KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Research in Educational Administration and Leadership (REAL) / 2026 / Volume: 11 Issue: 1

A New Perspective on Educational Administration Doctoral Programs: An Evaluation in the Context of Dynamic Capabilities

Nurdan Ödemiş Keleş(Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi)0000-0002-6829-7870
Ferudun Sezgin(GAZI UNIVERSITY, GAZİ FACULTY OF EDUCATION)0000-0002-7645-264X
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2026-03-30
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Overall, this study provides a comprehensive understanding of how educational administration doctoral programs can gain competitive advantage by producing well-qualified graduates equipped with dynamic skills and offers practical insights for future higher education policy and program development.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:While doctoral programs have traditionally prepared graduates for academic careers, the evolving global academic landscape now demands a broader approach that equips students for diverse career paths.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:In the research, program materials of 11 universities selected through maximum diversity and criterion sampling were analyzed.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Overall, this study provides a comprehensive understanding of how educational administration doctoral programs can gain competitive advantage by producing well-qualified graduates equipped with dynamic skills and offers practical insights for future higher education policy and program development.
🔬Tür:Research Article
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Educational administration · Higher education · Doctoral programmes

Abstract

While doctoral programs have traditionally prepared graduates for academic careers, the evolving global academic landscape now demands a broader approach that equips students for diverse career paths. This study examines educational administration doctoral programs within the framework of dynamic capabilities, focusing on enhancing graduate qualifications and program competitiveness. The research was conducted as an exploratory case study at public universities in Türkiye. In the research, program materials of 11 universities selected through maximum diversity and criterion sampling were analyzed. Interviews were conducted with 19 participants selected from the top six universities that most frequently used dynamic capabilities keywords in their programs. Data were analyzed using descriptive and content analysis methods. Findings reveal that educational administration doctoral programs demonstrate a rich integration of key dynamic capabilities concepts and can effectively align with the dynamic capabilities framework. Dynamic capabilities are primarily developed through faculty and advisor guidance, underscoring their talent-transforming roles. This highlights the necessity of qualified supervision, effective mentorship systems, and competent faculty in fostering dynamic capabilities. To strengthen dynamic capabilities development, universities should prioritize institutional leadership, enhance collaboration with public institutions, and implement practice-oriented, mentorship-driven programs supported by clear employment pathways. These measures can help doctoral programs become more adaptive and competitive. Overall, this study provides a comprehensive understanding of how educational administration doctoral programs can gain competitive advantage by producing well-qualified graduates equipped with dynamic skills and offers practical insights for future higher education policy and program development.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Keleş, N. Ö., Sezgin, F. (2026). A New Perspective on Educational Administration Doctoral Programs: An Evaluation in the Context of Dynamic Capabilities. Research in Educational Administration and Leadership (REAL), Volume: 11 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.30828/real.1706364

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (94)

  1. Altbach, P. G. (2004). Higher education crosses borders: Can the United States remain the top destination for foreign students? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 36(2), 18-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380409604964
  2. Arastaman, G., Uslu, O., Arslan, S. S., & Gülsoy Kerimoğlu, P. N. (2020). On being a PhD student in educational administration: A phenomenological inquiry into the perspective of the graduate students. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education 8(4), 1323-1346. https://doi.org/10.14689/issn.2148-2624.8c.4s.11m
  3. Balcı, A. (2021). Research in social sciences. Methods, techniques and principles. Ankara: Pegem Akademi. https://doi.org/10.52848/ijls.880112
  4. Bastalich, W., & McCulloch, A. (2024). The ideal research degree supervisor‘can play any role’: Rethinking institutional orientation and induction for commencing doctoral students. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(3), 583-596. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2022.2158117
  5. Bayar, A., & Duran, E. (2019). Qualification problems ingraduate education. International Journal of Euroasian Research, 7(20), 219-240. https://doi.org/10.33692/avrasyad.664273
  6. Beier, C. G., Schmidt, S., & Froehlich, C. (2023). Dynamic capabilities and value cocreation in higher education. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2023.2233940
  7. Bissaker, K., Kupke, S., Dawadi, D., Pokhrel, K., Alexander, V., Shearer, J., Stephenson, H., Henderson, L. and Nawab, A. (2019), The power of an effective community in creating networked researchers: Outcomes beyond a thesis. In Getting the Most Out of Your Doctorate (pp. 63-82). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78769-905-220191011
  8. Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research policy, 33(4), 599-616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.008
  9. Bui, H. T. (2014). Student–supervisor expectations in the doctoral supervision process for business and management students. Business and Management Education in HE, 1(1), 12-27. https://doi.org/10.11120/bmhe.2014.00006
  10. Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate. (2020). The CPED framework, Retrieved June 10, 2023, from www.cpedinitiative.org/the-framework
  11. Castelló, M., Pardo, M., Sala-Bubaré, A., & Suñé-Soler, N. (2017). Why do students consider dropping out of doctoral degrees? Institutional and personal factors. Higher Education, 74, 1053-1068. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0106-9
  12. Ceylan, Ö. Ö., İdil, F. H., & Söyler, S. K. (2024). A bridge between theory and practice: PhD graduate teachers. The Journal of Buca Faculty of Education, (59), 485-506. https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.1387146
  13. Christensen, K. K. (2005). Bologna seminar: Doctoral programs for the European knowledge society. General Rapporteur’s report. Retrieved March 15, 2014, from https://scholar.google.com/scholar?oi=gsb95&q=Christensen%2C%20K.%20K. %20(2005).%20Bologna%20seminar%3A%20Doctoral%20programs%20for%20the %20European%20knowledge%20society.%20General%20%09Rapporteur%E2%80% 99s%20report.&lookup=0&hl=tr
  14. Chugh, R., & Ruhi, U. (2018). Social media in higher education: A literature review of Facebook. Education and Information Technologies, 23, 605-616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9621-2
  15. Creswell, J. W. (2017). Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed method approaches (Selçuk Beşir, Trans.). Ankara: Eğiten.
  16. Council of Higher Education. (2010). National Qualifications Framework for Higher Education in Türkiye. Retrieved May 18, 2023, from https://uluslararasi.yok.gov.tr/Sayfalar/avrupa-yuksekogretim-alani-ile-uyum-projesi/yeterlikler-cercevesi/turkiye-yeterlikler-cercevesi-tyc.aspx
  17. Council of Higher Education. (2022). Workshop on improving doctoral teaching. Ankara: Ankara University. Retrieved May 01, 2023, from https://www.yok.gov.tr/Sayfalar/Haberler/2022/doktora-ogretiminin-iyilestirilmesi-calistayi-raporu.aspx
  18. Council of Higher Education. (2024). Council of Higher Education increases international research scholarships. Retrieved May 15, 2023, from https://www.yok.gov.tr/Sayfalar/Haberler/2024/yuksekogretim-kurulu-
  19. Cuthbert, D., & Molla, T. (2015). PhD crisis discourse: A critical approach to the framing of the problem and some Australian ‘solutions’. Higher Education, 69, 33-53. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43648772
  20. Davies, D., & Dodd, J. (2002). Qualitative research and the question of rigor. Qualitative Health Research, 12(2), 279-289. https://doi:10.1177/104973230201200211
  21. Dilci, T. (2019). Vıews on the qualıtatıve dımensıon of graduate educatıon in the sample of educatıonal scıences (A Qualitative Study). Fırat University the Journal of International Social Sciences, 29(1), 159-179. https://doi.org/10.18069/firatsbed.538667
  22. Education Reform Initiative. (2018). The theme of the Education Reform Initiative 6th Conference on Good Practices in Education: Those who are curious. Retrieved September 25, 2024, from https://www.egitimreformugirisimi.org/16-egitimde-iyi-ornekler-konferansi temasi-merak/
  23. Ekiz, D. (2017). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Anı.
  24. Erdem, A. R. (2012). Research education in training of scientists. Journal of Higher Education and Science, (3), 166-175.
  25. Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Sage. https://books.google.com.tr/books
  26. Fossland, T. (2023). Becoming a professional supervisor: Doctoral supervisors’ development in a mandatory, large-scale development programme. Journal of Praxis in Higher Education, 5(2), 27-52. https://journals.hb.se/jphe/article/download/429/223/3114
  27. Felin, T., & Powell, T. C. (2016). Designing organizations for dynamic capabilities. California administration review, 58(4), 78-96. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2016.58.4.78
  28. Gazi University. (2024). Student information system. Retrieved May 10, 2023, from https://obs.gazi.edu.tr/ Georghiou, L., & Hasgall, A. (2022). Building the foundations of research: A vision for the future of Doctoral Education. Retrieved April 20, 2024, from https://eua- cde.org/downloads/publications/web_cde_position%20paper_june%202022_fin2.pdf
  29. Gebauer, H. (2011). Exploring the contribution of administration innovation to the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Industrial Marketing Administration, 40(8), 1238-1250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.10.003
  30. Gibbs, G. R. (2007). Thematic coding and categorizing. Analysing Qualitative Data, 703, 38-56. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781849208574
  31. Goldan, L., Jaksztat, S., & Gross, C. (2023). How does obtaining a permanent employment contract affect the job satisfaction of doctoral graduates inside and outside academia? Higher Education, 86(1), 185-208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00908-7
  32. Gratton, L., & Ghoshal, S. (2005). Beyond best practice. MIT Sloan Administration Review, 46(3), 49-57.
  33. Guerrero, M., & Menter, M. (2024). Driving change in higher education: The role of dynamic capabilities in strengthening universities' third mission. Small Business Economics, 63(3), 1321–1337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-024-00869-4
  34. Hallinger, P. (2011). A review of three decades of doctoral studies using the principal instructional administration rating scale: A lens on methodological progress in educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(2), 271-306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X10383412
  35. Halse, C., & Malfroy, J. (2010). Retheorizing doctoral supervision as professional work. Studies in Higher education, 35(1), 79-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070902906798
  36. Hancock, S. (2023). Knowledge or science-based economy? The employment of UK PhD graduates in research roles beyond academia. Studies in Higher Education, 48(10), 1523-1537. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2249023
  37. Hasgall, A., & Peneoasu, A. M. (2022). Doctoral education in Europe: current developments and trend. Retrieved April 21, 2024, from https://eua.eu/downloads/publications/web_council%20on%20doctoral%20education_horizontal.pdf
  38. Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M., Singh, H., Teece, D., & Winter, S. G. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. Oxford: Blackwell.
  39. Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. (2003). The dynamic resource-based view: Capability lifecycles. Strategic Administration Journal, 24, 997-1010. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.332
  40. Hermanowicz, J. C. (2016). Faculty perceptions of their graduate education. Higher Education, 72, 291 305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9955-x
  41. Hidalgo Penate, A., Padron Robaina, V., & Nieves, J. (2019). Knowledge as a driver of dynamic capabilities and learning outcomes. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 24, 143-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2019.02.004
  42. Holloway, I., & Wheeler, S. (1996). Qualitative research for nurses. Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd.
  43. Hube, B., Stockport, G., & Soutar, G. (2022). A cogwheel model of dynamic capabilities: Evidence from an Australian university. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 1, 20. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12554
  44. Hulten, C.R., & Hao, X. (2008, November). What is a company really worth? Intangible capital and the ‘Market to book value’ puzzle. National Bureau of Economic Research. University of Maryland. https://doi.org/10.3386/w14548
  45. Joseph‐Richard, P., & McCray, J. (2024). Doctoral students' well‐being through the lens of social practice theory: An auto‐photography study. British Educational Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.4086
  46. Karadağ, N., & Özdemir, S. (2017). The views of faculty members and PhD students on the processes of doctoral education in Türkiye. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 7(2), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.5961/jhes.2017.206
  47. Kıral, E., & Altun, B. (2015) Expectations of students in the educational administration, supervision, planning and economics master’s program without thesis and their opinions regarding the satisfaction of their expectations. The Anthropologist, 21(3), 512-521. https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.2015.11891841
  48. Koşar, D., Er, E., & Kılınç, A. Ç. (2020). Teachers reasons for pursuing graduate education: A qualitative study. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, (53), 370-392. https://doi.org/10.21764/maeuefd.581698
  49. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
  50. Litalien, D., Toth-Kiraly, I., Guay, F., & Morin, A. J. (2024). Phd students’ motivation profiles: A self-determination theory perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 77, 102279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2024.102279
  51. Liu, X., Zou, Y., Ma, Y., & Gao, W. (2020). What affects PhD student creativity in China? A case study from the Joint Training Pilot Project. Higher education, 80(1), 37-56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00463-8
  52. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2014). Designing qualitative research. New York: Sage.
  53. Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2000). Qualitative research in health care, assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ, 320, 50-52.
  54. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
  55. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (2015). Nitel veri analizi. (S. A. Altun ve A. Ersoy, Çeviri Ed.), Pegem Akademi. Morse, J. M. (2000). Determining sample size. Qualitative Health Research, 10(1), 3-5. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973200129118183
  56. Moxham, L., Dwyer, T., & Reid-Searl, K. (2013). Articulating expectations for PhD candidature upon commencement: Ensuring supervisor/student ‘best fit’. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35(4), 345-354. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2013.812030
  57. Muneeb, D., Tehseen, S., & Saeed, K. (2020). A study on dynamic capabilities view of doctoral students’ research productivity. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 28(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-07-2018-1479
  58. Mutmainaha, I., Suharjob, B., Kirbrandoko, & Nurmalinad R. (2020). The influence of dynamic capability and performance on the competitiveness of private higher education. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 12(9), 456-470. https://www.ijicc.net/index.php/volume-12-2020/175-vol-12-iss-9
  59. Navarro, J., & Gallardo, F. (2003). A model of strategic change: Universities and dynamic capabilities. Higher Education Policy, 16, 199-212. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300016
  60. O’Reilly, N. M., Robbins, P., & Scanlan, J. (2019). Dynamic capabilities and the entrepreneurial university: a perspective on the knowledge transfer capabilities of universities. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 31(3), 243-263. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2018.1490510
  61. Ödemiş-Keleş, N., & Sezgin, F. (2024). Evaluation of the national qualifications framework for higher education in Türkiye in the context of dynamic capabilities. Journal of Education for Life, 38(1), 217-229. https://doi.org/10.33308/26674874.2024381637
  62. Özdemir, M., Aypay, A., & Kaya, E. (2024). In Search of Organizational Actorhood: Institutional Positioning Statements of Turkish Public Universities. Higher Education Policy, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-024-00379-8
  63. Özkan, M., & Turan, S. (2022). Applied school leadership training: experts meet with principals Following a TÜBİTAK BİDEP training event. CRES Journal Critical Reviews in Educational Sciences, 3(1), 57-61. https://dx.doi.org/10.22596/cresjournal.0301.57.6
  64. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage publications.
  65. Pearson, M., & Brew, A. (2002). Research training and supervision development. Studies in Higher Education, 27(2),135-150. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070220119986c
  66. Roller, M. R., & Lavrakas, P. J. (2015). Applied qualitative research design: A total quality framework approach. Guilford Publications.
  67. Sarrico, C. S. (2022). The expansion of doctoral education and the changing nature and purpose of the doctorate. Higher Education, 84(6), 1299-1315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00946-1
  68. Sezgin, F. (2003). N-Service training needs for the teacher. Educational Admninstration in Theory & Practise, 33, 132-139.
  69. Sezgin, F., Kavgacı H., & Kılınç, A. Ç. (2011). Self evaluations of educational administration and supervision graduate students in Türkiye. Journal of Higher Education and Science, (3), 161-169. https://doi.org/10.5961/jhes.2011.024
  70. Sezgin, F., & Ödemiş-Keleş, N. (2023). Effective advising process in educational administration graduate programs in the context of national qualifications framework for higher education in Türkiye. The Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 21(1), 552-579. https://doi.org/10.37217/tebd.1243174
  71. Scheidig, F., & Tremp, P. (2024). Teaching award winners–(in) visible best-practice examples? Findings from Austria and Switzerland. International Journal for Academic Development, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2024.2378790
  72. Schilke, O., Hu, S., & Helfat, C. E. (2018). Quo vadis, dynamic capabilities? A content-analytic review of the current state of knowledge and recommendations for future research. Academy of Administration Annals, 12(1), 390-439. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0014
  73. Shamsi, A. F., & Osam, U. V. (2022). Challenges and support in article publication: Perspectives of non-native English speaking doctoral students in a “Publish or No Degree” context. Sage Open, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221095021
  74. Sharmini, S., & Spronken-Smith, R. (2020).The PhD-is it out of alignment? Higher Education Research & Development, 39(4), 821-833. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1693514
  75. Sinclair, M. (2004). The pedagogy of good 'PhD supervision: A national cross-disciplinary investigation of PhD supervision. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training.
  76. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Sage publications. https://doi.org/10.5072/genderopen-develop-7
  77. Stolze, A., & Sailer, K. (2022). Advancing HEIs’ third-mission through dynamic capabilities: the role of leadership and agreement on vision and goals. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 47(2), 580-604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-021-09850-9
  78. Ta, B., Hoang, C., Khong, H., & Dang, T. (2024). Australian PhD graduates’ agency in navigating their career pathways: stories from social sciences. Higher Education, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01181-6
  79. Taylor, S., Kiley, M., & Holley, K. A. (2021). Introduction. In, The making of doctoral supervisors: International case studies of practice (pp. xii-xxiii). Routledge.
  80. Teece, D. J. (1982). Towards an economic theory of the multiproduct firm. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3(1), 39-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(82)90003-8
  81. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Administration Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
  82. Teece, D. J. (2010). Technological innovation and the theory of the firm: The role of enterprise-level knowledge, complementarities, and (dynamic) capabilities. In N. Rosenberg & B. Hall (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of innovation (pp. 679-730). Amsterdam: North-Holland. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7218(10)01016-6
  83. Teece, D. J. (2011). Achieving integration of the business school curriculum using the dynamic capabilities framework. Journal of Management Development, 30(5), 499-518. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621711111133019
  84. Teece, D. J. (2019). A capability theory of the firm: an economics and (strategic) administration perspective. New Zealand Economic Papers, 53(1), 1-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00779954.2017.1371208
  85. Teece, D. J., & Pisano, G. (1994). The dynamic capabilities of firms: An introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(3), 537-556. https://doi.org/10.1080/00779954.2017.1371208
  86. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic administration. Strategic Administration Journal, 18(7), 509-533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)10970266(199708)18:7%3C509::AID-SMJ882%3E3.0.CO;2-Z
  87. The Higher Education (2022). World University Rankings 2022. Retrieved April 14, 2022, from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/world-university-rankings-2023-methodology
  88. The Ohio State University. (2024). Educational Administration, PhD. Retrieved May 10, 2024, from https://ehe.osu.edu/graduate/educational-administration/educational-administration-phd
  89. Tonbul, Y. (2020). Theory guide for the analysis of administrative problems in educational institutions. Ankara: Anı.
  90. Waaijer, C. J. (2015). The coming of age of the academic career: Differentiation and professionalization of German academic positions from the 19th century to the present. Minerva, 53(1), 43-67.
  91. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. https://books.google.com.tr
  92. Wu, M., Chang, W., Lin, H., & Cheng, Y. H. (2015). A study on the dynamic capabilities in higher education institutions~ Examination on the variation of business organizations from educational settings. The International Technology Management Review, 5(1), 40-53.
  93. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: design and methods. (Third edition). California: Sage Publications.
  94. Zahra, S. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Davidson, P. (2006) Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A review, model, and research agenda. Journal of Administration Studies, 43(4), 917- 55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00616.x