【作者】 张继平；

【导师】 杨俊一；

【作者基本信息】 上海大学 ， 社会学， 2013， 博士

【副题名】以G省Z市为例

【摘要】 近年来，作为对矛盾纠纷激增的一种组织化反应，以人民调解、行政调解、司法调解“三大调解”有机结合为主要特征的“大调解”运动在全国范围内风起云涌，也引起了理论界与实务界的普遍关注。那么，旨在实现多元化纠纷解决的“大调解”组织网络是怎样形成又如何运作的？在这个过程中，不同性质的调解组织之间维系着怎样的关系？这种关系又是怎样影响着“大调解”实践的呢？本文以组织间关系为研究对象，运用组织社会学方法和组织分析的新制度主义视角，通过对华南地区G省Z市推行“大调解”工作机制的实证研究，揭示了“大调解”组织之间的替代关系和组织场域的实践逻辑—“替代性实践”，即在特定的组织场域之中，尤其是在那些资源网络重叠与交插的领域，拥有支配性资源的组织在实践中往往替代其他组织的目标、规则、身份、权威和偏好，将自己的运作模式强加给场域中的其他组织成员，从而以自身的习惯性做法或者是实用主义的方式来替代制度创新要求的活动。本文的研究发现在于：一、在基层“大调解”的实践中，制度环境的压力使该组织场域中不同性质的调解组织之间出现了同形化，即各类调解组织之间在结构与实践中表现出明显的相似性。同形化使多元调解主体一元化，过度依赖政府的制度供给，丧失了各自的优势，减少了可选择性。调解组织面临的制度环境压力，包括合法性机制、不对称权力关系和多重制度逻辑等。二、在本研究中，组织同形化的过程是占有支配性资源的强势组织将自身的结构形式和运作模式强加给其他组织的过程，即以所谓的标准模式替代了其他模式。这种替代性实践的产生，是由于组织场域中的“中心逻辑”（即一体化社会控制）取代了多元化纠纷解决的逻辑，基层政府在压力体制和维稳逻辑之下，习惯于通过垄断、依靠科层体制和量化指标来解决社会矛盾纠纷。Z市的研究表明，强制程度越高，组织间替代的可能性就越大。三、“大调解”组织场域的替代性实践使治理结构与组织行动发生偏离，组织行动者按照强势组织的制度逻辑运行，而不管这些做法是否符合非诉讼纠纷解决的实际需求，因此出现了自上而下的组织建构与自下而上的纠纷解决实践之间的落差，一体化社会控制的实际运作模式最终取代了多元化纠纷解决的制度设计，基层政府的维稳压力非但没有减轻却更加不堪重负。从Z市的实证研究所体现的特性并结合其他地区的共性来看，在当代中国的非诉讼纠纷解决领域，既有自治、法治与市场逻辑的缺失，也有维稳与行政逻辑的滥觞。因此，对于新兴的“大调解”组织形态的研究，对重构中国纠纷解决制度、创新社会管理体制，都具有十分重要的现实意义，对于其背后的深层次结构和制度逻辑的剖析也具有重要的理论价值。更多还原

【Abstract】 In recent years, as the organizational reaction to the surge of conflicts and disputes,the Grand Mediation, which the main characteristics are the organic combination of thepeople’s mediation, administrative mediation and judicial mediation, has causedwidespread concern in theory and in practice. In order to achieve diversification ofdisputes resolution, a nationwide campaign lauched, how the network forms and how itworks? In this mobilization process, what’s the relationship between the differentmediation organizations? How does this relations influence the practice of the GrandMediation?Based on the relationship between organizations as the research object, usingsociological analysis method and the New Institutionalism perspective, throughempirical research of the Grand Mediation mechanism of Z City,G Province, SouthChina, this paper reveals the alternative relations between the organizations and thepractice logic-"alternative practice", namely in the specific organizational field,especially in the overlapped and interleaved field of resource network, the organizationwith dominant resources tend to replace the goals,rules,identity,authority and preferenceof other organizations in practice and impose their own operation-mode to othermembers and replace the innovation activity by its traditional approaches or pragmaticway.The main findings are:Firstly, in the Grand Mediation at basic level practice, the pressure of systemenvironment forges the isomorphism of different mediation organizations,i.e.thesimilarities among the different mediation organizations at the structural and practicallevel. Isomorphism is resulted in unifying the different mediation organization,excessively depending on governmental system supply, losing their respectiveadvantages and reducing the selectivity. The institutional pressure including thelegitimacy mechanism,asymmetrical power relations and multiple institutional logics.Secondly, the so-called standard mode replaces the other modes in the process oforganization isomorphism, in which the origination with dominant resource impose itsown institutional structure and operations mode to other organizations. Such alternativepractices come from the replacement of the logic of multi dispute resolution by the keylogic, namely the unified social control. Under the pressure of administrative systemand social stabilization, local governments are accustomed to resolving social conflictsand disputes by the resource monopoly, bureaucratic system and quantitative indicators.The case of Z city shows that the higher the degree of coercion, the more possibilities ofthe replacement among organizations.Thirdly, alternative practices in the Grand Mediation organizational field causedeviation between governance structure and organizational action. Organizational actorsfollow the logic of dominant organization, regardless of whether these practices in linewith the actual needs of non-litigation dispute resolution.This leads to the gap between the top-down organizational structure and the bottom-up dispute resolution practices.The practice mode of unified social control take place of the institution design of multidispute resolution, as a result,the pressure of maintaining social stability is not releasedbut increased.From characteristics embodied from the empirical study in the city of Z andsimilarities showed by other regions in contemporary China, there are the lack ofautonomy, the rule of law and the logic of the market as well as the overflow of thesocial stability and administrative logic.Therefore, the emerging Grand Mediation organization study not only has the vitalpractical significance in restructuring China’s dispute resolution system and innovationof the social management system, but also has important theoretical value in theorganizational analysis.更多还原