THE EMERGENCE OF TECHNOPARKS AS A NEW ORGANIZATIONAL FORM: A STUDY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF COEVOLUTION

Öz

This study aims to reveal the emergence of technoparks as a new organizational form, the conditions, and actors effective in this process from the perspective of coevolution. Following the exploratory nature of the research, we preferred a qualitative method and collected the data through document analysis and semi-structured interviews. The findings showed that the technopark form emerged in a coevolutionary process. Moreover, the transition to a free-market economy on January 24 in 1980 is the event that initiated the coevolution process. Then, conditions such as ensuring university-industry collaboration triggered the interaction between the actors in the emergence process of technoparks. Also, we revealed that Technology Development Center was the catalyst that accelerated the process, and METU Technopark, which was established before the law, was a proto form. Furthermore, the government shaped the functioning of the form with the law it enacted. Our study contributes to the literature explaining that in an institutional environment how environmental changes and conditions trigger interactions between actors and how the outcomes of the actors' interaction reveal technoparks as a new organizational form.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• New Organizational Forms
• Coevolution Perspective
• Technoparks
• Turkey
• coevolution theory

Kaynakça

1. Aytemur, J., Erdemir, E. & Koç, U. (2015, May 14-16). Kurumsallaşamayan kurumsal girişimler: Yeni bir örgütsel form olarak köy enstitüleri. Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi, Mugla, Türkiye.
2. Baum, J.A.C. & Singh, J.V. (1994). Organization- environment coevolution. In J.Baum & J.Singh (Ed.), Evolutionary Dynamics of Organizations (pp. 379-402). Oxford University Press.
3. Breslin, D. (2016). What evolves in organizational co-evolution?. Journal of Management & Governance, 20, 45-67.
4. Buğra, A., & Savaşkan, O. (2015). Türkiye’de yeni kapitalizm. İletişim Yayınları.
5. Cansız, M. (2017). 2023'e doğru Türkiye teknoparkları. TC Kalkınma Bakanlığı.
6. Carney,M. & Gedajlovic, E. (2002). The co-evolution of instutional environments and organizational strategies: The rise of family business groups in the ASEAN region. Organization Studies, 23(1), 1-29.
7. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage Publication.
8. Child, J., Lu, Y., ve Tsai, T. (2007). Institutional entrepreneurship in building an environmental protection system for the people’s republic of China. Organization Studies, 28(7), 1013-1034.

9. Chiles, T. H., Meyer, A. D., & Hench, T. J. (2004). Organizational emergence: The origin and transformation of branson, missouri's musical theaters. Organization Science, 15(5), 499-519.
10. Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2004). Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off. Administrative science quarterly, 49(2), 173-208.
11. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. (Second Edition). Sage Publication.
12. Çalışır, M., & Gülmez, A. (2010). Teknoloji politikaları çerçevesinde ekonomik gelişim: Türkiye–Güney Kore karşılaştırması. Akademik İncelemeler Dergisi, 5(1), 23-55.
13. Dijksterhuis, M.S., Van den Bosch, F.A.J., & Volberda, H.W. (1999). Where do organizational forms come from? Management logics as a source of coevolution. Organization Science, 1(5), 569- 582.
14. Dirlik, O. (2016). Türk iş sisteminin evrimi: Makro kurumsal bir inceleme. Yönetim ve Organizasyon Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(2), 5-30.
15. Djelic,M.L. & Ainamo, A. (1999). The coevolution of new organizational forms in the fashion industry: A historical and comperative study of France, Italy and the United states. Organization Science, 10(5), 622- 637.
16. Dorado, S. (2005). Institutional entrepreneurship, partaking, and convening. Organization Studies, 26(3), 385-414.
17. Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15-31.
18. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1987). The ecology of organizational founding: American labor unions, 1836-1985. American Journal of Sociology, 92(4), 910-943.
19. Hannan, M.T. & Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational Ecology. Harvard University Press.
20. Harmancı, M., and Önen, M. O. (1999). Dünyada ve Türkiye’de Teknopark ve Teknokent Uygulamaları. Türkiye Kalkınma Bankası A. Ş. Araştırma Müdürlüğü.
21. Jepperson, R. L., & Meyer, J. W. (1991). The public order and the construction of formal organization. In W.W. Powell & P.J. Dimaggio (Ed.) The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp.204-231). Chicago :University of Chicago Press.
22. Jimenez, P.R., Wiita, A. P., Rodriguez-Larrea, D., Kosuri, P., Gavira, J. A., Sanchez-Ruiz, J. M., & Fernandez, J. M. (2008). Force-clamp spectroscopy detects residue co-evolution in enzyme catalysis. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 283(40), 27121-27129.
23. Kibritçioğlu, A. (2004). Economic Crises and Governments in Turkey, 1969-2001 (Türkiye'de Ekonomik Krizler ve Hükümetler, 1969-2001) (No. 0401008). University Library of Munich, Germany.
24. Koza, M. P., & Lewin, A. Y. (1999). The coevolution of network alliances: A longitudinal analysis of an international professional service network. Organization Science, 10(5), 638-653.
25. Lawrence, T. B., Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (2002). Institutional effects of interorganizational collaboration: The emergence of proto-institutions. Academy of management journal, 45(1), 281-290.
26. Lewin, A.Y. & Volberda, H.W. (1999). Prolegomena on coevolution: A framework for research on strategy and new organizational forms. Organization Science, 10(5), 519-534.
27. Lewin, A.Y., Long, C.P. & Caroll, T.N. (1999). The coevolution of new organizational forms. Organization Science, 10(5), 535-550. Li, Y., & Khessina, O. (2020). The role of proto-forms in the emergence of historic movie theaters in Chicago communities: 1896-1962.  Academy of Management Proceedings, Vol. 2020, No.1.
28. Lincoln, Y.S.& Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publication.
29. Longhi, C.& Quere, M. (1993). Innovative networks and the technopolis phenomenon: The case of Sophia-Antipolis. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 11(3), 317-330.
30. Marti, S., Andres, J., Moliner, V., Silla, E., Tunon, I., & Bertrán, J. (2008). Computational design of biological catalysts. Chemical Society Reviews, 37(12), 2634-2643. Mason, M. (2010). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. Qualitative Social Research, 11(3). file:///C:/Users/ak%C3%BC/Downloads/1428-5623-3-PB.pdf .
31. McKelvey, B. (1997). Quasi-natural organization science. Organization Science, 8(4), 352-380.
32. McKelvey, B. (2002, July 4-6). Managing coevolutionary dynamics. 18th EGOS Conference, Barcelona, Spain.
33. Mitleton-Kelly, E., & Davy, L. K. (2013). The concept of ‘co-evolution’and its application in the social sciences: a review of the literature. In E. Mitleton-Kelly (Ed.), Co-evolution of Intelligent Socio-technical Systems (pp. 43-57). Springer.
34. Murmann, J. P. (2003). Knowledge and competitive advantage: The coevolution of firms, technology, and national institutions. Cambridge University Press. Özdaş, N. (2000). Bilim ve teknoloji politikası ve Türkiye. TÜBİTAK.
35. Özen, S. (2002). Bağlam, aktör, söylem ve kurumsal değişim: Türkiye’de toplam kalite yönetiminin yayılım süreci. Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2 (1), 47-90.
36. Özen, Ş. (2010, Feb 12-13). Yeni kurumsal kuramın dayandığı siyasal sistem varsayımları ve Türkiye açısından bir değerlendirme. I. Örgüt Kuramı Çalıştayı Bildirileri (17-32). Başkent Üniversitesi, Ankara, Türkiye.
37. Özen-Aytemur, J. (2010). Türkiye’de yönetim düşüncesinin erken dönemleri: Sümerbank(1930-1945). Libra Kitapçılık ve Yayıncılık.
38. Özkara, B. (2006). Geçiş ekonomilerinde yeni örgütsel formların doğuşu: Kırgızistan örneği. Bişkek: Kırgızistan-Türkiye Manas Üniversitesi Yayınları, İlmi Yayınlar Dizisi.
39. Porter, T.B. (2006). Coevolution as a research framework for organizations and the natural environment. Organization& Environment, 19(4), 479-504.
40. Romanelli, E. (1991). The evolution of new organizational forms. Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 79-103.
41. Ruef, M. (2000). The emergence of organizational forms: A community ecology approach. American Journal of Sociology, 106(3), 658-714.
42. Solomons, T. G., & Fryhle, C. B. (2008). Organic chemistry. John Wiley & Sons
43. Science and Technology High Council Decisions, 2nd. (STHC) (1993). The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey, Ankara.
44. Science and Technology High Council Decisions, 3th (STHC) (1997). The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey, Ankara.
45. State Planning Organization. (1989). 6th. Development Plan.
46. State Planning Organization. (1995). 7th. Development Plan.
47. State Planning Organization (2000). 8th. Development Plan.
48. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage Publications.
49. Şenyuva, Z. (2012). Türkiye’de dershanelerin yayılma ve meşrulaşma süreci. Doktora tezi, Başkent Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
50. Technology Development Regions/Technoparks Law Draft and General Justification (2000). Grand National Assembly of Turkey.
51. Technology Development Regions/Technoparks Law, Law No.4691 (2001). Republic of Turkey Laws. Ankara: Official Gazzette (No.24454).
52. Tivnan, B. F. (2005, December). Coevolutionary dynamics and agent-based models in organization science.  Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference (pp.1013-1021). IEEE.
53. Science and Technology High Council Decisions, 2nd. (STHC) (1993). The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey, Ankara.
54. Science and Technology High Council Decisions, 3th (STHC) (1997). The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey, Ankara.
55. Türker, O. (2009). Gümrük birliği sonrası Türkiye’nin dış ticaretinin rekabet gücü. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 32, 281-302.
56. Van den Bosch,. F. A., Volberda, H. W., & De Boer, M. (1999). Coevolution of firm absorptive capacity and knowledge environment: Organizational forms and combinative capabilities. Organization Science, 10(5), 551-568.
57. Victor, B., & Stephens, C. (1994). The dark side of the new organizational forms: An editorial essay. Organization Science, 5(4), 479-482.
58. Yıldırım, E., ve Dura, C. (2007). Gümrük birliğinin Türkiye ekonomisi üzerindeki etkileri konusundaki literatüre bir bakış. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 28, 141-177.
59. Yıldız, B., Ilgaz, H. & Seferoglu, S.S. (2010, Subat 10-12). Türkiye’de bilim ve teknoloji politikaları: 1963’den 2013’e kalkınma planlarına genel bir bakış. Akademik Bilişim Konferansı, Mugla, Türkiye.