Kalitenin Standardını Belirlemek: Türk Üniversite Sıralama Sistemlerinin Berlin Prensiplerine Göre İncelenmesi

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 3, 260 - 268, 27.11.2020

Engin Karadağ , Cüneyt Belenkuyu

https://doi.org/10.2399/yod.19.020000

Cited By: 3

Öz

Yükseköğretimin ticarileşmesi, uluslararasılaşması, eğitim politikalarının liberal karakterlerinin daha da etkili olması sonucu artan rekabet ortamı yükseköğretimde sıralama sistemlerinin ortaya çıkmasına sebep olmuş ve bu sistemler oluşturdukları etkiyle yükseköğretimin bir parçası haline gelmiştir. Sıralama sistemlerinde karşılaşılan önemli problemin metodolojik süreçler olduğu literatürde sıklıkla ifade edilmektedir. Sistemlerin sıralama sonuçları benimsedikleri metodolojiden kaynaklı olarak farklılaşmaktadır. Bu farklılıktan dolayı sıralamaların nasıl yapılacağıyla ilgili bir kurallar bütününe ihtiyaç vardır. Berlin Prensipleri adıyla 2006 yılında oluşturulan kurallar bu ihtiyaca cevap vermeyi amaçlamıştır. Bu çalışmada ise Türkiye'deki üniversite sıralama sistemlerinin bu kurallara ne ölçüde uygun olduğunun belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Metodolojik değerlendirme deseni kullanılarak tasarlanan çalışmada veriler sıralama sistemlerinin web sitelerinden, basılı ve elektronik yayınlarından elde edilmiştir. Elde edilen veriler Berlin Prensiplerinde belirlenen kurallardan oluşturulan bir değerlendirme formuna göre puanlandırılmıştır. Bulgular, Türk üniversite sıralama sistemlerinin çoğunluğunun Berlin Prensiplerinde belirlenen kurallara tam uyumlu tasarlanmadığını ve kendi araştırma anlayışına ve kalite tanımlarına uygun olarak yükseköğretim kurumlarını değerlendirdiğini göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Berlin prensipleri, Türk sıralama sistemleri, üniversite sıralamaları

Destekleyen Kurum

Bu çalışma Türkiye Bilimleri Akademisi (TÜBA) programı tarafından sağlanan GEBİP Ödülü ile desteklenmiştir.

Determining the Standard of Quality: Examining the Turkish University Ranking Systems According to the Berlin Principles

Öz

The increasing competitive environment arising from the commercialization and internationalization of higher education (HE) and the increasing influence of the liberal character of educational policies have led to the emergence of HE ranking systems which have become an inevitable part of HE with the effect they have created. The lack of unambiguous methodological processes is one of the oft-cited critical problems in the HE ranking system literature. These systems vary due to the particular methods they adopt in creating their ranking results. This variation requires a set of principles on how best to perform these rankings. The principles established under Berlin Principles in 2006 aimed to address this need. This study aims to determine to what extent Turkish ranking systems comply with the basic tenets determined in the Berlin Principles. The study was designed as a methodological assessment study and the data were obtained from the websites and printed and electronic publications related to Turkish ranking systems. The data obtained were scored according to an evaluation form consisting of the tenets set out in the Berlin Principles. The findings show that the majority of the Turkish university ranking systems were not designed to be fully compliant with the Berlin Principles and instead they evaluate HE institutions by their research approach and quality definitions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Berlin principles, Turkish ranking systems, university rankings

Kaynakça

• Aguillo, I., Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., & Ortega, J. (2010). Comparing university rankings. Scientometrics, 85(1), 243–256.
• Altbach, P. G. (2012). The globalization of college and university rankings. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 44(1), 26–31.
• APA (2009). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th Ed). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Barron, G. R. (2017). The Berlin Principles on ranking higher education institutions: Limitations, legitimacy, and value conflict. Higher Education, 73(2), 317–333.
• Belenkuyu, C., & Karadağ, E. (2020). Akademik kapitalizm: Sıralama sistemlerinin hegemonyasındaki üniversiteler. Ankara: Nobel.
• Bowden, R. (2000). Fantasy higher education: University and college league tables. Quality in Higher Education, 6(1), 41–60.
• Cheng, Y., & Liu, N. C. (2008). Examining major rankings according to the Berlin principles. Higher Education in Europe, 33(2–3), 201–208.
• Çakır, M. P., Acartürk, C., Alaşehir, O., & Çilingir, C. (2015). A comparative analysis of global and national university ranking systems. Scientometrics, 103(3), 813–848.
• Donetskaia, S. S. (2017). The Berlin Principles in Russian university rankings. Problems of Economic Transition, 59(7-9), 614–626.
• Fausto, S., Calero-Medina, C., & Noyons, E. (2016). The Brazilian ranking of research and the Berlin principles for rankings of institutions of higher education. Future Studies Research Journal: Trends and Strategies, 8(2), 211–236.
• Hägg, I., & Wedlin, L. (2013). Standards for quality? A critical appraisal of the Berlin Principles for international rankings of universities. Quality in Higher Education, 19(3), 326–342.
• Harvey, L. (2008). Rankings of higher education institutions: A critical review. Quality in Higher Education, 14, 187–207.
• Hirsch J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569–16572.
• IREG (2006). Berlin Principles on rankings of higher education institutions. 15 Ekim 2018 tarihinde <http://ireg-observatory.org/en/index.php/berlin-principles-english> adresinden erişildi.
• Jovanovic, M., Jeremic, V., Savic, G., Bulajic, M., & Martic, M. (2012). How does the normalization of data affect the ARWU ranking? Scientometrics, 93(2), 319–327.
• Karadağ, E. & Yücel, C. (2018). Türkiye üniversite memnuniyet araştırması (TÜMA) 2018. Üniversite Araştırmaları Laboratuvarı (ÜniAr). doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13111.11683
• Lim, M. A. (2018). The building of weak expertise: The work of global university rankers. Higher Education, 75(3), 415–430.
• Locke, W. (2011). The institutionalization of rankings: Managing status anxiety in an increasingly marketized environment. In J. C. Shin, R. K. Toutkoushian, & U. Teichler (Ed.), University rankings: Theoretical basis, methodology and impacts on global higher education (pp. 165–185). Dordrecht: Springer.
• Neuman, L. W. (2007). Toplumsal araştırma yöntemleri: Nitel ve nicel yaklaşımlar (S. Özge, Çev.). İstanbul: Yayın Odası.
• Pusser, B., & Marginson, S. (2013). University rankings in critical perspective. The Journal of Higher Education, 84(4), 544–568.
• Rocki, M. (2005). Statistical and mathematical aspects of ranking: Lessons from Poland. Higher Education in Europe, 30(2), 173–181.
• Saka, Y., & Yaman, S. (2011). Üniversite sıralama sistemleri: Kriterler ve yapılan eleştiriler. Yüksekögretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 1(2), 72–79.
• Stack, M. (2016). Global university rankings and the mediatization of higher education. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Stolz, I., Hendel, D. D., & Horn, A. S. (2010). Ranking of rankings: Benchmarking twenty-five higher education ranking systems in Europe. Higher Education, 60(5), 507–528.
• Taylor, P., & Braddock, R. (2007). International university ranking systems and the idea of university excellence. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 29(3), 245–260.
• Van Dyke, N. (2005). Twenty years of university report cards. Higher Education in Europe, 30(2), 103–125.
• Webber, K. L. (2011). Measuring faculty productivity. In J. C. Shin, R. K. Toutkoushian, & U. Teichler (Ed.), University rankings: Theoretical basis, methodology and impacts on global higher education (pp. 105–123). Dordrecht: Springer.
• Welsh, J. (2019). Ranking academics: Toward a critical politics of academic rankings. Critical Policy Studies, 13(2), 153–173.
• Wint, Z., & Downing, K. (2017). Uses and abuses of ranking in university strategic planning. In K. Downing, & F. A. Ganotice (Eds.), World university rankings and the future of higher education (pp. 232–251). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.