Advertisement

Transformation Towards Entrepreneurialism in Turkish Universities: A Dilemma and Critical Evaluation

  • Seçil Dayıoğlu ÖcalEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Complexity book series (SPCOM)

Abstract

Due to knowledge economy and its impacts on collaborative works with industry, universities have been obliged to shift themselves into entrepreneurialism. This effect has a great impact on the research and development activities conducted and brings about cultural change in academia and institutions. The cultural change can cause conflicts and dilemma in the overall organization of the universities. University – industry collaborative activities in Turkey began in the late of 1980s and accelerated in the late of 1990s. Universities have been in the process of establishing techno-centers to promote them and take great part into the entrepreneurial activities especially in the early 1990s. Integrating the values of entrepreneurialism into universities is a chaotic and complex issue as there has been clashes with the values exited. This paper deals with this dilemma and to make a critical analysis in the case of Turkish universities.

Keywords

Higher education Entrepreneurialism Dilemma 

References

  1. 1.
    Akmansoy V, Kartal S (2014) Chaos theory and its application to eductaion: Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Case. Educ Sci Theory Pract 14(2):510–518. doi: 10.12738/estp.2014.2.1928 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alves J, Marques MJ, & Saur I (2007) Co-ownership active interfaces between academia and industry. Eur Plan Stud 15(9):1233–1246Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bastedo MN (ed) (2012) The organization of higher education. The John Hopkins PressGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bayrak S, ve Halis M (2003) Öğretim elemanları ve sanayici açısından üniversite- sanayi işbirliğinin değerlendirilmesi. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi Manas Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 5:64–85Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bogers M (2011) The open innovation paradox: knowledge sharing and protection in R&D collaboration. Eur J Innov Manag 14(1):93–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bruneel JD, D’Este P, Salter A (2010) Investigating the factors that diminish the barrriers to university-industry collaboration. Res Policy 39:858–868Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clark B (2008) On higher education. The John Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Crespo M, Diridi H (2007) Intensification of university-industry relationships and its impact on academic research. High Educ 54(1):61–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cutright M (1997) Planning in higher education and chaos theory: a model, a methodGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dayıoğlu-Öcal S (2012) A model proposal for the relations between the universities and the educational research and development companies at the technocenters. Unpublished Ph.D. DissertationGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dayıoğlu-Öcal S (2013) Problems between universities and educational research development companies at techno-centers. J Educ Future (4):87–107Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Erçetin ŞŞ (2001) Yönetimde yeni yaklaşımlar. Nobel Yayın Dağıtım, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ertürk, A. (2012) Kaos kuramı: yönetim ve eğitimdeki yansımaları. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi 20(3):849–886Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Etkowitz H (2003) Innovation in innovation: the triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Soc Sci Inf 42:293–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Faramaznd A (2004) Chaos and transformation theories: a theoretical analysis with implications for organizational theory and public management. Public Organ Rev Glob J 3:339–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gregerson H, Sailer L (1993) Chaos theory and its implications for social science research. Hum Relat 46(7):777Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hayrinen-Alestalo M, Peltola U (2006) The problem of a market-oriented university. High Educ 52(2):251–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mendoza P (2007) Academic capitalism and doctoral student socialization: a case study. J High Educ 78(1):71–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mendoza P, Berger JB (2008) Academic capitalism and academic culture: a case study. Educ Policy Anal Arch 16(23). Retrieved [date] from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v16n23/
  20. 20.
    Mendoza P (2014) Industry-Academia linkages: lessons from empirical studies and recommendations for future inquiry. Unpublished book chapterGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Merton RK (1973) The sociology of science. Chicago University Press, Chicago/LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Murray F (2010) The oncomouse that roared: hybrid exchange strategies as a source of distinction at the boundary of overlapping institutions. Am J Sociol 116(2):341–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Okay Ş (2009) Pamukkale Üniversitesi Öğretim Elemanlarının Üniversite-Sanayi İşbirliği Çalışmalarına Bakışları Üzerinde Bir Alan Araştırması. Teknik Bilimler Meslek Yüksekokulu Teknik-Online Dergi 8(2):94–111Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Szenlenyi K, Bresonis K (2014) The public good and academic capitalism: science and engineering doctoral students and faculty on the boundary of knowledge regimes. J High Educ 85(1):126–153Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Szlenyi K (2013) The meaning of money in the socialization of science and engineering doctoral students: nurturing the nest generation of academic capitalism. J High Educ 84(2):266–294Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Thursby JG, Thursby MC (2011) Faculty participation in licensing: implication for research. Res Policy 40:20–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tierney WG, Rhoads RA (1993) Faculty socialization as a cultural process: a mirror of institutional commitment. The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hacettepe University School of Foreign LanguagesAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations