跨学科人才培养机制是保障跨学科人才培养顺利实施、顺畅运行、不断发展的社会心理、相关机构与制度等内部构造的统一体，对推进跨学科人才培养具有重要意义。就创造条件而言，跨学科人才培养由于涉及两个及以上学科或领域的交叉与融合，需要建立健全与其相匹配的机制，有力推动跨学科人才培养理念落地、模式运行。就破除障碍而言，机制的功效具有正负两面性，而当前我国高校在专业教育模式下所建立的很多机制，阻滞了跨学科人才培养的发展，亟待建构更加系统、正向、有力的支撑机制。纵观世界高等教育，美国一流大学在超越学科专业教育、实施跨学科培养上走在世界高校前列，其机制建设经验可作为我国高校的重要参考。

借鉴机制一词的本来含义和管理机制的一般划分，结合对斯坦福大学等多所美国一流大学跨学科人才培养实践的考察，跨学科人才培养机制可划分为动力机制、运行机制与约束机制，其分别是跨学科人才培养实践顺利生成的前提条件、跨学科人才培养实践顺畅运行的基础条件，以及跨学科人才培养实践质量维护的保障条件。通过对美国12所跨学科人才培养实践典型的一流大学的研究，发现其总体表现出较为系统的机制设计特征。在动力机制方面，美国一流大学主要在利益驱动和社会心理推动作用下，积极回应多元主体对跨学科人才培养的需求。在运行机制方面，美国一流大学进行跨学科建制改革，表现出设置综合性的学科体系、强化学院的综合性、创设跨学科学院、建立跨学科研究机构等组织特征。为推动多类型组织协作实施跨学科人才培养，其教务长与副教务长、跨学科战略委员会等各类委员会进行了一定的组织协调与支持保障。同时，通过嵌入式修读的课程组织与管理模式、以在线开放打破课程共享的时空局限以及教师联合聘任与次要聘任制度等方式，为跨学科人才培养提供了多学科课程与师资基础。在约束机制方面，美国一流大学除了教务长与副教务长、课程委员会等各类委员会这些一般的管理机构与规范，还有跨学科教师小组等一定的专门机制对跨学科人才培养实践进行审核与批准、检查与监控、评估与处理。

从现实来看，我国高校跨学科人才培养的支撑性条件还不够充分、有力，主要存在多元主体需求传导不到位、组织协调与资源共享不力以及质量管理机构与规范不健全等问题。在动力机制上，我国高校不仅未完整而深刻地意识到多元主体对跨学科人才培养的需求，而且缺乏将多元主体需求转化为实践的充分压力与动力。在运行机制上，我国高校以学科为基础过分划分和设置院系，同时协调机构又较为缺失。而课程资源按院系分割且课程类型界限分明、教师人事关系及评价隶属院系又阻碍了课程与师资的跨学科共享。在约束机制上，当前我国高校缺乏跨学科人才培养质量管理的专门机构，而现有教务部门对跨学科人才培养质量管理问题缺乏关注且管理乏力。同时，我国高校对于跨学科人才培养的质量标准与全过程管理制度尚缺乏系统考虑与细致设计。

要促进人才培养由学科专业单一型向多学科融合型转变，需要对机制进行针对性改革。尽管我国高校跨学科人才培养实践总体处于初步阶段，但可以发挥后发优势，在充分借鉴美国一流大学相关经验的基础上进一步推进：提升理念自觉与政策压力，强化跨学科人才培养需求传导；建立健全组织协调与资源共享机制，促进跨学科人才培养实践运行；完善质量管理体制，保障跨学科人才培养实践高质量发展。除了关注跨学科人才培养机制本身的系统性，未来我国高校还需要注意跨学科人才培养理念、模式与机制三者之间的耦合。同时，亦需要注意人才培养一般机制的基础性意义，将其与跨学科人才培养的专门机制相结合。

The interdisciplinary education mechanism is a unity of internal structure that ensures the propitious implementation, smooth operation and continuous development of interdisciplinary education, including social psychology, relevant institutions and systems. It is of great significance to the promotion of interdisciplinary education. In terms of creating conditions, interdisciplinary education involves the intersection and integration of two or more disciplines or fields, so it is necessary to establish and improve a matching mechanism, so as to effectively promote the implementation of the interdisciplinary education concept and the operation of the interdisciplinary education mode. As far as removing barriers are concerned, the effect of mechanism has both positive and negative aspects. However, many mechanisms established by Chinese universities under the professional education mode have blocked the development of interdisciplinary education, and it is urgent to construct a more systematic, positive and powerful support mechanism. Looking at higher education worldwide, top universities in the United States are leading the way in surpassing disciplinary education and implementing interdisciplinary training, and their experience in mechanism construction can be used as an important reference for Chinese universities.

Drawing on the original meaning of the mechanism and the general classification of the management mechanism, and examining the practices of interdisciplinary education in Stanford University and other top universities in the United States, interdisciplinary education mechanism can be divided into dynamic mechanism, operation mechanism and constraint mechanism. These respectively serve as the prerequisite condition for supporting the smooth initiation of interdisciplinary education, the foundation condition for ensuring its smooth operation, and the guarantee condition for safeguarding its quality. Through a study of 12 top universities in the United States that are typical in their practice of interdisciplinary education, we found that these universities generally demonstrate relatively systematic characteristics in their mechanism design. In terms of dynamic mechanism, the first-class universities in the United States actively respond to the needs of multiple subjects for interdisciplinary education mainly under the influence of interests and social psychology. In terms of operation mechanism, the first-class universities in the United States carry out interdisciplinary organizational reform proactively, showing the organizational characteristics of setting up comprehensive discipline system, strengthening the comprehensiveness of schools, and establishing interdisciplinary schools and research institutions. In order to promote the cooperation of multi-type organizations to implement interdisciplinary education, the Provost, deputy Provost, and various committees have provided a certain level of organization, coordination, and support. At the same time, they provide a multi-disciplinary curriculum and teacher foundation for interdisciplinary education, through the embedded mode of curriculum organization and management, breaking the time and space limitation of curriculum sharing through online opening, and joint appointment and secondary appointment system of teachers. In terms of restraint mechanism, in addition to the general management institutions and norms such as provost, deputy provost, curriculum committee and other committees, the American top universities also have certain specialized mechanisms such as interdisciplinary teacher groups to review, approve, check, monitor, evaluate and deal with interdisciplinary education practices.

In reality, the supporting conditions for interdisciplinary education in Chinese universities are still not sufficient and powerful, and the main issues include insufficient transmission of diverse stakeholder needs, ineffective organization, coordination, and resource sharing, as well as incomplete quality management institutions and norms. In terms of dynamic mechanism, Chinese universities are not only not completely and deeply aware of the demand of multiple subjects for interdisciplinary education, but also lack the full pressure and motivation to transform the demand into practice. In terms of operation mechanism, Chinese universities divide and set up schools and departments on the basis of disciplines excessively, while the coordination institutions are lacking relatively. Meanwhile, the division of course resources by schools and departments and their clear type boundaries, as well as the schools and departments’ affiliation of teachers’ organizational relationship and evaluation, hinder the interdisciplinary sharing of courses and teachers. In terms of constraint mechanism, Chinese universities lack specialized agencies for the quality management of interdisciplinary education, while the existing academic affairs agencies lack attention to it and the management is weak. At the same time, the quality standard and whole-process management system of interdisciplinary education in Chinese universities still lack of systematic consideration and meticulous design.

In order to promote the transformation of education from single discipline to multidisciplinary integration, it is necessary to carry out targeted reform of the mechanism. Although the practice of interdisciplinary education in Chinese universities is generally in its initial stage, they can leverage their latecomer advantages and further advance on the basis of fully drawing on the relevant experience of top universities in the United States: enhancing the concept consciousness and policy pressure, and strengthening the transmission of interdisciplinary education demand; establishing and improving the organization, coordination and resource sharing mechanism, and promoting the operation of interdisciplinary education practice; improving the quality management system, and ensuring the high-quality development of it. In addition to paying attention to the systematization of the interdisciplinary education mechanism itself, Chinese universities should also pay attention to the coupling between the interdisciplinary education concept, mode and mechanism in the future. At the same time, it is also necessary to pay attention to the basic significance of the general mechanism of education and combine it with the specialized mechanism of interdisciplinary education.