大專校院體育主管對運動代表隊風險管理認知與因應策略之研究

A Research on how Intercollegiate Athletics Department Heads Implement Risk Management for Athletic Teams and Their Perception of This Subject

10.29632/CRYDSSSK.200906.0006

邱翼松

大專院校 ； 體育主管 ； 風險管理 ； Intercollegiate ； Athletics Department Heads ； Risk Management

長榮運動休閒學刊

3期（2009 / 06 / 01）

54 - 68

繁體中文

目的：本研究旨在瞭解大專校院體育主管對於運動代表隊風險管理因子重要性之認知，以及運動代表隊風險管理之實施現況，並探討其對運動代表隊風險管理策略。方法：以大專校院151位體育主管為研究對象，並利用自編之「大專校院體育主管風險管理認知與實施現況調查問卷」為研究工具進行問卷調查，此外，本研究亦採立意取樣方式，於大學、技術學院、軍警學校及專科學校抽取若干公私立大專校院之體育主管進行深度訪談，以質量並重之研究方法，探討大專校院體育主管風險管理策略。以描述性統計、獨立樣本t 檢定、單因子變異數分析、薛費法等進行統計分析。得到以下結論：（一）男性工作經歷資深、副教授且學歷為碩士者，為大專校院體育主管最大人力資源。（二）大專校院體育主管對運動代表隊風險管理因子整體達「重要」認知，且認為「訓練競賽」因素在風險管理認知上是最重要的。（三）大專校院運動代表隊風險管理之實施現況整體達「尚稱符合」，實施情形以「訓練競賽」因素最完善。（四）各風險管理因子在認知與實施現況的檢定中達顯著差異，且各風險管理因子認知顯著高於實施現況。（五）私立大專校院在「醫療體系」、「場地設備」、「器材」、「訓練競賽」、「教練專業」因素上高於公立大專校院（六）不同團隊特質之大專校院運動代表隊風險管理實施現況在「不同學校別」、「不同運動技術層級」達顯著差異（七）受訪體育主管中，16.6%的學校訂有體育運動風險管理計劃，91.6%簽訂傷害救護醫療網系統（特約醫院），66.6%以校園安全緊急通報系統替代體育運動風險管理計劃，25%將意外傷害處理程序納入ISO9001稽核項目中。整體而言，大專校院學校體育活動風險管理計劃擬定之比例偏低，對運動代表隊的風險管理均採取轉移策略－辦理意外險(100%)及降低風險策略－加強場地設備及器材之管理(83.3%)。有鑑於此，大專校院體育主管建議將體育運動風險管理計劃納入年度體育活動中執行(100%)，並納入體育訪視項目中(91.6%)，以落實校園體育運動的風險管理。

The purpose of this research was to explore intercollegiate athletics department heads' perception on the importance of risk management of athletic teams and the current situation of risk management implementation. The 151 subjects of this research were intercollegiate athletics department heads in Taiwan. A self-developed questionnaire titled ＜||＞The current status of how intercollegiate athletics department heads implement risk management and their perception of this subject＜||＞ was used as a research tool to collect the data. Further more, we used the method of deliberate sampling to invite athletics department heads from public and private universities/technology institutes/military and police schools/vocational collages to join our in-depth interview. We attempt to view the risk management strategies among the intercollegiate athletics departments. The researcher carried out statistical analysis by means of descriptive statistics, independent sample t-test, one-way ANOVA analysis and Scheffe's method and obtained the following conclusions: 1. The male senior associate professors who have master's degrees are the most influencial of intercollegiate athletics department heads. 2. All intercollegiate athletics department heads recognize that risk management factors are important for athletic teams, and they believe athletics training is the most important factor for risk management. 3. The implementation of risk management for athletic teams is satisfactory as a whole, and among all factors, athletic training has been implemented with the best result. 4. In perception and implementation of the various risk management factors, the test results show significant differences. The perception of risk management factors is remarkably higher than the implementation of those factors. 5. Private colleges and universities have a higher sense of importance of medical facilities, equipment, sport training, and coach's professional capacity than public colleges and universities. 6. The intercollegiate athletics teams with individual distinguishing characteristics show a remarkable difference on factors about ＜||＞different school＜||＞, ＜||＞level of athletics major＜||＞. 7. Based on the data, 16.6% of the schools conducted athletics risk management programs, 91.6% signed medical care agreement with alliance hospitals; in 66.6% of the schools, athletics risk management plan is replaced by school security emergency system and 25% of the schools included accident damage handling procedure into ISO9001 audit program. In general, the percentage of athletics risk management implementation among all the intercollegiate athletics departments is quite low. Most of the school organizations take the alternative plans-to buy accident insurance (100%) and to improve the facilities and equipments to decrease the risk at school (83.3%). As a result, the intercollegiate athletics department heads suggest phasing in athletics risk management program to annual sport activities at all schools (100%) and list it as one of the athletics official evaluation items (91.6%). In this way, we can reinforce the risk management implementation all over the campuses.

1. 施致平、吳昭儒、許智惠、王菊霞(2003)。大專院校體育主管風險管理認知與因應策略模式研究。體育學報，35，143-154。
   連結：
2. 彭小惠(2002)。風險管理應用於體育的理論與實務。中華體育，16(2)，29-36。
   連結：
3. Ammon, R.(1993).University of Northern Colorado.
4. Ammon, R.(1993).Risk and game management practices in selected municipal football facilities.Dissertation Abstracts International,54,3366.
5. Horine, L.(1995).Administration of physical educacation and sport programs.Dubuque, Iw:Wm. C. Brown.
6. Jones, D. K. C.(ed.),Hood, C.(1996).Accident and design-contemporary debates in risk management.London:UCL Press.
7. Mulrooney, R. A.,Farmer, p.,H. Appenzeller (Ed.)(1998).Risk management in sport: Issues and strategies.Durham:North Carolina Academic Press.
8. 中華民國大專院校體育總會(2005)。中華民國大專院校體育總會95年體育教師名錄。
9. 江澤群、林國瑞(2000)。體育運動風險管理之探討。北體學報，7，207-216。
10. 吳明隆(2000)。SPSS統計應用實務。台北市:松崗圖書公司。
11. 吳昭儒(2003)。台北市，國立台灣師範大學。
12. 李坤培(2002)。行政院國科會專題研究計畫成果報告，NCS-90-2413-H-002-007行政院國科會專題研究計畫成果報告，NCS-90-2413-H-002-007,未出版
13. 邱金松(1988)。現代體育運動思潮。桃園縣:國立體育學院。
14. 張木山(1997)。花蓮師院男子排球選手運動傷害調查分析。中華體育，11(2)，80-88。
15. 教育部(2005)。中華民國教育統計。台北市:教育部。
16. 黃正宗(1999)。企業必須要有全球風險管理的意識與規劃。會計研究月刊，149，55。
17. 楊文治(2003)。台北市，國立台灣師範大學。
18. 劉耀益(2005)。桃園縣，國立體育學院。
19. 鄭志富(1998)。運動管理學論著彙編（一）。
20. 賴柏伶(2006)。彰化縣，大業大學。

1. 蘇信坤,廖琬如,江欣惇(2023)。拔河運動的風險與管理。臺大體育學報，44，49-60。
2. 吳慧芳(2019)。探討東吳大學運動代表隊選手的睡眠品質。運動休閒餐旅研究，14(3)，20-37。