【作者】 周湘林；

【导师】 曾天山； 周光礼；

【作者基本信息】 华中科技大学 ， 教育经济与管理， 2010， 博士

【副题名】基于本科教学评估的新制度主义分析

【摘要】 高等教育评估是保证和提高高等教育质量的重要举措之一。从组织主体上看,中国的高等教育评估基本上可以分为两类,一类是由政府主导的评估,一类是由民间组织的评估。其中高校本科教学评估涉及面最广、影响最大,受到社会各界的关注度也最高,是中国高等教育评估中的典型代表。评估与问责既有联系又有区别,在一定基础上,可以从问责视野来分析评估。那么,本科教学评估制度是不是一种问责制?如果是,是何种类型的问责制?该种制度的运行效果如何?如果要变革会遇到什么阻力?通过上述问题的分析,透过本科教学评估制度,可以看出中国高校问责制该如何改革?对于这些问题,已有研究并没有作出相应的关注与回答。因此,立基于国内外的实践经验与研究成果,对以上问题进行理论与实证研究,能为完善中国高校问责制提供依据。本研究选择从制度层面来分析中国高校问责制。如果放宽新制度主义中三个重要流派各自的假设,将结构、制度、理性的作用整合起来,从制度对行为的影响和影响制度的深层结构、制度自身在历史上的路径依赖以及制度变迁的动力机制几大方面的因素入手,可以分析中国高校问责制的运行效果、历史演变及其未来的变革趋势。首先假定规则是外在的,制度是给定的,也即将高校问责制看作自变量,解释在现行高校问责制度情境下的高校行为,而不去解释规则的创设过程,以便对现行制度进行评估。然后将高校问责制看作因变量,主要从结构上的制度影响,历史时序上的路径依赖与回报递增,制度延续与变革的关键节点三方面进行研究,以此来解释特定结构中具体制度的生成与演变。这里主要分析中国高校问责制度在何时、因何种动力而发生何种类型的变迁,进而预测并构建更趋合理的、符合中国国情的高校问责制。理论上讲,管理视野中的高校问责制属于传统的“对责任的回答范式”。管理者是问责主体,被管理者是问责对象,二者是分离的,而且高校的利益相关者没有广泛参与,因而存在许多缺点。而治理视野中的高校问责制则强调问责对象应变被动为主动,变压力为动力,自觉承担利益相关者责任。这样,整个问责最重要的目的不是证明,而是改进,以便协助高校做出有关符合利益相关者需求的决策,同时提供绩效问责的信息。高校社会问责制是指由高校内外部利益相关者共同组成的问责主体对高校进行问责,具体运行机制是由政府指导、协调、认证,并由政府和其他社会评估机构分类组织,高校利益相关者全过程有效参与的整合型高校问责制度安排。这也正是一种治理视野中的问责制,因此,社会问责将是高校问责制的改革方向。从问责制的视角看,中国已实施的第一轮本科教学评估制度实质上是一种政府对高校的问责制度安排,属于管理视野中的问责制。那么,要使本科教学评估取得更好的效果,就必须建立治理视野中的高校问责制,即中国高校社会问责制。实证研究结果表明：第一,运用模糊综合评价原理进行多级分析的结果表明,本科教学评估制度这种典型的中国高校问责制的有效性被认为“一般”,占40%,认为“较好”和“很好”的比率合占24%,认为“一般”以上的共计达到64%,这说明该制度基本上被认可。但认为“较低”和“很低”的比率还较高,合占36%,可见,为了使本科教学评估制度更加完善、有效性更高,必须加强改革。进一步分析表明,如果以本科教学评估这种中国高校问责制为自变量,在政府问责的情境中,高校的行为具有策略性,是有限理性的选择。一方面高校高度重视评估,而且在短期内积极行动,也达到了一定的效果；另一方面,高校的策略性行动后续乏力,没有形成不断改进的自觉行为,外部的压力没有很好的转化为内部的动力；而且由于有限理性选择,甚至出现了一些意料之外的“异化”行为,给师生和社会带来了很多副作用,而相关制度对此却没有强大的约束力。这就大大降低了本科教学评估制度的有效性。第二,如果以本科教学评估这种中国高校问责制为因变量进行分析,在建国60年的历史长河中,中国高校问责制度变迁经历了三个阶段：高校“无权”状态下内部检查式的问责阶段,落实高校办学自主权情况下逐步规范化的政府问责阶段,以政府为主、社会逐步有限参与的问责阶段。中国高校问责制受制于计划经济体制的思维惯性、集权管理运作模式、官本位的文化观念等宏观“制度的深层结构”。正是在高的构建成本、学习效应、合作效应、适应性预期、市场不完备、利益以及信念等因素的作用下,中国高校问责制在行政模式的轨道上逐步演进,体现出很强的路径依赖现象。在建国以来60年的历史进程中,中国高校问责制存在四种类型的制度变迁：制度微调、制度转换、制度扭曲、制度断裂。目前,中国高校问责制存在的种种弊端呼唤制度创新,从路径依赖到制度创新是历史的必然选择。制度深层结构的影响及路径依赖现象的存在,既为制度创新提供了现实基础,也是制度转换的阻力,因此,必须依据中国国情来探索具体可行的中国高校问责制。符合中国国情的高校社会问责制度的核心内涵主要包括如下几方面：第一,建立高校与其利益相关者的伙伴关系,产生协同作用,在常态中根据需要定期和随机启动问责。第二,政府颁布相关高校问责政策法规,制定问责规则,成立各类相关机构,督促学校公布信息；在调查研究的基础上,依据高校利益相关者的需求,设置不同的评估项目。由教育部评估中心指导、监督和认证,评估中心和其他社会评估机构共同分类分级组织实施,高校各利益相关者广泛参与,评估结果向社会公布。第三,高校设立专门的问责回应机构,按照政策法规要求提供教学基本状态及教学科研成就等多种数据。并与利益相关者积极互动,利用反馈信息促进高校改进。第四,高校各利益相关者利用政策法规设定的参与机制,参与高校问责的全过程,在问责过程中与高校互动,监督政府与学校的行为。根据各自的需要利用问责结果,在满足自身利益诉求的同时对高校形成不同的良性压力,促进高校持续不断地改进。应当通过提高高校利益相关者的参与意识、健全高校问责机构、制定相关政策法规等措施来促进中国高校社会问责制的建立和完善。更多还原

【Abstract】 Higher education evaluation is considered to be one of the important measurements to ensure and improve the quality of higher education. In terms of the organization of the main body, China higher education evaluation is basically divided into two categories, one is led by the Government’s evaluation, the other is that evaluations which is led by the civil society organizations. Undergraduate teaching evaluation is a typical representative of higher education evaluation, which is regarded as the most extensive and deep involves, and most affected by concerns of the community. There are some similarities and differences between evaluation and accountability. To a certain basis, we can analyze evaluation from the perspective of accountability. Is the Undergraduate teaching evaluation system an accountability system? If the answer is yes, what type of accountability system should it be? How are the effects? What kind of resistance will be show on, if there is a change? Though the analysis of the above issues and undergraduate teaching evaluation system, how will be the system reformed? All these questions are not answered yet. Thus, this dissertation tries to give some suggestion to improve the universities accountability system, learn something from experience and research results both home and abroad, as well as theoretical and empirical research.It is a very relevancy to address the China universities accountability problem from system-analysis perspective. If broaden of the three main streams of neo-institutionalism’s hypothesizes, blending in structure and rationality, and making structure, system and rationality interactive, we can analyze the effects of the China university accountability system, historical development and change trends. System’s impact on behaviors, the deep structure that impact the systems, system’s path dependency of itself, and the dynamisms of the system change should be the breaches. First of all, we assume that rules are outside, the system is set, that is to say, regard university accountability as a independent variable. This dissertation tries to explain the universities behavior in this situation, not explain how the rule is set. Then, consider university accountability as a dependent variable. The study will be launched in three aspects:the structural system of the impact, the historical path dependence and increasing returns, and institutional continuity and change of key nodes. Then, use them to explain the formation and evolution of specific systems in a specific structure. The dissertation just analyzed the when, because of what reason and what type of changes occurs, in order to predict and build a more reasonable, in line with Chinese national conditions’university accountability system.Theoretically, the higher education accountability from the management system perspective is the traditional "paradigm of the responsibility to answer." Managers are the accountable subjects and the contraries are those who is accountability for. They are separated. The stakeholders don’t participate broadly. The higher education accountability system in the governance system perspective emphasize on the accountable subjects take the responsibility of stakeholders, change stress to dynamics, and from passive to active. The whole accountability’s purpose is to improve not only prove. It is a helpful way to let university make judgments considering the stakeholders’needs and at the same time offer some information about performance. Social accountability to the university system refers to a system, in which all stakeholders, in and out the university, constitute the main body of the accountable subjects, that is guided by the government, coordination, certification, evaluation by the government and other social institutions categories organizations, university stakeholders to participate effectively in the whole process of the integrated system of accountability arrangements for university. It is a social accountability system in the governance perspective and will be the reform trend in the future. From the accountability perspective, the first round of the undergraduate teaching evaluation implemented by government is essentially a system of government accountability arrangements for colleges and universities, and it is belongs to the management systems.So, it is necessary to build a university accountability system based on government, that is to say, to build China university social accountability system.The empirical results show that:Using fuzzy comprehensive evaluation principle to conduct a multi-level analysis, the results shows that the effectiveness of undergraduate teaching evaluation system that is a typical China university accountability system is considered as "general", accounting for 40%, the combined ratio of "good" and "very good",accounting for 24%, so the ratio above "general" is 64%, indicating that the system has been approved on the whole. But the combined ratio of "lower" and "very low" is also high, accounting for 36%, showing that the reform must be strengthened in order to make the system more perfect and more efficient. If we take the undergraduate teaching evaluation system that is a China university accountability system as the independent variables, the context of accountability in government, university strategic behavior, rational choice is limited. On the one hand, university attaches great importance to assess, take positive action in short time, and achieve a certain effect; on the other hand, the strategic action of the university lack of power, no continuous improvement of the self-effectiveness, and the external pressure did not translate into the internal power. As for limited rational choice, even some unexpected "alienation" behaviors bring some side-effect to students and society.Second, if we take the undergraduate teaching evaluation system that is a China university accountability system as the dependent variable to conduct an analysis, the change of the China university accountability system can be divided into three stages in the past 60th-year:the inner check-style stage, gradually standardize government accountability stage, and government as the main, social take part in accountability step by step stage. China university accountability system subject to the micro "the deep structure of system", which include the planned economic system psychological inertia, centralized management operation mode, the official standard culture and concept, and so on. By the action of the impacts of the following elements:high building costs, learning effects, cooperating effects, adaptive expectations, incomplete market, interest and belief, the China university accountability system evolves on the administrative mode track, thus shows a strong phenomenon of path dependence. Since the founding of the new china in the past 60 years, the China university accountability system has experienced four types of institutional change:institutional fine-tuning, system conversion, system distortion, and the system rupture. At present, the shortcomings of the existing accountability system call for institutional innovation. It is the natural choice of the history that from path dependence to path shaping. The impact of the deep structure and path dependence not only offer the realistic basis for institutional innovation, but also the resistance to change. Therefore, we must explore a feasible accountability system for university in China in Chinese national conditions.The core content of China university social accountability system which is consistent with Chinese national conditions should include the following factors:First, build the partnership between universities and its stakeholders, creating synergies. Start accountability regularly or randomly according to needs. Second, the government promulgates accountability rules and laws, develops accountability rules, establishes various related organizations, and urges universities to publish information. Based on investigations, the government should set a series evaluation programs according to the stakeholders’different needs. Under the guidance, supervision and certification of the Evaluation Centre of the Ministry of Education, the evaluation centre and other social evaluation agencies organize and implement accountability process by classification, the stakeholders’wide participation, and the result published. Third, university establish a accountability-respond organization, which in accordance with the policies and regulations required provides basic teaching state data, and teaching and research achievement data and so on. Interact positively with the stakeholders and using feedback information to improve the performance of university. Fourth, stakeholders involved in the whole process of accountability and interact with university, via participatory mechanisms that set by policies and regulations. The behavior of government and universities are monitored. They can use the result according to their needs. In this situation, by meet their different interests, at the same time, the different demands formats different positive pressure for universities, which ensure continuous improvement of university. We must establish and perfect university social accountability system by the following measures:raising awareness of university stakeholders’participation, improving accountability system in university, and developing relevant policies and regulations.更多还原