Research On Governance Structural Conflict And Evolution Of Big Science Engineering Organization

The emerging of big science engineering is the most important feature of the science development in twentieth century, and the big science lab is an entity built on the big science engineering. Comparing with other organization models, the model of big science lab, which is constructed with big science engineering inside, being managed by university in the US has attracted widely concern of the academic and practical circles in China since the year 2004, because these circles believe that this big science engineering organization model is the main reason for the rising of the world class universities in the US. This paper defines this model as integrational model.Enlightened by the successful experience and example set by the US, China has adopted the integrational model as a new policy to improve the core competitiveness of universities, to cultivate science and technology talents and to explore the building of world class universities(hereinafter, the new policy). However, the new policy has faced two problems, one problem is the organizational conflict between university and big science lab, the other problem is that the resource of big science lab is taken by university. Implementation of big science engineering organization requires investing huge resources, while the new policy has been in full swing. In order to avoid wasting these resources, it has important theoretical and practical significance to research on the governance structure of big science engineering organization.According to the research purposes and current research findings, this paper, with the transaction cost theory as the core theory, has adopted bureaucracy theory, resource-based view, evolutionary theory and the theories related to social movement to build analytical frameworks. In the meanwhile, this paper uses ideal type analysis, game analysis, quantitative analysis based on panel data model and historical analysis as research methods. The main findings are shown as follows:First of all, the governance structure conflict of the big science engineering organization is caused by the lack of the governance structural boundary. Based on the ideal type analysis framework built by combining transaction cost theory and bureaucracy theory, the features of university?s little science governance structure and big science lab?s big science governance structure have been identified, and their conceptions have been clearly made. By adoting the integrational model, it is proved that governance structural conflict of big science engineering organization is caused by the lack of governance structural boundary. The results are tested and verified by using game analysis, as well as explaning the first problem of t he new policy.Secondly, the governance structural conflct consequences of the big science engineering organization are revealed, which is the resource convergence of university and big science lab. Based on the combination of transaction cost theory and resource-based view, it is found that the university system has the resources-absorbing mechanism. This mechanism appears as the tenure, which is a governance arrangement for university?s special human capital, negatively moderates the relationship between asset specificity and performance of the university. With this mechanism, once big science lab is running under the system of university, without the protection of governance structural boundary, its resources, mission and organizational model will gradual ly converge on university. This analysis has explain the second problem of the new policy.Thirdly, the initial conditions of evolution of the big science engineering organization is analyzed, which lies in its institutional generation and limitation. In the perspective of social movement, the Manhattan Project that generated the big science engineering organization is reinterpreted. Based on the social movement framework built by combining resource mobilization theory, policy process theory and social structure theory, this paper has investigated the Manhattan Project ?s leadership, organization, strategy, participants and supporters, etc. Institutional generation and limitation of the big science engineering organization is analyzed by the method of historical analysis, and the its initial conditions of evolution is identified. These results have revealed the significance of social structure and i nitial conditions of building the big science engineering organizationFourthly, it is revealed that the governance structural evolutional path of the big science engineering organization, which is changing from integration model to hybrid model. The facts and the historical development of the governance structural boundary and bridge mechanism are shown. Then, b ased on the framework of evolutionary transaction cost theory, the history of the integrational model is interpreted. The findings show that the historical specialty is the main reason for the creation and success of the big science engineering organization in the US. Meanwhile, the path dependence is the reason that the two models before and after evolution are coexisting in the present time, which leads to the hindering of questioning the reasonableness of the integraional model. By this analysis, it is implied that creating the governance structural boundary and bridge mechanism and building the hybrid model are the solutions for the problems of the new policy.At last, based on China?s reality, the system limitations and historical limitations are analyzed for China?s building the big science engineering organization. Then, by taking the research results of governance structural conflict and evolution of the big science engineering organization into account, four suggestions are provided, they are:(1) pushing on the governance structural evolution based on the new historical specialty;(2) creating the governance structural boundary based on the independent administrative legal person;(3) creating the governance structural bridge mechanism based on the incremental reform; and(4) promoting the social structural change and institutional generation based on social engineering.