Wang Jianhua: On the construction of "theory of higher education"

Source: "Chinese Social Sciences Digest" 2022, No. 7 P142 — P143

Author: Wang Jianhua Unit: School of Education and Science, Nanjing Normal University, was taken from "Tsinghua University Education Research" 2022, No. 1, Zhang Ling

Education in social systems is in a subordinate rather than dominant position. The interpretation of education is often from the perspective of politics, economy, culture, science and technology, and population, rather than from education itself. As a result, "theory about education" in education is far more than "education theory". Discipline "is also more prosperous than education. Higher education is not only a high -level stage of education, but also an important part of the subsystems such as politics, economy, culture, and science and technology. Based on this, the relevant theory of social sciences is commonplace to explain higher education issues. In terms of origin, the research of higher education is generated by the needs of higher education practice, but it is the theory of social sciences in the field of social sciences. Without the addition of researchers from the field of social sciences in the early days, and without the theoretical resources brought by researchers in the field of social sciences, higher education research could not form a relatively independent research field so fast. But it is precisely because of the theoretical sources and external drives of this origin, and higher education research lacks unique theories. In response to this inherent theoretical crisis, in 1985, the "Encyclopedia of International Education Encyclopedia" edited by Hu Sen and others pointed out: "Higher education itself is worthy of serious and systematic research. From the actual situation, this is what the real need for higher education needs. Studies have basically moved slowly. This kind of research has made progress, rather than its own internal force, but rather the result of external stimuli. Although its fields and structures are wide and diverse, it has always been no systematic no systematic. , Misleading, being mistakenly applied. Its potential value is huge, but it has not yet been recognized. " The above judgment has made some progress in the past 30 years, and the theoretical research of higher education has made some progress, but the fundamental issue still exists. Specifically, the current higher education research is still full of related theories from other disciplines, and the unique "higher education theory" is still scarce. The so -called "higher education theory" here does not include "theory related to higher education", unlike the "basic theory of higher education", nor is it limited to "the theory of higher education education". "Theory related to higher education" is mainly committed to providing academic resources for higher education research from the outside, reflecting the perspective of other disciplines; the "basic theory of higher education" aims to The basic questions such as structure are given answers, mainly presenting a series of "metaphysical" cognition, and is committed to forming the most general knowledge rules or conceptual system for the formation of higher education research. Education function is committed to how to achieve "higher education", but the basic tasks or core issues of higher education are not just "education". Compared with the above concepts, the core or key of the "higher education theory" lies in the "theoretical" construction at the mid -view level, which can be "basic theory" or "basic theory"; "Education theory". For example, Newman's "free education" theory, Burton Clark's "triangle coordination" theory, Ashby's "genetic -environment" theory, Martin Toro's higher education development stage theory, Mr. Pan Yiyuan's internal and external relationships of education Law and so on. Some of these theories are "educational theory", some are not "educational theory", some are "basic theories", and some are not "basic theories". The common point is that "it is not trying to build a grand system, but it is not for micro education. Questions and discussion of a single concept. " Each theory has an independent boundary and unique objects. It is committed to providing rational judgments or explanations on the laws of higher education from the inner logic of higher education. As a "purpose of science".

For a long time, the development of higher education research has roughly two basic paths. One is to strengthen research related to higher education from the perspective of different disciplines. The purpose of exploring the nature and laws of higher education, the importance of strengthening the construction of higher education disciplines, hoping to use the basic theory of higher education to lead the study related to higher education. Academic discipline. In practice, the two paths are not contradictory and can be promoted each other, but they need to pay attention to the primary and secondary divisions. The problem now is that the theory of other disciplines is used to study the mainstream from the perspective of different disciplines. Higher education research its own theoretical construction or disciplinary construction is ignored. Theory is no longer the primary purpose in disciplines, but is downgraded to a branch that is not very important. Important branches are research projects that are related to policies and those that can be considered as needed by the country. As a result, "research related to higher education" is more than "research based on higher education ontology", and "theory related to higher education" has covered the "theory of higher education", making higher education as a legal discipline of academic disciplines. Sex is damaged or not valued.

It should be noted that the "higher education theory" here does not refer to the abstract, overall statement of rational thinking or generalization and generalization of higher education, but refers to the academic interpretation of those in the middle view. Theoretical model. Thanks to the accumulation of culture and history, there are rich ideas or ideas in the field of higher education, but the unique "higher education theory" is relatively scarce. In other words, there are two reasons for the lack of "higher education theory". One is that objective research on higher education itself is a field of emphasis on practicality, and it is not easy to produce theory; the other is subjectively higher education researchers Starting from the discipline positioning of doctrine, preferred to study hot issues or policy issues, and those hot issues or policy issues are often accidental or disposable issues. Each discipline should be explained by "your own principle". The construction of the pursuit of "higher education theory" may not necessarily build a unique "higher education theory" with the power of interpretation, but if we abandon our pursuit of unique "higher education theory", higher education research will have no "theory" But at all, higher education has lost his qualifications as an academic discipline. Of course, as a practical discipline or academic field, the construction of "higher education theory" is equally vital to maintaining or balanced between theoretical imagination and practical legitimacy. The emphasis on theoretical imagination means that higher education research must ensure that there is room for the production of theoretical construction or useless knowledge; the persistence rules for practical legitimacy means that higher education research must be committed to improving higher education practice from practical problems.

The construction of "higher education theory" requires two -way and multi -directional communication or dialogue between higher education and other disciplines. Higher education researchers need to learn from other humanities and social sciences and even natural sciences. Only by actively absorbing and drawing on the perspective of the knowledge and achievements of various disciplines and the perspective of seeing problems, can higher education researchers deeply understand the complexity of higher education practices, and then it is possible to construct construction. A unique "higher education theory" with explanation power.

Different from research related to other disciplines and higher education, higher education research as a professional field requires the "higher education theory" that can explain the changes in the practice of higher education based on the answer of "higher education". Only by continuously trying to give a unique answer to the essence of higher education, can we clarify the nature of higher education in our time and its status. Only by grasping the essence of higher education in our time and clarifying the status of higher education can we build the "higher education theory" in our time. The profound theory must be surpassed from reality and surpassing reality. It is not so much to predict the future, it is better to shake the present. Due to the change of practice, the "theory of higher education" must be a change of change rather than stagnation, and there will be no theory that can monopolize the interpretation of higher education for a long time. In the process of accelerating the practice of higher education, new theories and old theories need to compete in the market market. The new theory does not mean good theory, and old theories are not equal to bad theories. vice versa. The old theory needs to be updated, and the new theory needs to be developed. Once any theory stagnates, it will lose vitality. The important criterion for judging the best of theory in practice is the explanatory power. In vertical, a good "higher education theory" must not only comprehensively summarize the history of higher education, but also effectively explain the reality of higher education, and even predict the future of higher education. In the horizontal direction, a good "higher education theory" must not only be effective at the mid -view level, but also to inspire our observation of macro and micro higher education. The history, reality, and future of higher education are continuous. There is no "higher education theory" that can only explain history, and there is no "higher education theory" that can only explain reality or future. The construction of the "higher education theory" must be based on the current higher education practice and rooted in history, and observe the future. Just like all true history is the contemporary history, the construction of any "higher education theory" is also the current construction. The ultimate purpose is to insight and guide the future. With the same reason, macroe, medium views and micro -problems in the field of higher education are also integrated and difficult to divide. One problem often means all problems. The construction of the "higher education theory" needs to be cut in from the level, but there must be full observation of macro and micro.

The construction of a "higher education theory" from the essence of higher education or ontology does not mean that it is necessary to "comprehensively" enter or "remove" the theoretical system of higher education from other disciplines or reference. "Higher Education Theory" and "theory about higher education" have their own use or existence value, and they are symbiotic relationships between each other. value. Just like the coexistence and prosperity of "higher education" and "higher education in multidisciplinary viewpoints", "theory of higher education" and "theory about higher education" should also be harmonious.

- END -