政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/96534
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 113318/144297 (79%)
造訪人次 : 51068279      線上人數 : 894
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜尋範圍 查詢小技巧：
  • 您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號"，以獲取較精準的檢索結果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜尋，建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位，可獲得較完整資料
    •  進階搜尋


    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/96534


    題名: 英國基因改造作物與食品公共辯論：公民參與科技政策模式之評估
    其他題名: The UK’s Public Debate on GM Crops and Foods: Evaluation of the Model of Public Participation in Science and Technology Decision-Making
    作者: 范玫芳;邱智民
    Fan, Mei-Fang;Chiu, Chih-Ming
    關鍵詞: 公民參與;審議民主;科技決策;風險溝通;基因改造作物與食品
    public participation;deliberative democracy;technology decision-making;risk communication;GM crops and foods
    日期: 2011-12
    上傳時間: 2016-05-11 16:25:48 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 晚近公民參與受到歐洲、美國與新興民主國家的高度關注，學界嘗試建立各種評估參與模式的標準，以檢視其品質與成效。英國在2002-2003年間舉行「基因改造國家？公共辯論」（The GM Nation? Debate），採行多元的公民參與形式，包括：基礎討論工作坊、公開討論會、互動網站與深度焦點團體，針對基因改造科技爭議進行全國性討論，以作為政府在基改科技可能的應用與管制之參考。本文旨在針對公共辯論的參與過程與結果面進行評估，檢視公民參與過程、公共辯論對參與者與政策影響以及不同公民參與模式的成效，呈現此公共辯論的特殊性與侷限性，以作為台灣未來推動公民參與和審議民主的參考。本研究採取文件分析法並輔以深度訪談資料。研究發現基礎討論工作坊、深度焦點團體在過程評估上具較高成效；公開討論會、互動網站在過程評估之成效不理想；公共辯論對參與者具有提升其知識與能力的功效；政治菁英對於公民參與科技決策議題的論述轉變；對實際政策影響有限，卻開啟政府在後續科技決策上，更重視公共審議和參與管道。本文最後主張推動多元公民參與形式、建立「回溯上游參與」（upstream engagement）及強化行政課責機制以促進公共審議之推動。
    As public participation has received considerable attention in Europe, North America and newly democratic countries, various criteria for evaluating participatory methods have been developed to examine the quality and efficiency of participatory mechanisms. To guide the government’s consideration for potentially adopting the applications of GM technology and regulations, the UK Government initiated a nationwide public debate - the “GM Nation? Debate” - on the controversies of GM technology during 2002-2003. The UK government adopted various participatory mechanisms, which included public meetings, narrow-but-deep groups, interactive website and workshops. This paper aims to examine the UK public debate on GM issues and to evaluate the process and outcome of the debate. It explores the particularities and limitations of the GM public debate in the UK, and provides suggestions for future public deliberations on science and technology in Taiwan. The research methods adopted are archival analysis and interviews. It shows that the foundation discussion workshop and narrow-but-deep groups achieve more efficiency in process evaluation, while the public meeting and interactive website generate less result. Public discussions raise the specific knowledge and capacity of the participants. They have a limited direct effect on policy decision-making, but have led to the government’s greater emphasis on public consultation and participation. Finally, this paper argues for the need to facilitate various forms of public participation, establish upstream engagement and create an accountability mechanism to promote public deliberation.
    關聯: 公共行政學報, 41,103-133
    Journal of Public Administration National Chengchi University
    資料類型: article
    顯示於類別:[公共行政學報 TSSCI] 期刊論文

    文件中的檔案:

    檔案 描述 大小格式瀏覽次數
    41(103-133).pdf494KbAdobe PDF21277檢視/開啟


    在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.


    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 ©   - 回饋