追问研究本意 纾解“学科情结”

Explore the Original Purposes of Higher Education Research and Resolve the “Sentiments of Discipline”

追根溯源，回到出发点，反思高等教育研究的本意、目的和使命，是要研究和解决高等教育活动自身的发展问题和变革策略，还是纯粹“源于研究兴趣”和“学术情怀”，或者是为了获得某种“资质”和地位？追问研究的本意，有助于我们廓清迷茫，凝聚焦点，纾解“学科情结”。发展、提高我国高等教育研究的基本路径可以归纳为：深入实践，研究问题，解决问题（影响决策、指导行动），进而增进知识、丰富理论。本文提出，需要重视关乎“高等教育学科建设”的四个问题：其一，高等教育学的知识体系有何特性？是否存在一个慎密、精致、井然有序的理论大厦？其二，高等教育的理论体系如何建构？教科书式的理论著述是否应当“改弦更张”？其三，如何理解“范式”？是否要重视库恩替代“范式”的“专业基体”？其四，由谁来推进高等教育学科的发展？如何确保这一研究领域的开放性？

When we come back again to the old debate of “whether higher education research is a discipline or a field of research”, we really mean to emphasize the “discipline orientation” of higher education research and our pursuit is to let higher education research develop into a truly and strictly “independent discipline”.
If we go back to the origin and think again about the original purposes, goals and missions of higher education research, we shall ask ourselves the following questions. Is higher education research aimed at both investigating into and solving the development problems and suggesting innovative strategies of higher education activities? Alternatively, is it purely “originated from research interests and academic aspirations”? Or, is it aimed at obtaining some kind of “qualification” and academic status? Exploring the original purposes of higher education research helps us to clarify our puzzles, locate our focuses and resolve our “sentiments of discipline”.
The basic route of promoting Chinese higher education research could be classified as: engaging in practices, investigating into problems, solving problems (affecting decision-makings and guiding actions), and then enhancing knowledge and improving theories.
We must pay close attention to the following four questions related to the “establishment of higher education discipline”. First, what are the characteristics of the knowledge systems of higher education research? Does there exist a strict, accurate and orderly “theoretical mansion”? Second, how to establish the theoretical system of higher education research? Can monographs on higher education theory continue to be written in a textbook format? Third, how to understand the word “paradigm”? Should we pay attention to Thomas Kuhn's “disciplinary matrix” instead of “paradigm”? Last, who is responsible for promoting the development of higher education discipline? How to guarantee the openness of this research field?