Journals / Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 5

Comparison of Universities in Turkey in Terms of Entrepreneurship and Innovation

Pages
1217–1236
Publication Date
2022-10-11
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)

In addition, at the end of the study, universities that inactive universities can take as an example were also determined.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to analyze the entrepreneurship and innovation effectiveness of universities in Turkey, determine the universities (reference set) that inefficient universities can refer to, and rank the universities according to their relative efficiency.
📊
Key Findings & Data:According to the findings; Abdullah Gül University, Ankara University, Bezm-İ Âlem Vakıf University, Çankaya University, Hasan Kalyoncu University, Sabancı University, and TOBB Economy and Technology University, among the 49universities evaluated in terms of entrepreneurship and innovation, are efficient; others are inefficient.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In addition, at the end of the study, universities that inactive universities can take as an example were also determined.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the entrepreneurship and innovation effectiveness of universities in Turkey, determine the universities (reference set) that inefficient universities can refer to, and rank the universities according to their relative efficiency. In the study, firstly, the criteria to be considered in the ranking / used in the analysis were determined by reviewing the literature. Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)method was used in this study to evaluate the entrepreneurship and innovation effectiveness of universities. According to the findings; Abdullah Gül University, Ankara University, Bezm-İ Âlem Vakıf University, Çankaya University, Hasan Kalyoncu University, Sabancı University, and TOBB Economy and Technology University, among the 49universities evaluated in terms of entrepreneurship and innovation, are efficient; others are inefficient. Istanbul Okan University, Özyeğin University, and Yaşar University with efficiency scores between 0.9-1 are the closest universities to being efficient. The 10 universities with the lowest efficiency scores in terms of Entrepreneurship and Innovation are Çukurova University, Süleyman Demirel University, Gazi University, Ege University, Akdeniz University, Dokuz Eylül University, Istanbul University, Atatürk University, Marmara University and HacettepeUniversity. In addition, at the end of the study, universities that inactive universities can take as an example were also determined.

🔖

Cite This Article

Orhan, M., Yalçın, İ. (2022). Comparison of Universities in Turkey in Terms of Entrepreneurship and Innovation. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 5, 1217–1236. https://ajindex.com/articles/439708

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Akbulut, R, & Ömer, R. (2016). Veri Zarflama ve Lojistik Regresyon Analizi ile çimento işletmelerinde finansal performansa dayalı etkinliklerin değerlendirilmesi. Uluslararası Alanya İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(3), 91-103.
  2. Akyüz, K. C., Çamur, G. & Yıldırım, İ. (2015). Mobilya ve levha sektöründe veri zarflama analiziyardımıyla etkinlik ölçümü. Turkish Journal of Forestry, 16(1), 50-59. doi:10.18182/tjf.91910
  3. Altinişik, İ. & Peker, H. S. (2012). Eğitimin ekonomik kalkınmaya etkisi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal veTeknik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 1(4), 1-13.
  4. Balyer, A., & Hesapçioğlu, M. (2013). University establishment policies in Turkey comparing to someındustrialized countries: theory and practıce. Marmara Üniversitesi Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 27(27), 53-78.
  5. Barrichello, A., Santos, E. G. dos & Morano, R. S. (2020). Determinant and priority factors of innovation for the development of nations. Innovation & Management Review, 17(3), 307-320 doi:10.1108/INMR-04-2019-0040
  6. Boussofiane, A., Dyson, R. G. & Thanassoulis, E. (1991). Applied data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 52(1), 1-15. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(91)90331-O Bozkurt, Y. (2010). Eğitim, sağlık ve iktisadi büyüme arasındaki ilişkiler: Türkiye için bir analiz. Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi Dergisi, 5(1), 7-27.
  7. Brubacher, J. S., & Rudy, W. (1997). Higher education in transition: a history of American colleges and universities (4th ed.). BOOK TP - Book, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. http://mirlyn.lib. umich.edu/Record/003961781 CN - LA 226.B89 1997.
  8. Buyruk, H. (2016). Ekonomik kalkınma hedefinden bin yıl kalkınma hedeflerine: eğitim-kalkınma ilişkisine dair bir çözümleme. Mülkiye Dergisi, 40(1), 11-142.
  9. Capello, R. & Lenzi, C. (2016). Relevance and utility of European Union research, technological development and innovation policies for a smart growth. Environment and Planning C:Government and Policy, 34(1), 52-72. doi:10.1177/0263774X15614655 Charnes, Abraham, W.W. Cooper, A.Y. Lewin and L. M. Seiford, (1994). Data Envelopment Analysis:Theory, methodoloji and application, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  10. Çağlar, İ. (2013). Küresel Normlu Çağdaş Değişim yönetimi Aracı Olarak Örgüt Geliştirme, Nobel Yayın No: 654, Ankara Çakmak, E. & Örkcü, H. H. (2016). Türkiye’deki illerin etkinliklerinin sosyo-ekonomik temel göstergelerle Veri Zarflama Analizi kullanarak incelenmesi. Karabük Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 6(1), 30-48. Çakmak, Ö