Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/128650
|
| Title: | 以隨創建構資源的知識中介者－法律白話文運動個案研究
Knowledge broker using bricolage to construct resources - A case study of Plain Law Movement |
| Authors: | 劉嘉文
Liu, Chia-Wen |
| Contributors: | 張瑜倩
Chang, Yu-Chien
劉嘉文
Liu, Chia-Wen |
| Keywords: | 知識倡議組織
隨創
知識中介者
知識傳播
法律白話文運動
Knowledge advocacy group
Bricolage
Knowledge broker
Knowledge dissemination
Plain Law Movement |
| Date: | 2020 |
| Issue Date: | 2020-02-05 18:32:01 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 近年來，民眾開始關注社會議題，並多從新聞媒體獲得相關資訊；然而媒體提供的資訊時常有疏漏且不夠全面的問題，再加上社群媒體之普及，因而促使知識倡議組織的興起，憑藉其專業知識傳播正確且論述完整的資訊，希冀培養民眾理性思考的習慣。為達成該願景，知識倡議組織必須善用資源，將專業知識擴散至更多受眾，並突破民眾的舊思維框架。然而，絕大數的組織並未掌握大量資源，故如何透過隨創，在資源貧乏下突破物質制約與環境制約，對於知識倡議組織而言為一重要課題。
本研究旨在了解知識倡議組織的資源建構與知識傳播過程，並以成立迄今六年、累積粉絲數多且與粉絲間有密切互動的「法律白話文運動」作為研究個案，藉由深入訪談了解該組織如何透過隨創建構資源，以及身為知識中介者的角色，如何透過傳遞、轉譯或改造專業知識，縮短與民眾間的知識鴻溝。
本研究發現，知識內容為知識倡議組織的重要資產，然而在組織初期欠缺資金與人力的情況下，組織應善用時間來增加內容產出。而當組織聲譽提升後，組織才有更多機會吸納優秀人才，並接觸更廣泛的受眾，且為了維持知識內容的品質，組織得在與粉絲互動中汲取更多知識內容產出的想法與意見。此外，知識倡議組織得透過不同媒介，設法激發民眾主動接觸專業知識的動機，使得不同領域間產生知識聚合。當跨領域知識間產生交集，知識倡議組織始能區辨新穎知識，進而傳遞或轉譯知識，亦或是蒐集民眾的反饋後協助改造專業知識。總體而言，本研究透過法律白話文運動的發展歷程，提供未來的知識倡議組織在建構資源與知識傳播上之參考依據。
Recently, the awareness of social issues has increased; additionally, public usually receive related information from the media, which sometimes provide incomplete and erroneous information, which leads to the emergence of knowledge advocacy groups. These groups utilize its profession to spread correct and complete information, and aim to cultivate rational people. To achieve the goal, knowledge advocacy groups have to use resources appropriately, spread specialized knowledge to more audiences, and persuade public to rethink outside the framework. Yet, most knowledge advocacy groups do not hold tremendous resources. Thus, breaking through the constraints with limited resources has become a crucial obstacle for knowledge advocacy groups.
This research aims to understand how knowledge advocacy groups construct resources and disseminate knowledge to the public. This research uses “Plain Law Movement” as a case, which was founded in 2013 and had established close relationship with its numerous fans. Through in-depth interviews, this research examines the process of constructing resources using the lens of bricolage. In addition, as a knowledge broker, how “Plain Law Movement” transfers, translates, or transforms knowledge to decrease the gap between the profession and the normal?
The research finds out that content knowledge is essential for knowledge advocacy groups, and the groups should take advantage of time wisely to generate more contents while they face financial and manpower shortage. As the reputation of the advocacy groups increase, the groups would have more opportunities to recruit talents and attract a variety of audiences. Besides, to maintain the quality of contents, the groups could interact with their fans and absorb feedbacks from them in order to generate better topics. Moreover, knowledge advocacy groups could use diverse intermediaries to stimulate people to reach specialized knowledge, which agglomerates different knowledge areas. While intersection exists between interdisciplinary knowledge, the groups could discern novel knowledge and then decide between transferring, translating, and transforming knowledge. This research expects to contribute to both construction of resources and dissemination of knowledge for knowledge advocacy groups. |
| Reference: | Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 105-123.
Babbie, E. (2016)。社會科學研究方法（The practice of social research）（林秀雲譯）。台北市：雙葉書廊。（原作第十四版2016年出版）
Back to Basics: What is Advocacy?. Retrieved September 18, 2019, from https://www.salsalabs.com/blog/advocacy-definition
Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329-366.
Barney (2019，7月)。你知道嗎？在台灣，每三個人就有一個在收聽Podcast，這是什麼都市傳說。上網日期：2019年11月20日，檢自：https://medium.com/deerlight/%E4%BD%A0%E7%9F%A5%E9%81%93%E5%97%8E-%E5%9C%A8%E5%8F%B0%E7%81%A3-%E6%AF%8F%E4%B8%89%E5%80%8B%E4%BA%BA%E5%B0%B1%E6%9C%89%E4%B8%80%E5%80%8B%E5%9C%A8%E6%94%B6%E8%81%BDpodcast-%E9%80%99%E6%98%AF%E4%BB%80%E9%BA%BC%E9%83%BD%E5%B8%82%E5%82%B3%E8%AA%AA-4ab989c3a9a4
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
Bechky, B. A., & Okhuysen, G. A. (2011). Expecting the unexpected? How SWAT officers and film crews handle surprises. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 239-261.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Anchor.
Blackmore, C. (2007). What kinds of knowledge, knowing and learning are required for addressing resource dilemmas?: a theoretical overview. Environmental Science & Policy, 10(6), 512-525.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. London: Longman.
Bojica, A., Ruiz Jiménez, J., Ruiz Nava, J., & Fuentes-Fuentes, M. (2018). Bricolage and growth in social entrepreneurship organisations. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 30(3-4), 362-389.
Bouquet, C., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008a). Managing power in the multinational corporation: How low-power actors gain influence. Journal of Management, 34(3), 477-508.
Bouquet, C., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008b). Weight versus Voice: How Foreign Subsidiaries Gain Attention from Corporate Headquarters. The Academy of Management Journal, 51(3), 577-601.
Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American journal of sociology, 110(2), 349-399.
Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. (2003). The theory and practice of knowledge brokering in canada’s health system. Retrieved Nov 30, 2019, from https://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/migrated/pdf/Theory_and_Practice_e.pdf
Carlile, P. (2004). Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555-568.
Carlile, P. R., & Rebentisch, E. S. (2003). Into the black box: The knowledge transformation cycle. Management science, 49(9), 1180-1195.
Carnabuci, G., & Bruggeman, J. (2009). Knowledge specialization, knowledge brokerage and the uneven growth of technology domains. Social forces, 88(2), 607-641.
Cho, J., De Zuniga, H. G., Rojas, H., & Shah, D. V. (2003). Beyond access: The digital divide and Internet uses and gratifications. It & Society, 1(4), 46-72.
Christensen, C. M., Baumann, H., Ruggles, R., & Sadtler, T. M. (2006). Disruptive innovation for social change. Harvard business review, 84(12), 94.
Christensen, C. M., Raynor, M. E., & McDonald, R. (2015). What is disruptive innovation. Harvard business review, 93(12), 44-53.
Clark, G., & Kelly, L. (2005). New directions for knowledge transfer and knowledge brokerage in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Social Research.
Desa, G. (2008). Mobilizing resources in constrained environments: A study of technology social ventures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.
Di Domenico, M., Haugh, H., & Tracey, P. (2010). Social bricolage: Theorizing social value creation in social enterprises. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 34(4), 681-703.
Dobkin Hall, P. (1987). Abandoning the rhetoric of independence: Reflections on the nonprofit sector in the post-liberal era. Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 16(1-2), 11-28.
Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 3(2), 179-202.
Ferguson, D. A., & Perse, E. M. (2000). The World Wide Web as a Functional Alternative to Television. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44(2), 155-174.
Gaglio, C. M., & Katz, J. A. (2001). The psychological basis of opportunity identification: Entrepreneurial alertness. Small business economics, 16(2), 95-111.
Heine, S. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1997). The cultural construction of self-enhancement: An examination of group-serving biases. Journal of personality and social psychology, 72(6), 1268.
Kemp, S. (2019). DIGITAL 2019: TAIWAN. Retrieved November 30, 2019, from https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2019-taiwan
Kickul, J., Griffiths, M. D., & Gundry, L. (2010). Innovating for social impact: is bricolage the catalyst for change?. In Fayolle, A., & Matlay, H., Handbook of research on social entrepreneurship (chap.12, pp. 232-251), Chetenham: Edward Elgar Pub.
Kickul, J., Griffiths, M., Bacq, S., & Garud, N. (2018). Catalyzing social innovation: is entrepreneurial bricolage always good?. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 30(3-4), 407-420.
Kirzner, I. M. (2015). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago press.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: issues and implications. Boston: Longman.
Ladstaetter, F., Plank, A., & Hemetsberger, A. (2018). The merits and limits of making do: bricolage and breakdowns in a social enterprise. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 30(3-4), 283-309.
Leonard, D. (1995). Wellsprings of knowledge: building and sustaining the sources of innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1990). A dual methodology for case studies: Synergistic use of a longitudinal single site with replicated multiple sites. Organization Science, 1(3), 248-266.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lingo, E. L., & O`Mahony, S. (2010). Nexus work: Brokerage on creative projects. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 47-81.
Lipman-Blumen, J. (2006). The allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive bosses and corrupt politicians--and how we can survive them. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Litwak, E., & Hylton, L. F. (1962). Interorganizational Analysis: A Hypothesis on Co-ordinating Agencies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 6(4), 395-420.
London, M. (2008). Leadership and Advocacy: Dual Roles for Corporate Social Responsibility and Social Entrepreneurs. Organizational Dynamics, 37(4), 313-326.
López, L., Mendes, J. F., & Sanjuán, M. A. (2002). Hierarchical social networks and information flow. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 316(1-4), 695-708.
Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. (2001). Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6‐7), 545-564.
Luo, X., Slotegraaf, R. J., & Pan, X. (2006). Cross-functional “coopetition”: The simultaneous role of cooperation and competition within firms. Journal of Marketing, 70(2), 67-80.
Maccoby, E. E., & Maccoby, N. (1954). The interview: A tool of social science. Handbook of social psychology, 1(1), 449-487.
Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2009). Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A case study from Bangladesh. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 419-435.
Marzano, R. J. (1992). A different kind of classroom: Teaching with dimensions of learning. USA: Assn for supervision & curriculum.
Mason, J. (2017). Qualitative researching. New York: Sage.
McFarlane, C. (2006). Knowledge, learning and development: a post-rationalist approach. Progress in Development Studies, 6(4), 287-305.
Meyer, K. E. (2006). Globalfocusing: From domestic conglomerates to global specialists. Journal of management studies, 43(5), 1109-1144.
Minniti, M. (2004). Entrepreneurial alertness and asymmetric information in a spin-glass model. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(5), 637-658.
Neuman, W. L. (2018)。研究方法：質化與量化方法之應用（Understandning Research）（郭思餘譯）。台北市：雙葉書廊。（二版2016年出版）
Obstfeld, D. (2005). Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 100-130.
Papacharissi, Z., & Rubin, A. M. (2000). Predictors of Internet Use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44(2), 175-196.
Partidario, M. R., & Sheate, W. R. (2013). Knowledge brokerage-potential for increased capacities and shared power in impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 39, 26-36.
Prasad, P. (1993). Symbolic processes in the implementation of technological change: A symbolic interactionist study of work computerization. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1400-1429.
Retzbach, A., & Maier, M. (2015). Communicating scientific uncertainty: Media effects on public engagement with science. Communication Research, 42(3), 429-456.
Robertson, S. P., Vatrapu, R. K., & Medina, R. (2010). Online video “friends” social networking: Overlapping online public spheres in the 2008 US presidential election. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 7(2-3), 182-201.
Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 30(2), 251-290.
Salancik, G. R. (1977) Commitment and the Control of Organizational Behavior and Belief. In Staw, B., & Salancik, G., Eds., New Directions in Organizational Behavior (chap.1, pp. 1-54). Chicago: St. Clair Press.
Scheufele, D. A. (2014). Science communication as political communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Supplement 4), 13585-13592.
Schön, D. A. (1995). Frame reflection : toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: BasicBooks.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1982). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle (1912/1934). New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Senyard, J., Baker, T., Steffens, P., & Davidsson, P. (2014). Bricolage as a path to innovativeness for resource‐constrained new firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(2), 211-230.
Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379-423.
Sheate, W. R., & Partidário, M. R. (2010). Strategic approaches and assessment techniques—Potential for knowledge brokerage towards sustainability. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(4), 278-288.
Sinek, S. (2009). Start with why: How great leaders inspire everyone to take action. London: Penguin
Sonenshein, S. (2014). How organizations foster the creative use of resources. Academy of Management Journal, 57(3), 814-848.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology. In Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S., Handbook of qualitative research (chap.17, pp. 273-285). New York: Sage.
Tang, J., Kacmar, K. M. M., & Busenitz, L. (2012). Entrepreneurial alertness in the pursuit of new opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(1), 77-94.
Tasselli, S. (2015). Social Networks and Inter-professional Knowledge Transfer: The Case of Healthcare Professionals. Organization Studies, 36(7), 841-872.
Tewksbury, D., Weaver, A. J., & Maddex, B. D. (2001). Accidentally informed: Incidental news exposure on the World Wide Web. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(3), 533-554.
Tichenor, P. J., Donohue, G. A., & Olien, C. N. (1970). Mass media flow and differential growth in knowledge. Public opinion quarterly, 34(2), 159-170.
Vaghely, I. P., & Julien, P.-A. (2010). Are opportunities recognized or constructed?: An information perspective on entrepreneurial opportunity identification. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(1), 73-86.
Vernet, A. (2012, June). Tertius Gaudens vs. Tertius Iungens: the Dynamics of market changes. In DRUID Conference Society, Symposium held at Copenhagen Business School, Denmark.
Vonk, R. (2002). Self-serving interpretations of flattery: Why ingratiation works. Journal of personality and social psychology, 82(4), 515.
Walter, J., Lechner, C., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2007). Knowledge transfer between and within alliance partners: Private versus collective benefits of social capital. Journal of Business Research, 60(7), 698-710.
Weaver, A., Pope, J., Morrison-Saunders, A., & Lochner, P. (2008). Contributing to sustainability as an environmental impact assessment practitioner. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 26(2), 91-98.
Weitzman, M. L. (1996). Hybridizing growth theory. The American Economic Review, 86(2), 207-212.
Wernerfelt, B. (1995). The Resource-Based View of the Firm: Ten Years After. Strategic Management Journal, 16(3), 171-174.
Zucker, L. G. (1977). The Role of Institutionalization in Cultural Persistence. AmericanSociological Review, 42(5), 726-743.
丁玉珍 (2015)。政府協助非營利組織朝向社會企業發展之角色探討。未出版之碩士論文，國立臺灣大學政治學研究所，台北市。
于卓民 (2014)。台灣的競爭力！中小企業的創業與國際化。上網日期：2019年9月7日，檢自：http://nccubr.nccu.edu.tw/article.php?aid=67&mid=27
內政部公益資訊平台 (2019)。全國非營利組織數量現況。上網日期：2019年1月7日，檢自：https://npo.moi.gov.tw/npom/
王億晴、梁慈芳 (2018，4月)。假新聞對閱聽者之影響探討。圖文傳播藝術學報， 38-45。
白廷奕 (2019，10月)。為了身體自主，脫下裙子。上網日期：2019年11月23日，檢自： https://www.instagram.com/p/B3GOL5XgHz4/
江子鳴 (2011)。破壞性創新理論的回顧與應用 - 破壞分類模型提出。未出版之碩士論文。國立成功大學企業管理學系碩博士班，台北市。
何家仰 (2019，7月)。民法的監督不周——小孩打破餐廳音響，爸媽就得賠？。上網日期：2019年11月21日，檢自：https://plainlaw.me/2019/07/25/legalrep/
吳玟嶸 (2017，10月)。鐵欄杆內自成一國──從韓劇被告人談監獄法制。上網日期：2019年11月21日，檢自：https://plainlaw.me/2017/10/10/innocent-defendant/
吳玟嶸 (2019，10月)。人不是應該生而自由嗎？。上網日期：2019年11月23日，檢自： https://www.instagram.com/p/B3M8FbzgguV/
吳家豪 (2018，11月)。臉書：動態消息將改版 回覆討論比按讚排序較前。上網日期：2019年11月18日，檢自：https://www.cna.com.tw/news/afe/201811140192.aspx
吳麗珍、黃惠滿、李浩銑 (2014)。方便取樣和立意取樣之比較。護理雜誌， 61(3)，105-111。
沈東玫 (2012，10月)。量化研究 quantitative research。上網日期： 2019年10月9日，檢自：http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1678721/
林佳燕 (2010)。利用語意及人際網路篩選資訊並說明之研究。未出版之碩士論文。國立臺灣大學資訊網路與多媒體研究所，台北市。
林金定、嚴嘉楓、陳美花 (2005)。質性研究方法：訪談模式與實施步驟分析。身心障礙研究季刊，3(2)，122-136。
法操Follaw (2014，12月)。【太陽花學運】案件摘要。上網日期：2019年1月14日，檢自： https://www.follaw.tw/f01/01case/5475/
邱萬興 (2016，3月)。318學運鼻祖 26年前憤怒的「野百合學運」。上網日期： 2019年1月14日， 檢自：https://www.peoplenews.tw/news/f3347aad-ed0d-42de-aa45-475f10727814
施琮仁 (2016)。社交網站與公眾參與：「Pansci 泛科學臉書專頁」使用者研究。傳播研究與實踐，6(2)，209-241。
柯芳枝 (2013)。公司法論(下)（九版）。台北市：三民書局。
胡幼慧 (1996)。質性研究：理論，方法及本土女性研究實例。台北市：巨流圖書公司。
徐秉琦 (2007)。 倡議型非營利組織經營管理之研究──以財團法人中華民國消費者文教基金會為例。未出版之碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學社會教育學系在職進修碩士班，台北市。
國立中正大學犯罪研究中心 (2019)。107年全年度臺灣民眾對司法與犯罪防制滿意度之調查研究。上網日期：2019年10月6日，檢自：http://deptcrc.ccu.edu.tw/index.php?option=module&lang=cht&task=pageinfo&id=82&index=2
張甘青 (2014)。從使用者網路點閱習慣探討搜尋引擎最佳化。東海大學圖書館館訊，(149)，39-54。
莊文忠、徐明莉、張鐙文 (2009)。非營利組織的議程設定與政策倡議的形成：質化研究的檢證。公共行政學報，(33)，121-163。
許伯崧 (2017，10月)。【鳴人你來當】一場法律白話文的社會運動—訪站長楊貴智。上網日期：2019年10月13日，檢自： https://opinion.udn.com/opinion/story/10763/2755449
陳向明 (2002)。社會科學質的硏究。 台北市：五南。
陳姿伶 (2003)。個案研究法Knowledge Base。上網日期：2019年10月9日，檢自： http://ken.hd.org.tw/modules/tad_book3/pda.php?tbdsn=40
陳雅玫 (2016)。學生臉書使用與政治參與：以太陽花學運為例。中國行政評論， 22(4)，61-91。
陳愛娥 (2011，5月)。憲法與行政法的互動場域：第一講-從特別權力關係到特別身分關係。月旦法學教室，103，32-44。
陳薪智 (2019，6月)。拉近我們與「法」的距離！「法律白話文運動」讓法律融入日常生活。上網日期： 2019年10月13日，檢自： https://medium.com/jandi-blog-tw/plainlow-ngo-jandi-e67d5db1a737
程韻舫 (2004)。台灣第三部門政策倡導之研究－以國民年金為例。未出版之碩士論文。國立政治大學公共行政研究所，台北市。
黃建智 (2019，7月)。媽祖叫我選總統，算不算內線交易裡的重大消息？。上網日期：2019年11月22日，檢自： https://plainlaw.me/2019/07/25/insidertrade/
黃郁真 (2019，11月)。史上最慢還錢的公司。上網日期：2019年11月23日，檢自： https://www.facebook.com/plainlaw.me/photos/a.1415628632046173/2438569576418735/?type=3&theater
黃書瑜 (2017，4月)。什麼是扣繳憑單？。上網日期：2019年11月24日，檢自：https://plainlaw.me/2017/04/06/tax-reduction/
黃書瑜 (2018，8月)。逃稅？避稅？節稅？。上網日期：2019年11月24日，檢自： https://plainlaw.me/2018/08/18/%e9%80%83%e7%a8%85%e9%81%bf%e7%a8%85%e7%af%80%e7%a8%85/
黃惠萍 (2016)。公民團體倡議策略與論述分析：以臺灣動物社會研究會反海豹油個案為例。傳播研究與實踐，6(2)，243-283。
黃銘輝 (2019，9月)。假新聞、社群媒體與網路時代的言論自由。月旦法學雜誌， 292，5-29。
楊貴智 (2017，1月)。那些年我們看不懂的判決與契約 — 談法律白話文的可行性。上網日期：2019年10月17日，檢自：https://medium.com/@winder368/%E9%82%A3%E4%BA%9B%E5%B9%B4%E6%88%91%E5%80%91%E7%9C%8B%E4%B8%8D%E6%87%82%E7%9A%84%E5%88%A4%E6%B1%BA%E8%88%87%E5%A5%91%E7%B4%84-%E8%AB%87%E6%B3%95%E5%BE%8B%E7%99%BD%E8%A9%B1%E6%96%87%E7%9A%84%E5%8F%AF%E8%A1%8C%E6%80%A7-14c8eb40b861
葉乃靜 (2012，10月)。質性研究qualitative research。上網日期：2019年10月8日，檢自： http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1678706/
葉亮吟 (2010，6月)。探討大學生社團經驗、人際關係、學業成績對其職涯發展的影響。育達科大學報，23，59-80。
廖榮利 (1992)。社會個案工作。台北市：幼獅文化。
趙雅儀、蕭哲芬、蔡秋田、鄭琬諭 (2018，8月)。非營利組織之資源運用及經營成果效率分析。管理資訊計算，7，157-166。
蔡立勳 (2018，8月)。法律可以白話一點嗎？這群人正在打破傳統窠臼。上網日期：2019年10月13日，檢自：https://www.gvm.com.tw/article/45353
蔣曜宇 (2019，9月)。Mozilla：台灣網路環境罹患「三高」。上網日期： 2019年9月21日，檢自： https://www.bnext.com.tw/article/54607/mozilla-taiwan-internetsecurity
蕭新煌、孫志慧 (2000)。一九八〇年代以來台灣社會福利運動的發展：演變與傳承。台北市：巨流圖書公司。
蕭瑞麟、歐素華、吳彥寬 (2017)。逆勢拼湊: 化資源制約為創新來源。中山管理評論，25(1)，219-268。
蕭瑞麟、歐素華、陳蕙芬 (2014)。劣勢創新：梵谷策展中的隨創行為。中山管理評論，22(2)，323-367。
蕭瑞麟、歐素華、蘇筠 (2017)。逆強論：隨創式的資源建構過程。臺大管理論叢， 27(4)，43-73。
龍建宇 (2016，9月)。從18％優惠利率案看年金改革－談談信賴保護原則。上網日期：2019年11月25日，檢自：https://plainlaw.me/2016/09/07/legitimate-expectation/
韓意慈、徐煒勛 (2018，9月)。誰在虛擬社會中做什麼？非營利組織資源與官網資訊的內容分析。公共行政學報，55，37-71。
蘇嫻雅 (2004)。第四權與公共利益：戰後台灣的新聞媒體，1949~ 2004。未出版之碩士論文，國立臺灣大學政治學研究所，台北市。
顧忠華 (2000，7月)。台灣非營利組織的公共性與自主性。台灣社會學研究，4，145-189。 |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
科技管理與智慧財產研究所
106364215 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106364215 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| DOI: | 10.6814/NCCU202000062 |
| Appears in Collections: | [科技管理與智慧財產研究所] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 421501.pdf | 3513Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 269 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
