【作者】 张斌；

【导师】 阎光才；

【作者基本信息】 华东师范大学 ， 高等教育学， 2013， 博士

【副题名】一项关于学术权力的社会学考察

【摘要】 20世纪90年代以来,“学术权力”一直是高等教育研究领域持续关注的一个热点问题,学者们对行政权力与学术权力的关系、行政权力如何影响学术权力进行了大量研究。2010年《国家中长期教育发展规划纲要》颁布前后,来自社会各方面的热议更是将高校“去行政化”问题推到了风口浪尖。然而,问题的关键在于即使能真正能祛除“行政化”,仅依赖于学术权力,学术系统就一定能保证进入一种良好运作状态吗?换言之,学术权力的运作是否也存有某种隐秘的机制?基于这一考虑,本研究试图回答一个更为基础性的问题——学术场域中的权力结构及其制度化过程。这亦即是本研究所指的“政治逻辑”。本研究从社会学的研究视角出发,综合借鉴政治社会学、微观政治学和人类学等学科的理论资源,采用量化研究和质性研究相结合的混合研究方法,首先考察学术场域的分层与权力结构,尤其是这一结构形成过程中的政治逻辑；而后运用问卷数据对政治逻辑的合法性和合法化危机进行分析；最后在归纳政治逻辑的基础上,从实践层面反思政治逻辑表现出来的积极的和消极的学术效应。导论部分首先从个人生活史的角度交代问题意识的形成过程,然后将基于生活史的个人问题转化为一个社会学问题——学术场域中的权力结构及其制度化过程,而后从选题缘由切入到本研究在理论和实践中的价值,进而对国内外已有的学术文献进行述评,寻找进一步研究的空间和认识路径,最后对研究方法论进行反思。第一章主要是对核心概念的讨论和界定,包括学术场域、政治、权力以及政治逻辑等概念以及对学术场域结构的初步分析,为研究的展开进行必要的澄清和理论准备。第二章从学术场域中的两条原则——普遍主义和特殊主义——的分析入手,而后分析我国差序格局的关系社会特征及其在当前的适用性,进而指出,学术场域中的“差序格局”及其内含的特殊主义表现样态是政治逻辑在我国学术场域中的生成空间。第三章和第四章主要采用社会网络分析的量化方法,分别考察学术场域分层和权力结构的两种具体形式,一是基于物理学学者学缘关系的院系分层与权力的结构化特征；二是基于《社会学研究》学术期刊中学者学术互引关系的学术交流网络分层与权力的结构化特征。研究发现,不同层次院校在博士生互聘和学术互引的过程中都表现出较大的不均衡,其中排名靠前的院系占据着非常有利的位置。可以说,博士生互聘和学术期刊作为两种重要的力量形塑着学术场域的权力结构,而这种业已形成的结构反过来又成为一只“看不见的手”再生产着学术场域的分层与权力结构。第五章采用参与式观察所得的研究资料,将学术会议作为仪式进行社会学分析,展现了其中复杂的权力关系及其运行机制。研究发现,学术会议一方面受行政权力的干预,另一方面在促进学术场域的社会团结的同时,其内部也形成了特定的地位等级结构。学术会议作为一股重要的力量促进着学术精英的生产和学术秩序的再生产,表现出微观场景中的政治逻辑。这进一步验证和解释了第三、四章量化研究的结论,推进和深化了对政治逻辑的认识和理论解释。第六章在量化和质性研究的基础上,运用问卷调查的数据分析学者对学术场域政治逻辑及其形成规则和学术文化价值体系的认可度,并对学术场域内部要素在运行中表现出的问题进行归纳,最后讨论政治逻辑的合法性和合法化危机。结束语分为三个小问题,一是对学术场域的政治逻辑予以归纳,二是分析政治逻辑的正、负学术效应,最后指出了可能的创新之处、不足和进一步研究的方向。更多还原

【Abstract】 "Academic power" has been a hot issue which has been paid much attention by scholars in the research field of higher education for a long time since1990s. A great number of research on the relationships between administrative power and academic power, and how administrative power influences the academic power has been done. Social debate among different groups pushed the issue of "de-bureaucratization" in the teeth of the storm before and after the promulgation of the National Mid-long Term Plan of Education Development. However, the crux of the problem is that only depending on the academic power, wether the academic system can operate well after the "de-bureaucratization". In other words, is there any hidden mechanism behind the operation of academic power? Based on this consideration, this study is trying to answer a more basic question:what the academic power structure looks like and how it’s institutionalized in the academic field. This is termed "political logic" in this study.Using the Sociological perspective and theoretical resources of Political Sociology, Micro-politics and Anthology, this study mainly analyzes the stratification and power structure of the academic filed and its forming logic of politics with the mixed methods; and then analyze the legitimacy and crisis of the legitimation; rethink the active and passive effects of the political logic in the academic field at last.The introduction part describes the formation of the question awareness from the personal life history; transforms the personal question to a sociological question——t what the academic power structure looks like and how it’s institutionalized in the academic field; then goes into the research value for the theory and practice from the reason of selecting the question; and then comments on the literature abroad and domestic; at last, rethinks the research methodology.Chapter1mainly analyzes and defines the key concepts, including academic field, politics, power, the political logic and so on, and discusses the structure of the academic filed, which are the foundation of the research.Chapter2begins with the analysis of two principles--universalism and particularism-in the academic field; discusses the character "guanxi" society and its applicability; then expresses the viewpoint that the "Chaxugeju" and its form of particularism in the academic field are the forming space of the political logic in the Chinese academic field..Chapter3and4, using the the theory and methods of Social Network Analysis, analyze two specific forms of the stratification and power structure in the academic field, which are:(1) departmental stratification and the structure character of the power based on the the PhD-granting departments of Physics scholars;(2) stratification of the academic communication and the structure character of the power based on the inter-citation of the Sociological Studies. It is found out that, departments in different level show big disproportion both in the PhD-exchange and the academic inter-citation, and these top departments occupy the advantaged position. So, the PhD-exchange and the academic periodicals are two pieces of important strength which mould the power structure of the academic field, while this formed structure becomes an "invisible hand" which reproduces the stratification and power structure.Chapter5, using the research materials collected by participant observation, analyzes the academic conferences regarded as ritual in the perspective of sociology, which presents the complicated power relations and its working mechanism inside the academic conferences. It is found that academic conferences are intervened by the administrative power in one side, and given hierarchic rank is formed inside while promoting the social unity of the academic field in the another side. The academic conferences are a new piece of strength which promotes the production of academic elites and the reproduction of the academic order, displaying the political logic in the micro-context. These results verify and explain the results of the quantitative research in chapter3and4, deepening the cognition and theoretical explanation of the political logic.Chapter6mainly analyzes the degree of recognition of the political logic and its rule, system of academic cultural value based on quantitative and qualitative research with the data which is obtained by the questionnaire investigation; after that, concludes the problem of the factors which constitute the academic field; and then discusses the legitimacy and crisis of the legitimation at last.The epilogue part includes three pieces of task. The first is to include the political logic of the academic field; the second is to analyze the active and negative effects of the political logic; and the last is to show the probable innovation, deficiency and the further research direction.更多还原