2014年以来中国大学的教育综合改革方案以教师人事制度改革为突破口,希望以此达到建设世界一流大学的目标。改革的逻辑是从经济人假设出发,用丰厚的薪酬待遇吸引人才并刺激产出,通过绩效考核和淘汰制进行市场竞争,以此激发教师的学术活力和产出效率。这是人事制度改革投射出的理想的学术生产图景,也是审计文化进入高等教育的典型表现。然而,通过对教师在职称晋升时的行为策略分析发现,以利益为交换条件,以奖惩为刺激的激励不仅会侵蚀教师热爱学术的纯粹之心,也会破坏良好的学术环境和学术文化,进而对教师造成难以估量的、永久性的内伤。学校的宏观逻辑和教师的微观行动之间的错位是管理视角的审计文化和个体视角的学术文化之间的碰撞和较量。人事改革政策的宏观逻辑要求大量的透明信息,但破坏了学术文化中最宝贵的信任。面对审计文化在高等教育中推行的强制性问责,我们需要从学术文化的角度重新定义“大学品质”“学术竞争力”等关键概念,以便彰显学术共同体的意义。
Since 2014, the comprehensive education reform plan of Chinese universities takes the reform of teachers’ personnel system as its breakthrough, hoping to achieve the goal of building a world-class university. The logic of the reform is to start with the hypothesis of economic man, attract talents with high salary and stimulate output, and conduct market competition through performance appraisal and elimination system, so as to stimulate the academic vitality and output efficiency of teachers. This is the ideal picture of academic production projected by the reform of personnel system, and also the typical performance of audit culture entering into higher education. However, through the analysis of teachers’ behavior strategies in the promotion of professional titles, it is found that the incentive of taking benefits as exchange conditions and rewards and punishments as incentives will not only erode teachers’ pure love for learning, but also damage the good academic environment and academic culture, resulting in incalculable and permanent internal injuries. The dislocation between the macro logic of the school and the micro action of the teachers is the collision and competition between the audit culture from the management perspective and the academic culture from the individual perspective. The macro logic of personnel reform policy requires a lot of transparent information, but it destroys the most valuable trust in academic culture. Facing the compulsory accountability of audit culture in higher education, we need to redefine the key concepts of “university quality” and “academic competitiveness” from the perspective of academic culture, so that they can reflect the significance of academic community.
包亚明. (1997). 权力的眼睛——福柯访谈录(严锋译). 上海: 上海人民出版社.
比彻, 特罗勒尔. (2008). 学术部落及其领地: 知识探索与学科文化(唐跃勤等译). 北京: 北京大学出版社.
邓恩. (2002). 公共政策分析导论 (谢明等译). 北京: 中国人民大学出版社.
富勒. (2004). 科学的统治: 开放社会的意识形态与未来(刘钝译). 上海: 上海科技教育出版社.
姜澎, 樊丽萍. (2014). 教育综合改革: 北大清华领头先行人事制度改革成突破口(2014年12月5日). 文汇报: http://www.cssn.cn/zx/201412/t20141205_1429696.shtml.
蒋凯. (2012). 教育学术共同体建设中的同行评议制度. 北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版),49(02),150-157
李琳琳, 黎万红, 卢乃桂. (2012). 新公共管理变革下大学教师的学术工作——国外研究的前沿图景与争论. 中国人民大学教育学刊,(2),15-26
利奥塔. (1996). 后现代状况——关于知识的报告(岛子译). 长沙: 湖南美术出版社.
罗萨. (2018). 新异化的诞生——社会加速批判理论大纲(郑作彧译). 上海: 上海人民出版社.
沈文钦, 毛丹, 蔺亚琼. (2018). 科研量化评估的历史建构及其对大学教师学术工作的影响. 南京师大学报(社会科学版),(5),33-42
阎光才. (2009). 学术共同体内外的权力博弈与同行评议制度. 北京大学教育评论,7(01),124-138
Amit, V. (2000). The University as Panopticon: Moral Claims and Attacks on Academic Freedom. In Strathern, M.(eds.). Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy (pp.215-235). London: Routledge.
Ball, S. J. (1990). Politics and Policy Making in Education: Explorations in Policy Sociology. London: Routledge.
Ball, S. J (1997). Good School / Bad School. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 18(3), 317-336
Ball, S. J. (2001). Performativities and Fabrications in the Education Economy: Towards the Performative Society. In D. Gleeson. & C. Husbands. The Performing School: Managing, Teaching, and Learning in a Performance Culture(pp.210−226). London: Routledge/Falmer.
Bazeley, P. (2010). Conceptualising Research Performance. Studies in Higher Education, 35(7), 889-903
Binder, A., Davis, D., & Bloom, N (2016). Career Funneling: How Elite Students Learn to Define and Desire “Prestigious” Jobs. Sociology of Education, 89(1), 20-39
Blackmore, J., & Sachs, J. (1999). Performativity, Passion and the Making of the Academic Self: Women Leaders in the Restructured and Internationalized University. In A. McKinnon & A. Grant (Eds.). Academic Women. London: Taylor & Francis.
Dleuze, G. (1992). Postscript on the Societies of Control. October, (59), 3-7
Elliott, J. (1997). Quality Assurance, the Educational Standards Debate, and the Commodification of Educational Research. The Curriculum Journal, 8(1), 63-83
Fillitz, T. (2000). Academia: Same Pressures, Same Conditions of Work?. In Strathern, M.(eds.). Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy (pp.236−255). London: Routledge.
Giddens, A.. (1991). Modernity and Self-Identity. Cambridge: Polity.
Lingard, B., & Blackmore, J (1997). The “Performative” State and the State of Educational Research. The Australian Educational Researcher, 24(3), 1-20
Milliken, J., & Colohan, G (2004). Quality or Control? Management in Higher Education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 26(3), 381-391
Power, M. (1994). The Audit Explosion. London: Demos.
Power, M. (1997). The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rose, N. (1992). Governing the Enterprising Self. In P. Heelas and P. Morris (eds). The Values of Enterprise Culture. London: Routledge.
Shore, C., & Wright, S. (2000). Coercive Accountability: the Rise of Audit Culture in Higher Education. In Strathern, M.(eds.). Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy (pp. 57−89). London: Routledge.
Strathern, M. (2000). The Tyranny of Transparency. British Educational Research Journal, (3), 309-321
Tsoukas, H. (1997). The Tyranny of Light: the Temptations and Paradoxes of the Information Society. Futures, (29), 827-843