Theme categorization and indicator establishment for the study of sociology of sport
陳昱文(Yu-Wen Chen)；湯添進(Tien-Chin Tan)；黃郁婷(Yu-Ting Huang)；李炳昭(Ping-Chao Lee)
學術發展 ； 修正式德菲法 ； 研究方法 ； 指標 ； academic development ； modified Delphi method ； research method ； indicators
|Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication||
49卷3期（2016 / 09 / 01）
353 - 369
緒論：過去對研究現況與趨勢的討論，多聚焦於各研究議題的文章數量統計，卻忽略最初「研究議題」的產生方式，可能形成流於主觀判斷的困境。本研究以運動社會學研究為範疇，進行議題分類與指標建構，做為瞭解臺灣運動社會學研究現況與趨勢之依據。方法：本研究採內容分析法、焦點團體法與修正式德菲法，並使用NVivo 質性分析工具協助資料彙整，分2 階段完成。第一階段主要使用內容分析法與焦點團體法，參考Dart (2014) 與Coakley (2009) 的分類後，再加入黃東治等 (2012) 與Malcolm (2012) 等20 本中外學者編著的專書，建構各議題下的指標。第二階段使用修正式德菲法，以第一階段完成的檢核表，徵詢11 位臺灣運動社會學的學者，共進行三個回合，最後形成「運動社會學研究議題與指標一覽表」。結果：一、第一階段產生14 項議題共108 條指標。二、經第二階段的增刪，最後綜整出政治與政策、經濟…等15 項議題及116 條指標。結論：本研究採用人文取向的「理念型」研究方法，意味著這些議題與指標的建構，可能仍無法免除某種程度的主觀色彩。因此，本研究盡力在充滿主、客觀二元對立的學術趨勢研究中，嘗試建構一把相對客觀的「尺」。研究過程中所遭遇的難題，研究團隊試著以相對客觀且目前較為可行的方法來解套。主要策略有三：一、採用輔助書目與學者增修，做為指標建構的依據。二、使用焦點團體法與修正式德菲法降低議題產生方式過於主觀的疑慮。三、運用團隊的小組討論，再加入當代研究文獻來處理意見相左的問題。希冀能為後續研究者提供另一條學術現況與趨勢研究的取徑。
Introduction: For the past years, discussion about the current situation and future trend of the academia was often based on the statistics of papers of different issues and themes. Nevertheless, what was often ignored was the fact that the process of researchers' defining those themes could be subjective. This research aimed at establishing a category of themes in the field of sociology of sport, along with the indicators under each category, with which we could possibly have a better understanding of the development and future trend of sociology of sport academia in Taiwan. Methods: With NVivo being the tool for data analysis, categorization and coding, the process of this research was divided into two phases. For the first phase, content analysis was conducted, with which the category of themes was identified according to Dart (2014) and Coakley (2009), and the indicators under those themes were identified by referring to Hwang et al. (2012), Malcolm (2012) and other 18 books in either Chinese or English. For the second phase, modified Delphi method was conducted as the approach to the modification of the final version of ＂the category and indicators of the academic themes in the field of sociology of sport＂. Within the second phase, three rounds of consulting with a total of 11 Taiwanese sport sociologists were carried out. Results: First, 14 themes and 108 indicators were identified in the first phase. Second, psychology and health were deleted from the category of themes in the second phase, with the themes of social class, socialization and religion added. Third, 116 indicators were identified, and 15 theme categories, including politics and policy, economy, race and ethnicity, gender, media, education, social class, socialization, religion, culture, theory and methodology, deviance and violence, ethics and philosophy, history and others were defined as the main themes discussed in sociology of sport. Conclusion: This research appealed to the humanistic approach and establishes an ideal type of category. Nevertheless, this doesn't mean that our categorization is perfect and extremely objective. Subjectivity still exists when themes and indicators are identified. In fact, this research tried to build a relatively objective standard for investigating the current situation of the academia of sociology of sport. Encountering several difficulties during the process, our research team tried to approach our goal through relatively objective and currently feasible ways. Three strategies were taken in our research, as follows: first, indicators were identified based on a variety of relevant books, along with discussions and consults with professionals. Second, modified Delphi method and focus groups were conducted as to reduce controversy over the subjectivity of the categorizing process. Third, reviewing current researches and discussing with colleagues helped us to deal with the divergence in views between the professionals we consulted with. All in all, this research hopes to provide another access to understanding the current situation and future trend of the academia.