晚近針對「新現實主義」與「新功能主義」之批判所發展出的「知識社群」研究取向，強調原創理念在政策塑過程中所扮演之重要角色。然而適用該研究取向的文章卻鮮少說明特定政策之知識社群成員的正當性。由於特定政策之知識社群的共同因果信念、規範性信仰、效度觀念及共同政策志業不是先驗的，故研究者不應預設知識社群成員具有某些共同特徵，並據此來解釋其政策影響力。否則研究者總是可以避重就輕的挑選某些知識社群成員，並依其理念去解釋特定政策之採行。如此知識社群研究取向永遠無法被否證。筆者因此啼出一套運作化的程序去界定知識社群成員及其特徵。透過這套運作化程序，我們可以否證知識社群研究取向之相關假設。最後筆者說明這套運作化程序如何應用在歐洲及東亞經濟暨貨幣整合。一方面藉此展現這套運作化程序的效度；另一方面則評估知識社群取向應用在這個案例的適切性。 While criticizing neo-realism and neo-functionalism, researchers adhering to the epistemic community approach (ECA) emphasize the importance of original ideas in the policy-shaping process. However, they seldom justify how members of a given epistemic community are selected. Research on the ECA generally assume that members of a given epistemic community share common causal and normative beliefs, as well as a notion of validity and a common policy enterprise. Next, they continue to show that these beliefs indeed affect the final policy outcome, however, since the defining characteristics of a given epistemic community change as policy domain changes, we cannot presume members of that epistemic community share common characteristics. These common characteristics of an epistemic community have to be defined empirically. For this reason, I propose an operationalization procedure to define the common characteristics of an epistemic community and use it as justification for its membership selection. Otherwise, for any given policy, finding an epistemic community such that its beliefs will eventually affect the final policy outcome is always possible. By adopting the author’s procedure, however, hypotheses of the ECA can be falsified empirically. In order to show that the author’s operationalization procedure is valid, I show how this procedure applies to the economic and monetary integration in Europe an East Asia.