In recent years, higher education (HE) has experienced its process of transformation on a global scale (Etzkowitz & Zhou, 2021). Global trends such as digitalization, the emergence of the knowledge economy, and demographic mobility have forced higher education institutions (HEIs) to come out of their ivory towers (OECD, 2024). This process of change has made it imperative for HE governance to move away from traditional hierarchical structures. In recent reports by international organizations such as UNESCO (2022) and the OECD (2024), HE governance is no longer solely focused on the physical capacity-building process, but rather on the sustainability of the balance between autonomy and quality.

The global phenomenon of massification has opened access to HE in various developing countries (Tight, 2019). At the same time, it has also created a quantity-quality paradox. Under this phenomenon, various international literatures have defined HE quality as a multidimensional construct with inputs, processes, and stakeholder expectations, which are contextual and historical in nature (Altbach, 1999; Filippakou, 2011). Yet, various countries have implemented different policies in this regard, as their visions and strategies differ (Marginson, 2016).

In this global context, the Turkish HE system has experienced quantitative growth, especially since the year 2000, through the slogan of “one university per province” initiated in 2006. The number of HEIs has increased from 76 in 2005 to 208 today (The Council of Higher Education [CoHE], 2026). In addition, the growth in the number of enrolled students to approximately 6.9 million is undoubtedly a success story in terms of access. Nevertheless, this rapid growth of the HE system in Türkiye carries a number of quality risks, especially at the level of HE governance (Özer et al., 2011). For example, the growth of the number of staff has not kept pace with the growth of the number of enrolled students, creating a number of problems in terms of teaching and learning processes (Çelik, 2015). In addition, the tendency of the foundational HEIs to employ experienced academic staff from public HEIs rather than developing new talents is a worrying trend (Şimşek, 2022). In addition, the elimination of the oral exam requirement for the title of associate professor is a factor that contributes to the rising concerns regarding the ability of the HE system in Türkiye to ensure the protection of scientific standards. Furthermore, recent interventions in HE governance, such as the administrative division of well-established universities, are considered to jeopardize the continuity of identity and culture. The initiatives such as the “Research Universities” program, which aim to reach world-class standards, have struggled to deliver the level of success envisioned (Emil & Akşab, 2018).

The aim of this study is to investigate structural and legal changes observed in Türkiye by analyzing how governance preferences influence academic outcomes through a literature review. The changes in Türkiye's system constitute an exemplary case for other emerging economies’ HE systems facing similar challenges due to rapid growth. While this analysis represents a particular case, it also provides a broader view of its limitations in terms of influencing a quality culture in HE.

In this context, the research is focused on the following research question: “How do recent legislative changes and governance reforms in Türkiye impact the quality of HE with respect to academic human capital, institutional autonomy, and global competitiveness?”. In this way, the research has engaged in transcending the traditional balance between quantity and quality, as well as to defining the factors of a quality culture with respect to sustainable HE governance.

The current research adopts a qualitative method in order to interpret the structural changes and quality strategies that affect the HE system in Türkiye. The research is based on a systematic literature review and document analysis. In this process, the three-step approach developed by Karaçam (2013) has been followed: the determination of the criteria for selection, the review, the analysis of the data. Setting the selection criteria With the aforementioned research focus in mind, it is included in the research policy documents, such as strategy reports from the CoHE, four consecutive national development plans following the year 2006 massification wave (the 9th [2007–2013], 10th [2014–2018], 11th [2019–2023], and 12th [2024–2028]), external evaluation reports from the Turkish Higher Education Quality Council, as well as significant changes in HE legislation, such as changes in the associate professorship scheme or in the foreign language examination process itself. Of particular interest are initiatives such as the “Research University” or “Regional Development-Oriented Universities” project, as they seem to present an interesting opportunity for an insight into the balance of autonomy/oversight in the relationship between the central administrative body and the universities. Review process and analysis of policy papers The legal texts on HE governance have not been treated as purely technical documents. They have read as policy papers that also signal the degree of centralization within CoHE’s governance approach. In practice, it has been worked with a guiding question: How far have decision-making processes been recentralized, and how much space remains for institutional autonomy? To address this, it has been examined strategic plans and quality assurance guidelines. Then, it has been organized the materials around key themes. Data analysis and trustworthiness These documents have been analyzed using document analysis methods (Bowen, 2009), and coded on two major dimensions: “quantity-quality balance” and “central oversight-local autonomy” tensions. For purposes of triangulation, the reports, regulations, and studies have been coded by both the researcher and the field specialist. After this, a comparison of both structures has been carried out, and areas of convergence have been identified. Where there has been no agreement between the codes, such areas have been excluded. However, it is only the findings that have been arrived at by consensus that have been included in the final analysis. This has been a careful process to present how changes in governance in Turkish HE will affect global competitiveness and scientific standards.

The preliminary results obtained through analyzing policy documents and reviewing literature have shown that a specific trend exists. First, quality oversight is increasingly being included in policy documents. However, this usually translates to a higher degree of centralization and a lower possibility for universities to represent themselves. Even research universities are not exempt from being affected through central bureaucratic mechanisms. It is difficult to develop a specific institutional identity and an academic culture of their own. This trend seems to confirm that developing world-class university status is not possible through a stronger hierarchical system but through a more flexible management system that is backed by financial autonomy. Second, it seems to be addressing academic staffing needs by not strengthening human capital. For instance, recent policies have addressed academic needs through the removal of associate professorship oral examinations and increased reliance on alternative foreign language examinations. While these measures are preliminary evidence to suggest that these measures can undermine perceptions of academic merit, it has put Türkiye’s position in world knowledge production at risk. Moreover, many of the foundational universities seem to be more interested in recruiting experienced academic staff from public universities than investing in new talent. This has created a type of system-wide circulation of human resources, not really contributing to sustainable development. Finally, mass access seems to be morphing into a quality paradox. It is because student-to-faculty ratios are still uneven and, in many instances, simply too high. There has been a very strong emphasis in strategy documents on quality assurance. While quality assurance is strongly emphasized in policy discourse, its practice seems limited. The bigger picture, however, is that a world-class system cannot simply be defined in terms of numbers, such as the number of graduates and publications produced. It has to be about a quality culture.

Altbach, P. G. (1999). The logic of mass higher education. Tertiary Education & Management, 5(2), 107-124. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. CoHE (2026). Yükseköğretim istatistikleri. https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/. Çelik, Z. (2015). Türkiye’de vakıf üniversitelerinin mevcut durumu ve geleceği. İLEM Politika Notu, 8, 2-11. Emil, S. ve Akşab, Ş. (2018). Türkiye yükseköğretiminde araştırma üniversitesini anlamak: Karşılaştırmalı analiz. In Uğurlu, C. T., Beycioğlu, K. Koşar, S., Kahraman H. and Köybaşı Şemin, F. (Eds.) Eğitim yönetimi araştırmaları (pp.1-11). Cumhuriyet University Publishing. Etzkowitz, H., & Zhou, C. (2021). The triple helix: University–industry–government innovation and entrepreneurship (2nd ed.). Routledge. Filippakou, O. (2011). The idea of quality in higher education: a conceptual approach. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2011.537068. Karaçam, Z. (2013). Sistematik derleme metodolojisi: Sistematik derleme hazırlamak için bir rehber. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi, 6(1), 26-33. Marginson, S. (2016). Higher education and the common good. Melbourne University Publishing. OECD. (2024). Education at a glance 2024: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/19991487. Özer, M., Gür, B. S., & KüçüKCan, T. (2011). Kalite güvencesi: Türkiye yükseköğretimi için stratejik tercihler. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 2, 59-65. Şimşek, H. (2022) (Ed.). Türkiye’de vakıf üniversiteleri. Genç bir sektörün anatomisi. Seçkin Yayıncılık. Tight, M. (2019). Mass higher education and massification. Higher Education Policy, 32(1), 93-108. UNESCO. (2022). Beyond limits: New ways to reinvent higher education. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000389912.