2017年，教育部等三部委联合印发了《统筹推进世界一流大学和一流学科建设实施办法（暂行）》，明确提出了要完善大学内部治理结构。在我国长期以来大学行政色彩浓厚的背景下，内部治理结构改革的关键，在于切实保障大学教师能够参与到学校治理与决策中来。借鉴美国研究型大学教师的参与治理制度与实践，对我国高校教师参与治理制度的完善与实践的改进无疑具有重要的参考价值。
本研究围绕以下四个中心问题展开：第一，美国研究型大学教师参与治理的合法性是如何形成的？第二，美国研究型大学教师参与治理的主要模式有哪些？各种模式的利弊如何？第三，美国研究型大学教师参与治理的实践是怎样的？具体而言，匹兹堡大学的教师参与治理是怎样的？第四，美国研究型大学教师参与治理的挑战如何？解决措施有哪些？
本研究先探讨了理论层面的教师参与治理问题。首先，就教师参与治理的合法性问题进行了论证，探明教师参与治理的合法性，是探讨教师参与治理实践、挑战等问题的前提。论文在探讨教师参与治理发展历史的基础上，分析了教师参与治理合法性的形成背景、初步形成，以及正式确立。其次，通过对已有文献的梳理与分析，得出教师参与治理的主要模式，即独立管辖权、共享权力以及联合参与，并对三种模式的主要涵义、代表性案例院校进行了剖析，并就三种模式做了比较分析。三种教师参与治理模式各有利弊，且都是理论层面上教师参与治理的“理想类型”。
为探讨实践中的教师参与治理问题，本研究选取了美国知名研究型大学匹兹堡大学为案例院校，并基于教师视角，探讨了匹兹堡大学教师参与治理的实践、挑战与应对。首先，就匹兹堡大学教师参与治理的实践做了探讨，具体而言，依据共同治理模式理论中有关“教师参与治理的内容分类”与“教师参与治理的五种决策方式”的观点，结合对该大学评议会负责人与二级学院教师访谈资料的编码与分析，探讨了教师在不同事务领域的决策方式及其发生机制，包括在大学层面教师对学术事务的咨询权（影响较大），对非学术事务的有限咨询权（较小），以及在院系层面教师对学术事务的从“决定权”到“咨询权”，对非学术事务的从“决定权”到“无参与权”。进而，通过对访谈资料的编码，得出了匹兹堡大学教师参与治理的动机、渠道以及主要影响因素。其次，结合当前对大学教师参与治理挑战的文献资料，分析了教师参与治理的外部环境挑战与大学内部挑战，依据对匹兹堡大学教师访谈资料的编码与分析，构建出教师参与治理面临的三类主要挑战，即行政管理者决策的集中化、大学教师参与治理的人数不足，以及非终身制教师的身份限制。进而，选取匹兹堡大学的教师工会运动这一典型冲突事件，结合鲍德里奇的政治模型，分析了教师工会运动的社会环境因素、各方利益诉求，以及对相关政策形成的影响。在未形成稳固利益共同体的情况下，几次教师工会运动均未取得实质性成功，但间接促成了非终身制教师政策的完善等。
匹大教师还积极采取了多项措施，以期应对上述一系列挑战。其中，大学评议会扮演着核心角色，采取了加强与教师群体的联系、提高教师对评议会的参与程度，以及改革学院层面的教师参与治理积弊等新举措，也取得了初步成效。反观我国高校，教师治理机构具有浓厚的行政色彩，教师在学术与非学术事务事务决策中的参与都非常有限。我国要想创建世界一流大学，亟需改革大学内部权力现状，可以借鉴匹兹堡大学教师参与治理中的有益经验，完善教师参与治理的渠道，构建一种权力均衡的机制，最终形成教师参与治理的文化。

In 2017, the Ministry of Education of China and other three ministries and commissions jointly issued the Implementation Measures for Promoting the Construction of World-Class Universities and Disciplines in an Overall Plan (Interim), which clearly put forward the need to improve the internal governance structure of universities. As the administration in Chinese universities has strong power for a long time, the key to the reform of internal governance structure is to ensure that faculty can participate in university governance and decision-making. It is undoubtedly of great reference value to improve the system and practice of faculty governance in Chinese universities by learning from American research universities’.
This study focuses on the following four central questions: first, what is the legitimacy of faculty governance in American research universities? Second, what are the main models of faculty governance in American research universities? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each model? Third, what is the practice of faculty governance in American research universities? Fourth, what are the challenges of faculty governance in American research universities? What solutions have they taken?
This study aims to explore the problems of faculty governance from the perspective of the faculty. This study first discusses the theoretical level of faculty governance. Firstly, this study demonstrates the legitimacy of faculty governance, which is the premise of exploring the practice and challenges of faculty governance. In addition, this study analyzes the formation background, initial formation and formal establishment of the legitimacy of faculty governance. Secondly, through the analysis of relevant literature, it summarizes the main models of faculty governance, including separate jurisdictions, shared authority and joint participation. Then this study analyze the main meaning and representative cases of the three models, and compared and analyzed the three models. Each model has its own advantages and disadvantages, and in fact, these three models are all "ideal type" of faculty governance.
In order to explore the problem of faculty governance in practice, this study selects the University of Pittsburgh as the case. First, it discusses the practice of faculty governance in the University of Pittsburgh. Specifically, according to the views of "the content classification of faculty governance" and "the five decision-making ways of faculty governance" in the theory of co-governance model, combined with the coding and analysis of the interview data of the University Senate managers as well as the faculty from four schools, this study discusses the faculty' opinions on the decision-making ways and mechanism in different fields of the university. In the view of faculty, at the university level, faculty have a greater influence on academic affairs, a smaller influence on non-academic affairs. And at the school level, faculty have a power ranging from "Determination" to "Consultation" on academic affairs, and from " Determination" to "None" on non-academic affairs.
Then, through the coding of the interview data, it concludes the motivation, channel and main influencing factors of faculty participation in governance of University of Pittsburgh. Secondly, combined with the literature on the challenges of faculty governance, the study analyzes the external environment challenges and the internal challenges of faculty governance. Based on the coding and analysis of the interview data of faculty in University of Pittsburgh, the study constructs three main challenges faced by faculty participation in governance, which are the centralization of administrative decision-making, the insufficient number of faculty who participation in governance and the status restriction of non-tenure track faculty. Then, by selecting the typical conflict event of the faculty union movement in University of Pittsburgh, combined with Baldridge's political model, it analyzes the social environment factors, the interests of all parties, and the impact on the formation of relevant policies it has. In the absence of a stable community of interests, several faculty union movements have not achieved substantial success, but do indirectly contributed to the improvement of the policy of non-tenure track faculty.
The faculty in University of Pittsburgh have actively taken a variety of measures to deal with the challenges. And the University Senate plays a central role in it, which adopts some new measures such as strengthening the contact with faculty, improving the engagement of faculty in the senate and reforming the participation of faculty at the school level. And these measures have achieved initial results. In contrast, in universities of China, the administrative power is very large in faculty governance organization, and the faculty are rarely involved in any governance. If China wants to build a world-class university, it is urgent to reform the status quo of power inside the university.We can learn from the beneficial experience of the faculty governance of University of Pittsburgh, and improve the channels for faculty to participate in governance, as well as form a mechanism of power balance and a culture of faculty governance.