摘要
审批制度改革、鼓励社会力量参与,为我国群众性体育赛事发展注入了新的动力,但也从政府管理向社会治理转变过程中群众性体育赛事暴露出一些新问题。以群众性体育赛事协同治理理论模型为分析框架,综合运用案例法、访谈法和文献资料分析,对中国(京山)绿林网球·英雄会和陈仓区周末篮球联赛两个典型赛事进行比较分析,探讨当前社会背景下我国群众性体育赛事协同治理机制。研究发现,办赛环境、办赛主体、参与动因、协同引擎、互动行为和协同结果6个核心要素在群众性体育赛事协同治理过程中发挥着不同作用,并形成一个有机的互动体系,共同影响赛事协同治理效果。研究启示:1)必须明确群众性体育赛事协同治理结构中的核心责任主体;2)要坚持发挥政府在群众性体育赛事中的协调和监管作用;3)群众性体育赛事协同治理具有事件性特征。
The reform of the approval system and encouraging the participation of social forces by the government have injected new impetus into the development of mass sports events in China, at the same time, mass sports events have also exposed some new problems in the process of transformation from government management to social governance. Comprehensive use of case, interview and literature analysis research methods,taking the theoretical model of collaborative governance of mass sports events as the analytical framework to make a comparative analysis between two typical cases of China’s(Jingshan) Lvlin Tennis & Hero’s Club and Chencang District Weekend Basketball League, in case to discuss the collaborative governance mechanism of mass sports events in China under the current social background. Research found that competitions environment, competitions subject, participation motivation, collaborative engine,interaction behavior, and the collaborative result, these six core elements play different roles,form an organic interactive system and jointly affect the cooperative governance effect of the event. Research implication: 1) The core responsibility subject in the collaborative governance structure of mass sports events must be clearly defined;2) adhere to the coordination and the supervise role of the government in mass sports events;3) the cooperative governance of mass sports competition has the characteristics of “event”.
作者
冯加付
FENG Jiafu(Xi’an Physical Education University,Xi’an 710068,China)
出处
《中国体育科技》
CSSCI
北大核心
2022年第9期102-107,共6页
China Sport Science and Technology
基金
国家社会科学基金项目(21BTY051)。
关键词
群众性体育赛事
协同治理
机制
案例分析
mass sports events
collaborative governance
mechanism
case analysis