English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 11 |  Items with full text/Total items : 89327/119107 (75%)
Visitors : 23859405      Online Users : 475
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/140.119/48945


    Title: 柔韌設計:以創新調適的策略回應機構力
    Robust design: Strategic responses to institutional forces for innovation adaptation
    Authors: 陳蕙芬
    Chen, Hui-Fen
    Contributors: 蕭瑞麟
    Hsiao, Ruey-Lin
    陳蕙芬
    Chen, Hui-Fen
    Keywords: 柔韌設計
    策略性回應
    創新調適
    機構力
    創新採納
    robust design
    strategic response
    innovation adaptation
    institutional force
    innovation adoption
    Date: 2009
    Issue Date: 2010-12-08 01:53:40 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 創新是社會進步與改變的契機,機構是維繫社會安定的基石。然而,創新在導入社會時,常常會碰上機構的阻力,使創新難以擴散、甚至無疾而終。過去的創新管理文獻,對於此議題的探討不多,我們對創新者如何回應機構阻力的瞭解仍非常有限。本研究由機構對行動者的影響力下手,強調當創新遇上機構時,施展策略性回應的重要性;並主張在「順從與反抗」的策略性回應之外,「調適」是另一種策略性回應的選項,「柔韌設計」更是其中的代表。當創新者面對強大機構阻力時,本研究指出,需要以柔韌設計有技巧地回應機構的鎮壓。
    本研究以長期的田野調查與質性研究方法,分析一項數位學習系統(即階梯數位學院)的設計特質與回應策略。有三大發現:
    第一,本研究剖析了在創新與機構之間的調適過程,創新者的「調適學習過程」。本研究從機構脈絡之「教科書、入學方式、老師與教學」三大方向切入,從教改政策(法規)、社會規範(規範)與文化認知(認知)等機構的三大構面,分別剖析其內涵,以及對利害關係人(學生,創新的使用者)所造成在學習上的痛點與阻力。再分析創新者在創新推出後,從市場的反應學習到深入使用者的機構脈絡,如何轉化為設計。因此,本研究整理出階梯數位學院的三大頻道(動畫教學台、智慧評量台、線上家教台),其創新者的調適學習過程,描述出創新者在其中試誤、摸索、偵測到機構脈絡進而轉化為設計的過程。
    第二,本研究探索具體的創新人造文物(即階梯數位學院),其功能與服務的設計特質為何,以及在創新者的調適過程中對創新人造文物的改變,又是基於甚麼樣的「設計原則」。本研究分析創新的設計,除了針對創新人造文物的特質之外,也分析解讀使用者的學習實務與效果,並從中歸納出三大頻道的設計原則。
    第三,在「調適型」的策略性回應裡,除了過去文獻所討論之「迂迴遊走」(workaround)的調適型回應,創新者還可以如何更積極的回應機構呢?本研究從學習實務裡,探討創新設計對學生所產生的行為轉變與效果,瞭解助力如何產生,從而發現了一種新的策略性回應方式。依據這種策略性回應的型式與內涵,本研究將之命名為「槓桿式」(leveraging)之策略性回應,本研究並整理出三種借力使力的柔韌設計。這種策略性回應的巧思,在於將機構對創新者所造成的阻力,轉化為一種設計上的助力。這樣的設計策略,可以協助創新融入機構脈絡,贏得使用者採納。
    本研究提出創新採納研究的新觀點,就是以策略回應與柔韌設計來重新檢視創新設計與創新採納之關係。在這樣的回應中,我們看到創新者如何調適學習,巧妙地處理機構的影響力,進而轉為創新物件的設計助力。這就是槓桿效應的秘訣,正如阿基米德曾誇言:「給我一個支撐點,我可以撐起整個地球。」這種柔韌的回應策略是以「四兩撥千斤」的方式,將機構的阻力轉化為設計的助力。這種槓桿策略點出柔韌(以柔克剛)的精神。柔韌設計具有哲學上的意義,從本研究所發現三種借力使力的柔韌設計裡,更看到了一種轉化的效果。用槓桿為隱喻,可以讓讀者聯想到如何以小搏大、以柔克剛、以靜制動的效果。因此本研究稱之為槓桿效應的策略回應。
    本研究在學理上的貢獻主要有三:首先,本研究所發現創新者的調適學習過程,可以補充創新調適的文獻。第二,本研究初步剖析出柔韌設計的原則,可以提供柔韌設計未來研究的參考。第三,本研究以個案資料呈現柔韌設計,做為一種策略性回應的形式與內涵,也豐富了策略性回應的文獻。
    Whether an innovation would be accepted or resisted by the user has been a topic widely examined in previous research. The literature, however, has focused mainly on the characteristics of the innovation to predict whether users will be willing to adopt the technology. This study argues that innovation adoption process takes place within an institutional context which refers to regulatory rules, social norms and behavioral options that guide the thinking, attitudes and behaviors of individuals. The study further expounded that institutions exercise three forces on individuals -- regulatory, normative and cognitive. It is therefore important to examine the role that institutions play in facilitating or hampering innovations.
    Prior research has begun to examine the interactions between innovations and institutions. Several strategic responses to institutional forces were proposed that innovators can adopt. The resopnses can essentially be classified into three strategies. First, one can comply with the institution. Secondly, one can resist the institution while aggressively diffusing the innovation. The third option is, one can adapt the innovation to meet the requirements of institution while keep the novelty and value of the innovation.
    Therefore, many researches aim to exmine how innovations adapt to the institutional forces. Robust design represented a gentle way to adpapt to the institution forces strategically. After reviewing the related literature, the study argues that there are two important issues which were neglected. One is they neglect to describe and discuss the adaptative learining of the innovators which is the base of strategic response. The other is they did not identify what the design principles are during the innovation adaptation process.
    Another approach towards robust design was proposed – one inspired by the principles of Taiji. A key principle of Taiji stresses the importance of using a gentle approach to counter a strong force. Instead of countering a strong force with an equally strong opposing force, one should leverage the energy created by the opponent’s strong force to counter-attack. Hence, the study propose that when institutions pose strong barriers to innovations, one approach is to identify how barriers can be turned into enablers to guide the design of the innovation. The key to this approach is to focus on the users of the innovation, to understand the pain points that institutional barriers bring to users, so that an innovation can be designed to effectively address these pain points. Prior literature does not adequately focus on understanding how users’ experiences should be factored into the design of an innovation.
    This study thus discusses and presents robust design through a case study of an electronic learning system – Ladder Digital College. In the analysis, I first illustrated the adaptative learning process of innovators by analyzing the institutional context in which the innovation is adopted, to identify the constraints or challenges individuals faced as a result of strong institutional forces. Second, we discuss the design features of the innovation, examine how they help users to overcome the challenges and counter the key barriers posed by institutional forces and identify the design principles of the innovation adaptation.
    The findings advance the concept of robust design by noting the importance of innovator’s adaptative learning and design principle of innovation. Theoretical contributions and practical suggestions are also elaborated.
    壹、緒論 1
    貳、文獻探討 11
    一、機構對行動者的影響力 11
    二、機構對創新的重要性 16
    三、當創新遇上機構 22
    四、創新如何調適 28
    五、柔韌的設計 40
    六、本章總結 47
    參、研究方法 52
    一、方法論 52
    二、個案選擇 56
    三、資料蒐集 58
    (一) 人員訪談 60
    (二) 次級資料 65
    (三) 其他資料蒐集方法 67
    四、資料分析 68
    肆、個案背景與機構脈絡 73
    一、台灣數位學習產業的發展 73
    二、階梯數位學院的背景 75
    三、數位學院的內容 80
    四、機構脈絡概述 93
    五、機構阻力之一:教科書的制約 95
    (一) 一綱多本政策 95
    (二) 教科書的學習規範 103
    (三) 知識的文化認知 105
    六、機構阻力之二:升學考試的焦慮 106
    (一) 多元入學方案 106
    (二) 升學的行為規範 114
    (三) 學歷的文化認知 115
    七、機構阻力之三:傳道授業的困惑 116
    (一) 多元師資培育管道 116
    (二) 老師的教學規範 121
    (三) 教學的文化認知 123
    八、機構阻力 123
    伍、研究發現 125
    一、化阻力為助力的柔韌設計之一 125
    二、化阻力為助力的柔韌設計之二 141
    三、化阻力為助力的柔韌設計之三 151
    四、解讀柔韌設計 159
    陸、討論 167
    一、理論意涵:化阻力為助力的創新調適 167
    二、實務意涵:運用槓桿效應「設計」創新 173
    三、反思階梯的柔韌設計 178
    四、未來研究方向 184
    柒、結論 189
    參考文獻 192
    附表 206
    Reference: 一、英文部分
    Abernathy, W. and Utterback, J., 2004. “Patterns of Industrial Innovation.” in BCW Strategic Management of Technology and Innovation, McGraw-Hill, pp. 202-208.
    Afuah, A., 1998. Innovation Management: Strategies, Implementation and Profits, Oxford University Press, Inc.
    Aldrich, H. E. and Fiol, C. M., 1994. “Fools Rush In? The Institutional Context of Industry Creation.” Academy of Management Review, 19, pp. 645-670.
    Ali, A., 1994. “Pioneering Versus Incremental Innovation: Review and Research Propositions.” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11, pp. 46-61
    Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J. and Herron, M., 1996. “Assessing the Work Environment for Creativity.” Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), pp. 54-84.
    Ang, Soon and Cummings, L. L., 1997. “Strategic Response to Institutional Influences on Information Systems Outsourcing.” Organization Science, 8(3), pp. 235-256.
    Archer, L. B. 1973. Design Awareness and Planned Creativity. London: Electrohome Limited.
    Astley, W. G., and Van de Ven, A. H., 1983. “Central Perspectives and Debates in Organization Theory,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, pp. 245-273.
    Baker, W. E. and Sinkula, J. M., 2002. “Market Orientation, Learning Orientation and Product Innovation: Delving into the Organization’s Black Box.” Journal of Market-Focused Management, 5, pp. 5-23.
    Baldwin, C., Hienerth, C., and von Hippel, E., 2006. “How User Innovations Become Commercial Products: a Theoretical Investigation and Case Study.” Research Policy, 35, pp. 1291-1313.
    Lamb, R. and Kling, R. 2003. “Reconceptualizing Users as Social Actors in Information Systems Research.” MISQ, 27(2), pp. 197-235.
    Latour, B. 1988. The Pasteurization of France. Cambridge, Boston, Harvard University Press.
    Leblebici, H., Salancik, G. R., Copay, A., and King, T. 1991. “Institutional Change and the Transformation of Interorganizational Fields: An Organizational History of the U.S. Radio Broadcasting Industry.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, pp. 333-363.
    Leifer, E. 1991. Actors as Observers: A Theory of Skill in Social Relationships. New York: Garland.
    Leonard-Barton, D. 1988. “Implementation as Mutual Adaptation of Technology and Organization.” Research Policy, 17(5): pp. 251.
    Levinthal, D. A., and March, J., 1993. “The Myopia of Learning.”, Strategic Management Journal, 14, Special Issue: Organizations, Decision Making and Strategy, pp. 95-112.
    Lewis, Laurie K. and Seibold, David R. 1993, “Innovation Modification during Intraorganizational Adoption.” Academy of Management Review, 18(2), pp. 322-354.
    Lousbury, M. and Glynn, M. A. 2001, “Cultural Entrepreneurship: Stories, Legitimacy, and the Acquisition of Resources.” Strategic Management Journal, 22(6-7), pp. 545-564.
    Lynn, G., Morone, J. and Paulson, A. 1996. “Marketing and Discontinuous Innovation: the Probe and Learn Process.” California Management Review, 38(3), pp. 8-37.
    Majchrzak, A., Rice, R. E., Malhotra, A., King, N., and Ba, S. 2000. “Technology Adaptation: The Case of a Computer-supported Inter-organizational Virtual Team.” MIS Quarterly, 24(4), pp. 569-601.
    Tushman, M. L. and Nadler, D. A. 1986. “Organizing for Innovation.” California Management Review, 28(3), pp. 74-92.
    Markides, C. C. and Geroski, P. A. 2004. Fast Second: How Smart Companies Bypass Radical Innovation to Enter and Dominate New Markets. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
    Maquire, S., Hardy, C., and Lawrence, T. B. 2004. “Institutional Entrepreneurship in Emerging Fields: HIV/AIDS Treatment Advocacy in Canada.” Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), pp. 657-679.
    Meyer, J. W. and Rowan, B. 1977. “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structures as Myth and Ceremony.” The American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), pp. 340-363.
    Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D., and Coleman, Jr. H. J., 1978. “Organizational Strategy, Structure and Process.” The Academy of Management Review, 3(3), pp. 546-562.
    Mingers, J. 1984. “Subjectivism and Soft Systems Methodology – a Critique. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 11, pp. 85-103.
    Mintzberg, H., and Waters, J. 1985. “Of Strategies, Deliberate and Emergent.” Strategic Management Journal, 6: 257-272.
    Moch, Michael K., and Morse, Edward V. 1977 “Size, centralization and organizational adoption of innovations.” American Sociological Review, 42: 716-725.
    Munir, K. A. and Philips, N. 2005. “The Birth of the ‘Kodak Moment’: Institutional Entrepreneurship and the Adoption of New Technologies.” Organization Studies, 26(11), pp. 1665-1687.
    Nielsen, J., and Phillips,V. L. 1993. “Estimating the Relative Usability of Two Interfaces: Heuristic, Formal,and Empirical Method Compared.” Paper presented at Proc.ACM INTERCHI’93 Conf. (Amsterdam,The Netherlands, 24-29 April).
    Tyre, M. and Orlikowski, W. J. 1994. “Windows of Opportunity: Temporal Patterns of Technological Adaptation in Organizations.” Organization Science, 5, pp. 98-118.
    Oliver, C. 1991. “Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes.” Academy of Management Review, 16(1), pp. 145-179.
    Orlikowski, W. J. 2000. “Using Technology and Constituting Structures: a Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organization.” Organization Science, 11(4), pp. 404-428.
    Orlikowski, W. J., and Barley, S. R., 2001. “Technology and Insititutions: What Can Research on Information Technology and Research on Organizations Learn from Each Other?” MIS Quarterly, 25(2), pp. 145-165.
    Pettigrew, A. M. 1987. “Context and Action in the Transformation of the Firm.” Journal of Management Studies, 24(6), pp. 649-670.
    Pettigrew, A. M. 1990. “Longitudinal Field Research on Change.” Organization Science, 1(3), pp. 267-292.
    Powell, W. W. and DiMaggio, P. J. 1991. (Eds.) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Puri, S. K. 2007. “Integrating Scientific with Indigenous Knowledge: Constructing Knowledge Alliances for Land Management in India. MIS Quarterly, 31(2), pp. 355-379.
    Reay, T., Golden-Biddle, K., and Germann, K. 2006. “Legitimizing a New Role: Small Wins and Microprocesses of Change.” Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), pp.977-998.
    Ritchhart, Ron 2002. Intellectual Character: What It Is, Why It Matters, and How to Get It. California: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
    Rindova, V. P., and Petkova, A. P. 2007. “When is a New Thing a Good Thing? Technological Change, Product form design, and Perceptions of Value for Product Innovations.” Organization Science, 18 (2), pp. 217-232.
    Van de Ven, A. H. 1986. “Central Problems in the Management of Innovation.” Management Sciences, 32(5), pp. 590-607.
    Rogers, E. M. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations, (5th ed.). New York: Free Press. California: Pine Forge Press.
    Rosner, Menahem M. 1968. “Economic Determinants of Organizational Innovation.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, pp. 614-625.
    Rothwell, R., and Gardiner, P. 1989. “The Strategic Management of Re-Innovation.” R&D Management, 19 (2), pp. 147-160.
    Ruttan, V. and Hayami, 1984. “Toward a Theory of Induced Institutional Innovation,” Journal of Development Studies, 20(4), pp. 203-223.
    Schultze, U., and Orlikowski, W. J. 2004. “A Practice Perspective on Technology-Mediated Network Relations: the Use of Internet-Based Self-Serve Technologies.” Information System Research, 15(1), pp. 87-106.
    Schumpeter, J. 1934. The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    Scott, R. 1987. “The Adolescence of Institutional Theory.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(4), pp. 493-511.
    Scott, R. 2001. Institutions and Organizations, Sage: London.
    Scott, W. R. and Meyer, J. W. 1983. “The Organization of Societal Sectors.” In John W. Meyer and W. R. Scott, Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality, CA: Stage. pp. 129-153.
    Selznick, P., 1949. TVA and the Grass Roots. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    Van Maanen, J. 1979. “Reclaiming Qualitative Methods for Organizational Research: A Preface.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), pp. 520-526.
    Sherer, P. D. and Lee, K. 2002. “Institutional Change in Large Law Firms: A Resource Dependence and Institutional Perspective.” Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), pp. 102-119.
    Simon, H. A. 1996. The Sciences of the Artificial. (second edition) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Suchman, M. C. 1995. “Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional approaches.” The Academy of Management Review. 20(3), pp. 571-610.
    Suddaby, R. and Greenwood, R. 2005. “Rhetorical Strategies of Legitimacy.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, pp. 35-67.
    Swanson, E. B. and Ramiller, N. C. 1997. “The Organizing Vision in Information Systems Innovation.” Organization Science, 8(5), pp. 458–474.
    Teece, D. J. 1986. “Profiting from Technological Innovation: Implications for Integration, collaboration, Licensing and Public Policy.” Research Policy 15(6), pp. 285-305.
    Tolbert, P. S. 1985. “Institutional Environment and Resource Dependence: Sources of Administrative Structure in Institutions of Higher Education.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(1), pp. 1-13.
    Tolbert, P. S. and Zucker, L. G. 1983. “Institutional Sources of Change in the Formal Structure of Organizations: the Diffusion of Civil Service Reform, 1880—1935.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, pp. 22-39.
    Veryzer, R. W., and de Mozota, B. B. 2005. The Impact of User-oriented Design on New Product Development: an Examination of Fundamental Relationships. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22: 128-143.
    von Hippel, E., 1986. “Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts.” Management Science, 32(7), pp. 791-805.
    von Hippel, E., 2007. “Horizontal Innovation Networks--by and for Users.” Industrial & Corporate Change, 16(2), pp. 293-315.
    von Hippel, E., and Katz, R., 2002. “Shifting Innovation to Users via Toolkits.” Management Science, 48(7), pp. 821-833.
    Walsham, G. 1995a. “The Emergence of Interpretivism in IS Research.” Information Systems Research, 6(4), pp. 376-394.
    Walsham, G. 1995b. “Interpretive Case Studies in IS Research: Nature and Method.” European Journal of Information Systems, 4, pp. 74-81.
    Baldwin, C. Y. and Clark, K. B., 2000. Design Rules. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
    Wang, P. and Swanson, E. B. 2007. “Launching Professional Service Automation: Institutional Entrepreneurship for Information Technology Innovations.” Information and Organization, 17, pp. 59-88.
    Westphal, James D., Gulati, Ranjay and Shortell, Stephen M. 1997. “Customization or Conformity? An Institutional and Network Perspective on the Content and Consequences of TQM Adoption.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), pp. 366-394.
    Wolcott, H. F. 1994. Transforming Qualitative Data: Description, Analysis, Interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Zilber, T. B. 2002. “Institutionalization as an Interplay between Actions, Meanings, and Actors: The Case of a Rape Crisis Center in Israel.” Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), pp. 234-254.
    Zimmerman, M. A., and Zeitz, G. J., 2002. “Beyond Survival: Achieving New Venture Growth by Building Legitimacy.” Academy of Management Review, 27(3), pp. 414-431.
    Zuboff, S. 1988. In The Age of The Smart Machine: The Future of Work And Power. Basic Books Publisher.
    Zucker, L. G., 1977. “The Role of Institutionalization in Cultural Persistence.” American Sociological Review, 42(5), pp. 726-743.
    Zucker, L. G. 1987. “Institutional Theories of Organization.” Annual Review of Sociology, 13, pp. 443-464.
    二、中文部分
    天下雜誌,2008年4月。
    Barley, S. R., 1986. “Technology as an Occasion for Structuring: Evidence From Observations of CT Scanners and the Social Order of Radiology Department.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 78-108.
    自由時報,國中參考書買齊要22萬,2005年8月29日,頭版。
    李弘善譯,雷夫艾斯奎斯著,2008,全美最好的老師,台北市寶瓶文化事業有限公司。
    吳武典,2005,台灣教育改革的經驗與分析:以九年一貫課程和多元入學方案為例,當代教育研究季刊,13卷1期,38-68。
    吳武典、楊思偉、周愚文、吳清山、高熏方、符碧真、陳木金、方永泉、陳勝賢,2004,師資培育政策建議書。教育部委託研究,中華民國師範教育學會研究。
    吳祥輝,2006,芬蘭驚豔,台北市遠流出版社。
    吳清基,2008,解讀台灣教育改革,台北市心理出版社。
    卓耀宗譯,Donald A. Norman著,2000,設計心理學。台北市遠流出版社。
    周祝瑛,2003,誰捉弄了台灣教改?台北市心理出版社。
    徐明珠,2003,教職難求,流浪教師滿街走,藍天戰報第五十八期。
    梁恆正,2004,師範院校面對組織變革的新思維,發表於九十三年度現代教育論壇 ─ 學校經營與管理研討會,屏東市:國立屏東師範學院。
    Barley, S. R., and Tolbert, P. S., 1997. “Institutionalization and Structuration: Studying the Links between Action and Institution.” Organization Studies, 18, pp. 93-117.
    許德便,2006,九年一貫課程實施的現場問題--九年一貫課程與一綱多本(國中篇),台灣教育,642,11-20。
    陳正芬譯,2004,亨利.波卓斯基(Henry Petroski)著,小處著手—追求完美的設計,時報文化出版。
    陳怡靖,2003,台灣地區高中多元入學與教育階層化關連性之研究,國立高雄師範大學教育學系博士論文。
    陳星偉,1999,創新才會贏,台北:遠流出版。
    楊深坑,2002,從專業理念之發展論師資培育法之修訂。教育研究月刊,98,79-90。
    楊朝祥,2002,多元入學方案已成奧賽弊案的幫凶,刊載於2002年3月24日中央日報社論。
    黃鋰,全球數位學習產業市場現況分析報告,2007年10月
    曾燦燈、李皓光,2003,多元化師資培育政策檢討與改進策略,教育學苑,5,51-71。
    劉正,2006,補習在台灣的變遷、效能與階層化,教育研究集刊, 第52輯,第四期,1-33。
    蔡文鈞,2004,制度性創新事業的動態浮現歷程:複雜科學觀點,政治大學科技管理研究所博士論文。
    Beaudry, A. and Pinsonneault, A., 2005. “Understanding User Responses to Information Technology: A Coping Model of User Adaptation. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), pp. 493-526.
    蔡秀勤,2004,數位教材介面設計─以印度IBM 知識工廠之設計原則為例。資策會數位學習技術中心。
    鍾淑薇,2003,教師慣習(habitus)之形塑與實踐,國立臺灣大學人類學研究所碩士論文。
    蕭瑞麟,2006,不用數字的研究,培生出版。
    蘇進棻,2006,九年一貫「一綱多本」教科書政策衍生問題與因應策略,教育研究與發展,第二卷第三期,頁63-91。
    三、網路資源
    教育部,直轄市及各縣市短期補習班資訊管理系統,http://bsb.edu.tw/
    數位學習國家型科技計畫辦公室,http://elnpweb.ncu.edu.tw/home.aspx
    數位學習與數位典藏國家型科技計畫,http://teldap.tw/
    Bechky, B. A. 2003. “Sharing Meaning across Occupational Communities: The Transformation of Understanding on a Production Floor.” Organization Science, 14(3), pp. 312–330.
    Berger, P. L., and Luckman, T., 1967. The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Doubleday Anchor.
    Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., and Pinch, T. J., (Eds.). 1987. The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    Boudreau, M. C. and Robey, D., 2005. “Enacting Integrated Information Technology: A Human Agency Perspective.” Organization Science, 16(1), pp. 3-18.
    Brown, J. S., Collins, A., and Duguid, P., 1989. “Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning.” Educational Researcher, 18, pp. 32-42.
    Clark and Mayer, R. E., 2003. E-Learning and the Science of Instruction. SF: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
    Cousins, Karlene C. and Robey, D., 2005. “Human Agency in a Wireless World: Patterns of Technology Use in Nomadic Computing Environments.” Information and Organization, 15(2), pp. 151-180.
    Covaleski, M. A. and Dirsmith, M. W., 1988. “An Institutional Perspective on the Rise, Social Transformation, and Fall of a University Budget Category.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(4), pp. 562-587.
    D’Aunno, T., Succi, M., Alexander, J. A., 2000. “The Role of Institutional and Market Forces in Divergent Organizational Change.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(4), pp. 679-703.
    Dacin, M. T., 1997. “Isomorphism in Context: The Power and Prescription of Institutional Norms.” Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), pp. 46-81.
    Dahlin, K. B., and Behrens, D. M., 2005. “When Is an Invention Really Radical? Defining and Measuring Technological Radicalness. ” Research Policy, 34, pp. 717-737.
    Damanpour, F., 1991. Organizational Innovation: A Meta analysis of Effects of Eeterminants and Moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), pp. 555-590.
    de Mozota, B. B., 2003. Design Management: Using Design to Build Brand Value and Corporate Innovation. Allworth Press.
    Dewar, R. D., and Dutton, J. E. 1986. “The Adoption of Radical and Incremental Innovations: An Empirical Analysis.” Management Science, 32(11), pp. 1422-1433.
    DiMaggio, P. J. and Powell, W. W. 1983. “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Field.” American Sociological Review, 48(2), pp. 147-160.
    DiMaggio, P. J. 1988. “Interest and Agency in Institutional Theory.” In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, pp. 3-22.
    DiMaggio, P. J. 1997. “Culture and Cognition.” Annual review of Sociology, 23, pp. 263-287.
    Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., and Pisano, G. P. 2001. Disrupted Routines: Team Learning and New Technology Implementation in Hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, pp. 685-716.
    Elsbach, K. D. and Sutton, R. I. 1992. “Acquiring Organizational Legitimacy through Illegitimate Actions: A Marriage of Institutional and Impression Management Theories.” Academy of Management Journal, 35(4), pp. 699-738.
    Ettlie, J. E., Bridges, W. P., and O’Keefe, R. D. 1984. “Organization Strategy and Structural Differences for Radical versus Incremental Innovation.” Management Science, 30(6), pp. 682-695.
    Fox-Wolfgramm, Susan J., Boal, Kimberly B., and Hunt, James G. (Jerry) 1998, “Organizational Adaptation to Institutional Change: A Comparative Study of First-Order Change in Prospector and Defender Banks.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(1), pp. 87-126.
    Geertz, C., 1973.“Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture”. Pp. 3-30, in The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books.
    Goodstein, J. D. 1994. “Institutional Pressures and Strategic Responsiveness: Employer Involvement in Work-Family Issues.” Academy of Management Journal, 37(2), pp. 350-382.
    Greening D. W. and Gray, B. 1994. “Testing a Model of Organizational Response to Social and Political Issues.” Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), pp. 467-498.
    Hargadon, A. B., and Douglas, Y. 2001. “When Innovations Meet Institutions: Edison and the Design of the Electric Light.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(3), pp. 476-501.
    Hargadon, A., and Sutton, I. R. 1997. “Technology Brokering and Innovation in a Product Development Firm.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), pp. 716-749.
    Henderson, R. M., and Clark, K. B. 1990. “Architectural Innovation: the Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, pp. 9-30.
    Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., and Park, J., 2004. “Design Science in Information Systems Research.” MIS Quarterly, 28(1), pp. 75-105.
    Holm, P. 1995. “The Dynamics of Institutionalization: Transformation processes in Norweigian Fisheries.’ Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, pp. 398-422.
    Hrebiniak, L. G. and Joyce, W. F. 1985. “Organizational Adaptation: Strategic Choice and Environmental Determinism.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(3), pp. 336-349.
    Jain, S. and George, G. 2007. “Technology Transfer Offices as Institutional Entrepreneurs: the Case of Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation and Human Embryonic Stem Cells.” Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), pp. 535-567.
    Jepperson, R. L. 1991. “Institutions, Institutional Effects, and Institutionalization.” Pp. 143-163 in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, edited by Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Jeppesen, L. B., Frederiksen, L., 2006. “Why Do Users Contribute to Firm-Hosted User Communities? The Case of Computer-Controlled Music Instruments.” Organization Science, 17(1), pp. 45-63.
    Judge, Jr. W. Q. and Zeithaml, C. P. 1992. “Institutional and Strategic Choice Perspectives on Board Involvement in the Strategic Decision Process.” Academy of Management Journal, 35(4), pp. 766-794.
    Kimberly, John R., and Evanisko, Michael J. 1981 “Organizational innovation: The influence of individual, organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative innovations.” Academy of Management Journal, 24, pp. 689-713.
    Koberg, Christine S., Detienne, Dawn R., Heppard, Kurt A. 2003. “An Empirical Test of Environmental, Organizational, and Process Factors Affecting Incremental and Radical innovation.” Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14, pp. 21–45.
    Kostova, T., and Roth, K. 2002. “Adoption of an Organizational Practice by Subsidiaries of Multinational Corporations: Institutional and Relational Effects.” The Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), pp. 215-233.
    Description: 博士
    國立政治大學
    科技管理研究所
    94359502
    98
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0943595021
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[科技管理研究所] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML249View/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