Driven by the dual waves of globalization and digitization, higher education disciplines are undergoing a profound cognitive transformation. The intersection of multiple theories and the embedding of policy practice have led to semantic expansion, blurred boundaries, and functional misalignment of many core terms in academic discourse in cross contextual transfer and local adaptation. The generalization tendency of conceptual systems not only weakens the explanatory power and operability of terms, but also to some extent restricts the theoretical accumulation and paradigm construction of disciplines themselves. In the face of the constantly emerging theoretical tension and normative dilemma in paradigm shift, it is urgent to start from the logic of concept generation and semantic evolution path, clarify the internal mechanism and external motivation of term expansion, and thus construct a practical approach for the rational discourse and conceptual governance of higher education disciplines in the dialectical tension of deconstruction and reconstruction. The concept of expressive form is the cornerstone of theoretical construction. Both Western higher education theory and localization development path cannot be separated from the definition and use of concepts. Excellent concepts not only cover rich practical phenomena, but also often condense into the core expression of scholars' ideological systems. For example, the law of internal and external relationships in higher education is an important part of Mr. Pan Maoyuan's educational theory. In the 1980s, this theory mainly served the macro structural design of the higher education system, emphasizing the coordinated development of education and socio-economic factors; Entering the 21st century, its connotation gradually permeates to the micro governance level, focusing on the boundary balance between institutional autonomy and government supervision. Similarly, many higher education terms originate from real-life problems and constantly inspire vitality in the process of responding to problems, contributing theories and policy solutions. This dynamic adaptation mechanism indicates that the essence of concepts lies in maintaining the core essence while continuously updating theoretical tools through semantic extension. However, if the semantic extension exceeds the original functional scope, it is easy to fall into a state of "category drift", weakening its theoretical guidance and practical normative functions. From a longitudinal perspective, many higher education terms have undergone semantic evolution from singular to compound, and from abstract to concrete. For example, as a fundamental task proposed at the national level, "cultivating virtue and nurturing people" initially emphasized ideological education and shaping values, but in the new era, it has gradually expanded to comprehensive training goals such as general literacy, innovation ability, and global competence. From a horizontal synchronic perspective, concepts exhibit diverse forms in different organizations and contexts, forming a 'terminology variant'. This ambiguity has to some extent stimulated institutional flexibility, but it has also weakened the cognitive consensus of the higher education community and increased the negotiation cost of resource allocation and cooperative governance. More noteworthy is that the concept of international higher education often experiences semantic shift during the localization process. For example, in the practice of the "entrepreneurial university" concept in East Asia, its original academic commercialization core is often replaced by a technology transformation model of industry university cooperation, forming a "conceptual hybrid product" with regional characteristics. This localized semantic reconstruction, although in line with the reality of regional education, may also obscure the theoretical depth and normative orientation of the original concept. The deep driving force behind the generalization of concepts within higher education disciplines is not only due to the freedom of academic pragmatics, but also influenced by the intervention of practical fields and the penetration of international discourse. This phenomenon not only challenges the theoretical construction power of the discipline, but also reflects the collective dilemma of the academic community in conceptual governance. Firstly, concepts themselves have openness and dynamism. As research topics expand and knowledge problems become more complex, core terms are often endowed with new semantic connotations, leading to multiple interpretations in different research paths. The diversification of this explanation not only enriches the theoretical perspective, but also easily leads to the drift of conceptual boundaries and dilution of meaning. Secondly, as higher education research gradually interacts closely with policy-making, university governance, and even technological innovation, a group of high-frequency policy terms show a strong trend of semantic generalization. The mobilization effect and symbolic significance contained in terms such as "high-quality development", "first-class disciplines", and "education powerhouse" make them high-frequency expression tools in academic research. Under the guidance of policy promotion and performance evaluation, they are gradually transformed into operational indicators or institutional labels. In this process, the original theoretical tension and analytical function of the term are weakened, making it ambiguous at the theoretical level. Its meaning is constantly being pulled in multiple fields of "policy academic practice", thereby exacerbating the trend of conceptual generalization. Finally, cross-cultural communication and the introduction of international discourse also pose challenges to the stability of local theoretical concepts. Core terms derived from foreign educational theory systems, such as "learning outcomes" and "literacy orientation," often face semantic transfer issues when introduced into higher education discipline research. Without systematic translation and contextual adaptation, these concepts often conflict with local practices or existing concepts, resulting in semantic overlap or even functional compression, further exacerbating the phenomenon of conceptual generalization in the context of higher education research. The generalization of core terms within higher education disciplines poses a challenge to the clarity and effectiveness of academic research due to theoretical tension. On the one hand, the blurring of terminology boundaries weakens the distinguishing power of theoretical analysis, causing academic exchanges to lose a common semantic basis. For example, terms such as "popularization of higher education" and "student-centered" are often widely used in different contexts as substitutes for certain value representations or policy intentions, making it difficult for them to carry effective knowledge construction functions. From this perspective, conceptual generalization is not only a manifestation of the disorder of language norms in research, but also a symptom of the loosening of knowledge structures within the discipline. On the other hand, conceptual generalization is not entirely negative, it also implies that the discipline is responding to the complexity of external reality. The semantic tension released by generalization provides an opportunity for the reproduction of concepts and the iteration of theories. Many higher education theories with profound academic insights are gaining new life by redefining or transforming old concepts when the original terminology system encounters "application bottlenecks". Therefore, the phenomenon of generalization itself constitutes a "generative tension" in the process of theoretical evolution. Therefore, the key to generalization is not whether to use it, but how to use it. Maintaining sensitive tension control between theoretical production and practical feedback, clarifying the contextual boundaries, functional orientations, and knowledge directions of terminology usage, is the core of addressing the problem of conceptual generalization. The construction of a governance path for the restoration mechanism of conceptual ecology urgently needs to start from the internal mechanism of the academic community and rebuild the standardized ecology of concept generation and application. Firstly, pay attention to the systematic organization and definition of conceptual categories. Starting from the historical context, we need to sort out the evolution of terminology, clarify the ontological attributes, theoretical directions, and applicable boundaries of core concepts, and construct a systematic system of higher education basic terminology. This work is not only the result of theoretical accumulation, but also an important symbol of disciplinary self identification and knowledge self-discipline. Secondly, strengthen the normative awareness of academic pragmatics. The academic community should guide researchers to follow the logical consistency and contextual adaptation of terminology usage through journal review mechanisms, academic evaluation guidance, and graduate training systems, avoiding the transplant expression of "take it and use it" and the strategic packaging of "misuse of terminology". At the same time, the perspective of "terminology as methodology" should be advocated, placing the use of core terminology throughout the entire process of research design and theoretical analysis, and enhancing the explanatory power and theoretical penetration of academic language. Thirdly, promote the theoretical and theoretical development of local educational discourse. While introducing the concept of international higher education, we should be cautious of semantic conflicts and discourse colonization in terminology transplantation, and enhance the theoretical reflection and knowledge expression ability of local educational experience. By constructing original conceptual tools and local discourse systems, we can promote the development of higher education disciplines from "borrowing language" to "self naming". The evolution of the conceptual system of higher education disciplines reflects the constantly expanding cognitive boundaries of the academic community towards educational reality and theoretical paradigms. Only by examining the power imprint behind each term in deconstruction and calibrating the value coordinates of conceptual innovation in reconstruction can we achieve the dialectical unity of theoretical vitality and practical effectiveness. The concept governance of the future should not pursue an absolutely stable terminology system, but should establish a dynamic balance mechanism, so that the concept system can flow like living water, absorb new knowledge nutrients, and not flood and destroy the dam of academic inheritance. This is not only an inherent requirement for the construction of an autonomous knowledge system in higher education, but also an inevitable choice for the knowledge community to respond to the changes of the times. (Xinhua News Agency) Author: Mei Xiongjie (PhD student at Xiamen University Education Research Institute/Teacher Development Center)