Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

REORGANIZATION, DIFFERENTIATION AND GROWTH IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CASE OF ISTANBUL (1980-2015)

Year 2016, Issue: 54, 199 - 243, 20.12.2016

Abstract
















In this article, the world of higher education of
İstanbul in thirty-five years of growth in the number of students and institutions,
its systemic growth, chaotic change, and structural bifurcation in the early
1980s until the end of 2015 is elaborated. The growth trends in state
universities in this period; the onset of education of the foundations of
higher education in 1993 and the increasing number of universities triggering a
dramatic expansion in terms of students and lecturers in post 2006; the
differentiation, and the patterns of differentiation shaped by the distribution
of populace in higher education to varied programs are compared. The emergence
of higher education foundations and the dramatic increase in their numbers have
resulted in an urban upheaval of higher education in terms of scale, structure
and institutions. Since more than half of all private universities in Turkey are
located in İstanbul, this brings a distinctive change more so than any other
city in Turkey. The chaotic change and organizational fracturing in terms of
agents, institutions, organizations and dispositions in a thirty-five year
period is astonishing. Owing to financial privatization in the last twenty
years, in the field of higher education the lines of competence and structural
tensions have been crystallized, generating a binary structure consisting of
state-owned and private-owned institutions of higher education. The article
discusses the growth and the reorganization of this change in a descriptive statistical
basis.
    

References

  • Altun, Mehmet, Dünden Bugüne Boğaziçi Üniversitesi 1863-2013, İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2013.
  • Bender, Thomas (der.), The University and the City: From Medieval Origins to the Present, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
  • Berman, Elizabeth Popp, Creating the Market University: How Academic Science Became an Economic Engine, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012, s.12-17.
  • Boudon, Raymond, “Education and Social Mobility: A Structural Model”, Power and Ideology in Education, Jerome Karabel & A. H. Halsey (der.), New York: Oxford University Press, 1977, s. 186-196.
  • Bourdieu, Pierre, Jean Claude Passeron, Yeniden Üretim: Eğitim Sistemine İlişkin Bir Teorinin İlkeleri, çev. Levent Ünsaldı ve Aslı Sümer, Ankara: Heretik Yayınları, 2015.
  • Bowles, Samuel “Unequal Education and the Reproduction of the Social Division of Labor”, Power and Ideology in Education, Jerome Karabel & A. H. Halsey (der.), New York: Oxford University Press, 1977, s. 137-153
  • Bowles, Samuel, Herbert Gintis, Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life, New York: Basic Books, 1977.
  • Byrne, David, Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences: An Introduction, London: Routledge, 1998.
  • Byrne, David, Charles C. Ragin, The Sage Handbook of Case-Based Methods, Sage, 2013.
  • Clark, Burton, On Higher Education: Selected Writings 1956-2006, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008.

Yükseköğretimde Büyüme, Farklılaşma ve Reorganizasyon: İstanbul Örneği (1980-2015)

Year 2016, Issue: 54, 199 - 243, 20.12.2016

Abstract

Bu makalede, 1980’lerin başından 2015 sonuna kadar
otuz beş yılda İstanbul yükseköğretim dünyasında öğrenci ve kuruluş
sayılarındaki artış, sistemik büyüme, kaotik değişim ve yapısal çatallanma
üzerinde durulmaktadır. Bu sürede devlet üniversitelerindeki büyüme eğilimleri;
vakıf yükseköğretim kuruluşlarının 1993’te eğitime başlaması ve 2006 sonrası
artan üniversite sayısıyla öğrenci ve öğretim elemanları bakımından dramatik
genişlemesi; finansal ve örgütsel işleyişleriyle farklılaşan bu iki sistemin
yapısal benzerlik ve farklılıkları ile yükseköğretimdeki nüfusun değişik
programlara dağılımlarına göre şekillenmiş farklılaşma örüntüleri mukayese
edilmektedir. Vakıf yükseköğretim kuruluşlarının ortaya çıkışı ve sayılarındaki
çarpıcı artışlar sonucu yükseköğretim sistemi şehirde ölçek, yapı ve kurumlar
çerçevesinde büyük bir mesafe kat etmiştir. Türkiye’deki tüm vakıf
üniversitelerinin yarıdan fazlasını barındırması bakımından yaşanan değişim İstanbul’a
onu Türkiye’nin geri kalan şehirlerinden farklılaştıran özellikler kazandırır.
Otuz beş yıllık süreçte aktör, kuruluş, organizasyon ve eğilimler bakımından yaşanan
kaotik değişim ve örgütsel fraktallaşma çarpıcıdır. Son yirmi yıldaki finansal özelleşmeyle
birlikte yükseköğretim alanının iç farklılaşması, alandaki yapısal gerilimler
ve rekabet hatları belirginleşmiş, kamu ile vakıf yükseköğretim kurumlarından
oluşan ikili bir yapı kurumsallaşmıştır. Yazıda bu değişimin büyüme ve
reorganizasyonu betimsel istatistiksel temelde tartışılmaktadır.

References

  • Altun, Mehmet, Dünden Bugüne Boğaziçi Üniversitesi 1863-2013, İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2013.
  • Bender, Thomas (der.), The University and the City: From Medieval Origins to the Present, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
  • Berman, Elizabeth Popp, Creating the Market University: How Academic Science Became an Economic Engine, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012, s.12-17.
  • Boudon, Raymond, “Education and Social Mobility: A Structural Model”, Power and Ideology in Education, Jerome Karabel & A. H. Halsey (der.), New York: Oxford University Press, 1977, s. 186-196.
  • Bourdieu, Pierre, Jean Claude Passeron, Yeniden Üretim: Eğitim Sistemine İlişkin Bir Teorinin İlkeleri, çev. Levent Ünsaldı ve Aslı Sümer, Ankara: Heretik Yayınları, 2015.
  • Bowles, Samuel “Unequal Education and the Reproduction of the Social Division of Labor”, Power and Ideology in Education, Jerome Karabel & A. H. Halsey (der.), New York: Oxford University Press, 1977, s. 137-153
  • Bowles, Samuel, Herbert Gintis, Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life, New York: Basic Books, 1977.
  • Byrne, David, Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences: An Introduction, London: Routledge, 1998.
  • Byrne, David, Charles C. Ragin, The Sage Handbook of Case-Based Methods, Sage, 2013.
  • Clark, Burton, On Higher Education: Selected Writings 1956-2006, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008.
There are 10 citations in total.

Details

Journal Section OTHER ARTICLES
Authors

Alim Arlı This is me

Publication Date December 20, 2016
Published in Issue Year 2016 Issue: 54

Cite

APA Arlı, A. (2016). REORGANIZATION, DIFFERENTIATION AND GROWTH IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CASE OF ISTANBUL (1980-2015). Istanbul Journal of Sociological Studies(54), 199-243.
AMA Arlı A. REORGANIZATION, DIFFERENTIATION AND GROWTH IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CASE OF ISTANBUL (1980-2015). Istanbul Journal of Sociological Studies. December 2016;(54):199-243.
Chicago Arlı, Alim. “REORGANIZATION, DIFFERENTIATION AND GROWTH IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CASE OF ISTANBUL (1980-2015)”. Istanbul Journal of Sociological Studies, no. 54 (December 2016): 199-243.
EndNote Arlı A (December 1, 2016) REORGANIZATION, DIFFERENTIATION AND GROWTH IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CASE OF ISTANBUL (1980-2015). Istanbul Journal of Sociological Studies 54 199–243.
IEEE A. Arlı, “REORGANIZATION, DIFFERENTIATION AND GROWTH IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CASE OF ISTANBUL (1980-2015)”, Istanbul Journal of Sociological Studies, no. 54, pp. 199–243, December 2016.
ISNAD Arlı, Alim. “REORGANIZATION, DIFFERENTIATION AND GROWTH IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CASE OF ISTANBUL (1980-2015)”. Istanbul Journal of Sociological Studies 54 (December 2016), 199-243.
JAMA Arlı A. REORGANIZATION, DIFFERENTIATION AND GROWTH IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CASE OF ISTANBUL (1980-2015). Istanbul Journal of Sociological Studies. 2016;:199–243.
MLA Arlı, Alim. “REORGANIZATION, DIFFERENTIATION AND GROWTH IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CASE OF ISTANBUL (1980-2015)”. Istanbul Journal of Sociological Studies, no. 54, 2016, pp. 199-43.
Vancouver Arlı A. REORGANIZATION, DIFFERENTIATION AND GROWTH IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CASE OF ISTANBUL (1980-2015). Istanbul Journal of Sociological Studies. 2016(54):199-243.