Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/31907
|
| Title: | 海軍紀律指標建構之研究
A Study on the Construction of R.O.C. Navy Discipline Indicator |
| Authors: | 孫常德 |
| Contributors: | 林顯宗
孫常德 |
| Keywords: | 軍隊紀律
紀律指標
德爾菲法
軍事組織特性
軍紀評核制度
組織控制
military discipline
discipline indicator
Delphi Method
the characteristics of military organization
the system of military discipline examination
organization control |
| Date: | 2005 |
| Issue Date: | 2009-09-14 12:30:55 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 研究主旨在於探討軍紀概念的理論基礎，完成海軍軍紀指標的理論性建構，以茲作為未來在實務層面建立專業紀律評核制度之依據。本研究主要有五個研究目的：（一）就「軍紀評核制度」的完備性而言，探討「軍紀」組成構面暨發展各構面之指標項目。（二）探討這些指標項目對於評量部隊之軍紀實況的代表性和有效性。（三）探討這些指標項目對於評量部隊違反紀律所造成之影響的代表性和有效性。（四）探討這些指標項目對於區辨出軍紀事件之「肇因性質」係屬「意外」或「非意外」的代表性和有效性。（五）依據研究結果，提出具體建議，以供海軍未來擬定軍紀政策及相關學術研究之參考。
本研究為達成上述之目的，先根據文獻探討結果，建立海軍紀律指標的理論基礎，並審視國軍現行相關法規，據以演繹出「軍紀」具有生活、工作、訓練和戰鬥等四個構面。繼之運用「修正型德爾菲法」實施兩回合問卷調查，藉由專家小組反覆性意見回饋，及其對指標項目之「重要性」意見的統計結果，以及專家小組成員在意見上的「一致性」與「穩定性」的統計分析，以驗證各項指標的代表性和有效性，完成「海軍紀律指標」的理論建構。本研究指標項目總數96項，扣除無效指標4項，有效指標計有92項，其中主要指標47項，次要指標45項。
根據研究結果之統計資料分析，有以下四項之主要研究發現：
（一）本研究建構之紀律指標，其中滿分指標與無效指標，這兩種極端情形均佔總數的比率極低；另外，主要指標與次要指標佔總數的比率極高，且分配情形呈現出相當的對稱性。（二）可提供未來評核紀律的專業基準。（三）軍紀指標應兼顧「質性」與「量性」指標，方能建立合理公平的評核制度。（四）著手應然面的學術研究，可提供軍隊實然面的制度改革。
In this essay the author looks from the theoretical inquiry about the military discipline to construct the R.O.C. Navy discipline indicators. The construction is to be the base that establishing academically the system of Navy discipline examination further. There are five purposes of this research. Firstly, the purpose is to explore that the military discipline contains which dimensions and each dimension of military discipline contains which indicators, serves to develop further the system of Navy discipline examination. Secondly, the purpose is to explore those indicators if estimate accurately actual condition of army discipline. Thirdly, the purpose is to explore those indicators if estimate appropriately effects on the army that caused by discipline disobey. Fourthly, the purpose is to explore those indicators if distinguish incident from non-incident about the essentiality of causes of discipline disobey. Fifthly, in accordance with major findings to provide suggestions for improving the military discipline policy and academic investigation.
For achieving the five purposes aforementioned, after reviewing some relevant references, completes the theoretical construction of the military discipline indicator. Meanwhile, after reviewing the regulations and rules of R.O.C. military discipline, deduces that military discipline contains four dimensions of life discipline、work discipline、training discipline and combat discipline. In short, there are 96 R.O.C. Navy discipline indicators deduced by theoretical construction and existing regulations. Then, expert panel constituted that consists of 10 experts whose specialty are about military discipline. Applying Modified Delphi Technique processes two times questionnaire anonymously answered by expert panel. Verifying the propriety of the constructions is based on interaction and feedback of the expert’s opinion through the two times questionnaire anonymously. After the estimation of importance、consensus and stability of 96 Navy discipline indicators, finds out that 4 indicators are irrelevant, the others are relevant. Some of the relevant indicators, including 47 indicators are first grade indicators, 45 indicators are second grade indicators.
According as statistical results indicated that：(1)Those two extreme kinds of full marks indicators and irrelevant indicators are few in the constructions. Also, the percentage of the first grade indicators and the second grade indicators are high in the construction that consists of 96 indicators. Both of the indicators distribute symmetrically. (2)The findings have served to establish academically the system of Navy discipline examination further. (3)Military indicator in constructing should consider after both sides of qualitative assessment and quantitative assessment that will enable the system of Navy discipline examination to practice reasonably and equitably. (4)Academic research will contribute to revolution in military affairs of discipline examination further. |
| Reference: | 一、中文部分
王保進(1996)。《高等教育表現指標之研究》。台北：國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文。
王保進(1993)。〈高等教育表現指標之研究〉。《教育政策論壇》，4(3)，頁1-17。
王秉鈞譯(1995)。《管理學》。原著S. P. Robbins(1994)。台北市：華泰書局。
田振榮(2002)。〈建立技專院校提昇教學品質指標之研究〉。教育部技職司委託研究計劃。
朱美珍(1996)。《社會工作在軍隊的運用》。台北：華泰書局。
江岷欽(1995)。《組織分析》。台北市：五南圖書。
李隆盛(1996)。《科技與職業教育的跨越》。台北：師大書苑。
李美樺(1995)。《我國高等技職教育市場定位分析之研究-以科技大學為例》。台中：朝陽科技大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
宋文娟(2001)。〈一種質量並重的研究法~德菲法在醫務管理學研究領域之應用〉。醫務管理期刊，2(2)，頁11-20。
吳瓊恩(1996)。《行政學》。台北市：三民書局。
吳祖祿譯(1983)。《領導統御學》(上)。台北：國防部作戰參謀次長室印
吳雅玲(2001)。〈德懷術及其在課程研究上的應用〉。《教育研究》，9，頁97-306
林志凡(2003)。《以德菲法預測台灣三五族半導體產業之發展趨勢》。新竹：國立交通大學科技管理研究所碩士論文。
洪陸訓(2002)。《武裝力量與社會》。台北：麥田出版社。
洪光遠譯。《組織領導》。原著Gary A. Yukl(1992)。台北市：桂冠圖書
邱湧忠(1998)。〈從組織分析論「農會法」修法〉。《基層金融》，36，頁131-150。
黃正傑(1977)。《課程設計》。台北：東華出版社。
孫志麟(1990)。〈教育指標的概念模式〉。《教育研究資訊》，3(1)。
湯堯(2001)。〈台灣地區之技職教育指標建構研究〉。《教育政策論壇》，4(1)，頁53-80。
康龍魁(2004)。〈技專院校經營效率評鑑指標建構之研究〉。《教育政策論壇》，7(1)，頁59-82。
楊宜真(1998)。《傳播科技人才能力需求與學程設計原則：修正式德菲研究》。新竹：國立交通大學傳播所碩士論文。
蔡承志譯(2001)。《與高風險系統共存：常態性意外》(初版)。原著Charles Perrow (1999，Normal Accidents：Living with High-Risk Technologies)。臺北市：商周出版，城邦文化發行。
游家政(1996)。〈德懷術及其在課程研究上的應用〉。《花蓮師院學報》，6，頁1-24。
鄭為元(2004)。〈軍隊的系統分析〉。載於洪陸訓、陳膺宇(等著)，《軍事社會學論文譯介》(68-90頁)。台北：政治作戰學校軍社中心。
彭懷真等譯(1991)，朱岑樓(主編)。Peter J. O’connell原著。《社會學辭典》(初版)( Encyclopedia of Sociology)。台北:五南圖書出版公司。
張美蓮(1996)。《我國大學教育指標建構之研究》。台北：國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文。
張承、陳弘、陳華、陳銘、趙敏編著(2004)。《管理魔法書》(四版)。台北市：鼎茂圖書出版公司。
張苙雲(1986)。《組織社會學》。台北市：三民書局。
張家銘等譯。《社會學》(上)。原著A. Giddens(1997)。台北：唐山出版社
楊仁壽、俞慧芸、許碧芬等合譯。《組織理論與管理》。原著Gareth R. Jones(2002)。台北市：雙葉書廊。
詹哲裕(2000)。〈當代軍事倫理理念之探微〉。《軍事社會科學學刊》，7，頁1-26。
詹哲裕(2003a)。〈當代軍事專業的理想觀點與現實之探析〉。載於政戰學校軍社中心編印，《軍事社會科學實務研究》(35-72頁)。台北：政治作戰學校。
錢淑芬(1997)。〈軍校生「工作價值觀」量表編制研究〉。《測驗年刊》，44(1)，頁209-232。
錢淑芬(1991)。〈從軍隊「角色訓練制度」論「角色認知」對軍隊生活適應的影響〉。《復興崗學報》，45，頁443-462。
盧瑞陽編著(1993)。《組織行為：管理心理導向》。台北市：華泰書局。
謝潮儀(1983)。〈德爾斐專家學者問卷法之應用~以臺北都會區為例〉。《法學商報》，18，頁109-32。
二、英文部分
Abrahamsson, B. (1972). Military Professionalization and Political Power. Inter-University seminar on the Armed Forces and Society. California, Sage Publications, Inc. Beverly Hills.
Adler, P. S. and Borys, B. (1996). Two Types of Bureaucracy：Enabling and Coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 61-89.
Anderson, J. W. (1986). Military Heroism：An Occupational Definition. Armed Forces and Society, 12(4), 591-606.
Brewer, T. (1975). Military Officers and Arms Control: Personality Corretates of Attitudes. Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 3, 15-25.
Brooks, K. W.(1979). Delphi Technique：Expanding Applications. North Central Association Quarterly, 53(3), 377-385.
Carlino, M. A. (2000). Ethical Education at the Unit Level , The Joint Services Conference on Professional Ethics, Washington, D. C.：United States Military Academy, January. See http：//www. usafa. af.mil/jscope/JSCOPE00/Carlino00. html. See http://www.usma. Edu/ Cpme/CPMEext/CPMEext. htm.
Crawford, J. E. & Crositt, W. B. (1980). Effective Decision-making Within the Organization：A Comparison of Regular, NGT and Delphi Group Process. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Western Speech Communication Association, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 182 786.
Dalkey, N. & Helmer, O. (1963). An Experimental Application of the Delphi Method to the Use of Experts. Management Science, 9(3).
Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H. & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group Techniques for Program Planning：A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Process. NJ：Scott, Forestman & Company.
Van Doorn , J. (1965). The Officer Corps：A Fusion of Profession and Organization. European Journal of Sociology, VI(2), 262-82.
Dalkey, N. & Helmer, O. (1963). An Experimental Application of the Delphi：Method to the use of Experts. Management Science, 9(3), 458-467.
Faherty, V. (1979). Continuing Social Work Education：Results of a Delphi Survey. Journal of Education for Social Work, 15(1), 12-19, December.
Ficarrotta, J. C. (1997). Are Military Professionals Bound by a Higher Moral Standard? Armed Forces & Society, 24(1, Fall), 59-75.
Foster, P. R. & Kozak, M. R. (1986). Characteristics of a Model Industrial Technology Education Field Experience. The Technology Teacher, 46(2), 23-26.
Franke, C. V. (2000). Duty, Honor, Country：The Social Identity of West Point Cadets, Armed Forces & Society, 26(2,Winter), 175-202.
Gortner, H. F., Mahler, J. & Nicholson, J. B. (1989). Organization Theory：A public perspective. California：Brooks/Cole.
Griffin, R. W. (2005). Management, 8th edition. Boston, New York, Houghton Mifflin Company.
Hartman, A. (1981). Reaching Consensus Using the Delphi Technique. Educ. Leadership, 38, 495-97.
Hicks, L. (1993). Normal Accidents in Military Operations. Sociological Perspectives，36(4), 377-391.
Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture’s Consequences. International Differences in Work-related Values, Beverly Hills, Sage Hofstede, G. H.
Hofstede, G. H. (1991). Cultures and Organizations. Software of the Mind, London, McGraw Hill.
Holden, M. C. & Wedman, J. F. (1993). Future Issues of Computer-mediated Communication：The Results of a Delphi Study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 5-24.
Horwath, J. & Morrison, T. (1999). Effective Staff Training in Social Care：From Theory to Practice. Lendon：Routledge.
Huntington, P. S. (1963). Power, Expertise and the Military Profession. Daedalus, 92(Fall),785-807.
Huntington , P. S. (1957). The Soldier and the State：The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations. Cambridge, MA：Harvard University Press.
Janowitz, M. (1953). The Professional Soldier and Political Power：A Theoretical Orientation and Selected Hypotheses. The Free Press.
Janowitz, M. (1960). The Professional Soldier-A Social and Political Portrait. New York：Free Press (II edition 1971).
Janowitz, M. & Little, R. W. (1965). Sociology and The Military Establishment . Revised Edition, Russell Sage Foundation Printed in the United States of America.
Krathwohl, D. R. (1993). Method of Educational and Social Science Research：An Integrated Approach. New York：Longman Publishing Group.
Lang, K. (1965). Military Organization, In：J. G. March (ed.), Handbook of Organizations, Rand McNally, Chicago.
Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1949). The American Soldier-An Expository Review. American Journal of Sociology, November, 377-404.
Lee, W. (1995). A Delphi Study to Improve Science Content Courses for Pre-service Elementary Teachers at the College of Education. Memphis State University, A Dissertation for Doctor of Education Degree.
Linstone, H. A. & Turoff, M. (1979). The Delphi Method：Techniques and Application. (3rd ed.). MA：Addison -Wesley .
Maciariello, J. A. (1989). Management Control System. Prentice-Hall Inc..
Miewald, R. D. (1970) Weberian Bureaucracy and The Military Model. Public Administration Review, 30(2, March/April), 129-133.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The Structuring of Organizations. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs N. J.
Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structure in Fives, Prentice-Hall.
Murry, J. W. & Hammons, J. O. (1995). Delphi：A Versatile Methodology for Conducting Qualitative Research.Review of Higher Education, 18(4), 423-436, June.
Parente, F. & Anderson-Parente, J. (1987). Delphi Inquiry Systems. In Wright, G. & Ayton, P.(Eds).
Perrow, C. (1999). Normal Accidents：Living with High- Risk Technologies. Princeton University Press.
Perrow, C. (1970).Organizational Analysis：A Sociological View. Belmont, Calif：Wadsworth Pub. Co..
Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., & Hinings, C. R. & Turner, C. (1973). The Context of Organization Structures. In Readings in Organizational Behaviour and Performance, (eds). W. E. Scott & L. L. Cummings, Richard D. Irwin.
Scheibe, M. M. , Skutsch, M. , Schofer, J. (1975). Experiments in Delphi Methodology. In Linstone, H. A. & Turoff, M. (Eds.). The Delphi Method：Techniques and Application (3rd ed.). Mass：Addison -Wesley .37-71.
Schwartz, T. P. & Marsh, R. M. (1999). The American Soldier Studies of WWII: A 50th Anniversary Commemorative. Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 27(1, Summer), 21-37.
Shalit, B. (1988). The Psychology of Conflict and Combat. New York, Praeger.
Simon, R. (1990). The Role of Mamagement Control Syetem In Creating Competitive Advantage：New Perspective, Accounting Organization and Society. 15(1/2), 127-143.
Soeters, J. & Recht, R. (1998). Culture and Discipline Military Academies：an International Comparison. Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 26 (2,winter), 169-189.
Soeters, J. (1997). Value Orientations in Military Academies：A Thirteen Country Study. Armed Forces & Society, 20(1, Fall), 7-32.
Somers, K., Baker, G. & Isbell, C. (1984). How to use the Delphi Technique to Forecast Training Needs. Performance & Instruction, 23(4), 26-28.
Stouffer, S. A., ed al. (1949). The American Soldier：Combat and Aftermath (Vol. I-II). Princeton, NJ：Princeton University Press.
Williams, R. M., Jr. (1989). The American Soldier：An Assessment, Several Wars Later. Public Opinion Quarterly, 53, 155-174. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
行政管理碩士學程
93921003
94 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0093921003 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [行政管理碩士學程(MEPA)] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| index.html | 0Kb | HTML2 | 192 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
