Higher education (HE) reforms have led to a radical shift from a paradigm of equality and homogeneity to the consideration of ‘similarity out, difference in’. Accordingly, universities face strong policy pressures for vertical differentiation, which requires quality-based stratification, and horizontal differentiation, which is based on diversification of missions. Vertical differentiation is largely built on a common model or organizational archetype, namely the ideal of ​​a research-intensive university with an entrepreneurial orientation (Pinheiro & Young, 2017). As a result of university rankings with standardized measures of excellence, the universities attempt to position themselves considering global benchmarks (Bloch, 2021).

Horizontal differentiation, on the other hand, requires specialization. Finding a niche is an evolutionary way to avoid competition through specialization (Pinheiro & Young, 2017). It reflects the dimensions in which the university can thrive by attracting relevant resources, while different relationships within a certain niche are activated. Thus, the rival universities in one dimension, such as undergraduate education, can cooperate in other dimensions like conducting research and sharing laboratories and other facilities (Fumasoli & Huisman, 2013).

Strategic plans, traditionally perceived as a form of self-communication, uncovers institutional positioning arguments. Higher education institutions (HEIs) reveal their strategies in their mission statements to display a stronger corporate identity, branding their names, and adopting differentiation strategies (Musselin, 2021). The profile of a university reflects the core missions of HE, such as teaching and learning, research, and technology transfer. However, a particular HEI may also want to emphasize other missions, such as international orientation or regional involvement (Van Vught & Huisman, 2013). Kosmützky & Krücken (2015) concluded that the mission statements of German universities allow them to position themselves in specific niches and competitive clusters.

It can be alleged that institutional positioning is an existential need for all types of modern HEIs and the strategic plans of Turkish foundation HEIs report their future projections. The Presidency of Strategy and Budget (2021) has recently released the Strategic Planning Guide for Universities to standardize the strategic plans of Turkish HEIs. The section on differentiation strategies clarifies such issues as the positioning of the university in the HE sector, the focal mix of services, strategies needed for areas of focus, and corporate competencies. It is believed that evaluating the common answers regarding these will enable comparisons between universities. Thus, the present study seeks answers for the research question: “What strategies do Turkish foundation universities adopt to position themselves?

While the processes of convergence among Turkish HEIs have been intensively studied (Bozoğlu, 2020), the processes of divergence have received relatively less attention (Özdemir, Aypay & Kaya, 2024). Considering the duality between public and foundation HEIs has already been institutionalized in the Turkish HE sector (Üsdiken, Divarcı Çakmaklı, & Topaler, 2017), it can be argued that different positioning arguments may emerge within different clusters. Moreover, Mızıkacı (2010) points out the distinction between semi-elite and demand-absorbing Turkish foundation HEIs. In this regard, Acıbadem, Medipol, Şifa, and Ufuk Universities can be listed among Turkish foundation universities focusing on health, Piri Reis University on maritime, and the University of Turkish Aeronautical Association on aviation (Cevher, 2013). Sabancı, Koç, and İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent are emerging elite foundation HEIs as they were recently declared to be research universities (YÖK, 2021). The study is hoped to reveal the differentiation strategies preferred by Turkish foundation HEIs in different clusters. Moreover, it is also important for the integration of Turkish universities into the European Higher Education Area as the universities are embedded in different organizational fields (global, continental, national, regional, etc.) like matryoshka dolls (Hüther & Krücken, 2016).

The present study explores the positioning arguments in the Turkish HE sector in search of the positioning strategies of foundation universities. The sections of differentiation strategy were subjected to document analysis. Document analysis, according to Bowen (2009), is a methodical process for going over or assessing both printed and electronic information. Since other actors’ actions have an impact on institutional positioning, it was the goal of the data collection process to reach all strategic plans. The documents of 28 public universities were accessed online as of the end of September 2024 via their official websites. In total, 51 HEIs had to be excluded as 31 of them did not have authorized up-to-date strategic plans then and 20 of them did not follow the standard strategic planning format. The instrumentation has several limitations. First and foremost, it is important to remember that the quality commissions created the strategic plans specifically to persuade the external stakeholders that they have a strategic mindset. As a result, their scope may be naturally constrained and prejudiced (Bowen, 2009). Additionally, the responses were provided on a predefined standard, which focused the content on particular topics. It is possible to argue that these areas represent the regulatory environment’s main interests rather than those of the institutions. Following data collection, the researchers talked about the documents that were first chosen and possible approaches to coding meaningful pieces while taking the study questions into account. Based on the discussions, two researchers analyzed the data simultaneously through MAXQDA 2020, using descriptive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke 2006). While holistic, structural, simultaneous, and sub-coding techniques were eclectically used for the first-level coding cycle, the second cycle was based on exploratory coding (Saldana 2013). We used an inductive approach for data analysis, taking advantage of themes and sub-themes that emerged from the coded data. The study team conducted online sessions throughout the analytical process to guarantee credibility. The team examined pertinent data, alternative coding strategies, and any trends noticed by different members and their justifications during these meetings. As a result, theme-building techniques and coded portions of the data were iteratively examined and revised. Furthermore, using various documents to triangulate data improved the trustworthiness of data analysis (Merriam & Tisdell 2016).

The sampled Turkish foundation universities were established between 1996-2020. The total number of students can reach a maximum of 47,411 (mostly enrolled in the associate and undergraduate programs), the number of academic staff is a maximum of 1552, and the number of student mobility is a maximum of 121. While the maximum number of M.A. students is 3838, it is 803 for doctoral students, it is 9976 for international students, and it is 119 for students with special needs (Higher Education Information Management System, 2025). Only eight universities have a regional orientation, while 20 of them have built their positioning strategies on having a share of the national HE sector. While those with a national orientation are located in the three largest metropolises of Türkiye, the majority of regionally oriented universities are located in the provinces. Health sciences, engineering, tourism, and aviation are emerging as leading areas of focus and only five of them do not have a clear vision about the future. Nevertheless, three out of four foundation universities consider their mass education mission heritage when determining their positioning strategies. Only three universities declared pure research and one of them pure entrepreneurship goal orientation based on modern HE missions. We reached five-themed research results. The goal orientation of universities includes foreign language education, online learning, life-long learning, digitalization, and internationalization. Academic units, graduate programs, technology transfer offices, research centers, and libraries are the salient formal structures. Campus facilities together with physical, technological, and research infrastructure are underlined within collective resources to attract successful students and high-quality academics. They also intend to create an organizational culture of satisfaction, dynamism, and interdisciplinary collaboration with flexible organizational structure and quality assurance. Social responsibility initiatives, high-quality graduates, scientific production, and boundary-spanning projects are important for accountability.

Bloch, R. (2021). The actorhood imperative. On universities as organisational actors. European Journal of Higher Education, 11(sup1), 489-505. Bowen, G. A. (2009) Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal 9(2): 27–40. Bozoğlu, Ö. (2020). Quality in higher education: A microinstitutionalist analysis of organization from the actor-centred new institutionalism perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Kocaeli University, Türkiye. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. Cevher, E. (2013). A study on competition strategies that can be applied in foundation universities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Süleyman Demirel University, Türkiye. Fumasoli, T., & Huisman, J. (2013). Strategic agency and system diversity: Conceptualizing institutional positioning in higher education. Minerva, 51(2), 155-169. Higher Education Information Management System. (2025). Statistics. Retrieved from https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/ Hüther, O., & Krücken, G. (2016). Nested organizational fields: Isomorphism and differentiation among European universities. In E. P. Berman ve C. Paradeise (Eds.), The university under pressure. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 46, 53–83. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Kosmützky, A., & Krücken, G. (2015). Sameness and difference: Analyzing institutional and organizational specificities of universities through mission statements. International Studies of Management & Organization, 45(2), 137-149. Merriam, S. B., & E. J. Tisdell. 2016. Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Mızıkacı, F. (2010). Isomorphic and diverse institutions among Turkish foundation universities. Education & Science, 35(157), 140-151. Musselin, C. (2021). University governance in meso and macro perspectives. Annual Review of Sociology, 47, 305-325. Özdemir, M., Aypay, A., & Kaya, E. (2024). In search of organizational actorhood: Institutional positioning statements of Turkish public universities. High Education Policy, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-024-00379-8 Pinheiro, R., & Young, M. (2017). The university as an adaptive resilient organization: A complex systems perspective. J. Huisman & M. Tight (Eds.), In Theory and method in higher education research (pp. 119-136). Emerald. Presidency of Türkiye, Presidency of Strategy and Budget. (2021). Üniversiteler için stratejik planlama rehberi. Retrieved from http://www.sp.gov.tr/tr/kutuphane/s/103/ Saldana, J. (2021) The coding manual for qualitative researchers, London: Sage Publications. Üsdiken, B., Divarcı Çakmaklı, A., & Topaler, B. (2017). Devlet ve vakıf üniversitelerinde “strateji” 1982-201. Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13(1-2), 8-40. van Vught, F., & Huisman, J. (2013) Institutional profiles: Some strategic tools. Tuning Journal for Higher Education, 1(1), 21–36. YÖK (2021). YÖK President Özvar announced the newly regulations for research universities. Retrieved from https://www.yok.gov.tr/Sayfalar/Haberler/2021/arastirma-universiteleri-ile-toplanti.aspx