Autonomy can be defined as the ability of institutions that can self-direct itself and be independent. University autonomy, on the other hand, can be understood as the ability that higher education institutions self-govern without being affected by any external forces when it engages in “academic” work. Most often university autonomy is associated with academic freedom though it represents partial reality. According to Maassen et al. (2017), institutional autonomy is “governance relationships between state authorities and the university” (p. 239) both at the higher education system and individual institutional levels. In other words, it is relational, making institutional considerations attached to the environment, state authorities, institutions, and society where the university is located. 

According to Verhoest et al. (2004), there are two types of organizational autonomy. The first concerns decision-making power, or the extent to which an organization has control over its own decisions. This is reflected in two forms: (1) managerial autonomy, which covers decisions about resources like budgets, staffing, and logistics, and (2) policy autonomy, which refers to control over how externally set policies are implemented, including choosing procedures, instruments, and outcomes.

Countries' higher education systems show drastic variability in terms of how they handle institutional autonomy between the state and the universities.  Considerations over institutional autonomy may come from the cultural and historical contexts for each national case. In our case study, we will examine Turkey's higher education system from the lens of principal-agent theory as well as the cultural and historical factors to conceptualize the context-sensitive factors interfering with university autonomy. The historical look to institutional autonomy in Findikli’s (2022) article points out the cyclical events in Turkish Higher Education concerning university autonomy. In different time points in Anatolia from the Ottoman Empire to the Republic of Türkiye, the attempts to give institutional autonomy to higher education institutions ended up with reforms that bound the universities to the governmental acts. Also, in each case nationalism and the reforms for the sake of the protection of the state come forward in changing the face of university autonomy which is also concerning downgraded academic freedom where autonomy and freedom are two sides of a coin. 

Overall, this paper seeks to identify context-specific factors affecting university autonomy in Türkiye by applying principal-agent theory and the taxonomy of autonomy proposed by Verhoest et al. (2004).

This paper is developed within the the scope of  the OPEN Cost Action project. 

In this case study design, we will utilize document analysis of laws and regulations of higher education, protocols, priority areas in research projects and funding opportunities in Turkish higher education. We will analyze the documents at the national and institutional level such as the Higher Education Council (YÖK), Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye (TÜBİTAK), university administration and governance laws and regulations.

As public institutions, universities are not exempt from certain constraints, and their autonomy is shaped by factors unique to their national context. The expected outcome of this research is to shed light on the autonomy challenges faced by higher education institutions and discuss how these challenges contribute to the rise of neo-nationalist and populist regimes in Türkiye.

Findikli, B. (2022). A republic of scholars or scholars of the republic? Reflections on the predicaments of academic freedom and university autonomy in Turkey. Higher Education Quarterly, 76(3), 537-547. Maassen, P., Gornitzka, A., & Fumasoli, T. (2017). University reform and institutional autonomy: A framework for analysing the living autonomy. Higher Education Quarterly, 71(3), 239-250. Verhoest, K., Peters, G. B., Bouckaert, G., & Verscguere, B. (2004). The study of organisational autonomy. Public Administration and Development, 24(2), 101-118.