CLASSIFICATION OF ACADEMIC ORGANIZATIONS IN KAZAKHSTAN USING HIERARCHIC CLUSTER ANALYSIS
Аннотация
The purpose of the research is to classify academic organizations in Kazakhstan and analyze overall higher education competitiveness using the hierarchical cluster analysis method. The results of the study can be used as an effective source of information in development of institutional policies and benchmarking. The lack of a classification scheme for academic organizations in Kazakhstan imposes restrictions on policy research as well as academic research. Without a classification scheme for academic organizations, researchers and policy makers have to work with relatively random comparable groups. Such studies may lead to inappropriate and inconsistent results. Regarding this need, the main purpose of this study is to classify the academic organizations in Kazakhstan in terms of their institutional size and performance.
As a result of the clustering analysis, the academic organizations were divided in 4 groups forming in the dendogram. Academic organizations in cluster A are academic organizations with a focus on growth and research. The cluster consists mainly of high quality education and high performing academic organizations. Academic organizations in cluster B include the oldest mediumsized academic organizations. Cluster C is composed of academic organizations located in the Western region of Kazakhstan, while Cluster D contains small and medium-sized and relatively old academic organizations.
As a result of the clustering analysis, the academic organizations were divided in 4 groups forming in the dendogram. Academic organizations in cluster A are academic organizations with a focus on growth and research. The cluster consists mainly of high quality education and high performing academic organizations. Academic organizations in cluster B include the oldest mediumsized academic organizations. Cluster C is composed of academic organizations located in the Western region of Kazakhstan, while Cluster D contains small and medium-sized and relatively old academic organizations.
Авторлар туралы
М. Айтимбетов
Анатолийский университет
Түркия
Түркия
А. Шилибекова
Университет Стамбула
Түркия
Түркия
Әдебиет тізімі
1. Avkiran, N. K. (2001). Investigating technical and scale efficiencies of Australian universities through data envelopment analysis. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 35(1), 57-80
2. Bartelse, J., & Vught, F. (2007). Institutional profiles: Towards a typology of higher education institutions in Europe. IAU Horizons, 13(2- 3), 9-11.
3. Carey, K. (2006). College rankings reformed: The case for a new order in higher education.
4. Retrieved from Education Sector website: http://educationpolicy. air.org/sites/ default/files/publications/CollegeRankingsReformed.pdf
5. Chu Ng, Y., & Li, S. K. (2000). Measuring the research performance of Chinese higher education institutions: an application of data envelopment analysis. Education Economics, 8(2), 139-156.
6. Günay, D., & Günay, A. (2011). 1933’den günümüz Türk yükseköğ retiminde niceliksel geliş meler. Yükseköğ retim ve Bilim Dergisi, 1(1), 1-22.
7. Hair, J. F. Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
8. Harvey, L. (2008). Rankings of higher education institutions: A critical review. Quality in Higher Education, 14(3), 187-207.
9. Ibáñez, A., Larrañaga, P., & Bielza, C. (2013). Cluster methods for assessing research performance: exploring Spanish computer science. Scientometrics, 97(3), 571-600.
10. Ioannidis, J. P., Patsopoulos, N. A., Kavvoura, F. K., Tatsioni, A., Evangelou, E., Kouri, I., & Liberopoulos, G. (2007). International ranking systems for universities and institutions: A critical appraisal. Bmc Medicine, 5(1), 30.
11. Küçükcan, T., & Gür, B. S. (2009). Türkiye’de yükseköğ retim: Karş ılaş tırmalı bir analiz. Ankara: SETA Yayınları.
12. McCormick, A. C. (2008). The complex interplay between classification and ranking of colleges and universities: should the Berlin Principles apply equally to classification?. Higher Education in Europe, 33(2-3), 209-218.
13. McCormick, A. C., & Zhao, C. M. (2005). Rethinking and reframing the Carnegie classification. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 37(5), 51-57.
14. Marginson, S., & Van der Wende, M. (2007). To rank or to be ranked: The impact of global rankings in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3-4), 306-329.
15. OECD. (2006). Education policy analysis: Focus on higher education 2005–2006. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/skills-beyondschool/education policyanalysisfocusonhigheredu cation--2005-2006edition.htm
16. Özoğ lu, M., Gür, B. S., & Gümüş , S. (2016). Rapid expansion of higher education in Turkey: The challenges of recently established public universities (2006-2013). Higher Education Policy, 29, 21-39.
17. Raponi, V., Martella, F., & Maruotti, A. (2016). A biclustering approach to university performances: An Italian case study. Journal of Applied Statistics, 43(1), 31-45.
18. Shin, J. C. (2009). Classifying higher education institutions in Korea: A performance-based approach. Higher Education, 57(2), 247-266.
19. Thakur, M. (2007). The impact of ranking systems on higher education and its stakeholders. Journal of Institutional Research, 13(1), 83-96.
20. Tosun, H. (2015). Devlet üniversiteleri: Performans değ erlendirme finansman modeli ve yeniden yapılanma. Ankara: Uzman Matbaacılık.
21. Stella, A., & Woodhouse, D. (2007). Benchmarking in Australian higher education: A thematic analysis of AUQA audit reports. Melbourne, VIC: Australian Universities Quality Agency.
22. İQAA (2015). Independent agency for quality assurance in education – ranking from https://iqaa-ranking.kz/rejting-vuzov/rejting-vuzov-kazakhstana-2018/natsionalnyj - rejting-luchshikh-mnogoprofilnykh-vuzov-kazakhstana-2
23. Webemetric. Ranking Web of Universities. Retrieved from http://www.webometrics.info/en
24. Üsdiken, B., Topaler, B., & Koçak, Ö. (2013). Yasa, piyasa ve örgüt tiplerinde çeş itlilik: 1981 sonrasında Türkiye’de üniversiteler. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 68(03), 191-227.
25. Van Dyke, N. (2005). Twenty years of university reports cards. Higher Education in Europe, 30(2), 103- 124.
26. Ward, J. H. J. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 236-44.
27. YÖK. (2015a). Higher Education System in Turkey. Retrieved November 15, 2015, from http://www.yok.gov.tr/en/web/uluslararasi- iliskiler/turkiye-deyuksekogretim-sistemi
Рецензия
Дәйектеу үшін:
Айтимбетов М., Шилибекова А.С. CLASSIFICATION OF ACADEMIC ORGANIZATIONS IN KAZAKHSTAN USING HIERARCHIC CLUSTER ANALYSIS. Вестник Атырауского университета имени Халела Досмухамедова. 2019;54(3):76-88.
For citation:
, CLASSIFICATION OF ACADEMIC ORGANIZATIONS IN KAZAKHSTAN USING HIERARCHIC CLUSTER ANALYSIS. Bulletin of the Khalel Dosmukhamedov Atyrau University. 2019;54(3):76-88.
Қараулар:
356
Мақаланы эл. пошта арқылы жіберу 