22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Fostering Interdisciplinarity in Research Intensive Universities: Challenging Leaders and Their Institutional Leadership Orthodoxies??
Ciaran Sugrue1, Tone Solbrekke2, Molly Sutphen3
1University College Dublin, Ireland; 2University of Oslo, Norway; 3University of Oslo, Norway
Presenting Author: Sugrue, Ciaran;
Solbrekke, Tone
Higher education is in ‘a time of profound, unrelenting change of a magnitude and scope unequalled since the Industrial Revolution’(Levine & Van Pelt, 2021, p. ix). This present ‘flux’ (Bebbington 2021), ‘in-between time’, or ‘interregnum,’ is challenging public universities’ traditional ways of fulfilling their social responsibilities to serve public good (Grant, 2021, p. 3). The term ‘public’ in ‘public good’ is seriously contentious (Clarke, Mills, Mockler, & Singh, 2022). Consequently, leading universities is highly complex and uncertain, but remains a major responsibility, rendered more fraught by a persistent habit of using the terms ‘management’ and ‘leadership’ interchangeably. We concur with Branson et al. (2020, 4-7) that ‘management’ is about ‘controlling and directing’ by following policies, rules, and prescribed procedures to be ‘publicly accountable’. In previous research conducted in five research intensive universities, we identified and described ‘deliberative leadership’ as both a sustainable approach in higher education, with potential also to be transformative, thus conceivably an asset also in promoting interdisciplinarity (Solbrekke & Sugrue, 2020).
Recognising that leadership is ‘complex, multilevel, and socially constructed’ (Xie 2019, 76), has led to the emergence of ‘adjectivalism’: ‘substituting an endless supply of successive candidate adjectives’ (Gronn 2009, p.18), including servant, spiritual, transformational, transactional, and transrelational, a list by no means exhaustive (Xie, 2019). A more recent inclusion has been ‘distributed’ (Youngs, 2017). Others advocate for sustainability (Rieg, Gatersleben, & Christie 2021), gender (van Helden, den Dulk, Steijn, & Vernooij 2021), and inclusion (Aboramadan, Dahleez, and Farao 2022). Still others have focused on the consequences of NPM for leading public universities (Barnett, 2011; Pinheiro, Geschwind, Hansen, & Pulkkinen, 2019). Internally, these dynamics have increased the extent of the academic ‘precariat’ (Fitzsimons, Henry, & O’ Neill 2021), while increasing external pressures post Bologna (1999) have resulted in demands for stronger management masquarading as leadership (Karseth & Solbrekke, 2016; Kohtamaki 2022). These and other external demands have spawned increasing ‘managerialism’ and ‘leaderism’ (vozhdism) (Brankovic 2018). In a more rudderless higher education landscape, there is advocacy too for greater attention to values, ‘integrity, fairness, kindness, excellence, sustainability, passion and reason,’ drawing attention to ‘what is important in life’ (Carney, 2021, pp. 4-17). Building on theories of ‘professional responsibility,’ Solbrekke and Englund (2011) indicate the tensions between external governance policies of professional work, including the work of public universities captured in the language and logic of ‘accountability’ and ‘responsibility’.
Into this cauldron of competing and conflicting pressures and demands, academic hospitality in tandem with interdisciplinarity are posited as a means of providing some situated certainty for securing a more sustainable higher education sector while preparing graduates more appropriately for work and society. Academic hospitality has different forms, identified as material (hosting conferences, collaborating with peers), epistemic (being open or hospitable to new ideas), linguistic (translating into other languages, being sensitive to the language of ‘other’ disciplines) and touristic (being welcoming and hospitable to fellow academics) (Phipps & Barnett, 2007). Additionally, interdisciplinarity has been presented as an elixir: “a solution to a series of contemporary problems, in particular the relations between science and society, the development of accountability and the need to foster innovation in the knowledge economy” (Barry, Born, & Weszkalnys, 2008, p. 21). This paper opens an exploratory study of the leadership challenges presented in higher education, when both interdisciplinarity and academic hospitality are inserted more systematically into its reform agenda. In doing so, it addresses the following research questions:
- How do interdisciplinary programme teams and leaders, and senior university leaders (with responsibility for promoting interdisciplinarity) talk about leading interdisciplinary education in their respective institutions?
- What insights do their accounts offer into institutional leadership and institutional transformation?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedData analysed for this paper are part of a larger study on ‘Academic Hospitality in Higher Education’, a research project funded by the Norwegian Research Council, involving six research intensive universities, two Norwegian, one Swedish, Australian, Scottish, and Irish. It is a mixed methods study investigating academic hospitality in interdisciplinary collaboration within a selected programme in each of the six participating universities. While focused directly on those programmes to identify their pedagogies, academics and students are participants. Additionally, senior leaders within the universities with particular responsibility for education and the promotion of interdisciplinarity are participants, thus the focus is not merely on pedagogies of interdisciplinarity, but also how such practices are crafted as well as the shaping influences on institutional structures, contexts and leaders in cultivating hospitable environments conducive to interdisciplinary teaching, learning and leading.
As this project is in an early phase of data gathering, analysis here is confined to five transcripts from each of three of the six participating universities; interviews conducted with leaders of interdisciplinary programmes, and their institutional leaders with particular responsibilities for leading interdisciplinarity education in their respective institutions. In addition to individual interviews with these leaders, focus group interviews with programme teams were also completed. Interviews have been completed adopting an insider/outsider perspective; an outsider being a colleague from another university in the study in partnership with a researcher colleague in the institution where data are being gathered. (Corbin Dwyer & Buckle, 2009). Each interview was approximately one hour, recorded and subsequently transcribed. While the analytical stance is ‘abductive’ (Alvesson & Skolberg, 2000), moving freely between conceptual and theoretical literature and engagement with the data, initial coding of transcripts was undertaken by the three authors individually, and when codes were negotiated and agreed, transcripts were then coded electronically using MAXQDA, continuing to engage abductively with the material.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsWhile interdisciplinarity for some time has been trumpeted as a means of addressing some contemporary challenges in higher education, perhaps even more intensively in research intensive universities, there is a relative dearth of evidence on how it is promoted institutionally, and the challenges such promotion represents to senior leaders in particular, as well as to established structures and routines of practice. Analysis in this paper seeks to shed light on this phenomenon within three institutions in this initial analysis of data. Preliminary analysis suggests a number of themes under which the findings will be presented, while interpreting these through the theoretical and analytical framework articulated above. These are:
Understandings of interdisciplinarity: responsibility for its promotion
Institutional constraints: overcoming frustrations, leading alternatives
Pedagogies of interdisciplinarity: innovative practices or new wine in old bottles?
From disciplinary silos to institutional Balkanisation?
Currently, these are emergent themes as we become more familiar with the data and as additional data is added to the project’s existing archive.
In the discussion/ conclusion element of the paper, the focus will be on emerging insights into institutional leaders roles and responsibilities as universities seek to address contemporary challenges and these will be interrogated through the lens indicated above with an emphasis on insights into practices that emerge as having transformative potential, while recognising that such routines are shaped considerably by actors, institutional contexts and external policy environments. The theoretical hinterland articulate above will be drawn on selectively in this section, consistent with an abductive approach. The presentation will be succinct to maximise time for discussion and input from those present, contributions that will be important and received hospitably.
ReferencesAlvesson, M., & Skolberg, K. (2000). Reflexive Methodology. New Vistas for Qualitative Research. London Sage.
Barnett, R. (2011). Being a University. London & New York: Routledge.
Barry, A., Born, G., & Weszkalnys, G. (2008). Logics of interdisciplinarity, Economy and Society Economy and Society, 37(1), 20-49. doi:10.1080/03085140701760841
Carney, M. (2021). Value(s) Building a Better World For All London: Harper Collins.
Corbin Dwyer, S., & Buckle, J. L. (2009). The Space Between: On Being an Insider-Outsider in Qualitative Research. Internatonal Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 54-63.
Esen, M., Bellibas, M. S., & Gumus, S. (2020). The Evolution of Leadership Research in Higher Education for Two Decades (1995-2014): A Bibliometric and Content Analysis, . International Journal of Leadership in Education, 23(3), 259-273. doi:10.1080/13603124.2018.1508753
Grant, J. (2021). The New Power University The social purpose of higher education in the 21st century. Harlow & New York: Pearson Education Ltd.
Karseth, B., & Solbrekke, T. D. (2016). Curriculum trends in European higher education: The pursuit of the Humboldtian University Ideas. In S. Slaughter & J. T. Barrett (Eds.), Higher education, stratification, and workforce development: Competitive advantage in Europe, the US, and Canada (pp. 215–233). Cham: Springer. (pp. 215-233). Dordrecht: Springer.
Levine, A., & Van Pelt, S. (2021). The Great Upheaval Higher Education's Past, Present, and Uncertain Future. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press
Phipps, A., & Barnett, R. (2007). Academic Hospitality Arts & Humanities in Higher Education, 6(3), 237–254 doi:10.1177/1474022207080829
Pinheiro, R., Geschwind, L., Hansen, H. F., & Pulkkinen, K. e. (2019). Reforms, Organizational Change and Performance in Higher Education: A comparative account from the Nordic countries. Retrieved from Cham (Switzerland): : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-,030-11738-2
Solbrekke, T. D., & Sugrue, C. (2020). Leading Higher Education As, and For, Public Good. In T. D. Solbrekke & C. Sugrue (Eds.), Leading Higher Education As and For Public Good Rekindling Education as Praxis (pp. 3-17). London & New York: Routledge.
Stensaker, B., Bilbow, G. T., Breslow, L., & Van Der Vaart, R. (Eds.). (2017). Strengthening Teaching and Learning in Research Universities Strategies and Initiatives for Institutional Change. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sugrue, C., & Solbrekke, T. D. (2020). Re-kindling Education As Praxis The promise of deliberative leadership. In T. D. Solbrekke & C. Sugrue (Eds.), Leading Higher Education As and For Public Good Re-Kindling Education As Praxis. London & New York: Routledge.
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Organizational Governance and Management of Transnational Partnerships in Higher Education: Study of Sino-foreign Joint Institutes
Huili Si, Stephen Rayner
The Manchester Institute of Education, University of Manchester
Presenting Author: Si, Huili;
Rayner, Stephen
This proposal addresses the call to report research into the organizational transformation of higher-education institutes. Against the background of a global trend towards neoliberalism and managerialism, the government of China is reforming its higher-education policies in order to pursue managed opportunities for decentralization, giving increased autonomy at local level while maintaining overall control and oversight of the higher-education system as a whole. This leads to tensions in both policy and practice, in particular in Transnational Higher-Education (TNHE) partnerships, where responsibility for governance, management and administration is shared between Chinese and non-Chinese institutes. These are second-tier international institutes without independent legal status. TNHE institutes are of growing political, social and economic importance in China. They have developed in response to increasing demands for mass higher education, changing employment needs, and the political imperative in China to engage with research, scholarship and leadership development on a global scale. Our proposal therefore relates directly to the fourth and sixth thematic research fields set out by Network 22: policy, management and governance in higher education; and internationalization in higher education.
Responding to changing societal conditions, including technology, social disparities and geopolitical tensions, and crisis from climate change, a global pandemic, war, energy shortages and inflation, the higher education sectors across the countries need to be adaptive and transit towards a new forms of organizing for sustainable development which reaches beyond national borders(Altbach & de Wits, 2020; Marginson, 2020, p. 1; Mok, Xiong et al., 2020). In educational research this often involves Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) who have been generally considered significant contributors to the promotion of sustainability (Karatzoglou, 2013). TNHE partnership among diverse partners has exhibited its resilience against the impact of such societal uncertainties, and is recognized as an effective mode to pursue sustainable development in ecological, economic, and sociocultural perspectives. TNHE joint institutes have a significant physical presence in China. There are currently 137 Sino-foreign joint institutes, of which 25 are Sino-UK joint institutes. More such partnerships are expected to be established in the near future. However, transnational partnerships and governance in Sino-UK joint institutes are complex and developed in historical, geographic, social, political, economic and cultural contexts along its practices (Mizzi & Rocco 2013). There is a question about whether HE governance designed for UK, as an example, can fit well under other conditions outside the UK (specifically for this study, this is China where hierarchy is the general picture in higher education governance). Furthermore, the motivations and interests behind the transnational stakeholders are highly related to their geographical, economic, and political proximity to the institutions (Lawn and Lingard, 2002).
This research adopts Sino-foreign joint institutes as study case to explore, on one hand, how China’s TNHE decentralization governance of Sino-UK joint institutes is subject to regulatory interventions by the state and vulnerable to the changing global environment by studying interrelated stages of policy design from a macro perspective, as well as policy implementation from an institutional perspective; on the other hand, how China’s TNHE governance reforms influence the decision-making power allocated among different external stakeholders of oversea university as host education providers in Sino-foreign joint institutes. This raises the question of whether higher-education governance designed for the UK, for example, can be suited to conditions outside the UK. Specifically for this study, ‘outside the UK’ refers to China, where higher-education governance has traditionally followed a hierarchical model. That is the rationale for our research into the tensions, contestations and negotiations in the joint organisational governance and management of Sino-UK joint institutes and programmes.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThere are two stages in this research. First, this research adopted the inductive method to analyse TNHE governance related policy documents from 2003 (the milestone year of China’s higher education internationalization regulations) and 2022 (the first year of post-pandemic); second, survey and semi-structured interview were applied, because they can provide rich data for understanding stakeholders’ experiences (Rubin & Rubin, 2011) to investigate the institutional governance in Sino-UK joint institutes. Freeman (1984) defines stakeholders as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives” (p.46). In terms of the shifting interests, influential levels and power bases, TNHE key stakeholders can be classified on the basis of their functions as TNE providers, administrators and academic staff engaged in delivery, with government as enablers and regulators. UK universities as key external stakeholders in joint governance could not be overemphasized. Verhoest et al. (2004)’s typology of multi-dimensional governance, and set of indicators by H. De Boer and J. Enders (2017) are adopted to contribute conceptual and empirical social understanding of TNHE governance in Sino-UK joint institutes. Respondents are asked how influential they are in 23 indicators of 5 groups with two open questions.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThis research is the first systematic attempt to map and investigate TNHE partnerships and practices as they are perceived, experienced, shaped and mediated by the different motivations and interests of stakeholders from China’s and UK’s universities. The findings indicate that the Chinese hierarchical state seeks a balance between political control and institutional autonomy, in order to develop the most effective forms of TNHE governance amid global market pressures for power reconfiguration. Nevertheless, some tensions remain between actors from Chinese and foreign universities. For example, in Sino-foreign joint institutes, central-government attempts to integrate top-down decision-making processes may weaken collegial voices. Moreover, the decision-making power of foreign universities may be neglected and under-valued. There also arises the question whether HE governance designed for the UK/Europe can, or should, be adapted to conditions in China, where the tendency has been more towards hierarchy than collegiality. The contribution of this study is to understand the potential opportunities and consequences of this aspect of higher-education reform, focusing specifically on the relationship between the state, the market, Sino-UK institutions and those who work in and with them.
The lead author’s doctoral research investigates organizational governance in TNHE institutions, especially Sino-UK joint institutes that are jointly governed and managed by Chinese universities as host provider and UK universities as home provider. That doctoral project, while making an original contribution as it stands, will form the basis of further research. That postdoctoral research should explore decision making from the UK perspective; for example, by interviewing senior officers such as Deans from UK universities. Knowledge of the decision-making power of UK universities in China’s context is currently limited, and yet the transnational actors as joint partners are at the leading edge of financial and structural governance as higher-education systems and policies are reformulated.
ReferencesAltbach, P., & de Wit, H. (2020). Postpandemic outlook for higher education is bleakest for the poorest.International Higher Education, (102), 3-5.
Enders, J., & de Boer, H. (2017). Working in the Shadow of Hierarchy: Organisational Autonomy and Venues of External Influence. In Managing Universities: Policy and Organizational Change from a Western European Perspective (pp. 57-84). Palgrave Macmillan.
Freeman, R. Edward. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Boston: Pitman Publishing Inc.).
Karatzoglou, B. (2013). An in-depth literature review of the evolving roles and contributions of universities to education for sustainable development.Journal of Cleaner Production,49, 44-53.
Lawn, M., & Lingard, B. (2002). Constructing a European policy space in educational governance: The role of transnational policy actors. European Educational Research Journal, 1(2), 290-307.
Margison, S. (2020). The world is changing: Higher education and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Mizzi, R. C., & Rocco, T. S. (2013). Deconstructing dominance: Toward a reconceptualization of the relationship between collective and individual identities, globalization, and learning at work.Human Resource Development Review,12(3), 364-382.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. sage.
Verhoest, K., Peters, B. G., Bouckaert, G., & Verschuere, B. (2004). The study of organisational autonomy: a conceptual review. Public Administration and Development: The International Journal of Management Research and Practice, 24(2), 101-118.
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
A closer look at the Türkiye’s Expansion Policy: The Longitudinal Analysis of the Predictors of Filled Quota Rates
Merve Zayim Kurtay, Sevgi Kaya-Kasikci, Yasar Kondakci
Middle East Technical University, Turkiye
Presenting Author: Zayim Kurtay, Merve;
Kondakci, Yasar
Higher education (HE) has received considerable attention due to its social, economic, and cultural returns for societies and individuals (Jerrim & Vignoles, 2015; Lochner, 2020). Particularly the benefits for individuals are closely coupled with increased social cohesion and economic return for countries in the long run (Altbach, 2000; O’Sullivan et al., 2017). As a result, the number of individuals demanding HE has increased exponentially, which has pushed governments to address this demand and provide opportunities for all. Türkiye is one of those countries which adopted an aggressive policy to expand its HE capacity since 2005 (Özoğlu et al., 2016) with the motto of “one university in each province.” More concretely, right after the policy was initiated, in two years, 41 public universities were established (Özoğlu et al., 2016). This policy aimed to fill the gap between supply and demand while making HE accessible to all, regardless of their geographical location and socio-economic status. However, the policy was not limited to the acceleration of establishing new universities. It also covered increasing the quota of already established ones and making public universities totally free of tuition fees.
Two opposing arguments emerged concerning the outcomes of the expansion of HE. While the proponents have a more neoliberal lens that highlights the key roles of a qualified labor force for the market and their economic return, the opponents questioned and raised their concerns about the growth in the number of graduates and resulting diploma inflation and uncontrollable unemployment (Teichler, 2020). Türkiye’s expansion policy seems to embrace a more optimistic perspective as the government and the existing scholarship refer to these universities as tools for regional and economic development (Polat, 2017), while HE is considered a means for better and more prosperous living conditions by higher income and wellbeing (Ma et al., 2016).
The aim of promoting available and accessible HE to whoever aspires has been confirmed by the statistics offered by the Council of Higher Education (HEC, 2023). These statistics demonstrate that between 2006 and 2014, the gap between the number of students who applied for the university entrance examination (a competitive nationwide examination taken by around three million students) and the ones who enrolled was getting lower. However, this gap has started to expand since then and reached a peak in 2022 in the lifetime of the HE, which has caused a serious supply and demand imbalance in student applications and enrollments. Considering the relatively young population of the country, this situation may create an illusion that Türkiye needs further higher education institutions (HEIs) to address this increasing imbalance. Yet, the filled quota rates of the most recently founded HEIs are extremely low, which is even the case for the lucrative fields, including engineering (Kaya-Kaşıkcı, 2023). Thus, it can be concluded that there is no reception by the target groups despite the oversupply of available quotas. This contradiction in what the expansion policy promised and what was accomplished suggests a need for a closer look at the underlying factors that make HEIs more attractive and demanded.
Against this background, this study aims to investigate the predictive roles of key institutional-level variables for access to HE in Türkiye. Such an investigation aims to give insight into the extent to which the government’s expansion policy has accomplished its primary goal of increasing access to HE over time. With this purpose in mind, the study utilizes the year of foundation, geographical location, and the student-instructor ratio of the public universities as variables to document how well they predict the HE access measured in the form of the rate of used quota spanning from 2019 to 2021.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis research was designed as a correlation study and a group of constant and time-varying predictors were used to predict the time-varying outcome of the rate of filled quota. There are a couple of reasons for choosing the predictors: (1) year of foundation was selected to study the potential year effect stemming from the variation in the degree of institutionalization and cumulative capacity and experience across the institutions (Doğan, 2013), (2) geographical location was picked as an indicator of the degree of regional development, (3) student-instructor ratio was chosen as an indicator of quality (Zayim-Kurtay & Kaya-Kasikci, 2022) as it is the reference for how the teaching resources and time are allocated (OECD, 2021).
The data utilized in this study were retrieved from the YOK ATLAS of Türkiye, a database of HE quota and enrollment statistics for undergraduate degrees (HEC, 2023). The data spanning three years, from 2019 to 2021, was utilized as the system offers complete statistics only for the last three years. Thus, longitudinal data for the public university population was used in this study (n = 129). The ages of the universities range from 5 to 90 years, with a mean of 28,26 (SD = 18.49). The number of institutions in the population established before 2006 was 58. When it comes to the geographical distribution, the number of HEIs located in the Central Anatolia region is 27, the Marmara region is 27, the Mediterranean region is 14, the Eastern-Anatolia region is 16, the Aegean region is 15, the Black Sea region is 20, and South-Eastern region is 10.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe analysis will be conducted with fixed effect regression for longitudinal data using SPSS 28. The results are expected to show that although there are many universities established after 2005 and available for students, the demand for these universities has always been at a minimum level. Thus, we expect a change between the filled quota rate of the HEIs established before and after 2005 in a way that the ones founded earlier than 2006 may have higher rates. Moreover, the rate of filled quota is expected to show no change over the years (no within difference over the three-year period), but the region, year of foundation, and student-instructor ratio are expected to contribute to the prediction of filled quota rate significantly.
ReferencesAltbach, P. G. (2000). Academic freedom and the academic profession. In P. G. Altbach (Ed.), The changing academic workplace: Comparative perspectives (pp.261-277). Center for International Higher Education Lynch School of Education, Boston College.
Doğan, D. (2013). Yeni kurulan üniversitelerin sorunları ve çözüm önerileri. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 3(2), 108-116.
Jerrim, J., & Vignoles, A. (2015). University access for disadvantaged children: A comparison across countries. Higher Education, 70, 903-921.
Lochner, L. (2020). Education and crime. The Economics of Education, 109-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815391-8.00009-4
HEC. (2023). YÖK lisans atlası. https://yokatlas.yok.gov.tr/lisans-anasayfa.php
Kaya-Kaşıkcı, S. (2023). Building socially just higher education institutions in stratified systems: Obstacles in access and institutional actions for mitigating inequalities. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Middle East Technical University, Türkiye.
Ma, J., Pender, M., & Welch, M. (2016). Education pays 2016: The benefits of higher education for individuals and society. Trends in Higher Education Series. College Board.
OECD. (2021). Indicator D2. What is the student-teacher ratio and how big are classes? https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/e2f6a260-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/e2f6a260-en#section-d1e26210
O’Sullivan, S., O’Tuama, S., & Kenny, L. (2017). Universities as key responders to education inequality. Global Discourse, 7(4), 527-538.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23269995.2017.1400902
Özoğlu, M., Gür, B. S., & Gümüs, S. (2016). Rapid expansion of higher education in Turkey: The challenges of recently established public universities (2006–2013). Higher Education Policy, 29, 21–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/hep.2015.7
Polat, S. (2017). The expansion of higher education in Turkey: Access, equality and regional
returns to education. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 43, 1-14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2017.06.001
Teichler, U. (2020). Higher education in economically advanced countries: Changes within recent decades. Higher Education Governance & Policy, 1(1), 1-17.
Zayim-Kurtay, M., & Kaya-Kasikci, S. (2022). Vakıf üniversitelerinde öğrenci olmak. In H. Şimşek (Ed.), Türkiye’de vakıf üniversiteleri: Bir sektörün anatomisi (pp. 127-156). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
|
