Türk Yüksekö¤retim Alan› ‹çin Gerekli Bir Kavram: “Rekabet”

2000 y›l›nda 71 üniversitesi ve 1.500.000 üniversite ö¤rencisi olan Türkiye, bugün, 200’den fazla üniversitesi ve 7 milyonun üzerinde ö¤rencisi olan ge- nifl bir yüksekö¤retim alan›na sahiptir. Yaflanan bu say›sal geniflleme, birta- k›m avantajlar sa¤lad›¤› gibi baz› sorunlar› da beraberinde getirmifltir. Ge- nel anlamda en büyük problem “kalite” konusunda ortaya ç›kmaktad›r. Ka- litenin bu genifllemeye paralel bir flekilde geliflim gösterip göstermedi¤i, dü- flünülmesi gereken en önemli hususlardan birisidir. Bu makale ile Türki- ye’de yüksekö¤retim alan›nda yaflanan niceliksel geliflmenin, niteliksel bir geliflme ile desteklenebilmesi için yüksekö¤retim kurumlar›n›n “rekabet” konusuna odaklanmas› gerekti¤i vurgulanm›flt›r. Bunun için, öncelikle, Türkiye yüksekö¤retim alan› geçmiflten günümüze genel bir çerçeve içeri- sinde ele al›nm›flt›r. Sonra, “rekabet” kavram›n›n Türkiye yüksekö¤retim alan› için önemi vurgulanarak literatürdeki iki temel rekabet kuram› ince- lenmifltir. Ard›ndan, bu kuramlar›n yüksekö¤retim alan›nda nas›l karfl›l›k bulabilece¤i literatür çerçevesinde de¤erlendirilmifl ve bu de¤erlendirme so- nucu elde edilen faktörler ile teorik bir model ortaya konulmufltur.

An Essential Concept for the Turkish Higher Education Area: “Competition”

In 2000, Turkey had 1.5 million university students at 71 universities, whereas today, it has a much broader field of higher education with a uni- versity student population of over seven million at more than 200 univer- sities. Although this quantitative expansion has brought some advantages, it has also created several problems, the most significant of which have emerged in terms of “quality”. Whether quality increases in parallel with this expansion is an essential issue to consider. This paper emphasizes that HE institutions need to focus on “competition” to support the quan- titative expansion in the field of Turkish HE with qualitative improve- ment. For this purpose, first, the state of the Turkish HE was overviewed from past to present. Next, the importance of “competition” for Turkish HE was highlighted and the two fundamental theories of competition were discussed by reviewing the related literature. Finally, a theoretical model based on the factors obtained through an assessment of how these theories can be applied to HE was presented.

PDF

___

Abbott, M., & Doucouliagos, C. (2003). The efficiency of Australian uni- versities: A data envelopment analysis. Economics of Education review, 22(1), 89–97.
Abramo, G., Cicero, T., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2012). The dispersion of research performance within and between universities as a potential indicator of the competitive intensity in higher education systems. Journal of Informetrics, 6(2), 155–168.
Altbach, P. G. (2011). The research university. Economic & Political Weekly, 46(16), 65.
ARWU (2019). World ranking. Eriflim adresi http://www.shanghairank- ing.com/ARWU2019.html (18 Eylül 2019).
Asad, M. (2012). Porter five forces vs resource based view – A comparison. Available at SSRN. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1986725
Ayd›n, O. T. (2017). Assessing the environmental conditions of higher edu- cation: In a theoretical approach using porter’s five forces model. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 7(2), 378–391.
Bain, J. S. (1959). Industrial organization. New York, NY: Wiley.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
Barney, J. B. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and busi- ness strategy. Management Science, 32(10), 1231–1241.
Barney, J. B., & Clark, D. N. (2007). Resource-based theory: Creating and sus- taining competitive advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Basheka, B. C. (2008). Value for money and efficiency in higher education: Resources management and management of higher education in Uganda and its implications for quality education outcomes. Kampala: OECD Uganda Management Institute.
Beynon, J. (1997). Physical facilities for education: What planners need to know. Paris: UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning.
Bogt, H. J., & Scapens, R. W. (2012). Performance management in univer- sities: Effects of the transition to more quantitative measurement sys- tems. European Accounting Review, 21(3), 451–497.
Brandenburg, U., & De Wit, H. (2011). The end of internationalization. International Higher Education, 62, 15–17.
Bridoux, F. (2004). A resource-based approach to performance and compe- tition: An overview of the connections between resources and competi- tion. Luvain, Belgium Institut et de Gestion, Universite Catholique de Louvain, 2(1), 1–21.
Calderon, A. (2018). Massification of higher education revisited. Eriflim adresi http://cdn02.pucp.education/academico/2018/08/23165810/na_mass_ revis_230818.pdf (10 Eylül 2019).
Campus France (2019). Eriflim adresi https://ressources.campusfrance. org/publications/chiffres_cles/en/chiffres_cles_2019_en.pdf (28 Aral›k 2019).
Carayannis, E. G., Alexander, J., & Ioannidis, A. (2000). Leveraging knowl- edge, learning, and innovation in forming strategic government-uni- versity-industry (GUI) R&D partnerships in the US, Germany, and France. Technovation, 20(9), 477–488.
Clemons, E. K. (1986). Information systems for sustainable competitive advantage. Information & Management, 11(3), 131–136.
Collis, D. J. (1999). When industries change: Scenarios for higher educa- tion. In Collis, D. J. (Ed.), Exploring the future of higher education (pp. 47–70). New York, NY: Forum Publishing.
Conner, K. R. (1991). A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools of thought within industrial organization economics: do we have a new theory of the firm? Journal of Management, 17(1), 121–154.
Cutt, J., Trotter, L., & Lee, C. E. (1993). Performance measurement and accountability in Canadian Universities: Making a start in the area of teaching. Financial Accountability & Management, 9(4), 255–266.
Day, G. S., & Wensley, R. (1988). Assessing advantage: A framework for diagnosing competitive superiority. Journal of Marketing, 52(2), 1–20.
Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainabili- ty of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35(12), 1504–1511.
Dinçer, I., & Rosen, M. A. (2001). The roles of science and technology in energy and environment research and development. International Journal of Energy Research, 25(13), 1165–1187.
Dobni, D., & Dobni, B. (1996). Canadian business schools: Going out of business? Journal of Education for Business, 72(1), 28–36.
Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Cantisano Terra, B. R. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313–330.
Fahy, J., Hurley, S., Hooley, G., & DeLuca, L. M. (2009). Resources, capa- bilities and competition in higher education. Melbourne: Australian & New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference (ANZMAC).
Farahat, M. F. (2011). Competitive analysis of the higher education sector in the Gaza strip by adapting Porter’s Five Forces Model. Unpublished master’s thesis, Islamic University of Gaza, Gaza, Palestine.
Fiol, C. M. (2001). Revisiting an identity-based view of sustainable compet- itive advantage. Journal of Management, 27(6), 691–699.
Flegg, A. T., Allen, D. O., Field, K., & Thurlow, T. W. (2004). Measuring the efficiency of British universities: A multi-period data envelopment analysis. Education Economics, 12(3), 231–249.
Fleming, D., & Storr, J. (1999). The impact of lecture theatre design on learning experience. Facilities, 17(7/8), 231–236.
Foss, N. J. (1996). Research in strategy, economics, and Michael Porter. Journal of Management Studies, 33(1), 1–24.
Gibbons, M., Limogenes, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scot, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of sci- ence and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage. Grant, R. M. (1991). A resources-based perspective of competitive advan- tage. California Management Review, 33(3), 114–135.
Hamer, G. A. (1993). The use of technology to deliver higher education in the workplace.
HEFCE (2012). Technology-enhanced learning. Eriflim adresi http://bit.ly/ O4dOll (20 Aral›k 2019).
Hua, L. T. (2011). Sustainable competitive advantage for market leadership amongst the private higher education institutes in Malaysia. Journal of Global Management, 2(1), 227–251.
Huang, H. I. (2012). An empirical analysis of the strategic management of competitive advantage: A case study of higher technical and vocational edu- cation in Taiwan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.
ICEF (2018). Study projects dramatic growth for global higher education through 2040. Eriflim adresi https://monitor.icef.com/2018/10/study- projects-dramatic-growth-global-higher-education-2040/ (10 Eylül 2019).
ICEF (2019). International students generate global economic impact of US$300 billion. Eriflim adresi https://monitor.icef.com/2019/08/inter- national-students-generate-global-economic-impact-of-us300-billion/ (18 Eylül 2019).
Johnes, J. (2006). Data envelopment analysis and its application to the measurement of efficiency in higher education. Economics of Education Review, 25(3), 273–288.
ARWU (2019). World ranking. Eriflim adresi http://www.shanghairank- ing.com/ARWU2019.html (18 Eylül 2019).
Asad, M. (2012). Porter five forces vs resource based view – A comparison. Available at SSRN. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1986725
Ayd›n, O. T. (2017). Assessing the environmental conditions of higher edu- cation: In a theoretical approach using porter’s five forces model. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 7(2), 378–391.
Bain, J. S. (1959). Industrial organization. New York, NY: Wiley.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
Barney, J. B. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and busi- ness strategy. Management Science, 32(10), 1231–1241.
Barney, J. B., & Clark, D. N. (2007). Resource-based theory: Creating and sus- taining competitive advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Basheka, B. C. (2008). Value for money and efficiency in higher education: Resources management and management of higher education in Uganda and its implications for quality education outcomes. Kampala: OECD Uganda Management Institute.
Beynon, J. (1997). Physical facilities for education: What planners need to know. Paris: UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning.
Bogt, H. J., & Scapens, R. W. (2012). Performance management in univer- sities: Effects of the transition to more quantitative measurement sys- tems. European Accounting Review, 21(3), 451–497.
Brandenburg, U., & De Wit, H. (2011). The end of internationalization. International Higher Education, 62, 15–17.
Bridoux, F. (2004). A resource-based approach to performance and compe- tition: An overview of the connections between resources and competi- tion. Luvain, Belgium Institut et de Gestion, Universite Catholique de Louvain, 2(1), 1–21.
Calderon, A. (2018). Massification of higher education revisited. Eriflim adresi http://cdn02.pucp.education/academico/2018/08/23165810/na_mass_ revis_230818.pdf (10 Eylül 2019).
Campus France (2019). Eriflim adresi https://ressources.campusfrance. org/publications/chiffres_cles/en/chiffres_cles_2019_en.pdf (28 Aral›k 2019).
Carayannis, E. G., Alexander, J., & Ioannidis, A. (2000). Leveraging knowl- edge, learning, and innovation in forming strategic government-uni- versity-industry (GUI) R&D partnerships in the US, Germany, and France. Technovation, 20(9), 477–488.
Clemons, E. K. (1986). Information systems for sustainable competitive advantage. Information & Management, 11(3), 131–136.
Collis, D. J. (1999). When industries change: Scenarios for higher educa- tion. In Collis, D. J. (Ed.), Exploring the future of higher education (pp. 47–70). New York, NY: Forum Publishing.
Conner, K. R. (1991). A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools of thought within industrial organization economics: do we have a new theory of the firm? Journal of Management, 17(1), 121–154.
Cutt, J., Trotter, L., & Lee, C. E. (1993). Performance measurement and accountability in Canadian Universities: Making a start in the area of teaching. Financial Accountability & Management, 9(4), 255–266.
Day, G. S., & Wensley, R. (1988). Assessing advantage: A framework for diagnosing competitive superiority. Journal of Marketing, 52(2), 1–20.
Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainabili- ty of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35(12), 1504–1511.
Dinçer, I., & Rosen, M. A. (2001). The roles of science and technology in energy and environment research and development. International Journal of Energy Research, 25(13), 1165–1187.
Dobni, D., & Dobni, B. (1996). Canadian business schools: Going out of business? Journal of Education for Business, 72(1), 28–36.
Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Cantisano Terra, B. R. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313–330.
Fahy, J., Hurley, S., Hooley, G., & DeLuca, L. M. (2009). Resources, capa- bilities and competition in higher education. Melbourne: Australian & New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference (ANZMAC).
Farahat, M. F. (2011). Competitive analysis of the higher education sector in the Gaza strip by adapting Porter’s Five Forces Model. Unpublished master’s thesis, Islamic University of Gaza, Gaza, Palestine.
Fiol, C. M. (2001). Revisiting an identity-based view of sustainable compet- itive advantage. Journal of Management, 27(6), 691–699.
Flegg, A. T., Allen, D. O., Field, K., & Thurlow, T. W. (2004). Measuring the efficiency of British universities: A multi-period data envelopment analysis. Education Economics, 12(3), 231–249.
Fleming, D., & Storr, J. (1999). The impact of lecture theatre design on learning experience. Facilities, 17(7/8), 231–236.
Foss, N. J. (1996). Research in strategy, economics, and Michael Porter. Journal of Management Studies, 33(1), 1–24.
Gibbons, M., Limogenes, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scot, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of sci- ence and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
Grant, R. M. (1991). A resources-based perspective of competitive advan- tage. California Management Review, 33(3), 114–135.
Hamer, G. A. (1993). The use of technology to deliver higher education in the workplace.
HEFCE (2012). Technology-enhanced learning. Eriflim adresi http://bit.ly/ O4dOll (20 Aral›k 2019).
Hua, L. T. (2011). Sustainable competitive advantage for market leadership amongst the private higher education institutes in Malaysia. Journal of Global Management, 2(1), 227–251.
Huang, H. I. (2012). An empirical analysis of the strategic management of competitive advantage: A case study of higher technical and vocational edu- cation in Taiwan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.
ICEF (2018). Study projects dramatic growth for global higher education through 2040. Eriflim adresi https://monitor.icef.com/2018/10/study- projects-dramatic-growth-global-higher-education-2040/ (10 Eylül 2019).
ICEF (2019). International students generate global economic impact of US$300 billion. Eriflim adresi https://monitor.icef.com/2019/08/inter- national-students-generate-global-economic-impact-of-us300-billion/ (18 Eylül 2019).
Johnes, J. (2006). Data envelopment analysis and its application to the measurement of efficiency in higher education. Economics of Education Review, 25(3), 273–288.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) (2018). Education stats database. Eriflim adresi http://uis.unesco.org/ (18 Ekim 2019).
UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS). (2019). Education stats database. Eriflim adresi http://uis.unesco.org/en/uis-student-flow (18 Eylül 2019).
Verona, G. (1999). A resource-based view of product development. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 132–142.
Wang, X. (2010). Performance analysis for public and nonprofit organizations. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Warning, S. (2004). Performance differences in German higher education: Empirical analysis of strategic groups. Review of Industrial Organization, 24(4), 393–408.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–181.
Worthington, A. C., & Lee, B. L. (2008). Efficiency, technology and pro- ductivity change in Australian universities 1998–2003. Economics of Education Review, 27(3), 285–298.
Wright, P. M., Dunford, B. B., & Snell, S. A. (2001). Human resources and the resource based view of the firm. Journal of Management, 27(6), 701–721.
Yalcintan, M. C., & Thornley, A. (2007). Globalisation, higher educa- tion, and urban growth coalitions: Turkey’s foundation universities and the case of Koç University in Istanbul. Environment and Planning C, 25(6), 822.
Y›lmaz, D. V. (2016). Uygulay›c›lar›n penceresinden Türk üniversitelerinin uluslararas›laflma deneyimi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (37), 91–109.
YÖK (2017). Yüksekö¤retimde uluslararas›laflma strateji belgesi. Eriflim adresi https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/AnaSayfa/Yuksekogretimde_ Uluslararasilasma_Strateji_Belgesi_2018_2022.pdf (8 Aral›k 2019).
YÖK (2019). Yüksekö¤retim istatistikleri. Eriflim adresi https://istatistik. yok.gov.tr (8 Aral›k 2019).