Yıl: 2016 Cilt: 41 Sayı: 184 Sayfa Aralığı: 363 - 382 Metin Dili: İngilizce İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

Classifying Universities in Turkey by Hierarchical Cluster Analysis

Öz:
Classifying universities is regarded as an efficient strategy for developing institution-based policy for different types of universities. In Turkey, there is no widely accepted classification or official classification of universities for researchers and policy makers. Regarding this need, the first purpose of this study is to classify universities in Turkey on the basis of institutional size and performance. Since the focus of the study is institutional size and performance, researchers approach the subject from the perspectives of management and organization. Universities were classified using hierarchical cluster analysis. All state and foundation universities were included in the study. The data sources were statistics of the Council of Higher Education (CoHE), ranking lists, University Ranking by Academic Performance (URAP), Ranking of the Entrepreneurial and Innovative University Index (TUBİTAK), strategic plans and annual reports of higher education institutions, and related data on research and publications. Universities were clustured on the basis of objective data not predetermined criteria. The main variables for cluster analysis were quantitative measures, ranking scores, and measures of the quality of teaching and research for each university. The results of the cluster analysis showed that clustering universities by institutional size and performance as two separate variables provided better results. The scale and tenure of universities differentiated them in terms of institutional size and performance variables. Universities founded in the same years were divided into two clusters, mainly according to the size of their vocational schools. It was also found that when publication performance was expressed, those universities that were small/medium sized, focused, and long tenured were separate from other universities
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Eğitim, Eğitim Araştırmaları
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Avkiran, N. K. (2001). Investigating technical and scale efficiencies of Australian universities through data envelopment analysis. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 35(1), 57-80
  • Bartelse, J., & Vught, F. (2007). Institutional profiles: Towards a typology of higher education institutions in Europe. IAU Horizons, 13(2-3), 9-11.
  • Carey, K. (2006). College rankings reformed: The case for a new order in higher education. Retrieved from Education Sector website: http://educationpolicy.air.org/sites/default/files/publications/CollegeRankingsReformed.pdf
  • Chu Ng, Y., & Li, S. K. (2000). Measuring the research performance of Chinese higher education institutions: an application of data envelopment analysis. Education Economics, 8(2), 139-156.
  • Günay, D., & Günay, A. (2011). 1933’den günümüz Türk yükseköğretiminde niceliksel gelişmeler. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 1(1), 1-22.
  • Hair, J. F. Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.).
  • Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Harvey, L. (2008). Rankings of higher education institutions: A critical review. Quality in Higher Education, 14(3), 187-207.
  • Ibáñez, A., Larrañaga, P., & Bielza, C. (2013). Cluster methods for assessing research performance: exploring Spanish computer science. Scientometrics, 97(3), 571-600.
  • Ioannidis, J. P., Patsopoulos, N. A., Kavvoura, F. K., Tatsioni, A., Evangelou, E., Kouri, I., & Liberopoulos, G. (2007). International ranking systems for universities and institutions: A critical appraisal. Bmc Medicine, 5(1), 30.
  • Küçükcan, T., & Gür, B. S. (2009). Türkiye’de yükseköğretim: Karşılaştırmalı bir analiz. Ankara: SETA Yayınları.
  • McCormick, A. C. (2008). The complex interplay between classification and ranking of colleges and universities: should the Berlin Principles apply equally to classification?. Higher Education in Europe, 33(2-3), 209-218.
  • McCormick, A. C., & Zhao, C. M. (2005). Rethinking and reframing the Carnegie classification. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 37(5), 51-57.
  • Marginson, S., & Van der Wende, M. (2007). To rank or to be ranked: The impact of global rankings in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3-4), 306-329.
  • OECD. (2006). Education policy analysis: Focus on higher education 2005–2006. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/skills-beyond-school/educationpolicyanalysisfocusonhighereducation-- 2005-2006edition.htm Özoğlu, M., Gür, B. S., & Gümüş, S. (2016). Rapid expansion of higher education in Turkey: The challenges of recently established public universities (2006-2013). Higher Education Policy, 29, 21-39.
  • Raponi, V., Martella, F., & Maruotti, A. (2016). A biclustering approach to university performances: An Italian case study. Journal of Applied Statistics, 43(1), 31-45.
  • Shin, J. C. (2009). Classifying higher education institutions in Korea: A performance-based approach. Higher Education, 57(2), 247-266.
  • Stella, A., & Woodhouse, D. (2007). Benchmarking in Australian higher education: A thematic analysis of AUQA audit reports. Melbourne, VIC: Australian Universities Quality Agency. Thakur, M. (2007). The impact of ranking systems on higher education and its stakeholders. Journal of Institutional Research, 13(1), 83-96.
  • Tosun, H. (2015). Devlet üniversiteleri: Performans değerlendirme finansman modeli ve yeniden yapılanma. Ankara: Uzman Matbaacılık.
  • TUBİTAK. (2015). Ranking of The Entrepreneurial and Innovative University Index. Retrieved from https://www.tubitak.gov.tr/en/news/the-entrepreneurial-and-innovative-university-index-2015
  • URAP. (2015). University Ranking by Academic Performance (URAP). Retrieved from http://tr.urapcenter.org/2015/ Üsdiken, B., Topaler, B., & Koçak, Ö. (2013). Yasa, piyasa ve örgüt tiplerinde çeşitlilik: 1981 sonrasında Türkiye’de üniversiteler. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 68(03), 191-227.
  • Valadkhani, A., & Ville, S. (2009). Discipline-specific forecasting of research output in Australian universities. Applied Economics Letters, 16(18), 1875-1880.
  • Valadkhani, A., & Worthington, A. (2006). Ranking and clustering Australian university research performance, 1998-2002. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 28(2), 189-210.
  • Van Dyke, N. (2005). Twenty years of university reports cards. Higher Education in Europe, 30(2), 103- 124.
  • Ward, J. H. J. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 236-44.
  • YÖK. (2015a). Higher Education System in Turkey. Retrieved November 15, 2015, from http://www.yok.gov.tr/en/web/uluslararasi-iliskiler/turkiye-de-yuksekogretim-sistemi YÖK. (2015b). Yayınlarımız. Retrieved November 15, 2015, from http://www.yok.gov.tr/web/guest/yayinlarimiz
APA ERDOĞMUŞ N, ESEN M (2016). Classifying Universities in Turkey by Hierarchical Cluster Analysis. , 363 - 382.
Chicago ERDOĞMUŞ NİHAT,ESEN Murat Classifying Universities in Turkey by Hierarchical Cluster Analysis. (2016): 363 - 382.
MLA ERDOĞMUŞ NİHAT,ESEN Murat Classifying Universities in Turkey by Hierarchical Cluster Analysis. , 2016, ss.363 - 382.
AMA ERDOĞMUŞ N,ESEN M Classifying Universities in Turkey by Hierarchical Cluster Analysis. . 2016; 363 - 382.
Vancouver ERDOĞMUŞ N,ESEN M Classifying Universities in Turkey by Hierarchical Cluster Analysis. . 2016; 363 - 382.
IEEE ERDOĞMUŞ N,ESEN M "Classifying Universities in Turkey by Hierarchical Cluster Analysis." , ss.363 - 382, 2016.
ISNAD ERDOĞMUŞ, NİHAT - ESEN, Murat. "Classifying Universities in Turkey by Hierarchical Cluster Analysis". (2016), 363-382.
APA ERDOĞMUŞ N, ESEN M (2016). Classifying Universities in Turkey by Hierarchical Cluster Analysis. Eğitim ve Bilim, 41(184), 363 - 382.
Chicago ERDOĞMUŞ NİHAT,ESEN Murat Classifying Universities in Turkey by Hierarchical Cluster Analysis. Eğitim ve Bilim 41, no.184 (2016): 363 - 382.
MLA ERDOĞMUŞ NİHAT,ESEN Murat Classifying Universities in Turkey by Hierarchical Cluster Analysis. Eğitim ve Bilim, vol.41, no.184, 2016, ss.363 - 382.
AMA ERDOĞMUŞ N,ESEN M Classifying Universities in Turkey by Hierarchical Cluster Analysis. Eğitim ve Bilim. 2016; 41(184): 363 - 382.
Vancouver ERDOĞMUŞ N,ESEN M Classifying Universities in Turkey by Hierarchical Cluster Analysis. Eğitim ve Bilim. 2016; 41(184): 363 - 382.
IEEE ERDOĞMUŞ N,ESEN M "Classifying Universities in Turkey by Hierarchical Cluster Analysis." Eğitim ve Bilim, 41, ss.363 - 382, 2016.
ISNAD ERDOĞMUŞ, NİHAT - ESEN, Murat. "Classifying Universities in Turkey by Hierarchical Cluster Analysis". Eğitim ve Bilim 41/184 (2016), 363-382.