"教授治学"的制度化过程: 中国内地一所研究型大学的个案研究 = The institutionalization process of 'academic issues governed by professors' : a case study of a research university in the Chinese mainland.

• Other Authors: 朱賀玲 (author.)
• Format: Others
• Language: Chinese; English
• Published: 2015
• Subjects: Teacher participation in administration; Teacher participation in administration > China > Case studies; School management and organization; School management and organization > China > Case studies
• Online Access: http://library.cuhk.edu.hk/record=b6115541; http://repository.lib.cuhk.edu.hk/en/item/cuhk-1202926

西方大学强调同僚管治或者共同管治，认为教师作为专业人员，或者作为大学事务的重要利益相关者，应该参与决策过程，影响决策结果。内地大学近年同样较为关注教师的决策权力，不仅在政策层面明确提出"教授治学"，部分大学更是相继在院系层面成立教授委员会，强调教师在学术事务应该享有发言权。在此背景下，本研究以内地一所研究型大学为个案，探讨教师在日常工作情境中，参与学院层级之课程、招生、教师招聘、职称评定等学术事务决策的制度化过程。 === 研究发现，校级学术领导享有学术事务的决策权，院级学术领导通常主导相关决策的执行，负责各个环节的任务分工以及不同意见的处理，虽然成立了教授委员会，但其目前仅获得"咨询权"或"知情权"。教师大多听从学术领导的安排，参与部分环节的实施过程，或者承担低层次的行政杂务，而且，多数教师自然而然的接受这种"家长式"的决策方式，较少思考甚至意识到有其他选择的可能。另外，行政部门作为校级学术领导意志的"传声筒"和"守护者"，往往过于注重"通报"决策结果，保证其顺利执行，没有为教师提供发声平台，不同于领导决策意图的意见往往无法上达。 === 回应制度化过程及共同管治的学术讨论。对于成立教授委员会等新的做法，教师通常无需缜密逻辑思考，而是"自然而然"地认同行政部门下达的程序。目前的做法已为多数教师视为"正常"，并未如西方经验就相关议题进行沟通和对话。行政部门忽视教师不同意见，在一定程度上强化了"家长式"的决策方式，在家长式决策的再生产过程中，扮演了重要守护者的角色。关于共同管治，教授委员会属于"咨询式决策"，只能就有关决策提供意见，结果仍由学术领导作最终决定，教授委员会并未享有真正的决策权。另外，教师在决策过程中倾向于扮演接受者、应对者和抽离者等角色。本研究建议应给予教授委员会独立的决策权，同时为教师参与决策及表达不同意见进一步搭建平台，另外，学校层级亦应下放更多决策权予学院及学系。 === Shared governance is highly valued by Western universities. As professionals or the key stakeholders, the academics should be involved in the decision-making process. Similarly, the academic’s participation in university governance has also attracted much attention in Mainland China. "Academic issues should governed by professors" is clearly stated in policy papers, and the professor committees at the faculty level have also been established in a number of universities to enhance the academics’ involvement in the decision-making process on the academic issues. In this context, the study selected a research university as the case to explore the institutionalization process of the way by which the academics involve in the issues such as curriculum, student admission, teacher employment and promotion at the faculty level. === The study observed that university academic leaders made decisions on major university issues; the faculty academic leaders dominated the implementation process and took charge of task division. While the authority remained with the academic leaders, academics were brought into part of the implementation process. More importantly, the academics have already taken the patriarchal way of decision-making for granted; they seldom question, reflect on or even take notice of it. The newly-established professor committee did not obtain the genuine authority to make decisions, and the academics tended to perceive that they had limited participation in the professor committee. In addition, as the "mouthpiece" and the "guardian" of the university academic leaders’ will, the administration departments paid more attention to ensure the decisions of university academic leaders to be implemented smoothly, there was no formal channels for the academics to express different opinions. === In the meantime, this study provided contextualized observations of institutionalization process and shared governance. As for the introduction of new measures, the academics usually need no logical thinking, but accepted the procedures commanded by the administrative department naturally. The patriarchal way of decision-making has been regarded "normal" by most of the academics; there was no communication and dialogue process before the new measures stabilized which is valued by western academics. The administrative departments ignored different opinions which helped to strengthen the paternalistic way of decision-making, and play a key role in the reproduction process of old practices as well. As to the shared governance, the consultative role of professor committee was revealed in the cases, the academics could only offer advice while the academic leaders hold most of the decision-making power. In addition, most of the academics were accepters, copers and disengaged in the decision-making process. Given that, the study suggests the professor committee should obtain authentic and independent power in decision-making. The university should decentralize more authority and autonomy to the faculty level to ensure academics have authentic participation in the process of decision-making. === Detailed summary in vernacular field only. === Detailed summary in vernacular field only. === Detailed summary in vernacular field only. === 朱賀玲. === Parallel title from added title page. === Thesis (Ph.D.) Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2015. === Includes bibliographical references (leaves 223-242). === Abstracts also in English. === Zhu Heling.