Türkiye’de Bölgesel Kalkınma Odaklı Üniversitelerin Topluma Hizmet Faaliyetlerinin Değerlendirilmesi Üzerine Bir Çalışma

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı Türkiye’de Bölgesel Kalkınma Odaklı Misyon Farklılaşması ve İhtisaslaşma Projesi kapsamında belirlenen bölgesel kalkınma odaklı üniversitelerin topluma hizmet faaliyetlerinin etkinliğini ve performansını değerlendirmektedir. Bu üniversitelerin topluma hizmet faaliyetlerinin göreli etkinliğini ölçmek için Veri Zarflama Analizi uygulanmıştır. Bulgular, 2019 yılında on beş üniversiteden yalnızca ikisinin beşeri sermaye ve finansal girdilere göre etkin olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Ayrıca üniversitelerin genel ortalama etkinlik puanı 0.320 olduğundan 2019 yılında tüm üniversiteler birlikte değerlendirildiğinde etkin olmadıkları görülmektedir. Bunun yanı sıra, üniversitenin 2019 yılında stratejik planında yer alan toplumsal hizmet faaliyetlerine ilişkin hedefleri gerçekleştirme oranlarına bakıldığında yalnızca dört üniversitenin 100% ya da daha üzeri bir orana sahip olduğu görülmektedir. Böylelikle bölgesel kalkınma odaklı üniversitelerin temel amacı bulundukları bölgelerin sosyo-ekonomik gelişimine katkı vermek olduğundan ülkemizde bu kapsamda seçilen üniversitelerin topluma hizmet faaliyetlerini, diğer bir deyişle üçüncü misyon faaliyetlerini yürütmede düşük bir performansa sahip olduklarını göstermektedir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• contribution to society
• data envelopment analyisis
• efficiency
• regional development-oriented university
• university third mission

A Case Study on Evaluating Regional Development-Oriented Universities’ Contribution to Society Activities in Turkey

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate the efficiency and performance of contribution to society activities of Turkish public universities titled as regional development-oriented universities in the content of Mission Differentiation and Specialization on the Basis of Regional Development Project. Data Envelopment Analysis was applied to assess the relative contribution to society efficiency of these universities for 2018 and 2019. The results indicate that relatively efficient universities were only three and two out of fifteen universities according to their use of human and financial inputs in 2018 and 2019, respectively. Also, the overall mean score of universities is less than 0.5; hence, in total, universities were inefficient regarding their contribution to society activities in both years. Besides, the number of universities that had a 100% or higher fulfillment rate of the objectives pertaining the social contribution activities in the university’s strategic plan varied between four and seven. Although the main aim of regional development-oriented universities is to contribute to their regions’ socio-economic development, the findings show that selected universities have a poor performance in contributing to society activities, in other words, partly in third mission activities. 

Keywords

• contribution to society
• data envelopment analysis
• efficiency
• regional development-oriented university
• university third mission

Kaynakça

1. Abbott, M., & Doucouliagos, C. (2003). The Efficiency of Australian Universities: A Data Envelopment Analysis. Economics of Education Review, 22(1), 89-97.
2. Agasisti, T.,&Bonomi, F. (2014). Benchmarking universities' efficiency indicators in the presence of internal heterogeneity. Studies in Higher Education, 39(7), 1237-1255.
3. Agasisti, T., Barra, C.,&Zotti, R.. (2019). Research, knowledge transfer, and innovation: the effect of Italian universities’ efficiency on local economic development 2006−2012. Journal of Regional Science, 59:819–849.
4. Atan, M. (2003). Türkiye Bankacılık Sektöründe Veri Zarflama Analizi ile Bilançoya Dayalı Mali Etkinlik ve Verimlilik Analizi. Ekonomik Yaklaşım Dergisi, 48(14), 71-86.
5. Barra, C.&Zotti, R. (2016b). A directional distance approach applied to higher education: an analysis of teaching-related output effıciency. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 87(2), 145-173.
6. Baysal, M. E., Alçilar, B., Çerçioğlu, H., & Toklu, B. (2005). Türkiye’deki Devlet Üniversitelerinin 2004 Yılı Performanslarının,Veri Zarflama Analizi Yöntemiyle Belirlenip Buna göre 2005 Yılı Bütçe TahsislerininYapılması. Sakarya Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9(1), 67-73.
7. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the Efficiency of Decision Making Units. European Journal of Operations Research, 2, 429-444.
8. Charnes, A., Cooper, W., Lewin, A. Y., & Seiford, L. M. (1994). Data Envelopment Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Applications. USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

9. Coelli, T. (1996). A guide to DEAP version 2.1: A data envelopment analysis (computer) program. CEPA Working Papers No. 08, Armidale.
10. CoHE (2019). Yükseköğretim Bilgi Yönetim Sistemi. Retrieved from https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/
11. CoHE (2020). Yükseköğretimde İhtisaslaşma Ve Misyon Farklılaşması Bölgesel Kalkınma Odaklı Üniversiteler. Ankara: YÖK.
12. CoHE (2021). University Monitoring and Evaluation Report. Retrieved from https://www.yok.gov.tr/universiteler/izleme-ve-degerlendirme-raporlari
13. Compagnucci, L.&Spigarelli, F. (2000). The Third Mission of the university: A systematic literature review on potentials and constraints. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 16, 120284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120284.
14. De Jong, S., Barker, K., Cox, D., Sveinsdottir, T., Van Den Besselaar, P. (2014). Understanding societal impact through productive interactions: ICT research as a case. Research Evaluation 23 (2), 89–102.
15. Engert, F. (1996). The Reporting of School District Efficiency: The Adequacy of Ratio Measures. Public Budgeting and Financial Management, 8, 247-271.
16. Frondizi, R., Fantauzzi, C., Colasanti, N.,& Fiorani, G. (2019). The Evaluation of Universities’ Third Mission and Intellectual Capital: Theoretical Analysis and Application to Italy. Sustainability 11, 3455; doi:10.3390/su11123455
17. Giuri, P., Munari, F., Scandura, A.,&Toschi, L. (2019). The strategic orientation of universities in knowledge transfer activities. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 138, 261-278.
18. Günay, A.&Yüksel Haliloğlu, E. (2018). A Case Study on Measuring Research Efficiency of Public Universities in Turkey. Journal of University Research, 1(2), 36-42.
19. Günay, A.&Dulupçu, M.A. (2019). Measurement of financial efficiency and productivity of Turkish Public Universities by using non-parametric methods. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 11(4), 876-896. doi:10.1108/JARHE-07-2018-0116
20. Johnes, J., & Johnes, G. (1995). Research Funding and Performance in UK University Departments of Economics: A Frontier Analysis. Economics of Education Review, 14(4), 301-314.
21. Johnes, J.&Yu, L. (2008). Measuring the research performance of Chinese higher education institutions using data envelopment analysis. China Economic Review, 19(4), 679-696.
22. Johnes, G. (2015). Evaluating the efficiency of public services. IZA World of Labor 2015, 196, 1-10. doi: 10.15185/izawol.196
23. Karacabey, A. (2001). Veri Zarflama Analizi. Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Gelişme ve Toplum Araştırmaları Merkezi Tartışma Metinleri, 33, 1-12.
24. Karacaer, Ş. (1998). Antalya Yöresindeki 4 ve 5 Yıldızlı Otellerde Toplam Etkinlik Ölçümü: Bir Veri Zarflama Analizi Uygulaması. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
25. Kitagawa, P (2004). Universities and Innovation in the Knowledge Economy: Cases from English Regions. Higher education Management and Policy, 16(3), 53-75. 1-48). Paris: OECD.
26. Krcmarova, J. (2011). The third mission of higher education institutions: conceptual framework and application in the Czech Republic. European Journal of Higher Education, 1(4), 315-331. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2012.662835 OECD (2019). Government at a Glance 2019. Paris: OECD.
27. Oruç, K. O., Çuhadar, M., Kilinç, M., & Osmancik, S. (2014). Veri Zarflama Analizi ile Mermer İşletmelerinin Etkinlik Ölçümü. 15th International Symposium on Econometrics, Operations Research and Statistics, (pp. 977-994). Isparta.
28. Papadimitriou, A. (2020). Beyond rhetoric: reinventing the public mission of higher education. Tertiary Education and Management, 26, 1–4.
29. Rubens, A., Spigarelli, F., Cavicchi, A.&Rinaldi, C. (2017). Universities’ third mission and the entrepreneurial university and the challenges they bring to higher education institutions. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 11(03), 354-372. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-01-2017-0006
30. Matthews, K., & Mahadzir, I. (2006). Efficiency and Productivity Growth of Domestic and Foreign Commercial Banks in Malaysia. Cardiff Economics Working Papers E2006/2.
31. Mikušová, P. (2017). Measuring the efficiency of the Czech public higher education institutions: an application of DEA. Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science, 10(2), 58-63.
32. Molas-Gallart, J.,&E. Castro-Martinez (2007). Ambiguity and conflict in the development of "Third Mission" indicators". Research Evaluation, 16(4), 321-330.
33. Mora, J.-G., Ferreira, C., Vidal, J., & Vieira, M.-J. (2015). Higher education in Albania: developing third mission activities. Tertiary Education and Management, 21(1), 29–40. doi:10.1080/13583883.2014.994556
34. MoNE (2019). National education statistics formal education 2018/’19. Retrieved from http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/www/icerik_goruntule.php?KNO=361
35. Munoz, D.A. (2016). Assessing the research efficiency of higher education institutions in Chile: A data envelopment analysis approach. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(6), 809-825.
36. Ng, Y. C., & Li, S. K. (2000). Measuring the Research Performance of Chinese Higher Education Institutions: An Application of Data Envelopment Analysis. Education Economics, 8(2), 139-156.
37. THEQC (2021). Institutional Indicator Reports. Retrieved from https://yokak.gov.tr/raporlar/kurum-gosterge-raporlari
38. Tomkins, C., & Green, R. (1988). An Experiment in the Use of Data Envelopment for Evaluating The Efficiency of UK University Departments of Accounting. Financial Accountability and Management, 44, 147-164.
39. Urdari, C., Farcas, T. V., & Tiron-Tudor, A. (2017). Assessing the legitimacy of HEIs’ contributions to society. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 8(2), 191–215. doi:10.1108/sampj-12-2015-0108
40. Schoen, A., Laredo, P., Bellon, B., Sanchez, P., 2006. Strategic Management of University Research Activities, Methodological guide, PRIME Project ‘Observatory of the European University. Retrieved from. www.enid-europe.org , www.prime-noe.org.
41. Secundo, G., De Beer, C., Schutte, C.S.L.,&Passiante, G., 2017a. Mobilising intellectual capital to improve European universities’ competitiveness. The technology transfer offices’ role. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 18(3), 607–624.
42. Worthington, A. (2001). An Empirical Survey of Frontier Efficiency Measurement Techniques in Education. Education Economics, 9(3), 245-268.
43. Yeşilyurt, C. (2009). Türkiye’deki iktisat bölümlerinin göreceli performanslarının veri zarflama analizi yöntemiyle ölçülmesi: KPSS 2007 verilerine dayalı bir uygulama (Measurement of relative efficiency of economics department in Turkey by using data envelopment analysis: an application based on KPSS 2017 data). Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 23(4), 135-147.