单一学科领域知识难以解决当今和未来人类面临的多重挑战。20世纪末以来，世界工程教育改革蓬勃发展，跨学科工程人才培养是工程教育持续关注的一项重点、难点和热点问题。本研究关注三项主要问题：世界一流大学跨学科工程人才培养体系具有什么样的系统结构和运行机制？这些体系呈现哪些类型上的共性特征和个性差异？这些体系建设经验为我国跨学科工程人才培养体系建设带来哪些启示？针对以上问题，本论文系统研究了美、英、德、日、中五国具有全球领先工程学科优势的五所世界一流大学--麻省理工学院、伦敦帝国理工学院、亚琛工业大学、东京工业大学、清华大学的跨学科工程人才培养体系。本研究采取定性与定量相结合的嵌入式混合研究设计，具体包括计算扎根理论方法、案例研究法、文献计量法三个主要研究策略。首先，基于教育生态系统论等理论，应用前沿性“计算扎根理论”研究策略统筹文献计量、文本挖掘、文献深度阅读以及专家访谈等多源多型实证数据分析，构建世界一流大学跨学科工程人才培养体系的五维分析框架（系统目标、层次结构、参与主体、互动关系、生态环境），并且基于层次结构维度中的跨学科性与互动关系维度中的跨学科培养项目提出世界一流大学跨学科工程人才培养体系的分类方式（枢纽型、中介型、协调者型、开发者型）。同时，本研究尝试改进了一种基于Web of Science学科分类的大学跨学科性测量方法，测量比较分析并可视化呈现五所世界一流大学人才培养环境的跨学科性特征及其在过去50年中的历史变化趋势。然后，基于大学跨学科性测量结果与培养体系分类方式，本文将五所高校分别纳入四种人才培养体系类型，进一步采用五维分析框架对四种类型的大学进行了个案分析，重点使用异中求同的比较方法汇总分析了五校跨学科工程人才培养体系的特征。研究发现，五校共性反映了工程作为学科领域在演进发展过程中逐渐强化和拓展的跨学科特征，也反映了工程人才培养实践相关教育活动的有效性。而五校差异主要来自各个学校在发展过程中延续和变革着的办学战略、学科结构和组织结构、学术和教育资源、教育教学理念与方法以及学校文化特别是校园氛围。最后，结合理论研究和实证研究为我国“双一流”大学跨学科工程人才培养体系建设提出了五方面政策建议，并讨论了本研究的创新性、局限性和未来研究方向。

Mono-disciplinary knowledge cannot solve the multiple challenges facing humankind today. As engineering education reforms have flourished across the world since the late 20th century, cultivating interdisciplinary talent constitutes a key theme, a major challenge, and a focus of continuous debate in those reforms. This thesis explored three key questions: What are the structures and mechanisms of interdisciplinary engineering talent development systems in world-class universities? What are the main types of those systems, and what are the shared and distinctive characteristics of those systems? What implications can be drawn from those systems for Chinese engineering education development? Based on these research questions, the thesis made in-depth case analysis and comparison about the interdisciplinary engineering talent cultivation system of five worldclass universities with engineering prominence in the five countries: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the USA, Imperial College London in the UK, RWTH Aachen University in Germany, Tokyo University of Technology in Japan, and Tsinghua University in China. This study adopts an embedded hybrid research design combining qualitative and quantitative approaches, including computational grounded theory, case study method, and bibliometric method. First, based on the theory of educational ecosystem theory and other theories, we apply the cutting-edge "computational rooting theory" research strategy to integrate bibliometrics, text mining, in-depth reading of literature and expert interviews and other multi-source and multi-type empirical data analysis to construct a five-dimensional analysis framework of interdisciplinary engineering talent cultivation system of world-class universities (goal, structure, participant, interaction, and environment). It also proposes the classification framework of interdisciplinary engineering talent development system of world-class universities based on interdisciplinarity in the hierarchy dimension and interdisciplinary projects in the interaction dimension (hub, broker, coordinator, and developer). At the same time, this study attempts to improve a Web of Science disciplinary classification-based measure of university interdisciplinarity to measure, compare, analyze, and visualize the interdisciplinarity characteristics of the talent development environments of five world-class universities and their historical trends over the past 50 years.Then, based on the results of university interdisciplinarity measurement and classification framework, this paper classifies each of the five universities into four types: hub (MIT and Imperical College London), broker (RWTH Aachen), coordinator (TokyoTech), and developer (Tsinghua). Next, the thesis investigated each of the five universities then made comparisons across the cases about the education ecosystem characteristics in terms of the goal, structure, participant, interaction, and environment of fostering interdisciplinarity taleng in engineering. The thesis found that the similaries among five cases reflected the diversified scope and expanded scale of interdisciplinarity in the development of engineering as an academic discipline and also a field of study. Moreover, the similaries also reflecdted both the interdisciplinarity and the effectiveness of engineering related educational and learning activities. As for distinctions among the five cases, the attributions involved the development of institutional strategies, academic and administrative structures, academic and educational resources, eduational thought and pedagogical methods, and institutional culture especially campus culture. In the concluding chapter, the thesis first presented encapusulations of main findings for each of the three research questions, next proposed policy reocmmendations for developing the interdisciplinary engineering talent cultivation systems for “double first-class” universities in China by drawing integrated, then discussed the thesis’ own innovations and limitations, and lastly proposed future research directions.