高中職以下教師若對學生有不當行為，包括不當管教、其他違法處罰、體罰、霸凌等，學校需召開校園事件處理會議（校事會議）進行調查與認定。本研究目的在探究校事會議人才庫委員對調查歷程、事實認定與相關困境的看法，研究參與者為來自七個縣市的45位人才庫委員，採焦點座談及個別訪談來蒐集資料，以紮根理論法來分析資料。結果發現，委員的組成會影響溝通；會前會瞭解學校期待與教師平時表現；調查時不同對象約談重點各不同；事實認定的考量步驟包括看學校預設及檢舉內容來定錨、確認事實是否發生、依法令要件來認定行為樣態、認定模糊時的區辨；認定與懲處建議會考量不同因素來給予機會或持平裁量；撰寫報告主筆論述影響大。至於調查與認定過程，則要面對不成立專家與不OK委員、調查蒐證的挑戰、委員的心理壓力、認定模糊有難度、學校要求改報告、認定錯誤被退報告、外界不信任報告等七類困境。本研究結果對於校事會議調查或其他行政調查的制度修正與法規研擬，能提供更多的參考證據。

When teachers in elementary and secondary schools engage in inappropriate behaviors toward students— such as improper discipline, unlawful punishment, corporal punishment, or bullying— schools are required to convene a school incident review committee to conduct investigations and make determinations. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of certified committee members regarding the investigation process, fact-finding, and associated challenges within these committees. Participants included 45 certified investigation members from seven counties and cities in Taiwan. Data were collected through focus group discussions and individual interviews and analyzed using the grounded theory method.

The results revealed that: 1. The composition of the committee members significantly influences communication effectiveness. 2. Pre-meetings assist members in understanding the school’s context and expectations. 3. The focus of investigation varies depending on the target group. 4. The process of fact-finding follows a specific sequence: anchoring based on school presets and the content of the report, verifying the occurrence of the incident, identifying behavioral patterns according to legal elements, and differentiating categories in cases of ambiguity. 5. Fact-finding and disciplinary recommendations are further influenced by various factors that lead to either leniency or neutral discretion, with the lead author of the report exerting substantial influence over the final narrative.

Certified investigation members encountered seven major challenges: “non-validating” experts and unqualified members, difficulties in evidence collection, psychological pressure, ambiguity in determinations, school requests to revise reports, rejection of reports by authorities due to erroneous findings, and external distrust. The findings provide empirical evidence to inform institutional reform and policy development related to school incident review committees and other administrative investigations.