Scientific Performativity in Türkiye: A Critical Analysis of the Shift from Public Knowledge Production to Competitive Academia

Öz

This article critically examines the impacts of neoliberal transformation on academic institutions in Turkey and the consequences of scientific performativity on vulnerable groups. Within the framework of Karl Polanyi’s concepts of fictitious commodity, disembedding, and value, the commodification of academic labor through market-oriented performance criteria is discussed. The study demonstrates that performativity evaluates knowledge production not in terms of social benefit but through competitive indexes and citation culture, thereby generating individualization, lack of motivation, professional dissatisfaction, and burnout among academics. Furthermore, it is argued that the performative transformation in academia renders vulnerable groups even more defenseless, while universities operate increasingly like market actors, distancing themselves from their social role. Ultimately, the article contends that alternative value systems prioritizing social solidarity and public knowledge production must be developed, and proposes that academic performance evaluation systems be restructured in a more inclusive, equitable, and socially oriented manner.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• scientific performativity
• neoliberalism
• vulnerable groups
• Turkish academia
• Karl Polanyi

Türkiye'de Bilimsel İcracılığın Eleştirel Çözümlemesi: Kamuya Bilgi Üreten Akademiden Rekabetçi Akademiye Dönüşüm

Öz

Neoliberal dönüşümün Türkiye’deki akademik kurumlar üzerindeki etkilerini ve bilimsel icracılığın kırılgan gruplar üzerindeki sonuçlarını eleştirel bir biçimde inceleyen bu makalede Karl Polanyi’nin fiktif meta, çözülme ve değer kavramları çerçevesinde, akademik emeğin piyasa odaklı performans ölçütleri aracılığıyla metalaştırılması tartışılmaktadır. Çalışma, icracılığın bilgi üretimini toplumsal fayda yerine rekabetçi endeksler ve atıf kültürü üzerinden değerlendirdiğini; bu durumun akademisyenler arasında bireyselleşme, motivasyon eksikliği, mesleki tatminsizlik ve tükenmişlik yarattığını ortaya koymaktadır. Ayrıca, akademideki icracı dönüşümün kırılgan grupları daha savunmasız hale getirdiği ve üniversitelerin toplumsal rollerinden uzaklaşarak giderek daha fazla piyasa aktörleri gibi işlediği ileri sürülmektedir. Sonuç olarak, toplumsal dayanışmayı ve kamusal bilgi üretimini önceleyen alternatif değer sistemlerinin geliştirilmesi gerektiği savunulmakta; akademik performans değerlendirme sistemlerinin daha kapsayıcı, adil ve toplum yararına odaklanacak şekilde yeniden yapılandırılması önerilmektedir. Bu makale, neoliberal dönüşümün Türkiye’deki akademik kurumlar üzerindeki etkilerini ve bilimsel icracılığın kırılgan gruplar üzerindeki sonuçlarını eleştirel bir biçimde incelemektedir. Karl Polanyi’nin fiktif meta, çözülme ve değer kavramları çerçevesinde, akademik emeğin piyasa odaklı performans ölçütleri aracılığıyla metalaştırılması tartışılmaktadır. Çalışma, icracılığın bilgi üretimini toplumsal fayda yerine rekabetçi endeksler ve atıf kültürü üzerinden değerlendirdiğini; bu durumun akademisyenler arasında bireyselleşme, motivasyon eksikliği, mesleki tatminsizlik ve tükenmişlik yarattığını ortaya koymaktadır. Ayrıca, akademideki icracı dönüşümün kırılgan grupları daha savunmasız hale getirdiği ve üniversitelerin toplumsal rollerinden uzaklaşarak giderek daha fazla piyasa aktörleri gibi işlediği ileri sürülmektedir. Sonuç olarak, toplumsal dayanışmayı ve kamusal bilgi üretimini önceleyen alternatif değer sistemlerinin geliştirilmesi gerektiği savunulmakta; akademik performans değerlendirme sistemlerinin daha kapsayıcı, adil ve toplum yararına odaklanacak şekilde yeniden yapılandırılması önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• bilimsel icracılık
• neoliberalizm
• kırılgan gruplar
• Türkiye akademisi
• Karl Polanyi

Kaynakça

1. Akça, K. C. (2024). Teknoloji geliştirme bölgelerinin bölgesel kalkınma üzerine etkisi bağlamında Balıkesir teknokentinin değerlendirilmesi. Siyaset, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 12(1), 135-158. https://doi.org/10.54429/seyad.1440589
2. Akkaya, A., & Serin, H. (2020). The investigation of the relationship between academics' person-organization fit and burnout levels. International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(4), 27-44.
3. Arslan, N., & Belgin, Ö. (2020). Efficiency analysis of science and technology parks using data envelopment analysis: Evidence from Turkey. Journal of Polytechnic, 24(4), 1667-1674. https://doi.org/10.2339/politeknik.649833
4. Aslan, G. (2014). Neo-liberal transformation in Turkish higher education system: A new story of a turning point: Draft proposition on the Higher Education Law. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 12(2), 255-283.
5. Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher's soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093022000043065
6. Baykut, S., Erbil, C., Ozbilgin, M., Kamasak, R., & Bağlama, S. H. (2022). The impact of the hidden curriculum on international students in the context of a country with a toxic triangle of diversity. The Curriculum Journal, 33(2), 156-177. https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.135
7. Besimoğlu, C. (2016). Research trends of agricultural faculties in Turkey and the World: Bibliometric analysis of Web of Science, 1996-2011. Turkish Librarianship, 30(3), 471-500.
8. Birden, M., Bastug, M., & Yazici, S. (2020). The impact of incubators on entrepreneurial process in Turkey: A guide for startups. Journal of Business Economics and Finance, 9(2), 132-142. https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2020.1219

9. Blix, A. G., Cruise, R. J., Mitchell, B. M., & Blix, G. G. (1994). Occupational stress among university teachers. Educational Research, 36(2), 157-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188940360205
10. Bobat, A., & Çakılcı, E. (2017). Performans aracı olarak akademik teşvik yönetmeliği: Sorun içinde sorular. Çalışma ve Toplum, 4(55), 1931-1952.
11. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503621749
12. Bouter, M. (2024). Fake academic papers are on the rise: Why they’re a danger and how to stop them. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/fake-academic-papers-are-on-the-rise-why-theyre-a-danger-and-how-to-stop-them-224650 (Erişim Tarihi: 25 Haziran 2025).
13. Budak, G., & Sürgevil, O. (2005). Tükenmişlik ve tükenmişliği etkileyen örgütsel faktörlerin analizine ilişkin akademik personel üzerinde bir uygulama. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 20(2), 95-108.
14. Çetinkaya, E. (2017). Turkish academics’ encounters with the index in social sciences. In H. Ergül, & S. Coşar (Eds.), Universities in the Neoliberal Era: Academic Cultures and Critical Perspectives (pp. 61-92). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55212-9_4
15. Dikmen, F. C. (2016). Productivity change: An empirical study on Turkish state universities. Alphanumeric Journal, 4(1), 27-34.
16. Doğan, G., Dhyi, S. M. M. A., & Al, U. (2018). Web of Science'tan çıkarılan Türkiye adresli dergiler üzerine bir araştırma. Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 32(3), 151-163. https://doi.org/10.24146/tkd.2018.35
17. Ebrahim, N. A., Salehi, H., Embi, M. A., Habibi, F., Gholizadeh, H., & Motahar, S. M. (2014). Visibility and citation impact. International Education Studies, 7(4), 120-125. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n4p120
18. Eksioglu, S., Sezer, H. B. M., & Cicek, F. G. (2015). Ethics committees in Turkish universities. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 2882-2890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.1024
19. Fetscherin, M., & Marmier, P. (2010). Switzerland's nation branding initiative to foster science and technology, higher education and innovation: A case study. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 6(1), 58-67. https://doi.org/10.1057/pb.2010.6
20. Fleming, P. (2021). Dark academia: How universities die. Pluto Books.
21. Flyvbjerg, B. (2005). Social science that matters. Foresight Europe, (2), 38-42.
22. Garipağaoğlu, B. Ç. (2016). Branding in higher education: A case study from Turkey. Higher Education Policy, 29(2), 254-271. https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2015.24
23. Garipagaoglu, B. C., & Ozden, M. Y. (2015). Identifying competitive positioning strategies of universities: Evidence from Turkey. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 10(2), 108-121.
24. Gendron, Y. (2008). Constituting the academic performer: The spectre of superficiality and stagnation in academia. European Accounting Review, 17(1), 97-127. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180701705973
25. Haiven, M. (2023). Financialization and failure: Lessons from the anxious university. In A. Mica, M. Pawlak, A. Horolets, & P. Kubicki (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of failure (pp. 346-362). Routledge.
26. Harding, N. H., Ford, J., & Lee, H. (2017). Towards a performative theory of resistance: Senior managers and revolting subject(ivitie)s. Organization Studies, 38(9), 1209-1232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840616685360
27. Haser, Ç., Kondakçı, Y., & Doğruyol, B. (2012). Öğretim elemanlarının mesleki toplumsallaşması ve akademik kimlik algılarının incelenmesi (Proje No. 109K267) [TÜBİTAK araştırma projesi raporu]. Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu.
28. Isik, I., & Hassan, M. K. (2003). Financial deregulation and total factor productivity change: An empirical study of Turkish commercial banks. Journal of Banking and Finance, 27(8), 1455-1485. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4266(02)00288-1
29. Joelving, F., Labbe, C., & Cabanac, G. (2025). Fake papers are contaminating the world’s scientific literature, fueling a corrupt industry, and slowing legitimate lifesaving medical research. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/fake-papers-are-contaminating-the-worlds-scientific-literature-fueling-a-corrupt-industry-and-slowing-legitimate-lifesaving-medical-research-246224 (Erişim Tarihi: 25 Haziran 2025).
30. Johann, D., Neufeld, J., Thomas, K., Rathmann, J., & Rauhut, H. (2024). The impact of researchers’ perceived pressure on their publication strategies. Research Evaluation, rvae011. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvae011
31. Jones, D. R., Visser, M., Stokes, P., Örtenblad, A., Deem, R., Rodgers, P., & Tarba, S. Y. (2020). The performative university: ‘Targets’, ‘terror’ and ‘taking back freedom’ in academia. Management Learning, 51(4), 363-377. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507620927554
32. Kamasak, R., & Ozbilgin, M. (2021). English medium instruction as a vehicle for language teaching or a product for marketing? The case of Turkey. In J. D. Branch, & B. Christiansen (Eds.), The marketisation of higher education: Concepts, cases, and criticisms (pp. 321-341). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67441-0_14
33. Kondakcı, Y. (2023). Ethics and research-focus politics in Hhigher education. Higher Education Governance and Policy, 4(2), 999-999. https://doi.org/10.55993/hegp.1415120
34. Mammadov, R., & Aypay, A. (2020). Efficiency analysis of research universities in Turkey. International Journal of Educational Development, 75, 102176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2020.102176
35. Meliou, E., Vassilopoulou, J., & Ozbilgin, M. F. (Eds.). (2024). Diversity and precarious work during socio-economic upheaval: Exploring the missing link. Cambridge University Press.
36. Miller, A. N., Taylor, S. G., & Bedeian, A. G. (2011). Publish or perish: Academic life as management faculty live it. Career Development International, 16(5), 422-445. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620431111167751
37. Mintz, B. (2021). Neoliberalism and the crisis in higher education: The cost of ideology. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 80(1), 79-112. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12370
38. Morrissey, J. (2019). Regimes of performance: Practices of the normalised self in the neoliberal university. In S. Ball (Ed.), Foucault and education (pp. 82-102). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315174945
39. Mott, C., & Cockayne, D. (2017). Citation matters: Mobilizing the politics of citation toward a practice of conscientious engagement. Gender, Place & Culture, 24(7), 954-973. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2017.1339022
40. Mula-Falcón, J., & Caballero, K. (2022). Neoliberalism and its impact on academics: A qualitative review. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 27(3), 373-390. https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2022.2076053
41. Nalbantoğlu, H. Ü. (2017). ‘Homo Academicus’ in University Inc.: The Ersatz Yuppie Academic. In H. Ergül & S. Coşar (Eds.), Universities in the neoliberal era: Academic cultures and critical perspectives (pp. 217-271). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55212-9_9
42. Okray, Z. (2018). Akademisyenlerin tükenmişlik düzeyleri: Sistematik bir derleme. Uluslararası Bilimsel Araştırmalar Dergisi (IBAD), 3(1), 163-180. https://doi.org/10.21733/ibad.370288
43. Önder, Ç., & Erdil, S. E. (2015). Aynı kurumsal beklentilere tabi aktörlerin farklılaşan davranışları: Ögretim üyelerinin bilimsel yayın üretkenliklerinin üniversite, bölüm ve birey düzeyindeki yordayıcıları. ODTÜ Gelişme Dergisi, 42(3), 481-519.
44. Önder, Ç., & Erdil, S. E. (2017). Opportunities and opportunism: Publication outlet selection under pressure to increase research productivity. Research Evaluation, 26(2), 66-77. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx006
45. Özbilgin, M. F. (2009). From journal rankings to making sense of the world. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(1), 113-121. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2009.37012185
46. Özbilgin, M. F. (2010). Scholarship of consequence: New directions for the British Journal of Management. British Journal of Management, 21(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2010.00691.x
47. Özbilgin, M., & Slutskaya, N. (2017). Consequences of neo-liberal politics on equality and diversity at work in Britain: Is resistance futile? In J. F. Chanlat & M. Ozbilgin (Eds.), Management and diversity: Thematic approaches (pp. 319-334). Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2051-233320160000004015
48. Peetz, D., Troup, C., & Strachan, G. (2024). The gendered interaction of discipline and role specialisation in academic labour markets. In G. Strachan (Ed.), Research handbook on academic labour markets (pp. 161-179). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781803926865.00022
49. Polanyi, K. (1944). The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time. Beacon Press.
50. Polanyi, K. (1957). The economy as instituted process. In K. Polanyi, C. M. Arensberg, & H. W. Pearson (Eds.), Trade and market in the early empires: Economies in history and theory (pp. 243-270). Free Press.
51. Polanyi, K. (1986). Büyük dönüşüm (A. Buğra, Çev.). Alan Yayınları.
52. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. Simon and Schuster.
53. Roberts, P. (2007). Neoliberalism, performativity and research. International Review of Education, 53(4), 349-365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-007-9049-9
54. Selekler-Goksen, N., & Oba, B. (2018). Strategy crafting in a selected group of Turkish universities. The International Journal of Management Education, 12(3), 179-200. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMIE.2018.090746
55. Shin, J. C., & Jung, J. (2014). Academics job satisfaction and job stress across countries in the changing academic environments. Higher Education, 67(5), 603-620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9668-y
56. Spicer, A., Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2016). Extending critical performativity. Human Relations, 69(2), 225-249. https://doi.org//10.1177/0018726715614073
57. Taraktaş, A. (2019). Effectiveness of Turkey’s public policies supporting technological innovation and productivity increase at the age of knowledge economy. Proceedings of the International Public Finance Conference, 556-563. https://doi.org/10.26650/PB/SS10.2019.001.086
58. Taşkın, Z., & Al, U. (2018). Content-based citation analysis study based on text categorization. Scientometrics, 114(1), 335-357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2560-2
59. Teelken, C. (2015). Hybridity, coping mechanisms, and academic performance management: Comparing three countries. Public Administration, 93(2), 307-323. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12138
60. Teplitskiy, M., Duede, E., Menietti, M., & Lakhani, K. R. (2022). How status of research papers affects the way they are read and cited. Research Policy, 51(4), 104484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2022.104484
61. Thomasberger, C. (2020). Fictitious ideas, social facts and the double movement: Polanyi’s framework in the age of neoliberalism. In R. Desai & K. Polanyi Levitt (Eds.), Karl Polanyi and twenty-first-century capitalism (pp. 135-163). Manchester University Press. https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526127891.00015
62. Tijdink, J. K., Vergouwen, A. C., & Smulders, Y. M. (2013). Publication pressure and burn out among Dutch medical professors: A nationwide survey. PloS ONE, 8(9), e73381. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073381
63. Tülübaş, T., & Göktürk, Ş. (2020). Neoliberal governmentality and performativity culture in higher education: Reflections on academic identity. Research in Educational Administration & Leadership, 5(1), 198-232.
64. Ünal, A. F. (2017). Türkiye yükseköğretim alanında rakip kurumsal mantıklar: Akademik performans kriterlerinde çeşitlilik ve yayın üretkenliği üzerine etkisi. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 50(4), 83-114.
65. UniversityRankings.ch. (n.d.). QS World University Rankings 2025: Turkey. https://www.universityrankings.ch/results?ranking=QS®ion=World&year=2025&q=Turkey (Erişim Tarihi: 25 Mart 2025).
66. Ünnü, N. A. A., & Şentürk, B. (2020). All-in-one academics: Mental workload in Turkish academic employment. In A. Realyvásquez-Vargas, K. C. Arredondo-Soto, G. Hernández-Escobedo, & J. González-Reséndiz (Eds.), Evaluating mental workload for improved workplace performance (pp. 69-87). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-1052-0.ch004
67. Vatansever, A., & Yalçın, M. G. (2018). Ne ders olsa veririz: Akademisyenin vasıfsız işçiye dönüşümü. İletişim Yayınları.
68. Winefield, A. H., Gillespie, N., Stough, C., Dua, J., Hapuarachchi, J., & Boyd, C. (2003). Occupational stress in Australian university staff: Results from a national survey. International Journal of Stress Management, 10(1), 51-63.
69. Yılmaz, Ö., & Memişoğlu, S. P. (2019). Yükseköğretim kurumlarında akademik performans değerlendirmeye ilişkin akademisyen görüşleri. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 3(3), 542-554.
70. Yılmazer, E. B., & Tunalıoğlu, R. (2020). Teknokentler ve agroparklar (Türkiye)-technocents and agroparks (Turkey). Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 7(2), 133-150. https://doi.org/10.30803/adusobed.816595
71. YÖK. (2024a). Üniversite izleme ve değerlendirme göstergeleri ve açıklamaları. Yükseköğretim Kurulu. https://veriyonetim.yok.gov.tr/documentFiles/17598208131.izleme-degerlendirme-aciklamalar-2023.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 25 Haziran 2025).
72. YÖK. (2024b). Üniversite izleme ve değerlendirme genel raporu. Yükseköğretim Kurulu. https://www.yok.gov.tr/documents/documents/68be99a288f25.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 25 Haziran 2025).