Yumuşak Güç İçin Yeni Bir Ölçek: Uluslararası Öğrenciler İçin Algılanan Yumuşak Güç Ölçeği

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 43 Sayı: 2, 961 - 997, 02.09.2023

Kürşat ARSLAN Ferudun SEZGİN

https://doi.org/10.17152/gefad.1252978

Öz

Yumuşak güç, sert ya da zorlayıcı güce rağmen işbirliği, ikna ve bir etki alanı yaratmayı amaç edinen, etkili uluslararası diplomasi oluşturan ve çeşitli şekillerde gözlemlenen önemli bir çağdaş güç kavramıdır. Yumuşak güç, ikna etme, çekicilik yaratma becerisini ifade eder ve birçok açıdan küresel etkiyi geliştirmede bir varlık olarak kabul edilir. Yükseköğretim kurumlarının potansiyel yumuşak gücü, yumuşak güç yapısını çekicilik, memnuniyet ve lehte (olumlu) karar beklentisi olarak bağlamsallaştırır ve para-diplomatlar olarak uluslararası öğrenciler aracılığıyla artan bir diplomatik başarı olasılığını yansıtır. Bu amaçla, çalışmada HEI'lerin potansiyel yumuşak gücününün ölçülmesine yönelik çok boyutlu ve yeni bir ölçme aracının geliştirilmesi amaçlanmaktadır. 26 maddelik Uluslararası Öğrenciler İçin Algılanan Yumuşak Güç Ölçeği [Perceived Soft Power Scale for International Students (PESPSIS)], uluslararası öğrencilerin HEI'lerin potansiyel yumuşak gücüne ilişkin algılarına dayanan geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçüm modeli sağlayarak, yumuşak gücün süreç ve sonuç yönlerinin değerlendirilmesine olanak tanır. Bir Türk devlet üniversitesinde bulunan 230 uluslararası öğrencilerden elde edilen bulgular, PESPSIS’in kabul edilebilir bir iç güvenilirliğe ve yapı geçerliliğine sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. Ayrıca araştırma bulguları, çekicilik/cazibe, memnuniyet ve lehte karar beklentisi olarak 26 madde altına toplanan ve açıklanan toplam varyansın %54,24’ünü oluşturan 3 faktörlü bir yapıya işaret etmektedir. PESPSIS gibi bir aracın, HEI'lerin yumuşak gücünün kavramsallaştırılmasıyla uyumlu olduğu ve üniversite öğrenci popülasyonlarında araştırma ve uygulamayla ilgili geçerli bir yumuşak güç yapısı ölçüsü sağladığı söylenebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yumuşak güç, Uluslararası öğrenci, Yükseköğretim, Uluslararasılaşma

Teşekkür

Çalışmaya katılan uluslararası öğrencilere teşekkür ederiz

A Novel Measure for Soft Power: Perceived Soft Power Scale for International Students

Öz

Soft power is a significant contemporary notion of power observed in multiple ways that forge effective international diplomacy that accounts for co-opting, persuasion, and creating a sphere of influence despite coercive ways of power. Soft power refers to the ability to persuade, to create an appeal and is considered an asset in cultivating global influence in multiple terms. The potential soft power of higher education institutions (HEIs) contextualizes the soft power construct into attraction, satisfaction, and the expectation of a favorable decision and reflects an increased likelihood of diplomatic success through international students as para-diplomats. To this end, the study provides an account of the development of a new multidimensional construct measure of the potential soft power of HEIs. The 26-item Perceived Soft Power Scale for International Students (PESPSIS) explores the process and the outcome aspects of soft power, providing a valid and reliable instrument based on international students’ perceptions of the potential soft power of HEIs. Findings from the study involving 230 international students affiliated with a Turkish public university demonstrate that the PESPSIS has acceptable internal reliability and construct validity. The results also indicate a 3-factor structure consisting of 26 items, as attraction, satisfaction, and expectation of a favorable decision, accounting for 54.24% of the total variance explained. It is suggested that an instrument such as the PESPSIS aligns more closely with the conceptualization of the soft power of HEIs and provides a valid construct measure of soft power relevant to research and practice in university student populations.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Soft power, International student, Higher education, Internationalization

Kaynakça

• Amirbek, A., & Ydyrys, K. (2014). Education and soft power: Analysis as an instrument of foreign policy. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 143, 514–516.
• Arambewela, R., & Hall, J. (2009). An empirical model of international student satisfaction. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 21(4), 555–569.
• Aras, B., & Mohammed, Z. (2019). The Turkish government scholarship program as a soft power tool. Turkish Studies, 20(3), 421–441.
• Arslan, K., & Polat, M. (in press). How well do international students adapt to the Turkish higher education system? Kastamonu Education Journal.
• Atkinson, C. (2010). Does soft power matter? A comparative analysis of student exchange programs 1980–2006. Foreign Policy Analysis, 6(1), 1–22.
• Bartlett, M. S. (1951). A further note on tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Psychology, 4, 1–2.
• Baumgartner, H., & Homburg, C. (1996). Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: A review. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(2), 139–161.
• Bislev, A. (2017). Student-to-student diplomacy: Chinese international students as a soft-power tool. Journal of Current Chinese Affairs, 46(2), 81–109.
• Bolsmann, C., & Miller, H. (2008). International student recruitment to universities in England: Discourse, rationales and globalisation. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 6(1), 75–88.
• Budak, M. M., & Terzi, H. M. (2021). Scholarship programs as public diplomacy tool and implementations in Turkic council countries. Bilig, 96 (TBMM’nin 100. Yılı Özel Sayısı), 229–253.
• Bulmer, J. (2020). What motivates international students for higher education: insight from an international college in Thailand. In Gaulee, U., Sharma, S., & Bista, K. (Eds.) Rethinking education across borders (pp. 103–112). Springer.
• Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York: Routledge.
• Byrne, C., & Hall, R. (2013). Realising Australia’s international education as public diplomacy. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 67(4), 419–438.
• Cohen, R. J., Schneider, W. J., & Tobin, R. M., (2022). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement (10th ed.). McGraw Hill.
• Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2018). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. (5th ed.). Pegem.
• Comrey, A.L., & Lee, H.B. (2013). A first course in factor analysis (3rd ed.). Psychology Press.
• Cowan, G., & Arsenault, A. (2008). Moving from monologue to dialogue to collaboration: The three layers of public diplomacy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616, 10–30.
• Crowley-Vigneau, A., Baykov, A.A., & Kalyuzhnova, E. (2022). “That’ll teach them”: Investigating the soft power conversion model through the case of Russian higher education. Higher Education in Russia, 31(1), 120–140. de Wit, H., & Altbach, P. G. (2021). Internationalization in higher education: global trends and recommendations for its future. Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 5(1), 28–46.
• DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). SAGE.
• Doll, W. J., Xia, W., & Torkzadeh, G. (1994). A confirmatory factor analysis of the end-user computing satisfaction instrument. MIS quarterly, 18(4), 453–461.
• Fokkema, M., & Greiff, S. (2017). How performing PCA and CFA on the same data equals trouble: Overfitting in the assessment of internal structure and some editorial thoughts on it. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 33(6), 399–402.
• Field, A. (2017). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics: North American edition (5th ed.). SAGE.
• George, D., & Mallery, P. (2010). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, 17.0 update. Allyn & Bacon.
• Gutiérrez, S. C. (2019, March 1). Reframing Internationalisation’s values and principles. University World News. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20190225085141576
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall.
• Hong, N. Y. (2014). EU-China education diplomacy: An effective soft power strategy? European Foreign Affairs Review, 19(3), 155–171.
• Irfan, A., Rasli, A., Sulaiman, Z., Sami, A., Liaquat, H., & Qureshi, M. I. (2020). Student’s perceived university image is an antecedent of university reputation. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 24(01), 650–663.
• Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Scientific Software International.
• Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36.
• Karabuk University [KBU], (2023). The number of international students studying at Karabuk University in 2023. https://iso.karabuk.edu.tr/yuklenen/dosyalar/126112202243535.pdf
• Naillioğlu Kaymak, M., & Sezgin, F. (2020). Aday ve danışman öğretmenler için mentorluk rolleri ölçeklerinin geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Eğitim ve Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(1), 349–375.
• Khan, M. M., Ahmad, R., & Fernald, L. W. (2020). Diplomacy and education: A Systematic review of literature. Global Social Sciences Review, 5(3), 1–9.
• Kılınç, A. C., Arslan, K., & Polat, M. (2020). Phenomenological study of lived experiences of international students in Turkey. Journal of International Students, 10(4), 853–871.
• Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis (1st ed.). Routledge.
• Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. The Guilford.
• Knight, J. (2011). Five myths about internationalization. International Higher Education, 62, 14–15.
• Kondakçı, Y. (2011). Student mobility reviewed: Attraction and satisfaction of international students in Turkey. Higher Education, 62(5), 573–592.
• Kondakçı, Y., Oldaç, Y. İ., & Ertem, H. Y. (2017). Uluslararası öğrencilerin Türkiye’yi tercih nedenleri ve Türkiye’deki deneyimleri üzerine nitel bir çalışma. 12. Uluslararası eğitim yönetimi kongresi bildiri özetleri kitabı, 469–473. http://eyk12.eyedder.org.tr/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/12UEYK-Bildiri-%C3%96zetleri-Kitab%C4%B1-1.pdf.
• Lafuente Ruiz de Sabando, A., Forcada, J., & Zorrilla, P. (2019). The university image: A model of overall image and stakeholder perspectives. Cuadernos de Gestión, 19(1), 63–86.
• Li, J. (2018). Conceptualizing soft power of higher education: Globalization and universities in China and the world. Springer.
• Lomer, S. (2017). Soft power as a policy rationale for international education in the UK: A critical analysis. Higher Education, 74(4), 581–598.
• Makarevskaya, N. Y. (2020, March). The use of “soft power” tools by Asia-Pacific region countries, as the expansion of influence way. In International Scientific Conference" Far East Con" (ISCFEC 2020) (pp. 287–291). Atlantis.
• McClory, J., & Harvey, O. (2016). The Soft Power 30: Getting to grips with the measurement challenge. Global Affairs, 2(3), 309–319.
• Nye, J. (1990). Bound to lead: The changing nature of American power. Basic Books.
• Nye, J. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. Public Affairs.
• Nye, J. (2005). Soft power and higher education. In Forum for the future of higher education (Archives) (pp. 11–14). Harvard University.
• Nye, J. (2008). Public diplomacy and soft power. The annals of the American academy of political and social science, 616(1), 94–109.
• Nye, J. (2011). The future of power. Public Affairs.
• Nye, J. (2021). Soft power: The evolution of a concept. Journal of Political Power, 14(1), 196–208.
• Olberding, J. C., & Olberding, D. J. (2010). “Ripple Effects” in youth peacebuilding and exchange programs: measuring impacts beyond direct participants. International Studies Perspectives, 11(1), 75–91.
• Ostashova, Y. (2020, December). Higher education as a soft power tool of state’s foreign policy. In Proceedings of the International Conference Digital Age: Traditions, Modernity and Innovations (ICDATMI 2020) (pp. 259–265). Atlantis.
• Özkan, A. (2015). Strategic practices of public diplomacy policies in educational field and Turkey’s potential for cultural diplomacy. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 176, 35–43.
• Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows. Open University.
• Pamment, J. (2014). Articulating influence: Toward a research agenda for interpreting the evaluation of soft power, public diplomacy and nation brands. Public Relations Review, 40(1), 50–59.
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE.
• Peterson, P. M. (2014). Diplomacy and education: A changing global landscape. International Higher Education, (75), 2–3.
• Polat, M., & Arslan, K. (2022). General adaptation scale for international students: Development and validation. Psycho-Educational Research Reviews, 11(2), 121–146.
• Seong-Hun, Y. (2018). An overdue critical look at soft power measurement. Journal of International and Area Studies, 25(2), 1–20.
• Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8(2), 23–74.
• Schumacker, R.E. & Lomax, R.G. (2004) A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323–338.
• Shrestha, N. (2021). Factor analysis of students’ exposure to social media for food and beverage. International Journal of Research and Review, 8(2), 113–118
• Snow, N. (2008). Rethinking public diplomacy. In N. Snow, & F.M. Taylor (Eds.) Routledge handbook of public diplomacy. (pp. 3–12). Routledge.
• Stetar, J., Coppla, C., Guo, L., Nabiyeva, N., & Ismailov, B. (2010). Soft power strategies: competition and cooperation in a globalized system of higher education. In: Portnoi, L.M., Rust, V.D., & Bagley, S.S. (Eds) Higher education, policy, and the global competition phenomenon. international and development education (pp. 191–203). Palgrave Macmillan.
• Sung, M., & Yang, S.U. (2008). Toward the model of university image: The influence of brand personality, external prestige, and reputation. Journal of Public Relations Research, 20(4), 357–376.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2018). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
• The Presidency for Turks Abroad and Related Communities (YTB), (2023). T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Yurtdışı Türkler ve Akraba Topluluklar Başkanlığı Faaliyet Raporu 2021.https://ytbweb1.blob.core.windows.net/files/2022/BELGELER2022/2021%20FAAL%C4%B0YET%20RAPORU.pdf.
• Vaxevanidou, M. (2018). Education as public diplomacy: How to build on international image in education. Journal of Media Critique, 4(14), 55–70.
• Wiers-Jenssen, J., Stensaker, B., & Grogaard, J. B. (2002). Student satisfaction: Towards an empirical deconstruction of the concept. Quality in Higher Education, 8(2), 183–195.
• Wilson, I. (2014). International education programs and political influence: Manufacturing sympathy? Palgrave Macmillan.
• Wojciuk, A. (2018). Higher education as a soft power in international relations. In Watanabe, Y (Ed). Handbook of cultural security (pp. 343–360). Edward Elgar.
• Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838.
• Wu, H., & Q. Zha (2018). A new typology for analyzing the direction of movement in higher education internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 22(3), 259–277.
• Yang, Y. (2015). Does the academic programme work? The Jean Monnet Programme and European Union public diplomacy. Journal of European Integration, 37(6), 611–628.
• Yong, A. G., & Pearce, S. (2013). A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 9(2), 79–94.