Üniversite-Sanayi İlişkilerinin Metaforları: Teknoloji Geliştirme Bölgeleri Üzerine Yapılan Değerlendirmelerin Yorumlanması

Year 2022, , 349 - 362, 31.08.2022

Mehmet Ali Yılık , Yaşar Kondakçı

https://doi.org/10.2399/yod.21.729919

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, üniversite-sanayi ilişkilerini açıklamada kullanılan metaforları araştırmaktır. Metaforlar, örgüt analizinde elverişli bir nitel araçtır çünkü bir örgütteki katılımcılar tarafından kullanılan metaforları ortaya çıkarmak ve bunları yorumlamak hem araştırmacının katılımcıların gizli algıları ve duygularına ulaşmasına izin verir hem de araştırmacıya üniversite-sanayi ilişkilerinin kilit bir örgütü olan Teknoloji Geliştirme Bölgeleri (TGB) hakkında derinlemesine bilgi sağlar. Bu çoklu örnek olay çalışmasında, iki üniversite ve bir yüksek teknoloji enstitüsü ile bunların ilintili TGB’lerinden gelen 20 katılımcıdan veri toplanmıştır. Bu katılımcılar, üst düzey üniversite yöneticileri, üniversite-sanayi ilişkileri ile yakın ilişkili öğretim üyeleri, üst düzey TGB yöneticileri ve üst düzey TGB şirket yöneticilerinden oluşmaktadır. Veri toplama aracı olarak yarı-yapılandırılmış görüşme soruları kullanılmıştır. Üç örnek olaydan toplanan verinin örnek olay içi ve örnek olaylar arası içerik analizi sonuçlarına göre, katılımcılar üniversite-sanayi ilişkilerini açıklarken üst temalar olan olumlu ve olumsuz metaforlar kullanmışlardır. Olumlu metaforların alt temaları arayüz, makine, barlar sokağı, vitrin ve bitki metaforları olarak listelenebilir; olumsuz metaforların alt temaları ise, zombi, bebek ve emlakçı metaforları olarak sıralanabilir. Katılımcıların bu metaforları betimlemelerinden ve bu metaforları kullanmalarını gerekçelendirmelerinden yola çıkarak, katılımcıların araştırmanın odağında olan üniversite-sanayi işbirliği olgusuna dair değerlendirmeleri üzerine bazı çıkarımlarda bulunulmuştur.

Keywords

Metafor, Teknoloji Geliştirme Bölgeleri, üniversite-sanayi ilişkileri.

Metaphors of University-Industry Relations: Interpretations on Technology Development Zones Unveiled

Abstract

The purpose of the study is to examine metaphors that are used to explain university-industry relations. Metaphors are a lucrative qualitative tool in organizational analysis because extracting and interpreting metaphors that are used by participants in an organization can not only allow researchers to access hidden perceptions or feelings of the participants but also helps them gain insights about a key organization of university-industry relations: Technology Development Zones (TDZ). In this multiple-case study, 20 participants were involved from two universities and an institute of high technology, and their embedded TDZs in Turkey. Participants are high-rank manager-academics, faculty affiliated with university-industry relations, high-rank managers from TDZs and those of firms inside these TDZs. In order to collect data, semi-structured interviews were used in the study. Results from a content analysis of within-case and cross-case data from the three cases in the study showed that participants use superordinate themes of positive and negative metaphors to explain university industry relations. The positive metaphors superordinate theme involves the metaphors of interface, machine, bars district, showcase, and plants, while the negative metaphors superordinate theme includes zombie, babies, and real-estate metaphors. Based on the participants’ descriptions of these metaphors and their justification for their use, some conclusions were made on the participants’ evaluations of the university-industry relations phenomenon, which is the focus of the study.

Keywords

Metaphors, Technology Development Zones, university-industry relations

References

• Altbach, P. G. (2005). Patterns in higher education development. In P. G. Altbach, P. J., R. O., Berdahl, & P. J. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges (2nd ed.) (pp. 15–37). Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.
• Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Cobo, A., Rocha, R., Vanti, A. A., & Schneider, G. (2012). Fuzzy clustering: Application on organizational metaphors in Brazilian companies. JISTEM - Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management, 9(2), 197–212.
• CoHE (2019). Higher education system in Turkey. [Article in Turkish] Retrieved from https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/Yayinlar/Yayinlarimiz/2019/Higher_Education_in_Turkey_019_tr.pdf (December 9, 2019).
• Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Cornelissen, J. P. (2005). Beyond compare: Metaphor in organization theory. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 751–764.
• Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
• Çelik, T., & Arı, G. S. (2017). Metaphor analysis as an alternative method for determining organizational culture in banks. [Article in Turkish] Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 12(1), 31–64.
• Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
• Eleventh Development Plan (2019). Strengthening the R&D and innovation ecosystems. [Article in Turkish] Retrieved from http://onbirinciplan.gov.tr/oik-ve-calisma-grubu-listeleri/ar-ge-ve-yenilikekosisteminin-guclendirilmesi/ (December 11, 2019).
• Erichsen, R. (1998). Scientific research and science policy in Turkey. Cahiers d’Etudes sur la Méditerranée Orientale et le monde Turco-Iranien, 25, 1–21.
• Ertem, M. (2017). Metaphors in the field of management and organization. [Article in Turkish] International Journal of Academic Value Studies, 3(9), 209–220.
• Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32(1), 109–121.
• EUROSTAT (2019). High-tech statistics – economic data. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/pdfscache/46748.pdf (December 2, 2019).
• Felsenstein, D. (1994). University-related science parks – ‘seedbeds’ or ‘enclaves’ of innovation? Technovation, 14(2), 93–110.
• Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
• Grant, D., & Oswick, C. (1996). Introduction: Getting the measure of metaphors. In D. Grant, & C. Oswick (Eds.), Metaphor and organizations (pp. 1–20). London: Sage.
• Grant, D., Hardy, C., Oswick, C., & Putnam, L. (Eds.). (2004). Introduction. Organizational discourse: Exploring the field. In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick, & L. Putnam (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational discourse (pp. 1–36). London: Sage.
• Guadix, J., Carrillo-Castrillo, J., Onieva, L., & Navascues, J. (2016). Success variables in science and technology parks. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 4870–4875.
• Gür, B. S., Çelik, Z. & Yurdakul, S. (2019). Higher education at a glance - 2019: Analysis and evaluation report. [Report in Turkish] Ankara: Eğitim-Bir-Sen Stratejik Araştırmalar Merkezi.
• IASP (2019). Definitions. Retrieved from https://www.iasp.ws/ourindustry/definitions (December 10, 2019).
• İnam, İ., Bal, H., & Bahçeci, A (2019). A model towards state-university-industry cooperation policies. [Article in Turkish] Anahtar, 24(369), Retrieved from https://anahtar.sanayi.gov.tr/tr/news/kamu universite sanayi-isbirligi-politikalarina-yonelikbir-model-onerisi/9919 (December 15, 2019).
• Kayalıdere, G. (2014). The importance of technoparks within technology policy of Turkey and tax advantages for technoparks. [Article in Turkish] Gazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 1(1), 75–96.
• Kısa, N. (2013). Metaphorical images of research assistants: Who are they? Who they should be? [Article in Turkish] Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28, 47–46.
• Konak, A. (2018). The effect of product export of high technology on export volume and economic growth; selected OECD countries and the case of Turkey. [Article in Turkish] Yönetim Ekonomi Edebiyat İslami ve Politik Bilimler Dergisi, 3(2), 56–80.
• Latorre, M. P., Hermoso, R., & Rubio, M. A. (2017). A novel network-based analysis to measure efficiency in science and technology parks: The ISA framework approach. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(6), 1255–1275.
• Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
• Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2002). Science Parks and the growth of new technology-based firms academic-industry links, innovation and markets. Research Policy, 31(6), 859–876.
• Mian, S., Fayolle, A., & Lamine, (2012). Building sustainable regional platforms for incubating science and technology businesses: Evidence from US and French science and technology parks. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 13(4), 235–247.
• Mian, S., & Hulsink, W. (2009). Building knowledge ecosystems through science and technology parks. In Proceedings of the 26th IASP World Conference, June 1–4, 2009, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
• Millar, R., & Dickinson, H. (2016). Planes, straws and oysters: The use of metaphors in healthcare reform. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 30(1), 117–132.
• Ministry of Commerce (2019). Export statistics. [Report in Turkish] Retrieved from https://ticaret.gov.tr/istatistikler/dis-ticaret-istatistikleri (December 22, 2019).
• Mitchell, G. R. (1999). Global technology policies for economic growth. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 60(3), 205–214.
• MoIT (2021). Technology development zones. [Article in Turkish]. Retrieved from https://www.sanayi.gov.tr/istatistikler/istatistiki-bilgiler/mi0203011501 (September 16, 2021).
• Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Nowotarski, P., & Paslawski, J. (2017). Industry 4.0 concept introduction into construction SMEs. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 245(5), p. 1–10.
• OECD (1996). The knowledge-based economy. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=OCDE/GD%2896%29 02&docLanguage=En (December 25, 2019).
• Özüdoğru, A. G., Ergün, E., Ammari, D., & Görener, A. (2018). How Industry 4.0 changes business: A commercial perspective. International Journal of Commerce and Finance, 4(1) 85–95.
• Palmer, I., & Dunford, R. (1996). Conflicting uses of metaphors: Reconceptualizing their use in the field of organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 21(3), 691–717.
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Putnam, L. L., Phillips, N., & Chapman, P. (1996). Metaphors of communication and organization. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.). Handbook of organization studies (pp. 375–408). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Rodríguez, C., & Bélanger, E. (2014). Stories and metaphors in the sensemaking of multiple primary health care organizational identities. BMC Family Practice, 15(1), 1–10.
• Sevsay, H., Mıynat, M., & Aktaş, H. (2017). The examination of technology development park invesment models. [Article in Turkish] Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(2), 447–467.
• Siegel, D. S., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2003). Science parks and the performance of new technology based firms: A review of recent UK evidence and an agenda for future research. Small Business Economics, 20(2), 177–184.
• Şimşek, H. (1997). Metaphorical images of an organization: The power of symbolic constructs in reading change in higher education organizations. Higher Education, 33(3), 283–307.
• Technology Development Zones Law (2001). Law on technology development zones. Retrieved from http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/ tr/tr092en.pdf (November 27, 2019).
• THE (2019). THE world university rankings 2020: Methodology. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/world-university-rankings 2020-methodology (December 20, 2019).
• Turkish Statistics Institute (2020). Export statistics, December 2020. [Report in Turkish]. Retrieved from https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Foreign-Trade-Statistics-December-2020-37412 (September 16, 2021).
• UNESCO (2017). Science parks around the world. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural sciences/science-technology/university-industry partnerships/science-parks-around-the-world/ (December 29, 2019).
• Van Geenhuizen, M., & Soetanto, D. P. (2008). Science parks: What they are and how they need to be evaluated. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 4(1–2), 90–111.
• Vila, P. C., & Pages, J. L. (2008). Science and technology parks: Creating new environments favourable to innovation. Paradigmes: Economia Productiva i Coneixement, 141–149.
• Westhead, P. (1997). R and D ‘inputs’ and ‘outputs’ of technology-based firms located on and off science parks. R and D Management, 27(1), 45–62.
• Yang, C. H., Motohashi, K., & Chen, J. R. (2009). Are new technology-based firms located on science parks really more innovative? Evidence from Taiwan. Research Policy, 38(1), 77–85.
• Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in social sciences]. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Yıldız, S., & Gizir, S. (2018). An investigation of academicians’ perceptions about concepts of university, academicianship and scientific research through metaphors. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 33(3), 743–762.
• Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.