AKADEMİK ÇALIŞMA PLATFORMUNUN (AÇAP) BENİMSENMESİNE YÖNELİK BİR İHTİYAÇ ANALİZİ: AKADEMİSYENLER ÜZERİNDE BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Öz

Bu araştırma, akademisyenlerin dijital akademik iş birliği platformlarına yönelik ihtiyaçlarını, beklentilerini ve kullanım niyetlerini belirlemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu kapsamda, akademik iş birliklerini desteklemek üzere tasarlanan Akademik Çalışma Platformu (AÇAP) modeline ilişkin kullanıcı görüşleri incelenmiştir. Araştırmada nicel yöntem benimsenmiş ve veriler Kırklareli Üniversitesinde görev yapan akademisyenlerden anket yoluyla toplanmıştır. Araştırma modeli; Algılanan Fayda, Algılanan Kullanım Kolaylığı ve Kullanılabilirlik, İş Birliği ile İlgili Sorunlar, Yönetişim ve Etik Beklentiler ile Kullanım Davranışsal Niyeti olmak üzere beş yapıdan oluşmaktadır. Veriler tanımlayıcı istatistikler, faktör analizleri ve yapısal eşitlik modellemesi kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir. Çalışma, akademisyenlerin dijital iş birliği süreçlerine ilişkin beklentilerini ortaya koymakta ve akademik iş birliği platformlarının geliştirilmesine yönelik kavramsal bir çerçeve sunmaktadır. Ayrıca yükseköğretimde teknoloji kabulü ve araştırma yönetim sistemleri alanındaki literatüre katkı sağlamaktadır. Araştırma sonucunda, akademisyenlerin Akademik Çalışma Platformu'nu kullanma niyetlerinde en belirleyici unsurun algılanan fayda olduğunu belirlenmiştir. Kullanım kolaylığı ve güven-etik beklentileri de kullanım niyetini destekleyen önemli faktörler olarak belirlenmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular hem teknoloji kabul literatürüne katkı sağlamakta hem de akademik iş birliği platformlarının geliştirilmesine yönelik uygulayıcılara yol göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Akademik iş birliği
• dijital platformlar
• teknoloji kabulü
• yapısal eşitlik modellemesi
• akademisyenler.

Destekleyen Kurum

Bu çalışma, Kırklareli Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Koordinasyon Birimi (KLÜBAP) tarafından desteklenen 309 numaralı "Akademik Çalışma Platformu (AÇAP)" başlıklı proje kapsamında gerçekleştirilmiştir.

Proje Numarası

KLÜBAP-309-Akademik Çalışma Platformu (AÇAP)

Etik Beyan

Çalışmada etik açıdan herhangi bir sorun bulunmamaktadır. Kırklareli Üniversitesi Rektörlüğü Bilimsel Araştırmalar ve Yayın Etiği Kurulu’nun 27.01.2026 tarihli ve E-35523585-199-190829 sayılı izni mevcuttur.

A NEEDS ANALYSIS FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE ACADEMIC WORK PLATFORM (AWOP): AN EMPIRICAL STUDY WITH ACADEMICS

Öz

This study aims to identify academics’ needs, expectations, and behavioral intentions regarding digital academic collaboration platforms. In this context, user perspectives on the proposed Academic Collaboration Platform (ACP) designed to support academic collaboration processes were examined. A quantitative research approach was adopted, and data were collected through a survey administered to academics working at Kırklareli University. The research model consists of five constructs: Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use and Usability, Collaboration-Related Issues, Governance and Ethical Expectations, and Behavioral Intention to Use. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, factor analyses, and structural equation modeling. The findings provide insights into academics’ expectations regarding digital collaboration processes and offer a conceptual framework for the development of academic collaboration platforms. Furthermore, the study contributes to the literature on technology acceptance in higher education and research management systems. The findings of the study indicate that perceived usefulness is the most influential factor determining academics’ intention to use the Academic Collaboration Platform. In addition, perceived ease of use and trust and ethical expectations are identified as important determinants that also support usage intention. The results contribute both to the technology acceptance literature and provide practical guidance for developers and practitioners involved in the design and improvement of academic collaboration platforms.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Academic collaboration
• digital platforms
• technology acceptance
• structural equation modeling
• academics.

Proje Numarası

KLÜBAP-309-Akademik Çalışma Platformu (AÇAP)

Etik Beyan

There are no ethical issues in the study.

Kaynakça

1. Adams, J. (2013). The fourth age of research. Nature, 497(7451), 557–560. https://doi.org/10.1038/497557a
2. Birnholtz, J. P. (2008). When authorship isn’t enough: Lessons from CERN on the implication of formal and informal credit attribution mechanisms in collaborative research. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0011.105
3. Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33(4), 599–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.008
4. Börner, K., Conlon, M., Corson-Rikert, J., Ding, Y., Herczog, E., Hall, K., Schultes, E., Vespignani, A., Wu, L., & Weaver, C. (2012). VIVO: A semantic approach to scholarly networking and discovery. Synthesis Lectures on the Semantic Web: Theory and Technology, 2(1), 1–178. https://doi.org/10.2200/S00428ED1V01Y201207WBE002
5. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2020). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı (28. Baskı). Pegem Akademi.
6. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
8. Foster, E. D., & Deardorff, A. (2017). Open Science Framework (OSF). Journal of the Medical Library Association, 105(2), 203–206. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017.88

9. Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 51–90. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036519
10. Haak, L. L., Fenner, M., Paglione, L., Pentz, E., & Ratner, H. (2012). ORCID: A system to uniquely identify researchers. Learned Publishing, 25(4), 259–264. https://doi.org/10.1087/20120404
11. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate Data Analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
12. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
13. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
14. Jamali, H. R., Nicholas, D., Watkinson, A., Abrizah, A., Rodríguez-Bravo, B., Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C., Xu, J., Polezhaeva, T., Herman, E., & Świgoń, M. (2020). Early career researchers and their authorship and peer review beliefs and practices: An international study. Learned Publishing, 33(2), 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1283
15. Jordan, K. (2015, June). Exploring the ResearchGate score as an academic metric: Reflections and implications for practice. In Proceedings of the Quantifying and Analysing Scholarly Communication on the Web (ASCW'15) Workshop, Web Science 2015 Conference (Oxford, UK).
16. Mogaji, E., Viglia, G., Srivastava, P., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2024). Is it the end of the technology acceptance model in the era of generative artificial intelligence? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 36(10), 3324–3339. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-08-2023-1271
17. Marikyan, D., Papagiannidis, S., & Stewart, G. (2023). Technology acceptance research: Meta-analysis. Journal of Information Science, 52(2), 429–450. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515231191177
18. McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Information Systems Research, 13(3), 334–359. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.13.3.334.81
19. Nicholas, D., Rodríguez-Bravo, B., Watkinson, A., Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C., Xu, J., Abrizah, A., Świgoń, M., Polezhaeva, T., Herman, E., & Jamali, H. R. (2017). Early career researchers and their publishing and authorship practices. Learned Publishing, 30(3–4), 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1102
20. Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability Engineering. Academic Press.
21. Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., Buck, S., Chambers, C. D., Chin, G., Christensen, G., Contestabile, M., Dafoe, A., Eich, E., Freese, J., Glennerster, R., Goroff, D., Green, D. P., Hesse, B., Humphreys, M., ... Yarkoni, T. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348(6242), 1422–1425. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab2374.
22. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Roslan, M. A. A., Nasharuddin, N. A., & Murad, M. A. A. (2024). Understanding technology acceptance and use in social media platforms: A systematic literature review and the development of research framework. Journal of Social Computing, 5(3), 261–291. https://doi.org/10.23919/JSC.2024.0022
23. Sharp, H., Rogers, Y., & Preece, J. (2019). Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction (5th ed.). Wiley.
24. Sugimoto, C. R., Work, S., Larivière, V., & Haustein, S. (2017). Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(9), 2037–2062. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23833
25. Van Noorden, R. (2014). Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature, 512(7513), 126–129. https://doi.org/10.1038/512126a
26. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
27. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
28. Yakubu, M. A., Sain, Z. H., Lawal, U. S., Budiman, S. A., & Permana, D. (2023). Analysis of online academic writing tools usage among postgraduate students in North-west Nigeria. Kharisma: Jurnal Administrasi dan Manajemen Pendidikan, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.59373/kharisma.v4i1.69
29. Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099