政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/145906
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113648/144635 (79%)
Visitors : 51630521      Online Users : 528
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
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/145906


    Title: 官僚回應性認知及其對參與式治理態度的影響：Q與R方法論之整合性研究
    The Cognitions of Bureaucratic Responsiveness and Its Influence on Attitudes toward Participatory Governance: A Research Integrating Q and R Methodologies
    Authors: 陳揚中
    Chen, Yang-Chung
    Contributors: 陳敦源
    Chen, Don-Yun
    陳揚中
    Chen, Yang-Chung
    Keywords: 官僚回應性
    主體性
    Q方法論
    混合方法研究
    工作要求-資源模型
    Bureaucratic responsiveness
    Subjectivity
    Q methodology
    mixed-methods research
    Job demand-resource model (JD-R Model)
    Date: 2023
    Issue Date: 2023-07-06 16:56:58 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 官僚人員是作為國家運作與公共服務的核心體系與關鍵角色，如果希望探究公共行政的本質，自然也無法忽略官僚的主體性及其影響，然而公共行政領域過往相對較著重規範性理論的發展，而長期忽略對官僚主體性的重視，也對於適用於主體性研究的Q方法論少有關注。本研究針對公共行政領域的關鍵議題官僚回應性為研究主題，以參與式治理的發展與影響為脈絡，探討當代民主治理的圖像轉變，爬梳官僚回應性的概念與研究發展，並藉由整合Q與R方法論的混合方法研究途徑，針對官僚回應性認知與對推動參與式治理政策之態度影響進行研究。本研究首先透過Q方法論的研究途徑探索與重構官僚本身對於官僚回應性的代表性認知類型，藉此深化對於官僚回應性的理解，同時也補充官僚回應性的經驗性研究大多著重於回應結果層面的測量，缺乏對於官僚如何思考與權衡多元回應要求的理解。對此，本研究針對臺北市政府公務人員為例，從中發現並詮釋出三種主要的官僚回應性認知類型，分別為：一、意向社群主義的烏托邦官僚；二、受制關係文化的官僚多元主義；三、重視中立能力的首長代理人。此外，本研究並基於此研究成果，進一步針對臺北市政府區公所之公務人員進行問卷調查，藉此了解三種官僚回應性認知類型在臺北市政府區公所公務人員當中的自我認同狀況，以及可能影響其認同程度的因素外，並配合工作要求－資源模型，以官僚回應性認知為官僚的關鍵心理資源變數，檢視其在工作要求、工作資源，以及對於推動參與式治理政策態度間的影響關係。最後，本研究針對官僚回應性認知及其對於推動參與式治理政策態度之影響等研究結果，以及Q與R方法論的混合方法研究設計與操作進行討論，並針對後續研究精進和相關實務發展提出建議。
    Bureaucrats are the core role in the operation of the state. Therefore, their subjectivity and influence cannot be ignored when exploring the essence of public administration. However, the development of normative theories has been relatively emphasized in the field of public administration, while the importance of bureaucratic subjectivity has been neglected for a long time. Additionally, there has been little attention given to the Q methodology, which is applicable for subjectivity research. This study focuses on the core issue in the field of public administration, namely bureaucratic responsiveness, and conduct a mixed-methods research approach that combines Q and R methodologies to explore and analyze bureaucratic subjectivity. Against the background of the development and impact of participatory governance, this study describes the changes in the image of democratic governance, the impact on the concept of bureaucratic responsiveness, and further investigates the cognition of bureaucratic responsiveness and its effect on attitudes towards promoting policy of participatory governance. Firstly, by using the Q methodology, this study explores and reconstructs three representative cognitive types of bureaucratic responsiveness from public servants in the Taipei City Government: (1) Utopian bureaucrats of Communitarianism; (2) Bureaucratic pluralism under the constraint of Guanxi; (3) executive agents who value neutral ability. That supplements previous experiential researches on bureaucratic responsiveness, which mainly focus on measuring response results but lack understanding of how bureaucrats think and weigh multiple response requirements. In addition, this study conducts a questionnaire survey of public servants in the district offices of the Taipei City Government to understand their self-identity regarding the three types of cognitive bureaucratic responsiveness. Furthermore, this study examines the impact of bureaucratic responsiveness cognition, job demand, job resources towards attitudes of promoting participatory governance policy, which coordinated with the job demand-resource model. Finally, this study proposes suggestions for the design of the mixed-methods research integrating Q and R methodologies.
    Reference: 中文部分
    Babbie, E.（2004）。社會科學研究方法（上/下冊）（李美華、孔祥明、李明寰、林嘉娟、王婷玉、李承宇合譯）。湯姆生出版；時英發行。（原著出版於2001）
    Röcke, A.（2017）。公民參與的框架與擴散：法、德、英的參與式預算（國家教育研究院主譯，白舜羽譯）。國家教育研究院。（原著出版於2014）
    方凱弘（2014）。治理與公民參與－淡水河流域治理之Q方法論分析。臺灣民主季刊，11（1），41-101。
    方凱弘、陳揚中（2018）。預算治理：省思臺北市參與式預算之民主與預算意涵。載於紀俊臣、邱榮舉（主編），地方治理的問題與對策：理論與實務分析（317-347頁）。致知學術
    王光旭（2015）。文官面對爭議性政策角色衝突之初探：以馬政府執行有條件開放美牛政策為例。政策與人力管理，6（1），59-101。
    余致力（2000）。論公共行政在民主治理過程中的正當角色：黑堡宣言的內涵、定位與啟示。公共行政學報，4，1-30。
    余致力（2016）民主與行政：政黨輪替對文官體系的衝擊與影響。文官制度，8（3），1-20。
    余致力、方凱弘、蘇毓昌（2018）。貪腐為何難以界定？Q方法論在廉政研究之應用。行政暨政策學報，67，39-78。
    宋餘俠、胡雅芳（2013）。公共治理與行政院組織體制及職能調整。公共治理季刊，1（1），61-72。
    杜文苓（2015）。環境風險與公共治理－探索臺灣環境民主實踐之道。五南。
    杜文苓、陳致中（2007）。民眾參與公共決策的反思－以竹科宜蘭基地設置為例。臺灣民主季刊，4（3），33-62。
    林煥笙（2021）。公民參與的制度設計與公共價值創造：臺北市的個案研究〔未出版博士論文〕。國立政治大學公共行政學系。
    邱皓政（2011）。結構方程式：LISREL/ SIMPLIS原理與應用（二版）。雙葉書廊。
    柯于璋（2009）。從公民治理的觀點論台灣參與式社區規劃之課題與展望。台灣土地研究，12（1），125-151。
    洪瑞斌（2013）。職業倦怠研究在台灣之回顧與前瞻。人力資源管理學報，13（3），107-140。
    孫同文（2003）。從威權政府到民主治理：台灣公共行政理論與實務之變遷。元照。
    孫同文（2023）。主體性科學：Q方法論的理論與操作。元照。
    孫同文、王家英（2004）。台灣國族認同的再檢驗：R與Q的對話。Occasional Paper No. 142。香港中文大學，香港亞太研究所。
    孫煒（2020）。臺灣地方基層官僚推動參與式預算的治理模式：桃園市案例研究。政治科學論叢，85，139-178。
    專業者都市改革組織、社區改造聯盟（1999）。地區環境改造計畫執行成果評估與機制強化策略規劃（摘要）。空間雜誌，119（990715）。
    許友芳、蘇子喬（2021）。直接民主與代議民主的融合：瑞士與德國公民投票制度的探討。行政暨政策學報，72，115-157。
    陳文學（2018）。地方政府推動公民參與的行動反思：以文化部補助公所推展社區型參與式預算為例。人事行政，205，10-20。
    陳佳宏（2018）。如何以開放平台有效推進政策之案例與啟示。臺灣經濟研究月刊，41（10），62-69。
    陳佳雯、陸洛、許雅玉（2012）。工作要求、工作資源與員工工作態度之關聯：以勤勉審慎性及主動性人格為調節變項。人力資源管理學報，12（1），23-49。
    陳揚中（2013）。官僚病態認知與官僚社會化－Q方法論之個案研究〔未出版碩士論文〕。國立暨南國際大學公共行政與政策學系。
    陳揚中、陳敦源、張鎧如、董祥開（2021）。臺灣公務人員追求職涯成功的「為官之道」認知：Q方法論之研究。行政暨政策學報，72，1-66。
    陳敦源（2010）。台灣民主治理機制鞏固之研究-權力轉換與文官中立：態度、可信承諾、與政務/事務人員關係（台灣政府文官調查第一期，TGBS I）（公共版）（E96048）【原始數據】取自中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫。https://doi.org/10.6141/TW-SRDA-E96048-1
    陳敦源（2012）。民主治理：公共行政與民主政治的制度性調和（第二版）。五南。
    陳敦源、吳舜文、陳揚中、王光旭（2019）。從工作要求資源模式檢視公共衛生護理人員職業倦怠因素：以公共服務動機為調節變數。台灣衛誌，38（5），478-497。
    陳敦源、黃東益、蕭乃沂、郭思禹（2006）。官僚回應性與內部顧客關係管理：臺北市政府市長信箱個案研究。行政暨政策學報，42，143-182。
    陳嫈郁（2012）。治理理論與國家職能的辯證：英國觀點。政治科學論叢，53，1-52。
    傅凱若（2019）。民主創新與公共價值創造的實踐－以臺灣都會區參與式預算為例。臺灣民主季刊，16（4），93-141。
    曾冠球（2013）。書評：確保公共官僚組織成為民主的守護神。公共行政學報，45，109-119。
    曾冠球、陳敦源、胡龍騰（2009）。推展公民導向的電子化政府：願景或幻想？公共行政學報，33，1-43。
    湯京平、簡秀昭、張華（2013）。參與式治理和正義的永續性：比較兩岸原住民發展政策的制度創意。人文及社會科學集刊，25（3），457-483。
    程麗華（2015）。公共政策網路參與平台。政府機關資訊通報，328，22-28。
    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（4），59-96。
    黃建勳（2018）。為民而戰的游擊隊政府？初探臺灣文官異議行為與動機。政治科學論叢，76，159-198。
    黃建勳、陳敦源（2018）。政務事務互動關係：臺灣文官對政治的容忍之研究。東吳政治學報，36（2），1-64。
    黃鉦堤（2003）。當代德國政策調控理論－行動理論與系統理論的爭論。翰蘆圖書。
    葉婉榆、鄭雅文、陳美如、邱文祥（2008）。職場疲勞量表的編制與信效度分析。台灣衛誌，27，349-364。
    董祥開、張鎧如、陳敦源、陳揚中（2021）。「合得來」重要嗎？公務人員個人組織配適度對工作滿意度之影響。社會科學論叢，15（1），45-84。
    董祥開、楊庭安（2019）。從個人風險特質與組織激勵措施探討公務人員之創新行為－以計畫行為理論為分析架構。空大公行學報，34，1-40。
    廖洲棚（2019）。官僚回應性的邏輯：臺灣經驗的觀察與省思。翰蘆圖書。
    廖洲棚、陳敦源、廖興中（2013）。揭開地方文官回應民意的「秘箱」：臺灣六都1999熱線的質化分析。文官制度季刊，5（1），49-84。
    蔡允棟（2001）。官僚組織回應力之研究：個案實證分析。政治科學論叢，151，209-240。
    鄭怡世、巫麗雪、劉幸宜（2017）臺灣老人日間照顧服務從業人員職場疲勞之探究。社會政策與社會工作學刊，21（2），1-53。
    盧孟宗、葉欣怡（2020）。審議民主及其不滿：以參與式預算先驅計畫的質疑或反對理由為例。台灣社會學，40，111-142。
    謝宏昌（2003）。我國參與式規劃推動概況與實踐結果之實證分析（編號：NSC 91-2415-H-006-002-00）。行政院國科會研究計畫成果報告，。
    羅凱凌（2017）。公共參與真的能提升效能感嗎？以全民健康保險會之利害關係團體參與為例。公共行政學報，53，25-77。
    蘇偉業（2012）。南轅北轍的議題與路徑：政治轉型下台灣與香港文官中立機制之比較。公共行政學報，43，35-62。
    蘇彩足（2017）。公部門推動參與式預算之經驗與省思。文官制度季刊，9（2），1-22。
    蘇彩足、孫煒、蔡馨芳（2015）。政府實施參與式預算之可行性評估（編號：NDC-DSD-103-020-005）。國家發展委員會。

    英文部分
    Aberbach, J., Putnam, R. D., & Rockman, B. (1981). Bureaucrats and politicians in western democracies. Harvard University Press.
    Abers, R. (1996). From ideas to practice: the Partido dos Trabalhadores and participatory governance in Brazil. Latin American Perspectives, 23(4), 35-53.
    Abers, R. N. (2003). Reflections on what makes empowered participatory governance happen. In Archon Fung and Erik Olin Wright (eds.), Deepening Democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance- The Real Utopias Project IV (pp.200-207). Verso.
    Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.
    Baker, R. M., van Exel, J., Mason, H., & Stricklin, M. (2010). Connecting Q & surveys: Three methods to explore factor membership in large samples. Operant Subjectivity, 34(1), 38-58.
    Bakker, A. B. (2015). A job demands–resources approach to public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 723-732.
    Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309-328.
    Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., De Boer, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). Job demands and job resources as predictors of absence duration and frequency. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62(2), 341-356.
    Balla, S. J. (2000). Political and organizational determinants of bureaucratic responsiveness. American Politics Quarterly, 28(2), 163-193.
    Barber, B. R. (2003). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. University of California Press.
    Barnes, M. (2005). The same old process? Older people, participation and deliberation. Ageing & Society, 25(2), 245-259.
    Bennett, S., & Bowers, D. (1976). An introduction to multivariate techniques for social and behavioural sciences. The Macmillan Press.
    Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1991). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge (Repr.). Penguin books.
    Bevan, S. (2015). Bureaucratic responsiveness: Effects of elected government, public agendas and European attention on the UK bureaucracy. Public Administration, 93(1), 139-158.
    Boittin, M., Distelhorst, G., & Fukuyama, F. (2016). Reassessing the quality of government in China. Osgoode Legal Studies Research Paper Series, 197, 1-48.
    Box, R. C. (2009). Public administration and society: Critical issues in American governance (2nd ed.). M.E. Sharpe.
    Brewer, G. A., & Selden, S. C. (2000). Why elephants gallop: Assessing and predicting organizational performance in federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(4), 685-712.
    Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. Yale University Press.
    Brown, S. R. (2002). Q technique and questionnaires. Operant Subjectivity, 25(2), 117-126.
    Bryer, T. A. (2006). Stakeholder approach to bureaucratic responsiveness: A network-based framework to analyze public administrator value preferences. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 9(4), 557-577.
    Bryer, T. A. (2007). Toward a relevant agenda for a responsive public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(3), 479-500.
    Bryer, T. A., & Cooper, T. L. (2007). Challenges in enhancing responsiveness in neighborhood governance. Public Performance & Management Review, 31(2), 191-214.
    Cabannes, Y. (2004). Participatory budgeting: a significant contribution to participatory democracy. Environment and Urbanization, 16(1), 27-46.
    Cooper, T. L. (2006), The responsible administrator: An approach to ethics for the administrative role (5th ed). Jossey-Bass, A John Wiley & Sons Imprint.
    Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. Yale University Press.
    Danielson, S. (2009). Q method and survey: Three ways to combine Q and R. Field Methods, 21(3), 219-237.
    De Graaf, G. (2011). The loyalties of top public administrators. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(2), 285-306.
    Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2000). A model of burnout and life satisfaction among nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(2), 454-464.
    Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499-512.
    Disch, L. (2011). Toward a mobilization conception of democratic representation. American Political Science Review, 105, 100-114.
    Dong, H.-K. (2013). How does individual risk preference affect employment and innovativeness? [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Georgia. https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/dong_hsiang-kai_201305_phd.pdf
    Dryzek, J. S. (2001). Legitimacy and economy in deliberative democracy. Political Theory, 29(5), 651-669.
    Esaiasson, P., & Wlezien, C. (2017). Advances in the study of democratic responsiveness: An introduction. Comparative Political Studies, 50(6), 699-710.
    Farazmand, A. (2009). Bureaucracy, administration and politics: An introduction. In Ali Farazmand (ed.), Bureaucracy and Administration (pp. 1-15). CRC Press.
    Frederickson, H. G. (1980). New public administration. The University of Alabama Press.
    Frederickson, H. G. (1997). The spirit of public administration. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
    Fung, A. (2003). Survey Article: Recipes for public spheres: Eight institutional design choices and their consequences. Journal of Political Philosophy, 11(3), 338-367.
    Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66, 66-75.
    Fung, A. (2011). Reinventing democracy in Latin America. Perspectives on Politics, 9(4), 857-871.
    Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2001). Deepening democracy: Innovations in empowered participatory governance. Politics & society, 29(1), 5-41.
    Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2003). Thinking about empowered participatory governance. In Archon Fung and Erik Olin Wright (eds.), Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance- The Real Utopias Project IV (pp.3-42). Verso.
    Fusch, P. I., & Ness, L. R. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 20(9), 1408-1416.
    Ganuza, E., & Baiocchi, G. (2012) The power of ambiguity: How participatory budgeting travels the globe. Journal of Public Deliberation, 8(2), Article 8, 1-12.
    Gastil, J. (2008). Political communication and deliberation. Sage.
    Getter, R. W., & Schumaker, P. D. (1978). Contextual bases of responsiveness to citizen preferences and group demands. Policy and Politics, 6, 249-278.
    Giauque, D., Anderfuhren-Biget, S., & Varone, F. (2013). Stress perception in public organisations: Expanding the job demands–job resources model by including public service motivation. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 33(1), 58-83.
    Giugni, M., & Nai, A. (2013). Quality of deliberation: A multilevel analysis. In Donatella della Porta and Dieter Rucht.Meeting (Ed.), Democracy: Power and deliberation in global justice movements (pp.152-178). Cambridge University Press.
    Goodhart, M., Fung A., Gauri, V. Gloppen. S., Haagh, L., Heller, P., Pateman, C., Peruzzotti, E., Rudiger, A., Schmitz, H. P., Standing, G., Wampler, B., & Wing, S. (2012) Democratic imperatives: Innovations in rights, participation, and economic citizenship. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.
    Goodsell, C. T. (1994). The case for bureaucracy: A public administration polemics (3rd ed.). Chatham House Publishers.
    Gregory, R. J. (1991). The attitudes of senior public servants in Australia and New Zealand: Administrative reform and technocratic consequence? Governance, 4(3), 295-331.
    Hajer, M. A., & Wagenaar, H. (2003). Deliberative policy analysis. Cambridge University Press.
    Han, Y., & Perry, J. L. (2019). Employee accountability: development of a multidimensional scale. International Public Management Journal, 23(2), 224-251. DOI: 10.1080/10967494.2019.1690606
    Heclo, H. (1999). OMB and neutral competence. In James P. Pfiffner (ed.), The Managerial Presidency (2nd ed.) (pp.131-143). Texas A&M University Press.
    Hobfoll, S. E., Johnson, R. J., Ennis, N., & Jackson, A. P. (2003). Resource loss, resource gain, and emotional outcomes among inner city women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), 632–43.
    Hsiao, Y.-T., Lin, S.-Y., Tang, A., Narayanan, D., & Sarahe, C. (2018). vTaiwan: An empirical study of open consultation process in Taiwan. SocArXiv xyhft, Center for Open Science. DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/xyhft
    Huang, T.-Y., Chen, D.-Y., & Yu, C.-L. (2005). The political attitudes of public managers in Taiwan. Chinese Public Administrative Review, 14(2), 1-31.
    Jimenez, B. S. (2020). Municipal government form and budget outcomes: Political responsiveness, bureaucratic insulation, and the budgetary solvency of cities. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(1), 161-177.
    Kaufman, H. (1956). Emerging conflicts in the doctrines of public administration. The American Political Science Review, 50(4), 1057-1073.
    Kay, K., Rogger, D., & Sen, I. (2020). Bureaucratic locus of control. Governance, 33(4), 871-896.
    Kennedy, J. B. (2015). “‘Do this! Do that!’ and nothing will happen” Executive orders and bureaucratic responsiveness. American Politics Research, 43(1), 59-82.
    Kernaghan, K. (1976). Politics, policy and public servants: Political neutrality revisited. Canadian Public Administration, 19(3), 432-456.
    Kim, S. (2005). Individual-level factors and organizational performance in government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(2), 245-261.
    King, C. S., Feltey, K. M., & Susel, B. O. N. (1998). The question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public Administration Review, 58(4), 317-26.
    Lee, A. S. (1991). Integrating positivist and interpretive approaches to organizational research. Organization Science, 2(4), 342-365.
    Lee, D. S., & Park, S. (2021). Bureaucratic responsiveness in times of political crisis: The case of presidential impeachment. Public Administration, 99(3), 563-580.
    Levine, C. H., Peters, B. G., & Thompson, F. J. (1990). Public administration: Challenges, choice, consequence. Scott, Foresman.
    Li, Y. (2023). Is hierarchy the only answer? The accountability preferences of Chinese public employees in public service delivery. Review of Policy Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12531
    Long, N. E. (1993). The ethics and efficacy of resignation in public administration. Administration and Society, 25(1), 3-11.
    Lovan, W. R., Murray, M., & Shaffer, R. (2004). Participatory governance: Planning, conflict mediation and public decision-making in civil society (1st ed.). Routledge.
    Lowande, K., & Proctor, A. (2020). Bureaucratic responsiveness to LGBT Americans. American Journal of Political Science, 64(3), 664-681.
    Lundberg, A., Fraschini, N., & Aliani, R. (2022). What is subjectivity? Scholarly perspectives on the elephant in the room. Quality & Quantity, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-022-01565-9
    Manin, B., Przeworski, A., & Stokes, S. C. (1999). Introduction. In A. Przeworski, S. C. Stokes, & B. Manin (Eds.), Democracy, accountability, and representation (Vol. 2., pp.1-26). Cambridge University Press.
    Manson, H., Collins, M., McHugh, N., Godwin, J., van Exel, J., Donaldson, C., & Baker, R. (2017). Is “end of life” a special case? Connecting Q with survey methods to measure social support for views on the value of life-extending treatments. Health Economics, 27, 819-831.
    Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1995). Designing Qualitative Research. Sage.
    Meier, K. J. (1997). Bureaucracy and democracy: The case for more bureaucracy and less democracy. Public Administration Review 57, 193-199.
    Meier, K. J., & Bohte, J. (2007). Politics and the bureaucracy: Policymaking in the fourth branch of government (5th ed.). Thomson Wadsworth.
    Meier, K. J., & O`Toole, L. J. Jr. (2006). Bureaucracy in a democratic state: A governance perspective. The John Hopkins University Press.
    Midgley, B. D., & Delprato, D. J. (2017). Stephenson’s subjectivity as naturalistic and understood from a scientific perspective. The Psychological Record, 67, 587-596.
    Nalbandian, J. (1999). Facilitating community, enabling democracy: New roles for local government managers. Public Administration Review, 59(3), 187–97.
    Newig, J., Challies, E., Jager, N. W., Kochskaemper, E., & Adzersen, A. (2018). The environmental performance of participatory and collaborative governance: a framework of causal mechanisms. Policy Studies Journal, 46(2), 269-297.
    Nylen, W. R. (2002). Testing the empowerment thesis: the participatory budget in Belo Horizonte and Betim, Brazil. Comparative Politics, 34(2), 127-145.
    O’Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers, 32, 396-402.
    O’Toole, L. J. Jr. (1997). The implications for democracy in a networked bureaucratic world. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(3), 443-459.
    Osborne, D. E. & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Addison-Wesley.
    Overeem, P. (2005). The value of the dichotomy: politics, administration, and the political neutrality of administrators. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 27(2), 311-329.
    Parkinson, J. (2006). Deliberating in the real world. Oxford University Press.
    Perry, J. L. (1996). Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(1), 5-22.
    Pitkin, H. F. (1967). The concept of representation. University of California Press.
    Powell, G. B. (2004). The quality of democracy: The chain of responsiveness. Journal of Democracy, 15, 91-105.
    Rahman, M. S. (2014). Bureaucratic perceptions to the politics–bureaucracy relations in Bangladesh: A moral dilemma in between political neutrality and responsiveness. Asian Journal of Political Science, 22(3), 252-267.
    Redford, E. S. (1969). Democracy in the administrative state. Oxford University Press.
    Ridley, F. F. (1986). Political neutrality, the duty of silence and the right to publish in the civil service. Parliamentary Affairs, 39(4), 437-448.
    Rohr, J. A. (1986). To run a constitution: The legitimacy of the administrative state.: University Press of Kansas.
    Romzek, B. S., & Ingraham, P. W. (2000). Cross pressures of accountability: initiative, command, and failure in the Ron Brown plane crash. Public Administration Review, 60(3), 240-253.
    Rourke, F. E. (1984). Bureaucracy, politics, and public policy. Little, Brown and Company.
    Rourke, F. E. (1992). Responsiveness and neutral competence in American bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 52(6), 539-546.
    Saltzstein, G. H. (1992). Bureaucratic responsiveness: conceptual issues and current research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2(1), 63-88.
    Schumpeter, J. A. (1989). Essays on entrepreneurs, innovations, business cycle, and the evolution of capitalism. Transaction Publisher.
    Selden, S. C., Brewer, G. A., & Brudney, J. L. (1999). Reconciling competing values in public administration: Understanding the administrative role concept. Administration & Society, 31(2), 171-204.
    Selden, S. C., Brewer, G., & Brudney, J. (1999). The role of city managers: Are they principals, agents, or both? American Review of Public Administration, 29(2), 124-148.
    Serra, G. (1995). Citizen-initiated contact and satisfaction with bureaucracy: A multivariate analysis. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5(2), 175-188.
    Sjoberg, F. M., Mellon, J., & Peixoto, T. (2017). The effect of bureaucratic responsiveness on citizen participation. Public Administration Review, 77(3), 340-351.
    Smith, G. (2009). Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge University Press.
    Stephenson, W. (1935). Correlating persons instead of tests. Character & Personality, 4, 17-24.
    Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology. University of Chicago Press.
    Stephenson, W. (1982). Newton’s fifth rule and Q-Methodology: Application to self psychology. Operant Subjectivity, 5(2), 37-57.
    Stivers, C. (1994). The listening bureaucrat: responsiveness in public administration. Public Administration Review, 54(4), 364-369.
    Talbott, A. D. (2010). The Q-block method of indexing Q typologies. Operant Subjectivity, 34(1), 6-24.
    Ten Brummelhuis, L. L., & Bakker, A. B. (2012). A resource perspective on the work-home interface: The work-home resources model. American psychologist, 67(7), 545.
    Trondal, J. (2011). Bureaucratic structure and administrative behaviour: Lessons from international bureaucracies. West European Politics, 34(4), 795-818.
    Upton, D., & Upton, P. (2006). Development of an evidence‐based practice questionnaire for nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(4), 454-458.
    Upton, D., Upton, P., & Scurlock‐Evans, L. (2014). The reach, transferability, and impact of the evidence‐based practice questionnaire: A methodological and narrative literature review. Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing, 11(1), 46-54.
    Vigoda, E. (2002). From responsiveness to collaboration: governance, citizens, and the next generation of public administration. Public Administration Review, 62(5), 527-540.
    Wainwright, H. (2009). Reclaim the state: experiments in popular democracy (Revised edition). Seagull Books.
    Walters, W. (2004). Some critical notes on “governance”. Studies in political economy, 73(1), 27-46.
    Wamsley, G. L. (1990). Introduction. In Gary L, Wamsley et al (eds.), Refounding Public Administration (pp. 1-9). Sage.
    Warren, M. E. (2009). Governance-driven democratization. Critical Policy Studies, 3(1), 3-13.
    Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2012). Doing Q methodological research: Theory, methods and interpretation. Sage.
    Wolf, A. (2009). Subjectivity, the researcher, and the researched. Operant Subjectivity, 32(1), 6-28.
    Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). The role of personal resources in the job demands-resources model. International Journal of Stress Management, 14(2), 121.
    Yang, K., & Callahan, K. (2007). Citizen involvement efforts and bureaucratic responsiveness: participatory values, stakeholder pressures, and administrative practicality. Public Administration Review, 67(2), 249-264.
    Yang, K., & Pandey, S. K. (2007). Public responsiveness of government organizations: Testing a preliminary model. Public Performance & Management Review, 31(2), 215-240.
    Description: 博士
    國立政治大學
    公共行政學系
    103256503
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0103256503
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[Department of Public Administration] Theses

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    650301.pdf4093KbAdobe PDF2156View/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 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 ©   - Feedback