Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

Yükseköğretim Kurumlarında Teşvik Esaslı Bütçeleme ve Yönetişim Arasındaki İlişkinin Açıklanması: Bir Kamu Üniversitesi Örneği

Exploring the Relationship between Incentive-Based Budgeting and Organizational Governance in Higher Education Institutions: A Case Study of a Public University

Journal Name:

  • Uşak Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2010

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
This study focuses on the effects of an incentive-based budgeting system on faculty and administrators’ frames used during budgetary decision-making at a public higher education institution in the US. More specifically, this study explored the organizational frames (Bolman and Deal, 2003) used by faculty and administrators when they are involved in budgetary issues as well as how these frames have changed overtime. To explain this, a qualitative single institution case study was employed. The data used in the study came from two different sources: Individual interviews with faculty and administrators and institutional documents. The interviews with faculty and administrators took place over a fifteen-year period, corresponding with the implementation and ongoing use of responsibility center management as a budgeting method (RCM). These interviews were used to illustrate the organizational frames used by faculty and administrators at a public doctoral I institution in the Mid-West. The findings suggest that faculty and administrators use multiple frames in decision-making. When involved with budgetary issues, they both predominantly use structural frame, followed by political frame. In general, there has been a change toward a more rational decision-making process. This is made evident by the presence of structural frame being reported as particularly strong. On the other hand, the use of both human resource frame and of symbolic frame in the institution is described as eroding. Additionally, there exists a difference between the faculty and the administrators in the frames they most use.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu çalışma teşviğe-dayalı (incentive-based) bir bütçe modelinin Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nde (ABD) devlet destekli (public) bir yüksek öğretim kurumundaki öğretim üyeleri ve yöneticilerin (rektör yardımcısı, dekan ve bölüm başkanı) bütçe kararları alınırken kullandıkları örgüt modellerine etkisini araştırmıştır. Çalışma, özellikle bu öğretim üyesi ve yöneticilerin kurumsal bütçe ile ilgili konularda kullandıkları Bolman ve Deal (2003) tarafından geliştirilen örgüt modellerinden (yapısalcı, sembolik, politik ve insan kaynakları) hangisini ağrırlıklı olarak kullandıkları ve bu bütçe yönteminin değişmesi nedeni ile ögretim üyesi ve yöneticilerin kullandıkları örgüt modelindeki değişklikleri gözlemlemek üzere yapılmıştır. Araştırmada, durum (örnek olay) calışma yöntemi nitel araştırma ilkerine bağlı olarak kullanılmıştır. Veriler öğetim üyeleri ve yöneticiler ile yapılan görüşmeler ve kurumsal dökümanların incelenmesi youlu ile elde edilmiştir. Araştırma aynı zamanda boylamsal bir nitelik taşımaktadır; görüşmeler 15 yıllık bir dönemi kapsamakatadır ve üç aşamada gerçekleşmiştir: bütçe modelinin ilk uygulama aşaması, uygulama başlangıcından 10 yıl sonra ve uygulama başlangıcından 15 sonra. Bulgular öğretim üyeleri ve yöneticilerin farklı örgüt modellerini aynı anda kullandıklarını fakat bütçe ile ilgili konularda daha çok yapısalcı modeli ağırlıklı olarak işlevsellendirdikleri görülmüştür ve bunu politik model izlemiştir. Bütçe yönteminin uygulanması ile birlikte daha çok rasyonel karar almaya eğilimi artmış ve daha önceki bütçe yönteminde politik olarak görülen bütçe süreci yapısalcı açıdan elealınmaya başlanmıştır. Bir diğer bulguda, yöneticilerin ve öğretim üyelerinin farklı durumlarda değişik örgüt modellerini kullandıklarıdır. Ayrıca konun Türkiy’ye uyarlanmsı konusunda öneriler sunulmuştur.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-yuksekogretim-kurumlarinda-tesvik-esasli-butceleme-yonetisim-arasindaki-iliskinin-aciklanmasi-bir-kamu-universitesi-ornegi.pdf
  • 1
83-102
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

Adams, E. M. (1997). Rationality in the academy: Why responsibility center
budgeting is a wrong step down the wrong road. Change, 29(5), 59-61.
Baldridge, J. V. (1971). Power and conflict in the university: Research in the
sociology of complex organizations. NY: John Wiley.
Bensimon, E. (1989). The meaning of good presidential leadership. Review
of Higher Education, 12,107-123.
Bensimon, E. M. (1990). Viewing the presidency: perceptual congruence
between presidents and leaders on their campuses. The Leadership
Quarterly, 7, 71-90.
Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic
organization and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Osman ÇEKİÇ 100
Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing Organizations: Artistry,
choice, and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing Organizations: Artistry,
choice, and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the Market Place: The Commercialization of
Higher Education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Carnaghi, J. E. (1992). “Set, go…ready”: Planning for responsibility center
budgeting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University,
Bloomington.
Clark, B. R. (1963). Faculty culture. In T. F. Lunsford (Ed.), The study of
campus culture, (pp. 39-54). Boulder, CO.: Western Interstate Commission
for Higher Education.
Courant, P. N., & Knepp, M. (2002) Activity-based budgeting at the
University of Michigan. In D. Priest, W. Becker, D, Hossler & E. P. St. John
(eds.) Incentive-Based Budgeting Systems in Public Universities. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins Press. p. 137-159.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing
among the five traditions. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Dobbert, M. L. (1982). Ethnographic Research: Theory and Application for
Modern Schools and Society, New York: Praeger.
Dubeck, L. W. (1997). Beware higher ed’s newest budget twist. Thought and
Action, 13(1), 81-91.
Ehrenberg, R. G. (Ed.). (2006). What’s Happening to Public Higher
Education? Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies
for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.
Goodman, P. (1962). The community of scholars. NY, NY: Random House.
Keeton, M. T. (1971). Shared authority on campus. Washington, DC:
American Association for Higher Education.
Lang, D. W. (1999). A primer on the responsibility centre budgeting and
responsibility centre management. The Canadian Society for the Study of
Higher Education, Professional File, no 17. (EDRS Reproduction Number
ED 445 620).
Lasher, F. W. & Greene, D. L. (1993). College and university budgeting:
What do we know? What do we need to know? In J. Smart (Ed.) Higher
Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 101
education: handbook of theory and research. Vol. IX., (429-469). NY:
Agathon Press.
Leslie, L. L. (Ed). (1984). Responding to New Realities in Funding. New
Directions for Institutional Research, 43, 1-3.
Masland, A. T. (2000). Organizational culture in the study of higher
education. In M. Christopher Brown (Ed.), Organization and Governance in
Higher Education, ASHE Reader Series (fifth edition) (145- 152). Boston,
MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.
Meisinger, R. J. Dubeck, L. W. (1984). College and university budgeting:
An introduction for faculty and academic administrators. Washington, D. C.:
National Association of College and University Business Officers.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in
education: Revised and expanded from case study research in education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Morgan, A. W. (1984). the new strategies: Roots, context, and overview. In
L. Leslie (Ed.). Responding to New Realities in Funding. New Direction for
Institutional Research, 43, 5-19.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of Organization, CA: Sage.
Priest, D. M., & St. John, E. P. (Eds). (2006). Privatization and Public
Universities. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Priest, D. M., Becker, W. E., Hossler, D. & St. John, E. P. (2002). Incentivebased
budgeting systems in public universities. Northampton, MA: Edward
Elgar.
Riley, G. L., & Baldridge, V. J. (Eds.). (1977). Governing Academic
Organizations: New Problems, New Perspectives. California: McCutchan
Publishing..
Rosenzweig, R. M. (1998). The political university: Policy, politics, and
presidential leadership in the American university. Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership, (2nd ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. NY: Doubleday.
Stake, R. E. (1998). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S Lincoln (eds.).
Strategies of qualitative inquiry, (86-109). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Osman ÇEKİÇ 102
Stake, R. E. (1998). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Cekic, O. (2010). Budgeting and Organizational Culture: Exploring
Responsibility Center Management (RCM) and Cultural Change at a Public
University. Köln, Germany: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing.
Whalen, E. (1991). Responsibility center budgeting: An approach to
decentralized management for institutions of higher education. Bloomington
and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Whalen, E. (2002). The case, if any, for responsibility center budgeting. In
D. Priest, W. Becker, D, Hossler & E. P. St. John (eds.) Incentive-based
Budgeting Systems in Public Universities (9-24). Baltimore Johns Hopkins
Press.
Whalen, E. L. (1996). Responsibility-centered management: An approach to
decentralized financial operations. In D. S. Honeyman, J. L. Wattenbarger,
& K. C. Westbrook (Eds.), A Struggle To Survive: Funding Higher
Education In the Next Century (127-154). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Wildavsky, A. & Caiden, N. (1997). The new politics of the budgetary
process, (3rd Ed.). New York: Longman.
Wildavsky, A. (1975). Budgeting: A comparative theory of budgetary
process. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and MethodsThousand
Oaks: Sage.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com