Profiles of New University Academic Staff: Changing Views of Turkish Postgraduate Students Between 2002 and 2016

  • Şefika Şule Erçetin
  • Şuay Nilhan Açıkalın
  • Feyza Gün
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Complexity book series (SPCOM)


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.


Academic Staff Profile Student Postgraduate Education 


  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chireshe, R. (2011). Effective and ineffective lecturers: University students’ perspective in Zimbabwe. Anthropologist, 13(4), 265–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Çiftçi, M. (2010). Girişimci üniversite ve üçüncü kuşak üniversiteler. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 27, 341–348.Google Scholar
  5. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. 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. Scholar
  7. Erçetin, Ş. Ş. (2001). Biz akademisyenler geleceğin yükseköğretim kurumlarını yaratmaya hazır mıyız? Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 25, 75–86.Google Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education (6th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. Keohane, N. O. (2006). Higher ground: Ethics and leadership in the modern university. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. Sakınç, S., & ve Bursalıoğlu, S. A. (2012). Yükseköğretimde küresel bir değişim: Girişimci üniversite modeli. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 2(2), 92–99.Google Scholar
  15. Salmi, J. (2002). Facing the challenges of the twenty-first century. Perspectives, 6(1), 8–12.Google Scholar
  16. Vichit-Vadakan, J. (2015). Reflections on university and urban public university. Metropolitan Universities, 18(3), 109–118.Google Scholar
  17. Wissema, J. G. (2009). Üçüncü kuşak üniversitelere doğru: Geçiş döneminde üniversiteleri yönetmek (Çev. Özyeğin Üniversitesi). Istanbul: Özyeğin Üniversitesi Yayınları.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Şefika Şule Erçetin
    • 1
    • 2
  • Şuay Nilhan Açıkalın
    • 2
    • 3
  • Feyza Gün
    • 1
  1. 1.Hacettepe UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Lancaster UniversityLancasterUK
  3. 3.International Relations DepartmentMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations