Journals / Akademik Tarih ve Düşünce Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 13 Sayı: 5

Higher Education Administration and Strategic Management: A Comparative Conceptual and Institutional Assessment of Three Models

Yükseköğretim Yönetimi ve Stratejik Yönetim: Üç Modelin Karşılaştırmalı Kavramsal ve Kurumsal Değerlendirmesi

Taleh Khalilov(Nakhchivan State University)0000-0003-2350-743X
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-10-27
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 study concludes that context-sensitive hybrid approaches are more realistic for higher education and offers recommendations for strengthening institutional strategic capacity.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Higher education institutions are increasingly adopting institutional governance and strategic planning instruments under the influence of massification, internationalization, digitalization, and intensifying competition.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study aims to compare how well the classical-rational, stakeholder-oriented, and learning-organization models of strategic management fit the structural characteristics of higher education institutions.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The study concludes that context-sensitive hybrid approaches are more realistic for higher education and offers recommendations for strengthening institutional strategic capacity.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:yükseköğretim yönetimi · stratejik yönetim · kurumsal yönetişim

Abstract

Higher education institutions are increasingly adopting institutional governance and strategic planning instruments under the influence of massification, internationalization, digitalization, and intensifying competition. This study aims to compare how well the classical-rational, stakeholder-oriented, and learning-organization models of strategic management fit the structural characteristics of higher education institutions. It is a conceptual study with a qualitative, descriptive-analytical design: 13 academic sources (books and peer-reviewed articles) selected through purposive sampling were examined by document analysis against five criteria—fit with a multidimensional goal structure, fit with collegial decision-making, capacity to adapt to uncertainty, traceability and accountability, and institutional legitimacy. No systematic literature search or field data collection was carried out. The findings show that no single model is superior on all criteria: the classical-rational model is strong in traceability and accountability but limited in collegial decision-making and uncertainty; the stakeholder-oriented model is strong in participation and legitimacy but shows only partial fit in prioritization; and the learning-organization model is strong in adaptive capacity but limited in traceability. The study concludes that context-sensitive hybrid approaches are more realistic for higher education and offers recommendations for strengthening institutional strategic capacity.

Özet

Yükseköğretim kurumları, kitleselleşme, uluslararasılaşma, dijitalleşme ve rekabetin yoğunlaşması gibi eğilimlerin etkisiyle kurumsal yönetişim ve stratejik planlama araçlarını giderek daha fazla benimsemektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, klasik-rasyonel, paydaş odaklı ve öğrenen örgüt modellerinin yükseköğretim kurumlarının yapısal özellikleriyle ne ölçüde uyumlu olduğunu karşılaştırmalı biçimde değerlendirmektir. Çalışma, nitel ve betimsel-analitik bir desende kurgulanmış kavramsal bir araştırmadır; veri kaynağı olarak amaçlı örnekleme ile belirlenen 13 akademik kaynak (kitap ve hakemli makale) doküman analizi tekniğiyle incelenmiştir. İnceleme; çok boyutlu amaç yapısına uyum, kolejyal karar almaya uyum, belirsizliğe uyum kapasitesi, izlenebilirlik ve hesap verebilirlik ile kurumsal meşruiyet olmak üzere beş ölçüt üzerinden yürütülmüştür. Sistematik literatür taraması veya saha verisi toplama işlemi yapılmamıştır. Bulgular, hiçbir modelin tüm ölçütlerde üstün olmadığını göstermektedir: klasik-rasyonel model izlenebilirlik ve hesap verebilirlikte güçlü, kolejyal karar alma ve belirsizlikte sınırlıdır; paydaş odaklı model katılım ve meşruiyette güçlü, önceliklendirmede kısmi uyumludur; öğrenen örgüt modeli uyum kapasitesinde güçlü, izlenebilirlikte sınırlıdır. Çalışma, yükseköğretimde stratejik yönetimin bağlama duyarlı hibrit yaklaşımlarla ele alınmasının daha gerçekçi olduğu sonucuna varmakta ve kurumsal stratejik kapasitenin güçlendirilmesine yönelik öneriler sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Khalilov, T. (2026). Higher Education Administration and Strategic Management: A Comparative Conceptual and Institutional Assessment of Three Models. Akademik Tarih ve Düşünce Dergisi, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 5. https://ajindex.com/articles/1667824

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. Jossey-Bass.
  2. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
  3. Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Pergamon Press.
  4. Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392088
  5. Kamu Malî Yönetimi ve Kontrol Kanunu, Kanun No. 5018, Resmî Gazete (24 Aralık 2003, Sayı: 25326).
  6. Khalilov, T., Adilzade, I., Rzayev, O., Guliyev, N., & Yusifova, N. (2024). The role of strategic planning in the organization of management systems in higher education institutions: Insights from international practice. Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology, 8(6), 6227–6235. https://doi.org/10.55214/25768484.v8i6.3361
  7. Khalilov, T., Aliyev, V., Guliyeva, M., & Babayeva, M. (2024). Strategic management mechanisms, directions, and functions in higher education. Pakistan Journal of Life and Social Sciences, 22(2), 12146–12162.
  8. Kotler, P., & Fox, K. F. A. (1995). Strategic marketing for educational institutions (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall.
  9. Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., & Lampel, J. (1998). Strategy safari: A guided tour through the wilds of strategic management. Free Press.
  10. Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. Free Press.
  11. Rosa, M. J., & Amaral, A. (Eds.). (2014). Quality assurance in higher education: Contemporary debates. Palgrave Macmillan.
  12. Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Johns Hopkins University Press.
  13. Taghiyev, A., Babayev, H., & Khalilov, T. (2025). Implementation of the Bologna Process in modern Nakhchivan and its integration into European education. Journal of Information Systems Engineering and Management, 10(15s), 789–796.
  14. Teichler, U. (2004). The changing debate on internationalisation of higher education. Higher Education, 48(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:HIGH.0000033771.69078.41
  15. Trakman, L. (2008). Modelling university governance. Higher Education Quarterly, 62(1–2), 63–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2008.00384.x