政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/58995
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文笔数/总笔数 : 113451/144438 (79%)
造访人次 : 51309406      在线人数 : 862
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜寻范围 查询小技巧：
  • 您可在西文检索词汇前后加上"双引号"，以获取较精准的检索结果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜寻，建议至进阶搜寻限定作者字段，可获得较完整数据
    •  进阶搜寻


    请使用永久网址来引用或连结此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/58995


    题名: 立法委員應用Facebook的行為在選舉期與會期間的探索
    A comparative study of campaign and non-campaign Facebook strategies: The case of Taiwan’s Legislators
    作者: 陳禹瑞
    Chen, Yu Jui
    贡献者: 朱斌妤
    Chu, Pin Yu
    陳禹瑞
    Chen, Yu Jui
    关键词: 電子參與
    社群媒體
    Facebook
    立法委員
    Web 2.0
    e-participation
    social network
    Facebook
    legislator
    web 2.0
    日期: 2012
    上传时间: 2013-07-23 13:33:53 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 資訊科技的日新月異，讓政府與民眾之間的關係有了改變，在Web 2.0的網路應用模式興起之下，不但讓社會互動的內涵拓展到網路世界當中，也改變了日常生活、媒體環境，甚至進入了民主政治運作的機制當中，扮演重要的角色。順應這股潮流，各國政府無不積極推動相關的機制，期望讓民眾有更親切，多元的參與途徑，以達成更好的治理。
    然而，不論國內外對於政府結合Web 2.0的研究上，主要都聚焦於公共服務的提供，並沒有更進一步探討「政府」與「民眾」關係的內涵，事實上，這種雙向關係的建立是社群網站之所以能進入民眾生活的重要的核心概念，也是政府結合社群網站提供服務應該關注的焦點。因此，本研究從深化治理關係的角度出發，比較立法委員在選舉期間和會期間運用Facebook與民眾溝通、互動的行為，一方面希望探索政治人物所應用的網路科技是否含有治理的功用，突破以往網路選戰的囹圄；另一方面，也希望了解在政府各單位提供的電子參與機制之外，能不能透過更接近民眾日常生活的Facebook建立治理關係，讓電子參與的理念可以藉由不同的途徑所達成。
    研究結果發現，立法委員在Facebook在選舉期間和會期間主要應用的策略都是「政治資訊」和「生活分享」兩項，不同於過去競選期間以攻擊對手最為主要應用的策略，立法委員在Facebook上有明顯的策略轉向，可能與Facebook社交的特性有關。另一方面，立法委員所應用的Facebook不論在選舉期間或會期，在電子參與上都達到不錯的比率，但是大部分溝通能以單向的資訊傳播為主，與民眾的雙向互動較為稀少。從分析結果來看，立法委員應用Facebook除了地區之外，並沒有明顯的差異。整體而言，立法委員的Facebook有成為電子參與新途徑的潛力，但是要達成雙向、穩定、長期的治理關係，落實電子參與的理念仍需要繼續努力。
    Facebook, the most popular social media in the world, has changed ways of citizen involvement in governance. Politicians and (elected) public administrators worldwide have adopted Facebook as an important approach to connect with citizens. Following the trend, most legislators in Taiwan also create personal Facebook accounts and Facebook pages as an additional way to reach their potential voters and citizens in general. Ideally, legislators can efficiently operate their constituents and directly communicate with their “friends.” Facebook pages of legislators seem to offer the promise of electronic participation (e-participation), reaching citizens on a common platform and allowing for citizen comments. On the other hand, citizens can establish a link to legislators via information-sharing, dialogue, and consensus-building on Facebook. If the two-way communication works properly and successfully, Facebook will certainly help to create more citizen participation and more public values.
    This study investigates differences in communication strategies and patterns of legislators’ Facebook in Taiwan during the 2011 election periods and during the 2012 regular legislative sessions, with the aim of exploring whether the Facebook phenomenon can improve the process of online political communication and citizen participation. The finding reveals that percentage of e-participation achieves fine rate, but most communication on legislators’ Facebook is one way. The result indicates that legislators’ Facebook is another platform to distribute public information to citizens, and may have potential to create more public values. To improve democracy, legislators need to get more feedback from citizens, i.e., improving the two-way communication on Facebook.The lessons from this study will help pave the way for future research on political campaign and electronic participation.
    參考文獻: 中文文獻
    王石番(1992)。傳播內容分析法─理論與實證。台北：幼獅文化事業公司。
    王泰俐(2003)。誰的互動性網站?─從2000年到2002年選舉看臺灣選舉網站互動性概念的演進。新聞學研究，77，107-141。
    行政院研究發展考核委員會(2007)。優質網路政府計畫(97年-100年，行政院核定發展優質網路社會計畫項下)。台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。取自：
    http://www.rdec.gov.tw/public/data/94201283671.pdf
    行政院研究發展考核委員會(2009)。Web 2.0與電子治理的實踐：以「國家政策網路智庫」為例之評估與實驗研究。台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
    行政院研究發展考核委員會(2011a)。100年個人/家戶數為機會調查報告。台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
    行政院研究發展考核委員會(2011b)。第四階段電子化政府計劃。台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
    朱斌妤、李洛維(2009)。電子治理的發展與挑戰。研習論壇月刊，107，1-13。
    余致力(2006)。倡廉反貪與民主治理。臺灣民主季刊，3(3)，165-176。
    李士傑(2007)。Web 2.0與公共參與。研考雙月刊，31(3)，82-92。
    李宇美譯(2011)。鄉民都來了：無組織的組織力量（原作者：C. Shirky）。台北：貓頭鷹出版。
    李美華譯(1998)。社會科學研究方法（原作者：E. Babbie）。台北：時英出版社。
    宋學文、陳鴻基(2002)。從全球化探討網路時代的政策管理。資訊管理學報，8(2)，153-173。
    宋餘俠、盧志山(2009)。策略規劃第四階段電子化政府。研考雙月刊，33(6)，19-33。
    宋餘俠、蔡世田(2011)。政府參與社會網絡新思維。研考雙月刊，35(4)，10-21。
    杜文苓(2007)。審議民主與社會運動：民間團體籌辦新竹科學園區宜蘭基地公民會議的啟發。公共行政學報，23，67-93。
    林火旺(2005)。審議民主與公民養成。臺大哲學論評，29，99-143。
    林盈廷(2011)。社交網路遊戲對使用者社會網絡及線上人際互動之影響─以Facebook為例。國立交通大學理學院科技數位學習學程碩士論文，新竹市。
    吳國卿譯(2011)。下班時間扭轉未來：休閒時間X網路連結=改變世界的決勝點（原作者：C. Shirky）。台北：行人股份有限公司。
    洪雅慧(2010)。網路競選傳播。台北：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
    周宣光、曾德宜(2008)。Web 2.0與政府部門資訊應用創新。研考雙月刊，32(1)，19-27。
    徐承群(2010)。網路選戰策略研究─以民進黨2009~2010台灣地方選舉為例。世新大學傳播研究所博士論文，台北市。
    陳東升(2006)。審議民主的限制─台灣公民會議的經驗。臺灣民主季刊，3(1)，77-104。
    陳敦源、黃東益、蕭乃沂(2001)。資訊與民主：臺灣立法機關網站政治溝通功能之評估。理論與政策，15(3)，19-60。
    陳敦源、黃東益、蕭乃沂(2004)。電子化參與：公共政策過程中的網路公民參與。研考雙月刊，28(4)，37-51。
    陳敦源、黃東益、李仲彬、蕭乃沂、林子倫(2008)。資訊通訊科技下的審議式民主：線上與實體公民會議比較分析。行政暨政策學報，46，49-106。
    陳敦源(2009)。民主治理與電子化參與。T&D飛訊，83，1-18。
    陳敦源、潘競恆(2011)。政府就是「我們」：web 2.0時代民主治理的希望或夢幻?研考雙月刊，35(4)，23-34。
    陳瑜芬、鄭凱文(2009)。E好了沒?電子治理在台灣。研習論壇月刊，107，21-29。
    項靖(2008)。電子治理關係之調適。行政院研考會委託研究報告。台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
    黃東益、陳敦源(2004)。電子化政府與商議事民主之實踐。臺灣民主季刊，1(4)，1-34。
    黃東益、陳敦源、陳俊明、蕭乃沂(2004)。數位時代商議式民主的實驗原型：線上公民顧問團。研考雙月刊，28(1)，81-91。
    黃東益(2008)。審議過後─從行政部門觀點探討公民會議的政策連結。東吳政治學報，26，59-91。
    湯宗泰、劉文良(2008)。網路行銷web 2.0思維。台北：學貫出版社。
    雷文玫(2004)。強化我國健保行政決策公民參宇的制度設計─二代健保先驅性全民健保公民會議的建議方案。臺灣民主季刊，1(4)，57-81。
    楊孝濚(1992)。內容分析。楊國樞、文崇一、吳聰賢、李亦元編(1992)社會及行為科學研究法。台北：台灣東華書局股份有限公司。
    熊澄宇(2005)。資訊社會4.0。台北：商周文化出版。
    鄭彙翰(2010)。Web 2.0網路輔助新聞報導。台灣大學新聞研究所碩士論文，台北市。
    英文文獻
    Arnstein, S. R. (1969). Ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224.
    Barber, B. R. (1984). Strong Democracy; Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkley: University of California.
    Berelson, B (1952). Content Analysis in Communication Research. Glencoe: The Free Press.
    Bichard, S. L. (2006). Building blogs: a multi-dimensional analysis of the distribution of frames on the 2004 presidential candidate web sites. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(2), 329-45.
    Bowers, J. W. (1970). Content Analysis Philip Emmert and William D. Brooks (Eds.), Methods in Research in Communication. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 291-314.
    Budd, R.W., R.K. Thorp, & L. Donohew (1967). Content Analysis of Communication. New York: The Macmillan.
    Bystrom, D.G., Banwart, M.C., Robertson, T. and Kaid, L. L. (2004). Gender and Political Candidate Communication: Video Style, Web Style and News Style, New York: Routledge.
    Cavaye, J. (2004). Governance and Community Engagement: The Australian Experience, in W.R. Lovan, M. Murray & Shaffer, R. (Eds). Participatory Governance: Planning, Conflict Mediation and Public Decision-Making in Civil Society, 85-101. Burlington: Ashgate.
    Chiluwa, I. (2012). On political participation: discursive pragmatic and social Interaction in Nolitics. Studies in literature and language, 2(2), 80-92.
    Cooper, Terry L., Bryer, Thomas A., Meek, Jack W. (2006). Citizen-centered collaborative public management. Public Administration Review, December, Special Issue, 76-86.
    Dahlberg, Lincoln (2001). Democracy via Cyberspace. New Media & Society, 3(2), 157-177.
    Danyi, E. & Galacz, A. (2005). Internet and election: changing political strategies and citizen tactic in Hungary. Information Policy, 219-232.
    Eidsvik, H. (1978). Involving the public in park planning: Canada. Parks, 3(1), 5-27.
    Etzioni, K. W. (1980). Politics and Government: How People Decide Their Fate. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
    Fishkin, James S. (1991). Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reforms. New Haven, CT: Yale University.
    Fishkin, James S. (1995). The Voice of the People. New Haven: Yale University.
    Glass, J. J. (1979). Citizen participation in planning: the relationship between objectives and techniques. Journal of the American Planning Association, April, 180-189.
    Granstaff, B. (1999). Losing our democratic spirit: Congressional deliberation and the dictatorship of propaganda. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.
    Habermas, Jürgen .(1987). Theory of Communicative Action. Boston: Beacon.
    Habermas. (1996). Between Facts and Norms. UK: Cambridge University.
    Hampton, K. N., Goulet, L.S., Rainie, L., Purcell, K.(2011). Social Networking Sites and Our Lives. Washington, D. C.: Pew.
    Hays, D. G. (1969) Linguistic Foundation for A Theory of Content Analysis, in G. Gerbner et al. (Eds.) The Analysis of Communication Content. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 57-68.
    Heathcote, I. W. (1998). Integrated Watershed Management, Principles and Practive. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
    Holsti, O. R. (1969), Content Analysis for the Social Science and Humanities. Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
    Herrnson, Paul S., Stokes-Brown, A.K., Hindman, M. (2007). Campaign politics and the digital divide: constituency characteristics, strategic considerations, and candidates Internet use state legislative elections. Political Research Quarterly, 60(1), 31-40.
    Jackson, N. & Lilleker, D. (2010). Tentative steps towards interaction: the use of the Internet in the British European parliament election 2009. Internet Research, 20(9), 527-544.
    Kiewiet, D. R. & McCubbins, M. D. (1991). The logic of delegation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Kohut (2008). Social Networking and Online Videos Take Off: Internet`s Broader Role In Campaign 2008. Retrieved from:
    http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/Pew_MediaSources_jan08.pdf
    Krippendorff, K. (1980), Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage.
    Lai, L.S.L & E. Turban (2008). Groups formation and operations in the web 2.0 environment and social networks. Group Decis Negot, 17, 387-402.
    Leighninger, M. (2011). Citizenship and governance in a wild, wired world how should citizens and public managers use online tools to improve democracy? National Civic Review, 20-29.
    Lijphart, Arend. (1997). Unequal participation: democracy’s unresolved dilemma presidential address, American political science association, 1996. American Political Science Review, 91(1), 1-14.
    Lupia, A. (2000, September). Institutions as information crutches: Experimental evidence from laboratory and field. Annual meeting of the American political science association, Washington, D. C.
    OECD(2001). Public Management Policy Brief: “Engaging Citizens in Policy-making: Information Consultation and Public Participation.” Paris: OECD.
    OECD. (2004). Promises and Problems of E-democracy: Challenges of Online Citizen Engagement. Paris: OECD.
    O’Reilly, T. E. (2005). What Is Web 2.0. Retrieved from:
    http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html?page=1, accessed at 9/18/2011.
    O`Reilly, T.(2008). Web 2.0 : A Strategy Guide. Business thinking and strategies be successful web 2.0 implementation. CA: O`Reilly Media.
    Oblak-Crnic, T., Prodnik, J., Trbizan, N. (2010). Deliberation and Online Participation: The Case of the Slovenian Portal “I Propose to the Government”. Journal of Comparative Politics, 90-110.
    Osimo, D. (2008).Web 2.0 in Government: Why and How ? Retrieved from
    http://documentostics.com/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_downlo
    ad/gid,1417/Itemid,4, access at 11/17/2011.
    Pautz, H. (2010). The Internet, Political Participation and Election Turnout, A Case Study of Germany; www.abgeordnetenwatch.de. German Politics and Society, 96, 28(3), 157-172.
    Putnam, Robert (1995). Bowling alone: america’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6, 65-78.
    Rainine, L. & Smith, A. (2012). Social Networking Sites and Politic. Washington, D. C: Pew.
    Regan, K. (2006) Plugging in: can e-commerce leverage social networks? E-commerce times, February. Retrieved from:
    http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/54035.html.,accessed at 8/17/2011
    Robertson, S.P., Vatrapu, R. K., Medina, R. (2010). Off the wall political discourse: facebook use in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. Information Polity, 15 11-31.
    Rowe, G. & Frewer. L. J. (2005). A Typology of public engagement mechanism. Science Technology & Human Values, 30(2), 251-290.
    Scott, D.M. (2007). The new rules of marketing and PR. NJ: Wiley and Sons.
    .Smith, A. (2009). The Internet’s Role in Campaign 2008. Washington, D. C.: Pew.
    Surowiecki J. (2004) The wisdom of crowds: why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies and nations. New York: Doubleday Books
    Tapscott, D. & Agnew, D. (1999).Governance in the digital economy, Finance & Development, 36(4), 34-37.
    Trammell, K. D., Williams, A.P., Postelnicu, M. and Landreville, K.D. (2006) .Evolution of online campaigning: increasing interactivity in candidate web sites and blogs through text and technical features. Mass Communication and Society, 9(1), 21-44.
    Trammell, K. D.(2007). Candidate campaign blogs directly reaching out to the youth vote. American Behavioral Scientist, 50(9), 1255-1263.
    Tunez, M. & Sixto, J. (2011). Social networks, politics and commitment 2.0: spanish MPs on facebook. Revista Latina de Communication Social, 1-25.
    United Nations. (2008). United Nations e-Government Survey 2008: From e-government to connected governance. New York: United Nations.
    United Nations. (2010). United Nations e-Government Survey 2010: Leveraging e-government at a time of financial and economic crisis. New York: United Nations.
    Utz, S. (2009). The (potential) benefits of campaign via social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 221-243.
    Wang, T. L.(2009). A comparative study of campaign blogs and web sites: the case of taiwan’s 2008 General election. Online Information Review, 34(2), 229-249.
    Williams, C. B. & Gulati G. J. (2009). Social networks in political campaign; facebook and congressional election 2006, 2008. American Political Science Association, 2-25.
    Wimmer, R. D. & J. R. Dominick (1983), Mass Media Research: An Introduction. Belmont: Wadsworth.
    Whiteman, D. (1995). Communication in congress: Members, staff and the search for information, Kansas.
    Yanoshevsky, G. (2009). Perelman’s audience revisited: towards the construction of a new type of Audience. Argumentation, 23, 409-419.
    Zavattaro, S. M. (2010). Brand Obama: The Implications of a branded president. Administration Theory & Praxis, 32(1), 123-128.
    描述: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    公共行政研究所
    98256031
    101
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0982560311
    数据类型: thesis
    显示于类别:[公共行政學系] 學位論文

    文件中的档案:

    档案 大小格式浏览次数
    031101.pdf2317KbAdobe PDF21142检视/开启


    在政大典藏中所有的数据项都受到原著作权保护.


    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 ©   - 回馈