SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 13 Sayı: 2

Highly Productive Academics: Who are They? How Do They Work? What are the Influencing Factors?

Araştırma Üretkenliği Yüksek Akademisyenler: Kimler, Nasıl Çalışıyorlar, Etkili Faktörler Neler?

Alper Çalıkoğlu(T.C. MİLLİ EĞİTİM BAKANLIĞI)0000-0002-7526-3740
Pages
205–218
Publication Date
2023-08-14
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings indicate that the most productive group of Turkish academics produce more than a half of the whole academic publications in Turkey.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The increasing global competition and efforts toward creating a knowledge society have broadened the importance of research activities in higher education.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Efforts aiming to increase academics’ productivity have also been witnessed in Turkey recently.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate that the most productive group of Turkish academics produce more than a half of the whole academic publications in Turkey.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Araştırma üretkenliği · Akademisyenlik mesleği · Bilgi üretimi

Abstract

The increasing global competition and efforts toward creating a knowledge society have broadened the importance of research activities in higher education. Hence, in many countries, academic publications have become the main criteria in hiring and promotion of academics. Efforts aiming to increase academics’ productivity have also been witnessed in Turkey recently. This research examines highly productive academics in Turkish higher education through selected variables. Data were collected in the Turkish stage of an international comparative research project via survey. Descriptive and inferential techniques and logistic regression were used in the data analysis. The findings indicate that the most productive group of Turkish academics produce more than a half of the whole academic publications in Turkey. Patterns were also witnessed in the distribution of highly productive academics based especially on rank and discipline. Lastly, associations were found between being in the most productive group and professional factors such as rank, discipline, and research collaboration at the domestic and international level. Recommendations were made to improve the equality in opportunities for academics in different disciplines and career stages.

Özet

Bilgi toplumu yetiştirme çabaları ve hızlı gelişen küresel rekabet, araştırma etkinliklerinin yükseköğretimdeki önemini artırdı. Bu nedenle akademik yayınlar birçok ülkede akademisyenler için atanma ve yükselmede temel faktör hâline geldi. Türkiye’de de son dönemde akademisyenlerin araştırma üretkenliğini yükseltmeyi amaçlayan politika ve uygulamalar yaygınlaşmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, Türkiye’deki üniversitelerde görev yapan araştırma üretkenliği yüksek akademisyenler belirli değişkenler çerçevesinde araştırıldı. Çalışmanın verileri uluslararası karşılaştırmalı bir projenin Türkiye ayağı kapsamında anket ile toplandı. Verilerin analizinde tanımlayıcı ve çıkarımsal teknikler ve lojistik regresyon kullanıldı. Bulgular, araştırma üretkenliği en yüksek olan yüzde onluk akademisyen grubunun, toplam akademik yayınların yarısından fazlasını ürettiğini ve bu akademisyenlerin demografik dağılımında özellikle akademik disiplin ve unvana göre belirli eğilimlerin varlığını göstermektedir. Ayrıca, araştırma üretkenliği yüksek olan grupta yer almanın temelde unvan, akademik disiplin ve yurt içi ve yurt dışı araştırma işbirliği geliştirme gibi mesleki faktörlerle ilişkili olduğu görülmektedir. Bu bulgular çerçevesinde, farklı unvan ve alanlardaki akademisyenlerin fırsatlara erişimini eşitleme yönündeki çabaların geliştirilmesi önerilmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Çalıkoğlu, A. (2023). Highly Productive Academics: Who are They? How Do They Work? What are the Influencing Factors?. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 2, 205–218. https://doi.org/10.5961/higheredusci.1223362

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (50)

  1. Aarrevaara, T., Finkelstein, M., Jones, G.A., & Jung, J. (2021). The academic profession in the knowledge-based society (APIKS): Evolution of a major comparative research project. In: T. Aarrevaara, M. Finkelstein, G.A. Jones, & J. Jung (Eds.), Universities in the knowledge society (pp. 49-64). Cham: Springer.
  2. Abouchedid, K., & Abdelnour, G. (2015). Faculty research productivity in six Arab countries. International Review of Education, 61(5), 673-690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159- 015-9518-5
  3. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Caprasecca, A. (2009). The contribution of star scientists to overall sex differences in research productivity. Scientometrics, 81(1), 137. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-008-2131-7
  4. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Soldatenkova, A. (2016). The ratio of top scientists to the academic staff as an indicator of the competitive strength of universities. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 596-605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.04.013
  5. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Soldatenkova, A. (2017). An investigation on the skewness patterns and fractal nature of research productivity distributions at field and discipline level. Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 324-335. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.02.001
  6. APIKSTR. (2022). APIKS Türkiye proje web sayfası. https://apikstr. net/ adresinden 20.11.2022 tarihinde erişildi.
  7. Bentley, P. J. (2015). Cross-country differences in publishing productivity of academics in research universities. Scientometrics, 102(1), 865-883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1430-4
  8. Bland, C. J., Center, B. A., Finstad, D. A., Risbey, K. R., & Staples, J. G. (2005). A theoretical, practical, predictive model of faculty and department research productivity. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 80(3), 225-237. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200503000- 00006
  9. Cantwell, B., & Kauppinen, I. (Eds.) (2014). Academic capitalism in the age of globalization. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
  10. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.
  11. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem.
  12. Damar, M., Özdağoğlu, G., & Özveri, O. (2020). Bilimsel üretkenlik bağlamında dünya sıralama sistemleri ve Türkiye’deki üniversitelerin mevcut durumu. Üniversite Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(3), 107-123.
  13. Damar, M., Özdağoğlu, G., & Özveri, O. (2021). Türkiye’de yükseköğretim kurumlarının bilimsel üretkenliğinin izlenmesi: Mevcut durum analizi ve öneriler. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 11(1), 35-48.
  14. Demeter, M., Jele, A., & Major, Z. B. (2022). The model of maximum productivity for research universities SciVal author ranks, productivity, university rankings, and their implications. Scientometrics, 127(8), 4335-4361. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11192-022-04432-4
  15. Demir, S. B. (2018). Pros and cons of the new financial support policy for Turkish researchers. Scientometrics, 116(3), 2053- 2068. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2833-4
  16. Dundar, H., & Lewis, D. R. (1998). Determinants of research productivity in higher education. Research in Higher Education, 39(6), 607-631. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018705823763
  17. Eimers, M. T. (1997). The role of intrinsic enjoyment in motivating faculty. Thought and Action, 13(2), 125-142.
  18. Erarslan, İ. (2015). Üniversitelerin uluslararası görünürlüğü: Akademik performans ve üniversite marka değeri ilişkisi. Beykent Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(1), 37-47.
  19. Eti, S. (2016). Üniversitelerdeki akademik üretkenliğe etki eden faktörlerin incelenmesi. İş’te Devranış Dergisi, 1(1), 67-73.
  20. Fritz, M., & Berger, P. D. (2015). Will anybody buy? Logistic regression. In M. Fritz & P. D. Berger (Eds.), Improving the user experience through practical data analytics (pp. 271- 304). Morgan Kaufmann. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12- 800635-1.00011-2
  21. Harzing, AW. (2013). A preliminary test of Google Scholar as a source for citation data: a longitudinal study of Nobel prize winners. Scientometrics, 94, 1057–1075. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-012-0777-7
  22. Höhle, E. A. & Teichler, U. (2013). The academic profession in the light of comparative surveys. In B. M. Kehm & U. Teichler (Eds.), The academic profession in Europe: New tasks and new challenges (pp. 23-38). Dordrecht: Springer.
  23. Jaffe, K., ter Horst, E., Gunn, L. H., Zambrano, J. D., & Molina, G. (2020). A network analysis of research productivity by country, discipline, and wealth. PLOS ONE, 15(5), e0232458. https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232458
  24. Jung, J. (2014). Research productivity by career stage among Korean academics. Tertiary Education and Management, 20(2), 85-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2014.8892 06
  25. Kezar, A. & Maxey, D. (2016). Resonant themes for a professoriate reconsidered. In A. Kezar & D. Maxey (Eds.), Envisioning the faculty for the twenty-first century: moving to a missionoriented and learner-centered model (pp. 204-216). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
  26. Kuzhabekova, A., & Ruby, A. (2018). Raising research productivity in a Post-Soviet higher education system:A case from Central Asia. European Education, 50(3), 266-282. https://doi.org/10. 1080/10564934.2018.1444942
  27. Kwiek, M. (2016). The European research elite: A cross-national study of highly productive academics in 11 countries. Higher Education, 71(3), 379-397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734- 015-9910-x
  28. Kwiek, M. (2018). High research productivity in vertically undifferentiated higher education systems: Who are the top performers? Scientometrics, 115(1), 415-462. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-018-2644-7
  29. Kyvik, S., & Olsen, T. B. (2008). Does the aging of tenured academic staff affect the research performance of universities? Scientometrics, 76(3), 439-455. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11192-007-1767-z
  30. Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’? Research Policy, 40(10), 1354-1368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. respol.2011.09.002
  31. Lee, Y.-H. (2021). Determinants of research productivity in Korean Universities: The role of research funding. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 46(5), 1462-1486. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10961-020-09817-2
  32. Maviş Sevim, F. Ö. (2018). Doktora öğrencileri için hazırlanan araştırma üretkenliğini destekleme programının geliştirilmesi ve değerlendirilmesi [Doktora Tezi]. Tokat Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi.
  33. Mengi, F., & Schreglmann, S. (2013). Akademisyenlik bağlamında bilimsel üretkenliği etkileyen çevresel faktörler. Amasya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(1), 1-17.
  34. Önder, C., & Erdil, S. E. (2015). Aynı kurumsal beklentilere tabi aktörlerin farklılaşan davranışları: Öğretim üyelerinin bilimsel yayın üretkenliklerinin üniversite, bölüm ve birey düzeyindeki yordayıcıları. ODTÜ Gelişme Dergisi, 42(3), 481-519.
  35. Parke, C. S. (2013). Essential first steps to data analysis: Scenariobased examples using SPSS. SAGE Publications. https://dx.doi. org/10.4135/9781506335148
  36. Piro, F. N., Rørstad, K., & Aksnes, D. W. (2016). How does prolific professors influence on the citation impact of their university departments? Scientometrics, 107(3), 941-961. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-016-1900-y
  37. Pogrebnyakov, N., Kristensen, J. D., & Gammelgaard, J. (2017). If you come, will they build it? The impact of the design and use of a performance management system on researcher motivation. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 43, 67-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2017.01.004
  38. Resmi Gazete. (2018a). Akademik teşvik ödeneği yönetmeliği. https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/21.5.201811834. pdf adresinden 20.11.2022 tarihinde erişildi.
  39. Resmi Gazete. (2018b). Doçentlik yönetmeliği. https://www. resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2018/04/20180415-3.htm adresinden 20.11.2022 tarihinde erişildi.
  40. Resmi Gazete. (2018c). Öğretim üyeliğine atanma ve yükseltilme yönetmeliği. https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/ 2018/06/20180612-6.htm dresinden 20.11.2022 tarihinde erişildi.
  41. Sam, C., & van der Sijde, P. (2014). Understanding the concept of the entrepreneurial university from the perspective of higher education models. Higher Education, 68(6), 891-908. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9750-0
  42. Schuster, J. H., & Finkelstein, M. J. (2006). The American faculty: The restructuring of academic work and careers. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
  43. Shin, J. C., & Cummings, W. K. (2010). Multilevel analysis of academic publishing across disciplines: Research preference, collaboration, and time on research. Scientometrics, 85(2), 581-594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0236-2
  44. Suominen, A., Kauppinen, H., & Hyytinen, K. (2021). ‘Gold’, ‘Ribbon’ or ‘Puzzle’: What motivates researchers to work in research and technology organizations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 170, 120882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. techfore.2021.120882
  45. Tamtekin Aydın, O. (2017). Research performance of higher education institutions: A review on the measurements and affecting factors of research performance. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 7(2), 312-320.
  46. Teichler, U., Arimoto, A., & Cummings, W. K. (2013). The changing academic profession. Major findings of a comparative survey. Dordrecht: Springer.
  47. Teodorescu, D. (2000). Correlates of faculty publication productivity: A cross-national analysis. Higher Education, 39(2), 201-222. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003901018634
  48. Uslu, B. (2018). Küresel yayın ligi: Türkiye hangi kümede yer alıyor? Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13(27), 182-203. Xie, Y. (2014). “Undemocracy”: Inequalities in science. Science, 344(6186), 809-810. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1252743
  49. YÖK. (2018). 2017-2018 öğretim yılı yükseköğretim istatistikleri. https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/ adresinden 20.11.2022 tarihinde erişildi.
  50. Bland, C. J., Center, B. A., Finstad, D. A., Risbey, K. R., & Staples, J. G. (2005). A theoretical, practical, predictive model of faculty and department research productivity. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 80(3), 225-237. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200503000- 00006