Journals / Amme İdaresi Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 52 - Sayı: 2

Singularity, Normality, and Hybridity: The University in Organization Theory

İstisnailik, Olağanlık ve Melezlik: Organizasyon Teorisinde Üniversite

Pages
49–78
DOI
—
🏛️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 article argues that the dichotomies between the two propositions are unproductive and should be transcended by operationalizing more sophisticated theoretical frameworks in empirical research to understand how universities are organized in different socio-economic settings and under different politico-administrative regimes.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study seeks to provide a critical and systematic discussion of how organization theory has constructed the university as a research object.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In the first part of the article, the main assumptions of the classical university models which claim that the university is to be regarded as an idiosyncratic and exceptional organizational form are evaluated.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The article argues that the dichotomies between the two propositions are unproductive and should be transcended by operationalizing more sophisticated theoretical frameworks in empirical research to understand how universities are organized in different socio-economic settings and under different politico-administrative regimes.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This study seeks to provide a critical and systematic discussion of how organization theory has constructed the university as a research object. In the first part of the article, the main assumptions of the classical university models which claim that the university is to be regarded as an idiosyncratic and exceptional organizational form are evaluated. Then, the fundamental arguments and evidence propounded by scholars who suggest that universities have transformed into organizational actors as a consequence of the higher education reforms are discussed. The article argues that the dichotomies between the two propositions are unproductive and should be transcended by operationalizing more sophisticated theoretical frameworks in empirical research to understand how universities are organized in different socio-economic settings and under different politico-administrative regimes.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın temel hedefi, organizasyon teorisinin üniversiteyi bir araştırma nesnesi olarak nasıl inşa ettiğine dair eleştirel ve sistematik bir tartışma sunmaktır. Makalenin ilk kısmında üniversitenin kendine has ve istisnai bir örgütsel form olduğunu iddia eden klasik üniversite modellerinin temel varsayımları ve açıklamaları değerlendirilmekte, ardından yükseköğretim reformlarının etkisiyle üniversitenin dört başı mamur bir organizasyonel fail haline geldiğini ileri süren araştırmacıların temel argüman ve kanıtları ele alınmaktadır. Makalede, söz konusu iki kutup arasındaki dikotomilerin verimsiz olduğu ve üniversitenin farklı sosyo-ekonomik bağlamlar ve politik-idari rejimler içerisinde nasıl örgütlendiğini anlamak için daha sofistike teorik çerçevelerin ampirik araştırmalarda işe koşulması gerektiği savunulmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

FINDIKLI, B. (2019). Singularity, Normality, and Hybridity: The University in Organization Theory. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, Cilt: 52 - Sayı: 2, 49–78. https://ajindex.com/articles/142982

References (10)

  1. Arlı, A. (2016). “Yükseköğretimde Büyüme, Farklılaşma ve Reorganizasyon: İstanbul Örneği (1980-2015)”. Sosyoloji Konferansları, 54, 199-243.
  2. Austin, I. ve Jones, G. A. (2016). Governance of Higher Education: Globel Perspectives, Theories, and Practices. New York: Routledge. Baldridge, J. V. (1971). Power and Conflict in Uhe University: Research in the Yociology of Complex Organizations, New York: John Wiley. Baldridge, J.V., Curtis, D. V., Ecker, G. P. ve Riley, G. L. (2000) [1974]. “Alternative Models of Governance in Higher Education”. Organization & Governance in Higher Education. Boston: Pearson Custom. Becher, T. (1989). Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
  3. Birnbaum, R. (1988). How Colleges Work: The Cybernetics of Academic Organization and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Blau, P. M. (1955). The Dynamics of Bureaucracy: A Study of Interpersonal Relations in Two Government Agencies. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  4. Blau, P. M. (1970). “A Formal Theory of Differentiation in Organizations”. American Sociological Review, 35(2), 201-218.
  5. Blau, P. M. (1994) [1973], The Organization of Academic Work. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
  6. Bleiklie, I., ve Kogan, M. (2007). “Organisation and Governance of Universities”. Higher Education Policy, 20(4), 477-493.
  7. Bleiklie, I., Enders, J. ve Lepori, B. (2015). “Organizations as Penetrated Hierarchies: Environmental Pressures and Control in Professional Organizations”. Organization Studies, 36(7), 873-896.
  8. Bleiklie, I., Enders, J. ve Lepori, B. (2017). “Organizational Configurations of Modern Universities, Institutional Logics and Public Policies-Towards an Integrative Framework”. Managing Universities: Policy and Organizational Change from a Western European Comparative Perspective. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Brown, M. C. (Ed.) (2000). Organization & Governance in Higher Education. Boston: Pearson Custom. Brunsson, N. ve Sahlin-Andersson, K. (2000). “Constructing Organizations: The Example of Public Sector Reform”. Organization Studies, 21(4), 721-746.
  9. Capano, G. (2011). “Government Continues to Do Its Job: A Comparative Study of Governance Shift in The Higher Education Sector”. Public Administration, 89(4), 1622- 1642. Clark, B. R. (2009) [1970]. The Distinctive College. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
  10. Clark, B. R. (1972). “The Organizational Saga in Higher Education”. Administrative Science Quarterly,