Comparative Study On University Governance Structure

University Governance, whether in theory or in practice, is still a very sensitive topic, which leading the issue has always been avoided. However, as we all know, with the reform of market economy results in great achievements of China’s economy; with the modern enterprise system leads to the rapid development of China’s enterprises. Likewise, only in the governance level rather than a fundamental change in the general management level, China’s universities will really have a solid foundation and motivation for development to hurry towards the world first-class universities forward.What is the human nature and what is the value of human being? Whether there are absolute, any times of rights that should not be deprived by the government? How can the moral ethics be possible and practicable? Whether the humans universal value exists which does not change along with the historical changes? Whether the legitimacy of the government lies in its advanced moral, or is approved by the voters? The essence of learning process, whether it is absorbed through external knowledge, or discovered and evoked through inner nature of human being? All of these issues mentioned above, either should be solved freely by the members of a specialized agency? Or first pointed out the conclusion of these issues by the other external organizations such as the government or the church, and then let these people to demonstrate the reasonableness of its conclusion? Furthermore, what kind of knowledge should be taught to the next generation, to what depth and what kind of person is eligible to learn a certain subject? All of these issues mentioned above, either should be decided by the professionals from specialized agencies or by the government and other external agencies based on their own understanding and interests? Furthermore, whether this organization is moving in the direction of comprehensive development, or towards the professional direction? More focus on knowledge teaching, or more concern of knowledge exploring? More focus on digging into basic knowledge or more concern of the application and transformation of knowledge? What criteria determine professionals hiring, how to assess professionals in order to grant titles and whether they should be given permanent hiring? Again, all of these issues mentioned above, either should be decided by the internal staff of the agency or by the government and other external agencies?All the above issues come down to:whether there is an independent status of exploration and imparting human knowledge in human activities? Accordingly, whether specialized institutions and personnel engaged in the work have any independent exploration, independent teaching and independent self management rights? If we believe that exploration and imparting knowledge should be viewed as an irreplaceable sacred human activity, then the person engaged in such work has naturally inalienable authority which characterized by independent exploration, teaching and management rights. If we believe that all human activities should be subject to some kind of political power, or a religious authority, then people engaged in the research and teaching knowledge should be considered as members of government and other groups that they should follow the instructions to "explore" and "impart", meanwhile accept the management of government and other organizations.Perhaps, the answer to the question "Should universities be self-governing, or be governed by the government and other external groups" is already self-evidently. As long as we recognize the independence and sacred status of exploration and imparting knowledge, then naturally, universities where knowledge is explored and taught, has a free environment for research, teaching and managing, that is to say, universities own the freedom of self-governance themselves which is the fundamental rights that enable universities. On the contrary, as long as that political power, the value and status of government will in human activities are viewed higher than knowledge exploration and transmission, no matter how high-sounded the reason is, political and religious will default has absolute power and control, in other words, university self-governance rights are naturally denied. While, universities those are out of the freedom of research, teaching and management, that is to say, without the" self-governance" will lose the nature and be doomed deformed, regardless of the excellent wisdom of external promotion organized by the university authorities. The second core issue related to the university governance is whether university self-governance right should be separated with management right or combined with each other after the confirmation of the university with "self-governance" right. The former can be called "governance-management separation" and referred to as "decentralization of powers", while, the latter can be called "governance-management merger" and referred to as "centralization of powers". The principal and the leadership of the administrative team, there is no doubt that enjoys the right of university management, regardless of any university in any country. The above mentioned can be attributed to such a problem:as the management right of the principal led administration, whether should also enjoy the governance rights? On this issue, Europe and America provide decentralization answers, while Japan provides the centralization answers. What is their theoretical basis, and which is better from the view of performance?This paper aims to analyze the theoretical foundation of university self-governance and describe the path to achieve self-governance of universities and meanwhile, expect to provide some suggestions for the reform of China’s universities.The core of the university governance structure is "self-governance." As stated, many papers have list various performances of university self-governance; however, deep-seated theoretical basis of "self-governance", as well as the inherent implicit paradox of the self-governance and how to resolve this paradox, the question above has always been evasive. With the means of historical comparison and current situation of China and Western countries, this paper firstly analyzes the theoretical basis of "self-governance" from the perspective of philosophy, and then digs out the practical basis of it from the perspective of politics. Furthermore, clarifies the inherent implied contradiction of university governance issues (self-governance paradox), elaborates the system designed by the Western counties in order to resolve this paradox. The study found that pluralism and the subsequent logical positivism and pragmatism are the philosophical basis of Western ideas of self-governance which demonstrate the independence and sacred status fundamentally of knowledge exploration and transformation. While, Cherish values of humans, protect individual freedom and equality and respect decentralization are the practice basis of self-governance. In essence, universities require self-governance; while in reality, it is seriously restricted by various limitations which constitute the inherent contradiction or paradox of university governance. And the charter system, the trust system, agency system, the University Board, the division of responsibility and authority arrangements between the president and the Academic Senate, are the institutional arrangements and mechanism designs precisely to address this paradox. Understanding of philosophical and practical foundation of self-government can be found spiritual connotation hidden behind the university governing; meanwhile, deeply understanding of the university governance systems and mechanisms, can be truly understood the operating rules and fundamental basis of university governance. While, after the comparison of governance structure conducted between different universities can all the details and steps run into a deeper understanding of governance mechanisms. Of course, the Paper eventually settled in the transformation of China’s university governance structure.In summary, this paper consists of seven parts. The first part describes the objectives of the study and key issues to be addressed, as well as research methods and technology roadmap, focusing more on literature review. The second part describes the different understanding of University’s function among the Western countries and socialist countries, aiming to illustrate the philosophical and political basis behind it and thus demonstrate the inherent conflict of the university governance. The third part focuses on the two different methods of university governance that is non self-governance and self-governance. The fourth part details how to design the structure of the university governance to achieve the self-governance in the circumstance of various limitations which is the core part of this paper. The fifth sector makes horizontal comparison of the governance structure of universities in the UK, Germany, Japan and the United States, while the historical comparison is conducted as well. The relevant suggestions regarding the reform of China’s university governance have been put forward in the sixth part, which is based on the theoretical basis discussed and comparative researches carried out previously in this paper. The last part is conclusion of this paper.