Developing a Tool for Quality and Accreditation of a New Generation University in the Digitalized Society: The Case of a Thematic-Technical University

Open access


In Turkey, digitalization of curricula, teachers, course materials, and educational technologies is relatively slower when compared with the ones in economic sectors and state services in general. In this study, we proposed a model for a new generation university in a digitalized society. The Council of Higher Education classifies universities in three categories (mission) to respond to technological and economic developments in the societal life: research, regional-development oriented and thematic universities. At national level, a digital transformation office acts as a coordination and orchestration body among governmental institutions in order to carry and transform public services into digital environment. The private sector naturally has to be digitalized by national and international severe competition.

The tool developed in this study based on the model developed by Toprak et al. (2019). That model aims to compensate for coordination gaps in the traditional university hierarchical structure, which is designed as department, faculty board, university board and senate, from administration to governance. Five innovations can be mentioned in terms of organizational and functional configuration of a university model proposed there: (i) profile of graduate and mission of the new generation university in the fields of education, research and community services, (ii) policy development and implementation offices, (iii) university ecosystem consultation and steering committee and other committees and boards, (iv) concept courses and branded courses, (v) coop education and solution partnerships. The Rector’s Office acts as an executive committee to prevent coordination gap in the proposed model.

A checklist has been developed for the processing of that model and hence it is made possible to measure the performance of an applied university and degree of compatibility with the model. Thus, the framework and content of the mechanism and tools traditionally used in quality assurance and accreditation will need to be updated in line with this model.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • [1]Antal Natalie Kingma Bruce Moore Duncan and Streeter Deborah. (2014). University-wide entrepreneurship education. In Innovative pathways for university entrepreneurship in the 21st century. Published online: 07 October. 227-254.

  • [2]Artut Perihan Dinç and Bal Ayten Pinar. (2018). Learning implementations about cooperative learning method a case study in Turkey. International Journal of Progressive Education 14(6) 168-176.

  • [3]Bacanlı Hasan et al. (2016). Being a university student in turkey: A comparative study in the context of city people Turkish and international students. Journal of Higher Education. 6(2) 49–61.

  • [4]Baker Geoff and Henson Debra. (2010). Promoting employability skills development in a research-intensive university. Education + Training. 52(1) 62-75.

  • [5]Barbeau Joseph E. (1973). Cooperative education in America - its historical development 1906-1971. 231p. Northeastern Univ. Boston. (Access: April 5 2019).

  • [6]Bizri Rima Hammoud Jamil Stouhi Marwa Hammoud Manar. (2019). The entrepreneurial university: a proposed model for developing nations. Journal of Management Development. 38(5) 383-404.

  • [7]Block Madeleine and Khvatova Tatiana. (2017). University transformation: Explaining policy-making and trends in higher education in Russia. Journal of Management Development. 36(6) 761-779

  • [8]Bruton Alex. (2014). Innovating university-based entrepreneurship in order to inform innovation for the 21st century. In Innovative pathways for university entrepreneurship in the 21st century Published online: 7 October 145-170.

  • [9]Cedefop. (2016). Application of learning outcomes approaches across Europe: A comparative study. Cedefop reference series No. 105 201p. (Accessed: April 1 2019).

  • [10]Cedercreutz Kettil and Cates Cheryl. (2010). Cooperative education at the University of Cincinnati: A strategic asset in evolution. Peer Review 12(4) (Accessed: April 1 2019).

  • [11]Chapleo Chris and Sims Chris. (2010). Stakeholder analysis in higher education. Perspectives January 14 12-20.

  • [12]Cozza Barbara and Blessinger Patrick. (2016a). Innovative approaches in university partnerships: An Introduction to university partnerships for academic and program development. In University partnerships for academic programs and professional development. Published online: 17 August. 3-17.

  • [13]Cozza Barbara and Blessinger Patrick. (2016b). Pioneering approaches in university partnerships: An introduction to university partnerships for international development. In University partnerships for international development. Published online: 12 December. 3-17.

  • [14]Deus Rafael Mattos Battistelle Rosane Aparecida Gomesand da Silva Gustavo Henrique Ribeiro. (2016). Sustainability insights from the mission statements of leading Brazilian universities. International Journal of Educational Management. 30(3) 403-415.

  • [15]Dewing Ian P. and Williams Bernard C. (1995). The role of audit committees in UK universities. Managerial Auditing Journal. 10(6) 10-16

  • [16]Drewery David Nevison Colleen and Pretti T. Judene. (2016). The influence of cooperative education and reflection upon previous work experiences on university graduates’ vocational self-concept. Education + Training 58(2) 179-192.

  • [17]EC. (2008). TUNING - Generic competences (Erişim 1 Eylül 2018).

  • [18]EC. (2010). Europe 2020: European strategy for smart sustainable and inclusive growth. (Erişim 26 Eylül 2018).

  • [19]EHEA. (1998). Sorbonne Joint Declaration.

  • [20]EHEA. (2018a). European higher education area and Bologna Process. (Erişim 1 Nisan 2019).

  • [21]EHEA. (2018b). The European higher education area in 2018. (Erişim 3 Eylül 2018).

  • [22]EHEA. (2019). The Bologna process revisited: The future of the European higher education area. (Erişim 1 Nisan 2019).

  • [23]Erdoğan Armağan and Toprak Metin. (2012). Governance of higher education in Turkey. Leadership and governance in higher education 3 95-120.

  • [24]Erdoğan Armağan and Toprak Metin. (2014). What kind of higher education? References scope and tools. Yeni Turkiye 58(May-June) 707-718.

  • [25]Estébanez Raquel Pérez. (2017). An approachment to cooperative learning in higher education comparative study of teaching methods in engineering. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education 13(5)1331–1340.

  • [26]Estermann Thomas and Jorgensen Thomas. (2019). Enabling frameworks: What universities need in the age of open innovation? (Accessed: June 24 2019).

  • [27]Etzkowitz Henry and Dzisah James. (2013). Bottom-up Triple Helix: science policy in the states of the USA. Journal of Knowledge-based Innovation in China. 5(2) 80-96.

  • [28]Farnsworth Terry. (1970). How to select external courses. Industrial and Commercial Training 2(6) 262-264.

  • [29]Galvão Anderson et al. (2017). A quadruple helix model of entrepreneurship innovation and stages of economic development. Review of International Business and Strategy. 27(2) 261-282.

  • [30]Gartland Clare Elizabeth and Smith Christine. (2018). Supporting progression to HE: the role of colleges and vocational courses. Education + Training 60(6) 637-650.

  • [31]Haddara Mahmoud and Skanes Heather. (2007). A reflection on cooperative education from experience to experiential learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education 8(1) 67-76.

  • [32]Hasan Mahmudul Khan Eijaz Ahmed and Un Nabi Noor. (2017). Entrepreneurial education at university level and entrepreneurship development Education + Training. 59(7/8) 888-906.

  • [33]Holtzman Diane and Kraft Ellen. (2011). Skills needed in the 21st century workplace: A comparison of feedback from undergraduate business alumni and employers with a national study. Business Education & Accreditation 3(1) 61-76.

  • [34]Johnson David W. Johnson Roger T. and Holubec Edythe Johnson. (2008). The new circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom Edina MN Interaction Book Company.

  • [35]Johnson David W. Johnson Roger T. and Smith Karl A. (2013). Cooperative learning: Improving university instruction by basing practice on validated theory University of Minnesota 26p. (Accessed: September 1 2018).

  • [36]Kireçci Mehmet Akif et al. (2016). “The internationalization of higher education in Turkey: Creating an index”. Education and Science 41(187)1-28.

  • [37]Kotosz Balazs et al. (2016). How to measure the local economic impact of universities? Methodological Overview. Online at Paper No. 73725 posted 23 September 2016 09:04 UTC.

  • [38]Kulkarni Sharvari and Kulkarni D.G. (2019). Gap analysis of Soft skills in the curriculum of higher education: A case study of management institutes in Karnataka. Advances in Management 12(1) 64-67.

  • [39]Lee JungEun. (2011). The capitalization of knowledge: A triple helix of university-industry-government. Journal of Educational Administration. 49(3) 345-348.

  • [40]Liu Chunlin and Kong Lanlan. (2015). Government-driven university-industry linkages in an emerging country: the case of China. Journal of Science & Technology Policy Management 6(3) 263-282.

  • [41]Liu Ye. (2012). Does entrepreneurial university really exist in China? A case from Huazhong University of Science and Technology. Journal of Knowledge-based Innovation in China. 4(2) 88-103.

  • [42]Lombardi Rosa Massaro Maurizio Dumay John and Nappo Fabio. (2019). Entrepreneurial universities and strategy: the case of the University of Bari. Management Decision

  • [43]Lu Lucy. (2008). Creating knowledge-based innovation in China: The strategic implications of triple helix model. Journal of Technology Management in China. 3(3) 249-263.

  • [44]Macpherson Reynold J.S. (1997). The centre for professional development at the University of Auckland: Towards creating networks of moral obligations. International Journal of Educational Management 11(6) 260-267.

  • [45]Marri H.B. Grieve R.J. Gunasekaran A. and Kobu B. (2002). Government-industry-university collaboration on the successful implementation of CIM in SMEs: An empirical analysis. Logistics Information Management. 15(2) 105-114.

  • [46]McRae Norah and Ramji Karima. (2017). Intercultural competency development curriculum: A strategy for internationalizing work-integrated learning for the 21st century global village. Work-Integrated Learning in the 21st Century Published online: 29 August 129-143.

  • [47]Murphy Anne. (2011). The capitalization of knowledge: A triple helix of university-industry-government. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 32(6) 648-651.

  • [48]OECD-IMHE. (2009). Higher education management and policy programme on institutional management. (Erişim1 Eylül 2018).

  • [49]Olsson Ulf. (2016). Open courses and MOOCs as professional development – is the openness a hindrance? Education + Training. 58(2) 229-243.

  • [50]Ostim Technical University. (2018). The Statute of the Ostim Technical University. Official Gazette December.

  • [51]Otala Leenamaija. (1994). Industry-university partnership: implementing lifelong learning. Journal of European Industrial Training 18(8) pp.13-18.

  • [52]Patton Narelle. (2017). Driving change students shaping and reshaping work-integrated learning spaces. Work-Integrated Learning in the 21st Century. Published online: 29 August 163-176.

  • [53]Piirainen Kalle Artturi Andersen Allan Dahl and Andersen Per Dannemand. (2016). Foresight and the third mission of universities: the case for innovation system foresight. Foresight. 18(1) 24-40.

  • [54]Poon Joanna and Brownlow Michael. (2015). Development of students’ commercial awareness within the curriculum of professionally accredited courses: A case study of property courses. Education + Training 57(4) 405-428.

  • [55]Reyes Charisse N. (2016). Framing the entrepreneurial university: the case of the National University of Singapore. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies. 8(2) 134-161.

  • [56]Rubens Arthur Spigarelli Francesca Cavicchi Alessio and Rinaldi Chiara. (2017). Universities’ third mission and the entrepreneurial university and the challenges they bring to higher education institutions. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy. 11(03) 354-372.

  • [57]Savignon Andrea Bonomi Corvo Luigi. (2018). Government–third sector relations and the triple helix approach: Patterns in the Italian social innovation ecosystem Studies in Public and Non-Profit Governance. 6 95-109.

  • [58]Scalia Massimo et al. (2018). Governance for sustainability: a triple-helix model. Sustainability Science. Published online: May 11.

  • [59]Shapiro Hanne Lauritzen John René Keller and Irving Pat. (2011). Emerging skills and competences- a transatlantic study: EU-US study for the European Commission October Danish Technological Institute 141p.

  • [60]Sheety Alia et al. (2016). University partnerships for academic program and professional development building faculty capacity for 21st century teaching and learning. University Partnerships for Academic Programs and Professional Development. Published online: 17 August 221-241.

  • [61]Striukova Ludmila and Rayna Thierry. (2015). University-industry knowledge exchange: An exploratory study of open innovation in UK universities. European Journal of Innovation Management 18(4) 471-492.

  • [62]Sumanjeet Singh. (2012). Developing e-skills for competitiveness growth and employment in the 21st century: The European perspective. International Journal of Development Issues 11(1) 37-59.

  • [63]Toprak Metin and Bayraktar Yüksel. (2017). Corporate governance practices of Turkey A critical review The IUP Journal of Corporate Governance XVI(2) 54-75.

  • [64]Toprak Metin and Erdoğan Armağan. (2012). Lifelong Learning: Concept policy instruments and implementation. Journal of Higher Education and Science 2(2) 69-91.

  • [65]Toprak Metin and Erdoğan Armağan. (2013). European approach to graduate studies. 6th national graduate education symposium proceedings. Sakarya University Institute of Educational Sciences. 10-36.

  • [66]Toprak Metin et al. (2019). New generation university: An organizational and functional governance model proposal for a thematic-technical university. Journal of Higher Education. Forthcoming (2019 fall).

  • [67]Toprak Metin Erdoğan Armağan and Açıkgöz Ömer. (2013). Field qualifications: A framework suggestion. The New Educational Review. 31(1) 153-164.

  • [68]Ughetto Elisa. (2007). Foresight as a triple helix of industry university and government relations. Foresight. 9(5) 14-22.

  • [69]van Weenen Hans. (2000). Towards a vision of a sustainable university. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 1(1) 20-34.

  • [70]Wagenaar Robert. (2016). Modernisation of education II education policy and programme innovation EIT and MSCA. Developing future skills in higher education ET2020 – Peer learning activity (PLA). Brussels 25-26 February Key Findings (Accessed: September 10 2018).

  • [71]Wagner Tony. (2009). The global achievement gap. New York Perseus Books Group 344p. (Accessed: April 15 2019).

  • [72]Yang Yan and Holgaard Jette Egelund. (2012). The important role of civil society groups in eco-innovation: a triple helix perspective. Journal of Knowledge-based Innovation in China. 4(2) 132-148.

  • [73] Zhou Chunyan. (2008). Emergence of the entrepreneurial university in evolution of the triple helix: The case of Northeastern University in China. Journal of Technology Management in China. 3(1) 109-126.

Journal information
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 14 14 14
PDF Downloads 13 13 13