Yükseköğretim yönetiminde çağdaş modeller

Year 2024, Volume: 4 Issue: 1, 11 - 24, 24.07.2024

Bayramgeldi Hudayberdiyev

Abstract

Yükseköğretim yönetimi dışsal olgulardan kolaylıkla etkilenebilen sistemlerden biridir. Günümüzde öğrenciler, endüstri veya devlet/devletler gibi paydaşlardan gelen talepler, yükseköğretim kurumlarındaki iş yükünü daha da çoğaltmaktadır. Bu araştırmanın temel amacı da dünyanın farklı coğrafyalarındaki farklı temsili yükseköğretim kurumlarının mevcut yönetişim modellerini Clark Üçgeni'ne göre devlet, akademik oligarşi ve piyasa olmak üzere üç boyut kapsamında incelemektir. Bu çalışmada belirli kriterler altında 9 farklı coğrafi bölgeden 11 üniversite analiz edilmek üzere seçilmiştir. Bu araştırmada nitel bir araştırma yöntemi olarak doküman incelemesinden yararlanılmıştır. Dokümanlar içerik analizi tekniği kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Bu çalışmadan elde edilen bulgulara göre Melbourne Üniversitesi, Moskova Devlet Üniversitesi ve Cape Town Üniversitesi akademik özyönetim modeline daha fazla eğilim gösterirken, Münih Teknik Üniversitesi, Massachusetts Teknoloji Enstitüsü, The Open University ve Oxford Üniversitesi piyasa odaklı modelde yönetilme eğiliminde olup diğerleri devlet merkezli modele en yakın konumdadır.

Keywords

Yükseköğretim, Yükseköğretim Kurumu, Yönetim Modeli, Clark’ın Koordinasyon Üçgeni, Devlet Merkezli Yönetim, Piyasa Bazlı Yönetim, Akademik Özyönetişim, Döküman İncelemesi

Ethical Statement

This study does not require ethics committee approval.

Supporting Institution

No financial support was received for this research.

Current models in higher education governance

Abstract

Higher education governance is one of the systems that can be easily influenced by external phenomena. Nowadays, the demand from its stakeholders such as from the students, industry, or state/s challenges the higher education institutions. The main purpose of this study is to explore the current governance models of different representative higher education institutions from the different geographical regions of the world within the scope of three dimensions which are the state, market and academic oligarchy according to Clark’s Triangle. In this research, 11 universities from 9 different geographical regions were selected under certain criteria to be analyzed. In this study, the document analysis was utilized as a qualitative research method. The documents were analyzed by using the content analysis technique. According to the findings from this study, the University of Melbourne, Moscow State University, and University of Cape Town have more tendencies towards the academic self-governance model, while Technical University of Munich, Massachusetts Institution of Technology, The Open University, and the University of Oxford tend to be administered in the marketoriented model and the other selected universities are in the nearest location towards the state-centered model in Clark’s Triangle.

Keywords

Higher Education, Higher Education Institution, Governance Model, Clark’s Triangle of Coordination, State-Centered Model, Market-Oriented Model, Academic Self-Governance, Document Analysis

Ethical Statement

This study does not require ethics committee approval.

Supporting Institution

No financial support was received for this research.

References

• Aytaç, K. (2018). Avrupa eğitim tarihi: Antik çağdan 19. yüzyılın sonlarına kadar (7. bas.). Doğu Batı Yayınları.
• Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27 – 40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
• *Bülbül, M., & Altunhan Ş. (2020). Eğitim hukuku mevzuat derlemesi (1. bas.). Nobel Yayın Grubu.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E, Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel F. (2018). Eğitimde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (25. bas.). Pegem Akademi.
• Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross – national perspective. University of California Press.
• Dobbins, M., & Knill, C. (2014). Higher education governance and policy change in Western Europe: International challenges to historical institutions. Palgrave Macmillan.
• *Finance Division. (2022). Financial statements 2021/22. University of Oxford. https://www.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxford/Oxford%20University%20Financial%20Statements%202021-22.pdf
• *Government of India, Visitor, & Council of the Institute. (2018). Scheme, regulations, and bye-laws (1967, amended effective December, 2018). https://iisc.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/SRB-amended-up-to-Dec_2018.pdf
• *Government of the Russian Federation. (2021, June 7). Программа развития федерального государственного бюджетного образовательного учреждения высшего образования "Московского государственного университет имени М. В. Ломоносова" до 2030 года. MIPT. MSU. https://www.msu.ru/upload/pdf/2021_r1494-pr.pdf
• Güleç, İ. (2020). Üniversite fikriyatı: geçmişten geleceğe üniversitelerin dönüşümü (Analiz Raporu: 2020/06). İLKE İlim Kültür Eğitim Vakfı. https://ilke.org.tr/images/yayin/analiz_raporu_6.pdf
• Gür, B. S. (2016). Egemen üniversite. EDAM.
• *Heymann, E. (Ed.). (n.d.). 2021 TUM in zahlen. https://mediatum.ub.tum.de/doc/1709140/1709140.pdf
• *IISc. (n.d.). Annual accounts: IISc 2021 – 22. https://iisc.ac.in/wpcontent/uploads/2023/05/iisc_AAccnts_21_22.pdf
• Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005), Second language research: Methodology and design (1st ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Meray, S. L. (1971). Üniversite kavramları ve modelleri. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 26(01). https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/36961
• *MIPT. (2022). 2021 Годовой отчет. https://mipt.ru/upload/medialibrary/8c0/mipt_annual_report_2021_14_03.pdf
• *MIT Corporation. (2021, March 5). Bylaws of MIT. http://corporation.mit.edu/sites/default/files/documents/MIT%20Corporation%20Bylaws%20Ammended %20March%202021.pdf
• *MIT Corporation. (2022). Report of the Treasurer for the year ended June 30, 2022. MIT. https://vpf.mit.edu/sites/default/files/downloads/TreasurersReport/MITTreasurersReport2022.pdf
• Olsen, J. (2007). The Institutional dynamics of the European university. In P. Maassen & J. P. Olsen (Eds.), University dynamics and European integration. (Vol. 19, pp 26 – 53). Springer. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4020-5971-1
• *Open University. (2022a.) Academic governance structure. https://about.open.ac.uk/governance-ou/key-governanceresources
• *Open University. (2022b). Financial Statements. https://www.open.ac.uk/foi/main/sites/www.open.ac.uk.foi.main/files/files/ecms/webcontent/Financial_Report_2022_FINAL_ONLINE.pdf
• Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
• *QU. (n.d.a). Annual report 2016/2017. https://www.qu.edu.qa/static_file/qu/about/documents/Annual%20Report%202017%20English.pdf
• *QU. (n.d.b). Leadership. https://www.qu.edu.qa/about/leadership
• *UCT. (2022a). About UCT [Fact sheet]. http://www.news.uct.ac.za/images/userfiles/files/publications/factsheets/UCT_FactSheet_01_AboutUCT.pdf
• *UCT. (2022b, September 25). Institutional statute and institutional rules. https://uct.ac.za/sites/default/files/media/documents/UCT_Statute_2022.pdf
• *UHS. (n.d.a). Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi stratejik planı (2020 – 2024). https://www.sbu.edu.tr/FileFolder/Dosyalar/eb408a43/2020_3/saglikbilimleriuni20202024stratejikplance2e49ac.pdf
• *UHS. (n.d.b). Kurumsal mevzuatımız. https://www.sbu.edu.tr/tr/universitemiz/kurumsal-bilgilerimiz/kurumsalmevzuatimiz
• *University of Melbourne. (n.d.b). University Council. https://about.unimelb.edu.au/strategy/governance/peakbodies-structures/university-council
• *University of Melbourne. (2023). 2022 annual report. University of Melbourne. https://www.annualreport.about.unimelb.edu.au/_files/ugd/0ac31a_4d258468697b48f8a432cd7adfd47ab8.p df
• *University of Oxford. (2002). Statutes. Planning and Council Secretariat. https://governance.admin.ox.ac.uk/legislation/statutes