如何更科学且有效的制定教育政策，是当今世界各国政府都统一面临的挑战，也是我国政策制定追求的目标。建国以来，我国政策制定经历了“由经验走向科学”的重大转变。从政策制定的程序到内容，科学研究成果和各类“外脑”（外部政策研究群体的意见和建议）应用的分量愈来愈重。高校学者是国家科研的中坚力量。他们究竟是如何运用影响政策制定的，其影响的原因、形式以及效果如何？学者的知识应当如何更好的动员起来以辅助高等教育政策的制定？在这些问题的引导下，本研究以北京师范大学为案例，选取了7名学者进行深度的访谈，并辅以实物收集法。旨在通过学者们建言献策的相关经验，深挖学者们影响高等教育政策的动机和初衷、途径与渠道以及影响效果。

研究发现，学者对高等教育建言献策是多种因素的综合作用的结果，其中职责和使命是首要也是必要前提，解决现实问题是直接驱动力，同时也会一定程度受到评估指标的影响；在建言的渠道和途径方面，学者的建言渠道与学者所存在的场域、拥有的身份有很大的相关性。在本研究中，我将学者分为了一般高校学者、作为决策者的学者和作为智库成员的学者。其中拥有的身份越多，就拥有越多提交政策建言的渠道；在影响效果方面，学者对政策的影响由于影响的间接性、政策过程黑箱效应以及咨询评价机制不完善等原因，难以准确对其评估，但是本文通过学者参与政策制定的方式、频次和与决策者关系分析得出，北师大学者对高等教育政策的影响较深。但这种影响呈现出了“中心—边缘”的影响范式，即部分学者深度、频繁的影响着政策。还有大部分的学者与政策制定的距离仍然较远。

最后，本研究依据所有的数据资料，整合了一份北师大学者知识动员中存在的问题清单。并从学者、高校及政府三个主体的层面，针对性给出了对策和建议，为解决现有问题提供参考。同时，让北师大学者的知识能够更好的动员，致力于为提高我国政策制定的科学性和有效性服务。

How to develop educational policies in a more scientific and effective way is a challenge faced by governments around the world, and is also a goal pursued by policy makers in China. Since the founding of the nation, China's policy-making has undergone a significant transformation from relying on experience to embracing scientific research. From the policy-making process to its contents, scientific research findings and various forms of "external brains" (opinions and suggestions from external policy research groups) have increasingly played a significant role. University scholars are a critical force in national scientific research. How do they apply their influence to policy-making, what are the reasons, forms, and effects of their influence? How can their knowledge be better mobilized to assist in the development of higher education policies?

Guided by these issues, this study takes Beijing Normal University as a case study, selecting 7 scholars for in-depth interviews and using material collection methods to explore the scholars' original intentions, channels, and feedback for influencing higher education policies through their past experiences and suggestions. The study found that scholars' advice on higher education is the result of a combination of various factors, which can be broadly classified into three types of driving forces: professional responsibility, disciplinary attributes, and practical issues. In terms of channels and approaches for providing advice, the study found that scholars' advice channels are closely related to their identities. Generally, scholars with more identities and stronger academic influence have more channels for policy advice, and these channels are more direct.The influence and effects of scholars' policy recommendations on higher education are difficult to assess accurately due to factors such as indirectness, black box effects, and incomplete evaluation mechanisms. However, this study suggests that the directness, frequency, and close relationship with decision makers in which scholars participate in policy-making contribute to their influence. The study found that the scholars at Beijing Normal University have a relatively deep impact on higher education policies, but this influence is not universal among all scholars and presents a "center-periphery" influence pattern. Only a subset of scholars have a significant and frequent impact on policies and are located in the center or sub-center of the influence, while most scholars remain distant from policy-making due to research relevance, academic influence, and identity.

In the conclusion and recommendation section, this study integrates a checklist, which details the issues regarding the suggestions and recommendations provided by scholars at Beijing Normal University for higher education policy-making. Based on these issues, targeted countermeasures and recommendations are given from the perspectives of scholars, universities, and the government to provide reference for addressing existing problems. The aim is to better mobilize the knowledge of scholars at Beijing Normal University and apply it to higher education decision-making, in order to serve the improvement of scientific and effective policy-making in China.