「公版式」防疫規劃模式之探討與意涵：以國內大專校院新冠肺炎防疫應變計畫為例

A STUDY ON THE 'COMMON VERSION' OF ANTI-COVID-19 PLANNING MODE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS: TAKING THE ANTI-COVID-19 PLANS OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES IN TAIWAN AS AN EXAMPLE

10.6151/CERQ.202206_30(2).0004

姜麗娟(Li-chuan Chiang)

新冠肺炎 ； 全球疫情大流行 ； 風險管理 ； 防疫應變計畫 ； 高等教育機構 ； COVID-19 ； global pandemic outbreak ； risk management ； anti-COVID-19 plans ； higher education institutions (HEIs)

當代教育研究季刊

30卷2期（2022 / 06 / 30）

125 - 127+129-131+133-165

繁體中文

研究目的：瞭解各地高等教育機構如何因應目前新冠肺炎（COVID-19）疫情的發展，將可為不可知的未來預作準備。面對全球疫情大流行，高等教育機構防疫規劃模式反映出怎樣的危機管理呢？是被動地（reactive）只依外部規定而提的應變計畫呢？還是主動地（proactive）依疫情對機構的風險評估後而有的應變規劃呢？為此，本研究以國內大專校院新冠肺炎防疫應變計畫為例，檢視防疫規劃模式的現況與缺口，並依據研究結果提出校園完整性防疫應變計畫參考架構，提供學校未來防疫應變計畫的規劃參考。研究設計／方法／取徑：為能瞭解國內大專校院新冠肺炎防疫應變規劃的現況及缺口，並參考現有文獻，本研究選擇文件分析法（documentary analysis）作為資料蒐集的策略。研究樣本涵蓋全國160所大專校院，蒐集各校官網中防疫專區的公開資訊及防疫應變計畫，作為本研究文件資料分析的來源。研究發現或結論：（一）高達98%學校設有防疫專區作為校內外資訊溝通的平台、約34%學校校長公開發信，信件高峰期落在2020年2月至3月間、只有25%學校公開各次防疫會議紀錄、而提供中英文版防疫資訊者也只占17.5%。各校防疫專區機構內的溝通與討論頻率，明顯地隨著疫情緩和而減少。（二）無論機構屬性或規模大小，因各校應變計畫取自中央防疫規範而出現「公版式」防疫規劃模式，至多歸納為2大類，5種樣態，除了篇幅長短差異外，校與校之間的內容並無太大差別性。（三）各校防疫應變計畫完整性不足，雖都有疫情緊急處置的「緊急因應規劃」（EP）、多數也有安心就學措施的「課程持續不中斷」規劃（ACP），但風險評估與危機管理的「營運持續不中斷管理」（BCM）之規劃顯得不足。（四）各校缺乏應變計畫規劃的資料蒐集，除了對集會／社團／招生試務活動及疫情情境的風險評估外，缺乏就疫情對核心活動（機構、教學、研究、與服務）整體性的風險評估，並依之而有的危機管理規劃。依據研究發現，本文主要論點為：各校防疫專區機構內的溝通與討論頻率明顯隨著疫情緩和而減少、無論機構屬性或規模大小，各校出現趨同的「公版式」防疫計畫及缺乏疫情風險評估與危機管理規劃，尤其在「營運持續不中斷管理」（BCM）之規劃顯得不足，防疫規劃偏向被動因應而非主動應變；學校若未能就疫情對核心活動（機構、教學、研究、與服務）的風險評估，將會弱化後續的風險管理規劃的力道及其合理性。惟，本研究結果主要是以各校公開之資訊作為文件分析的資料來源，將會受限於各校公開資訊的程度與限度。因此，無論是防疫專區的資訊或應變計畫書所呈現的，只能代表機構部分的防疫規劃模式，而非全貌！因此，以公開資訊作為文件分析的研究結果與解讀，應留意前述資料取得的限制，以避免過度推論。研究原創性／價值：這是臺灣第一份系統性檢視全國160所大專校院的防疫應變計畫，並獲得重要的實證研究發現。依據實證資料的分析，具體指出國內存在著「公版式」防疫規劃模式，偏向被動而非主動的應變規劃模式。據此，提出校園完整性防疫應變計畫參考架構，提供學校自我檢視防疫應變計畫完整性，以為未來預作準備。教育政策建議或實務意涵：英國首相邱吉爾曾說：「不要浪費任何一次的危機」！高等教育機構不僅要為當前新冠肺炎疫情進行完善的危機管理，從中學習方能為未來類似流行疫情的威脅預作準備。危機總是伴隨著機會，若大學能主動利用疫情對機構的風險評估，檢視學校相關的危機管理，將能提升機構的韌性與敏捷力，以面對其它或類似危機的處理及未來不可知的挑戰。

Purpose: Higher education institutions (HEIs) can better know how to act when COVID-19 pandemic further evolves, by learning how other higher education institutions handle this pandemic. Facing global pandemic outbreak, what prevention planning modes for crisis management were taken by HEIs? Did they take the reactive and short-term emergency planning or a proactive planning mode? This study aims to systematically review the anti-COVID-19 plans of colleges and universities in Taiwan to identify a planning gap and provide a comprehensive campus anti-pandemic framework for future reference. Design/methodology/approach: The documentary analysis was adopted to study the anti-COVID-19 plans of colleges and universities in Taiwan. The samples include 160 colleges and universities. Variety forms of documents were collected for systematic evaluation in this study, including institutional information on the COVID-19 websites (Chinese/ English), and their anti-COVID-19 plans. Findings/results: (1)98% of the samples set up anti-COVID-19 websites for communicating with internal and external stakeholders. 34% of HEIs publicized their presidential letters, releasing peak time being in February and March, 2020. Only 25% of the samples issued their anti-COVID-19 meeting minutes, and only 17.5% of them issued both Chinese and English versions. The websites showed that internal and external communication decreased as the pandemic got eased. (2)Regardless of their institutional characteristics and size, all the anti-COVID-19 plans followed the same roadmaps issued by the Central Epidemic Control Center (CECC) and by the Ministry of Education. The common version of planning mode, only 2 main categories and 5 types of planning, was identified. Despite of the differences in the length of the plans, not many differences existed among institutions. (3)The anti-COVID-19 plans remained incomplete since they all had 'emergency plan' (EP) and most of them also had 'academic continuity planning' (ACP), but a planning gap showed up in 'business continuity management' (BCM). (4)Insufficient data collection for the anti-COVID-19 plans constituted a problem. The risk assessment was made on school gathering, student societies, and admission affairs but not comprehensively on the core affairs at the institutional level, teaching, research, and services, and followed by planning institutional risk management for anti-COVID-19 plan. Based on the findings, this study argues that anti-COVID-19 prevention planning mode tends to be reactive rather than proactive because the frequency of communication and discussion within institutions declined as COVID-19 eased, and regardless of institutional characteristics and size, the presence of the 'common version' of anti-COVID-19 plans and lack of risk assessment and crisis management planning remain unchanged, especially the lack in the sector of 'business continuity management' (BCM). When HEIs do not conduct risk assessment of the core activities (institutional, teaching and learning, research, and services) caused by the COVID-19, the planning mindset of the risk management taken by HEIs and its justification will be weakened. Since this study collected the published information from institutional websites for documentary analysis, the findings must be limited by the extent of how HEIs revealed their anti-COVID-19 measures. It implies that the planning mode revealed in the anti-COVID-19 websites and plans might represent part of, instead of the whole, institutional responses. Therefore, the interpretation of the findings drawn from institutional open data should pay attention to data limitation and to avoid overgeneralization. Originality/value: This is the first empirical study to systematically review the anti-COVID-19 plans of 160 colleges and universities in Taiwan. Based on the empirical data, the 'common version' of planning mode reveals a reactive rather than a proactive mode, to global pandemic outbreak. Thus, this study proposes a comprehensive campus anti-pandemic framework as reference for HEIs to go beyond the current emergency reactive model in order to better cope with the future. Suggestions/implications: 'Never let a crisis go to waste' said Sir Winston Churchill. For higher education institutions, planning for anti-COVID-19 pandemic not only requires a well-thought crisis management, but also using this knowledge to inform and prepare for the likely future pandemic. Pandemic outbreak offers HEIs an opportunity to assess institutional risk assessment and based on it to refine their crisis management. It can strengthen institutional proactive planning mindset to enhance their resilience and agility when dealing with other or similar crisis and unforeseen challenges in the future.

1. 吳宜蓁, Y. C.(2004)。SARS 風暴的危機溝通與現階段宣導策略檢視：以臺灣政府為例。遠景基金會季刊，5(4)，107-150。
   連結：
2. 吳嘉苓, C. L.,曾嬿芬, Y. F.(2006)。SARS 的風險治理：超越技術模型。臺灣社會學，11，57-109。
   連結：
3. Agasisti, T.,Soncin, M.(2021).Higher education in troubled times: On the impact of Covid-19 in Italy.Studies in Higher Education,46(1),86-95.
4. Bergerson, A. A.(Ed.),Coon, S. R.(Ed.)(2022).Understanding individual experiences of COVID-19 to inform policy and practice in higher education: Helping students, staff, and faculty to thrive in times of crisis.Routledge.
5. Bowen, G. A.(2009).Document analysis as a qualitative research method.Qualitative Research Journal,9(2),27-40.
6. Camilleri, M. A.(2021).Evaluating service quality and performance of higher education institutions: A systematic review and a post-COVID-19 outlook.International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences,13(2),268-281.
7. Chen, C.,Chen, C.,Tang, W.,Huang, B.(2009).The positive and negative impacts of the SARS outbreak: A case of the Taiwan industries.The Journal of Developing Areas,43(1),281-293.
8. Chen, K. T,Twu, S. J,Chang, H. L,Wu, Y. C,Chen, C. T,Lin, T. H,Olsen, S. J.,Dowell, S. F.,Su, I. J.(2005).SARS in Taiwan: An overview and lessons learned.International Journal of Infectious Diseases,9(2),77-85.
9. Cheng, S. Y.,Wang, C. J.,Shen, A. C.,Chang, S. C.(2020).How to safely reopen colleges and universities during COVID-19: Experiences from Taiwan.Annals of Internal Medicine,173(8),638-641.
10. Crawford, J.,Butler-Henderson, K.,Rudolph, J.,Malkawi, B.,Glowatz, M.,Burton, R.,Magni, P.,Lam, S(2020).COVID-19: 20 countries’ higher education intra-period digital pedagogy responses.Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching,3(1),1-20.
11. Crosby, A. W.(1989).America’s forgotten pandemic: The influenza of 1918.Cambridge University Press.
12. Cvenkel, N.(2020).Well-being in the workplace: Governance and sustainability insights to promote workplace health.Springer.
13. Ekmekci, O.,Bergstrand, J.(2010).Agility in higher education: Planning for business continuity in the face of an H1N1 pandemic.SAM Advanced Management Journal,75(4),20-30.
14. Furceri, D.,Loungani, P.,Ostry, J. D.,Pizzuto, P.(2022).Will COVID-19 have long-lasting effects on inequality? Evidence from past pandemics.The Journal of Economic Inequality
15. Guan, Y.,Vijaykrishna, D.,Bahl, J.,Zhu, H.,Wang, J.,Smith, G.(2010).The emergence of pandemic influenza viruses.Protein Cell,1(1),9-13.
16. Hsing, R.,Peterson, R. L.,Chapel, E. V.(2003).Lighting a dark corner - Disaster recovery for business continuity in higher education.Journal of Academy of Business and Economics,2(1),50-59.
17. Jung, J.,Horta, H.,Postiglione, G.(2021).Living in uncertainty: The COVID-19 pandemic and higher education in Hong Kong.Studies in Higher Education,46(1),107-120.
18. Kerr, C.(1995).The uses of the university.Harvard University Press.
19. Marinoni, G.,van’t Land, H.,Jensen, T.(2020).The impact of COVID-19 on higher education around the world. IAU Global Survey Report.International Association of Universities.
20. Mayor, F.(1993).Academic freedom and university autonomy.Academic Freedom and University Autonomy,Bucharest:
21. Meyer, K.,Wilson, J.(2011).The role of online learning in the emergency plans of flagship institutions.Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,14(1)
22. Mitroff, I.,Diamond, M.,Alpaslan, M.(2006).How prepared are America's colleges and universities for major crises?.Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning,38(1),61-67.
23. Murphy, M.(2020).COVID-19 and emergency eLearning: Consequences of the securitization of higher education for post-pandemic pedagogy.Contemporary Security Policy,41(3),492-505.
24. QS (2020). Developing risk management strategies during a crisis: How to look beyond an immediate crisis. https://www.qs.com/portfolio-items/developing-risk-management-strategies-during-crisis-report/
25. Regehr, C.,Nelson, S.,Hildyard, A.(2017).Academic continuity planning in higher education.Journal of Business Continuity & Emergency Planning,11(1),73-84.
26. Scott, P.(1993).The idea of the university in the 21st century: A British perspective.British Journal of Education Studies,41(1),4-25.
27. Sener, J.(2010).Why online education will attain full scale.Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,14(4),3-16.
28. Shin, J. C.(ed.)(2018).Higher education governance in East Asia- Transformations under neoliberalism.Springer.
29. Silverman, D.(ed.)(1997).Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice.Sage.
30. WTO (2020). Trade in services in the context of COVID-19. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/covid19_e/services_report_e.pdf
31. 教育部（2020）。大專校院嚴重特殊傳染性肺炎防治工作綱要（109.3.2 新訂第 3版）。https://www.edu.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=0217161130F0B192&s=E75749E5FBC8D181 [Ministry of Education (2020). The work guide on preventing the campus from severe special infectious pneumonia for colleges and universities. https://www.edu.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=0217161130F0B192&s=E75749E5FBC8D181 ]

1. 林至善,沈軍廷(2023)。大專校院因應COVID-19疫情之行政困境。學生事務與輔導，62(2)，30-46。