functions of faculty governance organizations in public universities in Texas”. Ph.D. dissertation. Texas A&M University, Texas.
Şimşek, H. & Adıgüzel, T. (2012). Yüksek Öğretimde Yeni Bir Üniversite Paradigmasına Doğru. Eğitim ve Bilim, 37(166), 250-261.
Trakman, L. (2008). Modelling university governance. Higher Education Quarterly, 62(1&2), 63-83.
Vidovich, L. & Currie, J. (2011). Governance and trust in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 36(1), 43-56.
YÖK . (1981). Higher education law, 2547. Resmi Gazete. Sayı: 17506. Tertip 5, Cilt 21, Sayfa 3.
YÖK. (2012). [Online] Retrieved on 27-October-2012 at URL: http://www.yok.gov.tr/en/ content/view/343/219/