观念、话语、制度:一个教育政策分析的三维框架

长期以来,教育政策分析研究往往重视正式制度忽视非正式制度,这是教育政策分析研究的重要缺失。作为新制度主义的一个理论流派,话语制度主义重新界定了制度、个体,及其相互关系,为教育政策分析研究提供了新的制度视野,解释功能和方法论意蕴。此外,话语制度主义的制度逻辑也为教育政策分析提供了一个包括:观念、话语和制度的三维分析框架,有助于我国专业化教育政策分析研究的实践。     

政治制度的本原和变迁与设计——读《重新发现制度：政治的组织基础》

新制度主义政治学兴起于20世纪70年代,是当代西方政治学研究的一种新兴范式。作为新制度主义政治学的主要代表人物,詹姆斯·马奇(James G.March)和约翰·奥尔森(Johan P.Olsen)的《重新发现制度:政治的组织基础》在具体分析了当时政治研究范式(主要是理性选择理论和行为主义)不足的基础上,以制度为核心,从制度与文化、制度与行为、制度与偏好等方面分析了政治行为、政治制度等的发生和发展逻辑,初步勾勒出社会学新制度主义的研究取向,构成社会学制度主义研究乃至整个新制度主义的经典。其中,关于政治制度的本原、变迁与设计的探讨是该书…     

新制度经济学与政治学新制度主义的三个流派

新制度经济学批判新古典理论过于抽象,但自身也未能很好地解决制度研究的现实性、历史性和社会性问题.在新制度经济学陷入困境的同时,政治学领域兴起了以理性选择制度主义、历史制度主义和社会学制度主义为代表的新制度主义浪潮.本文从制度观,制度对行为的影响,制度变迁理论、历史、社会背景和文化在制度研究中的地位等方面,对政治学新制度主义三个流派进行了述评,分析了政治学新制度主义的蓬勃发展可能为新制度经济学走出困境带来的启示及其对我国新制度经济学发展的意义.     

新制度主义"新"在哪里

政治学中的新制度主义到底“新”在哪里?这是任何一个从事新制度主义研究的学者所不能回避的基本命题,也是任何一个想要了解新制度主义的人所最想认知的问题。本文简要回顾了政治学中新制度主义的兴起,在重点阐释了何谓新制度主义的“制度”与“制度主义”的基础上,着重回答了新制度主义到底“新”在哪里这样一个理论命题。     

新制度主义政治学的交流基础与对话空间

新制度主义的复数性质产生出了新制度主义各变体之间的交流和对话问题。在规范层面上,新制度主义者们对其内部的三种分析途径的交流和对话潜力是否存在有着不同的理解。在实证层面上,新制度主义的三种分析途径之间的交叠现象已经广泛地存在。这种现象模糊了原有的分类标准,要求新制度主义必须重新思考新的交流基础和对话空间。要实现这一新的目标,新制度主义必须设置一项新的研究议程,将被他们所忽视的比较制度学派纳入自己的对话空间之中,以构建出更具解释力和适应性的新制度主义。     

新制度主义理论与中国的政治经济学

本文概括了西方新制度经济学的主要流派以及新制度主义政治学的思想要点,指出了其理论特点;分析了包括政治学和经济学的新制度主义的方法论特点,比如制度决定论、整体主义和多学科综合。通过对新制度主义在中国的传播和发展的回顾,指出其对中国政治学和经济学的影响,比如研究方法和研究对象的更新与拓展、现实中的制度创新热潮以及思维上的路径依赖概念的流行。文章最后提出了新制度主义用于中国的政治经济分析时的局限性。     

制度主义的旧与新——新制度主义政治学的“回归”与变革

制度研究是政治学的基础。新制度主义作为当代西方社会科学的全新理论,绝不是旧制度主义的简单“回归”。本文回顾了政治学中的旧制度主义,在论述新制度主义产生的基础上,着重探讨了其对旧制度主义的变革。     

新制度主义视野中的制度与行为关系——一种比较的视点

对制度与行为关系的分析,是新制度主义政治学的主要内容之一。对这一问题的不同看法,构成了区分新制度主义内部主要理论流派的主要标准。新制度主义三个主要理论流派,即历史制度主义、理性选择制度主义和社会学制度主义,都从自己独特的理论视角对制度与行为关系展开了分析,并在理论内容和分析途径上有各自的特点。不同理论流派之间存在差异的同时,也为它们进行相互学习和理论整合提供了某种可能。而新制度主义各流派之间的理论交流,在某种程度上预示着这一过程的初步展开。     

新制度主义的出场和表达

20世纪90年代以来,制度重新成为社会科学研究焦点。河连夑的著作《制度分析：理论与争议》在承接前人智识的基础上,介绍新制度主义三个流派的核心观点、面临的批判和最新走向,探讨能够有效解释公共行政与政策的理论框架。全书系统、全面地呈现了新制度主义的缘起、进程、争议和未来走向,为读者把握新制度主义提供了全套视野。从新制度主义的缺陷出发,未来新制度主义的发展既要推进理论同现实研究相结合,更要在实践基础上校验制度理论,并进一步构建新发展理论。     

制度主义的演进与复兴--政治学中的制度理论述评

制度一直是政治学中的主要研究对象.传统制度主义以制度为中心来考察历史.新制度主义是在批判行为主义的基础上发展起来的,它们反对把个体行为作为政治学研究的中心,重视制度在政治生活中的作用.新制度主义又可分为理性选择制度主义和社会学制度主义.     

中美法律职业教育的比较及启示

该研究跳出国内类似选题仅从教学层面比较中外法律职业教育的研究思路,将中美法律职业教育比较纳入制度分析的框架,分别从教育的目标、体制、内容、方法和评估五个方面展开.中国法律职业教育成效不足的根本原因在于职业教育的核心制度要素的欠缺.强化中国法律职业教育的制度要素,应注重职业教育学位培养目标与效果的统一,职业教育与从业的挂钩,以及职业教育行政评估与职业协会评估的结合.     

中国比较教育研究发展:质性研究路径选择

本文提出中国比较教育研究发展的质性研究路径选择议题,着重讨论了其合理性、必要性、制度保障等内容.文章重点讨论了中国比较教育研究中比较的不充分性问题,具体表现为:比较单位的整体性和局部性之间的矛盾,对象国之间教育优势和劣势的比较认知差距,比较单位的历史性和当代性之间非一致性,比较单位的文明性和现实性之间的落差,比较单位实践论和认识论之间的不可通约性,比较单位的本体论和价值论之间的不可调和性,比较单位之间的时间错位性,比较教育学者的研究身份在本土性和他国性的研究对象选择上的分隔性,比较教育理论建构的中国力量不足.进而论证中国比较教育研究发展的质性研究路径选择的必要性,并提出中国比较教育研究发展的质性研究路径选择的制度保障的建议.     

Opportunities and problems of comparative higher education research: the daily life of research

Higher education had a predominant national and institutional focus for a long time. In Europe, supra-national political activities played a major role for increasing the interest in comparative research. Comparative perspectives are important in order to deconstruct the often national perspective of causal reasoning, for proving benchmarks, for theory-testing, for opening up the horizon for potential reforms, and for the analysis of the growing internationality of higher education. However, many practical factors make comparative research on higher education vulnerable: decentralized funding, coincidental compositions of participating countries, difficulties of reaching a conceptual and methodological consensus in multicountry research teams. Often, comparative research projects take quite a long time, before the major findings are published eventually. Moreover, often data are presented across countries without sufficient explanations of the respective context. Comparative research on higher education, thus, often does not fulfil the initial hopes, but obviously is such an important approach that efforts are indispensible to cope with the challenging conditions.     

A Comparative Exploration of Learning Pathways and Transition Systems in Denmark and Australia

In the area of education and training, different configurations of government with different institutional structures may produce similar or quite different educational and employment outcomes. Other factors come into play in assessing outcomes. For example, young people's transitions from education to work are shaped by a variety of structural and institutional relations in education and the labour market. We argue that analysis of developments in approaches to education and training benefits from including these perspectives. This article explores these differences and similarities in a comparative transnational context across two continents. The article suggests that it not useful, whether from a policy or scholarly perspective, to link education and employment without examining the role and type of the welfare state, including the role and type of capitalism within that state, and the relationship of the welfare state to transition systems. With these concerns as our focus, the article has two objectives. The first is to establish some links between comparative research on transition systems and the literatures on welfare state regimes and varieties of capitalism. The second is to draw out some of these links with two concrete and contrasting examples in a comparative manner, focussing on Denmark and Australia.     

美国高等教育制度变迁及改革路径选择——一种历史的比较制度分析

从历史的比较制度分析视角看,美国的高等教育制度变迁经历了移植经验、内化和自主生长的过程。其制度变迁及路径选择具有三个特征:制度变迁方式的渐进性;"继承—变革"与"内生—创新"两种变迁模式相结合;高等教育制度在制度变迁中具有相对独立性。美国高等教育制度变迁及路径选择,对我国高等教育制度改革创新可以提供有意义的经验借鉴。     

Applying the Varieties of Capitalism Approach to Higher Education: comparing the internationalisation of German and British universities

In recent years, the global market for higher education has expanded rapidly, while internationalisation strategies have been developed at university, national and European levels to increase the competitiveness of higher education institutions. This article asks how institutional settings prevailing in national models of capitalism motivate distinct national approaches with regard to the internationalisation, globalisation, and Europeanisation of higher education systems. While the university is defined as an organisational actor embedded in the higher education system, the higher education system itself represents an institutional subsystem within the national model of capitalism. An analytical framework is then developed on the basis of the Varieties of Capitalism approach to compare the internationalisation of German and British universities. Findings indicate that the relations between the various actors involved in the internationalisation of universities are based largely on market coordination in the British case. In contrast, this process in Germany relies more on strategic interactions between the various organisational actors in higher education. The development paths in the internationalisation of universities are found to be influenced by and reflect the specific mode of coordination in the respective higher education system and the national model of capitalism more generally. This comparative case study shows that recent conceptions of path dependence as well as conceptual tools developed in the Varieties of Capitalism literature, such as institutional complementarity and comparative institutional advantage, may be fruitfully applied to research on institutional change in higher education systems.     

The teaching:research nexus : a model for institutional management

Teaching and research lie at the heart of higher education. The interaction between teaching and research has therefore attracted the attention of both researchers and policymakers. Much has been written about this relationship, looking in particular at the perceived mutual benefits between teaching and research. This paper presents some findings from a research project which, using a comparative approach, aimed to examine the nature of the teaching:research nexus and, in particular, to consider the response of institutional management. Based on the observations collected through the project, a new model is proposed for institutional management of the teaching:research nexus. This model is based on a range of contextual factors, classified as ideological or environmental, and two contrasting approaches to institutional management of the relationship between teaching and research, active and passive. This model offers a new approach to understanding the operation of the teaching:research nexus within institutions of higher education.     

World culture in the capitalist world-system in transition

World culture theory (WCT) offers an explanatory framework for macro-level comparative analyses of systems of mass education, including their structures, accompanying policies and their curricular and pedagogical practices. WCT has contributed to broader efforts to overcome methodological nationalism in comparative research. In this paper, we acknowledge the contributions of world culture theory in these terms, but develop the case for an alternative explanatory framework – world-systems analysis (WSA) – rooted in the historical development and contemporary crises of the capitalist world-economy. This case is built on two major points of critique of world culture theory: first, that its consensus orientation is inadequate for a macro-level accounting of social reality; and second, that its analysis of the economic functions of mass education, in isolation from the capitalist world-economy, further weakens its explanatory power. Working from this critique, we elaborate the capacity of world-systems analysis to overcome these shortcomings by providing a more comprehensive, historical perspective. This alternative approach incorporates the identification and analysis of shared cultural understandings underpinning policy and institutional practice, linked to the development of the capitalist world-economy. We conclude this paper by affirming the value of WSA as an alternative approach for comparative research, and its potential contribution to the development of more enlightened educational policy and a more just and democratic world-system.     

Institutional logics of Chinese doctoral education system

As Chinese doctoral education has grown dramatically in the past four decades and developed into one of the largest doctoral education systems in the world, it has become one significant and integral part of the global doctoral education landscape. However, in the literature, there is a lack of both a comprehensive understanding of the Chinese doctoral education system and of generic frameworks for understanding doctoral education in a global context, with an emphasis on the underlying value systems. This may not only hamper the research on doctoral education in China but also affect international comparison and collaboration with Chinese doctoral education. Using the theory of institutional logics, this study tries to bridge the gap by identifying the complex value systems underlying the context of the Chinese doctoral education system, through a qualitative study mainly based on interview data and complemented by documentary data. The interview involves 135 participants, including 45 university academic leaders, 33 doctoral supervisors and 56 doctoral students from 17 research universities, as well as one government policy-maker. We found that the context of Chinese doctoral education system consists of multiple logics of state, profession, family, market and corporation. The special constellation of institutional logics has shaped the current Chinese doctoral education system as a state-led model but meanwhile incorporating family characteristics, market orientation and regulated academic autonomy. The study also showed that Chinese doctoral education has been developing in line with international academic norms and global marketization trends, and has also been shaped by China’s socio-cultural tradition and the strong state regulation. In addition to the institutional logics analysis of the Chinese doctoral education system, this study paves the way for developing a novel framework for analysing doctoral education systems in other contexts and for comparative purposes.     

Is There a Need for a European Institutional Research?

Recent changes in European higher education have accompanied a strong desire and need by national ministries to have comparable data across institutions and a growing recognition from campus leaders that effective planning and decision-making requires reliable institutional data and analyses. This has induced changes and restructuring of duties and roles of administration, administrative staff and academic staff. In North America, internal institutional data analysis is often referred to as institutional research. We examine the roles and functions of institutional research within North America and how the changes within European higher education have created a purpose for institutional research. Specifically, we explore the topical areas of institutional assessment, data management, institutional governance, as well asthe changing identity of academic professionals within European universities. Within our examination, we explore in-depth one European country’s higher education system to demonstrate how history, culture and legislative changes manifest into a need for institutional research.