The equilibrium of university organizations is influenced by external environment and internal forces. Internally, it is both rational bureaucracy and politics, which makes the university governance ambiguous and complex. Higher education institutions are subject to external environment (especially government and market) and internal factors and must maintain a certain degree of autonomy. At the same time, they are subject to internal control and must maintain a certain degree of openness. The "de facto" state is that in the triangular model, there are academic-oriented, market-oriented and government-oriented models. The "de jure" state is the balance between the internal and external forces of the academic, government and market. University governance, under the combined effect of internal and external forces, maintains a relatively independent state of development. From the perspective of internal rational bureaucracy and political organization, university governance should handle the relationship between them. The "de facto" state is either based on bureaucracy, managing universities in accordance with the mode of administrative institutions, or overemphasizing the interests and powers of certain people. The "de jure" state is to play the role of a rational bureaucracy and to improve the ability to govern. Also, it is necessary to consider university governance from the perspective of political organization, to establish a communication and coordination mechanism and to construct a trust-based organizational culture in order to effectively resolve conflicts. The university governance of China should shift from "seeking change" to "seeking governance", from governance reform to governance construction, from governance system to governance ability, from governance objective to governance efficiency. And finally, it can implement a university governance design from the "de jure" state to the "de facto" one.
Li Liguo
. From De jure to De facto: An Analysis of Effective University Governance[J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educational Sciences), 2019
, 37(5)
: 1
-16
.
DOI: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2019.05.001
博克.(2012).大学的治理(曲铭峰译).高等教育研究,(4),16-25.
李立国.(2018a).大学治理的基本框架分析-兼论大学制度与大学治理的关系.大学教育科学,(3),17-24.
李立国.(2018b).为科层制正名:如何看待科层制在高等教育管理中的作用.探索与争鸣,(7),25-32.
李立国.(2018c).现代大学治理形态及其变革趋势.高等教育研究,(7),9-16.
史静寰,范文曜.(2008).教育政策分析2005-2006:聚焦高等教育.北京:教育科学出版社.
王晓辉.(2010).《关于欧洲高等教育伦理价值和原则的布加勒斯特宣言》的解读与思考.比较教育研究, (8),41-44.
王占军.(2018).大学有效治理的路径:知识论基础与实践准则.中国高教研究,(9),37-40.
王绽蕊等.(2016).公立高校治理评价-一种框架性思考.张德祥主编.大学治理:权力运行制约与监督.北京:科学出版社.
吴伟.(2018).构建高校与社会的深度互动关系.中国教育报,2018-12-08,(6).
肖瑛.(2014).从"国家与社会"到"制度与生活":中国社会变迁研究的视角转换.中国社会科学,(9),88-104.
张桐.(2019).官僚制是一个僵化结构?官僚制结构的弹性与扩张.公共管理与政策评论,(2),53-61.
Balderston, F. (1995). Management todays university:Strategies for viability, change,and excellence(2nd ed). San Francisco:Jossey -Bass.
Bess, J. L., & Dee, J. R. (2002). Understanding college and university organization. Virginia:Stylus Publishing.
Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work:The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Dobbins, M., Knill, C., & Vogtle, E. M.(2011). An analytical framework for the cross-country comparison of higher education governance. Higher Education, (5), 665-683.
Gamson, W. A. (1968). Power and discontent. Homewood, IL:Doresey Press.
Javadekar, S. P. (2018). Autonomy is crucial for the Higher Educational Institutions to achieve excellence. https://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/PR_UGC.pdf
Lutz, F. W. (1982). Tightening up loose coupling in organizations of higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly, (4), 653-669.
Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. (1990). Loosely coupled systems:a reconceptualization. The Academy of Management Review, (2), 203-223.
Rahim, M. A. (1992). Managing conflict in organizations. Westport, CT:Praeger.
Smart,J., & Hamn,R. (1993). Organization culture and effectiveness in two-year colleges. Research in Higher Education, (1), 95-106.