我國「發展國際一流大學及頂尖研究中心計畫」執行情況之研究

Abstract

本研究旨在探討我國「發展國際一流大學及頂尖研究中心計畫」執行情況，係以文獻分析法與訪談法進行研究，針對我國高等教育卓越計畫脈絡、國際高等教育卓越計畫與受補助學校校內執行「發展國際一流大學及頂尖研究中心計畫」之策略進行探討，分析計畫整體之官方資料，發展本研究之訪談大綱。研究者深入訪問受補助大學計畫相關執行者，受訪者包括3位校長、3位執行長、2位研發長、1位頂尖大學辦公室主任，共9位受訪者。彙整分析文獻與訪談資料後歸納本研究之研究結果，獲致研究結論如下： 壹、我國與日本、韓國、中國、德國高等教育卓越計畫皆由官方負責，執行年限3∼7年，期程皆為兩期。受訪者認為我國計畫時間、時程適當，而未來第三期執行與否，則需經由評估前兩期之成效後才得以實施。 貳、各國補助方式分為「校式」與「計畫式」兩種，或兩相搭配，若要促進整體高等教育之素質提昇，以「校式」發放經費為佳，整體規劃具統整性，經費的使用亦較為彈性。 參、我國「發展國際一流大學及頂尖研究中心計畫」受補助學校之執行策略偏重在「基礎建設」、「研究」、「教學」、「國際化」四大面向。 肆、我國「發展國際一流大學及頂尖研究中心計畫」初期之官方內涵與受補助學校之認定有所差異，教育部注重排名數據，而校方不贊成為排名而打造卓越。 伍、我國「發展國際一流大學及頂尖研究中心計畫」之審核制度需再斟酌審查委員領域專長及審核過程，審議指標應定位為「門檻」導向且增加彈性空間。 陸、受補助大學分別以秘書處、研發處及頂尖大學辦公室為負責單位，執行相關審核評鑑事宜。 柒、受補助大學為配合教育部考核，多以一年為計畫執行時間單位，而學校內部則採取「緊迫追蹤」之方式以監督執行績效。 捌、受補助大學初期在基礎建設投入較多經費，並且在經費的運用上無優先順序考量，教學部分在計畫經費之使用占有相當重的比例。 玖、受補助大學以檢核表及評鑑表來確認執行進度，少部份學校採用第三者外部評鑑。 拾、我國「發展國際一流大學及頂尖研究中心計畫」鼓勵頂尖大學發展各校特色領域，使研究成果更具有國際視野及品質。 拾壹、我國「發展國際一流大學及頂尖研究中心計畫」帶動受補助學校所有層面之發展，包含研究、教學、國際化、產學、基礎建設、制度等，使學校整體素質向上提昇。 拾貳、我國「發展國際一流大學及頂尖研究中心計畫」經費分配容易造成校內紛爭，而學校未具有信服力的審核機制以作為分配款項之依據。 拾參、我國「發展國際一流大學及頂尖研究中心計畫」要求受補助之公立大學必須法人化，而教師與職員具有公務人員身份的矛盾，導致大學法人化遭到內部反對。

最後依據研究結論提出建議，以供教育行政主管機關、受補助大學及未來研究之參考。

The purpose of this research was to study the implementation of the “Plan to Develop First-class Universities and Top-level Research Centers”. In terms of research methodology, researcher adopted literature analysis and interview for the study. The research was developed based on three aspects: background of higher education in Taiwan, the plan for excellence in international higher education, and school which is funded by “Plan to Develop First-class Universities and Top-level Research Centers”. Researcher interviewed nine participants, all of whom served as top administrators at their respective universities: three presidents, three chief executive officers, two research and development managers, and one executive manager. According to the findings of the study, the conclusions of the research were as follows: 1. The Management organization of plan for excellence of higher education in Japan, Korea, China, Germany ,and Taiwan were all offical authorities. The length of programs were three to seven years. All execute two times. Participants felt that the time table of the plan was appropriate, however, whether the third time should continue or not depends on the evaluation. 2. The method of plan for excellence divided into two types: block funding and project funding. In regard to the improvement of higher education, the method of block funding is superior. 3. Universities executed strategies of the plan tended to four aspects: Infrastructure, research, teaching, and internationalization. 4. At begin of the plan, the Ministry of Education placed emphasis on university world rankings, but schools did not do so. There was a discrepancy between the Ministry of Education and schools in emphasis placed on university world rankings. 5. The system for audit of the plan could be improved. A change in criteria could increase flexibility for universities. 6. Research and development departments, secretariats, and top university officers are responsible for the plan. A dedicated unit for implementing the plan is essential. 7. In order to cooperate with the audit of the Ministry of Education, universities should execute the plan every year, and adopt follow up procedures way to supervise the results. 8. Contrary to expectations, universities allocated funds evenly between research and teaching, universities invested more in infrastructure. After that teaching held large proportion of funding. 9. Universities used checklist and evaluation tables to confirm progress, in addition, some of them invited a third party for evaluation. 10. The plan encouraged top universities in developing their own characteristic domains, so that their research results could be better and more internationally recognized. 11. The achievements of “Plan to Develop First-class Universities and Top-level Research Centers” were diversity in research results, teaching results, internationalization results, and industry cooperation results, etc. It also brought about overall university advancement. 12. Allocation of plan funds often caused internal conflicts in universities, and there was not a review mechanism to audit allocation. 13. The Ministry of Education required that public schools be corporatization with this mission period to accepting fund. However, the faculties of universities opposed this requirement because they might lose the position of public servants.

Based on the conclusions of this research, the researcher has provided recommendations to the education institutions, universities and future researchers for their reference.