Abstract：The balance between university autonomy and higher education accountability is a key issue to be solved in the process of higher education governance modernization. However, for a long time, this issue has not attracted enough attention from policymakers. In the reform practice, there often exists a problem of binary opposition thinking in dealing with the relationship between them: either a one-sided emphasis on university autonomy or a one-sided emphasis on higher education accountability. Therefore, it is necessary to further understand the dialectical relationship between university autonomy and higher education accountability.In fact, they are both antagonistic and unified. The relationship between the two reflects the tension between the internal academic and external social nature of higher education institutions. On the one hand, autonomy and accountability have heterogeneous and opposing sides, and there is tension and confrontation between them. Excessive autonomy leads to its abuse or misuse by higher education institutions, which directly affects the implementation of higher education accountability. Excessive accountability often evolves into borderless intervention, causing harm to the traditional spirit of autonomy. On the other hand, there is a unity and complementarity between autonomy and accountability. The two complement and compensate each other. Autonomy is the premise and root of the implementation of accountability. As a prerequisite autonomy can effectively ensure the universities’ performance of their own mission and national responsibilities. It promotes accountability and makes accountability more meaningful. Accountability is the result and guarantee of autonomy. It is an important way and means for universities to maintain their own independence and prevent excessive interference from the outside world and the government. Therefore, in the practice of higher education governance reform, maintaining a dynamic balance between autonomy and accountability is the key to policy-making and institutional design. They are like the two wings of an airplane. Each side can survive and develop in the unity of opposites with the other. If only one side is inclined, it will inevitably lead to the failure of higher education governance reform.Firstly, it is necessary to ensure their coexistence in parallel. Autonomy is limited and accountability is limited as well. “Limited autonomy” shows that while colleges and universities enjoy autonomy, they need to adhere to their internal logic and strengthen self-restraint. “Limited accountability” shows that outside intervention in colleges and universities can only be moderate, and it is necessary to respect the self-prescriptive nature of the higher education system and maintain reasonable expectations. Secondly, it is important to make a positive match between autonomy and accountability, integrate them in the necessary tension, and establish accountable autonomy and accountability based on autonomy. The so-called accountable autonomy refers to higher education institutions fulfilling their social responsibilities for different stakeholders while fully exercising their autonomy. The so-called accountability based on autonomy refers to the accountability of higher education institutions by external stakeholders on the basis of maintaining the traditional mission of higher education and adhering to the spirit of university autonomy. The balance between autonomy and accountability in the reform of higher education governance is not static. The more popular relationship between them is an unstable equilibrium. They tend to be in dynamic balance while the boundaries of the two are always in a state of constant change.
刘淑华, 卢可. 自治与问责的动态平衡：高等教育治理变革的保障[J]. 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2023, 53(3): 29-39.
Liu Shuhua, Lu Ke. Dynamic Balance Between Autonomy and Accountability: The Guarantee of Higher Education Governance Reform. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2023, 53(3): 29-39.
1 Volkov A. & Melnyk D.， “University autonomy and accountability in Russian higher education，” International Higher Education， Vol. 94 （2018）， pp. 31-33. 2 许杰： 《论治理视野中高等教育问责制的完善》，《教育研究》2009年第10期，第54-59页。 3 Leveille D. E.， Accountability in Higher Education： A Public Agenda for Trust and Cultural Change， Berkeley： Center for Studies in Higher Education， 2006. 4 美］伯顿·R.克拉克： 《高等教育系统——学术组织的跨国研究》，王承绪、徐辉、殷企平等译，王承绪校，杭州：杭州大学出版社，1994年。 5 柳亮： 《美国公立大学问责的演进与运行研究》，北京：知识产权出版社，2020年。 6 Burke J. C. & Minassians H. P.， “The new accountability for public higher education： from regulation to results，” New Directions for Institutional Research， Vol. 116 （2002）， pp. 5-19. 7 Bastedo M. N.， Altbach P. G. & Gumport P. J. （eds.）， American Higher Education in the Twenty-first Century： Social， Political and Economic Challenges， Baltimore： Johns Hopkins University Press， 1999. 8 Salmi J.， “The growing accountability agenda： progress or mixed blessing？” Higher Education Management and Policy， Vol. 21， No. 1 （2009）， pp. 109-129. 9 美］伯顿·克拉克主编： 《高等教育新论：多学科的研究》，王承绪、徐辉、郑继伟等译，杭州：浙江教育出版社，2001年。 10 周光礼： 《学术自由与社会干预：大学学术自由的制度分析》，武汉：华中科技大学出版社，2003年。 11 英］阿什比： 《科技发达时代的大学教育》，滕大春、滕大生译，北京：人民教育出版社，1983年。 12 美］约翰·S.布鲁贝克： 《高等教育哲学》，王承绪、郑继伟、张维平等译，杭州：浙江教育出版社，2001年。 13 王世权、刘桂秋： 《大学社会责任的本原性质、履约机理与治理要义》，《教育研究》2014年第4期，第85-93页。 14 和震： 《美国大学自治制度的特征与主题》，《学术研究》2006年1期，第114-118，148页。 15 美］德里克·博克： 《走出象牙塔：现代大学的社会责任》，徐小洲、陈军译，杭州：浙江教育出版社，2001年。 16 荷］弗兰斯·F.范富格特主编： 《国际高等教育政策比较研究》，王承绪等译，杭州：浙江教育出版社，2001年。 17 OECD， “On the edge： securing a sustainable future for higher education，” 2007-03-26， https：//www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/220180871707.pdf？expires=1655971894&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=2FC893EFA378AA3AC8A39BB850811880， 2022-06-23. 18 Trow M.， “Trust， markets and accountability in higher education： a comparative perspective，” Higher Education Policy， Vol. 9， No. 4 （1996）， pp. 309-324. 19 Baird J.， “Accountability of university governing bodies in Australia，” Tertiary Education and Management， Vol. 3， No. 1 （1997）， pp. 72-82. 20 Malik G.， Governance and Management of Higher Education Institution in India， New Delhi： National University of Educational Planning and Administration， 2017. 21 美］克拉克·克尔： 《高等教育不能回避历史：21世纪的问题》，王承绪译，杭州：浙江教育出版社，2001年。 22 郑也夫： 《代价论：一个社会学的新视角》，北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店，1995年。 23 World Bank Group， “Learning from the past， embracing the future，” https：//documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/904351469672188027/pdf/multi-page.pdf， 2022-06-23. 24 褚宏启、贾继娥： 《教育治理与教育善治》，《中国教育学刊》2014年12期，第6-10页。 25 Fielden J.， “Global trends in university governance，” 2008-03-01， https：//documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/588801468140667685/pdf/442440NWP0BOX311webversion01PUBLIC1.pdf， 2022-06-23. 26 Berdahl R.， “Academic freedom， autonomy and accountability in British universities，” Studies in Higher Education， Vol. 15， No. 2 （1990）， pp. 169-180. 27 英］齐格蒙特·鲍曼： 《现代性与矛盾性》，邵迎生译，北京：商务印书馆，2003年。 28 龚放： 《试论现代大学的社会责任》，《北京大学教育评论》2008年第2期，第118-127，191页。
2023, Vol. 53 
