English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 112721/143689 (78%)
Visitors : 49556270      Online Users : 725
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: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/120314


    Title: 透過委託 - 代理關係的社會資本發展及交換
    Researching Research in Action: Social Capital Development and Exchange Through Principal-Agent Relationships
    Authors: 湯姆
    Robertson, Thomas
    Contributors: 魏玫娟
    Wei, Mei-Chuan
    湯姆
    Robertson, Thomas
    Keywords: 代理理論
    行動研究
    社會資本
    信任
    互惠
    烏來
    泰雅族
    Agency theory
    Action research
    Social capital
    Trust
    Reciprocity
    Wulai
    Atayal
    Date: 2018
    Issue Date: 2018-10-01 12:20:03 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 世界各地的原住民因殖民歷史而面臨經濟、社會和文化的種種困境。現代社會與團結經濟理論帶來了發展倡議,在現代市場系統中透過文化知識、價值觀和傳統的運用,為邊緣化的民族提供更公平的條件。行動研究計畫的創建亦使當地民族得以融入並參與自身的發展。將當地民族與外界資源(如科技、科學和政治等專門知識)連結,預期會在經濟、社會和政治等層面帶來長期效益。
    台灣國立政治大學的學者就發起一個這樣的計畫,名為「樂酷計畫」。這是針對提升烏來地區原住民族泰雅族的社區能力、以SSE為基礎的行動研究專案。「樂酷計畫」背後的學界人士運用其資源,使原民社區動起來並達到某些發展成效。然而,對經歷過許多停滯不前的計畫、一開始就抱持懷疑的社區來說,建立關係的過程並不容易。凝聚專案前進的動力需要大量且持續性的互惠關係。
    來自外界的計畫發起人和參與其內的社區人員,兩者間協調利益的困難性或許可從「委託代理人理論」找到一些洞察。但代理關係並不會在「社會真空」狀態下發生。尤其是社會資本的文獻將信任、互惠和公平觀念視為連結委託人和代理人的關係因素,用來建立關係並降低代理成本。
    本研究旨在透過社會資本視角,檢視「樂酷計畫」的代理關係,藉此為實際運作提供可推論的一般性見解,盼能為日後「樂酷計畫」或其他計畫框架下的專案提供參考,提升其成功的機會。
    Indigenous peoples around the world are faced with many economic, social, and cultural difficulties as a result of colonial histories. Modern social and solidarity economic theory has led to developmental initiatives that seek to create more equitable conditions for marginalized peoples by leveraging cultural knowledge, values, and traditions in a modern market system, and action research programs have been created to allow inclusion and participation of local peoples in their own development. By linking local peoples to outside resources, such as technological, scientific, and political expertise, long term economic, social, and political benefits are expected.
    One such program developed by scholars at National Chengchi University in Taiwan, was the Lokah Initiative; an SSE based action research project that focused on increasing community capacity of the indigenous Atayal people of Wulai. By mobilizing resources, academics behind the Lokah Initiative were able to activate the local community and reach some developmental successes. The process, however, required no small effort to build relationships with an initially skeptical community that had experienced many stalled projects in the past.
    Principal-agent theory may provide some insight into the difficulty in aligning interests between outside experts who create programs and community members who participate in them. However, agency relationships do not occur in a social vacuum. In particular, literature on social capital implicates trust, reciprocity, and a sense of fairness as relational factors that indicate bridging links between principals and agents that can be used to build relationships and reduce agency costs.
    This thesis seeks to examine the Lokah Initiative’s agency relationships through the lens of social capital. By doing this it is hoped to provide generalizable insights into practices that can help increase the likelihood of success for future projects under the Lokah umbrella and beyond.
    Reference: Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S.-W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. The Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17–40. https://doi.org/10.2307/4134367

    Aldrich, D. P., & Meyer, M. A. (2014). Social capital and community resilience. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214550299

    Ansari, S., Munir, K., & Gregg, T. (2012). Impact at the “Bottom of the Pyramid”: The role of social capital in capability development and community empowerment. Journal of Management Studies, 49(4), 813–842. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01042.x

    Belair C., Ichikawa K., Wong B.Y.L., M. K. . (2010). Sustainable use of biological diversity in socio-ecological production landscapes: Background to the ’Satoyama Initiative for the benefit of biodiversity and human well-being. CBD Technical Series No. 52. https://doi.org/Technical Series no. 52

    Bennett, N., Lemelin, R. H., Koster, R., & Budke, I. (2012). A capital assets framework for appraising and building capacity for tourism development in aboriginal protected area gateway communities. Tourism Management, 33(4), 752–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.08.009

    Blackstock, K. L., Kelly, G. J., & Horsey, B. L. (2007). Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability. Ecological Economics, 60(4), 726–742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.014

    Blackstock, K. L., Waylen, K. A., Dunglinson, J., & Marshall, K. M. (2012). Linking process to outcomes - Internal and external criteria for a stakeholder involvement in river basin management planning. Ecological Economics, 77, 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.02.015

    Bosse, D. A., Phillips, R. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2016). Agency theory and bounded self-interest. Academy of Management Review, 41(2), 276–297. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0420

    Braun, D., & Guston, D. H. (2003). Principal–agent theory and research policy: an introduction. Science and Public Policy, 30(5), 302–308. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154303781780290

    Brosnan, S. F. (2006). Nonhuman species’ reactions to inequity and their implications for fairness. Social Justice Research, 19(2), 153–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-006-0002-z

    Cargo, M., & Mercer, S. L. (2008). The value and challenges of participatory research: Strengthening its practice. Annual Review of Public Health, 29(1), 325–350. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.091307.083824

    Chao, C.-L. C.-L., & Hsu, P.-H. (2011). Learning about the development of ecotourism in the context of the Smangus tribe’s traditional ecological knowledge. GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites, 7(1), 7–21.

    Colton, J. W., & Whitney-Squire, K. (2010). Exploring the relationship between aboriginal tourism and community development. Leisure/ Loisir, 34(3), 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/14927713.2010.521321

    Dash, A. (2016). An epistemological reflection on social and solidarity economy. Forum for Social Economics, 45(1), 61–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/07360932.2014.995194

    Döhler, M. (2018). Discovering the dark side of power: The principal’s moral hazard in political-bureaucratic relations. International Journal of Public Administration, 41(3), 190–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2016.1256893

    Dyer, J., Stringer, L.C., Dougill, A. . (2014). Assessing participatory practices in community-based natural resource management: experiences in community engagement from southern Africa. Journal of Environmental Management, 137, 137–145.

    Gordon, M. E. G., Kayseas, B., & Moroz, P. W. (2017). New venture creation and opportunity structure constraints: Indigenous-controlled development through joint ventures in the Canadian potash industry. Small Enterprise Research, 24(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13215906.2017.1291361

    Graci, S. R., & Ph, D. (2012). Putting community based tourism into practice: The case of the Cree village ecolodge in Moose Factory, Ontario. Téoros: Revue de Recherche En Tourisme, TÉOROS, Sp, 65–70. https://doi.org/10.7202/1036565ar

    Grano, S. A. (2015). Environmental Governance on Taiwan. London and New York: Routledge.

    Grootaert, C., & Bastelaer, T. Van. (2001). Understanding and measuring social capital: A synthesis of findings and recommendations from the social capital initiative. Social Capital Initiative Working Paper (Vol. 24). https://doi.org/10.1227/00006123-197907010-00058

    Grootaert, C., & Van Bastelaer, T. (2002). Understanding and measuring social capital.

    Harrison, L., & Callan, T. (2013). Action research. Key Research Concepts in Politics and International Relations, 2–4.

    Jagosh, J., Bush, P. L., Salsberg, J., Macaulay, A. C., Greenhalgh, T., Wong, G., … Pluye, P. (2015). A realist evaluation of community-based participatory research: Partnership synergy, trust building and related ripple effects. BMC Public Health, 15(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1949-1

    Johnson, N. B., & Droege, S. (2004). Reflections on the generalization of agency theory: Cross-cultural considerations. Human Resource Management Review, 14(3), 325–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2004.06.003

    Judge, T. A., & Zapata, C. P. (2015). The person-situation debate revisited: Effect of situation strength and trait activation on the validity of the big five personality traits in predicting job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 1149–1179. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0837

    Kagan, C., Burton, M., & Siddiquee, A. (2006). The Handbook of Action Research - Introduction. Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in Psychology, 468. https://doi.org/0432

    Kapashesit, R., & Klippenstein, M. (1991). Aboriginal group rights and environmental protection. McGill Law Journal, 36, 925–961.

    Kivisto, J. (2008). An assessment of agency theory as a framework for the government-university relationship. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 30(4), 339–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800802383018

    Klain, S. C., Beveridge, R., & Bennett, N. J. (2014). Ecologically sustainable but unjust? Negotiating equity and authority in common-pool marine resource management. Ecology and Society, 19(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07123-190452

    Kuan, D.-W., Yen, & Ai-Ching. (2003). Traditional institution and the institutional choice: Two CPR self-governing cases of Atayal tribe in Taiwan indigenes. In Joining the northern commons: Lessons for the world, lessons from the world. IASCP Northern polar regional conference. Retrieved from https://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/1616/Kuan,DaWei.pdf?sequence=1

    Kurzban, R. (2003). Biological foundations of reciprocity. In E. Ostrom & J. Walker (Eds.), Trust and Reciprocity (pp. 105–127). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Laville, J.-L. (2013). The social and solidarity economy: A theoretical and plural framework. In Potential and Limits of Social and Solidarity Economy (pp. 1–15). Retrieved from http://www.unrisd.org/80256B42004CCC77/(httpInfoFiles)/2A922D7DFB4821EEC1257B720032E1F4/$file/Jean-Louis Laville.pdf

    Lemelin, R. H., Koster, R., & Youroukos, N. (2015). Tangible and intangible indicators of successful aboriginal tourism initiatives: A case study of two successful aboriginal tourism lodges in Northern Canada. Tourism Management, 47, 318–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.10.011

    Lin, Y., & Hsiao, H. (2002). Contesting Aboriginal Community Mapping : a Critical View From Local Aboriginal Participation. In Proceedings of IUCN/WCPA-EA-4 Taipei Conference.

    Lin, Y., & Icyeh, L. (2000). Indigenous Language-Informed Participatory Policy in Taiwan: A Socio-Political Perspective. In Documenting and Revitalizing Austronesian Languages (p. 134).

    Maiter, S., Simich, L., Jacobson, N., & Wise, J. (2008). Reciprocity. Action Research, 6(3), 305–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750307083720

    Marques, J. S. (2013). Social and Solidarity Economy, Between Emancipation and Reproduction. In Potential and Limits of Social and Solidarity Economy (pp. 1–13).

    Matanle, P. (2011). The great east Japan earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear meltdown: Towards the (re)construction of a safe, sustainable, and compassionate society in Japan’ s shrinking regions. Local Environment, 16(January 2012), 37–41.

    McTaggart, R., Nixon, R., & Kemmis, S. (2017). Critical Participatory Action Research. In L. L. Rowell, C. D. Bruce, J. M. Shosh, & M. M. Riel (Eds.), The Palgrave International Handbook of Action Research (pp. 21–35). New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-40523-4_2

    Moller, H., Berkes, F., Lyver, P. O. B., & Kislalioglu, M. (2004). Combining science and traditional ecological knowledge: Monitoring populations for co-management. Ecology And Society, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.02.016

    Moss, Q. Z., Alho, J., & Alexander, K. (2007). Performance measurement action research. Journal of Facilities Management, 5(4), 290–300. https://doi.org/10.1108/14725960710822277

    Nadasdy, P. (2003). Reevaluating the comangement success story. Arctic, 56(4), 367–380. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic634

    Nielson, D. L., & Tierney, M. J. (2003). Delegation to international organizations: Agency theory and World Bank environmental reform. International Organization, 57(02), 241–276. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818303572010

    Noffke, S. (1997). Professional, personal, and political dimensions of action research. Review of Research in Education, 22(1997), 305–343. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X022001305

    Oetzel, J. G., Wallerstein, N., Duran, B., Sanchez-Youngman, S., Nguyen, T., Woo, K., … Alegria, M. (2018). Impact of participatory health research: A test of the community-based participatory research conceptual model. BioMed Research International, 2018, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7281405

    Ostrom, E. (2003). Toward a Behavioral Theory Linking Trust, Reciprocity, and Reputation. In Trust and Reciprocity (pp. 19–79). Russell Sage Foundation.

    Pargal, S., Huq, M., & Gilligan, D. (1999). Social capital in solid waste management: Evidence from Dhaka, Bangladesh. Sustainable Development.

    Pereira Morais, L., & Juan Bacic, M. (2017). Social and solidarity economy as a tool for territorial development and socio-occupational inclusion (No. 2017/06). Retrieved from http://www.ciriec.ulg.ac.be/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/WP2017-06.pdf

    Pierotti, R., & Wildcat, D. (2000). Traditional ecological knowledge: the third alternative. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1333–1340. Retrieved from http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1333:TEKTTA]2.0.CO;2

    Popova, U. (2014). Conservation, traditional knowledge, and indigenous peoples. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(1), 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213495043

    Portes, A. (2014). Downsides of social capital. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(52), 18407–18408. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1421888112

    Reid, D. (2011). Nation versus tradition: Indigenous rights and Smangus. In D. Blundell (Ed.), Taiwan Since Martial Law: Society, Culture, Politics, Economy (pp. 453–484). National Taiwan University Press.

    Reo, N. J., & Whyte, K. P. (2012). Hunting and morality as elements of traditional ecological knowledge. Human Ecology, 40(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-011-9448-1

    Riel, M. M. (2017). Digital technology in service of action research. In L. L. Rowell, C. D. Bruce, J. M. Shosh, & M. M. Riel (Eds.), The Palgrave International Handbook of Action Research (pp. 627–646). New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-40523-4_38

    Robertson, J. (2000). The three Rs of action research methodology: reciprocity, reflexivity and reflection-on-reality. Educational Action Research, 8(2), 307–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790000200124

    Rowell, L. L., Bruce, C. D., Shosh, J. M., & Riel, M. M. (2017). Introduction. In L. L. Rowell, C. D. Bruce, J. M. Shosh, & M. M. Riel (Eds.), The Palgrave International Handbook of Action Research (pp. 1–13). New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-40523-4_1

    Shapiro, S. P. (2005). Agency theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 31(1), 263–284. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.31.041304.122159

    Shih, C. (2010). Academic colonialism and the struggle for indigenous knowledge systems in Taiwan. Social Alternatives, 29(1), 44–48. Retrieved from http://faculty.ndhu.edu.tw/~cfshih/politics observation/newspaper/2010V29I12.pdf

    Simon, S. (2013). Of Boars and men: Indigenous knowledge and co-management in Taiwan. Human Organization, 72(3), 220–229. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.72.3.xq24071269xl21j6

    Somekh, B., & Zeichner, K. (2009). Action research for educational reform: Remodelling action research theories and practices in local contexts. Educational Action Research, 17(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790802667402

    Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2011). A social capital framework for the study of institutional agents and their role in the empowerment of low-status students & youth. Youth & Society, 43(3), 1–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X10382877

    Steets, J. (2010). Accountability in public policy partnerships. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230290617

    Stephenson, J., Berkes, F., Turner, N. J., & Dick, J. (2014). Biocultural conservation of marine ecosystems: Examples from New Zealand and Canada. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge, 13(2), 257–265. Retrieved from http://www.niscair.res.in/sciencecommunication/ResearchJournals/rejour/ijtk/ijtk0.asp

    Tai, H. S. (2007). Development through conservation: An institutional analysis of indigenous community-based conservation in Taiwan. World Development, 35(7), 1186–1203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.09.015

    Urquhart, R., & Wearing, M. (2017). Organisational change in non-profit human services: Reflections on a collaborative action research approach to working with child, youth, and family organisations. In L. L. Rowell, C. D. Bruce, J. M. Shosh, & M. M. Riel (Eds.), The Palgrave International Handbook of Action Research (pp. 545–561). New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-40523-4_33

    Utting, P. (2012). Social and solidarity economy: A pathway to socially sustainable development? Retrieved from http://www.unrisd.org/unrisd/website/newsview.nsf/0/ab920b156339500ac1257b5c002c1e96?opendocument&utm_campaign=ebulletin_23_5_2013&utm_medium=email_html&utm_source=en&utm_content=content_link

    Utting, P. (2015). Introduction: The challenge of scaling up social and solidarity economy. Social and Solidarity Economy: Beyond the Fringe.

    Van Puyvelde, S., Caers, R., du Bois, C., & Jegers, M. (2012). The governance of nonprofit organizations: Integrating agency theory with stakeholder and stewardship theories. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(3), 431–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764011409757

    Vining, A. R., & Richards, J. (2016). Indigenous economic development in Canada: Confronting principal-agent and principal–principal problems to reduce resource rent dissipation. Resources Policy, 49, 358–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2016.07.006

    Von der Porten, S., & De Loë, R. C. (2013). Collaborative approaches to governance for water and Indigenous peoples: A case study from British Columbia, Canada. Geoforum, 50, 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.09.001

    Wiseman, R. M., Cuevas-Rodríguez, G., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2012). Towards a social theory of agency. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2011.01016.x

    Woolcock, M., & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for development theory, research, and policy. World Bank Research Observer, 15(2), 225–249. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/15.2.225

    Worsham, J., & Gatrell, J. (2005). Multiple principals, multiple signals: A signaling model of principal-agent relations. The Policy Studies Journal, 33(3), 363–377. Retrieved from http://www.pmranet.org/conferences/georgetownpapers/Worsham.pdf

    Yoshimura, M., & Wall, G. (2010). The reconstruction of Atayal identity in Wulai, Taiwan. In M. Hitchcock, V. T. King, & M. Parnwell (Eds.), Heritage Tourism in Southeast Asia (pp. 49–71). NIAS Press.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    亞太研究英語碩士學位學程(IMAS)
    999260231
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0999260231
    Data Type: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMAS.012.2018.A07
    Appears in Collections:[亞太研究英語博/碩士學位學程(IDAS/IMAS)] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    023101.pdf926KbAdobe PDF2201View/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 Copyright Announcement
    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。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    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。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback