IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceps/v81y2022ics0038012121001786.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An MCDM-based game-theoretic approach for strategy selection in higher education

Author

Listed:
  • Ekinci, Yeliz
  • Orbay, Benan Zeki
  • Karadayi, Melis Almula

Abstract

This study proposes a framework for universities and governments to select strategies by considering the strategic interactions. The strategic choices of universities and governments can be determined by analyzing the related literature and discussing it with experts in higher education (HE). Because these experts form their evaluations depending on various criteria, the outputs of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) models are used to determine payoff values for players by considering all strategic combinations. After constructing the payoff matrix, the Nash equilibrium concept of game theory is used to determine optimal strategies for the universities and governments for simultaneously played games. Sequential versions of the games are also analyzed using backward induction. The results show that in all games constructed using criteria with different weights, either the government or the university, or both, preferred to motivate high-quality academic research. The proposed methodology can be used by the policymakers in the higher education area, both by the central planners (usually the government) and the universities.

Suggested Citation

  • Ekinci, Yeliz & Orbay, Benan Zeki & Karadayi, Melis Almula, 2022. "An MCDM-based game-theoretic approach for strategy selection in higher education," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceps:v:81:y:2022:i:c:s0038012121001786
    DOI: 10.1016/j.seps.2021.101186
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038012121001786
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.seps.2021.101186?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani & Abdolhamid Safaei Ghadikolaei, 2012. "Application of MCDM methods in short-term planning for private universities based on balanced scorecard: a case study from Iran," International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 10(2), pages 250-266.
    2. Joshua B. Powers, 2003. "Commercializing Academic Research," The Journal of Higher Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 74(1), pages 26-50, January.
    3. Mumtaz Karatas & Ilknur Karacan & Hakan Tozan, 2018. "An integrated multi-criteria decision making methodology for health technology assessment," European Journal of Industrial Engineering, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 12(4), pages 504-534.
    4. Wu, Yunna & Xu, Chuanbo & Zhang, Ting, 2018. "Evaluation of renewable power sources using a fuzzy MCDM based on cumulative prospect theory: A case in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 1227-1239.
    5. Wang, Derek D., 2019. "Performance-based resource allocation for higher education institutions in China," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 66-75.
    6. Ann-Charlotte Fridh & Bo Carlsson, 2002. "special issue: Technology transfer in United States universities," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 199-232.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Son, Hosung & Chung, Yanghon & Hwang, Heeju, 2019. "Do technology entrepreneurship and external relationships always promote technology transfer? Evidence from Korean public research organizations," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 82, pages 1-15.
    2. Bozeman, Barry & Rimes, Heather & Youtie, Jan, 2015. "The evolving state-of-the-art in technology transfer research: Revisiting the contingent effectiveness model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 34-49.
    3. Annelore Huyghe & Mirjam Knockaert & Evila Piva & Mike Wright, 2016. "Are researchers deliberately bypassing the technology transfer office? An analysis of TTO awareness," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 589-607, October.
    4. Jaepil Han, 2020. "Identifying the effects of technology transfer policy using a quantile regression: the case of South Korea," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 1690-1717, December.
    5. Arman Yalvac Aksoy & Catherine Beaudry, 2021. "How are companies paying for university research licenses? Empirical evidence from university-firm technology transfer," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 2051-2121, December.
    6. Weifeng Xu & Qingsong Ruan & Chang Liu, 2019. "Can the Famous University Experience of Top Managers Improve Corporate Performance? Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-20, December.
    7. Zhao, Meng & Xu, Chang & Zhao, Wenxian & Lin, Mingwei, 2023. "New energy vehicle online selection method considering attribute compensation relationship and aspiration strength," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    8. Nicolas Carayol, 2006. "La production de brevets par les chercheurs et enseignants-chercheurs.. Le cas de l'université Louis Pasteur," Economie & Prévision, La Documentation Française, vol. 0(4), pages 117-134.
    9. André Luiz de Campos, 2010. "A demand side perspective on multinational corporations’ (MNC) university-industry links: the case of Unilever," SPRU Working Paper Series 186, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    10. Niels Stijn & Frank J. Rijnsoever & Martine Veelen, 2018. "Exploring the motives and practices of university–start-up interaction: evidence from Route 128," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 674-713, June.
    11. Yuan, Jiahai & Li, Xinying & Xu, Chuanbo & Zhao, Changhong & Liu, Yuanxin, 2019. "Investment risk assessment of coal-fired power plants in countries along the Belt and Road initiative based on ANP-Entropy-TODIM method," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 623-640.
    12. Zorica Lazić & Aleksandar Đorđević & Albina Gazizulina, 2021. "Improvement of Quality of Higher Education Institutions as a Basis for Improvement of Quality of Life," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-27, April.
    13. Christian Fisch & Tobias Hassel & Philipp Sandner & Joern Block, 2015. "University patenting: a comparison of 300 leading universities worldwide," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 318-345, April.
    14. Liu, Xing & Wu, Xianhua & Zhang, Weipan, 2024. "A new DEA model and its application in performance evaluation of scientific research activities in the universities of China's double first-class initiative," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    15. Nebiyu Kedir & Phuong H. D. Nguyen & Citlaly Pérez & Pedro Ponce & Aminah Robinson Fayek, 2023. "Systematic Literature Review on Fuzzy Hybrid Methods in Photovoltaic Solar Energy: Opportunities, Challenges, and Guidance for Implementation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-38, April.
    16. Wood, Matthew S., 2011. "A process model of academic entrepreneurship," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 153-161.
    17. Sandylove Afrane & Jeffrey Dankwa Ampah & Ephraim Bonah Agyekum & Prince Oppong Amoh & Abdulfatah Abdu Yusuf & Islam Md Rizwanul Fattah & Ebenezer Agbozo & Elmazeg Elgamli & Mokhtar Shouran & Guozhu M, 2022. "Integrated AHP-TOPSIS under a Fuzzy Environment for the Selection of Waste-To-Energy Technologies in Ghana: A Performance Analysis and Socio-Enviro-Economic Feasibility Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-31, July.
    18. Ilbahar, Esra & Kahraman, Cengiz & Cebi, Selcuk, 2022. "Risk assessment of renewable energy investments: A modified failure mode and effect analysis based on prospect theory and intuitionistic fuzzy AHP," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PA).
    19. Deveci, Kaan & Güler, Önder, 2020. "A CMOPSO based multi-objective optimization of renewable energy planning: Case of Turkey," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 578-590.
    20. Abdulla Alabbasi & Jhuma Sadhukhan & Matthew Leach & Mohammed Sanduk, 2022. "Sustainable Indicators for Integrating Renewable Energy in Bahrain’s Power Generation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-19, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:soceps:v:81:y:2022:i:c:s0038012121001786. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/seps .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.