华东师范大学学报(教育科学版) ›› 2025, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (7): 29-42.doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2025.07.003

• 专题:高校创新创业教育(特约主持:黄兆信) • 上一篇    下一篇

“掌控”与“不受掌控”之间:大学创新活动的治理限度与逻辑

罗志敏1, 吴英琪2   

  1. 1. 杭州师范大学创新创业教育研究院,杭州 311121
    2. 厦门大学教育研究院,福建厦门 361005
  • 出版日期:2025-07-01 发布日期:2025-06-28
  • 基金资助:
    教育部哲学社会科学研究重大课题攻关项目“科技自立自强背景下高校创新体系构建研究”(21JZD057)。

Limits and Logic of Governance in University Innovation Activities

Zhimin Luo1, Yingqi Wu2   

  1. 1. China Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education Institute, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 311121, China
    2. Institute of Education, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361005, China
  • Online:2025-07-01 Published:2025-06-28

摘要:

期待更多创新产出的大学,在为自身创新活动寻找治理良方时,却往往陷入投入与成效不相匹配的治理困境。新形势下大学的创新活动为何越发难以治理呢?根据共鸣理论所建构的分析框架,论文认为大学的创新活动治理存在着由自身目标限度、规模限度所形塑的诸多“不受掌控”之处。与此同时,资源限制条件下大学为尽可能地促成其创新的生产和再生产,往往依循的是“最优化”和“规制化”的治理逻辑,并倾向于采取一种不断扩大作用范围的“企图掌控”治理模式,以使其创新活动不会出现“不受掌控”的状况。然而,这又会造成新的“不受掌控”,从而导致其创新活动越发难以治理。因此可得出的启示是,大学对其创新活动进行治理,不是多大程度上的“企图掌控”,而是能接受多大程度的“不受掌控”,同时还要平衡好“掌控”与“不受掌控”之间的矛盾,坚实做好大学的“份内之事”,构建一个有韧性、灵活性的创新生态,从而使大学校园成为一个能包容“不受掌控”、能接纳更多可能性的创新高地。

关键词: 大学, 创新活动, 治理限度, 治理逻辑

Abstract:

Universities aspiring for greater innovation output often find themselves facing the dilemma of mismatched governance inputs and outcomes while searching for effective governance strategies for their innovation activities. Why are university innovation activities becoming increasingly difficult to govern? Based on an analytical framework constructed from resonance theory, this paper argues that the governance of university innovation activities is characterized by numerous aspects that are “uncontrollable” shaped by the limitations of the goals and scale. At the same time, under resource constraints, universities typically follow a governance logic of “optimization” and “regulation” to facilitate the production and reproduction of innovation as much as possible. They tend to adopt a governance model of “attempt to control” with an expanding scope of influence to prevent innovation activities from falling into a state of “uncontrollability”. However, this approach can create new forms of “uncontrollability” further complicating governance. Thus, the insight that can be drawn is that for universities to govern their innovation activities, the focus should not be on how much they can “attempt to control,” but rather on how much “uncontrollability” they can accept. They must also balance the tension between “control” and “uncontrollability”, manage their core responsibilities and build a resilient and flexible innovation ecosystem, transforming the campus into a hub that embraces “uncontrollability” and accommodates greater possibilities for innovation.

Key words: university, innovation activities, governance limits, governance logic