e-BTTAM Anketi’ne ait ham veri seti (excel dosyası)
e-BTTAM Anketi’ne ait bütüncül veri seti (excel dosyası)
e-BTTAM Anketi’ne ait bütüncül veri seti (SPSS dosyası)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DyLCb-CsQri9UDAM6_XgzygEa9dbVHuP/view?usp=sharing
BTTAM Anketi’ne ait SPSS dosyası açıklaması (word dosyası)
Buradaki verileri kullanarak çalışma/yayın üretecek araştırmacıların aşağıdaki noktalara uygun ilerlemesi etik açıdan daha sağlıklı olacaktır.
1. Yararlanıcı araştırmacılar, çalışma metinlerinin içerisinde veya “Bilgilendirme (Acknowledgement)” bolumunde” BU ARAŞTIRMADA, TÜRKİYE APIKS WEBSİTESİ ÜZERİNDEN ERİŞİME AÇIK OLAN VERİLER KULLANILMIŞTIR. TÜRKİYE APIKS PROJESİ İSE TÜBİTAK (Proje No: 117K917) ve ÇOMÜ-BAP (Proje No: SBA-2017-1093) TARAFINDAN DESTEKLENMİŞTİR ifadesini ekleyerek hem projeyi hem de projeye destek sağlayan kuruluşları belirtmeleri yerinde olacaktır. Benzer şekilde, İngilizce olarak oluşturacakları çalışmalarda, yararlanıcı araştırmacıların “Acknowledgement” bolumunde “THE DATA WAS RETRIEVED FROM THE DATASET WHICH THE TURKISH APIKS TEAM HAS PROVIDED OPEN ACCESS THROUGH THEIR PROJECT WEBSITE (https://apikstr.net/) ve “Funding” bolumunde APIKS PROJECT WAS SUPPORTED BY TUBITAK (Project No: 117K917) AND COMU-BAP (Project No: SBA-2017-1093) IN TURKEY ifadesine yer vererek yine hem projeyi hem de proje destekçisi kurumları belirtmeleri yerinde olacaktır.
2. Yararlanıcı araştırmacıların, daha ilk aşamada APIKS verilerinden üretmek istedikleri çaışmaya yönelik 150-200 kelimelik (Türkçe veya İngilizce) bir özeti (çalışma önerisi formatında ve hangi kısımdaki verilerden hangi tür analizlerle çalışma planlandığı bilgisini içeren) bizlere iletmesi ve bizlerin bu sayfadan iletilen özet önerileri paylaşmamız, başka araştırmacılar tarafından aynı ve/veya çok benzer çalışmaların üretilmesini minimize ederek, yararlanıcı araştırmacıların Re-Production ve/veya Imitation kapsamında olabilecek çalışmalarını önleyebilecektir. Ayrıca, süreçte tamamladıkları çalışmalarına ait özet/abtsract bilgisini yine bizlerle paylaştıkları takdirde yararlanıcı araştırmacıların buradaki önceki öneri özetleri güncellenebilecektir.
3. Yararlanıcı araştırmacılar, APIKS verilerine dayalı yayınlanan çalışmalarının bir kopyasını bizlere ilettikleri takdirde sol taraftaki menüde yer alan “Verilere Dayalı Yayınlar” bölümünde bu yayınlara yer verilecek ve boylece yine Re-Production ve/veya Imitation çalışmalar önlenebilecektir.
Yukarıda ifade edilen etik konulara uygunluk dışında, Türkiye APIKS verilerinden bilimsel amaçla yararlanmak için her hangi bir izin başvurusuna gerek bulunmamaktadır.
SÜREÇTE OLAN ÇALIŞMALAR (TÜRKİYE APIKS VERİLERİNE DAYALI YAYINLARA EK OLARAK)
Durum: Başvuruda
Title: Does the Public-Private Higher Education Institution Distinction Influence Academics’ Societal Engagement? Evidence from Chile and Turkey
Abstract: Academics’ societal engagement (ASE) has received increased attention over the last several decades, with fewer studies exploring how the distinction between public and private higher education systems affects ASE. To this end, this research presents the results of an international survey of academics (Academic Profession in Knowledge-based Society (APIKS)) working at higher education institutions in Chile and Turkey, representing different worldwide regions and cultural traditions, and examines to what extent the dominant institutional type (public vs. private) influences participation in ASE activities, partnership choices, and funding preferences. The survey findings show that the rate of Chilean academics who participate in ASE activities is more than twice that of Turkish academics regardless of the public and private types of universities academics have worked. Considering partnership and fund sources together through the sample countries, potential policy developments are then discussed to enhance ASE outcomes within public and private dominant higher education systems.
Keywords: Chile and Turkey, public-private higher education, academics’ societal engagement, partnership choice, funding sources
Durum: Üretimde
Title: Perceptions of Turkish Academics about Their Influence on Institutional Decisions and Policies
Abstract: The academic profession has been largely influenced by institutional management reforms over the past few decades. Factors such as privatization, commodification and entrepreneurship have given rise to new-managerialist and multi-agent governance approaches. In addition, an increase in the importance of rankings and reaching external funding together with a shrinking job market with more adjunct positions have brought a performativity culture, leading to more competition across institutions, disciplines and academics. In this complex environment, the role of academics in participating decision makings and shaping the policies in their institutions have become controversial, questioning the values of collegiality and self-governance in higher education management. This study aims to contribute to the critical discussion of changing governance values in higher education examining the case of Turkey which has experienced a rapid massification in its higher education system. In more detail, the purpose of this study is to examine how influential the academics in Turkish higher education institutions are in shaping the key academic policies at the department, college and institutional levels and how their level of influence differ according to personal and institutional characteristics. A survey model was employed for the research, where the data was obtained by the Turkish version of the Academic Profession in the Knowledge Society Questionnaire (BTTAM). Descriptive and inferential analyses were run over the data which consisted of the responses gathered from 1810 academics. The findings indicated relatively low levels of academics’ influence in shaping policies in their institutions at different levels. Moreover, significant differences were observed in the academics’ level of influence in their institutions based on several personal and organizational characteristics. The findings will be discussed in line with changing management and governance structures in higher education and the debates on the role of academics in university governance.