Institutional culture and power relations in universities: A sociological study of academic hierarchy and micro-politics

Öz

In this study, which aims to examine the effects of power relations and micro-politics on institutional culture in universities within a sociological framework, power relations and hierarchical problems within the framework of institutional culture in higher education institutions are examined. Research on organizational conflict and institutional culture has mostly been conducted in non-academic environments, however, universities and academic departments are also environments with their own institutional culture, institutional identity and where intellectual conflicts occur. Institutional culture is thought to be among the sources of conflicts in academic life and its prevalence is an inevitable fact. Identifying the sources of conflict in academic organizations can also have positive effects such as increasing group harmony. However, while the origins of academic conflicts are generally based on personal factors between individuals, structural elements that form institutional culture such as departmental goals also play a role. Although there are many hypotheses regarding the potential of institutional culture to encourage departmental conflict, definitive empirical evidence is quite scarce in these cases.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Academic life
• Power relations
• Hierarchy
• Institutional culture

Üniversitelerde kurum kültürü ve güç ilişkileri: Akademik hiyerarşi ve mikro-politikaların sosyolojik bir incelemesi

Öz

Üniversitelerdeki güç ilişkilerinin ve mikro-politikaların kurum kültürü üzerindeki etkilerinin sosyolojik bir çerçevede incelenmesinin amaçlandığı bu çalışmada, yükseköğretim kurumlarında kurum kültürü çerçevesinde güç ilişkileri ve hiyerarşik problemler incelenmiştir. Örgütsel çatışma ve kurum kültürü üzerine yapılan araştırmalar çoğunlukla akademik olmayan ortamlarda gerçekleştirilmiştir, ancak üniversite ve akademik bölümler de kendine has kurum kültürüne, kurum kimliğine sahip olan ve entelektüel çatışmaların yaşandığı ortamlardır. Akademik yaşamda çatışmaların kaynakları arasında kurum kültürünün olduğu düşünülmektedir ve yaygınlığının kaçınılmazlığı bir gerçektir. Akademik örgütlerde çatışmanın kaynaklarının tanımlanmasının grup uyumunu artırma gibi olumlu etkileri de olabilmektedir. Ancak, akademik çatışmaların kökenleri genellikle bireyler arasındaki kişisel faktörlere dayandırılmakla birlikte, bölüm hedefleri gibi kurum kültürünü oluşturan yapısal unsurların da rolü vardır. Kurum kültürünün bölüm çatışmasını teşvik etme potansiyeline dair birçok hipotez bulunsa da bu durumlarda kesin ampirik kanıtlar oldukça azdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Akademik yaşam
• Güç ilişkileri
• Hiyerarşi
• Kurum kültürü

Kaynakça

1. Akcan, A. T., Malkoç, S., & Kızıltan, Ö. (2018). Academy and academic culture according to faculty members. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(1), 569–591. [Turkish]
2. Apalı, Y. (2021). Sovereignty and power at Michel Foucault. Journal of Applied Sciences of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, 5(2), 290–304. [Turkish] [CrossRef]
3. Astley, W. G., & Sachdeva, P. S. (1984). Structural sources of intraorganizational: Power: A theoretical synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 9(1), 104–113. [CrossRef]
4. Bagautdinova, N. G., Gorelova, Y. N., & Polyakova, O. V. (2015). University management: From successful corporate culture to effective university branding. Procedia Economics and Finance, 26, 764–768. [CrossRef]
5. Baldridge, J. V. (1971). Power and Conflict in the University. John Wiley.
6. Belias, D., & Koustelios, A. (2014). The impact of leadership and change management strategy on organizational culture. European Scientific Journal, 10(7), 451–470.
7. Bergquist, W. H., & Pawlak, K. (2007). Engaging the six cultures of the academy: Revised and expanded edition of the four cultures of the academy. John Wiley & Sons.
8. Bilgili, A. S. (2016). An evaluation of scientific/academic auyononmy and freedom in universities. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 20(1). [Turkish]

9. Blynova, O., Lappo, V., Kalenchuk, V., Agarkov, O., Shramko, I., Lymarenko, L., & Popovych, I. (2020). Corporate culture of a higher education institution as a factor in forming students’professional identity. Revista Inclusiones, 7, 481–496.
10. Bruneau, E. G., & Saxe, R. (2012). The power of being heard: The benefits of ‘perspective-giving’in the context of intergroup conflict. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 855–866. [CrossRef]
11. Burton, S., & Bowman, B. (2022). The academic precariat: Understanding life and labour in the neoliberal academy. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 43(4), 497–512. [CrossRef]
12. Calof, J. L., & Wright, S. (2008). Competitive intelligence: A practitioner, academic and inter‐disciplinary perspective. European Journal of marketing, 42(7/8), 717–730. [CrossRef]
13. Christopher, J. (2012). Tension between the corporate and collegial cultures of Australian public universities: The current status. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 23(7-8), 556–571. [CrossRef]
14. Çımrın, A. H., & Ege, G. (2022). Science, power and power abuse: The use and abuse of power in academic institutions as a psycho-social occupational risk factor: Traditional review. Turkiye Klinikleri J Med Ethics, 30(2), 199–208. [Turkish] [CrossRef]
15. Deem, R. (2005). Power and resistance in the academy: the case of women academic managers. In S. Whitehead, & R. S. Moodley, (Eds.), Transforming Managers: Engendering Change in the Public Sector (pp. 67–84). Routledge.
16. Du Gay, P. (2008). Max Weber and the moral economy of office. Journal of Cultural Economy, 1(2), 129–144. [CrossRef]
17. Dursun, O. (2018). Thinking society with Pierre Bourdieu. Global Media Journal TR Edition, 8(16), 68–123. [Turkish] [CrossRef]
18. Ertuğrul, A. (2013). The relationship between internal control and corporate culture and Anadolu University research. Journal of Accounting and Taxation Studies, 6(1), 63–100. [Turkish]
19. Flamholtz, E., & Randle, Y. (2020). Corporate culture: The ultimate strategic asset. Stanford University Press. [CrossRef]
20. Foucault, M., & Deleuze, G. (1977). Intellectuals and power. In D. F. Bouchard, (Ed.). Language, counter-. memory, practice: Selected essays and ınterviews (pp. 205–217). Cornell University Press.
21. Fülöp, M. (2004). Competition as a culturally constructed concept. In C. Baillie, E. Dunn, & Y. Zheng (Eds.), Travelling facts. the social construction, distribution, and accumulation of knowledge (pp. 124–148). Campus Verlag.
22. Gersick, C. J., Dutton, J. E., & Bartunek, J. M. (2000). Learning from academia: The importance of relationships in professional life. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1026–1044. [CrossRef]
23. Giroux, H. (2002). Neoliberalism, corporate culture, and the promise of higher education: The university as a democratic public sphere. Harvard Educational Review, 72(4), 425–464. [CrossRef]
24. Giroux, H. A. (1999). Vocationalizing higher education: Schooling and the politics of corporate culture. College Literature, 26(3), 147–161.
25. Gmelch, W. H. (1995). Department chairs under siege: Resolving the web of conflict. New Directions Higher Education, 92, 35–42. [CrossRef]
26. Gmelch, W. H., & Carroll, J. B. (1991). The three Rs of conflict management for department chairs and faculty. Innovative Higher Education, 16, 107–123. [CrossRef]
27. Gorton, G. B., Grennan, J., & Zentefis, A. K. (2022). Corporate culture. Annual Review of Financial Economics, 14(1), 535–561. [CrossRef]
28. Gould, E. (2003). The university in a corporate culture. Yale University Press.
29. Green, J. (2002). Transforming at the margins of the academy. In E. Hannah, Paul L. J., & S. Vethamany-Globus, (Eds.), Women in the Canadian academic tundra: Challenging the chill, (pp. 85–91). McGill-Queen’s University Press. [CrossRef]
30. Grusendorf, S. (2016). Bourdieu's field, capital, and habitus in religion. Journal of Sociology and Christianity, 6(1), 1–13.
31. Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2015). Corporate culture, societal culture, and institutions. American Economic Review, 105(5), 336–339. [CrossRef]
32. Güldiken, Y. (2017). The evalution of the role of corporate culture adoption of the organizational commitment level: An implementation of private school in Eskişehi̇r [Unpublished master's thesis]. Anadolu University. [Turkish]
33. Harman, K. M. (1989). Culture and conflict in academic organisation: Symbolic aspects of university worlds. Journal of Educational Administration, 27(3), 143108208. [CrossRef]
34. Hart, P. F., & Rodgers, W. (2024). Competition, competitiveness, and competitive advantage in higher education institutions: A systematic literature review. Studies in Higher Education, 49(11), 2153–2177. [CrossRef]
35. Hearn, J. C., & Anderson, M. S. (2002). Conflict in academic departments: An analysis of disputes over faculty promotion and tenure. Research in Higher Education, 43, 503–529. [CrossRef]
36. Holton, R. J. (2014). Talcott Parsons and the theory of economy and society. In B. S. Turner, R. J. Holton (Eds.), Talcott Parsons on Economy and Society (pp. 25–105). Routledge.
37. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (2000). Constructive controversy: The educative power of intellectual conflict. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 32(1), 28–37. [CrossRef]
38. Joy, S., Game, A. M., & Toshniwal, I. G. (2020). Applying Bourdieu’s capital-field-habitus framework to migrant careers: Taking stock and adding a transnational perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(20), 2541–2564. [CrossRef]
39. Kantar, G., & Akova, S. (2019). Historical analysis of the relationship between reality and power in the context of Michel Foucault's knowledge and power-oriented discourse. Turkish Studies-Historical Analysis, 14(4), 861–873. [Turkish] [CrossRef]
40. Kaplan, M., & Yardımcıoğlu, M. (2020). Pierre Bourdieu with space, habitus and capital concepts. HABITUS Journal of Sociology, (1), 23–37. [Turkish]
41. Karsantık, İ. (2019). Yükseköğretimde akademik liderlik, yükseköğretim kültürü ve akademik kimlik arasındaki ilişkilerin incelenmesi [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Marmara University. [Turkish]
42. Kenny, J. (2018). Re-empowering academics in a corporate culture: An exploration of workload and performativity in a university. Higher Education, 75, 365–380. [CrossRef]
43. Kettunen, J. (2002). Competitive strategies in higher education. Journal of Institutional Research, 11(2), 38–47. Kitoto, L. A. (2005). Competitive strategies adopted by universities in Kenya [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Nairobi.
44. Korkmaz, O., Aydemir, S., & Uysal, H. T. (2017). The influence of the dominant organizational culture on organizational identification. BJSS Balkan Journal of Social Sciences, 6(12), 62–81. [Turkish]
45. Luzón, M. J. (2013). “This is an erroneous argument”: Conflict in academic blog discussions. Discourse, Context & Media, 2(2), 111–119. [CrossRef]
46. Malhan, I. V. (2006). Developing corporate culture in the Indian university libraries: problems and challenges of change management. Library Management, 27(6/7), 486–493. [CrossRef]
47. Miller, M. T., Mamiseishvili, K., & Lee, D. (2016). Administrative hierarchy and faculty work: Examining faculty satisfaction with academic leadership. Journal of Academic Administration in Higher Education, 12(1), 1–7.
48. Nyamnjoh, B. (2020). Decolonising the academy. African Books Collective. [CrossRef] Ogbor, J. O. (2001). Critical theory and the hegemony of corporate culture. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 14(6), 590–608. [CrossRef]
49. Oyman Bozkurt, N. (2017). Yükseköğretim kurumlarındaki güç ilişkilerinin alan kuramı bağlamında incelenmesi. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 50(4), 33–82. [Turkish]
50. Öztürk, N. (2008). Akademic identity and ethic. Journal of Academic Design, 2(2), 47–56. [Turkish]
51. Paçacı, M., & Erdem, R. (2019). A qualitative study on ınformal roles assumed in academic organizations. Journal of Higher Education (Turkey), 11(2 Pt 2), 445–460. [Turkish] [CrossRef]
52. Palabıyık, A. (2011). Pierre Bourdieu sosyolojisinde “habitus”,“sermaye” ve “alan” Üzerine. Liberal Düşünce Dergisi, (62), 1–21. [Turkish]
53. Reyna, J. (2021). Do we hate it when our friends become successful? Envy in educational technology. In EdMedia+ Innovate Learning (pp. 356–361). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
54. Schulze-Cleven, T., Reitz, T., Maesse, J., & Angermuller, J. (2017). The new political economy of higher education: between distributional conflicts and discursive stratification. Higher Education, 73, 795–812. [CrossRef]
55. Seeshing Yeung, A., Chui, H. S., Lau, I. C. Y., McInerney, D. M., Russell-Bowie, D., & Suliman, R. (2000). Where is the hierarchy of academic self-concept? Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 556. [CrossRef]
56. Sertpolat, R. (2013). Eğitim kurumlarında kurum kültürü ve okul yöneticilerinin kurum kültürü oluşturma yeterlik düzeyleri (Adıyaman ili Besni ilçesi eğitim kurumları üzerine bir uygulama) [Unpublished master's thesis]. Hasan Kalyoncu University. [Turkish]
57. Szopa, A. (Ed.). (2015). Competitive strategies for academic entrepreneurship: Commercialization of research-based products: commercialization of research-based products. IGI Global. [CrossRef]
58. Şahin, Y. (2017). Discourse analysis in the work of Michel Foucault. Sosyal ve Kültürel Araştırmalar Dergisi (SKAD), 3(6), 119–135. [Turkish]
59. Şişli, G., & Köse, S. (2013). The relationship of corporate culture and corporate image: an application on public and foundation universities. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, (41), 165–193. [Turkish]
60. Taşçıer, F. (2010). Michel Foucualt ve güç/iktidar çözümlemeleri (Modern iktidarın yapısı ve işleyişi). In A. Öztürk, (Ed.), Postyapısalcılık (pp. 73–123). Phoenix Yayınevi. [Turkish]
61. Tholen, G. (2013). The social construction of competition for graduate jobs: A comparison between Great Britain and the Netherlands. Sociology, 47(2), 267–283. [CrossRef]
62. Tittenbrun, J. (2014). Talcott Parsons’ economic sociology. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, (2), 20–40. [CrossRef]
63. Turnbull, S. M., Locke, K., Vanholsbeeck, F., & O’Neale, D. R. (2019). Bourdieu, networks, and movements: Using the concepts of habitus, field and capital to understand a network analysis of gender differences in undergraduate physics. PloS One, 14(9), e0222357. [CrossRef]
64. Webster, G. (2003). Corporate discourse and the academy: A polemic. Industry and Higher Education, 17(2), 85–90. [CrossRef]
65. Yardımcıoğlu, M. K. M. (2022). pierre bourdieu with areas, habitus and capital concepts. Social Sciences Studies Journal, 4(14), 614–623. [Turkish]
66. Yoder, J. D. (2018). Challenging the gendered academic hierarchy: The artificial separation of research, teaching, and feminist activism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 42(2), 127–135. [CrossRef]
67. Zhao, X. (2016). Educating competitive students for a competitive nation: Why and how has the Chinese discourse of competition in education rapidly changed within three decades? Berkeley Review of Education, 6(1), 5–27. [CrossRef]