Abstract
This study aimed to examine the profiles of academic staff in terms of the views of graduate students. The study was designed with qualitative research methods, and the data were collected through a semi-structured interview form. The semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 master’s, 20 doctoral and 8 non-thesis master’s program students at Hacettepe University. In total the study was carried out with 50 graduate students. The obtained data was analysed using the descriptive analysis technique. According to the results of the study, the profiles of the academic staff in terms of the research and innovation dimension were described by expressions such as contribution to the field, awareness of current developments in the field, expertise in the field and having a critical perspective. In the teaching dimension, preparedness before arrival to class, having effective communication skills and being fair and objective were the key features of expression adopted. In the professionalism dimension, however, the key profiles were expressed in the form of following the academic works in other fields as well as knowing and having a very good command of at least one foreign language. Meanwhile, in the personal characteristics dimension, participants emphasized many features such as tolerance and being respectful, innovative, humble, collaborative, creative and visionary. In the dimension of community service, statements like being able to find solutions to global problems and being able to draw an exemplary human profile to the community were given weight. The research results were also discussed in a comparative way with a similar study conducted in 2002.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Akman, Y., Kelecioğlu, H., & ve Bilge, F. (2006). Öğretim elemanlarının iş doyumlarını etkileyen faktörlere ilişkin görüşleri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(30), 11–20.
Al-Zoubi, Z. H., & Mahasneh, A. M. (2013). The university professor: The attributes & characteristics as seen by the Hashemite University students. Asian Social Science, 9(13), 1–13.
Chireshe, R. (2011). Effective and ineffective lecturers: University students’ perspective in Zimbabwe. Anthropologist, 13(4), 265–269.
Çiftçi, M. (2010). Girişimci üniversite ve üçüncü kuşak üniversiteler. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 27, 341–348.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Drucker, J., & Goldstein, H. (2007). Assessing the regional economic development impacts of universities: A review of current approaches. International Regional Science Review, 30(1), 20–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160017606296731.
Erçetin, Ş. Ş. (2001). Biz akademisyenler geleceğin yükseköğretim kurumlarını yaratmaya hazır mıyız? Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 25, 75–86.
Erçetin, Ş. Ş. (2002). Profile of the new university teacher: The views of Turkish postgraduate students. Kırgızistan-Turkey Manas University Journal of Social Sciences, 2(4), 53–58.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education (6th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill Publishing.
Goldstein, D. B., Linares, A. R., Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., & Feldman, M. W. (1995). An evaluation of genetic distances for use with microsatellite loci. Genetics, 139, 463–471.
Kaweesi, M. (2016). Scholarly conceptions of university culture: A literature review. In Ş. Ş. Erçetin (Ed.), Chaos, complexity and leadership. Uganda: Springer International Publishing; Islamic University.
Keohane, N. O. (2006). Higher ground: Ethics and leadership in the modern university. Durham: Duke University Press.
Middlehurst, R., & Woodfield, S. (2004). The role of transnational, private and for-profits provision in meeting global demand for terriary education: Mapping, regulation and impact. Case of Malaysia. Summary Report Commissioned by the Commonwealth of Learning and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNOESCO. Vancouver: UNESCO.
Sakınç, S., & ve Bursalıoğlu, S. A. (2012). Yükseköğretimde küresel bir değişim: Girişimci üniversite modeli. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 2(2), 92–99.
Salmi, J. (2002). Facing the challenges of the twenty-first century. Perspectives, 6(1), 8–12.
Vichit-Vadakan, J. (2015). Reflections on university and urban public university. Metropolitan Universities, 18(3), 109–118.
Wissema, J. G. (2009). Üçüncü kuşak üniversitelere doğru: Geçiş döneminde üniversiteleri yönetmek (Çev. Özyeğin Üniversitesi). Istanbul: Özyeğin Üniversitesi Yayınları.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this paper
Cite this paper
Erçetin, Ş.Ş., Açıkalın, Ş.N., Gün, F. (2018). Profiles of New University Academic Staff: Changing Views of Turkish Postgraduate Students Between 2002 and 2016. In: Erçetin, Ş. (eds) Chaos, Complexity and Leadership 2016. ICCLS 2016. Springer Proceedings in Complexity. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64554-4_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64554-4_21
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-64552-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-64554-4
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)