An Analysis of Faculty Rank System from New Institutionalism Perspective：A comparative study of Chinese and American universities
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This study compares the differences between the faculty evaluation systems in China and the United States from the perspective of historical institutionalism, and examines the impact of these institutional differences on the academic community and the broader scholarly ecosystem. Through policy text analysis and theoretical verification, it explores the interaction mechanisms among institutional effectiveness, power distribution, evaluation cycles, and incentive orientations. The faculty ranking system in the United States is characterized by academic autonomy, tenure-track appointments, and a balance between teaching and research, which creates institutional advantages. In contrast, China’s system is defined by administrative dominance, periodic evaluations, and a research-first orientation, leading to contradictions in terms of effectiveness. American universities hold an advantage over their Chinese counterparts in terms of academic output quality, faculty career satisfaction, and international reputation. This study suggests that the effectiveness of faculty evaluation systems is the result of multidimensional interactions, and that reforms in the Chinese system should promote a trinity approach—balancing teaching, research, and service—while taking into account the realities of its educational context.
Abstract
This study compares the differences between the faculty evaluation systems in China and the United States from the perspective of historical institutionalism, and examines the impact of these institutional differences on the academic community and the broader scholarly ecosystem. Through policy text analysis and theoretical verification, it explores the interaction mechanisms among institutional effectiveness, power distribution, evaluation cycles, and incentive orientations. The faculty ranking system in the United States is characterized by academic autonomy, tenure-track appointments, and a balance between teaching and research, which creates institutional advantages. In contrast, China’s system is defined by administrative dominance, periodic evaluations, and a research-first orientation, leading to contradictions in terms of effectiveness. American universities hold an advantage over their Chinese counterparts in terms of academic output quality, faculty career satisfaction, and international reputation. This study suggests that the effectiveness of faculty evaluation systems is the result of multidimensional interactions, and that reforms in the Chinese system should promote a trinity approach—balancing teaching, research, and service—while taking into account the realities of its educational context.