Özet:

Summary The 1980s witnessed a surge in popularity to examine universities as institutions of higher education as researchers who study organizations became increasingly aware of the vital role of universities has played in any development program and in the general organization of modern society (Aypay, 2003; Cabal, 1993). Some of researchers focused on the functioning of universities, the nature of universities as organizations, while some focused on the invisible organizational structure of universities (organizational culture and climate), and still some others focused on leadership, decision making, coordination, communication, and organizational change (Brown II, 2000). In the 1980s, there was also great interest in understanding and managing culture in organizations because organizational researchers perceived it as a concept that could explain many organizational phenomena. With the awareness of the symbolic aspects or invisible structure of organizations have come calls for a cultural perspective on organizations (Smircich, 1983). Inevitably, it has been recognized that the concept of organizational culture is a critical element in the study of higher education institutions because the studies focusing on organizational culture in higher education institutions demonstrated that this concept can affect student life, faculty life, curriculum, administration, administrative and organizational themes and processes, such as leadership, decision making, motivation, job satisfaction, effectiveness, and organizational communication (Dill, 2000; Masland, 2000; Peterson Spencer, 2000). Among some others, organizational communication is not only be affected by organizational culture, it also affects culture in organizations. In his study focusing on how culture influences communication, Gudykunst (1997) states that culture and communication reciprocally influence each other. Moreover, Gizir and Şimşek (2005) propose that like other organizations, communication plays a vital role in universities as complex organizations by taking a central position in organizational action, control, coordination and organizational survival, and also by increasing agreement on organizational ideas, norms, values, behaviors, and goals. By considering the aforementioned developments, the purpose of this study is to propose a theoretical background for examining universities from the cultural perspective. With this aim, this study tries to call attention of researchers to universities as heterogonous entities with many different sub-cultures by stressing the central position of culture in the organizational analysis of universities. Moreover, in this study, it is emphasized that faculty members have academic cultures which are influenced from the interaction among the culture of academic profession, disciplinary culture and the culture of scientific paradigm. In addition, the importance of organizational communication through an examination of universities from the cultural perspective is stressed. University and Organizational Culture Although the conceptual confusion and lack of a well-developed framework for understanding organizational culture and the major interest and research activity related to organizational culture has occurred outside of higher education institutions, interest within is also expending (Valimaa, 1998; Peterson Spencer, 1993; Tierney, 1988). However, the distinctive nature and unique characteristics of higher education institutions and also complex and elusive nature of the concept of organizational culture limit to study these organizations comprehensively and comparatively. In spite of limitations, Turner et al. (2002) state that the use of concepts related with organizational culture and perspectives has become increasingly popular as a means of describing various issues and concerns in higher education. From the cultural perspective, the university does not form one-voiced homogeneous whole but a heterogonous entity with many different small parts. Universities are not monolithic entities, because they are host to various subgroups with different priorities, traditions, artifacts and values (Kuh and Witt; 2000; Tierney, 1988). Academic Culture Alvesson (1993) claims that universities consist of multiple configurations which are dynamic in character and the lived reality in one department quite different from that in another. Research on the internal life of the university has shown that disciplines in a university differ from each other both cognitively and socially. Besides the common cognitive basis, disciplines have their own social and cultural characteristics: norms, values, modes of interaction, life-style, pedagogical and ethical codes, etc. (Becher, 1994; Biglan, 1973; Clark, 1983; Hearn Anderson, 2002; Huber, 1992; Moses, 1990; Trowler Knight, 2000; Ylijoki, 2000). In addition to the disciplinary culture, the culture of academic profession and the culture of scientific paradigm influence the cultures of faculty members (Toma, 1997). Organizational Culture and Organizational Communication Cultures emerge and are sustained by the communication processes among the all employees, not just the conscious persuasive strategies of upper management as frequently stated in the culture literature (Kowalski, 2000; Toma, 1997). It can be said that cultures do not exist separately from the people communicating each other. In addition, whether strong or weak, culture has a powerful influence throughout an organization. It affects practically everything from who gets promoted and what decisions are made to how employees dress and what sports they play. Because of this impact, culture is also has a major effect on the success of the organization. Although the existence of variations in the definition of this term, there is an obvious reference to communication. Organizational Communication and University Communication can be defined as a process through which organizational members express their collective inclination to coordinate beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes in organizations, and it also gives meaning to work and forges perceptions of reality (Kowalski, 2000). Hunt, Tourish ve Hargie (2000) state that as with most organization, education establishments engage a wide variety of communication to realize the basic tasks, teaching, research and service. Hovewer, when compared with business organizations, university organizations are different with respect to their structure of authority, mission, performance appraisals, and type of specialization regarding work activities, employees, and hierarchy line (Gizir Simsek, 2005; Baldridge et al., 2000; Birnbaum, 1988; Blau, 1973; Besse, 1973). These differences make communication process in an academic context more complex. Moreover, universities are labor intensive, that is, the staff of a higher education institution is a significant component having major role to play in achieving the objectives of the institution (Rowley, 1996). Specifically, among the participants or elements of a university, faculty members having special status as part of an academic department, and of faculty cannot be passive recipients of management communication. Faculty members are the vital part of the entire university communication network. They have their own histories and trajectories, their own habits and practices, named as cultures, and also their unique communication process. Conclusion Financial cutbacks, decreasing public spending, new accountability measures, enrollment uncertainties, calls for broader range of services to society, economic recession, and confusion about academic goals, which are among the challenges facing higher education institutions, have combined to encourage the reorganization of these institutions in the world (Altbach, 1995; Jacob Hellström, 2003). The restructuring of higher education has generated various critical debates on almost all aspects of universities, such as collegial tradition, departmental structure, organizational behavior, academic culture, climate, knowledge, ethics, the academic profession and roles of academics, etc. (Adams, 1998; Altbach, 1995; Aypay, 2006; Barnett, 1993; Edwards, 1999; Jacob Hellström, 2003; Kerr, 1994; Marginson, 2000; Tapper Palfreyman, 1998). The effect and acceleration of change in the higher education varied in nature, provenance and intensity, but all impact on academic staff and their perception about their worklife and workplace in which communication takes place. Communication can not be seen as simply the transfer of information which leads to action.

Anahtar Kelimeler: