The Entrepreneurial University Vision in Institutional Strategic Plans: An Expanded Comparative Document Analysis of Public and Foundation Universities: Kurumsal Stratejik Planlarda "Girişimci Üniversite" Vizyonu:

Yücehan Yücesoy; Burak Demir; Başak Eser

Authors

Yücehan Yücesoy Rauf Denktaş Üniversitesi https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5666-359X
Burak Demir Institute of Social Sciences, University of Mediterranean Karpasia, Cyprus https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5666-359X
Başak Eser Girne Amerikan Üniversitesi: Kyrenia, Keryneia, CY https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4418-6006

Keywords:

Girişimci üniversite, stratejik plan analizi, devlet üniversitesi, vakıf üniversitesi, üçlü sarmal modeli, teknoloji transferi, dijital dönüşüm, yapay zeka stratejisi, sürdürülebilirlik, cinsiyet eşitliği, bölgesel analiz, yükseköğretim politikası, söylem analizi, Türkiye

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Türkiye'deki 10 devlet ve 10 vakıf üniversitesinin 2020-2025 stratejik planlarındaki 'girişimci üniversite' vizyonunu, karşılaştırmalı belge analizi, eleştirel söylem analizi ve uluslararası kıyaslamayı birleştirerek 18 değişken ve 10 analitik boyut üzerinden kapsamlı bir şekilde inceliyor. Teorik temel, Etzkowitz ve Leydesdorff'un Üçlü Sarmal 2.0 Modeli (1995, 2000, 2008), Teece'nin Dinamik Yetenekler Çerçevesi (2007) ve DiMaggio ve Powell'ın Kurumsal İzomorfizm Teorisi'ne (1983) dayanmaktadır. MAXQDA 24 destekli tematik kodlama, Python tabanlı TF-IDF frekans analizi (NLTK + Pandas + spaCy) ve Fairclough'un (2003) Eleştirel Söylem Analizi birlikte uygulandı; Bulgular Mann-Whitney U testleri ile doğrulandı (p < 0.001, d = 0.92). Çalışma tamamen kamuya açık kurumsal belgelere dayandığı için etik kurul onayı gerekmedi veya talep edilmedi (TÜBİTAK, 2020; HEC Etik Kurulu Yönergeleri, 2021). (1) Vakıf üniversiteleri, kamu üniversitelerine göre yaklaşık 2,4 kat daha yüksek girişimcilikle ilgili referans yoğunluğuna sahiptir (ortalama 74,2'ye karşı 30,8; d = 1,18, çok büyük etki); (2) Ar-Ge bütçe payı, Teknoloji Transfer Ofisi olgunluğu, yıllık girişim sayısı, dijital dönüşüm, yapay zeka stratejisi, sürdürülebilirlik entegrasyonu ve DEI dahil olmak üzere ölçülen 12 değişkenin tamamında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılıklar bulunmuştur; (3) Vakıf üniversiteleri, kamu üniversitelerinin soyut/reaktif bildirimsel tarzıyla keskin bir tezat oluşturan, KPI'ya bağlı hedef dil ve proaktif teknoloji söylemi kullanmaktadır; (4) Uluslararası kıyaslama, Türk üniversitelerinin girişim yoğunluğu ve endüstri gelir oranlarında küresel liderlerin (MIT, ETH Zürih) 2-3 kat gerisinde olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır; (5) Bölgesel analiz, İstanbul-Ankara ekseninin ulusal girişimcilik çıktısının %71'ini oluşturduğunu ve bölgeler arası derin eşitsizlikleri ortaya koyduğunu göstermektedir. On iki öncelikli politika önerisi sunulmuştur.

References

Audretsch, D. B. (2014). From the entrepreneurial university to the university for the entrepreneurial society. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(3), 313–321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9288-1

Audretsch, D. B., & Belitski, M. (2023). The limits to open innovation and the returns to technology licensing. Research Policy, 52(2), 104661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2022.104661

Bulbul, H. (2020). Entrepreneurial university model in Turkey: A comparative analysis of public and foundation universities. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 10(3), 412–425. https://doi.org/10.5961/jhes.2020.403

Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. IAU Press/Pergamon.

Clark, B. R. (2004). Sustaining change in universities: Continuities in case studies and concepts. Open University Press.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.

Cetinsaya, G. (2014). Growth, quality, internationalisation: A roadmap for Turkish higher education. Council of Higher Education Publications.

Deem, R. (2001). Globalisation, new managerialism, academic capitalism and entrepreneurialism in universities: Is the local dimension still important? Comparative Education, 37(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050060020020408

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101

Etzkowitz, H. (2004). The evolution of the entrepreneurial university. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 1(1), 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTG.2004.004551

Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The triple helix: University–industry–government innovation in action. Routledge.

Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The Triple Helix: University–industry–government relations. A laboratory for knowledge-based economic development. EASST Review, 14(1), 14–19.

Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and 'Mode 2' to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4

Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Routledge.

Goktas, P., Sen, F., & Ozcan, K. (2022). Institutional capacity in entrepreneurial university transformation: A qualitative study on technopark experiences in Turkey. Education and Science, 47(210), 119–145. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2022.10887

Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2012). The development of an entrepreneurial university. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(1), 43–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9171-x

Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., & Herrera, F. (2022). Innovation and knowledge transfer in the entrepreneurial university 4.0: A dynamic capabilities perspective. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 23(3), 654–679. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-06-2021-0166

Gunay, D. (2011). Problems, trends and suggestions in the context of restructuring Turkish higher education. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 1(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.5961/jhes.2011.001

Jarzabkowski, P. (2005). Strategy as practice: An activity-based approach. SAGE.

Marginson, S., & Considine, M. (2000). The enterprise university: Power, governance and reinvention in Australia. Cambridge University Press.

Morphew, C. C., & Hartley, M. (2006). Mission statements: A thematic analysis of rhetoric across institutional type. Journal of Higher Education, 77(3), 456–471. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2006.0025

OECD. (2021). Supporting entrepreneurship and innovation in higher education in Turkey. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264083943-en

OECD. (2023). Education at a glance 2023: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/e13bef63-en

QS World University Rankings. (2024). QS world university rankings 2024. Quacquarelli Symonds. https://www.topuniversities.com

Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

THE Impact Rankings. (2024). Times Higher Education impact rankings 2024. Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/impactrankings

Uysal, M., & Kirik, A. M. (2023). Digital transformation strategies in higher education institutions: The case of Turkey. Journal of Knowledge Economy and Management, 18(1), 45–62.

Yildiz, S., Gurbuz, S., & Elibol, H. (2023). Positioning of Turkish universities in global sustainability indices: Analysis of THE Impact Rankings. Journal of Higher Education, 13(3), 223–238.

Yilmaz, A., & Tavsancil, E. (2023). Sustainability integration in higher education: A comparative analysis of strategic plans of public and foundation universities in Turkey. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 38(2), 345–367.

Yilmaz, B. S. (2018). Academic entrepreneurship in public and foundation universities in Turkey: An empirical study. Business Research Journal, 10(4), 1218–1239.

HEC. (2018). Strategic planning guide for higher education institutions. Council of Higher Education of Turkey.

HEC. (2022). Entrepreneurial and innovative university index 2022. Council of Higher Education of Turkey. https://www.yok.gov.tr

HEC. (2024). Turkish higher education statistics 2023–2024. Council of Higher Education of Turkey. https://www.yok.gov.tr/istatistik

TUBITAK. (2020). Research and publication ethics guidelines. Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey.

Zahra, S. A., & Covin, J. G. (1995). Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship–performance relationship: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(1), 43–58.

Zou, T., Ertug, G., & George, G. (2018). The capacity to innovate: A meta-analysis of absorptive capacity. Innovation: Organization & Management, 20(2), 87–121.

The Entrepreneurial University Vision in Institutional Strategic Plans: An Expanded Comparative Document Analysis of Public and Foundation Universities

Kurumsal Stratejik Planlarda "Girişimci Üniversite" Vizyonu:

Authors

Keywords:

Abstract

References

Downloads

Published

How to Cite

Issue

Section

License

Language

Make a Submission

Information

Keywords