组织生态学视角下国际组织的全球教育治理行为研究——以经合组织为例

彭浥尘; 段世飞

组织生态学视角下国际组织的全球教育治理行为研究——以经合组织为例

彭浥尘¹,
段世飞²

1. 清华大学教育研究院, 北京 100084;
2. 浙江大学教育学院, 杭州 310058

详细信息

中图分类号: G511
计量
- 文章访问数: 303
- HTML全文浏览量: 42
- PDF下载量: 1
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2022-04-03
- 网络出版日期: 2022-09-05

An Analysis of the Global Educational Governance Behavior of International Organizations from the Perspective of Organizational Ecology:Taking the OECD as an Example

PENG Yichen¹,
DUAN Shifei²

摘要

摘要: 国际组织虽然居于系统内部种群之中,但具有自主争取资源、拓宽生态位的能力。经合组织始终走在全球教育治理的前沿,通过争取组织资源和增强组织合法性、扩展治理议题、制度与规范竞争等策略,以及基于指标的数据式治理、基于"客户驱动"的知识生产式治理和基于经验传播的比较式治理等机制,积极参与全球教育治理的生态位竞争,最终在全球教育治理生态种群中占据优势地位和资源。
- 组织生态学 /
- 经合组织 /
- 全球教育治理
Abstract: From the perspective of organizational ecology,this study regards international organizations as social organizations,and holds that although international organizations reside in the internal population of the system,they have the ability to independently strive for resources and expand the ecological niche.Taking the OECD as an example,the OECD has always been at the forefront of global education governance.Through strategies such as striving for resources,enhancing organizational legitimacy,expanding governance issues,institutional and normative competition,as well as performance governance based on data, "customer-driven" knowledge production governance and comparative governance based on experience dissemination and other mechanisms,actively participate in the ecological niche competition of global education governance,and finally occupy a dominant position in the ecological population of global education governance.The research redefines the external environment of global education governance of international organizations,and pays attention to the interactive influence between international organizations and the international institutional environment;the concept of niche competition emphasizes the subjective initiative of international organizations'participation in global education governance,and corrects the tendency of "nationalism" in previous studies.
- Organizational ecology /
- OECD /
- Global education governance

HTML全文

参考文献(26)

[1]	HANNAN M T, CARROLL G R. Dynamics of organizational populations:density, legitimation, and competition[J]. Social forces, 1992, 18(2):355-367.
[2]	俞可平.全球化:全球治理[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社, 2003:13.
[3]	陈昌山.组织生态学视角下的国际组织行为研究[D].北京:外交学院, 2019:3.
[4]	KLABBERS. An introduction to international institutional law[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2002:320-325.
[5]	RANGGER-MOORE J. Bigger may be better but is older wiser?Organizational age and size in the New York life insurance industry[J]. American sociological review, 1997, 62(2):903-920.
[6]	ASTLEY W G. The two ecologies:population and community perspectives on organizational evolution[J]. Administrative science quarterly, 1985, 30(2):224-241.
[7]	CAMPBELL D F J, CARAYANNIS E G. Epistemic governance in higher education. Quality enhancement of universities for development[M]. 2013:3-4.
[8]	Thecommission on global governance. Our global neighbourhood-the report of the commission[EB/OL].(1995-12)[2019-08-22]. http://www.gdrc.org/u-gov/global-neighbourhood/chap1.htm.
[9]	MOUTSIOS S. International organizations and transnational education policy[J]. Compare:a journal of comparative and international education, 2009, 39(4):469-481.
[10]	BARNETT M N, FINNEMORE M. Rules for the world:international organizations in global politics[M]. New York:Cornell University Press. 2004.
[11]	ZAPP M, MARQUES M, POWELL J J W. European educational research constructed:institutional change in Germany, the United Kingdom, Norway and the European Union[J]. Oxford studies in comparative education, 2018:1-2.
[12]	BREAKSPEAR S, How does PISA shape education policy making?Why how we measure learning determines what counts in education[J]. Nytt Norsk Tidsskrift, 2014, 31(1):30-43.
[13]	LOCKHEEDETAL M. The experience of middle-income countries participating in PISA 2000-2015[M]. Washington D C:World Bank Publishing, 2015:75.
[14]	ZAPP M. Empowerment for individual agency:an analysis of international organizations' curriculum recommendations[J]. Globalisation societies and education, 2019:1-30.
[15]	SAHLBERG P. The fourth way of finland[J]. Journal of educational change, 2011, 12(2):173-185.
[16]	ZAPP M. The authority of science and the legitimacy of international organizations:OECD, UNESCO and World Bank in global education governance[J]. Compare:a journal of comparative and international education, 2020, 51(7):1022-1041.
[17]	LALL, RANJIT. Beyond institutional design:explaining the performance of international organizations[J]. International organization, 2017, 71(2):245-280.
[18]	丁瑞常.从"国际教育政策论坛"到"全球教育治理参与者"——经合组织在教育领域的角色流变[J].教育学报, 2020, 16(5):87-96.
[19]	BUSS D C. The ford foundation in public education:emergent patterns[M]. Boston, MA:G. K. Hall, 1980:331-361.
[20]	MCINTOSH D M, HALSEY A H. Ability and educational opportunity[J]. British journal of educational studies, 1962, 11(1):112-113.
[21]	TROHLER D. The medicalization of current educational research and its effects on education policy and school reforms[J]. Discourse:studies in the cultural politics of education, 2015, 36(5):749-764.
[22]	OECD. Educational policies for the 1970s[M]. Paris:OECD. 1971.
[23]	SCHMELZER M. The crisis before the crisis:the'problems of modern society'and the OECD, 1968-74[J]. European review of history:revue europeenne d'histoire, 2012, 19(6):999-1020.
[24]	PUBLISHING O. Education at a glance 2012:OECD indicators[J]. Czech sociological review, 2013, 49(6):994-996.
[25]	BARNETT M, DUVALL R. Power in global governance[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2005:7.
[26]	ZAPP M. Higher education expansion and the growth of science:the institutionalization of higher education systems in seven countries, 1945-2015:the global triumph of the research university[M]//The century of science. 2017:37-53.