Theoretical Model Study on the Adoption of Quality Management in Turkish Higher Education System with New Institutional Theory Arguments

Öz

This study seeks to develop an institutional theory-based model to analyze quality management in Turkish higher education using the partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) technique, which is widely used in exploratory research and theory development. The model is used to explore the theoretical relationships between which isomorphic change mechanisms cause quality management to be adopted, the decision-making style employed by higher education institutions, how quality management is implemented and how quality management is adopted in the Turkish higher education context. Analysis of the developed structural equation model shows that; while the effect of the coercive pressure mechanisms on endogenous variables was not found to be statistically significant, the mimetic pressure mechanisms were found to have a negative effect (β= -0,286; T: 2,252) on the conformity to the normative pattern of QM adoption, while the normative pressure mechanism is positive on the conformity to the normative pattern of QM adoption (β= 0.428; T: 3.952) and both effects were statistically significant (P < 0.05). Also, a significant statistical relationship was not found between the pressure mechanisms and decision-making style, decision-making style and implementation, and application style and decision-making style. The study, confirming the institutional theory literature, reveals a PLS-SEM road model that concludes that quality management in the Turkish higher education system is normative / ceremonially adopted by the effects of normative pressure mechanisms.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Quality management
• Customization or conformity
• Quality in higher education
• PLS-SEM
• Turkish higher education institutions
• Quality assurance

Yeni Kurumsal Kuram Argümanlarıyla Türk Yükseköğretim Sisteminde Kalite Yönetiminin Benimsenmesi Üzerine Teorik Model Çalışması

Öz

Bu çalışma, keşif araştırmalarında teoriler geliştirmek için kullanılan kısmi en küçük kareler yapısal eşitlik modeli (PLS-SEM) kullanılarak, yükseköğretimde kalite yönetimi alanında son yıllarda meydana gelen dünya çapındaki gelişmeler karşısında Türk yükseköğretim sisteminde yaşanan benzer gelişmelerin analizine yönelik olarak kurumsal kuram paradigmaları ile teorik bir model keşfedebilmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Oluşturulan model ile Türk yükseköğretim sisteminde hangi çevresel baskı mekanizmalarının kalite yönetiminin benimsenmesine etki ettiği, yükseköğretim kurumlarının karar verme tarzlarında ne tür eğilimlerde bulunulduğu, kalite yönetiminin nasıl uygulandığı ve uygulama biçiminden hareketle kalite yönetiminin nasıl benimsendiği arasındaki teorik ilişki Türkiye bağlamında keşfedilmektedir. Kurulan yapısal eşitlik modelinin analizinde; zorlayıcı baskı mekanizmalarının endojen değişkenler üzerindeki etkisi istatistiki olarak anlamlı bulunmazken, öykünmeci baskı mekanizmalarının uyarak uygulama biçimi üzerinde negatif etkiye sahip olduğu (β= -0,286; T: 2,252), normatif baskı mekanizmalarının ise uyarak uygulama biçimi üzerinde pozitif etkiye sahip olduğu (β= 0,428; T: 3,952) ve her iki etkinin de istatistiki olarak anlamlı (P < 0,05) olduğu görülmüştür. Ayrıca, baskı mekanizmaları ile karar verme tarzı, karar verme tarzı ile uygulama biçimi ve uygulama biçimi ile karar verme tarzı arasında anlamlı istatistiki ilişki bulunamamıştır. Çalışma, kurumsal kuram literatürünü doğrulayıcı bir şekilde, Türk yükseköğretim sisteminde kalite yönetiminin normatif baskı mekanizmalarının etkileriyle normatif-törensel olarak benimsendiği sonucuna ulaşılan bir PLS-SEM yol modelini ortaya çıkarmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kalite yönetimi
• Uyarlama veya uyma
• Yüksek öğretimde kalite
• PLS-SEM
• Türk yüksek öğretim kurumları
• Kalite güvencesi

Kaynakça

1. Arain AA, Hussain Jafri I, Ashraf I, Ali H. 2013. Expansion of quality assurance mechanism in south Asian higher education system: an empirical analysis. J Edu Pract, 5(4): 55–70.
2. Boxenbaum E, Jonsson S. 2017. Isomorphism, Diffusion and Decoupling: Concept Evolution and Theoretical Challenges. R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. Lawrence ve R. Meyer (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, SAGE Publications Inc, 2. bs: 77–101.
3. Carpenter VL, Feroz E H. 2001. Institutional theory and accounting rule choice: An analysis of four US state governments’ decisions to adopt generally accepted accounting principles. Accounting, Organizations and Society.
4. Chin WW. 1998. The Partial Least Squares Approach For Structural Equation Modeling. G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Methodology For Business and Management: Modern Methods For Business Research, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: 295–336.
5. Cohen J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, United States of America, 2. bs.
6. Corengia Á, Del Bello JC, Pita Carranza M, Adrogué C. 2014. Quality assurance systems of higher education - The case of european institutions: origin, evolution and trends. Revista Gestão Universitária na América Latina - GUAL, 7(3): 61.
7. Dijkstra TK, Henseler J. 2015a. Consistent and asymptotically normal PLS estimators for linear structural equations. Comput Stat Data Anal, 81: 10–23.
8. Dijkstra TK, Henseler J. 2015b. Consistent Partial Least Squares Path Modeling. MIS Quarterly, 39(2): 297–316.

9. Dill DD. 2011. An Institutional Perspective on Higher Education Policy: The Case of Academic Quality Assurance. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 669–699.
10. DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW. 1983. The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Soc Rev, 48(2): 147–160.
11. DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW. 1991. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organization Fields. W. W. Powell ve P. J. DiMaggio (Ed.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, University of Chicago: 63–82
12. Doğan D. 2019. SmartPLS ile Veri Analizi. Zet Yayınları, Ankara, 2. bs.
13. Emeç H. 2021. Çoklu Doğrusal Bağlanti 1. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi.
14. Greenwood R, Oliver C, Suddaby R, Sahlin K. 2008. Introduction. R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby ve K. Sahlin (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, SAGE Publications Ltd: 1–46.
15. Gudergan SP, Ringle CM, Wende S, Will A. 2008. Confirmatory tetrad analysis in PLS path modeling. J Business Res, 61(12): 1238–1249.
16. Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. 2017. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage. SAGE Publications Inc.
17. Hair J F, Risher JJ, Sarstedt M, Ringle C M. 2019. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Rev, 31(1): 2–24.
18. Henseler J, Ringle C M. Sarstedt M. 2012. Using partial least squares path modeling in advertising research: basic concepts and recent issues. S. Okazaki (Ed.), Handbook of research on international advertising, Edward Elgar: 252–276
19. Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. 2015. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J Acad Marketing Sci, 43(1): 115–135.
20. Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sinkovics RR. 2009. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Advan Inter Marketing, 20: 277–319.
21. Lin N. 1976. Foundations of Social Research. McGraw-Hill, New York.
22. Martin M, Parikh S. 2017. Quality management in higher education: Developments and drivers Results from an international survey. UNESCO.
23. Meyer HD, Powell JJW. 2018. The New Institutionalism in Higher Education. M. E. David ve M. J. Amey (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Higher Education, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA: 1–9.
24. Meyer JW, Rowan B. 1977. Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American J Soc, 83(2): 340–363.
25. Nunnally J, Bernstein I H. 1994. Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York, 3rd ed.
26. Oliver C. 1991. Strategıc Responses To Instıtutıonal Processes. Acad Manage Rev, 16(1): 145–179.
27. Oplatka I, Hemsley-Brown J. 2010. The globalization and marketizatin of higher education: Some insights from the standpoint of institutional theory. Globalization and internationalization in higher education: Theroretical, strategic and management perspectives, (March 2019): 65–80.
28. Özen Ş. 2000. Kurumsal Kuram Işığında TKY’ni̇n Türki̇ye’deki̇ Yayılım Süreci̇nin Di̇nami̇kleri̇. Erciyes Üni̇versi̇tesi̇ 8. Ulusal Yöneti̇m Ve Organi̇zasyon Kongresi̇, Erciyes Üniversitesi, Nevşehir: 303–322.
29. Özen Ş. 2002. Bağlam, aktör, söylem ve kurumsal değişim: Türkiye’de toplam kalite yönetiminin yayılım süreci. Yönetim Araş Derg, 1(2): 47–90.
30. Özen Ş. 2013. Yeni Kurumsal Kuram. D. Taşci ve E. Erdemir (Ed.), Örgüt Kuramı, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eskişehir: 120–139.
31. Özen Ş. 2015. Yeni Kurumsal Kuram: Örgütleri Çözümlemede Yeni Ufuklar ve Yeni Sorunlar. A. S. Sargut ve Ş. Özen (Ed.), Örgüt Kuramları, İmge Kitabevi, Ankara: 237–330.
32. Ringle C M, Wende S, Becker JM. 2020. SmartPLS. SmartPLS 3. Bönningstedt: SmartPLS. https://www.smartpls.com (Erişim tarihi: 30 Mart 2021).
33. Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Hair JF. 2017. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. Handbook of Market Research.
34. Schofer E, Meyer J W. 2005. The Worldwide Expansion of Higher Education in the Twentieth Century. American Soc Rev, 70(6): 898–920.
35. Scott W R. 2014. Institutions and Organizations Ideas, Interests, and Identities. 4.bs.
36. Suddaby R. 2010. Challenges for institutional theory. J Management Inquiry.
37. Tolbert PS, Zucker LG. 1983. Institutional Sources of Change in the Formal Structure of Organizations: The Diffusion of Civil Service Reform, 1880-1935. Administ Sci Quarterly, 28(1): 22.
38. Westphal JD, Gulati R, Shortell SM. 1997. Customization or Conformity? An Institutional and Network Perspective on the Content and Consequences of TQM Adoption. Administ Sci Quarterly, 42(2): 366-394.
39. Xiaohui Y. 2016. PLS. Politeness and Audience Response in Chinese-English Subtitling.
40. YÖK. 2019. Türkiye Yükseköğretim Sistemi.
41. YÖK. 2020. Yükseköğretim Bilgi Yönetim Sistemi. URL: https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr (Erişim tarihi: 27 Haziran 2020).
42. YÖKAK. 2019. Self-Assessment Report Of Higher Education Quality Council Of Turkey (THEQC). YÖKAK, Ankara.
43. Zbaracki MJ. 1998. The rhetoric and reality of total quality management. Administ Sci Quarterly, 43(3): 602–636.