|
|
|
| The Practice Path and Experience of Faculty Team Construction in World-class Universities: Based on the Analysis Framework of “Principle-System-Technology” |
| Wu Juhui, Liu Zihan |
| College of Education, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Faculty members play a pivotal role in fostering innovation in knowledge production, enhancing the quality of talent cultivation, and elevating the standard of social services. Establishing an exceptional faculty team serves as a fundamental catalyst for enhancing the competitive edge of higher education. Consequently, world-class universities have seamlessly integrated faculty team construction into the strategic planning of pivotal developmental domains, engaging in numerous initiatives and explorations to refine faculty management and foster professional development. Embedded within the modernization of higher education governance, the construction of a faculty team represents a multifaceted and intricate principle, possessing profound connotations and extensions. It conforms to the underlying construction logic of “principle-system-technology” of modern governance. Previous research on this subject tends to be focused on single or fragmented perspectives concerning principles, systems, and technologies. However, few studies have approached it from an international standpoint to holistically integrate these three fundamental frameworks and crucial elements that shape the trajectory and impact of faculty team construction. Consequently, this paper establishes an integrated analytical framework focusing on “principle-system-technology” to systematically examine the trajectory of high-quality faculty team construction in world-class universities. Among them, the principle is the value forerunner that leads the action of faculty team construction. System is the key guarantee to support the process of faculty team construction. Technology is a direct factor affecting the effectiveness of faculty team construction. Three dimensions are independent in form and mutually shape and support in internal logic. Commencing with the aforementioned analytical framework and drawing on the 2022 Academic Ranking of World Universities by Shanghai Jiao Tong University, this paper employs a multi-case analysis approach to investigate the routes pursued by 10 globally renowned universities in establishing their faculty teams, including Harvard University, Stanford University, University of Oxford, University of Cambridge, and so on. The enlightenment of the experience of the world-class university faculty team construction on Chinese universities is expounded.These universities are found to foster faculty development through the principles of autonomy and specialization, stimulate the academic governance effectiveness via the principles of performance and freedom, and cultivate social equity through the principles of diversity and inclusion—all of which drive the harmonized progress of faculty, universities, and society. Within the institutional system, the personnel management system is staunchly established with rigor and equity as the guiding principles, while the organizational culture is firmly centered on faculty members, thereby engendering a cohesive structure that seamlessly integrates formal and informal systems. From a technical standpoint, the accumulation of faculty intellectual capital is internally propelled through mentoring programs and consultation services, whereas external advancements in digital technologies foster the development of teachers’ professional acumen, incorporating conventional platforms grounded in social interaction and intelligent, digital mediums. In general, these universities form a faculty team construction path with principles guided from top to bottom and enabled by technologies from bottom to top. To emulate the faculty team construction practices of world-class universities, Chinese higher education institutions should embrace a faculty-centered approach and embrace open, inclusive, and mutually reinforcing principles. Efforts should be made to refine the standardization and humanization of the construction system, embrace instructional community guidance, and leverage digital technology to reinforce the construction process. These measures aim at continually advancing the efficacy of faculty team construction, boosting the innovative momentum of faculty members, fostering a cohesive alliance across the dimensions of principle, system, and technology, and ultimately achieving a harmonious, synergistic relationship between cultivating esteemed educators and building world-class universities.
|
|
Received: 28 December 2022
|
|
|
|
1 《教育部 财政部 国家发展改革委关于深入推进世界一流大学和一流学科建设的若干意见》，2022年1月26日，http：//www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A22/s7065/202202/t20220211_598706.html，2022年10月13日。
2 《习近平主持中央政治局第五次集体学习并发表重要讲话》，2023年5月29日，https：//www.gov.cn/yaowen/liebiao/202305/content_6883632.htm，2023年7月13日。
3 王刚、李锦平： 《“以人为本”的管理理念与高校教师队伍建设》，《甘肃社会科学》2011年第5期，第224-227页。
4 鲍威、戴长亮、金红昊等： 《我国高校教师人事制度改革：现状、问题与挑战》，《中国高教研究》2020年第12期，第21-27页。
5 石纬林、王轶： 《大数据时代的高校师资队伍建设研究》，《中国电化教育》2016年第7期，第137-141页。
6 管春英、王加栋： 《基于三摆藕合模型的高校师资队伍建设系统优化研究》，《系统科学学报》2022年第1期，第125-130页。
7 常大伟： 《理念、制度与技术：治理现代化语境下档案事业高质量发展的三重审视》，《档案学通讯》2022年第2期，第13-19页。
8 Selvarajan T. T.， Ramamoorthy N. & Flood P. C. et al.， “The role of human capital philosophy in promoting firm innovativeness and performance： test of a causal model，” The International Journal of Human Resource Management， Vol. 18， No. 8 （2007）， pp. 1456-1470.
9 孙华： 《大学之范：理念与制度》，《现代大学教育》2015年第2期，第5-13页。
10 阎光才： 《大学教师行为背后的制度与文化归因——立足于偏好的研究视角》，《高等教育研究》2022年第1期，第56-68页。
11 美］道格拉斯·C.诺思： 《制度、制度变迁与经济绩效》，杭行译，上海：格致出版社，2014年。
12 邓大才、王墨竹： 《非正式制度与治理：一个比较研究框架——前沿理论、中国实践与研究前景》，《理论探讨》2023年第1期，第36-47页。
13 黄炳辉、杨文海： 《高校支撑保障体系建设路径探索》，《中国高等教育》2019年第23期，第43-45页。
14 Yavuz M.， “The effects of teachers’ perception of organizational justice and culture on organizational commitment，” African Journal of Business Management， Vol. 4， No. 5 （2010）， pp. 695-701.
15 Neboj?a P.， Marija I. & ?rnjar K.， “Organizational culture and job satisfaction among university professors in the selected central and eastern European countries，” Studies in Business & Economics， Vol. 15， No. 3 （2010）， pp. 168-184.
16 K?se M. F. & Korkmaz M.， “Why are some universities better？ an evaluation in terms of organizational culture and academic performance，” Higher Education Research & Development， Vol. 38， No. 6 （2019）， pp. 1213-1226.
17 何水、高向波： 《教育治理能力现代化：关键要素与推进路径》，《现代教育管理》2021年第4期，第16-22页。
18 Ellul J.， The Technological System， New York： The Continuum Publishing Corporation， 1980.
19 Yale University， Faculty Handbook， New Haven： Yale University， 2021.
20 University of Cambridge， “Staff review and development，” https：//www.hr.admin.cam.ac.uk/staff-review-and-development， 2023-04-23.
21 王思懿、姚荣： 《美国高校教师评聘标准如何走向多元化——基于新制度主义理论的分析》，《复旦教育论坛》2022年第4期，第97-105页。
22 Harvard University， Tenure-Track Handbook， Cambridge： Harvard University， 2022.
23 Naila K.， “Women’s economic empowerment and inclusive growth： labour markets and enterprise development，” https：//www.lse.ac.uk/gender/assets/documents/research/choice-constraints-and-the-gender-dynamics-of-lab/Women%27s-economic-empowerment-and-inclusive-growth.pdf， 2023-03-05.
24 University of Cambridge， “Recruitment policy，” 2021-11-01， https：//www.hr.admin.cam.ac.uk/recruitment-policy， 2023-04-23.
25 Office of Academic Recruitment Services， “Search Chairs & Search Committee Members Guide to Faculty Recruitment，” https：//aps.ucsd.edu/_files/oars/Search_Committee_Recruitment_Guide.pdf， 2023-04-29.
26 Imperial College London， “Inclusive recruitment，” https：//www.imperial.ac.uk/human-resources/recruitment-and-promotions/recruitment/inclusive-recruitment/， 2023-04-15.
27 Office of Faculty Development and Diversity， “Faculty workshops，” https：//facultydevelopment.cornell.edu/faculty-workshops-on-teaching-and-working-in-a-diverse-campus/， 2022-07-16.
28 Office of the Dean， “The faculty handbook，” https：//theuniversityfaculty.cornell.edu/the-new-faculty-handbook/4-tenure-track-promotions， 2022-07-16.
29 The Office of Faculty Development， Diversity and Engagement， “CREATEngagement toolkit，” https：//facultydevelopment.stanford.edu/diversity-equity-inclusion-and-belonging-programs-and-resources/createngagement-toolki， 2022-07-21.
30 Stanford University， “Faculty handbook，” https：//facultyhandbook.stanford.edu/faculty-handbook/chapter-4-core-policy-statements#statement-on-academic， 2022-07-21.
31 Schmidt J. A. & Wolfe J. S.， “The mentor partnership： discovery of professionalism，” National Association of Student Personnel Administrators Journal， Vol. 17， No. 3 （1980）， pp. 45-51.
32 Hudson P.， “Mentoring as professional development： ‘growth for both’ mentor and mentee，” Professional Development in Education， Vol. 39， No. 5 （2013）， pp. 771-783.
33 Office of Faculty Development， Diversity and Engagement， “Mentoring for early career faculty members，” https：//facultydevelopment.stanford.edu/faculty-development/all-faculty/mentoring/mentoring-early-career-faculty-members， 2022-08-01.
34 University of California San Diego， “Faculty mentoring，” https：//blink.ucsd.edu/faculty/mentoring/index.html， 2022-08-01.
35 Office of Faculty Development and Diversity， “Faculty workshops，” https：//facultydevelopment.cornell.edu/faculty-workshops-on-teaching-and-working-in-a-diverse-campus/， 2022-07-16.
36 The Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning， “Support for general education，” https：//bokcenter.harvard.edu/gen-e， 2022-07-03.
37 The Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning， “Learning Lab，” https：//bokcenter.harvard.edu/learning-lab， 2022-07-06.
38 Yale Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning， “Teaching online at Yale，” https：//poorvucenter.yale.edu/strategic-resources-digital-publications/teaching-online-yale， 2022-08-20.
39 Yale Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning， “Teaching workshops，” https：//poorvucenter.yale.edu/Graduate-Postdoc-TeachingWorkshops， 2022-08-20.
40 University College London Arena Centre， “Teaching toolkits，” 2019-08-01， https：//www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/publications/2019/aug/evaluating-your-teaching， 2022-08-20.
41 劳凯声： 《创新治理机制、尊重学术自由与高等学校改革》，《教育研究》2015年第10期，第10-17页。
42 王涛利、蒋凯： 《中美高校预聘长聘教职制的比较研究——基于八所高校的制度文本分析》，《中国高教研究》2022年第10期，第53-60页。
43 石君齐、叶菊艳： 《论“实践—引导—反思”取向的高校教师专业发展路径》，《教师教育研究》2017年第6期，第81-87页。
44 蔡韩燕、杨成： 《数智融合驱动高校教师评价改革研究》，《现代教育技术》2023年第1期，第91-98页。 |
|
|
|
2023, Vol. 53 
