| 英文摘要 |
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. Method: 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. |
