SPLISS模式於不同層級運動政策分析之適用性探討：以馬來西亞勞勿縣籃球公會為例

The applicability of the SPLISS model across multiple levels of sport policy analysis: Evidence from the Raub District Basketball Association, Malaysia

緒論：「邁向國際運動成功之運動政策因素」（Sport Policy factors Leading to International Sporting Success，SPLISS）模式雖以國家層級分析為初衷，但近年已廣泛延伸至地方層級，成為運動政策研究中的新正統（new orthodoxy）。然而，地方協會與國家體系在資源結構與治理權能上存在顯著差異，若盲目套用恐將陷入政策機制的「黑箱問題」（Black Box problem）。本研究旨在透過理論邊界測試（boundary testing），檢視SPLISS模式在地方情境中的適用性與調整需求。方法：本研究以馬來西亞勞勿籃球公會為案例，透過半結構式訪談與文件分析，依據SPLISS模式九項關鍵因子檢視其發展策略。研究採案例導向（case-oriented）途徑，旨在揭示無法被量化變項捕捉的非正式治理與社會資本。結果：研究顯示，財務支持、基層參與、人才發展、運動員支持及教練培訓（因子1、3、4、5、7）為反映地方困境的核心生存指標。政策整合與訓練設施（因子2、6）需依地方情境調整為在地調適指標；而國際賽事與運動科學（因子8、9）則因超出權能邊界而呈現結構性不適用的情形。結論：本研究證實SPLISS模式應用於地方層級時存在明顯的層級偏誤（hierarchical bias）。據此提出「SPLISS +／- X」的動態組構：透過「減法」剔除遲鈍指標，並以「加法」納入社會資本與非正式治理等X因子。此架構能有效打開治理黑箱，為不同層級運動政策的研究提供更具情境化（contextualized）的分析工具。

Introduction: Although the Sports Policy Factors Leading to International Sporting Success (SPLISS) model was originally developed for national-level policy analysis, it has increasingly been extended to local contexts in recent years and has become a new orthodoxy in sport policy research. However, substantial differences exist between local associations and national sport systems in terms of resource structures and governance authority. Blindly applying a national-level analytical framework to local contexts risks reproducing a black box problem in explaining policy mechanisms. This study therefore adopts a boundary testing approach to examine the applicability and adjustment needs of the SPLISS model in local governance settings. Methods: This study employs the Raub Basketball Association (RABA) in Malaysia as a case study. Using semi-structured interviews and document analysis, the development strategies and operational conditions of RABA were examined through the nine SPLISS policy factors. A case-oriented research approach was adopted to capture forms of informal governance and social capital that cannot be adequately identified through purely quantitative indicators. Results: The findings indicate that financial support, grassroots participation, talent development, athlete support, and coach education (Factors 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7) function as core survival indicators reflecting local-level constraints. Policy development and integration, along with training facilities (Factors 2 and 6), require contextual reinterpretation and are better understood as locally adaptive indicators. In contrast, international competition and sport science (Factors 8 and 9) exceed the authority and capacity of district-level associations and thus demonstrate structural inapplicability. Conclusion: The study confirms the presence of a clear hierarchical bias when the SPLISS model is applied at the local level. To address this limitation, the study proposes a dynamic“SPLISS±X”configuration: employing a subtractive approach to down-weight or remove insensitive indicators, while simultaneously adopting an additive approach that incorporates X factors such as social capital and informal governance mechanisms. This framework effectively opens the governance black box and provides a more contextualized analytical tool for sport policy research across different governance levels.