YÜKSEK ÖĞRETİM VE KALİTE YÖNETİMİ: GELİŞMEKTE OLAN ÜLKE BAĞLAMINDA BİR ARAŞTIRMA - TERTIARY EDUCATION AND MANAGEMENT OF QUALITY: A RESEARCH IN A DEVELOPING COUNTRY CONTEXT

Year 2019, , 358 - 379, 26.06.2019

Mehmet Eryılmaz , Ebru Aydoğan Gülcan Petriçli , Duygu Acar Erdur , Esen Cimili Kara Olcay Bektaş

https://doi.org/10.20875/makusobed.543438

Abstract

Tertiary education is accepted as one of the engines of economic growth at national level. However, as far as is known, there have been only a few research studies in literature on efforts to increase quality level of tertiary education institutions that have both an extensive data set and are based on the context of a developing country. Therefore, this study aims to examine the current situation of quality management efforts in Turkish tertiary education Institutions. The data for this study were collected from 672 units of 149 Turkish universities. According to the findings, more than half of the participating organizations did not have any quality management certificate, nor were they making any quality management efforts. Therefore, the findings indicated that there is still a very long and arduous way to be covered by Turkish tertiary education ınstitutions in spite of some important developments.

Keywords

Tertiary Education, Tertiary Education İnstitutions, Quality Management, Turkey

TERTIARY EDUCATION AND MANAGEMENT OF QUALITY: A RESEARCH IN A DEVELOPING COUNTRY CONTEXT - YÜKSEK ÖĞRETİM VE KALİTE YÖNETİMİ: GELİŞMEKTE OLAN ÜLKE BAĞLAMINDA BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Abstract

Yüksek öğretim, ulusal düzeyde ekonomik büyümenin en önemli adımlarından biri olarak kabul edilir. Bununla birlikte, literatürde hem çok kapsamlı bir veri setine sahip hem de gelişmekte olan ülkeler bağlamına dayanan yüksek öğretim kurumlarının kalite seviyesini artırmaya yönelik çabalar üzerine bilindiği kadarıyla çok az araştırma yapılmıştır. Çalışma bu nedenle Türkiye yüksek öğretim kurumlarında kalite yönetimi çabalarının mevcut durumunu incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmada veriler 149 Türk üniversitesinin 672 ünitesinden toplanmıştır. Bulgulara göre katılımcı kuruluşların yarısından fazlasında herhangi bir kalite yönetimi sertifikası bulunmamakta veya herhangi bir Kalite yönetimi sertifikası alma çabası göstermemektedirler. Bulguların sonuçlarına göre, bazı önemli gelişmelere rağmen, kalite çalışmaların Türkiye yüksek öğretim kurumlarını tam anlamıyla kapsaması için henüz çok uzun ve zor bir yolunun olduğunu göstermiştir.

Keywords

Yüksek Öğretim, Yüksek Öğretim Kurumları, Kalite Yönetimi, Türkiye

References

• Akan, B. (2014). Toplam kalite yönetimi çerçevesinde öğrenci memnuniyeti: Namık Kemal Üniversitesi Hayrabolu Meslek Yüksekokulu uygulaması. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 6(10), 106-123.
• Alves, H. & Raposo, M. (2007). Conceptual model of student satisfaction in higher education. Total Quality Management, 18(5), 571–588.
• Aly, N. & Akpovi, J. (2001). Total quality management in California public higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 9(3), 127-131.
• Ambert, A., Adler, P.A., Adler, P. & Detzner, D.F. (1995). Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57(4), 879-893.
• Antony, J., Fergusson, C. Warwood, S. & Tsang, H.Y. (2004). Comparing total quality management success factors in UK manufacturing and service industries: Some key findings from a survey. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 1(2), 32-45.
• Asif, M. & Searcy, C. (2014): Determining the key capabilities required for performance excellence in higher education. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 25(1), 22-35.
• Basari, G., Altinay, Z., Dagli, G. & Altinay, F. (2016). Assessment of the quality management models in higher education. Journal of Education and Learning, 5(3), 107-121.
• Batra, R. & Pall, A.S. (2015). Adoption and assessment of hospital information systems: A study of hospitals in Jalandhar. Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation, 11(3), 205-208.
• Bayraktar, E. Tatoglu, E. & Zaim, S. (2008). An instrument for measuring the critical factors of TQM in the Turkish higher education. Total Quality Management, 19(6), 551-574.
• Bayraktar, E., Tatoglu, E. & Zaim, S. (2013): Measuring the relative efficiency of quality management practices in Turkish public and private universities. Journal of Operational Research Society, 64, 1810-1830.
• Bengisu, M. (2007). Yüksek eğitimde toplam kalite yönetimi. Journal of Yaşar University, 2(7), 739-749.
• Chen, C-Y., Chen, P-C. & Chen, P-Y. (2014). Teaching quality in higher education: An introductory review on a process-oriented teaching-quality model. Total Quality Management, 25(1), 36-56.
• Cooper, D., Ezzamel, M. & Qu, S.Q. (2017). Popularizing a management accounting idea: The case of balanced scorecard. Contemporary Accounting Research, 34(2), 991-1025.
• Coşkun, S. (2011). Strategic management and total quality management: Similarities, differences and their implications for public administration. TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration, 5(2), 59-94.
• Cruickshank, M. (2003). Total quality management in the higher education sector: A literature review from an international and Australian perspective. TQM & Business Excellence, 14(10), 1159-1167.
• Dlacic, J., Arslanagic, M., Kadic-Maglajlic, S., Markovic, S. & Raspor, S. (2014). Exploring perceived service quality, perceived value, and repurchase intention in higher education using structural equation modelling. Total Quality Management, 25(2), 141-157.
• Duarte, R., Ramos-Pires, A. & Gonçalves, H. (2014). Identifying at-risk students in higher education. Total Quality Management, 25(8), 944-952.
• Duque L.C. (2014). A framework for analysing higher education performance: Students’ satisfaction, perceived learning outcomes, and dropout intentions. Total Quality Management, 25(1), 1-21.
• Elmuti, D., Kathawala, Y. & Manippallil, M. (1996). Are total quality management programmes in higher education worth the effort?. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 13(6), 29-44.
• Eryılmaz, M.E. & Eryılmaz, F. (2015). Active and passive resistance to organizational change: A case of entrepreneurship minor program in a public university, in Szopa, A./Karwowski, W./Barbe, D. (eds.): Competitive strategies for academic entrepreneurship: Commercialization of research-based products, Hershey, USA: IGI Global, 51-69.
• Escanciano, C., Fernandez, E. & Vazquez, C. (2001). Influence ISO 9000 certification on the progress of Spanish industry towards TQM. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 18(5), 481-494.
• Fernando, M. (2001): Are popular management techniques a waste of time?. Academy of Management Perspectives, 15(3), 138-140.
• Fuentes, M.M., Montes, F.J.L. & Fernandez, L.M.M. (2006). Total quality management, strategic orientation and organizational performance: The case of Spanish companies. Total Quality Management, 17(3), 303-323.
• Gamage, D.T., Suwanabroma, J., Ueyama, T. ,Hada, S. & Sekikawa, E. (2008). The impact of quality assurance measures on student services at the Japanese and Thai private universities. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(2), 181-198.
• Gamboa, A.J. & Melao, N.F. (2012). The impacts and success factors of ISO 9001 in education: Experiences from Portuguese vocational schools. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 29(4), 384-401.
• Gotzamani, K.D. & Tsiotras, G.D. (2001). An empirical study of ISO 9000 standards’ contribution towards total quality management. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management. 18(5), 481-494.
• Guimarães, R.R.M. (2013). The future of higher education in BRIC countries: A demographic perspective. Revista Brasileira de Estudos de População, 30(2), 549-566.
• Gyimah-Brempong, K., Paddison, O. & Mitiku, W. (2006). Higher education and economic growth in Africa. Journal of Development Studies, 42(3), 509-529.
• Hackman, J.R. & Wageman, R. (1995). Total quality management: Empirical, conceptual and, practical issues. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 309-342.
• Johannsen, C.G. (1996). Strategic issues in quality management: I. Theoretical considerations. Journal of Information Science, 22(3), 155-164.
• Kennedy, M.T. & Fiss, P.C. (2009). Institutionalization, framing, and diffusion: The logic of TQM adoption and implementation decisions among US hospitals. Academy of Management Journal, 52 (5), 897-918.
• Kimberly, J.R. & Evanisko, M.J. (1981). Organizational innovation: The influence of individual organizational and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 24(4), 689-713.
• Koch, J.V. (2003). TQM: Why is its impact in higher education so small?. The TQM Magazine, 15(5), 325-333.
• Küskü, F. (2003). Employee satisfaction in higher education: The case of academic and administrative staff in Turkey. Career Development International, 8(7), 347-356.
• Langstrand, J., Cronemyr, P. & Poksinska, B. (2012). Practise what you preach: Quality of education in education on quality. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 26(11-12), 1202-1212.
• Lazibat, T., Bakovic´, T. & Duzevic´ I. (2014). How perceived service quality influences students’ satisfaction? Teachers’ and students’ perspectives. Total Quality Management, 25(8), 923-934.
• Manyaga, T. (2008). Standards to assure quality in tertiary education: The case of Tanzania. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(2), 164-180.
• Mehta, N., Verma, P. & Seth, N. Total quality management implementation in engineering education in India: An interpretive structural modelling approach. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 25(2), 124-140.
• Mizikaci, F. (2006). Higher Education in Turkey. Bucharest: Unesco European Center of Higher Education.
• Motwani, J. & Kumar, A. (1997). The need for implementing total quality management in higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 11(3), 131-135.
• Öncel, M. & Sevim, Ş. (2014). Sürdürülebilir rekabet üstünlüğü sağlamada kurumsal itibar yönetimi: Yükseköğretimde yapılandırılmasına yönelik bir model önerisi. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(4), 139-156.
• Özen, Ş. (2002). Toplam kalite yönetiminin Türkiye’de yeniden kurgulanması: Koşul bağımlı türdeşleşme testi. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 35(81), 105-142.
• Özer, M. (2012). Türkiye yükseköğretimi için kalite güvence sistemi yaklaşımları. Eğitime Bakış, 8(22), 15-20.
• Özer, M., Gür, & B.S.Küçükcan, T. (2010): Yükseköğretimde kalite güvencesi. Ankara: Pelin Offset.
• Öztan, E. & Doğan, S.N. (2015): Akademinin cinsiyeti: Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi örneği üzerinden üniversite ve toplumsal cinsiyet. Çalışma ve Toplum, 3, 191-222.
• Raharjo, H., Xie, M.,Goh, T.N. & Brombacher, A.C. (2007): A methodology to improve higher education quality using the quality function deployment and analytic hierarchy process. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 18(10), 1097-1115.
• Reja, U.,Mafreda, K.L., Hlebec, V. & Vehovar, V. (2003), Open-ended vs. close-ended questions in web questioannaires. Development in Applied Statistics, 159-177.
• Sahney, S.D., Banwet, D.K. & Karunes, S. (2006): An integrated framework for quality in education: Application of quality function deployment, interpretive structural modelling and path analysis. Total Quality Management, 17(2), 265-285.
• Saraph, J.V., Benson, P.G. & Schroeder, R.G. (1989): An instrument for measuring the critical factors of quality management. Decision Sciences, 20(4), 810-829.
• Sila, I. (2007): Examining the effects of contextual factors on TQM and performance through the lens of organizational theories: An empirical study. Journal of Operations Management, 25, 83-109.
• Skordoulis, R.T. (2004). Change management in higher education: Top-down or bottom up?. International Journal of Applied Management Education and Development, 1(3), 1-23.
• Sohail, M.S., Rajadurai, J. & Rahman, N.A.A. (2003): Managing quality in higher education: A Malaysian case study. The International Journal of Educational Management, 17(4), 141-146.
• Staw, B.M. & Epstein, L.D. (2000). What bandwagons bring: Effects of popular management techniques on corporate performance, reputation, and ceo pay. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 523-556.
• Şentürk, B. (2015): Çokuz ama yokuz: Türkiye’deki akademisyen kadınlar üzerine bir analiz. Vira Verita, 2, 1-22.
• Tari, J.J. & Dick, G. (2016). Trends in quality management research in higher education institutions. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 26(3), 273-296.
• Visakorpi, J., Stankovic, F., Pedrosa, J. & Rozsnyai, C. (2008). Türkiye’de yükseköğretim: Eğilimler, sorunlar, fırsatlar. Yayın No: TÜSİAD-T/ 2008-10/473. TÜSİAD Yayınları, İstanbul.
• Walfish, S., McAlister, B., O’Donnel, P. & Lambert, M. (2012). An investigation of self-assessment bias in mental health providers. Psychological Reports, 110(2), 639-644.
• Wayhan, V.B & Balderson, E.L. (2007). TQM and financial performance: What has empirical research discovered?. Total Quality Management, 18(4), 403-412.
• Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2005). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi.
• Yıldız, S.M. (2014) Service quality evaluation in the school of physical education and sports: An empirical investigation of students’ perceptions. Total Quality Management, 25(1), 80-94.