Türkiye'deki Araştırma Üniversitelerinin Üçüncü Misyonlarının Değerlendirilmesi

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 33, 110 - 121, 20.02.2022

Aslı Günay , Murat Ali Dulupçu

https://doi.org/10.21076/vizyoner.1002787

Cited By: 1

Öz

Bu çalışma, Türkiye'deki araştırma üniversitelerinin üçüncü misyon faaliyetlerinin etkinlik performanslarını son yıllarda öne çıkan toplumsal boyut açısından değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırma üniversitelerinin 2019 yılı için üçüncü misyonları kapsamında yürüttükleri faaliyetlerin etkinliklerini ölçmek için Veri Zarflama Analizi uygulanmıştır. Bulgular, on altı üniversiteden sadece dördünün üçüncü misyon faaliyetlerini etkin bir şekilde yürüttüklerini ortaya koymuştur. Ayrıca üniversitelerin genel ortalama etkinlik puanı 0.422 olduğundan, tüm araştırma üniversiteleri birlikte değerlendirildiğinde bu üniversitelerin üçüncü misyonlarının toplumsal boyuta göre etkin olmadıkları görülmektedir. Bunun yanı sıra, araştırma üniversitelerinin üçüncü misyon faaliyetlerinin etkinliğini etkileyen dışsal faktörleri belirlemek için Tobit modeli kullanılmıştır. Bulgular kuruluş yılının üniversitelerin üçüncü misyon faaliyetlerini pozitif yönde etkilediğini bir başka değişle 1981 yılından önce kurulan araştırma üniversitelerinin topluma hizmet faaliyetlerini daha etkin yürütme potansiyeline sahip olduklarını ortaya koymuştur. Böylelikle, Türkiye'de araştırma üniversitelerinin üçüncü misyonlarının toplumsal boyutu kapsamında yürütülen faaliyetlerin performansı ile araştırma misyonları arasında önemli bir bağlantı bulunamamıştır. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Veri Zarflama Analizi, Etkinlik, Araştırma Üniversitesi, Tobit Model, Üniversitenin Üçüncü Misyonu

Evaluation of Research Universities’ Third Mission in Turkey

Öz

This study aims to evaluate the efficiency performance of third mission activities of research universities in Turkey regarding their social dimension, which has become prominent in recent years. Data Envelopment Analysis was used to evaluate the efficiency of the third mission of universities for 2019. The findings show that the number of relatively efficient research universities is only four out of sixteen, and the overall mean score of universities is 0.422. Thus, in total, universities are inefficient regarding their third mission activities as of 2019. Besides, in order to get reasonable results, a Tobit model was applied to examine the extent to which exogenous factors influence the third mission efficiencies of research universities in Turkey. The results indicate that only the foundation year has a significantly positive impact on university efficiency; in other words, the possibility of third mission efficiency is greater for the older ones, which were founded before 1981. The university ranking was used as a proxy for external factors affecting both the research mission and the third mission of research universities. No significant linkage between the performance of the third mission activities conducted within the scope of social dimension and the research mission of research universities is determined for Turkey. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Data Envelopment Analysis, Efficiency, Research University, Tobit Model, Third Mission of the University

Kaynakça

• Abbott, M., & Doucouliagos, C. (2003). The efficiency of Australian universities: A data envelopment analysis. Economics of Education Review, 22(1), 89-97.
• Agasisti, T., & Bonomi, F. (2014). Benchmarking universities' efficiency indicators in the presence of internal heterogeneity. Studies in Higher Education, 39(7), 1237-1255.
• 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.
• Alliance of Turkish Research Universities [ALTRU]. (2016). International competition in research universities and higher education, research and innovation. Retrieved September 11, 2021 from https://pdo.metu.edu.tr/system/files/duyuru/TAUG_Arastirma_Universiteleri_ve_Yuksekogretim_Arastirma_ve_Inovasyonda_Uluslararasi_Rekabet_Raporu_2016.pdf
• Altbach, P. G. (2009). Peripheries and centers: research universities in developing countries. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10, 15–27.
• Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30(9), 1078-1092.
• Barra, C., & Zotti, R. (2016). 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.
• Baysal, M. E., Alçılar, B., Çerçioğlu, H., & Toklu, B. (2005). Türkiye’deki devlet üniversitelerinin 2004 yılı performanslarının veri zarflama analizi yöntemiyle belirlenip buna göre 2005 yılı bütçe tahsislerinin yapılması. Sakarya Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9(1), 67-73.
• Bierens, H. J. (2014). The tobit model. Retrieved September 30, 2021 from http://php.scripts.psu.edu/users/h/x/hxb11/EasyRegTours/TOBIT_Tourfiles/TOBIT.PDF
• Brundenius C., & Göransson B. (2011). The three missions of universities: A synthesis of UniDev project findings. In B. Göransson, & C. Brundenius (Ed.), Universities in transition: Insight and innovation in international development (p. 329-352). Springer.
• Carrion, A., García-Gutiérrez, V. R., Bas, M.C, & Carot, J. M. (2012). A new methodology for measuring third mission activities of universities. Proceedings of 6th International Technology, Education and Development Conference INTED 2012 (p. 1218-1223). IATED, Valencia, Spain.
• Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision-making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2, 429-444.
• Charnes, A., Cooper, W., Lewin, A. Y., & Seiford, L. M. (1994). Data envelopment analysis: Theory, methodology and applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Coelli, T. (1996). A guide to DEAP version 2.1: A data envelopment analysis (computer) program (No. 08). CEPA Working Papers, Armidale.
• Compagnucci, L., & Spigarelli, F. (2020). 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
• Council of Higher Education [CoHE]. (2020). Yükseköğretimde ihtisaslaşma ve misyon farklilaşmasi araştirma üniversiteleri. YÖK.
• Council of Higher Education [CoHE]. (2021a). Higher education information and management system. Retrieved September 17, 2021 from https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/
• Council of Higher Education [CoHE]. (2021b). University monitoring and evaluation report. Retrieved September 21, 2021 from https://www.yok.gov.tr/universiteler/izleme-ve-degerlendirme-raporlari
• Council of Higher Education [CoHE]. (2021c). YÖK üstün başarı ödülleri. Retrieved September 23, 2021 from https://odul.yok.gov.tr/
• Engert, F. (1996). The reporting of school district efficiency: The adequacy of ratio measures. Public Budgeting and Financial Management, 8, 247-271.
• Fonseca, L. (2019). Third mission accomplished? Why are universities bad at engaging with local and regional government and what we can do about it. Retrieved September 11, 2021 from https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2019/03/13/third-mission-accomplished-why-are-universities-bad-at-engaging-with-local-and-regional-government-and-what-we-can-do-about-it/
• 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. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123455
• Giuri, P., Munari, F., Scandura, A., & Toschi, L. (2019). The strategic orientation of universities in knowledge transfer activities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 138, 261-278.
• Günay, A. (2021). A case study on evaluating regional development-oriented universities’ contribution to society activities in Turkey. Üniversite Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(2), 168-174. https://doi.org/10.26701/uad.975179
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-07-2018-0116
• 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.
• Hsiao, H. C., Chang, H., Cianci, A. M., & Huang, L. H. (2010). First financial restructuring and operating efficiency: Evidence from Taiwanese commercial banks. Journal of Banking and Finance, 34(7), 1461- 1471.
• Innocenti, D., Matousek, M. R., & Tzeremes, N. G. (2019). The interconnections of academic research and universities “third mission”: Evidence from the UK. Research Policy, 48.
• Jager, A., & Kopper, J. (2014). Third mission potential in higher education: Measuring the regional focus of different types of HEIs. Review of Regional Research, 34, 95-118.
• 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.
• 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.
• Kao, M., Lin, C., Hsu, P., & Chen, Y. (2011). Impact of the financial crisis and risk management on performance of financial holding companies in Taiwan. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 50, 413-417.
• Karacabey, A. (2001). Veri zarflama analizi. Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Gelişme ve Toplum Araştırmaları Merkezi Tartışma Metinleri, 33, 1-12.
• Karacaer, Ş. (1998). Antalya yöresindeki 4 ve 5 yıldızlı otellerde toplam etkinlik ölçümü: Bir veri zarflama analizi uygulaması [Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi.
• Kempkes, K., & Pohl, C. (2008). Do institutions matter for university cost efficiency? Evidence from Germany. CESifo Economic Studies, 54, 177–203.
• Kesten, A. (2019). Analysis of the missions of higher education institutions within the scope of third mission understanding. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 5(3), 387-400. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.5.3.387
• Knudsen, M. P., Frederiksen, M. H., & Goduscheit, R. C. (2019). New forms of engagement in third mission activities: A multi-level universitycentric approach. Innovation, 23(2), 209-240. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2019.1670666
• Kuo, J. S., & Ho, Y. C. (2008). The cost efficiency impact of the university operation fund on public universities in Taiwan. Economics of Education Review, 27(5), 603–612.
• Laredo, P. (2007). Revisiting the third mission of universities: Toward a renewed categorization of university activities?. Higher Education Policy, 20(4), 441-456.
• Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (1996). Emergence of a Triple Helix of university—industry—government relations. Science and Public Policy, 23(5), 279-286. https://doi.org/10.1093/spp/23.5.279
• 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
• Marhl, M., & Pausits, A. (2011). Third mission indicators for new ranking methodologies. Evaluation in Higher Education, 5(1), 43-64.
• Matthews, K., & Mahadzir, I. (2006). Efficiency and productivity growth of domestic and foreign commercial banks in Malaysia (E2006/2). Cardiff Economics Working Papers.
• 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.
• Molas-Gallart, J., & Castro-Martinez, E. (2007). Ambiguity and conflict in the development of "Third Mission" indicators. Research Evaluation, 16(4), 321-330.
• MoNE. (2019). National education statistics formal education 2018/’19. Retrieved September 25, 2021 from http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/www/icerik_goruntule.php?KNO=361
• Montesinos, P., Carot, J. M., Martinez, J.-.M., & Mora, F. (2008). Third mission ranking for world class universities: Beyond teaching and research. Higher Education in Europe, 33(2–3), 259–271.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2014.994556
• 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.
• 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.
• Oruç, K. O., Çuhadar, M., Kilinç, M., & Osmancik, S. (2014). Veri zarflama analizi ile mermer işletmelerinin etkinlik ölçümü. 15th International Symposium on Econometrics, Operations Research and Statistics (p. 977-994). Isparta., Turkey.
• Papadimitriou, A. (2020). Beyond rhetoric: reinventing the public mission of higher education. Tertiary Education and Management, 26, 1–4.
• Rosli, A., & Rossi, F. (2016). Third-mission policy goals and incentives from performance-based funding: Are they aligned?. Research Evaluation, 25, 427-441.
• 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
• Sánchez Barrioluengo, M., Uyarra, E., & Kitagawa, F. (2016). Understanding the dynamics of triple helix interactions (WP32). The Case of English Higher Education Institution. Birkbeck Centre for Innovation Management Research (CIMR) Working Paper Series.
• Spiel, C. (2017). How education can promote social progress. Retrieved September 21, 2021 from http://iauptriennial2017.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/ys-1-keynote-spiel-christiane.pdf
• Times Higher Education [THE]. (2019). World university rankings 2019. Retrieved August 9, 2021 from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings
• Tobin, J. (1958). Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 26(1), 24-36. https://doi.org/10.2307/1907382.
• Tran, Carolyn-Dung, T. T., & Villano, R. A. (2018). Financial efficiency of tertiary education institutions: A second-stage dynamic network Data Envelopment Analysis method. The Singapore Economic Review, 63(1), 1-22.
• Trencher, G., Yarime, M., McCormick, K. B., Doll, C. N. H., & Kraines, S. B. (2014). Beyond the third mission: Exploring the emerging university function of co-creation for sustainability. Science and Public Policy 41(2), 151-179.
• Turkish Higher Education Quality Council [THEQC]. (2021). Institutional indicator reports. Retrieved September 26, 2021 from https://yokak.gov.tr/raporlar/kurum-gosterge-raporlari
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-12-2015-0108
• Weihrich, H., & Koontz, H. (2005). Management: A global perspective. Tata McGraw-Hill.
• Worthington, A. (2001). An empirical survey of frontier efficiency measurement techniques in education. Education Economics, 9(3), 245-268.
• Yeşilyurt, C. (2009). Türkiye’deki iktisat bölümlerinin göreceli performanslarının veri zarflama analizi yöntemiyle ölçülmesi: KPSS 2007 verilerine dayalı bir uygulama. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 23(4), 135-147.
• Zomer, A., & Benneworth, P. (2011). The rise of the university’s third mission. In J. Enders et al. (Ed.), Reform of higher education in Europe (p. 81-101), Sense Publishers.