大学治理结构研究
|
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。
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.
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。
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.
引文
1 Gayle, Dennis John, Tewarie, Bhecndradatt. Governance in the Twenty-First-Century University: Approaches to Effective Leadership and Strategic Management[M]. ERIC Digest, ED482560.2003:2.
1 Stuart Hamilton. Review of University Governance.2002(3):13. http://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/highered/
[2] 有趣的是,很多人忽视了这样一个基本的事实：中国大学快速发展的20世纪第二个十年,并不是真正的中华民国时期,而是北洋军阀时期。在军阀混战的阶段,中国大学却在快速的发展,一方面说明当时的政治环境客观上给予了大学发展的自由,另一方面也说明了混战中的军阀政府没有忘记对大学的支持。军阀也支持大学,这似乎是不可理解的。不过如果读一下段祺瑞、吴佩孚的传记,就知道很多被我们教科书忽视的东西。此外,中国大学的快速发展,从一个侧面也说明了,只要有了自由的气氛,中国人就能够为人类社会做出多大的贡献!实际上,从清帝退位到国共内战结束,中华大地几乎一直处在战乱之下。但无论在日本的轰炸和战火之下还是在内战的混乱中,中国的大学依然在继续(比如西南联大的出现),学者们在这个时期依然做出了大量优秀的研究成果。
1 Gayle, Dennis John. Tewarie, Bhecndradatt. Governance in the Twenty-First-Century University: Approaches to Effective Leadership and Strategic Management[M]. ERIC Digest, ED482560.2003:3.
2 Gayle, Dennis John. Tewarie, Bhecndradatt. Governance in the Twenty-First-Century University: Approaches to Effective Leadership and Strategic Management[M]. ERIC Digest, ED482560.2003:3.
1 Gayle, Dennis John. Tewarie, Bhecndradatt. Governance in the Twenty-First-Century University: Approaches to Effective Leadership and Strategic Management[M]. ERIC Digest, ED482560.2003:1.
1 Gayle, Dennis JohnTewarie, Bhecndradatt. Governance in the Twenty-First-Century University: Approaches to Effective Leadership and Strategic Management[M]. ERIC Digest, ED482560.2003:22.
2 Gayle, Dennis JohnTewarie, Bhecndradatt. Governance in the Twenty-First-Century University: Approaches to Effective Leadership and Strategic Management[M]. ERIC Digest, ED482560.2003:23.
1 Stuart Hamilton. Review of University Governance.2002(3):13. http://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/highered/
1 中华民国《大学法令》,1912年10月颁布。
1 《毛泽东邓小平江泽民论教育》第3卷[M].北京：中央文献出版社,2002：276.
1 《马克思恩格斯选集》第一卷[M].北京：人民出版社,1972：43.
2 参见《马克思恩格斯选集》第二卷[M].北京：人民出版社,1972：120.
1 威廉·詹姆士.多元的宇宙[M].北京：商务印书馆,2002：63.
2 王新生.当代西方多元论哲学的深层透视——兼评当代西方多元论哲学对我国的影响.《社会科学论坛》,1995,第4期。
3 克拉克·科尔.大学的功用[M].南昌：江西教育出版社,1993：96-97.
1 http://www.gmxd.org.cn/info.asp?newsid=1259
1 关春华.个体感性力量和“类”力量相互否定过程之描述——感性辩证法的真实内涵探究.《宁夏社会科学》.2011,第9期.
2 关春华.个体感性力量和“类”力量相互否定过程之描述——感性辩证法的真实内涵探究.《宁夏社会科学》.2011,第9期.
1 关春华.个体感性力量和“类”力量相互否定过程之描述——感性辩证法的真实内涵探究.《宁夏社会科学》.2011.第9期.
[2] 稍微回顾一下历史,就会发现分工对人类是多么的重要。与男耕女织(封建时代)这种浪漫场景相伴随的,是物质生活的极端匮乏。对那个时代的大部分人来说,食物是“粗茶淡饭”,且仅仅可以糊口,衣服是粗布蓝衫,且仅仅可以遮体。为什么,因为这个时代的分工非常简单,主要是男女的分工。为什么今天的人类可以享受到美食、汽车、网络、手机和现代化的公众工具,是因为今天人类社会的分工细化了。分工的细化意味着普遍的专业化,而专业化才是提高效率的根本原因。在今天的人类社会,每个人从事的只是千百万个行业中的一个,但是却消费这个社会千百万个行业所提供的各种更样的商品和服务。有人说这一切应该归功于技术,但是,没有分工导致的科研和技术人员的专业化,哪里会有技术的大发展。
1 邓光平.如何识读现代大学组织特性：罗伯特·伯恩鲍姆的大学组织结构观[J].复旦大学教育论坛.2005,第2期.
1 贺国庆,王保星,朱文富等.外国高等教育史[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2003：232-261.
1 约翰·S·布鲁贝克.高等教育哲学[M].浙江：浙江教育出版社,1987：28.
2 转引自尹晓敏.寻求政府控制与大学自治的平衡——世纪之交政府与大学关系的合理定位.高教探索[J].2007,第四期.
1 龚始祖.现代大学治理结构：真实命题及中国语境[J].公共管理学报[J].2008,第四期.
[1] 从概念的准确性来讲,把这种模式称为教师治理比教授治理更好。
2 伯顿·克拉克.高等教育系统——学术组织的跨国研究[M].王承绪等译.杭州：杭州大学出版社,1994：12-13.
1 《中国人民共和国民法通则》(1986)第六十三条。
1 Kerr, Clark & Gade, Marian L. The Guardians:Boards of Trustees of American Colleges and Universities [M]. Washington, D. C.:Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges,1989:40-42.
2 转引自郭为藩.转变中的大学——传统、议题与前景[M].北京：北京大学出版社.2006：84.
3 转引自,郭为藩.转变中的大学——传统、议题与前景[M].北京：北京大学出版社.2006：64.
1 http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/01/24/harvards_endowment_surpasses_34_billion.
1 Nason, John W. The Nature of Trusteeship:The Role and Responsibilities of College and University Board [M]. Washington, D. C.:Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges:1982:14.
1 罗纳德·G.埃伦伯格主编.美国的大学治理[M].北京：北京大学出版社.2010：144.
1 Nason, John W. The Nature of Trusteeship:The Role and Responsibilities of College and University Board [M]. Washington, D. C.:Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges:1982:76.
2 Western Illinois University. Board of Trustees By Laws [EB/OL]. http://www.wiu.edu/personnel/bot/ bylaws. php#sec8. September 8,2006.
3 WMU/Board of Trustees/By Law/Article II [EB/OL]. http://www.wmich.edu/bot/bylaws-2.html Board of Trustees. http://kb.osu.edu//dspace/html/1811/32486/bll-02.htm.
1 张斌贤,张弛.美国大学与学院董事会成员的职业构成——10所著名大学的“案例”.比较教育研究[J].2002(12)：23-27.
2 王绽蕊著.美国高校董事会制度：结构、功能与效率研究[M].j北京：高等教育出版社.2010：49.
1 转引自舸昕.漫步美国大学：美国著名大学今昔纵横谈(续编)[M].哈尔滨：哈尔滨工业大学出版社.2000：294.
2 罗纳德·G.埃伦伯格主编.美国的大学治理[M].北京：北京大学出版社.2010：143.
1 明薪.美英中三国大学校长遴选制度的比较研究.《煤炭高等教育》.2007,第一期：30.
2 迈克尔·科恩,詹姆斯·马奇.大学校长及其领导艺术：美国大学校长研究[M].青岛：中国海洋大学出版社,2006：50.62.
3 Flawn, Peter T. A Primer for University Presidents:Managing the Modern University [M]. Austin: University of Texas Press,1990:32.
1 By-Laws of the Berkley Division of the Academic Senate [EB/OL]. http://academic-senate. Berkeley.edu/resources/documents/Bylaws_10-12-09.pdf.
1 Rules of the University Senate, the Senate Assembly and the Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs [EB/OL]. http://www.umich.edu/%7Esacua/SenAssb/rules-april1997.pdf.
2 Constitution & By-laws [EB/OL]. http://www.virginia.edu/facultysenate/c_blaws.html.
3 Mortimer, Kenneth P. The Dilemmas in New Campus Governance Structures [J]. The Journal of Higher Education,42 (6),1971:476.
4 Gilmour, Joseph E. Participative Governance Bodies in Higher Education:Report of a National Study [R]// Birnbaum, Robert. Faculty in Governance:The Role of Senates and Committees in Academic Decision Making [M]. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Publishers,1991.转引自张银富.校园民主与教授治校[M].台北：五南图书出版公司,1999：42-43.
1 黄福涛主编.外国教育史[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2008：252.
1 黄福涛主编.外国教育史[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2008：332-333.
1 转引自马陆亭,范文曜主编.大学章程要素的国际比较[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2010：158.
2 张国有主编.大学章程(第二卷)[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2011： 217.
1 张国有主编.大学章程(第二卷)[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2011：10.
1 张国有主编.大学章程(第二卷)[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2011：10.
1 李其龙等主编.战后德国教育研究[M].南昌：江西教育出版社,1995：184.
1 李其龙等主编.战后德国教育研究[M].南昌：江西教育出版社,1995：182.
1 (日)田(火田)茂二郎等编.战后历史及基本法规.有信堂.1970(9)：18-188.转引自黄福涛.外国高等教育史[M].上海：上海教育出版社.2008：287.
2 黄福涛.余震未息：法人化与日本国立大学内部管理体制改革.上海教育[J].2004(06A)：54.
1 黄福涛.余震未息：法人化与日本国立大学内部管理体制改革.上海教育[J].2004(06A)：54.
1 黄福涛.外国高等教育史M.上海：上海教育出版社.2008：296.
2 举行讨论,通向协议[N].朝日新闻,2000-06-06.转引自田爱丽.日本国立大学法人化改革的哲学探析.复旦教育论坛[J].2008(6)：81.
3 举行讨论,通向协议[N].朝日新闻,2000-06-06.转引自田爱丽.日本国立大学法人化改革的哲学探析.复旦教育论坛[J].2008(6)：81.
1 The Study Team Concerning the Transformation of International Universities into Independent Administrative Corporations(2002).The Final Report On "A New Image of National corporation"(EB/OL)转引自田爱丽等.日本国立大学法人化改革效果分析——以名古屋大学为例.教育发展研究[J].2006(8A)：31.
2 黄福涛.外国高等教育史[M].上海：上海教育出版社.2008：283.
1 关于国立大学法人京都大学组织的规程.张国有主编.大学章程(第二卷)[M].北京：北京大学出版社.2012：319.
1 黄福涛.余震未息：法人化与日本国立大学内部管理体制改革.上海教育[J].2004(06A)：56.
1 天野郁夫.国立大学法人化—现状与课题[z]转引自田爱丽等.日本国立大学法人化改革效果分析—以名古屋大学为例.教育发展研究[J].2006(8A)：31.
1 引自：《中央人民政府政务院：关于改革学制的决定》http://www.exam8.com/ziqe/sifa/faqui/200912/39318
1 吴文侃,杨汉清.比较教育学[M].北京：人民教育出版社,1989：27.
1 中华人民共和国高等教育法[EB/OL]. http://www.moe.edu.cn/edoas/website18.26/info1426.htm.
1 摘自“契约神圣原则与大学自治传统——达特茅斯学院诉伍德沃德案(1819)”.”任东来《美国宪政历程：影响美国的25个司法大案》.中国法制出版社.第2版(2005年6月1日).对语言风格稍作修改.
Adrian Leftwich. Governance, democracy and development in the Third World[J]. Third World Quarterly,1993(14).
Berk, Huburt P. Men Who Control Our Universities:the Economic and Social Composition of Governing Boards of Thirty Leading American Universities[M]. Morningside Heights:King's Crown Press,1947.
Birnbaum, Robert. How Academic Leadership Works:Understanding Success and Failure in the College Presidency[M]. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Publishers,1992.
Birnbaum, Robert. How Colleges Work:The Cybernetics of Academic Organization and Leadership[M]. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Publishers,1988.
Birnbaum, Robert. The Latent Organizational Functions of the Academic Senate:Why Senates Do Not Work But Will Not Go Away[J]. The Jorunal of Higher Education,1989(4).
Birnbaum, Robert. The end of Shared Governance:Looking Ahead of Looking Back[J]. New Directions FOR Higher Education,2004(9).
Brubacher, John S. On the Philosophy of Higher Education[M]. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Publishers,1982.
Cohen Arthur M. The Shaping of American Higher Education:Emergence and Growth of theContemporary System[M]. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Publishers,1998.
Cyrilo. Houle. Governing Boards[M]. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass,1989.
Flawn, Peter T. A Primer for University Presidents:Managing the Modern University[M]. Austin:University of Texas Press,1990.
Frederick Balderston. Managing Today's University:Strategies for Viability, Change, and Excellence[M].San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Publishers,1995.
Gayle, Dennis JohnTewarie, Bhecndradatt. Governance in the Twenty-First-Century University:Approaches to Effective Leadership and Strategic Management [M]. ERIC Digest, ED482560.
Ingram, Richard T. Governing Independent Colleges and Universities:A Handbook for Trustees, Chief Executives, and Other Campus Leaders[M]. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Publishers,1993.
Itbach. Philip. G. Harsh Realities:The Professoriate Faces a New Century.[M].New York: The Johns Hopkins University Press,1999.
Jan De Groof, Guy Neave. Democracy and Governace in Higher Education[m]. Boston: Kluwer Law International,1998.
John S. Brubacher & Willis Rudy. Higher Education in Transition, An American History: 1636-1956[M].New York:Harper & Brothers Publishers,1998.
Jonathan R. Cole, Elinor Barber and Stephen R. Graubard(eds.). The Research University in a Time of Discontent. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore,1993.
Jurgen Herbst. From Crisis to Crisis:American College Government,1636-1819[M].Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1982.
Kerr, Clack. The Uses of the University [M]. Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1982.
Kerr, Clark & Gade, Marian L. The Guardians:Boards of Trustees of American Colleges and Universities[M]. Washington, D. C.:Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges,1989.
Kerry J. Kennedy. Higher Education Governance as a Key Policy Issue in the 21st Century[J]. Educational Research for Policy and Practice,2003:55-70.
Kenneth Wilson. The Pattern, Range and Purpose of Higher Education:A Moral Perspective. Higher Education into the 1990s:New Dimensions[M]. The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press,1989.
Lene Buchert and Kenneth King(ed.). Learning from Experience:Policy and Practice in Aid to Higher Education. CESO(center for the study of Education in Developing Countries), 2001,206.
Mortimer, Kenneth P. The Dilemmas in New Campus Governance Structures[J]. The Journal of Higher Education,42 (6).
Nason, John W. The Nature of Trusteeship:The Role and Responsibilities of College and University Board[M]. Washington, D. C.:Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.
Robert Birnbaum. Leadership and Followership:The Cybernetics of University Governance[M].New York:American Council on Education and Macmillan Publishing Company, 1989.
Susan Whealler Johnstan. Faculty governance and effective academic administrative leadership[J]. New Direction for Higher Education,2003.
Vesna kovac, Jasminkc Iedic, Brando Rafatac. Academic Staff Participation in University Governance:Internal Responses to External Quality Demands[J]. Tertiary Education and Management,2003:215-232.
William K Cummings. The Service University:in Comparative Perspective, Remarks Presented at Beijing Normal University, March 2001.
包国庆.教授治校的理由[J].现代大学教育,2002(4).
[美]伯顿·克拉克.高等教育系统——学术组织的跨国研究[M].王承绪等译.杭州：杭州大学出版社,1994.
[美]伯恩鲍姆.大学运行模式[M].山东：中国海洋大学出版社,2003.
陈颖.论传统大学精神与我国现代大学制度的构建[J].江苏高教,2006(1)：24-26.
楚红丽.公立高校与政府、个人委托代理关系及其问题分析[J].高等教育研究,2004(1)：43-46.
陈磊.高等学校学术权力的反思与建构[J].高等教育研究,2002(4)：65-68.
董云川.论大学行政权力的泛化[J].高等教育研究,2002(2)：61.
[美]亨利·罗索夫斯基.美国校园文化：学生·教授·管理[M].济南：山东人民出版社,1996.
[美]迈克尔·科恩,詹姆斯·马奇.大学校长及其领导艺术：美国大学校长研究[M].青岛：中国海洋大学出版社,2006.
郭为禄,林炊利.大学运行模式再造——大学内部决策系统改革的路径选择[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2012.
郭为藩.转变中的大学：传统、议题与前景[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2004.
甘永涛.英国大学治理结构的演变[J].高等教育研究,2007(9)：88-92.
龚怡祖.大学治理结构：建立大学变化中的力量平衡[J].高等教育研究,2010(12).49-60.
胡赤弟.高等教育中的利益相关者分析[J].教育研究,2005(3)：38-46.
黎琳.中国现代大学制度中的权力制衡问题[J].现代大学教育,2001(1).
李维安.利益相关者治理理论研究脉络及其进展探析[J].外国经济与管理,2007(4).
李海莉,马凤岐.大学自治的演变及其有限性[J].理工高教研究,2010(4)：25-28.
林晓.英国大学内部治理的变革与启示[J].高等农业教育,2006(12)：72-75.
蒋惠玲.论学术自由与大学自治[J].教育理论与实践,2009(3)：9-11.
[美]克拉克·科尔.大学之用[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2008.
亮思.意识形态“多元论”与坚持马克思主义[J].思想理论教育导刊,2002(2)：47-50.
刘建虹.大学教授：文化评价及其意义[J].高等师范教育研究,1998(5).
[美]罗纳德.G.埃伦伯格.美国的大学治理[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2010.
龙献忠.从统治到治理——治理理论视野中的政府与大学关系研究[D].华中科技大学,2005.
马陆亭,范文曜.我国现代大学制度的建设框架[J].国家教育行政学院学报,2009(5)：35-41.
马陆亭.政府与高校间的契约型管理模式探讨[J].中国高等教育,2008(21)：19-21.
孟丽菊.从中西大学功能演变看知识经济时代大学的使命[J].辽宁师范大学学报,2001(1)：44-47.
欧阳光华.董事、校长与教授：美国大学治理结构研究[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2011.
庞东辉.市场经济下中国高教管理体制变革的趋势[J].清华大学教育研究,1999.
潘晓凤.关于中西方大学精神的思考[J].西安邮电学院学报,2009(5)-180-183.
孙绵涛,康翠萍.学术自由大学本质观的新探索[J].武汉生物工程学院学报,2011(3)：1-11.
孙华.特许状：大学常态自由的张力和社会控制的平衡[J].教育学术月刊,2010(3)：3-7.
孙贵聪.英国大学特许状及其治理意义[J].比较教育研究,2006(1)：12-16.
唐安国,阎光才.关于高校与政府间中介机构的理论思考[J].上海高教研究,1998.
唐卫民.试论大学自治与政府控制[J].沈阳师范学院学报(社会科学版),1997.
王冠群.面向政治自由的现实之境一自由理念从理想到实践[D].吉林大学,2001.
王丽萍.治理下的高教管理体制改革研究[D].中南大学,2004.
王绽蕊.美国高校董事会制度：结构、功能与效率研究[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2010.
徐丹.克拉克·科尔高等教育思想研究[M].湖南：湖南大学出版社,2007.
徐丹.内在的崩溃：克尔“多元世型大学观”述评[J].清华大学教育研究,2007(12)：21-31.
阎凤桥.大学组织与治理[M].北京：同心出版社,2006.
阎亚林.论我国高校学术权力行政化[J].陕西师范大学学报,2003(1)：90-100.
严文清.中国大学治理结构研究[M].北京：人民出版社,2011.
尹晓敏.利益相关者参与逻辑下的大学治理研究[M].浙江：浙江大学出版社,2010.
[加]约翰·范德格拉夫.学术权力——七国高等教育管理体制比较[M].浙江：浙江教育出版社,2001.
周详.“达特茅斯学院案”及其对美国高等教育的影响[J].教育学术月刊,2009(6)：76-78.
张蓓.英国大学内部治理结构及其启示[J].当代教育科学,2010(1)：46-48.
朱新梅.知识与权力：高等教育政治学新论[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2007.
朱玉苗.《哈佛大学特许状(1650)》法理解析[J].法治研究,2011(11)：68-74.
朱镜人.英国大学校务委员会宏观管理角色探究[J].合肥工业大学学报,2008(2)：76-80.
1 Stuart Hamilton. Review of University Governance.2002(3):13. http://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/highered/
[2] 有趣的是,很多人忽视了这样一个基本的事实：中国大学快速发展的20世纪第二个十年,并不是真正的中华民国时期,而是北洋军阀时期。在军阀混战的阶段,中国大学却在快速的发展,一方面说明当时的政治环境客观上给予了大学发展的自由,另一方面也说明了混战中的军阀政府没有忘记对大学的支持。军阀也支持大学,这似乎是不可理解的。不过如果读一下段祺瑞、吴佩孚的传记,就知道很多被我们教科书忽视的东西。此外,中国大学的快速发展,从一个侧面也说明了,只要有了自由的气氛,中国人就能够为人类社会做出多大的贡献!实际上,从清帝退位到国共内战结束,中华大地几乎一直处在战乱之下。但无论在日本的轰炸和战火之下还是在内战的混乱中,中国的大学依然在继续(比如西南联大的出现),学者们在这个时期依然做出了大量优秀的研究成果。
1 Gayle, Dennis John. Tewarie, Bhecndradatt. Governance in the Twenty-First-Century University: Approaches to Effective Leadership and Strategic Management[M]. ERIC Digest, ED482560.2003:3.
2 Gayle, Dennis John. Tewarie, Bhecndradatt. Governance in the Twenty-First-Century University: Approaches to Effective Leadership and Strategic Management[M]. ERIC Digest, ED482560.2003:3.
1 Gayle, Dennis John. Tewarie, Bhecndradatt. Governance in the Twenty-First-Century University: Approaches to Effective Leadership and Strategic Management[M]. ERIC Digest, ED482560.2003:1.
1 Gayle, Dennis JohnTewarie, Bhecndradatt. Governance in the Twenty-First-Century University: Approaches to Effective Leadership and Strategic Management[M]. ERIC Digest, ED482560.2003:22.
2 Gayle, Dennis JohnTewarie, Bhecndradatt. Governance in the Twenty-First-Century University: Approaches to Effective Leadership and Strategic Management[M]. ERIC Digest, ED482560.2003:23.
1 Stuart Hamilton. Review of University Governance.2002(3):13. http://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/highered/
1 中华民国《大学法令》,1912年10月颁布。
1 《毛泽东邓小平江泽民论教育》第3卷[M].北京：中央文献出版社,2002：276.
1 《马克思恩格斯选集》第一卷[M].北京：人民出版社,1972：43.
2 参见《马克思恩格斯选集》第二卷[M].北京：人民出版社,1972：120.
1 威廉·詹姆士.多元的宇宙[M].北京：商务印书馆,2002：63.
2 王新生.当代西方多元论哲学的深层透视——兼评当代西方多元论哲学对我国的影响.《社会科学论坛》,1995,第4期。
3 克拉克·科尔.大学的功用[M].南昌：江西教育出版社,1993：96-97.
1 http://www.gmxd.org.cn/info.asp?newsid=1259
1 关春华.个体感性力量和“类”力量相互否定过程之描述——感性辩证法的真实内涵探究.《宁夏社会科学》.2011,第9期.
2 关春华.个体感性力量和“类”力量相互否定过程之描述——感性辩证法的真实内涵探究.《宁夏社会科学》.2011,第9期.
1 关春华.个体感性力量和“类”力量相互否定过程之描述——感性辩证法的真实内涵探究.《宁夏社会科学》.2011.第9期.
[2] 稍微回顾一下历史,就会发现分工对人类是多么的重要。与男耕女织(封建时代)这种浪漫场景相伴随的,是物质生活的极端匮乏。对那个时代的大部分人来说,食物是“粗茶淡饭”,且仅仅可以糊口,衣服是粗布蓝衫,且仅仅可以遮体。为什么,因为这个时代的分工非常简单,主要是男女的分工。为什么今天的人类可以享受到美食、汽车、网络、手机和现代化的公众工具,是因为今天人类社会的分工细化了。分工的细化意味着普遍的专业化,而专业化才是提高效率的根本原因。在今天的人类社会,每个人从事的只是千百万个行业中的一个,但是却消费这个社会千百万个行业所提供的各种更样的商品和服务。有人说这一切应该归功于技术,但是,没有分工导致的科研和技术人员的专业化,哪里会有技术的大发展。
1 邓光平.如何识读现代大学组织特性：罗伯特·伯恩鲍姆的大学组织结构观[J].复旦大学教育论坛.2005,第2期.
1 贺国庆,王保星,朱文富等.外国高等教育史[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2003：232-261.
1 约翰·S·布鲁贝克.高等教育哲学[M].浙江：浙江教育出版社,1987：28.
2 转引自尹晓敏.寻求政府控制与大学自治的平衡——世纪之交政府与大学关系的合理定位.高教探索[J].2007,第四期.
1 龚始祖.现代大学治理结构：真实命题及中国语境[J].公共管理学报[J].2008,第四期.
[1] 从概念的准确性来讲,把这种模式称为教师治理比教授治理更好。
2 伯顿·克拉克.高等教育系统——学术组织的跨国研究[M].王承绪等译.杭州：杭州大学出版社,1994：12-13.
1 《中国人民共和国民法通则》(1986)第六十三条。
1 Kerr, Clark & Gade, Marian L. The Guardians:Boards of Trustees of American Colleges and Universities [M]. Washington, D. C.:Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges,1989:40-42.
2 转引自郭为藩.转变中的大学——传统、议题与前景[M].北京：北京大学出版社.2006：84.
3 转引自,郭为藩.转变中的大学——传统、议题与前景[M].北京：北京大学出版社.2006：64.
1 http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/01/24/harvards_endowment_surpasses_34_billion.
1 Nason, John W. The Nature of Trusteeship:The Role and Responsibilities of College and University Board [M]. Washington, D. C.:Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges:1982:14.
1 罗纳德·G.埃伦伯格主编.美国的大学治理[M].北京：北京大学出版社.2010：144.
1 Nason, John W. The Nature of Trusteeship:The Role and Responsibilities of College and University Board [M]. Washington, D. C.:Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges:1982:76.
2 Western Illinois University. Board of Trustees By Laws [EB/OL]. http://www.wiu.edu/personnel/bot/ bylaws. php#sec8. September 8,2006.
3 WMU/Board of Trustees/By Law/Article II [EB/OL]. http://www.wmich.edu/bot/bylaws-2.html Board of Trustees. http://kb.osu.edu//dspace/html/1811/32486/bll-02.htm.
1 张斌贤,张弛.美国大学与学院董事会成员的职业构成——10所著名大学的“案例”.比较教育研究[J].2002(12)：23-27.
2 王绽蕊著.美国高校董事会制度：结构、功能与效率研究[M].j北京：高等教育出版社.2010：49.
1 转引自舸昕.漫步美国大学：美国著名大学今昔纵横谈(续编)[M].哈尔滨：哈尔滨工业大学出版社.2000：294.
2 罗纳德·G.埃伦伯格主编.美国的大学治理[M].北京：北京大学出版社.2010：143.
1 明薪.美英中三国大学校长遴选制度的比较研究.《煤炭高等教育》.2007,第一期：30.
2 迈克尔·科恩,詹姆斯·马奇.大学校长及其领导艺术：美国大学校长研究[M].青岛：中国海洋大学出版社,2006：50.62.
3 Flawn, Peter T. A Primer for University Presidents:Managing the Modern University [M]. Austin: University of Texas Press,1990:32.
1 By-Laws of the Berkley Division of the Academic Senate [EB/OL]. http://academic-senate. Berkeley.edu/resources/documents/Bylaws_10-12-09.pdf.
1 Rules of the University Senate, the Senate Assembly and the Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs [EB/OL]. http://www.umich.edu/%7Esacua/SenAssb/rules-april1997.pdf.
2 Constitution & By-laws [EB/OL]. http://www.virginia.edu/facultysenate/c_blaws.html.
3 Mortimer, Kenneth P. The Dilemmas in New Campus Governance Structures [J]. The Journal of Higher Education,42 (6),1971:476.
4 Gilmour, Joseph E. Participative Governance Bodies in Higher Education:Report of a National Study [R]// Birnbaum, Robert. Faculty in Governance:The Role of Senates and Committees in Academic Decision Making [M]. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Publishers,1991.转引自张银富.校园民主与教授治校[M].台北：五南图书出版公司,1999：42-43.
1 黄福涛主编.外国教育史[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2008：252.
1 黄福涛主编.外国教育史[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2008：332-333.
1 转引自马陆亭,范文曜主编.大学章程要素的国际比较[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2010：158.
2 张国有主编.大学章程(第二卷)[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2011： 217.
1 张国有主编.大学章程(第二卷)[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2011：10.
1 张国有主编.大学章程(第二卷)[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2011：10.
1 李其龙等主编.战后德国教育研究[M].南昌：江西教育出版社,1995：184.
1 李其龙等主编.战后德国教育研究[M].南昌：江西教育出版社,1995：182.
1 (日)田(火田)茂二郎等编.战后历史及基本法规.有信堂.1970(9)：18-188.转引自黄福涛.外国高等教育史[M].上海：上海教育出版社.2008：287.
2 黄福涛.余震未息：法人化与日本国立大学内部管理体制改革.上海教育[J].2004(06A)：54.
1 黄福涛.余震未息：法人化与日本国立大学内部管理体制改革.上海教育[J].2004(06A)：54.
1 黄福涛.外国高等教育史M.上海：上海教育出版社.2008：296.
2 举行讨论,通向协议[N].朝日新闻,2000-06-06.转引自田爱丽.日本国立大学法人化改革的哲学探析.复旦教育论坛[J].2008(6)：81.
3 举行讨论,通向协议[N].朝日新闻,2000-06-06.转引自田爱丽.日本国立大学法人化改革的哲学探析.复旦教育论坛[J].2008(6)：81.
1 The Study Team Concerning the Transformation of International Universities into Independent Administrative Corporations(2002).The Final Report On "A New Image of National corporation"(EB/OL)转引自田爱丽等.日本国立大学法人化改革效果分析——以名古屋大学为例.教育发展研究[J].2006(8A)：31.
2 黄福涛.外国高等教育史[M].上海：上海教育出版社.2008：283.
1 关于国立大学法人京都大学组织的规程.张国有主编.大学章程(第二卷)[M].北京：北京大学出版社.2012：319.
1 黄福涛.余震未息：法人化与日本国立大学内部管理体制改革.上海教育[J].2004(06A)：56.
1 天野郁夫.国立大学法人化—现状与课题[z]转引自田爱丽等.日本国立大学法人化改革效果分析—以名古屋大学为例.教育发展研究[J].2006(8A)：31.
1 引自：《中央人民政府政务院：关于改革学制的决定》http://www.exam8.com/ziqe/sifa/faqui/200912/39318
1 吴文侃,杨汉清.比较教育学[M].北京：人民教育出版社,1989：27.
1 中华人民共和国高等教育法[EB/OL]. http://www.moe.edu.cn/edoas/website18.26/info1426.htm.
1 摘自“契约神圣原则与大学自治传统——达特茅斯学院诉伍德沃德案(1819)”.”任东来《美国宪政历程：影响美国的25个司法大案》.中国法制出版社.第2版(2005年6月1日).对语言风格稍作修改.
Adrian Leftwich. Governance, democracy and development in the Third World[J]. Third World Quarterly,1993(14).
Berk, Huburt P. Men Who Control Our Universities:the Economic and Social Composition of Governing Boards of Thirty Leading American Universities[M]. Morningside Heights:King's Crown Press,1947.
Birnbaum, Robert. How Academic Leadership Works:Understanding Success and Failure in the College Presidency[M]. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Publishers,1992.
Birnbaum, Robert. How Colleges Work:The Cybernetics of Academic Organization and Leadership[M]. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Publishers,1988.
Birnbaum, Robert. The Latent Organizational Functions of the Academic Senate:Why Senates Do Not Work But Will Not Go Away[J]. The Jorunal of Higher Education,1989(4).
Birnbaum, Robert. The end of Shared Governance:Looking Ahead of Looking Back[J]. New Directions FOR Higher Education,2004(9).
Brubacher, John S. On the Philosophy of Higher Education[M]. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Publishers,1982.
Cohen Arthur M. The Shaping of American Higher Education:Emergence and Growth of theContemporary System[M]. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Publishers,1998.
Cyrilo. Houle. Governing Boards[M]. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass,1989.
Flawn, Peter T. A Primer for University Presidents:Managing the Modern University[M]. Austin:University of Texas Press,1990.
Frederick Balderston. Managing Today's University:Strategies for Viability, Change, and Excellence[M].San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Publishers,1995.
Gayle, Dennis JohnTewarie, Bhecndradatt. Governance in the Twenty-First-Century University:Approaches to Effective Leadership and Strategic Management [M]. ERIC Digest, ED482560.
Ingram, Richard T. Governing Independent Colleges and Universities:A Handbook for Trustees, Chief Executives, and Other Campus Leaders[M]. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Publishers,1993.
Itbach. Philip. G. Harsh Realities:The Professoriate Faces a New Century.[M].New York: The Johns Hopkins University Press,1999.
Jan De Groof, Guy Neave. Democracy and Governace in Higher Education[m]. Boston: Kluwer Law International,1998.
John S. Brubacher & Willis Rudy. Higher Education in Transition, An American History: 1636-1956[M].New York:Harper & Brothers Publishers,1998.
Jonathan R. Cole, Elinor Barber and Stephen R. Graubard(eds.). The Research University in a Time of Discontent. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore,1993.
Jurgen Herbst. From Crisis to Crisis:American College Government,1636-1819[M].Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1982.
Kerr, Clack. The Uses of the University [M]. Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1982.
Kerr, Clark & Gade, Marian L. The Guardians:Boards of Trustees of American Colleges and Universities[M]. Washington, D. C.:Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges,1989.
Kerry J. Kennedy. Higher Education Governance as a Key Policy Issue in the 21st Century[J]. Educational Research for Policy and Practice,2003:55-70.
Kenneth Wilson. The Pattern, Range and Purpose of Higher Education:A Moral Perspective. Higher Education into the 1990s:New Dimensions[M]. The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press,1989.
Lene Buchert and Kenneth King(ed.). Learning from Experience:Policy and Practice in Aid to Higher Education. CESO(center for the study of Education in Developing Countries), 2001,206.
Mortimer, Kenneth P. The Dilemmas in New Campus Governance Structures[J]. The Journal of Higher Education,42 (6).
Nason, John W. The Nature of Trusteeship:The Role and Responsibilities of College and University Board[M]. Washington, D. C.:Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.
Robert Birnbaum. Leadership and Followership:The Cybernetics of University Governance[M].New York:American Council on Education and Macmillan Publishing Company, 1989.
Susan Whealler Johnstan. Faculty governance and effective academic administrative leadership[J]. New Direction for Higher Education,2003.
Vesna kovac, Jasminkc Iedic, Brando Rafatac. Academic Staff Participation in University Governance:Internal Responses to External Quality Demands[J]. Tertiary Education and Management,2003:215-232.
William K Cummings. The Service University:in Comparative Perspective, Remarks Presented at Beijing Normal University, March 2001.
包国庆.教授治校的理由[J].现代大学教育,2002(4).
[美]伯顿·克拉克.高等教育系统——学术组织的跨国研究[M].王承绪等译.杭州：杭州大学出版社,1994.
[美]伯恩鲍姆.大学运行模式[M].山东：中国海洋大学出版社,2003.
陈颖.论传统大学精神与我国现代大学制度的构建[J].江苏高教,2006(1)：24-26.
楚红丽.公立高校与政府、个人委托代理关系及其问题分析[J].高等教育研究,2004(1)：43-46.
陈磊.高等学校学术权力的反思与建构[J].高等教育研究,2002(4)：65-68.
董云川.论大学行政权力的泛化[J].高等教育研究,2002(2)：61.
[美]亨利·罗索夫斯基.美国校园文化：学生·教授·管理[M].济南：山东人民出版社,1996.
[美]迈克尔·科恩,詹姆斯·马奇.大学校长及其领导艺术：美国大学校长研究[M].青岛：中国海洋大学出版社,2006.
郭为禄,林炊利.大学运行模式再造——大学内部决策系统改革的路径选择[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2012.
郭为藩.转变中的大学：传统、议题与前景[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2004.
甘永涛.英国大学治理结构的演变[J].高等教育研究,2007(9)：88-92.
龚怡祖.大学治理结构：建立大学变化中的力量平衡[J].高等教育研究,2010(12).49-60.
胡赤弟.高等教育中的利益相关者分析[J].教育研究,2005(3)：38-46.
黎琳.中国现代大学制度中的权力制衡问题[J].现代大学教育,2001(1).
李维安.利益相关者治理理论研究脉络及其进展探析[J].外国经济与管理,2007(4).
李海莉,马凤岐.大学自治的演变及其有限性[J].理工高教研究,2010(4)：25-28.
林晓.英国大学内部治理的变革与启示[J].高等农业教育,2006(12)：72-75.
蒋惠玲.论学术自由与大学自治[J].教育理论与实践,2009(3)：9-11.
[美]克拉克·科尔.大学之用[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2008.
亮思.意识形态“多元论”与坚持马克思主义[J].思想理论教育导刊,2002(2)：47-50.
刘建虹.大学教授：文化评价及其意义[J].高等师范教育研究,1998(5).
[美]罗纳德.G.埃伦伯格.美国的大学治理[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2010.
龙献忠.从统治到治理——治理理论视野中的政府与大学关系研究[D].华中科技大学,2005.
马陆亭,范文曜.我国现代大学制度的建设框架[J].国家教育行政学院学报,2009(5)：35-41.
马陆亭.政府与高校间的契约型管理模式探讨[J].中国高等教育,2008(21)：19-21.
孟丽菊.从中西大学功能演变看知识经济时代大学的使命[J].辽宁师范大学学报,2001(1)：44-47.
欧阳光华.董事、校长与教授：美国大学治理结构研究[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2011.
庞东辉.市场经济下中国高教管理体制变革的趋势[J].清华大学教育研究,1999.
潘晓凤.关于中西方大学精神的思考[J].西安邮电学院学报,2009(5)-180-183.
孙绵涛,康翠萍.学术自由大学本质观的新探索[J].武汉生物工程学院学报,2011(3)：1-11.
孙华.特许状：大学常态自由的张力和社会控制的平衡[J].教育学术月刊,2010(3)：3-7.
孙贵聪.英国大学特许状及其治理意义[J].比较教育研究,2006(1)：12-16.
唐安国,阎光才.关于高校与政府间中介机构的理论思考[J].上海高教研究,1998.
唐卫民.试论大学自治与政府控制[J].沈阳师范学院学报(社会科学版),1997.
王冠群.面向政治自由的现实之境一自由理念从理想到实践[D].吉林大学,2001.
王丽萍.治理下的高教管理体制改革研究[D].中南大学,2004.
王绽蕊.美国高校董事会制度：结构、功能与效率研究[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2010.
徐丹.克拉克·科尔高等教育思想研究[M].湖南：湖南大学出版社,2007.
徐丹.内在的崩溃：克尔“多元世型大学观”述评[J].清华大学教育研究,2007(12)：21-31.
阎凤桥.大学组织与治理[M].北京：同心出版社,2006.
阎亚林.论我国高校学术权力行政化[J].陕西师范大学学报,2003(1)：90-100.
严文清.中国大学治理结构研究[M].北京：人民出版社,2011.
尹晓敏.利益相关者参与逻辑下的大学治理研究[M].浙江：浙江大学出版社,2010.
[加]约翰·范德格拉夫.学术权力——七国高等教育管理体制比较[M].浙江：浙江教育出版社,2001.
周详.“达特茅斯学院案”及其对美国高等教育的影响[J].教育学术月刊,2009(6)：76-78.
张蓓.英国大学内部治理结构及其启示[J].当代教育科学,2010(1)：46-48.
朱新梅.知识与权力：高等教育政治学新论[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2007.
朱玉苗.《哈佛大学特许状(1650)》法理解析[J].法治研究,2011(11)：68-74.
朱镜人.英国大学校务委员会宏观管理角色探究[J].合肥工业大学学报,2008(2)：76-80.