【作者】 丁笑梅；

【导师】 黄志成；

【作者基本信息】 华东师范大学 ， 比较教育学， 2014， 博士

【副题名】基于比较的视角

【摘要】 大学的治理问题,无论是在理论领域还是实践领域,都是一个相当敏感的话题。也正是因为其敏感性,使得这个问题一直都被避而不谈。然而,正如有了市场经济体制改革,才有了我国经济的巨大成就；有了现代企业制度,才有了我国企业的快速发展一样,只有在治理层面而非在一般管理层面进行根本性的变革,我国大学才能真正具有坚实的发展根基和动力,才能快步向世界一流大学迈进。人之本性和人存在之价值是什么?人是否存在着绝对的、在任何时候都不应为政府所剥夺的权利?道德规范是何以可能的?人类社会是否存在不随着历史变化而变化的普世价值?政府的合法性在于其道德上的先进性,还是在于选民的认可?人的学习过程的实质,究竟是吸收外部的知识,还是发觉和唤起内在的本性?凡此种种问题,是由专门机构中的成员通过自由的探讨来解决呢?还是由政府、教会等其他外部团体首先指明了结论,然后再让这些人员来论证结论的合理性呢?进而,哪些学科门类或知识应该传授给下一代,应该传授到何种深度,何种人有资格进入到某个学科门类学习?凡此种种问题,是由这些专门机构的专业人员来决定,还是由政府或其他外部机构基于自己的理解和利益来决定呢?更进一步来说,这个机构是朝综合性方向发展,还是朝专业方向发展?是更加侧重知识的传授,还是更关注知识的探索?是着眼于基础知识的挖掘,还是着眼于知识的应用和转化?专业人员按照什么标准来选聘,职称如何评定,是否应该给予永久聘用的资格?凡此种种问题,是由该机构本身的成员来决定呢,还是由政府或者其他外部机构来决定?[1]以上所有的问题可以归结为：人类知识的探索和传授,在人类的各种活动中是否有着独立的地位?相应的,专门从事这些工作的机构和人员是否有着独立探索、独立传授和独立地进行自我管理的权利?如果我们认为知识的探索和传授是人类不可替代的神圣活动,那么从事这些工作的人员自然也就具有不可剥夺的权威,这种权威则表现为独立探索、传授和管理的权利。如果我们认为人类的一切活动都应该服从于某种政治权力或者宗教权力,那么从事知识研究和传授的人自然应该是政治、宗教团体的臣民,应该按照相应团体的指示去“探索”、去“传授”,并接受其管理。也许到了这里,“大学应该是应该进行自我治理,还是应该由政府等外部团体来治理”这一问题的答案,已经是不言而喻的了。因为只要我们承认知识探索和传授在人类活动中独立、神圣的地位,那么作为知识探索和知识传授的专门机构的大学,自然就有着研究的自由、教学的自由和管理的自由,概而言之,有着自我治理的自由!这一自由,作为最基本的权利,是大学能够成为大学的基本条件。相反,只要认为政治或宗教权力、政府意志在人类活动中的价值和地位高于知识的探索和传授,无论这种观点有着多么冠冕堂皇的理由,都会默认政治和宗教有着绝对的权力和控制力,而自然否定大学的自治权。而脱离了研究自由、教学自由和管理自由的大学,即没有了自治权的大学,无论掌控这种大学的外部组织宣称自己是多么的英明和睿智,都在失去自己的本性,都注定是畸形的。与大学治理相关的第二个核心问题是：在确认了大学具有自治权之后,这种自治权应该和管理权分离,还是应该和管理权合并?前者可以称之为“治理-管理分离化”,简称“分权”；后者可以称之为“治理-管理合并化”,简称“集权”。[1]无论任何国家的任何大学,校长及其领导的行政团队毫无疑问是管理权的享有者。上述问题可以归结为：作为管理权享有者的以校长为首的行政团队,是否同时应该享有治理权?在此问题上,欧洲和美国给出了分权的答案,而日本则给出了集权的答案。它们各自的理论基础是什么,从绩效上来看何者更好些呢?本文旨在分析大学自治权的理论根基和阐述大学自治权的实现路径,并期待能够为中国大学的改革提供一些力所能及的建议。大学治理结构的核心是自治。虽然很多文献都列举了大学自治的种种表现,但是关于自治的深层次理论基础,以及自治内在所隐含的悖论以及这种悖论如何解决,一直都是语焉不详的问题。借助于对中国和西方的历史对比和现状比较,本文首先从哲学的角度分析自治思想的理论基础,然后从政治学的角度挖掘自治思想的实践基础。进而,阐明大学治理问题所隐含的内在矛盾(治理悖论),阐述西方国家为了解决这一悖论所采用的制度设计。研究发现,多元论以及随后的逻辑实证主义和实用主义,正是西方自治思想的哲学基础,因为他们从根本上论证了知识探索和传授的独立、神圣的地位。而对个人价值神圣性的珍视,对个人自由和平等的保护以及对分权的推崇,是自治思想的实践基础。大学在本性上要求自治,而在现实生活却严重受制于各方的制约,这构成了大学治理问题的内在矛盾或者悖论。而特许状制度、信托制度、委托代理制度以及大学董事会、校长和学术评议会之间的职责划分和权限安排,正是为了解决这一悖论所进行的制度安排和机制设计。理解了自治思想的哲学基础和实践基础,才能发现隐藏在大学治理结构背后的精神内涵；而弄清了大学治理的制度和机制,才能真正明白大学治理的运作规则和根本支点。而对国与国之间大学治理结构所进行的比较,有助于更深的理解治理运行机制的各个细节和步骤。当然,本文最终落脚于中国大学治理结构的变革。本论文的内容分为七个部分。第一章是导论,主要说明本文的研究背景、研究意义、主要问题、研究内容、技术路线和研究方法。第二章对大学治理的基本问题进行分析,阐述了中西方对大学功用的理解,从大学本性和社会分工量个角度说明大学自治的根本原因,最后揭示大学治理所存在的根本悖论(矛盾)。第三章列举了不同的治理结构形式(学生治理、教师治理、受托人治理等),并对其价值基础进行了分析；然而说明解决大学悖论的两种制度设计；接下来从两个维度(自治还是非自治,集权还是分权)区分了大学治理的四种模式(非自治集权、非自治分权、自治集权、自治分权),阐明四种模式各自的理论基础,并对其运作效率进行了比较；第四章则结合前面对大学治理模式所进行的分析,结合第五章的一些结论,分析了大学治理应该具有的一般结构(普遍接受的、具有较高的运作效率的结构)；第五章是本文的比较研究部分,集中考察了德国、日本、英国和美国四个国家中具有代表性大学的治理结构,然后从运作效率的角度作了对比分析,并总结概括了相关的经验；第六章是本文的应用部分,所要做的工作是分析中国大学在建国后治理结构和管理结构变革的历史,治理和管理的现状,然后基于前面对治理问题所作的研究,为中国大学治理改革提供思路、措施和推进方案。第七章是结论,是本文研究结论的总结和归纳。更多还原

【Abstract】 University Governance, whether in theory or in practice, is still a very sensitive topic, which leading the issue has always been avoided. However, as we all know, with the reform of market economy results in great achievements of China’s economy; with the modern enterprise system leads to the rapid development of China’s enterprises. Likewise, only in the governance level rather than a fundamental change in the general management level, China’s universities will really have a solid foundation and motivation for development to hurry towards the world first-class universities forward.What is the human nature and what is the value of human being? Whether there are absolute, any times of rights that should not be deprived by the government? How can the moral ethics be possible and practicable? Whether the humans universal value exists which does not change along with the historical changes? Whether the legitimacy of the government lies in its advanced moral, or is approved by the voters? The essence of learning process, whether it is absorbed through external knowledge, or discovered and evoked through inner nature of human being? All of these issues mentioned above, either should be solved freely by the members of a specialized agency? Or first pointed out the conclusion of these issues by the other external organizations such as the government or the church, and then let these people to demonstrate the reasonableness of its conclusion? Furthermore, what kind of knowledge should be taught to the next generation, to what depth and what kind of person is eligible to learn a certain subject? All of these issues mentioned above, either should be decided by the professionals from specialized agencies or by the government and other external agencies based on their own understanding and interests? Furthermore, whether this organization is moving in the direction of comprehensive development, or towards the professional direction? More focus on knowledge teaching, or more concern of knowledge exploring? More focus on digging into basic knowledge or more concern of the application and transformation of knowledge? What criteria determine professionals hiring, how to assess professionals in order to grant titles and whether they should be given permanent hiring? Again, all of these issues mentioned above, either should be decided by the internal staff of the agency or by the government and other external agencies?All the above issues come down to:whether there is an independent status of exploration and imparting human knowledge in human activities? Accordingly, whether specialized institutions and personnel engaged in the work have any independent exploration, independent teaching and independent self management rights? If we believe that exploration and imparting knowledge should be viewed as an irreplaceable sacred human activity, then the person engaged in such work has naturally inalienable authority which characterized by independent exploration, teaching and management rights. If we believe that all human activities should be subject to some kind of political power, or a religious authority, then people engaged in the research and teaching knowledge should be considered as members of government and other groups that they should follow the instructions to "explore" and "impart", meanwhile accept the management of government and other organizations.Perhaps, the answer to the question "Should universities be self-governing, or be governed by the government and other external groups" is already self-evidently. As long as we recognize the independence and sacred status of exploration and imparting knowledge, then naturally, universities where knowledge is explored and taught, has a free environment for research, teaching and managing, that is to say, universities own the freedom of self-governance themselves which is the fundamental rights that enable universities. On the contrary, as long as that political power, the value and status of government will in human activities are viewed higher than knowledge exploration and transmission, no matter how high-sounded the reason is, political and religious will default has absolute power and control, in other words, university self-governance rights are naturally denied. While, universities those are out of the freedom of research, teaching and management, that is to say, without the" self-governance" will lose the nature and be doomed deformed, regardless of the excellent wisdom of external promotion organized by the university authorities. The second core issue related to the university governance is whether university self-governance right should be separated with management right or combined with each other after the confirmation of the university with "self-governance" right. The former can be called "governance-management separation" and referred to as "decentralization of powers", while, the latter can be called "governance-management merger" and referred to as "centralization of powers". The principal and the leadership of the administrative team, there is no doubt that enjoys the right of university management, regardless of any university in any country. The above mentioned can be attributed to such a problem:as the management right of the principal led administration, whether should also enjoy the governance rights? On this issue, Europe and America provide decentralization answers, while Japan provides the centralization answers. What is their theoretical basis, and which is better from the view of performance?This paper aims to analyze the theoretical foundation of university self-governance and describe the path to achieve self-governance of universities and meanwhile, expect to provide some suggestions for the reform of China’s universities.The core of the university governance structure is "self-governance." As stated, many papers have list various performances of university self-governance; however, deep-seated theoretical basis of "self-governance", as well as the inherent implicit paradox of the self-governance and how to resolve this paradox, the question above has always been evasive. With the means of historical comparison and current situation of China and Western countries, this paper firstly analyzes the theoretical basis of "self-governance" from the perspective of philosophy, and then digs out the practical basis of it from the perspective of politics. Furthermore, clarifies the inherent implied contradiction of university governance issues (self-governance paradox), elaborates the system designed by the Western counties in order to resolve this paradox. The study found that pluralism and the subsequent logical positivism and pragmatism are the philosophical basis of Western ideas of self-governance which demonstrate the independence and sacred status fundamentally of knowledge exploration and transformation. While, Cherish values of humans, protect individual freedom and equality and respect decentralization are the practice basis of self-governance. In essence, universities require self-governance; while in reality, it is seriously restricted by various limitations which constitute the inherent contradiction or paradox of university governance. And the charter system, the trust system, agency system, the University Board, the division of responsibility and authority arrangements between the president and the Academic Senate, are the institutional arrangements and mechanism designs precisely to address this paradox. Understanding of philosophical and practical foundation of self-government can be found spiritual connotation hidden behind the university governing; meanwhile, deeply understanding of the university governance systems and mechanisms, can be truly understood the operating rules and fundamental basis of university governance. While, after the comparison of governance structure conducted between different universities can all the details and steps run into a deeper understanding of governance mechanisms. Of course, the Paper eventually settled in the transformation of China’s university governance structure.In summary, this paper consists of seven parts. The first part describes the objectives of the study and key issues to be addressed, as well as research methods and technology roadmap, focusing more on literature review. The second part describes the different understanding of University’s function among the Western countries and socialist countries, aiming to illustrate the philosophical and political basis behind it and thus demonstrate the inherent conflict of the university governance. The third part focuses on the two different methods of university governance that is non self-governance and self-governance. The fourth part details how to design the structure of the university governance to achieve the self-governance in the circumstance of various limitations which is the core part of this paper. The fifth sector makes horizontal comparison of the governance structure of universities in the UK, Germany, Japan and the United States, while the historical comparison is conducted as well. The relevant suggestions regarding the reform of China’s university governance have been put forward in the sixth part, which is based on the theoretical basis discussed and comparative researches carried out previously in this paper. The last part is conclusion of this paper.更多还原