Dünya Çapında Üniversiteler” Bağlamında Misyon-Vizyon Üzerine Karşılaştırmalı Bir Çalışma

Year 2020, Issue: 1, 8 - 23, 01.04.2020

Ömür Hakan Kuzu

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türk üniversitelerinin dünya çapında üniversite olma bağlamında misyon ve vizyon ifadelerinin yurt dışı üniversitelerle karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmesidir. Çalışma nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden “durum çalışması” deseninde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Mevcut durumu sayısal olarak inceleyebilmek için “doküman analizi” yönteminden yararlanılmıştır. Çalışma ile ilgili verilere Ortadoğu Teknik Üniversitesi Enformatik Enstitüsü tarafından yayımlanan 2018-2019 Dünya Üniversiteleri Sıralama Listesi kapsamındaki 87 Türk ve 16 yurt dışı üniversitelerinin web sayfalarından, stratejik planlarından ve kalite dokümanlarından ulaşılmıştır. Veriler betimsel analiz yöntemiyle Excel ve Voyant Tools yazılım programları kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Çalışmada kullanılmak üzere geliştirilen modele göre belirlenen 14 tema ekseninde misyon ve vizyon ifadelerinin kodlamaları yapılmıştır. Çalışma sonuçlarına göre Türk üniversitelerinin misyon ve vizyon ifadelerinde dünyada öncü/lider/saygın olma, uluslararasılaşma, yenilikçilik, girişimcilik, kalite ve yetkinlik/yeterlilik temalarının daha fazla yer aldığı görülmüştür. Ayrıca, örneklemde yer alan dünya sıralamalarında ilk 1000 içindeki 16 yurt dışı ve 13 Türk üniversitelerinin misyon ve vizyon ifadelerinin oldukça benzer olduğu ve esneklik, performans yönetimi, öğrenci odaklı, akademik özgürlük ve kurumsal özerklik gibi temaların ifadelerde çok az yer aldığı görülmüştür. Bulgular literatürdeki tartışmalar bağlamında değerlendirilmiş ve gelecek çalışmalar için bazı önerilerde bulunulmuştur

Keywords

Dünya çapında üniversite, Misyon, Vizyon

A Comparative Study on Mission-Vision in the Context of “World-Class Universities”

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine mission and vision statements of Turkish and foreign universities comparatively in the context of world-class universities. The study was carried out in a “case study” design, one of the qualitative research methods. To analyze the current situation numerically, document analysis method was used. The data are acquired from web pages, strategic plans and quality documents of Turkish and foreign universities which are in 2018-2019 World Universities Ranking List published by Informatics Institute of Middle East Technical University. Data were analyzed by using descriptive analysis method using Excell and Voyant Tools software. The mission and vision statements were coded on 14 theme axes determined according to the model developed for this study. According to the results of the study, being pioneer/leader/respected in the world, internationalization, innovation, entrepreneurship, quality and competence/qualifications themes are found to be seen more in mission and vision statements of Turkish universities. Also, it is seen that the mission and vision statements of 16 foreign universities top 1000 in rankings and 13 Turkish universities top 1000 are quite similar and the themes such as flexibility, performance management, student oriented, academic freedom and institutional autonomy take very few place in the statements. The findings are evaluated in the context of discussions in the literature and some suggestions are made for following studies

Keywords

World-class university, Mission, Vision

References

• Aghion, P., Dewatripont, M., Hoxby, C., Mas-Colell, A., & Sapir, A. (2008). Higher aspirations: An agenda for reforming european universities. Vol. V, Brussels: Bruegel Blueprint Series.
• Altbach, P. G. (2002). Perspectives on internationalizing in higher education. International Higher Education, 27, 6-8.
• Altbach, P. G. (2004). The costs and benefits of world-class universities. Academe, 90(1), 5-8.
• Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2011). Higher education’s landscape of internationalization. In P. G. Altbach (Ed.), Leadership for world-class universities: Challenges for developing countries (pp. 108-127). New York: Routledge.
• Altbach, P. G. (2011). The past, present, and future of the research university. In P. G. Altbach, and J. Salmi (Eds.), The road to academic excellence the making of world-class research universities (pp. 11-32). Washington D. C.: The World Bank.
• Antalyalı, Ö. L. (2007). Tarihsel süreç içerisinde üniversite misyonlarının oluşumu. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 6(2), 25-40.
• Arabacı, İ. B., & Şener, G. (2014). Üniversitelerin misyon ifadelerinin tematik olarak incelenmesi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 22(2), 701-716.
• Bart, C., & Baetz, M. (1998). The relationship between mission statements and firm performance: An exploratory study. Journal of Management Studies, 35(6), 823-853.
• Bart, C. K. (1996). High-tech firms: Does mission matter. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 7(2), 209-220.
• Best, J. W., & Khan, J. V. (1993). Research in education (7. ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
• Cadez, S., Dimovski, V., & Groff, M. Z. (2017). Research, teaching and performance evaluation in academia: The salience of quality. Studies in Higher Education, 42(8), 1455-1473.
• Campell, A., & Yeung, S. (1991). Creating a sense of mission. Long Range Planning, 24(4), 10-20.
• Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
• Cochran, D., & David, F. (1986). Communication effectiveness of organizational mission statements. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 14(2), 108-118.
• Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research strategies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Collins, J., & Porras J. (1991). Organizational vision and visionary organizations. California Management Review, 34, 30-52.
• Cortés-Sánchez, J. D. (2017). Mission and vision statements of universities worldwide-a content analysis, Documento de investigación No. 152. Bogotá D. C., Colombia: Editorial Universidad del Rosario.
• Council of Europe. (2006). Academic freedom and university autonomy. Retrieved from https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/ XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=17469&lang=en.
• Davey, L. (1991). The application of case study evaluations. Elementary Education Online, 8(2), 1-3.
• Davies, W. S., & Glaister, K. W. (1997). Business school mission statements-The bland leading the bland? Long Range Planning, 30(4), 594-604.
• Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Doğan, G., & Al, U. (2018). Üniversite sıralama sistemlerindeki üni- versite adlarının standardizasyon sorunu: “University ranking by academic performance (URAP)” örneği. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 8(3), 583-592.
• Doğan, G. (2017). Akademik performans odaklı uluslararası üniversite sıralama sistemlerinin genel sıralamalarına ve ölçütlerine göre değerlendirilmesi (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Doğan, H. (2008). Örgütlerde vizyon ve misyonların çalışanlarca kabulü ve Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi örneği. Gazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(3), 93-110.
• Duygulu, W., Özeren, E., Işıldar, P., & Apolloni, A. (2016). The sustainable strategy for small and medium sized enterprises: The relationship between mission statements and performance. Sustainability, 8(7), 698.
• Efe, İ., & Özer, Ö. (2015). A corpus-based discourse analysis of the vision and mission statements of universities in Turkey. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(6), 1110-1122.
• Erdem, A. R. (2005). Üniversitenin var oluş nedeni (üniversitenin misyonu). Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17, 75-86.
• Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and ‘mode 2’ to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109-123.
• Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Cantisano, B. R. T. (2000). The future of the university and the university future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313-330.
• European Commission. (2014). The role of universities and research organisations as drivers for smart specialisation at regional level. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
• European Higher Education Area (EHEA). (2018). Social dimension in higher education. Retrieved from http://www.ehea.info/ Upload/document/ministerial_declarations/EHEAParis2018_ Communique_final_952771.pdf.
• European University Association (EUA). (2019). Academic freedom and institutional autonomy: Commitments must be followed by action. (Joint statement by ALLEA, EUA and Science Europe). Retrieved from https://eua.eu/downloads/content/ academic%20freedom%20statement%20april%202019.pdf
• Galisson, P., & Hevly, B. (1992). Big science: The growth of large- scale research. Palo Alto, CA: Standford University Press.
• Gallagher, M. (2011). The role of elite universities in national higher education and research systems, and the challenges of prosecuting the case for concentrating public investment in their development in Australia. In N. C. Liu, Q. Wang, and Y. Cheng (Eds.), Paths to a world-class university (pp. 29-66). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
• Miles, M., B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded Sourcebook. (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
• Monks, J., & Ehrenberg, R. G. (1999). U. S. news & World report’s college rankings: Why they do matter. Change, 31(6), 42-51.
• Mosey, S., Wright, M., & Clarysse, B. (2012). Transforming traditional university structures for the knowledge economy through multidisciplinary institutes. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36, 587-607.
• Ncayiyana, D., & Hayward, F. (1999). Effective governance: A guide for council members of universities and technikons. Pretoria, South Africa: Centre for Higher Education Transformation.
• Niland, J. (2007). The challenge of building world-class universities. In J. Sadlak, & N. C. Liu (Eds.), The world class university and ranking: Aiming beyond status. Bucharest: Unesco-Cepes.
• Ordorika, I., & Lloyd, M. (2015). International rankings and the contest for university hegemony. Journal of Education Policy, 30(3), 385-405.
• Orwig, B., & Finney, R. Z. (2007). Analysis of the mission statements of aacsb-accredited schools. Competitiveness Review, 17(4), 261-273.
• Patel, B., Booker, L., Ramos, H., & Bart, C. (2015). Mission statements and performance in non-profit organizations. Corporate Governance, 15(5), 759-774.
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research ve evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Pearce, J. (1982). The company mission as a strategic tool. Sloan Management Review, 23(3), 15-24.
• Preece, J. (2011). Higher education and community service: Developing the National University of Lesotho’s third mission. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 17(1), 81-97.
• Rahman, M. (2009). Why strategic vision statements won’t measure up. Strategic Direction, 25(4), 3-4.
• Rajasekar, J. (2013). A comparative analysis of mission statement content and readability. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 14(6),130-147.
• Reisberg, L. (2011). Where the quality discussion stands: Strategies and ambiguities. In P. G. Altbach (Ed.), Leadership for world- class universities: Challenges for developing countries (pp. 128-144). New York: Routledge.
• Ryan, P. (2015). Quality assurance in higher education: A review of literature. Higher Learning Research Communications, 5(4), 1-12.
• Saka, Y., & Yaman, S. (2011). Üniversite sıralama sistemleri; kriterler ve yapılan eleştiriler. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 1(2), 72-79.
• Salmi, J. (2009). The challenge of establishing world-class universities. Washington D. C.: The World Bank.
• Salmi, J., & Liu, N. C. (2011). Paths to a world-class university. In N. C. Liu, Q. Wang, & Y. Cheng (Eds.), Paths to a world-class university (pp. ix-xvii). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
• Salmi, J., & Saroyan, A. (2007). League tables as policy instruments: Uses and misuses. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19(2), 31-68.
• Scwartzman, S. (2005). Brazil’s leading university: Between intelligentsia, world standards and social inclusion. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Instituto de Estudos do Trabalho e Sociedade. Retrieved from http://www.schwartzman.org.br/simon/ worldclasss.pdf.
• qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• University Ranking by Academic Performance (URAP). (2018). 2018-2019 Dünya üniversiteleri sıralaması. Retrieved from https://www.urapcenter.org/Rankings/2018-2019/world.
• University Ranking by Academic Performance (URAP). (2019). 2018 yılı Dünya bilim alanı sıralamalarında Türk üniversitele- rinin durumu. Retrieved from http://tr.urapcenter.org/2018/ DUNYA_BILIM_ALANI_SIRALAMALARINDA_TURK_UNIVER- SITELERININ_2018_YILINDAKI_DURUMU_RAPORU_21_ NISAN_2019.pdf.
• Uslu, B. (2018). Dünya üniversiteler sıralaması: Genişletilen gösterge setine göre sıralamada oluşan farklılıklar. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 8(3), 457-470.
• Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Yalçıntaş, A., & Akkaya, B. (2019). Türkiye’de akademik enflasyon: “Her ile bir üniversite politikası” sonrasında Türk yükseköğrenim sistemi. Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, 74(3), 789-810.
• Yıldırım, A. (1999). Nitel araştırma yöntemlerinin temel özellikleri ve eğitim araştırmalarındaki yeri ve önemi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 23(112), 7-17.
• Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi.
• Yusuf, S. (2007). University-industry links: Policy dimensions. In S. Yusuf, & K. Nabeshima (Eds.), How universities promote economic growth (pp. 1-25). Washington D. C.: The World Bank.