Academics’ Opinions on Organizational Democracy and the Perception of Academic Freedom and the Appropriate Level in Turkey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aimed to determine how lecturers have adopted organizational democracy and academic freedom in Turkish state universities, as well as to find out their views on its appropriation for Turkey. A correlative descriptive survey model is used in this study. The study sample was included 418 academics working at state universities in Ankara. For this research, an ‘Organizational Democracy Scale’ and an ‘Academic Freedom Scale’ were developed and employed by the researcher, and the obtained data were analyzed using SPSS statistical software. The arithmetic mean and the standard deviation were calculated for the answers provided by the academics. Regression analysis was conducted to find out the effect of organizational democracy on academic freedom. In the qualitative phase of the study, face-to-face interviews were conducted with 20 academics. NVivo 10 software was used to analyze the content of the interviews. At the end of the study, it was found that university administrations should avoid discriminative attitudes; should account for their decisions and implementations; deans and faculty boards should be elected democratically; all stakeholders (apart from academics), including students, should take part in both elections and be involved in management processes; and finally, the election system should be more democratic.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".