International Open Access Journal Platform

英美学科专业目录一体化经验对我国学科专业目录一体化体系建设的启示——基于历史制度主义视角

Integrated Discipline and Major Catalog Systems in the UK and the US: Experiences and Enlightenment for China from a Historical Institutionalism Perspective

茆子豪

Education Study / 2026,8(5): 496-502 / 2026-05-22 46 35

View Download PDF

• Information:

  北京师范大学教育学部，北京

• Keywords:
  Discipline and major catalog; Integrated construction; Historical institutionalism; Integration of general and vocational education; Collaborative governance
  学科专业目录; 一体化建设; 历史制度主义; 普职融通; 协同治理
• Abstract: Against the backdrop of building a strong educational nation and advancing high-quality development of higher education, China’s three discipline and major catalogs for postgraduate, undergraduate, and higher vocational education have long been administered by separate departments. This segmented governance has formed prominent path dependence and institutional lock-in, resulting in inconsistent classification logics, asynchronous revision cycles, and poor content articulation. Consequently, the catalogs fail to achieve the national reform goal of “collaborative linkage”, severely restricting cross-level talent cultivation coherence and in-depth integration of general and vocational education. Existing studies mostly focus on textual analysis of single national systems or horizontal comparisons of single-level catalogs, lacking systematic deconstruction of the underlying operational logic of integration from an institutional change perspective. Adopting historical institutionalism as the analytical framework, this paper systematically examines the evolutionary processes, critical junctures, and institutional logics of the “full-level coverage” paradigm in the United States and the “dual-track mutual recognition” paradigm in the United Kingdom, extracting their common experiences in content construction and institutional design. The study reveals that the US achieves integration through institutional restructuring led by a single authoritative body, while the UK realizes gradual compatibility via national qualification frameworks under its dual-track tradition. In light of China’s institutional realities, this paper proposes seizing the current policy window to optimize cross-departmental coordinated governance, adopt a gradual reform path, establish a positive feedback mechanism, and balance institutional stability and dynamic adaptability, providing a localized solution for constructing a collaborative integrated system of three catalogs with Chinese characteristics. 在教育强国建设与高等教育高质量发展背景下，我国研究生、本科、高职三类学科专业目录长期实行分部门管理模式，形成了显著的路径依赖与制度锁定问题，导致分类逻辑不统一、修订节奏不同步、内容衔接不畅，难以实现国家提出的“协同联动”改革目标，严重制约跨层次人才贯通培养与普通教育与职业教育深度融通。现有研究多聚焦于单一国家体系的文本梳理或单一层次目录的横向对比，缺乏从制度变迁视角对一体化运行底层逻辑的系统性解构。本文以历史制度主义为分析框架，系统剖析美国“全层次覆盖型”与英国“双轨互认型”两种一体化范式的演进历程、关键节点与制度逻辑，提炼其在内容构建与制度设计层面的共性经验。研究发现，美国通过单一权威主体推动制度重构实现一体化，英国则在双轨传统下以国家资格框架实现渐进兼容。结合我国制度现实，本文提出应抓住当前政策窗口期，优化跨部门统筹治理结构，采取渐进式改革路径，构建正向反馈机制，兼顾制度稳定性与动态适配性，为构建中国特色三类目录协同一体化体系提供本土化方案。
• DOI: 10.35534/es.0805089 (registering DOI)
• Cite: 茆子豪．英美学科专业目录一体化经验对我国学科专业目录一体化体系建设的启示——基于历史制度主义视角［J］．教育研讨，2026，8（5）：496-502．