Üniversitelerde Kurumsallaşma Mekanizmaları: Türk Üniversiteleri Durum Çalışması

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, odak yükseköğretim kurumunun ve iki yavru kurumun kurumsallaşma mekanizmalarını ortaya koymaktır. Bu bağlamda, öğretim üyelerinin üniversitelerin kurumsal benzerliğine ilişkin görüşleri sunulmuştur. Araştırmada durum çalışması kullanılmıştır. Bu araştırmada odak kurum ile yavru kurumlar, kurumsallaşma konusunda birbirleriyle karşılaştırıldığı için bu araştırmanın deseni, aynı zamanda karşılaştırmalı desendir. Bu araştırmanın çalışma grubunu, Türkiye'deki X Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi adlı odak kurumda çalışan öğretim üyeleri ile Y Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi ve Z Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi olarak adlandırılan yavru kurumlarda çalışan 27 öğretim üyesi oluşturmaktadır. Odak kurum ve yavru kurumların amacının tipik eğitim fakültesi kültürü ile bireyi yetiştirme olması nedeniyle bu kurumlar, üniversitelerindeki diğer fakültelerden farklılık göstermektedir. Fakülteler, okutulan dersleri belirleme ve bölümlerin yeniden yapılandırılması gibi Yükseköğretim Kurulu’nun politikalarına ve koymuş olduğu standartlara uyma baskısı altındadır. Yavru fakültelerinin belirsizliklerle karşılaştıklarında X Üniversitesine danışmalarına olanak verilmektedir. Belirsizlik durumunda, yavru kurumların odak kurumlardan kopyaladığı ya da model aldığı etik olmayan davranışların önlenmesi gerekmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Eşbiçimlilik
• Kurumsallaşma Mekanizmaları
• Yeni Kurumsalcılık
• Odak Kurum

Institutionalization Mechanisms at the Universities: Case Study of the Turkish Universities

Öz

The aim of this study is to explain the institutionalization mechanisms of a focal institution of higher education and two spawning institutions. In this context, views of faculty members on institutional similarity of universities have been presented. Case study was employed in the research. This research design is also a comparative design as focal institution and spawning institutions were compared in terms of institutionalization in the research. The participants of this research is comprised of 27 faculty members who have been working in focal institution called X University Faculty of Education, and spawning institutions called Y University Faculty of Education and Z University Faculty of Education in Turkey. Focal and spawning institutions differ from other faculties within their universities due to the fact that their goal is to train individual with typical faculty of education culture. Faculties are under the pressure adhering to policies and standards established by the Council of Higher Education such as establishing which courses will be given and restructuring of departments. Spawning faculties are allowed to consult with X University when they are facing uncertainties. In the case of uncertainty, unethical behaviors that the spawning institutions copy or take as a model from the focal institutions need to be prevented.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Isomorphism
• Institutionalization Mechanisms
• New Institutionalism
• Focal Institution
• Spawning Institution

Kaynakça

1. Akman, Y. (2019). Eğitim fakultelerinin misyonları uzerine bir arastirma [A study on the missions of education faculties]. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 46, 39-56.
2. Alghamdi, A. M. (2020). Transforming into Entrepreneurial Universities: EU-OECD as a Framework for Saudi Universities. Journal of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, 4(1).
3. Amaral A., & Magalhães A. (2002). The emergent role of external stakeholders in European higher education governance. In A. Amaral, G. A. Jones, & B. Karseth (Eds.), Governing higher education: National perspectives on institutional governance (pp. 1-21). Dordrecht: Springer.
4. Anafinova, S. (2020). The role of rankings in higher education policy: Coercive and normative isomorphism in Kazakhstani higher education. International Journal of Educational Development, 78, 1-13.
5. Aslan, C. (2019). Turkiye’de egitim bilimlerinin kurumsal gelisimi [Institutional development of educational sciences in Turkey]. In B. Aslan, & F. Bikmaz (Eds.), Prof. Dr. Mehmet Ali Kisakurek’e armagan [In loving memory of Prof. Dr. Mehmet Ali Kisakurek] (pp. 407-441). Ankara: Ankara Universitesi Basimevi.
6. Balyer, A. ve Gündüz, Y. (2011). Turk yuksekogretim yonetim sisteminde YOK ile yasanan paradigmatik donusum: Vakif universiteleri celiskisi [Paradigmatic transformation in higher education with YOK: Private universities dilemma]. Journal of Erciyes University Institute of Social Sciences, 31, 69-84.
7. Baruch, Y. (2013). Careers in academe: the academic labour market as an eco-system. Career Development International, 18(2), 196-210.
8. Baruch, Y., & Fidan, T. (2019). The Turkish academic labor market as an ecosystem. In T. Fidan (Ed.), Vocational identity and career construction in education (pp. 37-57). USA: IGI Global.

9. Bess, J., & Dee, J. (2008). Understanding college and university organization: Theories for effective policy and practice. Volume I: The state of the system. Virginia: Stylus Publishing.
10. Beydogan, G. S., & Beydogan, O. (2018). Ogrencilerin memnuniyet duzeyleri acisindan egitim fakultelerinde verilen ogretim hizmet kalitesinin karsilastirilmasi [Comparison of the quality of instructional service provided in the education faculties in terms of students’ satisfaction levels]. KEFAD, 19(3), 2521-2540.
11. Bowl, M., & Hughes, J. (2016). Fair access and fee setting in English universities: what do institutional statements suggest about university strategiesin a stratified quasi-market? Studies in Higher Education, 41(2), 269-287.
12. Bradford, H., Guzmán, A., & Trujillo, M. A. (2017). Determinants of successful internationalisation processes in business schools. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 39(4), 435-452.
13. Brǿgger, K. (2016). The rule of mimetic desire in higher education: Governing through naming, shaming and faming. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(1), 72-91.
14. Bruckmann, S., & Carvalho, T. (2014). The reform process of Portuguese higher education institutions: From collegial to managerial governance. Tertiary Education and Management, 20, 193–206.
15. Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. (4th edition). New York: Oxford University Press.
16. Cai, Y. (2010). Global isomorphism and govarnance reform in Chinese Higher Education. Tertiary Education and Management, 16(3), 229-241. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2010.497391
17. Cardona, L. M., Pardo, M., & Dasi, A. (2020). The institutional isomorphism in the context of organizational changes in higher education institutions. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 6(1), 61-73.
18. Clark, B. R. (1980). Academic culture (Working Paper). IHERG-42. Yale University, Higher Education Research Group.
19. Cockcroft, T. (2019). Institutional hybridity and cultural isomorphism in contemporary policing. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 21(4), 218-229.
20. Colbeck, C. (2002). Assessing institutionalization of curricular and pedagogical reforms. Research in Higher Education, 43(4), 397- 421.
21. Creswell, J. (2016). 30 essential skills for the qualitative researcher. CA: Sage Publications.
22. D’Aunno, T., Succi, M., & Alexander, J. (2000). The role of institutional and market forces in divergent organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(4), 679-703.
23. Dill, D. (2001). The regulation of public research universities: Changes in academic competition and implications for university autonomy and accountability. Higher Education Policy, 14(1), 21-35.
24. Dill, D. (2010). Quality assurance in higher education: Practices and issues. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education. (3rd Edition, pp. 377-383). Oxford: Elsevier.
25. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Collective rationality and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
26. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1991a). Introduction. In W. Powell & Paul D. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1-38). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press
27. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1991b). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. In W. Powell & Paul D. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 63-82). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
28. Dobrev, S., & Gotsopoulos, A. (2010). Legitimacy vacuum, structural imprinting and the first mover disadvantage. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 1153- 1174.
29. Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 15, 532-550.
30. Ekström, M. (1992). Causal explanation of social action. The Contribution of Max Weber and of critical realism to a generative view of causal explanation in social science. Acta Sociologica, 35, 107-122.
31. Ethington, P., & McDonagh, E. (1995a). The eclectic center of the new institutionalism: Axes of analysis in comparative perspective. Social Science History, 19(4), 467-477.
32. Finnemore, M. (1996). Norms, culture, and world politics: Insights from sociology’s institutionalism. International Organization, 50(2), 325-347.
33. Frumkin, P., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2004). Institutional isomorphism and public sector organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(3), 283-307. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muh028
34. Gates, G. S. (1997). Isomorphism, homogeneity, and rationalism in university retrenchment. The Review of Higher Education, 20(3), 253-275.
35. Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. (4th edition). Boston: Pearson.
36. Gounko, T., & Smale, W. (2007). Modernization of Russian higher education: Exploring paths of influence. Compare, 37(4), 533-548.
37. Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., & Suddaby, R. (2008). Introduction. In R. Greenwood, Christine O., R. Suddaby, & Kerstin S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 3- 45). Los Angeles CA: SAGE Publications.
38. Gumus, S., & Gulmez, D. (2020). Yükseköğretimde kurumsal yönetim: Akademik birimlerin yönetim süreci ve karşılaşılan sorunlar. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 10(1), 73-84.
39. Hanson, M. (2001). Institutional theory and educational change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(5), 637-661.
40. Harman, G., & Harman, K. (2003). Institutional mergers in higher education: Lessons from international experience. Tertiary Education and Management, 9, 29–44.
41. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. US: McGraw Hill.
42. Hopf, C. (2004). Qualitative interviews: An overview. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (pp. 203-208). London: SAGE Publications.
43. Howard, M. D., Boeker, W., & Andrus, J. (2019). The spawning of ecosystems: How cohort effects benefit new ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 62(4), 1163-1193.
44. Johnson, V. (2007). What is organizational imprinting? Cultural entrepreneurship in the founding of the Paris Opera. American Journal of Sociology, 113(1), 97- 127.
45. Joo, Y. H., & Halx, M. D. (2012). The power of institutional isomorphism: An analysis of the institutionalization of performance-based pay systems in Korean National Universities. Asia Pacific Education Review, 13, 281–297.
46. Karaman Kepenekci, Y. (2011). Educational administrators’ education in law. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 44(1), 1-16.
47. Karatas Acer, E., & Guclu, N. (2017). An analysis of the expansion of higher education in Turkey using the new institutional theory. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 17, 1911−1933.
48. Kärner, A., & Puura, V. (2008). Doctoral education in transition to knowledge-based society. Trames, 12(1), 95-109.
49. Kriauciunas, A., & Kale, P. (2006). The impact of socialist imprinting and search on resource change: A study of firms in Lithuania. Strategic Management Journal, 27(7), 659- 679.
50. Kuh, G. D., & Whitt, E. J. (1988). The invisible tapestry. Culture in American colleges and universities. ASHE- Higher Education, Report No.1.
51. Kurt, T., Gur, B. S., & Celik, Z. (2017). Necessity for reforming Turkish higher education system and possibility of governance of state universities by the board of trustees. Education and Science, 42, 49-71.
52. Lee, S., & Chung, G. H. (2020). Culturl entrepreneurship: Between-organization cultural isomorphism and within-organization culture shaping. Sage Open, July-September, 1-12.
53. Levy, D. (2006). How private higher education’s growth challenges the new institutionalism. In H. D. Meyer & B. Rowan (Eds.), The new institutionalism in education (pp. 143-161). Albany: State University of New York Press.
54. March, J., & Olsen, J. (1984). The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life. The American Political Science Review, 78(3), 734-749.
55. Marquis, C., & Tilcsik, A. (2017). Imprinting: Toward a multilevel theory. Academy of Management, 7(1), 193-243.
56. Martínez-Ferrero, J., & García-Sánchez, I. M. (2017). Coercive, normative and mimetic isomorphism as determinants of the voluntary assurance of sustainability reports. International Business Review, 26, 102-118.
57. Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. Academy Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363.
58. Meyer, H. D., & Rowan, B. (2006). Institutional analysis and the study of education. In H. D. Meyer & B. Rowan (Eds.), The new institutionalism in education (pp. 1-13). Albany: State University of New York Press.
59. Morse, J. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Methodology Corner, 40(1), 120-123.
60. Nielsen, F., & Salk, J. (1998). The ecology of collective action and regional representation in the European Union. European Sociological Review, 14(3), 231-254.
61. Orrŭ, M., Biggart, N. W., & Hamilton, G. (1991). Organizational isomorphism in East Asia. In W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 361-389). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
62. C. (2018). Author's article. Author's article. Author's article.
63. B. (2020a). Author's article. Author's article. Author's article.
64. B. (2020b). Author's article. Author's article. Author's article.
65. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. (3rd edition). California: SAGE Publications.
66. Powell, W. W., & Colyvas, J. (2008). New institutionalism. In S. Clegg & J. Bailey (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Organization Studies (pp. 976-980). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
67. Peksatici, O., & Ergun, H. S. (2019). The gap between academy and industry- A qualitative study in Turkish aviation context. Journal of Air Transport Management, 79, 1-14.
68. Perrow, C. (1974). Is business really changing? Organizational Dynamics, 3(1), 31-44.
69. Pinheiro, R., Geschwind, L., & Aarrevaara, T. (2016). Mergers in higher education. European Journal of Higher Education, 6(1), 2-6.
70. Reale, E., & Seeber, M. (2011). Organisation response to institutional pressures in higher education: The important role of the disciplines. Higher Education, 61, 1-22.
71. Rowan, B., & Miskel, C. G. (1999). Institution theory and the study of educational organizations. In. J. Murph, & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration. (2nd Edition). (p. 359-383). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
72. Rust, V. D., & Kim, S. (2012). The global competition in higher education. World Studies in Education, 13(1), 5-20.
73. Salter, B., & Tapper, T. (2002). The external pressures on the internal governance of universities. Higher Education Quarterly, 56(3), 245-256.
74. Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th Edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
75. Scott, R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(4), 493-511.
76. Scott, R. (1991). Unpacking institutional arguements. In W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 164-182). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
77. Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
78. Seeber, M., Cattaneo, M., Huisman, J., & Paleari, S. (2016). Why do higher education institutions internationalize? An investigation of the multilevel determinants of internationalization rationales. Higher Education, 72, 685–702.
79. Seyfried, M., Ansmann, M., & Pohlenz, P. (2019). Institutional isomorphism, entrepreneurship and effectiveness: The adoption and implementation of quality management in teaching and learning in Germany. Tertiary Education and Management, 25, 115-129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11233-019-09022-3
80. Shenton, A. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22, 63- 75.
81. Souleles, N. (2004). A prescriptive study of early trends in implementing e-learning in the UK higher education sector. Instructional Technology Forum, paper 78. Retrieved from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper78/paper78.htm [Google Scholar]
82. Stensaker, B., Lee, J. J., Rhoades, G., Ghosh, S., Castiello-Gutiérrez, S., Vance, H., Calıkoğlu, A., Kramer, V., Liu, S., Marei, M. S., O’Toole, L., Pavlyutkin, I., & Peel, C. (2019). Stratified university strategies: The shaping of institutional legitimacy in a global perspective. The Journal of Higher Education, 90(4), 539-562.
83. Stinchcombe, A. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In J. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 142- 193). Chicago: Rand McNally Company.
84. Tan, D., & Tan, J. (2017). Far from the tree? Do private entrepreneurs agglomerate around public sector incumbents during economic transition? Organization Science, 28(1), 113-132.
85. Thrift, N. (2007). Non representational theory: Space, politics, affect. Routledge: New York.
86. Tierney, W. G. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education: Defining the essentials. The Journal of Higher Education, 59(1), 2-21.
87. Torres, C. A., & Schugurensky, D. (2002). The political economy of higher education in the era of neoliberal globalization: Latin America in comparative perspective. Higher Education, 43, 429-455.
88. Toylan, N. V., & Goktepe, E. A. (2010). Ogrenen organizasyon olarak universiteler: Turkiye’deki bir devlet universitesinde durum analizi [The universities as learning organizations: An analysis in a state university in Turkey]. SBBD, 2(1), 61-68.
89. Yaylaci, A. F., Gok, E., & Aydogan, I. (2017). Educational sciences and where to find them? A critical analysis of the Council of Higher Education’s current structural changes in faculties of education. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Research, 21, 1-18.
90. Yildiz, M., Babaoğlu, C., & Tugan, E. N. (2017). Institutionalization Efforts in public policy education in Turkey. Ankara Universitesi SBF Dergisi, 72(3), 669-688.
91. Yilmaz, K. (2017). Egitim fakulteleri yeni bir egitim felsefesi olusturabilir mi? [Can Education Faculties Form a New Educational Philosophy?] Turkiye Egitim Dergisi, 2(1), 22-41.
92. Yin, R. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. (5th edition). California: SAGE Publications.
93. Youtie, J., Li, Y., Rogers, J., & Shapira, P. (2017). Institutionalization of international university research ventures. Research Policy, 46, 1692-1705.
94. Yurdakul, I. H. (2018). Ogretmen adaylarinin gozunden okul ve ogretmenler [Schools and teachers from teacher candidates’ view point]. International Journal of Human Studies, 1(2), 208-218.
95. Yusoff, R., Yusoff, H., Abd Rahman, S. A., & Darus, F. (2019). Investigating sustainability reporting from the lens of stakeholder pressures and isomorphism. Journal of Asia-Pacific Business, 20(4), 302-321.
96. Wadhwa, R. (2016). New phase of internationalization of higher education and institutional change. Higher Education for the Future, 3(2), 227-246.
97. Waverly, D. (2010). The impact of founder professional education background on the adoption of open science by for-profit biotechnology firms. (Working Paper). University of California. Retrieved from: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9728v4sv on the 5th of April 2018.
98. Zapp, M., & Ramirez, F. O. (2019). Beyond internationalisation and isomorphism – the construction of a global higher education regime. Comparative Education, 55(4), 473-493.
99. Zhao, K., & You, Z. (2019). Isomorphism, diversification, and strategic ambiguity: Goal setting of Chinese higher education institutions in the double world-class project. Higher Education Policy. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-019-00168-8.
100. https://egitim.Z.edu.tr/index.php/tr/fakultemiz-tr/menu-fakultemizhakkimizda-tr, retrieved on the 26th of April 2018.
101. https://www.Y.edu.tr/index.php/ueniversitemiz/tarihce2, retrieved on the 26th of April 2018.
102. http://gef.X.edu.tr/posts/view/title/tarihce,-misyon,-vizyon-191519?siteUri=gef, retrieved on the 18th of June 2020.