Meritocracy is a system of management and organization in which assignments and placements are made and responsibilities are given according to job-skills and qualifications, in other words, merit, rather than characteristics such as wealth, family relations, class privilege, popularity, social position, or political power (Sealy, 2010). Supporters of meritocracy emphasize that in a meritocratic society every individual enjoys an equal opportunity to improve and gain awards subject to their own merits and efforts, notwithstanding their sex, ethnicity, background, or other non-merit determinants. As for meritocracy in education institutions, it has always been a universally controversial issue due to the dilemmas while selecting the individuals to manage higher education institutions. On the other hand, increased competition led by globalization among universities and public accountability compels managerial decisions to be constantly reviewed. It is because university managements are liable to take into account the demands and expectations of the business world to survive in the globalizing world. It is a fact that meritocracy is supposed to constitute an array of processes of a university including student admission, assessment, and recruiting university staff. At this point, recruiting the most proper individuals through meritocracy in terms of their quality for each position in higher education is fundamental to accomplish real excellence.  Moreover, the practices violating meritocracy are not found acceptable in a university that aspires to excellence (O’Connor et al., 2015). When universities deviate from their formal organizational procedures, transparency, and meritocracy, the space leading the decisions to be made based on in-group favoritism, networks, or personal initiatives (Reskin & McBrier, 2000), and this may harm the merit process of finding quality management staff. However, in practice, there might be other variables being prioritized before meritocracy in universities. Like some of them, social capital, which means the gathering of connections, and personal relationships, formal and informal connections are of vital importance in recruiting and promoting in universities (Etzkowitz et al., 2000; Bagilhole & Goode, 2001; Sadl 2009).   Many decisions in universities are made through the soft underbelly of groups and latent workplace rules. Accordingly, informal networks in universities have a role in shaping work-related processes (Smith-Doerr & Powell, 2005). For instance, informal social connections in Spanish universities are thought of as a facilitator of career progress. The informal university system is construed as a factor influencing the formal system, as it disobeys the equality, transparency, and merit practices universities pursue (Montes López & O’Connor, 2019). Universities may come up with the managerial and academic inadequacies in this way which prioritize other factors before merit-based procedures, which is the issue in the Turkish education system according to some studies (Güçlü et al., 2016; Korkmaz, 2005).

Notwithstanding having done many studies on meritocracy in the Turkish Education system so far (Gök, 2019; Karagözoğlu, 2013), there is a limited number of studies analyzing the perceptions of academics about meritocracy in the Turkish context. What sort of meritocracy is witnessed in higher education institutions in the context of globalization in Turkey is the spring of the current study. It is aimed to explore modern perspectives and characteristics of meritocracy taking into consideration the requirements of globalization based on higher education academics’ perceptions. Accordingly, this study aims to explore the perceptions of academics in higher education on how meritocracy is perceived and applied in higher education. The perceptions of academics on meritocracy in the selection of higher education managers will be discussed based on three themes as (1) without merit but familiar, (2) the manager coming up through the ranks, and  (3) the less merit the more left behind.

*This study is a part of a project being supported by Yildiz Technical University - BAP.

The current study was conducted with a qualitative research approach including a phenomenological design to delve into the perceptions of academics as to meritocracy in higher education management. The qualitative research approach permits researchers to examine their subjects within the abundance of content from various perspectives by avoiding generalizing (Cresswell, 2007; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Accordingly, the participants of the study were selected among academics working in different universities in Turkey. A semi-structured interview form was developed by the researchers to collect the data. At this point, 3 field experts’ opinions were taken and necessary revision was done. Also, a pilot interview was carried out with a volunteer academic. The data were gathered during the fall academic term of 2020-2021 through semi-structured interviews. The interviews included open-ended comprehensive questions about the thoughts and experiences regarding meritocracy at university management. The interview technique was preferred in the study, as it contributes to reaching a detailed and comprehensive description of the case or phenomenon (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2003). The data were triangulated through face-to-face semi-structured interviews, focus group meetings and field notes to provide consistency and credibility. Thanks to data triangulation, more data can be reached and the case can be examined from many perspectives (Neuman, 2009). Before starting the study, the researchers consulted the university Institutional Review Board (IRB) so that they could research a subject with human subjects, and permission was given for the study. The data were analyzed with the thematic analysis technique. To analyze the data collected, the researchers transcribed the recordings and took field notes during the interviews. As for analysis, three steps were followed by the researchers manually as exploring the general sense, (en)coding the data (Saldaña, 2009), and identifying the themes (Creswell, 2012). The analysis done by 3 more experts contributed to the reliability as credibility, conformability and reliability can be set through the member check process (Maxwell, 2009). Triangulation was also applied by discussing the alternative interpretations of the collected data with 2 experts in the relevant field. Therefore, multiple triangulation was used in the current study to expand its credibility. “This guarantees that the study will be accurate as the information draws on a set of sources of information, individuals, or processes” (Creswell, 2012, p. 259). The analysis resulted in three themes: Without merit but familiar, the manager coming up through the ranks, and the less merit the more left behind.

As a result of the analysis, three themes were reached. The findings exhibit that almost all the participants experience a non-merit manager selection system in Turkish universities. Most of the participants state that managers in universities in Turkey are selected based on non-academic references such as social networks and political connections. They state that subjective criteria are taken into account in the management selection process in higher education institutions such as being compatible with the dominant group and party membership. Without Merit But Familiar which is one of the themes of the study includes 3 categories as political affinity, clicks at university, and nepotism. According to the findings, managers in higher education institutions are selected based on social intimacy before taking into consideration meritocracy. There are three categories under the second theme which is The Manager Coming Up Through The Ranks: an international perspective, experience in the field, and familiarity with the organizational climate. According to the findings, participants place great emphasis on expertise in the field, having management experience, and adopting university policies and targets in managers in higher education institutions. The last theme The Less Merit The More Left Behind presents that higher education institutions cannot make progress easily in competing with the world universities due to the lack of meritocracy in selecting managers. The theme contains two categories as failure to reach goals and inability to compete internationally. The findings reached through both individual interviews and focus group meetings bolster these themes by emphasizing the fact that meritocracy is not the first factor considered in manager selection processes in universities. Other criteria such as social capital or informal networks come before meritocracy to be selected as a manager in universities. However, this leads the universities in Turkey behind in the international competition among universities.

References Bagilhole, B., & Goode, J. (2001). The contradiction of the myth of individual merit, and the reality of a patriarchal support system in academic careers. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 8, 61–80. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative. Boston: Pearson. Etzkowitz, H., Kemelgor, C., & Uzzi, B. (2000) Athena unbound: The advancement of women in science and technology. Cambridge, UK: CUP. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in education. (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Inc. Gök, R. (2019). Merit based education manegement (meritocracy) in Turkish education system. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 52, 39-64. Güçlü, N, Şahin, F, Tabak, B., & Sönmez, E. (2016). Türkiye’de okul yöneticisi görevlendirmeye ilişkin yönetici adayı görüşleri. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 36(1), 55-71. Karagözoğlu, A. A. (2013). Eğitim kurumları yöneticisi yetiştirme ve atamada meritokrasi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Fırat Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimler Enstitüsü, Elazığ. Korkmaz, M. (2005). Okul yöneticilerinin yetiştirilmesi: Sorunlar çözümler ve öneriler. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(3), 237-252. Maxwell, J.A. (2009). Designing a qualitative study. In L Bickman & DJ Rog (eds). The SAGE handbook of applied social research methods (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint. Montes López, E., & O’Connor, P. (2019). Micropolitics and meritocracy: Improbable bed fellows? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 47(5), 678-693. Neuman, W. L. (2009). Toplumsal araştırma yöntemleri. Cilt: I. Çeviren: Özge, S. İstanbul: Yayınodası. Reskin, B. F., & McBrier, D. B. (2000). Why not ascription? Organizations’ employment of male and female managers. American Sociological Review, 65, 210–33. Sadl, Z. (2009). We women are no good at it: Networking in academia. Czech Sociological Review, 45, 1239–63. Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc. Sealy, R. (2010). Changing perceptions of meritocracy in senior women's careers. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 25(3),184 – 197. Smith-Doerr, L. & Powell, W. W. (2005). Networks and economic life. In The handbook of economic sociology (2. edition), N. Smelser and R. Swedberg (eds), pp. 379–402. Princeton: Princeton University Press.