Burhan ÖZKAN, Çiler ÇELİK-ÖZENCİ, Hilal ERKUŞ, Erol GÜRPINAR, Bekir Taner SAN, Erkan ALPSOY, Engin KARADAĞ, Olgun KİTAPÇI

Akdeniz Üniversitesinin Araflt›rma Odakl› Üniversite Olma Süreci: Kurumsal Yap›lanma, Hedefler, Faaliyetler ve Ç›kt›lar

Türk üniversiteleri dünya üniversite s›ralama sistemlerinin pek ço¤unda ilk 500 aras›nda listelenen üniversiteler aras›nda olmad›¤› gibi son befl y›ld›r mevcut yerlerini korumakta da güçlük yaflamaktad›r. Bu gerilemenin en önemli nedeni üniversitelerin nitelikli araflt›rma ç›kt›s› üretememeleridir. Yüksekö¤retim çal›flmalar› literatüründe sadece kamu kaynaklar›yla yönetilen devlet üniversitelerinin “araflt›rma odakl› strateji ve politikalar›” uygulamak için nas›l bir yol izleyebilecekleri ve somut olarak neler yapmalar› gerekti¤ini ele alan s›n›rl› say›da çal›flma bulunmaktad›r. Bu eksiklikten hareketle bu çal›flmada Akdeniz Üniversitesinin araflt›rma odakl› üniversite olma stratejilerini etkin ve sürdürülebilir flekilde uygulayan, Ar-Ge alan›nda yeni oluflan ve geliflen koflullara h›zla uyum sa¤layan, stratejiler gelifltiren ve üniversitenin nitelikli bilimsel bilgi üretme kapasitesine en üst düzeyde katk› sa¤lamak için oluflturulan Araflt›rmalar› Gelifltirme ve Koordinasyon Kurulu’nun (ARGEK) deneyimleri incelenmifltir. Bu kapsamda çal›flmada; araflt›rma odakl› üniversiteye yönelik kurumsallaflman›n nas›l sa¤land›¤›, oluflturulan politika hedeflerine yönelik gerçeklefltirilen ve gerçeklefltirilemeyen uygulamalar ile 2017–2020 politikalar›n›n araflt›rma ç›kt›lar›na etkisi ayr›nt›l› olarak tart›fl›lm›flt›r. Çal›flma özellikle kamu araflt›rma bütçesi ile üniversitelerin araflt›rma ç›kt›lar›n›n nas›l gelifltirilebilece¤i ve bir kurulun araflt›rma ç›kt›lar›n› gelifltirmede nas›l bir rol oynayabilece¤i noktas›nda önemli bilgiler sa¤lamaktad›r.

Akdeniz University’s Process of Becoming a Research-Oriented University: Institutional Structuring, Goals, Activities and Outcomes

Turkish universities are not among the top 500 universities in most of the world university ranking systems and have had difficulties in maintaining their current place for the last five years. The most important reason for this decline is that they cannot produce high-quality research outcome. In the literature of higher education studies, there are a limited number of studies on how state universities governed with solely public resources could follow “research-oriented strategies and policies” and what they should do in concrete terms. Based on this deficiency, in this study, experiences of the Research Development and Coordination Board (RDCB) which was established to apply the strategies of Akdeniz University to become a research-oriented university effectively and sustainably, to adapt quickly to the newly formed and developing conditions in the field of R&D, to develop strategies, and to contribute to the university’s capacity at the highest level to produce qualified scientific knowledge were examined. Thus, how the institutionalization of the research-oriented university was ensured, the practices that could and could not be realized accordingly with the established policy goals, and the effects of 2017–2020 policies on research outcomes were discussed in detail. The study, in particular, provides important information on how to improve research outcome through public research budget and which roles the board can play in improving research outcome.

PDF

___

Alkan T. Y., Özbek, F., Günay, M., San, B. T., & Kitapç›, O. (2020). Assessment of academic performance at Akdeniz University. In D. J. Hemanth, & U. Kose (Eds.), Artificial intelligence and applied mathematics in engineering problems. Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Applied Mathematics in Engineering (pp. 982–995). London/Berlin: Springer.
Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. E. (2009). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution. Paris: UNESCO
Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). How actors change institutions: Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 65–107.
Belenkuyu, C., & Karada¤, E. (2020). Akademik kapitalizm: S›ralama sistemlerinin hegemonyas›ndaki üniversiteler. Ankara: Nobel.
Clark, B. (2001). The entrepreneurial university: New foundations for collegiality, autonomy, and achievement. Journal of the Programme on Institutional Management in Higher Education, 13(2), 9–25.
Déjean, F., Gond, J. P., & Leca, B. (2004). Measuring the unmeasured: An institutional entrepreneur strategy in an emerging industry. Human Relations, 57(6), 741–764.
Dill, D. D. (2009). Convergence and diversity: The role and influence of university rankings. In B. M. Kehm, & B. Stensaker (Eds.), University rankings, diversity, and the new landscape of higher education (pp. 97–116). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.
Espeland, W. N., & Stevens, M. L. (1998). Commensuration as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 313–343.
Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Social Science Information, 42(3), 293–337.
Fligstein, N. (1998). The politics of quantification. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23(3), 325–331.
Foucault, M. (1994). The order of things: An archeology of the human sciences. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Gürüz, K., fiuhubi, E., fiengör, A. M. C., Türker, K., & Yurtsever, E. (1994). Dünyada ve Türkiye’de yüksekö¤retim, bilim ve teknoloji. ‹stanbul: TÜS‹AD Yay›nlar›.
Kalthoff, H. (2002). Figures, writing and calculation thoughts on the representation of economic practices. Economic Sociology: European Electronic Newsletter, 3(3), 28–39.
Karada¤, E. (2021). Academic (dis) qualifications of Turkish rectors: Their career paths, H-index, and the number of articles and citations. Higher Education, 81(2), 301–323.
Karada¤, E., & Yücel, C. (2020a). Türkiye üniversite memnuniyet araflt›rmas› (TÜMA 2020). Üniversite Araflt›rmalar› Laboratuvar› (ÜniAr). Eriflim adresi https://www.uniar.net/tuma (1 Kas›m 2020).
Karada¤, E., & Yücel, C. (2020b). Akademik ekoloji: Akademisyenlerin gözünden üniversiteler. Üniversite Araflt›rmalar› Laboratuvar› (ÜniAr). Eriflim adresi https://www.uniar.net/ekoloji (1 Kas›m 2020).
Kehm, B. M. (2014). Global university rankings – Impacts and unintended side effects. European Journal of Education, 49(1), 102–112.
Kirby, D. A. (2006). Creating entrepreneurial universities in the UK: Applying entrepreneurship theory to practice. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(5), 599–603.
Lounsbury, M., & Rao, H. (2004). Sources of durability and change in market classifications: A study of the reconstitution of product categories in the American mutual fund industry, 1944–1985. Social Forces, 82(3), 969–999.
Marginson, S. (2007). Global university rankings: Implications in general and for Australia. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 29(2), 131–142.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.
Mohrman, K., Ma, W., & Baker, D. (2008). The research university in transition: The emerging global model. Higher Education Policy, 21(1), 5–27.
Morphew, C. C., & Swanson, C. (2011). On the efficacy of raising your university’s rankings. In J. C. Shin, R. K. Toutkoushian, & U. Teichler (Eds.), University rankings: Theoretical basis, methodology and impacts on global higher education (pp. 185–200). Dordrecht: Springer.
Rüegg, W. (1991). Themes. In W. Rüegg (Ed.), A history of the university in Europe. Vol. 1: H. Ridder-Symoens (Ed.), Universities in the middle ages (pp. 3–34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rüegg, W. (Eds.). (2004). A history of the university in Europe. Vol. 3: Universities in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (1800–1945). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Scott, W. R., & Meyer, J. W. (1983). The organization of societal sectors. In J. W. Meyer, & W. R. Scott (Eds.), Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality (pp. 129–153). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Shattock, M. (2017). The ‘world class’ university and international ranking systems: What are the policy implications for governments and institutions? Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 1(1), 4–21.
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Subotzky, G. (1999). Alternatives to the entrepreneurial university: New modes of knowledge production in community service programs. Higher Education, 38(4), 401–440.
Teichler, U. (2011). Social contexts and systemic consequence of university rankings: A meta-analysis of the ranking literature. In J. C. Shin, R.
K. Toutkoushian, & U. Teichler (Eds.), University rankings: Theoretical basis, methodology and impacts on global higher education (pp. 55–72). Dordrecht: Springer.
Tolbert, P. S. (1985). Institutional environments and resource dependence: Sources of administrative structure in institutions of higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(1), 1–13.
Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1983). Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform, 1880–1935. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(1), 22–39.
TÜB‹TAK (2018). 2018 y›l› giriflimci ve yenilikçi üniversite endeksi sonuçlar›. Ankara: TÜB‹TAK.
TÜB‹TAK (2020a). 2020 y›l› giriflimci ve yenilikçi üniversite endeksi sonuçlar›. Ankara: TÜB‹TAK.
TÜB‹TAK (2020b). Üniversitelerin alan baz›nda yetkinlik analizi. Ankara: TÜB‹TAK.
Wissema, J. G. (2009). Towards the third generation university: Managing the university in transition. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.