Organizational functioning in Turkish higher education system: Birnbaum’s five models of institutional governance
Hatice Ergin Kocatürk 1 * , Engin Karadağ 2
More Detail
1 İstanbul University-Cerrahpaşa, Turkey
2 Akdeniz University, Turkey
* Corresponding Author


Expectations from higher education institutions and systems are constantly increasing at both national and global levels. In addition to the variety of services provided by higher education institutions, the rise in expectations makes management of these institutions more difficult. However, while formations such as mission differentiation, thematic university structure, and regional development universities differentiate the objectives of higher education institutions from each other, attempts to achieve these specific objectives may bring along an organizational and informal structure specific to the institution. Based on this premise, the aim of this study is to examine the institution-specific governance models observed in Turkish higher education institutions. This case study is based on the five models of organizational functioning introduced by Birnbaum with the perspective of new institutionalism. The data of the study were obtained from two sources: Existing literature and interviews with 10 academics from higher education institutions. Accordingly, the governance models frequently observed in Turkish higher education institutions are bureaucratic model, political model and organized anarchy. In addition, the rapid increase in the number of higher education institutions and the dependence on resources increase the homogeneity between higher education institutions.



  • Allison, G. (1971). Essence of decision. Little Brown.
  • Akar, H. (2016). Durum çalışması [Case study]. In A. Saban & A. Ersoy (Eds.), Eğitimde nitel araştırma desenleri [Qualitative research design] (pp. 113-149). Anı.
  • Auranen, O., & Nieminen, M. (2010). University research funding and publication performance-An international comparison. Research Policy, 39(6), 822-834.
  • Aypay, A. (2001). Örgütsel analizde teorik gelişmeler: Yeni kurumsalcılık [Theoretical developments in organizational analysis: New institutionalizm]. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 28(28), 501-511.
  • Aypay, A. (2006). The relationship between academic activities and organizational behavior at universities in Turkey. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 46(46), 175-198.
  • Aypay, A., & Bektaş, F. (2010). Organizational models observed in faculties of education: A descriptive study based on the sample of instructors. Inonu Unıversıty Journal of the Faculty of Educatıon, 11(3), 45-59.
  • Baldridge, J. V., Curtis, D. V., Ecker, G., & Riley, G. L. (1977). Diversity in higher education: Professional autonomy. Journal of Higher Education, 48(4), 367–388.
  • Becher, T., & Kogan, M. (1992). Process and structure in higher education. Routledge.
  • Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. Jossey-Bass.
  • Birnbaum, R. (1989). The cybernetic institution: Toward an integration of governance theories. Higher Education, 18(2), 239-253.
  • Blau, P. M. (1994). The organization of academic work. New York: Transaction Publishers.
  • Brennan, J., & Teichler, U. (2008). The future of higher education and of higher education research. Higher education, 56(3), 259-264.
  • Capano, G. (2011). Government continues to do its job. A comparative study of governance shifts in the higher education sector. Public Administration, 89(4), 1622-1642.
  • Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective. University of California Press.
  • Cohen, M. D., & March, J. G. (1974) Leadership and ambiguity: The American College President. McGraw-Hill.
  • Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1-25.
  • Daft, R. L. (2010). Understanding the theory and design of organizations (10th ed.). South-Western CENGAGE Learning.
  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
  • Erdoğan, İ. (2014). The transformation of Ministry of National Education system from separation of powers to unity of powers. Journal of Educational Sciences Research, 4(2), 329-340.
  • Frondizi, R., Fantauzzi, C., Colasanti, N., & Fiorani, G. (2019). The evaluation of universities’ third mission and intellectual capital: Theoretical analysis and application to Italy. Sustainability 11(12), 3455.
  • Gillham, B. (2000). Case study research methods. Continioum House.
  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge.
  • Glesne, C. (2016). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. New Jersey.
  • Günay, D., & Kılıç, M. (2011). Election and appointment of a Rector in the Republican era of Turkish Higher Education. Journal of Higher Education, 1(1), 34-44.
  • Karadağ, E. (2021). Academic (dis) qualifications of Turkish rectors: Their career paths, H-index, and the number of articles and citations. Higher Education, 81, 301-323.
  • Karataş Acer, E. (2015). An analyis of the expansion of higher education in Turkey by using new institutional theory [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. Gazi University, Educational Sciences Institute, Ankara.
  • Kavili Arap, S. (2011). The discussion of the procedure for the designation of rectors and the board of trustees in Turkey. Journal of Memleket Politics & Administration, 6(16), 1-32.
  • Kerr, C. (1982). The uses of the university two decades later: Postscript 1982. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 14(7), 23-31.
  • Kurt, T., Gür, B. S., & Çelik, Z. (2017). Necessity for reforming Turkish higher education system and possibility of governance of state universities by the board of trustees. Education and Science, 42(189), 49-71.
  • Lee, J. J. (2007). The shaping of the departmental culture: Measuring the relative influences of the institution and discipline. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 29(1), 41-55.
  • Liefner, I. (2003). Funding, resource allocation, and performance in higher education systems. Higher Education, 46(4), 469-489.
  • March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1975). The uncertainty of the past: Organizational learning under ambiguity. European Journal of Political Research, 3(2), 147-171.
  • March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. Free Press.
  • Meyer, J. W., & Brown, M. C. (1977). The process of bureucratization. The American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 364-385.
  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363.
  • Meyer, H. D., & Rowan, B. (2006). Institutional analysis and the study of education. In H. D. Meyer & B. Rowan (Eds), The new institutionalism in education (pp. 1-15). State University of New York.
  • Özoğlu, M., Gür, B. & Gümüs, S. (2016). Rapid expansion of higher education in Turkey: The challenge of recently established public universities (2006–2013). Higher Education Policy, 29(1), 21–39.
  • Resnik, D. B. (2008). Scientific autonomy and public oversight. Episteme, 5(2), 220-238.
  • Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2013). Organizational behavior. Pearson Education.
  • Rosovsky, H. (2017). The university: An owner's manual (S. Ersoy, Trans.). Say.
  • Scott, W. R. (1981). Developments in organization theory, 1960-1980. American Behavioral Scientist, 24(3), 407-422.
  • Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Sage Publications.
  • Scott, W. R. (2003). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems. Pearson Education.
  • Stroup, H. H. (1966). Bureaucracy in higher education. Free Press.
  • Şenses, F. (2007). The Turkish higher education system in light of international developments: Main trends, issues, contradictions and recommendations. Economic Research Center Working Papers in Economics, 7(5), 1-32.
  • Tandberg, D. A. (2010a). Politics, interest groups and state funding of public higher education. Research in Higher Education, 51(5), 416-450.
  • Tandberg, D. A. (2010b). Interest groups and governmental institutions: The politics of state funding of public higher education. Educational Policy, 24(5), 735-778.
  • Tolbert, P. S. (1985). Institutional environments and resource dependence: Sources of administrative structure in institutions of higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(1), 1-13.
  • Vallée, R. (2003). Cybernetics and systems, from past to future. Kybernetes, 32(5-6), 853-857.
  • Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1-19.
  • Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Designs and methods. Sage.
  • Zgaga, P. (2006). Reconsidering higher education governance. J. Köhler & J. Huber (Eds), In Higher education governance between democratic culture, academic aspitations and market forces (pp. 35-50). Council of Europe Publishing.


This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.