Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/125742
|
| Title: | 影響不同政府機關人員資料開放行為之因素
Factors affecting the open behavior of personnel in different government agencies |
| Authors: | 王煒彤
Wang, Wei-Tong |
| Contributors: | 朱斌妤
Chu, Pin-Yu
王煒彤
Wang, Wei-Tong |
| Keywords: | 電子治理
政府資料開放
政府機關人員
結構方程式
E-governance
Open government data
Civil servant
SEM |
| Date: | 2019 |
| Issue Date: | 2019-09-05 16:50:20 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 近年來，隨著資通訊科技(Information and Communication Technologies, ICTs)的發展、民主治理的演進，強調透明政府與民眾參與的政府資料開放(Open Government Data, OGD)是各國政府政策的焦點，也備受公民社會以及企業共同關注，其相關研究也有如雨後春筍般展開。
過去研究多注重在政府資料開放的法制層面與資料格式、資料品質等相關研究，對於政府資料開放的提供者政府機關人員欠缺一全面性的探討與比較。另外，自2011年來，我國中央與各地方政府機關也陸續展開政府資料開放政策的推動，但由於各政府機關單位組成以及推動策略不盡相同，在政策執行上的情況具有很大的落差，因此了解不同機關人員對於政府資料開放的認知差異與其政府資料開放行為知影響因素，將有助於各政府機關在政府資料開放政策上的發展，而有研究之必要性。是故本研究欲探討政府機關人員對於政府資料開放的認知與資料開放行為之影響因素，將研究對象鎖定在我國三個不同政府機關(中央政府、六都政府、非六都政府)負責政府資料開放政策執行的政府機關人員，並提出政府資料開放評估模型，透過結構方程式(Structural Equation Modeling, SEM)的方法進行分析，藉由模型驗證找出三個不同機關人員資料開放行為特性與認知異同。
研究結果顯示，機關人員預期政府資料開放所帶來的效益、組織成員越支持以及人員所擁有的控制資源程度越高時，其越容易產生政府資料開放行為。另外，不同政府機關人員對於政府資料開放的認知與行為也會有所差異，尤以非六都政府機關人員在主觀規範、行為控制知覺、個人資料開放行為等認知上於中央以及六都政府機關明顯不同。最後本研究針對研究發現提出相關的政策建議，希冀增加政府機關人員對於政府資料開放政策的掌握度，並彌平不同機關人員間的認知差異提高其政府資料開放行為，共創透明、開放的社會。
With the development of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs); the evolution of democratic governance, the transparency of government has been emphasized in recent years.The Open Government Data (OGD), which emphasizes transparent government and civics` participation, plays an important role in government’s policies nowadays.As the discussion of OGD grows, the related research has also sprung up rapidly.
The research which government focused on is legal level of OGD, data format,and data quality…etc. There is a lack of comprehensive discussion and comparison of government agencies for OGD. Since 2011, central government agencies and local government agencies have also promoted the OGD . However, due to the different unit composition and promotion strategies of various government agencies, there is a large gap in policy implementation. Therefore, understanding the differences in the cognition of civil servant and the affecting factors of their OGD behavior will help the development of OGD. Thus ,it is a necessary research.Therefore, this study intends to explore the influence of the n the differences in civil servant’s cognition and the factors affecting of civil servant’s OGD behavior. The research targets are locked in three different government agencies (central government, municipal government, non- municipal government). The government agencies of the implementation of the open policy, and proposed an open evaluation model of government data, through the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) method, through model verification to find out the characteristics of open behavior and cognitive similarities and differences between the data of three different agencies.
The results of the study show that the more the civil servant expects the benefits of OGD, the more support the organization members and the higher the level of control resources owned by the personnel, the more likely it is to have an OGD behavior. In addition, the cognition and behaviors of civil servant in different government agencies may be different. In particular, non- municipal government agencies are aware of subjective norms, perceived behavior control, and personal OGD behavior in the central and municipal government agencies. obviously different. Finally, this study proposes relevant policy recommendations for research findings, and hopes to increase the mastery of government agencies` open policies OGD, and to eliminate the cognitive differences between different agencies and improve the civil servant OGD behavior to create a transparent and open society. |
| Reference: | 中文文獻
王怡惠（2015）。芝加哥開放資料 打造智慧城 行政效率up。經濟日報。2019年4月9日，取自：http://iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw/Post/Read.aspx?PostID=11868。
朱斌妤 (2015）。政府資訊公開與加值運用之規劃與績效評估。行政院科技部專題研究計畫，未出版。
朱斌妤（2016）。政府資料開放績效評估（第一年期中報告）。行政院科技部專題研究計畫，未出版。
朱斌妤（2017）。政府資料開放績效評估（第二年期中報告）。行政院科技部專題研究計畫，未出版。
朱斌妤、葉旭榮（2002）。志工參與行為意向模式的建構及其在老人福利機構志工招募的應用，管理學報，19（3）, 475-505.
江思穎（2014）。政府資料開放評估指標建立。國立政治大學，台北市。
國家發展委員會（2013）。政府資料開放加值應用研究分析書面報告。2019年5月7日，取自：http://www.ndc.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=33B27A62D5D08C83&sms=90CFF1BDB7A1494C&s=CFC266A607127C45。
余孝先（2012）。政府資料開放發展趨勢與發展建議。2017年10月17日，取自： http://pcs.csie.nctu.edu.tw/course/2012Fall/content/OpenData_NCTU.ppt
吳中勤（2015）。以多群組結構方程模式檢驗成就目標理論模式的測量恆等性. 教育科學研究期刊，59(3)，59-95。
吳孟家（2019）。我國政府機關於開放資料推行之影響因素分析: 以量化模型探討。 國立台灣大學，台北市。
吳冠翰（2016）。影響政府資料開放推動因素之探討。國立政治大學，台北市。
宋餘俠、李國田（2012）。政府部門資料加值推動策略與挑戰. 研考雙月刊，36（4），10-21.
李正賢（2015）。開放資料在臺北－臺北市開放資料成果介紹，2017年10月17日，取自：https://ws.ndc.gov.tw/Download.ashx?u...n...icon=..docx。
林誠夏（2017）。美國「開放政府資料法」正式通過眾議院審議！。經濟日報。民108年4月9日，取自：http://iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw/Post/Read.aspx?PostID=13971。
邱羿儂（2012）。開放政府資料之推動策略研究-英國、美國與台灣之比較。 國立台灣大學，台北市。
邱皓政（2011）。結構方程模式：LIRSEL/SIMPLS理論、技術與應用。臺北市：雙葉書廊有限公司
馬中哲 （2016）。政府開放資料承辦人員之資料尋求歷程初探。 國立台灣大學，台北市。
張家生 (2012)。從台北市看政府公開資料(open data)。研考雙月刊，36(4)，61-69
張偉豪、鄭時宜（2013）。與結構方程模型共舞：曙光初現。新北市：前程文化事業有限公司。
陳舜伶、林珈宏、莊庭瑞（2013）。藏智於民: 開放政府資料的原則與現況，臺北:：中央研究院資訊科技創新研究中心臺灣創用 CC 計畫.
曾旭正（2016）。開放政府之現況與展望. 國土及公共治理季刊，4（4），8-17.
開放文化基金會（2017）。開放政府觀察報告：開放資料之政策基礎與影響力評估。2019年3月23日取自：http://opengovreport.ocf.tw/#tab-0
項靖、楊東謀（2012）。資訊分享與共榮：政府機關資料公開與加值應用。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。
黃湘婷（2019）。我國地方政府資料開放政策執行人員開放行為分析。 國立台灣大學，台北市。
萬幼筠、曾韵（2017）。臺北市政府資料開放作業機制及有效管理模式之研究（市政專題研究報告第 403輯）。研究發展考核委員會，未出版。
廖洲棚、廖興中、黃心怡（2018）。開放政府服務策略研析調查：政府資料開放應用模式評估與民眾參與公共政策意願調查。國家發展委員會委託研析。
蕭乃沂、羅晉。（2010）。電子化政府的價值鏈評估觀點: 以數位台灣 e 化政府計畫為例。公共行政學報，(36)，1-37。
蕭景燈（2012）。資料開放發展現況與展望. 研考雙月刊, 36（4）, 22-38。
賴泱州、楊東謀 （2017）。地方政府機關之開放資料影響因素探討─ 以台中市政府為例. Journal of Educational Media & Library Sciences, 54（2）。
羅晉（2015）。政府資料開放之系統性與制度性觀點的分析。臺灣民主季刊，12（4），1-37。
英文文獻
Albano, C., & Reinhard, N. (2014). Open government data: Facilitating and motivating factors for coping with potential barriers in the Brazilian context. Proceedings of the International Conference on Electronic Government 8653, 181-193.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423.
Attard, J., Orlandi, F., Scerri, S. & Auer, S. (2015). A systematic review of open government data initiatives. Government Information Quarterly, 32(4）, 399-418.
Barry, E. & Bannister, F. (2014). Barriers to open data release: A view from the top. Information Polity, 19, 129-152
Byrne, B. M. (2004). Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS graphics: A road less traveled. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(2), 272-300. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1102_8
Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: the issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological bulletin, 105(3), 456.
Carrasco, C., & Sobrepere, X. (2015). Open government data: An assessment of the Spanish municipal situation. Social Science Computer Review, 33(5), 631-644.
Conradie, P., & Choenni, S. (2014). On the barriers for local government releasing open
Data. Government Information Quarterly, 31(S1), S10–S17
Cranefield, J., Robertson, O., & Oliver, G. (2014). Value in the mash: Exploring the benefits, barriers and enablers of open data apps.
data. Government Information Quarterly, 31(S1), S10-S17.
Davies, T. (2010). Open data, democracy and public sector reform. A look at open government data use from data.gov.uk. Retrieved April 9, 2019, from http://www. opendataimpacts.net/report/
Davies, T., & Perini, F. (2016). Researching the emerging impacts of open data:
Davies, T., Perini, F., & Alonso, J. M. (2013). Researching the emerging impacts of open data. ODDC conceptual framework, 1.
Dawes, S. S., Vidiasova, L., & Parkhimovich, O. (2016). Planning and designing open government data programs: An ecosystem approach. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 15-27.
Drasgow, F., & Kanfer, R. (1985). Equivalence of psychological measurement in heterogeneous populations. Journal of applied psychology, 70(4), 662.
Greiling, D., & K. Spraul (2010). Accountability and the challenges of information disclosure. Public Administration Quarterly, 34(3), 338-377.
Grover, V. (1993). An empirically derived model for the adoption of customer-based interorganizational systems. Decision Sciences, 24(3), 603-640.
Huijboom, N., & Van den Broek, T. (2011). Open data: an international comparison of strategies. European journal of ePractice, 12(1), 4-16.
Informatics, 12(2), 148-178.
Jackson, D. L. (2003). Revisiting sample size and number of parameter estimates: Some support for the N: q hypothesis. Structural equation modeling, 10(1), 128-141.
Jamieson, D., Wilson, R., & Martin, M. (2019). The (im) possibilities of open data?. Public Money & Management.
Janssen, M., Y. Charalabidis, & A. Zuiderwijk. (2012). Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information System Management, 29, 258-268.
Jetzek, T., Avital, M., & Bjorn-Andersen, N. (2014). Data-driven innovation through open government data. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 9(2), 100–120.
Kassen, M. (2013). A promising phenomenon of open data: A case study of the Chicago open data project. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 508-513.
Kulk S and Van Loenen B (2012) Brave new open data world? International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research 7: 196–206.
Kulk, S., & Van Loenen, B. (2012). Brave new open data world?. International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 7, 196-206.
Lee, G. & Kwak, Y. H. (2012). An open government maturity model for social media based public engagement. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 492-503.
Lee, Y. C., Chu, P. Y., & Tseng, H. L. (2012). Cross-National and Cross-Industrial Comparison of ICT-Enabled Business Process Management and Performance. Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM), 20(2), 44-66.
Marsh, H. W., & Grayson, D. (1990). Public/Catholic differences in the high school and beyond data: A multigroup structural equation modeling approach to testing mean differences. Journal of Educational Statistics, 15(3), 199-235.
Martin, S., Foulonneau, M., Turki, S., & Ihadjadene, M. (2013). Risk analysis to overcome barriers to open data. Electronic Journal on e-Government, 11(1), 348359.
Morse, J. (2009). Obama Administration Breaks New Ground on the Internet.
revisiting the ODDC conceptual framework. The Journal of Community
Parycek, P., Höchtl, J., & Ginner, M. (2014). Open government data implementation evaluation. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 9(2), 80-99.
Sadiq, S., & Indulska, M. (2017). Open data: Quality over quantity. International Journal of Information Management, 37(3), 150-154.
Steenkamp, J. B., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78-90.
support for the N: q hypothesis. Structural Equation Modeling, 10(1), 128-141.
Ubaldi, B. (2013). Open Government Data: Towards Empirical Analysis of Open Government Data Initiatives, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, 22, 1-61.
Verma, N., & Gupta, M. P. (2013). Open government data: beyond policy & portal, a study in Indian context. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (pp. 338-341). ACM.
Welch, E. W., Feeney, M. K., & Park, C. H. (2016). Determinants of data sharing in US city governments. Government Information Quarterly, 33(3), 393-403.
Welle Donker, F., Van Loenen, B., & Bregt, A. (2016). Open data and beyond. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 5(4), 48.
Wirtz, W. B., R. Piehler, M. Thomas, & P. Daiser. (2015). Resistance of public personnel to open government: A cognitive theory view of implementation barriers towards open government data. Public Management Review, 18（9）, 1335-1364.
World Wide Web Foundation. (2016). Open Data Barometer Global Report (3th Ed.).. Retrieved from http://opendatabarometer.org/doc/3rdEdition/ODB-3rdEdition-GlobalReport.pdf
World Wide Web Foundation.(2017).Open Data barometer global report (4th Ed.). Retrieved from http://webfoundation.org/about/research/open-data-barometer-fourthedition/.
Yang, T. M., & Wu, Y. J. (2016). Examining the socio-technical determinants influencing government agencies` open data publication: A study in Taiwan. Government Information Quarterly, 33(3), 378-392.
Yang, T. M., J. Lo, & J. Shiang.(2015). To open or not to open? Determinants of open government data. Journal of Information Science, 41(5), 596–6
Zuiderwijk, A., & Janssen, M. (2013). A coordination theory perspective to improve the use of open data in policy-making. Proceedings of the International Conference on Electronic Government 8074, 38-49.
Zuiderwijk, A., & Janssen, M. (2014). Open data policies, their implementation and impact: A framework for comparison. Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), 17-29.
Zuiderwijk, A., Janssen, M., & Davis, C. (2014). Innovation with open data: Essential elements of open data ecosystems. Information Policy, 19, 17-33.
Zuiderwijk, A., Janssen, M., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2015). Acceptance and use predictors of open data technologies: Drawing upon the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Government information quarterly, 32(4), 429-440. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
公共行政學系
1052560351 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1052560351 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| DOI: | 10.6814/NCCU201901162 |
| Appears in Collections: | [公共行政學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 035101.pdf | 2831Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 0 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
