Stratejik yönetim perspektifinden araştırma üniversitelerinin lisansüstü/lisans eğitim performanslarının karşılaştırılması ve etkinlik belirleyicileri: Türkiye örneği

This study determined undergraduate and graduate education efficiency scores using the 2020 data from 20 state research universities in Turkey. The study used input-oriented data envelopment analysis to compare undergraduate and graduate education efficiencies. In the study, the efficiency of the research universities in the prioritized field(s) was compared with the efficiency in the field(s) in which they operate intensively. It also includes suggestions on increasing their effectiveness in the prioritized field(s). In addition, the Tobit regression model, which is a regression model for limited dependent variables, was used to determine the determinants of efficiency scores. The findings show the undergraduate and graduate education performances of research universities comparatively. In addition, based on the results obtained from the Tobit regression model, suggestions were made to increase graduate performance. Five factors (the number of graduate students per faculty member, the number of undergraduate students per academic staff, the number of graduates/undergraduates in the number of students and graduations, and the number of faculty members per program) have a significant effect on graduate performance. Therefore, it is important in terms of strategic management that research universities should be restructured by considering these factors or that they should be considered in plans. The study offers an alternative perspective to performance management in both education and management.Bu çalışmada, Türkiye'de yerleşik 20 devlet araştırma üniversitesinin 2020 yılı verileri kullanılarak lisans ve lisansüstü eğitim etkinlikleri skorları belirlenmiştir. Lisans ve lisansüstü eğitim etkinliklerinin karşılaştırıldığı çalışmada, girdi odaklı veri zarflama analizi kullanılmıştır. Çalışmada stratejik yönetim bağlamında karar verme birimlerinin önceledikleri alan(lar)daki etkinliklerinin, yoğun faaliyet gösterdikleri alan(lar)daki etkinlikleri ile karşılaştırmasını ve önceledikleri alan(lar)daki etkinliklerini nasıl artırabileceklerine yönelik öneriler içermektedir. Ayrıca çalışmada, etkinlik skorlarının belirleyicilerinin tespit edilmesine yönelik kısıtlı bağımlı değişkenlerde regresyon modeli olan Tobit regresyon modeli kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular araştırma üniversitelerinin lisans ve lisansüstü performanslarını karşılaştırmalı olarak sunmaktadır. Bununla birlikte Tobit regresyon modelinden elde edilen sonuçlardan yola çıkarak lisansüstü performansın artırılması için önerilerde bulunulmuştur. Beş faktör (öğretim üyesi başına düşen lisansüstü öğrenci sayısı, akademik personel başına düşen lisans öğrenci sayısı, öğrenci ve mezuniyet sayılarında lisansüstü/lisans sayısı ve program başı öğretim üyesi sayısı) lisansüstü performans üzerinde anlamlı etkiye sahiptir. Araştırma üniversitelerinin bu faktörleri göz önünde bulundurarak yeniden yapılandırılması veya bundan sonra yapılacak planlamalarda bunların dikkate alınması stratejik yönetim açısından önemlidir. Çalışma hem eğitim hem de yönetim alanında, performans yönetimine farkı bakış açısı sunmaktadır

Involvement, leadership and social practice to the development of postgraduate attributes: evidence from extracurricular education with Chinese characteristics

Limited by students’ time and energy, participation in extracurricular activities is not necessarily beneficial to the development of postgraduate attributes. Thus, it is necessary to explore the impact path of extracurricular activities and education outcomes on the development of postgraduate attributes. From a configuration perspective, this study identifies the asymmetric causal effects of engagement and extracurricular education on postgraduate attributes. First, this study proposes a theoretical framework for postgraduate attribute development in extracurricular education with Chinese characteristics based on the input-environment-output (IEO) theory. Second, 166 academic scholarship applications submitted by the whole third-grade postgraduates who are from a science and engineering school at a double first-class university in China are taken as the sample. Finally, utilizing data envelopment analysis (DEA) and fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA), this study conducts the effect of the combination of causal conditions on the development of postgraduate attributes. Results are as follows: (1) the development efficiency of postgraduate attribute in extracurricular education with Chinese characteristics is practical but still insufficient; (2) four configurations consistently linked to high development efficiency of postgraduate attributes. Specifically, in context with outstanding academic research achievement and excellent moral character, participating in extracurricular education or not consistently linked to high development efficiency. In contrast, in a context characterized by academic achievement or moral award not outstanding enough, involvement in extracurricular activities or social practice is consistently linked to high development efficiency. In addition, no configuration links student leadership to high development efficiency, and non-scientific research ability is consistently linked to low development efficiency; (3) there is an asymmetric causal relationship between the high and low development efficiency paths, indicating that the conditions affecting the development of postgraduate attributes have multiple concurrencies. These findings provide a new practical path and perspective for promoting the development of postgraduate attributes through extracurricular education with Chinese characteristics

Understanding Productivity Changes in Public Universities: Evidence from Spain

This paper describes the dynamic changes in productivity in Spanish public universities (SPU) in the period 1994 to 2008. The Malmquist index is used to illustrate the contribution of efficiency and technological change to changes in the productivity of university activities. The results indicate that annual productivity growth is attributable more to efficiency improvements than technological progress. Gains in scale efficiency appear to play only a minor role in productivity gains. The fact that technical efficiency contributes more than technological progress suggests that most universities are not operating close to the best-practice frontier.Garcia Aracil, A. (2013). Understanding Productivity Changes in Public Universities: Evidence from Spain. Research Evaluation. 22(5):351-368. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvt009S351368225Agasisti, T., Catalano, G., Landoni, P., & Verganti, R. (2012). Evaluating the performance of academic departments: an analysis of research-related output efficiency. Research Evaluation, 21(1), 2-14. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvr001Agasisti, T., & Pérez-Esparrells, C. (2009). Comparing efficiency in a cross-country perspective: the case of Italian and Spanish state universities. Higher Education, 59(1), 85-103. doi:10.1007/s10734-009-9235-8ARCELUS‡, F. J., & Coleman‡§, D. F. (1997). An efficiency review of university departments. International Journal of Systems Science, 28(7), 721-729. doi:10.1080/00207729708929431Athanassopoulos, A. D., & Shale, E. (1997). Assessing the Comparative Efficiency of Higher Education Institutions in the UK by the Means of Data Envelopment Analysis. Education Economics, 5(2), 117-134. doi:10.1080/09645299700000011Attewell, P., Heil, S., & Reisel, L. (2012). What Is Academic Momentum? And Does It Matter? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(1), 27-44. doi:10.3102/0162373711421958Balk, B. M. (1993). Malmquist Productivity Indexes and Fisher Ideal Indexes: Comment. The Economic Journal, 103(418), 680. doi:10.2307/2234540Beasley, J. E. (1990). Comparing university departments. Omega, 18(2), 171-183. doi:10.1016/0305-0483(90)90064-gBeasley, J. E. (1995). Determining Teaching and Research Efficiencies. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 46(4), 441-452. doi:10.1057/jors.1995.63Bessent, A. M., & Bessent, E. W. (1980). Determining the Comparative Efficiency of Schools through Data Envelopment Analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 16(2), 57-75. doi:10.1177/0013161x8001600207Bonaccorsi, A., Daraio, C., & Simar, L. (2006). Advanced indicators of productivity of universitiesAn application of robust nonparametric methods to Italian data. Scientometrics, 66(2), 389-410. doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0028-xBonaccorsi, A., Daraio, C., Lepori, B., & Slipersæter, S. (2007). Indicators on individual higher education institutions: addressing data problems and comparability issues. Research Evaluation, 16(2), 66-78. doi:10.3152/095820207x218141Caves, D. W., Christensen, L. R., & Diewert, W. E. (1982). The Economic Theory of Index Numbers and the Measurement of Input, Output, and Productivity. Econometrica, 50(6), 1393. doi:10.2307/1913388Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429-444. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8Coelli, T., & Perelman, S. (1999). A comparison of parametric and non-parametric distance functions: With application to European railways. European Journal of Operational Research, 117(2), 326-339. doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(98)00271-9Cohn, E., Rhine, S. L. W., & Santos, M. C. (1989). Institutions of Higher Education as Multi-Product Firms: Economies of Scale and Scope. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 71(2), 284. doi:10.2307/1926974COSTAS, R., & BORDONS, M. (2007). The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. Journal of Informetrics, 1(3), 193-203. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2007.02.001De Groot, H., McMahon, W. W., & Volkwein, J. F. (1991). The Cost Structure of American Research Universities. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 73(3), 424. doi:10.2307/2109566F�re, R., Grosskopf, S., & Lovell, C. A. K. (1992). Indirect productivity measurement. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 2(4), 283-298. doi:10.1007/bf00156471Farrell, M. J. (1957). The Measurement of Productive Efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), 120(3), 253. doi:10.2307/2343100Flegg, A. T., & Allen, D. O. (2007). Does Expansion Cause Congestion? The Case of the Older British Universities, 1994–2004. Education Economics, 15(1), 75-102. doi:10.1080/09645290601133928FLEGG, 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. doi:10.1080/0904529042000258590García-Aracil, A., & Palomares-Montero, D. (2009). Examining benchmark indicator systems for the evaluation of higher education institutions. Higher Education, 60(2), 217-234. doi:10.1007/s10734-009-9296-8García-Aracil, A., & Palomares-Montero, D. (2012). Indicadores para la evaluación de las instituciones universitarias: validación a través del método Delphi. Revista española de Documentación Científica, 35(1), 119-144. doi:10.3989/redc.2012.1.863Giménez, V. M., & Martínez, J. L. (2006). Cost efficiency in the university: A departmental evaluation model. Economics of Education Review, 25(5), 543-553. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2005.05.006Glass, J. C., McKillop, D. G., & O’Rourke, G. (1998). Journal of Productivity Analysis, 10(2), 153-175. doi:10.1023/a:1018607223276Grifell-Tatjé, E., & Lovell, C. A. K. (1999). A generalized Malmquist productivity index. Top, 7(1), 81-101. doi:10.1007/bf02564713Grosskopf, S., Margaritis, D., & Valdmanis, V. (1995). Estimating output substitutability of hospital services: A distance function approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 80(3), 575-587. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(94)00138-3Jiménez-Contreras, E., de Moya Anegón, F., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2003). The evolution of research activity in Spain. Research Policy, 32(1), 123-142. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(02)00008-2Johnes, G. (1988). Determinants of research output in economics departments in British universities. Research Policy, 17(3), 171-178. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(88)90041-8JOHNES, J. (2008). EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCTIVITY CHANGE IN THE ENGLISH HIGHER EDUCATION SECTOR FROM 1996/97 TO 2004/5*. Manchester School, 76(6), 653-674. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9957.2008.01087.xJohnes, G., & Schwarzenberger, A. (2011). Differences in cost structure and the evaluation of efficiency: the case of German universities. Education Economics, 19(5), 487-499. doi:10.1080/09645291003726442JOHNES, J., & YU, L. (2008). Measuring the research performance of Chinese higher education institutions using data envelopment analysis. China Economic Review, 19(4), 679-696. doi:10.1016/j.chieco.2008.08.004Koshal, R. K., & Koshal, M. (1999). Economies of scale and scope in higher education: a case of comprehensive universities. Economics of Education Review, 18(2), 269-277. doi:10.1016/s0272-7757(98)00035-1Kortelainen, M. (2008). Dynamic environmental performance analysis: A Malmquist index approach. Ecological Economics, 64(4), 701-715. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.08.001Laudel, G. (2005). Is external research funding a valid indicator for research performance? Research Evaluation, 14(1), 27-34. doi:10.3152/147154405781776300Lovell, C. A. K. (2003). Journal of Productivity Analysis, 20(3), 437-458. doi:10.1023/a:1027312102834Lucas, S. R., & Beresford, L. (2010). Naming and Classifying: Theory, Evidence, and Equity in Education. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 25-84. doi:10.3102/0091732x09353578Madden, G., Savage, S., & Kemp, S. (1997). Measuring Public Sector Efficiency: A Study of Economics Departments at Australian Universities. Education Economics, 5(2), 153-168. doi:10.1080/09645299700000013Abbott, M., & Doucouliagos, C. (2001). Total factor productivity and efficiency in Australian colleges of advanced education. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(4), 384-393. doi:10.1108/eum0000000005497Malmquist, S. (1953). Index numbers and indifference surfaces. Trabajos de Estadistica, 4(2), 209-242. doi:10.1007/bf03006863Mamun, S. A. K. (2012). Stochastic estimation of cost frontier: evidence from Bangladesh. Education Economics, 20(2), 211-227. doi:10.1080/09645292.2010.494836Maniadakis, N., & Thanassoulis, E. (2004). A cost Malmquist productivity index. European Journal of Operational Research, 154(2), 396-409. doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(03)00177-2Molinero, C. M. (1996). On the Joint Determination of Efficiencies in a Data Envelopment Analysis Context. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 47(10), 1273-1279. doi:10.1057/jors.1996.154Molinero, C. M., & Tsai, P. F. (1997). Some mathematical properties of a DEA model for the joint determination of efficiencies. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 48(1), 51-56. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2600327McLendon, M. K., Hearn, J. C., & Deaton, R. (2006). Called to Account: Analyzing the Origins and Spread of State Performance-Accountability Policies for Higher Education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(1), 1-24. doi:10.3102/01623737028001001Monk, D. H. (1992). Education Productivity Research: An Update and Assessment of Its Role in Education Finance Reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(4), 307-332. doi:10.3102/01623737014004307Nishimizu, M., & Page, J. M. (1982). Total Factor Productivity Growth, Technological Progress and Technical Efficiency Change: Dimensions of Productivity Change in Yugoslavia, 1965-78. The Economic Journal, 92(368), 920. doi:10.2307/2232675Rodrı́guez-Álvarez, A., Fernández-Blanco, V., & Lovell, C. A. K. (2004). Allocative inefficiency and its cost: International Journal of Production Economics, 92(2), 99-111. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2003.08.012Salerno, C. (2006). Using Data Envelopment Analysis to Improve Estimates of Higher Education Institution’s Per‐student Education Costs1. Education Economics, 14(3), 281-295. doi:10.1080/09645290600777485Sarafoglou, N., & Haynes, K. E. (1996). University productivity in Sweden: a demonstration and explanatory analysis for economics and business programs. The Annals of Regional Science, 30(3), 285-304. doi:10.1007/bf01580523Schmoch, U., Schubert, T., Jansen, D., Heidler, R., & von Görtz, R. (2010). How to use indicators to measure scientific performance: a balanced approach. Research Evaluation, 19(1), 2-18. doi:10.3152/095820210x492477New, B. (1997). The rationing debate: Defining a package of healthcare services the NHS is responsible for The case for. BMJ, 314(7079), 498-498. doi:10.1136/bmj.314.7079.498Sinuany-Stern, Z., Mehrez, A., & Barboy, A. (1994). Academic departments efficiency via DEA. Computers & Operations Research, 21(5), 543-556. doi:10.1016/0305-0548(94)90103-1Tomkins, C., & Green, R. (1988). AN EXPERIMENT IN THE USE OF DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS FOR EVALUATING THE EFFICIENCY OF UK UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENTS OF ACCOUNTING. Financial Accountability and Management, 4(2), 147-164. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0408.1988.tb00066.xUri, N. D. (2003). Technical efficiency in telecommunications in the United States and the impact of incentive regulation. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 27(1), 53-67. doi:10.1016/s0307-904x(02)00098-7Uri, N. D. (2003). The adoption of incentive regulation and its effect on technical efficiency in telecommunications in the United States. International Journal of Production Economics, 86(1), 21-34. doi:10.1016/s0925-5273(03)00002-1Vidal, J. (2003). Quality Assurance, Legal Reforms and the European Higher Education Area in Spain. European Journal of Education, 38(3), 301-313. doi:10.1111/1467-3435.00149Williams, J. D., & Kerckhoff, A. C. (1995). The Challenge of Developing New Educational Indicators. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(1), 113-131. doi:10.3102/01623737017001113Worthington, A. C., & Lee, B. L. (2008). Efficiency, technology and productivity change in Australian universities, 1998–2003. Economics of Education Review, 27(3), 285-298. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2006.09.01

The intersection of academia and industry: avoiding pitfalls and navigating successful partnerships

This dissertation focused on characteristics of successful academic-industry partnerships, barriers causing them to fail, and the development of better strategies for collaborative opportunities and initiatives. Fifty-seven key informant interviews identified 12 barriers to successful partnerships: 1.Intellectual property rights 2.Meeting agreed upon timetables, accountability and reliability issues. 3.Cultural differences. 4.Poorly trained technology transfer offices. 5.Lack of clearly defined goals and objectives. 6.Overhead rates. 7.Publication rights. 8.Change in personnel. 9.Changing priorities. 10.Internal issues. 11.Confidentiality issues. 12.Threat to academic freedom. Fifteen characteristics of successful partnerships were identified: 1.Long term partnership relationships. 2.Trust. 3.Clear alignment of goals and mission. 4.Win-win situation. 5.Communication. 6.Interpersonal relationship/prior relationship with partner. 7.Reputation and expertise. 8.Ability to resolve problems at the onset. 9.Flexibility. 10.Manager who keeps the project on track. 11.Well-trained tech transfer office. 12.Internal champion. 13.Support from the top. 14.Interdisciplinarity. 15.Physical proximity. Several fundamental qualities were found to be essential for successful partnerships: -Trust -The ability to form interpersonal relationships -The ability to align goals and objectives -The presence of strong communication skills -The ability to look at the relationship as a true partnership. Solutions to the identified barriers include improved communication and trust in the partnership effort, a convergent vision, improved reporting structures, measureable goals and clearly defined objectives, the building of interpersonal relationships and strategic partnership opportunities, the ability to articulate vision and work through the plan of action, higher levels of trust in the partnership endeavor, and an undisputable acceptance of the academic mission. An integrated set of policies is required to confront the complex exchange between academia and industry, addressing education, research, development, recruitment, potential employment and job creation. These policies must strike a delicate balance between entrepreneurship and autonomy of research and innovation that give rise to novel discovery and commercialization of new industry. Further research is needed to clarify actual mechanisms necessary for a more comprehensive, intersectoral policy development approach incorporating institutional and organizational efforts toward long-term partnerships.Doctor of Public Healt