Türk Yükseköğretim Alanı İçin Gerekli Bir Kavram: "Rekabet"

Yıl 2021, , 375 - 386, 31.08.2021

Oya Aydın

https://doi.org/10.2399/yod.21.685313

Öz

2000 yılında 71 üniversitesi ve 1.500.000 üniversite öğrencisi olan Türkiye, bugün, 200'den fazla üniversitesi ve 7 milyonun üzerinde öğrencisi olan geniş bir yükseköğretim alanına sahiptir. Yaşanan bu sayısal genişleme, birtakım avantajlar sağladığı gibi bazı sorunları da beraberinde getirmiştir. Genel anlamda en büyük problem "kalite" konusunda ortaya çıkmaktadır. Kalitenin bu genişlemeye paralel bir şekilde gelişim gösterip göstermediği, düşünülmesi gereken en önemli hususlardan birisidir. Bu makale ile Türkiye'de yükseköğretim alanında yaşanan niceliksel gelişmenin, niteliksel bir gelişme ile desteklenebilmesi için yükseköğretim kurumlarının "rekabet" konusuna odaklanması gerektiği vurgulanmıştır. Bunun için, öncelikle, Türkiye yükseköğretim alanı geçmişten günümüze genel bir çerçeve içerisinde ele alınmıştır. Sonra, "rekabet" kavramının Türkiye yükseköğretim alanı için önemi vurgulanarak literatürdeki iki temel rekabet kuramı incelenmiştir. Ardından, bu kuramların yükseköğretim alanında nasıl karşılık bulabileceği literatür çerçevesinde değerlendirilmiş ve bu değerlendirme sonucu elde edilen faktörler ile teorik bir model ortaya konulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kaynak Temelli Yaklaşım, Porter Beş Güç Modeli, rekabet, rekabet avantajı, stratejik yönetim, yükseköğretimde performans ölçütleri, yükseköğretimde rekabet analizi

An Essential Concept for the Turkish Higher Education Area: "Competition"

Öz

In 2000, Turkey had 1.5 million university students at 71 universities, whereas today, it has a much broader field of higher education with a university student population of over seven million at more than 200 universities. Although this quantitative expansion has brought some advantages, it has also created several problems, the most significant of which have emerged in terms of "quality". Whether quality increases in parallel with this expansion is an essential issue to consider. This paper emphasizes that HE institutions need to focus on "competition" to support the quantitative expansion in the field of Turkish HE with qualitative improvement. For this purpose, first, the state of the Turkish HE was overviewed from past to present. Next, the importance of "competition" for Turkish HE was highlighted and the two fundamental theories of competition were discussed by reviewing the related literature. Finally, a theoretical model based on the factors obtained through an assessment of how these theories can be applied to HE was presented.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Competition, competitive advantage, competition analysis for higher education, performance criteria in higher education, Resource-Based View, Porter Five Forces Model, strategic management

Kaynakça

• Abbott, M., & Doucouliagos, C. (2003). The efficiency of Australian universities: A data envelopment analysis. Economics of Education review, 22(1), 89–97.
• Abramo, G., Cicero, T., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2012). The dispersion of research performance within and between universities as a potential indicator of the competitive intensity in higher education systems. Journal of Informetrics, 6(2), 155–168.
• Altbach, P. G. (2011). The research university. Economic & Political Weekly, 46(16), 65.
• ARWU (2019). World ranking. Erişim adresi http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2019.html (18 Eylül 2019).
• Asad, M. (2012). Porter five forces vs resource based view – A comparison. Available at SSRN. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1986725
• Aydın, O. T. (2017). Assessing the environmental conditions of higher education: In a theoretical approach using porter’s five forces model. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 7(2), 378–391.
• Bain, J. S. (1959). Industrial organization. New York, NY: Wiley.
• Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
• Barney, J. B. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Science, 32(10), 1231–1241.
• Barney, J. B., & Clark, D. N. (2007). Resource-based theory: Creating and sustaining competitive advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Basheka, B. C. (2008). Value for money and efficiency in higher education: Resources management and management of higher education in Uganda and its implications for quality education outcomes. Kampala: OECD Uganda Management Institute.
• Beynon, J. (1997). Physical facilities for education: What planners need to know. Paris: UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning.
• Bogt, H. J., & Scapens, R. W. (2012). Performance management in universities: Effects of the transition to more quantitative measurement systems. European Accounting Review, 21(3), 451–497.
• Brandenburg, U., & De Wit, H. (2011). The end of internationalization. International Higher Education, 62, 15–17.
• Bridoux, F. (2004). A resource-based approach to performance and competition: An overview of the connections between resources and competition. Luvain, Belgium Institut et de Gestion, Universite Catholique de Louvain, 2(1), 1–21.
• Calderon, A. (2018). Massification of higher education revisited. Erişim adresi http://cdn02.pucp.education/academico/2018/08/23165810/na_mass_revis_230818.pdf (10 Eylül 2019).
• Campus France (2019). Erişim adresi https://ressources.campusfrance.org/publications/chiffres_cles/en/chiffres_cles_2019_en.pdf (28 Aralık 2019).
• Carayannis, E. G., Alexander, J., & Ioannidis, A. (2000). Leveraging knowledge, learning, and innovation in forming strategic government-university-industry (GUI) R&D partnerships in the US, Germany, and France. Technovation, 20(9), 477–488.
• Clemons, E. K. (1986). Information systems for sustainable competitive advantage. Information & Management, 11(3), 131–136.
• Collis, D. J. (1999). When industries change: Scenarios for higher education. In Collis, D. J. (Ed.), Exploring the future of higher education (pp. 47–70). New York, NY: Forum Publishing.
• Conner, K. R. (1991). A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools of thought within industrial organization economics: do we have a new theory of the firm? Journal of Management, 17(1), 121–154.
• Cutt, J., Trotter, L., & Lee, C. E. (1993). Performance measurement and accountability in Canadian Universities: Making a start in the area of teaching. Financial Accountability & Management, 9(4), 255–266.
• Day, G. S., & Wensley, R. (1988). Assessing advantage: A framework for diagnosing competitive superiority. Journal of Marketing, 52(2), 1–20.
• Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35(12), 1504–1511.
• Dinçer, I., & Rosen, M. A. (2001). The roles of science and technology in energy and environment research and development. International Journal of Energy Research, 25(13), 1165–1187.
• Dobni, D., & Dobni, B. (1996). Canadian business schools: Going out of business? Journal of Education for Business, 72(1), 28–36.
• Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Cantisano Terra, B. R. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313–330.
• Fahy, J., Hurley, S., Hooley, G., & DeLuca, L. M. (2009). Resources, capabilities and competition in higher education. Melbourne: Australian & New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference (ANZMAC).
• Farahat, M. F. (2011). Competitive analysis of the higher education sector in the Gaza strip by adapting Porter’s Five Forces Model. Unpublished master’s thesis, Islamic University of Gaza, Gaza, Palestine.
• Fiol, C. M. (2001). Revisiting an identity-based view of sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 27(6), 691–699.
• Flegg, A. T., Allen, D. O., Field, K., & Thurlow, T. W. (2004). Measuring the efficiency of British universities: A multi-period data envelopment analysis. Education Economics, 12(3), 231–249.
• Fleming, D., & Storr, J. (1999). The impact of lecture theatre design on learning experience. Facilities, 17(7/8), 231–236.
• Foss, N. J. (1996). Research in strategy, economics, and Michael Porter. Journal of Management Studies, 33(1), 1–24.
• Gibbons, M., Limogenes, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scot, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
• Grant, R. M. (1991). A resources-based perspective of competitive advantage. California Management Review, 33(3), 114–135.
• Hamer, G. A. (1993). The use of technology to deliver higher education in the workplace.
• HEFCE (2012). Technology-enhanced learning. Erişim adresi http://bit.ly/ O4dOll (20 Aralık 2019).
• Hua, L. T. (2011). Sustainable competitive advantage for market leadership amongst the private higher education institutes in Malaysia. Journal of Global Management, 2(1), 227–251.
• Huang, H. I. (2012). An empirical analysis of the strategic management of competitive advantage: A case study of higher technical and vocational education in Taiwan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.
• ICEF (2018). Study projects dramatic growth for global higher education through 2040. Erişim adresi https://monitor.icef.com/2018/10/study-projects-dramatic-growth-global-higher-education-2040/ (10 Eylül 2019).
• ICEF (2019). International students generate global economic impact of US$300 billion. Erişim adresi https://monitor.icef.com/2019/08/international-students-generate-global-economic-impact-of-us300-billion/ (18 Eylül 2019).
• Johnes, J. (2006). Data envelopment analysis and its application to the measurement of efficiency in higher education. Economics of Education Review, 25(3), 273–288.
• Joseph, M., & Joseph, B. (2000). Indonesian students’ perceptions of choice criteria in the selection of a tertiary institution: Strategic implications. International Journal of Educational Management, 14(1), 40–44.
• Kay, J. (1993). Foundations of corporate success: How business strategies add value. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Kay, J. (1999). Strategy and the delusion of grand designs. Mastering strategy–Part one. Financial Times, 27.
• Kutlar, A., & Babacan, A. (2008). Türkiye’deki kamu üniversitelerinde CCR etkinliği – Ölçek etkinliği analizi: DEA tekniği uygulaması. Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 15(1), 148–172.
• Kutlar, A., & Kartal, M. (2004). Cumhuriyet üniversitesinin verimlilik analizi: Fakülteler düzeyinde veri zarflama yöntemiyle bir uygulama. Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 8(2), 49–79.
• Lindong, L. A. (2007). A cross-case study of the competitive advantage of private higher educational institutions in Kuching, Sarawak. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia.
• Lynch, R., & Baines, P. (2004). Strategy development in UK higher education: Towards resource-based competitive advantages. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 26(2), 171–187.
• Martinez, M., & Wolverton, M. (2009). Enriching planning through industry analysis. Planning for Higher Education, 38(1), 23–30.
• Mason, E. S. (1939). Price and production policies of large-scale enterprise. American Economic Association, 29(1), 61–74.
• Mathooko, F. M., & Ogutu, M. (2015). Porter’s five competitive forces framework and other factors that influence the choice of response strategies adopted by public universities in Kenya. International Journal of Educational Management.
• Mazzarol, T. (1998). Critical success factors for international education marketing. International Journal of Educational Management.
• Mazzarol, T., Hosie, P., & Jacobs, S. (1998). Information technology as a source of competitive advantage in international education. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 7(1), 113-130.
• Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G. N. (1999). Sustainable competitive advantage for educational institutions: A suggested model. International Journal of Educational Management, 13(6), 287–300.
• Nowotny, H., Scott, P. B., & Gibbons, M. T. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty (12). Cambridge: Polity.
• NTU (2019). World ranking. Erişim adresi http://nturanking.lis.ntu.edu.tw/ranking/ByCountry/2019/TR (18 Eylül 2019).
• Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 697–713.
• Peng, M. W., Wang, D. Y., & Jiang, Y. (2008). An institution-based view of international business strategy: A focus on emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(5), 920–936.
• Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179–191.
• Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York, NY: Free Press.
• Porter, M. E. (1981). The contributions of industrial organization to strategic management. Academy of Management Review, 6(4), 609–620.
• Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York, NY: Free Press.
• Porter, M. E. (2008). The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, 86(1), 25–40.
• Porter, M. E., & Millar, V. E. (1985). How information gives you competitive advantage. Harvard Business Review, 63(4), 149–160.
• Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79–91.
• Price, I. F., Matzdorf, F., Smith, L., & Agahi, H. (2003). The impact of facilities on student choice of university. Facilities, 21(10), 212–222.
• Pringle, J., & Huisman, J. (2011). Understanding universities in Ontario, Canada: An industry analysis using Porter’s Five Forces Framework. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 41(3).
• QS (2020). World ranking. Erişim adresi <https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2020 (24 Eylül 2020).
• Ronquillo, T. A. (2012). Analysis of competitiveness of Batangas State University College of engineering using Porter’s five competitive forces model. In Profession of Engineering Education: Advancing Teaching, Research and Careers. Proceedings of the 2012 AAEE Conference (23rd Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education), Melbourne, VIC, Australia (pp. 875–884).
• Rumelt, R. P. (1984). Towards a strategic theory of the firm. In R. B. Lamb (Ed.), Competitive strategic management (pp. 556–70). Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resources-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 534–559.
• SCIMAGO (2020). Erişim adresi <https://www.scimagoir.com/rankings.php?country=TUR (24 Eylül 2020).
• Shale, D., & Gomes, J. (1998). Performance indicators and university distance education providers. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 1–20.
• Spanos, Y. E., & Lioukas, S. (2001). An examination into the causal logic of rent generation: Contrasting Porter’s competitive strategy framework and the resource-based perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 22(10), 907–934.
• Studyportals (2019). Beyond $300 Billion: The global impact of international students. Erişim adresi https://www.studyportals.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Beyond_300b_International_Students_Final-Aug15.pdf (18 Eylül 2019).
• Taylor, J. (2002). Changes in teaching and learning in the period to 2005: The case of postgraduate higher education in the UK. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 24(1), 53–73.
• THE (2020). World ranking. Erişim adresi https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2020/world-ranking#!/page/ 0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats (18 Eylül 2019).
• Ulucan, A. (2011). Measuring the efficiency of Turkish universities using measure-specific data envelopment analysis. Sosyoekonomi, 7(1).
• Ulutaş, B. (2011). Assessing the relative performance of university departments: Teaching vs. Research. Istanbul University Econometrics & Statistics E-journal, 13(1).
• UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) (2018). Education stats database. Erişim adresi http://uis.unesco.org/ (18 Ekim 2019).
• UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS). (2019). Education stats database. Erişim adresi http://uis.unesco.org/en/uis-student-flow (18 Eylül 2019).
• Verona, G. (1999). A resource-based view of product development. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 132–142.
• Wang, X. (2010). Performance analysis for public and nonprofit organizations. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
• Warning, S. (2004). Performance differences in German higher education: Empirical analysis of strategic groups. Review of Industrial Organization, 24(4), 393–408.
• Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–181.
• Worthington, A. C., & Lee, B. L. (2008). Efficiency, technology and productivity change in Australian universities 1998–2003. Economics of Education Review, 27(3), 285–298.
• Wright, P. M., Dunford, B. B., & Snell, S. A. (2001). Human resources and the resource based view of the firm. Journal of Management, 27(6), 701–721.
• Yalcintan, M. C., & Thornley, A. (2007). Globalisation, higher education, and urban growth coalitions: Turkey’s foundation universities and the case of Koç University in Istanbul. Environment and Planning C, 25(6), 822.
• Yılmaz, D. V. (2016). Uygulayıcıların penceresinden Türk üniversitelerinin uluslararasılaşma deneyimi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (37), 91–109.
• YÖK (2017). Yükseköğretimde uluslararasılaşma strateji belgesi. Erişim adresi https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/AnaSayfa/Yuksekogretimde_Uluslararasilasma_Strateji_Belgesi_2018_2022.pdf (8 Aralık 2019).
• YÖK (2019). Yükseköğretim istatistikleri. Erişim adresi https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr (8 Aralık 2019).