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.
Lin Xiaoying
,
Xue Ying
. The Macro Logic of University Personnel System Reform and the Micro-Action of Teachers’ Academic Work: The Game between Audit Culture and Academic Culture[J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educational Sciences), 2020
, 38(4)
: 40
-61
.
DOI: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2020.04.004
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