Akademik Kurum ve Kuruluşlarda Kadınların Yönetimdeki Temsili Gerçeği: Bursa Örneği

Abstract

Amaç: Bu araştırmanın amacı, Bursa’da faaliyet gösteren kamu ve vakıf üniversitelerinin yönetim pozisyonlarındaki kadınların temsiliyet düzeyini ortaya koymaktır. Yöntem: Bu araştırma, betimsel tarama modeli çerçevesinde doküman analizi yöntemiyle yürütülmüştür. 2024 yılı itibariyle Bursa ilinde faaliyet gösteren tüm üniversiteler (iki devlet ve bir vakıf) kapsam dahiline alınmış; örnekleme yapılmaksızın evrenin tamamına ulaşılmıştır. Veriler, üniversitelerin resmî web sitelerinde yer alan güncel yönetim kadrolarından elde edilmiştir. SPSS 27 programı ile analiz edilen verilerde frekans, yüzde dağılımları ve ki-kare (χ²) testi kullanılmış, anlamlılık düzeyi p = ,05 olarak belirlenmiştir. Bulgular: Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesinde yönetim kademelerinde görev yapan 684 yöneticinin %36,8’i kadın, %63,2’si erkektir. Bursa Teknik Üniversitesinde toplam 238 yönetici belirlenmiş olup, bunların %27,7’si kadın, %72,3’ü erkek olarak tespit edilmiştir. Mudanya Üniversitesinde ise 34 yöneticiden %35,3’ü kadın, %64,7’si erkek olarak kaydedilmiştir. Cinsiyetin görev, görev yeri ve üniversiteler arasındaki dağılımına ilişkin yapılan analizler sonucunda istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılıklar olduğu belirlenmiştir (p = ,05). Sonuç: Elde edilen veriler doğrultusunda toplam 960 yöneticiye ilişkin analiz, Bursa’da hizmet sunan üniversitelerin tümünün yönetim kademelerinde kadınların, erkeklere kıyasla daha düşük düzeyde temsil edildiğini ve bu durumun cinsiyet temelli eşitsizliğe işaret ettiğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords

• Akademi
• Kurum
• Kuruluş
• Kadınlar
• Yönetsel Temsil

The Fact of the Representation of Women in Management in Academic Institutions and Organizations: Bursa Example

Abstract

Objective: This research aims to reveal the level of representation of women in management positions in public and foundation universities operating in Bursa. Method: This research was conducted within the framework of the descriptive survey model, utilizing the document analysis method. As of 2024, all universities operating in the province of Bursa (two public and one foundation university) were included in the study's scope, and the entire population was reached without sampling. The data were obtained from the current management staff listed on the official websites of the universities. The data were analyzed using SPSS 27, and frequency and percentage distributions, as well as the Chi-square (χ²) test, were applied. The level of significance was set at p = .05. Results: At Bursa Uludağ University, 36.8% of the 684 managers in administrative positions are women, while 63.2% are men. At Bursa Technical University, a total of 238 managers were identified, comprising 27.7% women and 72.3% men. At Mudanya University, 35.3% of the 34 managers are women and 64.7% are men. The analysis of the distribution of gender across positions, workplaces, and universities revealed statistically significant differences (p = .05). Conclusion: Based on the obtained data, the analysis of 960 managers in total reveals that women are underrepresented compared to men in the managerial structures of all universities operating in Bursa, indicating a gender-based inequality.

Keywords

• Academy
• Institution
• Organization
• Women
• Managerial

References

1. Ahmad, N. S., Juhdi, N., & Fontaine, R. A. H. (2025). Factors affecting academic administrators’ job involvement in Malaysian universities. Jurnal Intelek, 20(1), 22-35. http://10.24191/ji.v20i1.3774
2. Akca, M., & Çalışkan, B. Ö. Ö. (2019). Gender diversity in board of directors: A content analysis from Turkey–Women's presence level in Turkey's boards. In Gender and diversity: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications, 493-507. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-6912-1.ch025
3. Alshdiefat, A. A. S., Lee, A., Sharif, A. A., Rana, M. Q., & Abu Ghunmi, N. A. (2024). Women in leadership of higher education: critical barriers in Jordanian universities. Cogent Education, 11(1), 2357900. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2357900
4. Atay, Ö., Gürgen, N. E., & İmamoğlu, E. (2022). Türkiye'de kadın akademisyenlerde algılanan cam tavan sendromu araştırması. Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 13(2), 170–182. https://doi.org/10.33537/sobild.2022.13.2.15
5. Avolio, B., Pardo, E., & Prados-Peña, M. B. (2024). Factors that contribute to the underrepresentation of women academics worldwide: A literature review. Social Psychology of Education, 27(1), 261-281. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/s11218-023-09838-3
6. Ayyildiz, P., & Banoglu, K. (2024). The leaky pipeline: where ‘exactly’are these leakages for women leaders in higher education?. School Leadership & Management, 44(2), 120-139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2024.2323731
7. Betron, M., Bourgeault, I., Manzoor, M., Paulino, E., Steege, R., Thompson, K., & Wuliji, T. (2019). Time for gendertransformative change in the health workforce. The Lancet, 393(10171), e25-e26. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(19)30208-9
8. Bocanegra, H. G. V., & Granados, Y. R. (2025). Challenges of the 21st Century: Women's Work-Life Balance in Mexico. Advances in Management and Applied Economics, 15(2), 1-1.

9. Catalyst, (2007). Expanding Opportunities for Women and Business Women in Management Global Comparison, https://www.womenpoliticalleaders.org/?gclid=CjwKCAiA0JK fBhBIEiwAPhZXD2y3_sLe-vub6bfoGRiHjJ7-YF0kp0zZCRJNpLBzsBYS-PhaXkOgmhoCz7QQAvD_BwE
10. Connel, R. W. (1998). Toplumsal Cinsiyet ve İktidar, Çev. Cem Soydemir. İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınevi.
11. Corona-Sobrino, C., García-Melón, M., Poveda-Bautista, R., & González-Urango, H. (2020). Closing the gender gap at academic conferences: A tool for monitoring and assessing academic events. PLOS One, 15(12), e0243549. https://doi.org.10.1371/journal.pone.0243549
12. Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T., Kwan, V. S., Glick, P., Demoulin, S., Leyens, J. P., ... & Ziegler, R. (2009). Stereotype content model across cultures: Towards universal similarities and some differences. British Journal Of Social Psychology, 48(1), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466608x314935
13. Dalglish, S. L., Khalid, H., & McMahon, S. A. (2020). Document analysis in health policy research: the READ approach. Health Policy and Planning, 35(10), 1424-1431. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czaa064
14. Davidson, M. J.& Burke, R. J. (Editors). (2011). Women in Management Worldwide Progress and Prospects (Second edition). UK:MPG Books Group, 1-13, 333.
15. Dhatt, R., Theobald, S., Buzuzi, S., Ros, B., Vong, S., Muraya, K., ...& Jackson, C. (2017). The role of women’s leadership and gender equity in leadership and health system strengthening. Global Health, Epidemiology and Genomics, 2, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1017/gheg.2016.22
16. Fiske, S. T. (2012). The continuum model and the stereotype content model. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.) Handbook Of Theories Of Social Psychology, 1, 267-288. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.4135/9781446249215.n14
17. Gerni, G. M. (2001). Yönetimde Kadınlar, İstanbul: Beta Yayınları.
18. Hoştut, S. (2020). Türkiye’de Devlet Üniversitelerinin Yönetim Kurullarında Kadın Temsili| Women's Representation in Management Boards of State Universities in Turkey. Akdeniz Kadın Çalışmaları ve Toplumsal Cinsiyet Dergisi, 3(2), 250-269. https://doi.org/10.33708/ktc.781912
19. International Labour Organization (ILO) . (2020). The COVID-19 response: Getting gender equality right for a better future for women at work (ILO Policy Brief). International Labour Office.
20. International Labour Organization (ILO). (2018). https://www.ilo.org/ankara/news/WCMS_651863/lang-- tr/index.htm
21. International Labour Organization (ILO). (2022). Working time and work-life balance around the world. International Labour Office.
22. Iversen, V. (2003). Intra-Household Inequality: A Challenge For The Capability Approach?. Feminist Economics, 9(2), 93-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1354570032000080868
23. Judge, E. (2003). Women on board: Help or hindrance. The Times. Kılıç, A., & Bektaş, F. (2021). Women as school administrators: Problems and expectations (The case of Kilis province). International Journal of Scholars in Education, 4(2), 205-227. https://doi.org/10.52134/ueader.974566
24. Kısa, H., Akca, M., & Yıldırım, C. (2023). Kadınların üst yönetimdeki görünürlüğü: Yükseköğretim kurumlarında bir araştırma. International Journal of Management Academy, 6(3), 835–851. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1905-0767
25. Küresel Cinsiyet Uçurumu Raporu. (2021). (15.08.2024) http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2021.pdf
26. Lockwood, N. (2004). The Glass Ceiling: Domestic and International Perspectives, Society for Human Resource Management, United States of America: SHRM- Research Quarterly, 2.
27. Mitra, A. (2003). Breaking the glass ceiling: African‐American women in management positions. Equal Opportunities International, 22(2), 67-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02610150310787379
28. Moi, E., & Onditi, J. (2025). Care Work and its Effects on Women's Economic Empowerment. Kenyatta University Women’s Economic Empowerment (Ku-Wee) Journal, 1(1), 236-348.
29. Naithani, D. (2010). Overview of work-life balance discourse and its relevance in current economic scenario, Asian Social Science, 6(6), 148-155. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v6n6p148
30. Nath, D. (2000). Gently shattering the glass ceiling: Experiences of Indian women managers. Women in Management Review, 15(1), 44-55. https://doi.org/10.1108/09649420010310191
31. Ocak, A. (2021). Türk eğitim yönetiminde kadının adı yok. Alanyazın Eğitim Bilimleri Eleştirel İnceleme Dergisi, 2(1), 15-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.22596/cresjournal.0201.15.25
32. Odei, B. C., Seldon, C., Fernandez, M., Rooney, M. K., Bae, J., Acheampong, J., & Ahmed, A. (2021). Representation of Women in the Leadership Structure of the US Health Care System. JAMA Network Open, 4(11), e2136358-e2136358. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.36358
33. OECD. (2021). Stat. Yaş ve cinsiyete göre işgücü istatistikleri: İşgücüne katılım oranları https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=LFS_SEXAGE_I_R
34. Primecz, H., & Karjalainen, H. (2019). Gender relations in the workplace: The experience of female managers in African harbors. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 19(3), 291-314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595819884094
35. Raimo, N., Nicolò, G., L'Abate, V., & Vitolla, F. (2024). Analyzing the factors affecting university contributions to achieving the sustainable development goals in European Union countries. Sustainable Development, 32(6), 6033-6044. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.3013
36. Ram, M., Nizamani, B., & Muhammad, A. F. (2025). Context of rural to urban migration and socio-economic empowerment of women in Pakistan and Philippines; A systematic literature review. Asas Wa Tandhim: Jurnal Hukum, Pendidikan Dan Sosial Keagamaan, 4(1), 1-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.47200/awtjhpsa.v4i1.2568
37. Ramazan, S. A. K., Sak, İ. T. Ş., Şendil, Ç. Ö., & Eşref, N. A. S. (2021). Bir araştırma yöntemi olarak doküman analizi. Kocaeli Üniversitesi Eğitim Dergisi, 4(1), 227-256. https://doi.org/10.33400/kuje.843306
38. Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2007). The glass cliff: Exploring the dynamics surrounding the appointment of women to precarious leadership positions. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 549-572. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.2307/20159315
39. Ryan, M.K., Haslam, S.A. & Kulich, C., (2010). Politics and the glass cliff: evidence that women are preferentially selected to contest hard-to-win seats. Psychology Of Women Quarterly, 34(1), 56–64. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2009.01541.x
40. Sivrikaya, N., & Wolff, R.A. (2021), “Kadın Liderlik Özelliklerinin Değerlendirilmesi”, Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Kadın ve Aile Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(2), 59-78.
41. Soctt, J. W. (1986). Gender; A Useful Category of Historical Analysis. The American Historical Rewiew, 91(5), 1053-1075.
42. Suğur, S., & Cangöz, İ. (2016). Üniversite yönetiminde kadinlarin eksik temsili üzerinde toplumsal cinsiyet ilişkilerinin rolü. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 49(3), 1-15. doi: 89-115.10.26695/mukatcad.2017.0
43. Sumbas, A. (2015). Kayıp Kadınlar: Toplumsal Cinsiyet Eşitsizliği ve Kapasite. Kadın/Women 2000, 16(1), 1-20.
44. Terzi, G., & Deniz, L. (2022). Eğitim fakülteleri yönetiminde kadın temsilinin incelenmesi. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 23(2), 116-132. https://doi.org/10.12984/egeefd.1063357
45. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (TÜİK). (2019). İstatistiklerle Kadın 2018. http://tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=30707, (Erişim Tarihi: 10.02.2023).
46. Ulfsdotter Eriksson, Y., & Larsson, B. (2024). Social status qualifiers: dimensions and determinants of factors shaping social status for women and men in Sweden. Frontiers in Sociology, 8, 1264896. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2023.1264896
47. United Nations Development Programme [UNDP]. (2020, March 6). Gender social norms index. https://www.undp.org/trinidad-and-tobago/news/gendersocial-norms-index, (Erişim Tarihi: 02.06.2025).
48. Wilkinson, J., & Male, T. (2025). Perceptions of women senior leaders in the UK Higher Education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 53(1), 123-140. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432221150079
49. Williams, D. A. (2014). Organizational learning as a framework for overcoming glass ceiling effects in higher education. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2013(159), 75-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ir.20055
50. Woods, J., Oldham, L., House-Niamke, S., & Hartwell, M. (2025). The popularity gap: Effects of social status on the visibility of lifestyle sports stars on Instagram. Communication & Sport, 13(1), 145-165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/21674795231225620
51. World Economic Form (2021). Global GenderGap Report 2021, https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2021.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 12.02.2025).
52. Yıldız, S., & Vural, M. F. (2019). A cultural perspective of the glass cliff phenomenon. Ege Academic Review, 19(3), 309-321. https://doi.org/10.21121/eab.451162
53. Yükseköğretim Kurulu (YÖK), (2024). https://www.yok.gov.tr/Sayfalar/Haberler/2024/kadinlarinyuksekogretime-erisimi.aspx, (Erişim Tarihi: 02.06.2025).