我國大學品質保證與競爭經費關連性之研究

Abstract

本研究之主要目的有四：一、瞭解美英台三國大學品質保證機制之發展情形；二、分析美英台三國政府經費分配機制之運作現況；三、探討美英台三國大學品質保證與政府競爭經費之關連性；四、根據文獻探討與實證分析之結果提出結論與建議，以作為政府主管機關經費分配機制改革之參考。 為達成以上研究目的，本研究兼採文獻探討與實證分析，首先就文獻探討而言，又可分為理論基礎與實務探討兩部分。在理論基礎方面，除釐清何謂大學績效責任之品質觀外，並探討政府競爭經費之基本意涵。在實務探討方面，則分別就美國、英國與我國大學品質保證與政府競爭經費之發展與運作現況進行闡述，藉此瞭解我國政府目前競爭經費分配模式所面臨之主要問題。 其次就實證分析而言，共分為三階段，第一階段為我國大學績效指標之建構，係根據文獻探討結果，初擬「我國大學績效指標項目調查問卷」作為德懷術實施之調查工具。第二階段為大學經營績效之分析，係以前述指標系統為基礎，並擇取適當投入與產出項目後，透過資料包絡分析法來瞭解各項獎助計畫中申請學校之經營績效。第三階段為大學經營績效與政府競爭經費關連性之探討，係運用Spearman相關係數分析，探討各大學經營績效相對效率值與政府競爭經費之關連性。 最後，綜合文獻探討與實證分析之結果，獲得以下結論：一、品質保證與競爭經費之連結，可讓大學機構透過競爭機制提高教育品質；二、品質保證與競爭經費之連結，可讓政府競爭經費之分配具有較合理基礎；三、品質保證與競爭經費之連結，可能造成大學強者愈強，弱者愈弱，進而強化大學階層化後果並抑制大學教學與研究創新。This study has four purposes: 1. to inquire into the development of higher education quality assurance in Taiwan. 2. to analyze the distribution of competitive funding in Taiwan. 3. to clarify the relationship between higher education quality assurance and competitive funding in Taiwan. And 4. based on the results, to make recommendation to the policy-makers in making university subsidizing policy in the future. In order to achieve the above-stated purposes, this study adopted the methods of literature analysis and practical analysis. First, through documentary analysis, the study elucidates the primary concepts of quality assurance and competitive funding and their practice. Second, according to the results drawn from the literature, the researcher developed “Questionnaire on performance indicators for universities in Taiwan” as the tool to collect the opinions of experts. To ensure the data accuracy, the items of input and output are carefully assessed and selected. The models of evaluation are then determined by using empirical DEA analysis. Based on the collected data, the study then proceeds with efficiency analysis and reference set analysis. Finally, the following results were reached: 1. Both the quality assurance and funding allocation are the important policy instruments of government. 2. Performance-based funding is a realization of Hefficiency doctrineH. 3. Performance-based funding is still lower percentage in Educational Budget. 4. The Linkage Between quality assurance and funding allocation is diverse. 5. The Linkage Between quality assurance and funding allocation should be indirect and flexible.