本論文共一冊約十萬字，內分五章十三節，茲摘要如下： 第一章 緒論 第一節 研究目的與動機 本論文旨在瞭解美國企管碩士教育課程設計之發展趨勢與需求者對課之期望情況，以 為中華民國企管碩士教育之未來發展方向提出建議。 第二節 研究架構 以最近數年中美所發表之有關企管碩士計劃之期刊、論文歸納出七個主要論題：分析 比較中、美企管研究所在上述論題所做之努力之差異。 以問卷調查之方式來確定國內需求者對上述論題之重視程度。 第二章 研究方法 第一節 內容分析法 應用於文獻探討以瞭解企管碩士教育之發展趨勢；應用於各所之課程目錄分析中，以 瞭解中、美各所之發展重點。 第二節 因素分析法 應用於問卷資料分析上，以瞭解各類需求者對各個論題之重視程度。 第三章 中美企管研究所課程設計之比較 本章共分五節：一、中美基本必修課之相似程度與涵蓋範圍之比較。二、選修課程之 涵蓋廣度與專精深度之比較；三、中美企管所採行專門化或廣泛性企管碩士計劃之比 率比較；四、中美學生平均年齡與工作經驗比較；五、師資、畢業要求修件之比較。 第四章 課程需求情況之研究 本章共分兩節：一、美國的需求情況，根據最近幾年已發表之文獻探討之；二、台灣 地區之需求情況；以７１年畢業之企管碩士為對象，瞭解其對課程安排之看法。 第五章 結論與建議 對前述研究做簡單結論，並對中華民國企管碩士教育未來發展方向提出建議。

前言： 第一章導論：第一節研究主題及主要概念： (一) 研究主題， (二) 主要概念之界定 。第二節有關研究理論與文獻： (一) 守門理論, (二)有關新聞從業員專業性的研究 , (三) 中文可讀性的研究。第三節研究目的。 第二章研究設計：第一節研究設計模式，第二節研究方法之一－－調查法： (一) 問 卷設計, (二) 選樣與訪問, (三) 資料處理。第三節研究方法之二－－內容分析法 ： (一) 分析對象與選樣, (二) 測量的單元, (三) 分析題目, (四) 資料處理。 第四節資料的綜合處理。 第三章研究結果之分析：第一節信度與效度，第二節國會記者專業性之分析： (一) 國會記者之性別、年齡、教育程度與其專業性之關聯性， (二) 報紙經營型態與其客 觀報導國會新聞之關聯性， (三) 國會記者之專業性與其新聞寫作重點強調之關聯性 ， (四) 國會記者之專業性與其新聞寫作可讀性之關聯性。 第四章研究結果之討論：第一節國會記者之專業性，第二節報紙處理國會新聞之型態 ，第三節國會記者之專業性與其處理新聞之關係。 結語

本研究採用質性研究方法，運用深入訪談方法來訪談14位處理兒童及少年校園性侵害案件具有實務工作經驗超過5年的警察人員、教職人員、社工員，從中探討社工員在介入校園性侵害案件服務工作的角色扮演及其與警政、學校一同處理案件的衝突，並從中探究社工員本身的工作困境與因應之道，期能作為社工員介入校園性侵害案件服務工作經驗整理的開始，進而可做為社工員在性侵害防治工作領域專業角色扮演，及與他專業合作分工的參考。本研究發現如下: 一、社工員主觀認知的角色功能，與法定職責相似，且社工 員角色在處理性侵害案件與一般兒少保護案件是有所差異的。另警政與教育人員對性侵害業務社工員角色扮演的看法，彷彿停留在社工員可以協助其業務面向或是被害人面對司法問題上。總之，似乎校園性侵害案件真要進入司法程序，社工員的角色功能才得以有所發揮。 二、警察人員最期待社工員能夠先了解案情，且請社工員不要在當事人面前「指揮」警察該如何偵辦案件。又教職人員最期待社工員能夠提供訪談資訊，以協助性平會調查。 三、社工員服務困境主要來自社政體制本身，與對個案及其家屬服務過程的衝突。前者如依法規定24小時訪案沒有彈性、新案影響提供舊案的服務、夜間陪同偵訊問題、與應對司法制度產生之角色衝突困境。後者如被害人拒絕配合調查程序、與家長對案情認定不一致，以及面臨處理兩情相悅案件的複雜性。 四、而專業間對彼此的抱怨，呈現了警察人員最在意社工員過度干涉筆錄製作事項，社工員反覺得警察人員不清楚兒童及少年被害人的情緒反應狀態與行為模式，卻未積極偵辦之情。另一方面，學校教職人員覺得社工員透漏學校通報之情，而破壞學校師生的信任關係，甚至覺得社工員可以不要再重複訪談被害學生了。相對的，社工員對於學校教職人員忽略被害人感受 與對被害人標籤、未能滿足家長期待、不清楚處理流程等等事項有所抱怨。 五、為因應上述之困境，且促進專業間的合作關係，也為個案提供專業服務，社工員對學校性平調查持一定配合程度。另為避免破壞與警政的合作關係，社工員全力協助被害人配合製作筆錄事宜。且為維護被害人的法定權益，社工員應接納被害人的個別差異性，並協調各專業之差異認定與判斷。更重要的是社工員需進行自我心態調整，清楚社工員職責角色的界線，同時接納與了解不同專業的工作內容。 六、綜合受訪者想法、意見，在目前實務工作場域中的情境，發現專業間可以分別辦理共同訓練、整合調查工作、建立跨單位組織、修訂法規等不同方式來建立以被害人為中心的團隊工作模式。 依上述研究發現，從處理兒少校園性侵害案件的制度面與從社工員實務工作面提出建議。首先在制度面上，中央機關可從法令規章的修訂與建立中央跨部會機關間的協調機制來著手，而縣市政府教育局處可成立跨校專責小組以專責處理性平案件調查業務，並結合警政、社政之性侵害業務專責小組成跨專業團隊來專責處理校園性侵害事件。在實務面上，建議社政主管機關要落實性侵害防治業務社工員之在職教育、建立緊急保護社工員的服務體制與倡導社工員的職責角色，且社工員要了解與運用性侵害防治業務相關法律規定，並開放自我與其他專業對話。 / This paper adopts the qualitative research method to have in-depth interviews with fourteen police officers, school faculties and social workers who have the experience of dealing with campus sexual assault cases of children and youth for more than five years. With the conducted interviews, this paper will discuss the role social workers play when involving in the cases of sexual assault on campus and the conflicts aroused among social workers, the police and school faculty. This paper aims to investigate the dilemma that social workers face in their job and the possible solutions to these problems. In hope that these data can serve as an initial record for social workers who work in this disciplinary; a reference for the role social workers play in sexual assault prevention; and a guide for the collaboration with other professions. This paper has thus reached the following findings: I. The subjective perception of social workers’ function is similar to their statutory duty and that their role in dealing with sexual assault cases differs from that handling general child protection cases. Nevertheless, the police and school faculty still have the impression that social workers who handle sexual assault cases can assist them with their respective duties or provide help for the victim’s confrontation with the judicial problems. Ultimately, it seems like it is only when the campus sexual assault case reaches its judicial stage, then social workers can play their part. II. The police expect social workers to understand the case and meanwhile, they do not want social workers to interfere with their investigation, especially in front of the victim or victimizer. On the other hand, the school faculty expects social workers to provide them with the interview information, so as to assist the investigation of the Gender Equality Committee. III. The problems that social workers face are mainly from the rigidity of the social affair system and the conflicts aroused when communicating with the victim, the victimizer, and their relatives. The former problems are such as the inflexibility of the regulation of the law to attend the case in 24 hours; the past cases are affected by the current cases; the problems of accompanied night interrogation; and the conflicts aroused in confrontation with the judicial system. The latter problems are such as the victimizer’s refusal to cooperate in the investigation, the disagreement on the case with the parents, and the complexity to handle the case involving sexual gratification in mutuality. IV. There are complaints between different professions. For instance, the police concern the most about social workers’ excessive intervention when they are making a report of the case. However, social workers feel that the police are insensitive to the child or youth victim’s emotions and behaviors, and therefore they did not carry out the investigation actively. Moreover, the school faculty feels that social workers’ disclosure of the case would damage the trust between students and teachers. Also, they feel that social workers should not interview the victimized student repeatedly. On the other hand, social workers have complaints about the school faculty. For example, their negligence of the victim’s feelings; their tendency to label the victim; their inability to fulfill the expectations of the parents and their ignorance of the procedure of the case. V. To solve the above problems; to initiate the cooperative relations among different professions; and to provide the case with professional service, social workers will definitely coordinate with the school’s investigation on the gender equality cases. Also, in order not to damage the cooperative relation with the police, social workers will provide full assistance while the police are making a report of the case with the victim. Moreover, social workers should safeguard the legal rights of the victim by accepting the victim’s individual difference and coordinating the difference in judgments between various professions. Most importantly, social workers should undergo an adjustment in mentality to understand their role and the borderline of their duty by accepting and understanding the tasks of various professions. VI. By summing up the interviewees’ ideas and opinions, there comes to a discovery that in the practical practices, it is possible for different professions to conduct trainings together, to synthesize the investigation, to establish a cross-unit organization, to revise regulations and many other ways in order to create a victim-centered working team mode. From the above studies, suggestions can be made on two aspects, the system itself and the practical practices of social workers, while dealing with sexual assault cases on campus. First on the system, the central authority can start with the revision of the laws and regulations and the establishment of the coordination from the central to the other departments. For instance, the County Municipal Bureau of Education Department can set up a cross-school team that deals mainly with gender equality cases, and which is able to synthesize the sexual assault investigative teams from the police and social workers. Next, on the practical practices of social workers, it is suggested that the social affairs authority should implement the in-service education of social workers involving in sexual assault preventive project. Also, it is necessary for the establishment of a service system that protects social workers’ safety in case of emergency and the need to advocate the responsibility of their role. Furthermore, social workers are required to understand and exercise the laws and regulations related to sexual assault preventive cases, and to have an open-mind so that the dialogues with other professions can be made possible.