English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 92429/122733 (75%)
Visitors : 26277156      Online Users : 191
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/118365


    Title: 拒絕的邏輯:公共政策網路參與平台政府回覆內容的論證分析
    The Logic of Denial: An Analysis on the Arguments of the Official Responses on the “Public Policy Participation Network Platform”
    Authors: 林彥君
    Lin, Yen-Chun
    Contributors: 黃東益
    Huang, Tong-Yi
    林彥君
    Lin, Yen-Chun
    Keywords: 電子化政府
    網路參與
    網路請願
    政策論證
    E-government
    E-participation
    E-petition
    Policy argumentation
    Date: 2018
    Issue Date: 2018-07-04 14:47:12 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 隨著資訊通訊技術的演進以及對社會變遷的回應,我國電子化政府計畫已從線上公共服務輸送,拓展到網路公民參與的階段。2015年國家發展委員會建置了「公共政策網路參與平臺」,讓民眾可透過網路對公共政策提出建言,希望能在更為公開透明的環境下,達到強化與民溝通、提升政府與民眾信任關係的目標。然而,電子化工具的運用,卻為政府帶來更嚴苛的挑戰。公共政策網路參與平臺在運作兩年後,滿意度調查結果卻顯示,參與民眾的政治效能感、對政府回應內容的滿意度均偏低。本研究認為,政府在與人民進行政策溝通時,應提出足令採信的論據,以促進政府與民眾間的理性溝通,因此,本研究的目的即是深入探討、評估政府回應內容,以瞭解可能的問題所在。本研究使用關鍵個案抽樣,篩選23個政府拒絕民眾提議的案例,並使用William N. Dunn的政策論證模型作為研究架構,透過內容分析法與文本分析法拆解並重構政府回應文本,嘗試還原政府回應內容中所蘊含的理性基礎。研究結果發現,政府在拒絕民眾提議時,最常使用動機式論證與權威式論證,而政府若僅以是否符合法規作為拒絕理由,將會因為一味要求民眾守法、忽略實際可能的窒礙狀況,而產生目標錯置的問題,導致回覆內容難以取信於民。因此,本研究建議政府應妥善管理回應品質,權責機關在拒絕民眾提議時,應避免只引用法律規定作為理由,並盡可能說明法令或政策的依據原則或施行目的,而國家發展委員會亦應持續調查民眾滿意度,建立知識管理機制與網路政策溝通的參考原則。
    In response to the evolution of information and communication technologies and social change, the e-Government program in Taiwan has expanded from online public service delivery to netizen participation. In 2015, the National Development Council launched the Public Policy Network Participation Platform, a transparent online platform designed to allow citizens to voice their opinions regarding public policies and thus, to enhance trust between the public and the government. However, the use of such a platform poses grave challenges to the government. Two years after the platform came online, a survey found that citizens using the platform re-ported a low sense of political efficacy and low satisfaction with the government’s responses. The present study argued that the government should offer compelling evidence as a basis for policy communication to encourage rational communication with the public. Therefore, the present study aimed at investigating government responses to public suggestions regarding public policies to determine the causes of miscommunication between the government and citizens.
    Critical (or crucial) case sampling was performed to select 23 cases in which the government rejected public suggestions. The policy argument model proposed by William N. Dunn served as the framework for this study. Content and textual analyses were conducted to deconstruct and reconstruct the government’s responses, thus identifying the rationales for the responses. This study found that “argumentation from motivation” or “argumentation from authority” are the government’s typical rationale for rejecting public suggestions, and that if the government justifies its rejection solely on legal grounds, then it tends to demand law-abidance alone, rather than addressing possible obstacles, thus causing goal displacement and responding to citizens in an unconvincing manner. On the basis of the findings, this study recommends that the government should properly manage their responses to public opinions voiced on the Public Policy Network Participation Platform, and the competent authorities should provide the basis for or purposes of relevant laws or policies to justify their rejection. Moreover, the National Development Council should continue to survey public satisfaction with government responses on this platform, develop a knowledge management mechanism, and frame guidelines on online policy communication.
    Reference: 一、中文文獻
    王石番(1989)。傳播內容分析法:理論與實證。臺北:幼獅文化。
    王光旭(2008)。數位民主行政與官僚回應性:民意電子信箱強化回應性認知研究初探。政策研究學報(8),頁 77-115。
    王佳煌、潘中道、蘇文賢、江吟梓(譯)(2014)。當代社會研究法:質化與量化取向(W. Lawrence Neuman原著)(第2版)。臺北市:學富文化。
    丘昌泰(2013)。公共政策基礎篇(5)。高雄:巨流。
    林芳微(2014)。行政與立法的政策論證―勞保年金改革個案研究。未出版之碩士論文,國立政治大學行政管理碩士學程,台北市。
    林裕權(2007)。政府e化十年的回顧與展望。研考雙月刊,31(1),頁13-22。
    胡幼慧、姚美華(1996)。一些質性方法上的思考:信度與效度?如何抽樣?如何收集資料、登錄與分析。載於質性研究:理論、方法及本土女性研究實例。(頁141-157)。臺北:巨流。
    胡全威(2013)。說服與判斷:古典修辭對當代民主的啟發。政治科學論叢(55),頁1-32。 doi: 10.6166/tjps.55(1-32)
    孫本初、劉祥得(2000)。政策論證興起之探討。中國行政,67,頁1-27。
    馬群傑(2012)。地方永續發展的政策論證與價值認知─以臺南市反怠速政策為例。公共事務評論,13(1),頁 75-113。
    馬群傑、王孟彥(2009)。公眾參與地方文化產業發展之政策論證─以臺南市為例。中國行政評論,17(2),頁 43-108。doi: 10.6635/cpar.2009.17(2).02
    馬群傑(譯)(2011)。公共政策分析(William N. Dunn原著)。臺北市:台灣培生教育出版。
    國家發展委員會(2015)。 透明治理。載於ide@ Taiwan 2020(創意臺灣)政策白皮書。(頁 105-138)。臺北:國家發展委員會。
    莊明芬(2015)。公民參與提點子。國土及公共治理季刊,3(4),頁 102-109。
    莊明芬、林雨潔、楊慧敏(2017)。公共政策網路參與─國民提議2周年執行成果。政府機關資訊通報(349),頁 14-23。
    陳敦源、黃心怡、廖洲棚、陳恭、陳揚中(2016)。政府推動電子連署(e-petition)的機遇與挑戰。國土及公共治理季刊,4(4),頁 41-53。
    陳敦源、黃東益、蕭乃沂、郭思禹(2006)。官僚回應性與內部顧客關係管理:臺北市政府市長信箱個案研究。行政暨政策學報(42),頁 143-182。
    陳敦源、廖洲棚、黃心怡(2017)。政府公共溝通:新型態網路參與及溝通策略。國家發展委員會委託研析報告(編號:NDC-MIS-105-004),臺北:國家發展委員會。
    黃東益(2017)。資訊通訊科技驅動治理轉型?趨勢與研究議題。文官制度季刊,9(3),頁 1-25。
    黃東益、施佳良、傅凱若(2007)。地方公共審議說理過程初探:2005年宜蘭社大公民會議個案研究。公共行政學報(24),頁71-102。
    黃東益、蕭乃沂、陳敦源(2003)。網際網路時代公民直接參與的機會與挑戰─臺北市「市長電子信箱」的個案研究。東吳政治學報(17),頁121-151。
    廖洲棚、廖興中、黃心怡(2018)。開放政府服務策略研析調查:政府資料開放應用模式評估與民眾參與公共政策意願調查。國家發展委員會委託研析報告(編號:NDC-MIS-106-003),臺北:國家發展委員會。
    劉宗熹、林雨潔、莊宜貞(2017)。公共政策網路參與平臺提點子提議檢核未通過分析。政府機關資訊通報(348),頁 59-62。
    劉欣華、楊慧敏(2016)。公共政策網路參與-國民提議周年執行情形報告。政府機關資訊通報(343),頁 43-54。
    魯炳炎、林玥秀、吳碩文(2010)。從政策論證的技術理性到政策對話的溝通理性─民宿管理政策個案分析。中國行政(82),頁 1-22。
    謝維鈞、石振國(2007)。國民年金方案的比較研究─政策論證的分析途徑。中華行政學報(4),頁 81-101。doi: 10.6712/jcpa.200706_(4).0005
    簡宏偉(2012)。電子化政府推動成果。研考雙月刊,36(6),頁72-79。

    二、英文文獻
    Bach, J., & Satrk, D. (2003). Technology and Transformation Facilitating: Knowledge Networks in Eastern Europe. New York: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.
    Barber, B. R. (1998). Three Scenarios for the Future of Technology and Strong Democracy. Political Science Quarterly, 113(4), 573-589. doi: 10.2307/2658245
    Bochel, C. (2012). Petitions: Different Dimensions of Voice and Influence in the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. Social Policy & Administration, 46(2), 142-160. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9515.2011.00828.x
    Böhle, K., & Riehm, U. (2013). E-petition systems and political participation: About institutional challenges and democratic opportunities. First Monday, 18(7), 3-3. doi: 10.5210/fm.v18i7.4220
    Carman, C. (2010). The Process is the Reality: Perceptions of Procedural Fairness and Participatory Democracy. Political Studies, 58(4), 731-751. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2010.00840.x
    Clark, S., Lomax, N., & Morris, M. A. (2017). Classification of Westminster Parliamentary constituencies using e-petition data. EPJ Data Science, 6(1), 16. doi: 10.1140/epjds/s13688-017-0113-9
    Dahl, R. A. (1998). On Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
    Dumas, C. L., LaManna, D., Harrison, T. M., Ravi, S., Kotfila, C., Gervais, N., Hagen, L., & Chen, F. (2015). Examining political mobilization of online communities through e-petitioning behavior in "We the People". Big Data & Society, 2(2). doi: 10.1177/2053951715598170
    Dunn, W. N. (1981). Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction (1st ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
    Dunn, W. N. (1990). Justifying policy arguments: Criteria for practical discourse. Evaluation and Program Planning, 13(3), 321-329. doi: 10.1016/0149-7189(90)90063-3
    Dunn, W. N. (1993). Policy Reforms as Arguments. In F. Fischer, J. Forester, M. A. Hajer, R. Hoppe, & B. Jennings (Eds.), The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning (pp. 336). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
    Dunn, W. N. (1994). Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
    Dunn, W. N. (2004). Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
    Dunn, W. N. (2008). Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
    Dunn, W. N. (2016). Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction (5th ed.). NY: Routledge.
    Elnoshokaty, A. S., Deng, S., & Kwak, D. H. (2016, 5-8 Jan. 2016). Success Factors of Online Petitions: Evidence from Change.org. Paper presented at the 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS).
    Escher, T., & Riehm, U. (2017). Petitioning the German Bundestag: Political Equality and the Role of the Internet. Parliamentary Affairs, 70(1), 132-154. doi: 10.1093/pa/gsw009
    Fischer, F. (1998). Beyond Empiricism: Policy Inquiry in Post positivist Perspective. Policy Studies Journal, 26(1), 129-146. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.1998.tb01929.x
    Gasper, D., & George, R. V. (1998). Analyzing argumentation in planning and public policy: assessing, improving, and transcending the Toulmin model. Environment and Planning B-Planning & Design, 25(3), 367-390. doi: 10.1068/b250367
    Gauld, R., Flett, J., McComb, S., & Gray, A. (2016). How responsive are government agencies when contacted by email? Findings from a longitudinal study in Australia and New Zealand. Government Information Quarterly, 33(2), 283-290. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2016.03.004
    Hagen, L., Harrison, T. M., Uzuner, Ö., Fake, T., LaManna, D., & Kotfila, C. (2015). Introducing textual analysis tools for policy informatics: A case study of E-petitions. Paper presented at the ACM International Conference Proceeding Series.
    Hagen, L., Harrison, T. M., Uzuner, O., May, W., Fake, T., & Katragadda, S. (2016). E-petition popularity: Do linguistic and semantic factors matter? Government Information Quarterly, 33(4), 783-795. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2016.07.006
    Harrison, T. M., Dumas, C., DePaula, N., Fake, T., May, W., Atrey, A., Lee, J., Rishi, L., & Ravi, S. S. (2017). E-Petitioning and Online Media: The Case of #BringBackOurGirls. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 18th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, Staten Island, NY, USA.
    Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content Analysis for the Social Science and Humanities. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.
    Hough, R. (2012). Do Legislative Petitions Systems Enhance the Relationship between Parliament and Citizen? Journal of Legislative Studies, 18(3/4), 479-495. doi: 10.1080/13572334.2012.706057
    House of Commons Office (2010). House of Commons Information Office Factsheet P7 Public Petitions. London: House of Commons.
    Hummel, R. P. (1994). The Bureaucratic Experience: a Critique of Life in the Modern Organization (4th ed.). New York: St. Martin's Press.
    Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (2 ed.). London: Sage.
    Kuckartz, U. (2014). Qualitative Text Analysis: A Guide to Methods, Practice and Using Software. London: SAGE Publications.
    Liakopoulos, M. (2000). Argumentation Analysis Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound (pp. 153-171). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
    Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process. New Haven: Yale University Press.
    Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. Klagenfurt: Primary Publication; not reviewed.
    McKee, A. (2003). Textual Analysis: A Beginner's Guide. London: SAGE Publications.
    Miller, L. (2009). e-Petitions at Westminster: the Way Forward for Democracy? Parliamentary Affairs, 62(1), 162-177. doi: 10.1093/pa/gsn044
    Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
    Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Ranchordás, S. (2017). Digital agoras: democratic legitimacy, online participation and the case of Uber-petitions. The Theory and Practice of Legislation, 5(1), 31-54. doi: 10.1080/20508840.2017.1279431
    Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice. London: Sage.
    Schumann, S., & Klein, O. (2015). Substitute or stepping stone? Assessing the impact of low-threshold online collective actions on offline participation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(3), 308-322. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2084
    Sheppard, J. (2015). Online petitions in Australia: Information, opportunity and gender. Australian Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 480-495. doi: 10.1080/10361146.2015.1049512
    Tolbert, C. J., & Mossberger, K. (2006). The effects of e-government on trust and confidence in government. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 354-369. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00594.x
    Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
    UNDESA. (2014). United Nations E-Government Survey 2014: E-Government for the Futrue We Want. New York: UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
    UNDESA. (2016). United Nations E-Government Survey 2016: E-Government in Support of Sustainable Development. New York: UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
    Wright, S. (2016). ‘Success’ and online political participation: The case of Downing Street E-petitions. Information Communication & Society, 19(6), 843-857. doi: 10.1080/1369118x.2015.1080285
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    行政管理碩士學程
    105921064
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105921064
    Data Type: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/THE.NCCU.MEPA.005.2018.F09
    Appears in Collections:[行政管理碩士學程(MEPA)] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    106401.pdf21053KbAdobe PDF720View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback