«上一篇/Previous Article|本期目录/Table of Contents|下一篇/Next Article»

清华大学教育研究[ISSN:1001-4519/CN:11-1610/G4]

卷:

期数:

2026年03期

页码:

114-124

栏目:

国际与比较教育

出版日期:

2026-06-20

文章信息/Info

Title:

Academic Discipline and Program Adjustment in the United States: From Discipline Orientation to Demand-Driven

作者:

李枝航¹ 刘苗苗² 王强³

1.中国人民大学 教育学院；2.大连海事大学 高等教育研究院；3.中国人民大学 社会学院

Author(s):

LI Zhi-hang¹ LIU Miao-miao² WANG Qiang³

1. School of Education, Renmin University of China; 2. Institute of Higher Education Research, Dalian Maritime University; 3. School of Sociology, Renmin University of China

关键词:

美国CIP; 高等教育;  学科专业;  动态调整; 逻辑机理

Keywords:

US CIP;  higher education;  disciplines and programs;  dynamic adjustment;  logical mechanisms

分类号:

G649.712

DOI:

10.14138/j.1001-4519.2026.03.011411

文献标志码:

A

摘要:

基于美国学科专业分类目录（CIP）1980－2020年版本迭代与1995－2022年学位授予数据，剖析其动态调整机制。研究发现，CIP通过三级编码体系、定期修订程序以及“.01”“.99”等弹性代码，构建了兼具稳定性与包容性的制度框架，有效回应了知识生产模式从学科导向向问题导向的转型；美国学科专业调整呈现出“高校自治－政府服务－市场信号”三元协同的治理模式，联邦政府以统计服务与资助杠杆实施间接引导，高校则保有实质性的专业设置自主权；学位授予数据显示出“人文收缩、应用倍增、交叉崛起”的显著趋势，且在本科、硕士和博士层次形成协同放大效应。研究认为，我国需在“大政府、小市场”的社会结构中辩证审视美国经验，增强学科目录的前瞻性与贯通性，强化学科特色发展，同时警惕应用导向对基础学科的削弱，在基础学科与应用学科、国家战略与学术逻辑、统一标准与特色发展之间寻求动态平衡，构建具有中国特色的学科专业治理体系。

Abstract:

Drawing on version iterations of the US Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) from 1980 to 2020 and degree conferral data from 1995 to 2022, this paper analyzes the dynamic adjustment mechanisms of American disciplines and programs. The study finds that by utilizing a three-level coding system, regular revision procedures, and flexible codes such as “.01” and “.99”, the CIP establishes an institutional framework balancing stability and inclusiveness, thereby effectively responding to the transition of knowledge production modes from discipline-oriented to problem-oriented. Discipline and program adjustments in the US exhibit a triadic collaborative governance model of “institutional autonomy, government service, and market signals,” wherein the federal government exerts indirect guidance via statistical services and funding levers,while universities retain substantial autonomy over program establishment. Degree conferral data reveal a prominent trend characterized by the “contraction of humanities, doubling of applied disciplines, and rise of interdisciplinary fields,” which generates a synergistic amplification effect across the undergraduate, master’s,and doctoral levels. The study suggests that China should dialectically examine the US experience within the context of its own “strong government, small market” social structure. It is necessary to enhance the foresight and cross-level articulation of the discipline catalog, strengthen distinctive disciplinary development, and remain vigilant against the erosion of basic disciplines by application-oriented tendencies. A dynamic balance must be struck between basic and applied disciplines, national strategies and academic logics, and unified standards and distinctive development, so as to construct a discipline and program governance system with Chinese characteristics.

常用功能

更新日期/Last Update: 2026-06-20