:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:國民中小學校長遴聘政策執行之研究
作者:陳寶山
作者(外文):Chen Pao-San
校院名稱:國立臺灣師範大學
系所名稱:教育研究所
指導教授:梁恆正
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2002
主題關鍵詞:校長遴聘政策執行標的團體principal''s selectionpolicy implementationtarget group
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(2) 博士論文(6) 專書(1) 專書論文(1)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:2
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:75
摘 要
本研究的主要目的,首先是探討校長遴聘政策的時代背景及政策執行模式,其次是探討現行校長遴聘政策執行的問題,並分析其執行的結果,了解標的團體參與校長遴選的感受和經驗,最後根據研究結論提出建議,供改進校長遴聘政策執行之參考。經由相關文獻之分析與深度訪談之實施,歸納研究結論如下︰
一、就政策執行的背景而言,我國國民中小學校長遴聘政策,其政策立法在立法院經教育、法制、財政三個委員會的少數立法委員審查後提報院會快速通過,相關法令未能同時修正或調適,亦無相關配套措施,以致此政策之執行引起適法性爭議,也出現許多值得探討的問題。
二、就政策執行的模式而言,我國國民中小學校長遴聘政策之執行,牽涉到中央政府與地方政府之間,以及遴選委員、標的團體、家長會、教師會、和學校行政人員之間的互動關係,係一複雜的動態過程。
三、就對標的團體的衝擊而言,現行國民中小學校長遴聘政策的執行,因受訪的校長候選人條件不同,境遇有別,而有其獨特的經驗感受與因應方式。
四、就政策執行的層面而言,現行國民中小學校長遴聘政策,在遴選委員、遴選過程、教育視導、轉任機制、資料查證、校長分級、權責調適、配套措施等方面未臻完善,而影響政策執行的成效。
五、就參與遴選的準備而言,現行國民中小學校長遴聘的競爭激烈,校長候選人常需掌握制勝因素,用心準備遴選資料和積極經營人際關係,以贏得校長的職位。
六、就掄才的政策目標而言,現行國民中小學校長遴聘政策的執行,受遴選委員專業不足、遴選過程不客觀、未兼顧整體教育、以及校長候選人常以勝選為考量等因素的影響,並未能達成為學校選出合適校長的政策執行目標。
七、就對現職校長的影響而言,現行國民中小學校長遴聘政策的執行結果,校長候選人基於遴選的現實考量,將以「人際導向」取代「專業導向」,積極營造有利遴選的公共關係,以贏取或確保校長職位。
八、就校長辦學的專業而言,現行國民中小學校長遴聘政策的執行結果,在校務運作、校長辦學態度、校長專業成長、辦學績效等方面,對校長辦學的專業成長具有積極正面的功能。
九、就學校教育的發展而言,現行國民中小學校長遴聘政策執行的結果,在參與層面、教師心態、家長態度、權力運作、遴選風紀等方面,對學校教育的發展產生不利的影響。
根據上述結論,本研究提出下列建議︰
一、在政策執行模式上,國民中小學校長遴聘政策的執行,宜加強遴選委員、標的團體、家長會、教師會、和學校行政人員等組織間的互動學習與調適機制。
二、在政策執行措施上,國民中小學校長遴聘政策的執行,在遴選委員、遴選程序、配合措施、遴選風紀等方面宜謀求改善,以達成政策執行的目標。
三、在政策執行運作上,國民中小學校長遴聘政策的執行,宜建構遴選委員、家長會、教師會和學校行政人員權責相符的運作模式與規範。
四、在教育人力資源運用上,宜建立校長人才資料庫。
五、在校長專業成長上,宜增強校長候選人的生涯規劃能力。
六、在優質校園文化塑造上,宜加強校長的策略運用、人際溝通與理性對話能力。
七、在教育專業尊重上,宜制定家長參與校務和行使權力的合理規範。
八、在維護候選校長的權益上,宜成立校長遴聘政策執行的申訴管道。
九、後續研究的建議
﹙一﹚研究對象方面
可以擴及其他縣市,參與校長遴聘政策執行的遴選委員、家長會代表、教師會代表、學校行政代表、教育主管機關代表等人員為研究對象。
﹙二﹚研究方法方面
可以採用其他質的研究方法,如個案研究、現象學方法、詮釋學方法、俗民誌方法等,去探討在校長遴聘政策執行,對標的團體行為模式改變的獨特性與複雜性,使其生活經驗以整體呈現其本質,以及對學校教育影響的現象本質和啟示。
﹙三﹚研究議題方面
可以對校長遴聘政策進行分析,包括政策問題、政策規劃、政策合法化、與政策評估等議題,以及開展公共政策論述的空間,形成公共論述氣氛,提供更重要的啟示。
關鍵字︰校長遴聘、政策執行、標的團體
A study on the implementation of the elementary and junior high school principal selection policy
ABSTRACT
The major purpose of this research focused on the implementation issues of school principal’s selection policy in Taiwan. It is divided into three parts. Firstly, it probes into both background of the times and modes of the implementation on principal selection policy. Secondly, it is to study issues of the implementation of current policy for principal selection and also analyses the outcome of the implementation so as to understand the feeling and experiences of the target groups who participate in the implementation of principal selection. Lastly, it elaborates several suggestions in accordance with the findings of this research and put those as references for the improvement of principal selection policy implementation. Through analysis on relative documents and in-depth interviews, the conclusions are summed up as follows:
1). With reference to the background of the policy implementation, the principal’s selection policy appeals to the national goal of educational reform, sharing power and participations, the transformation of the role of principals as its rationale. However, the legitimation of the policy was examined by the educational committee, the legal committee and the financial committee. These contain just few members of the Congress. Yet the bill was passed to the law by the Assembly. Relative regulations had not been revised or adjusted, not to mention the complete set of measures. So the implementation of this policy leads to the arguments of its legality. Results of the implementation problems are also emerging, which are of worth, further research.
2).With reference to the mode of policy implementation, the implementation of the principal selection policy in our country involves the interactions between central government and local government and also those between selection committee members, target groups, PTA, Teachers Association and School Administers. The procedures are thus a complex dynamic process.
3).With reference to the pounding at target group, due to the differences of prerequisite and environment of the principals interviewed, each has his unique feeling over the experience and way of reaction to the implementation of current principal selection policy.
4).With reference to the level of policy implementation, the insufficiency over the selection of committee members, the procedures, the inspections on achievement, the organism of transferring, the examination of information, the classification over principals, the accommodation of duties and the supporting measures influence the progress of the implementation of the policy.
5).With reference to the preparation of participating in the selection, it shows an excessive competition in current principal selection. The candidates try to hold dominant factors by preparing the requested information very diligently and working hard on the management of human interrelationship for winning the position.
6).With reference to the goal of the policy for recruiting talent persons, current implementation of principal selection seems not to achieve this goal due to the influences of insufficient professionalism of the committee members, unfairness of the selection procedures, and the candidates’ taking being elected as the only factor considered.
7).With reference to the influences to the current principals, the implementation of the current selection policy leads to the following results: the replacement of “professionalism” with “human relationship”, concentration on public relations which are favorable to selection so as to win or ensure the position of principalship.
8).With reference to the practice of school education, the implementation of the current selection policy leads to the results: the operation of school affairs, the principal’s attitude toward running the school, the principal’s maturity of professionalism and also his achievements, all of those which of positive functions on the promotion of school education.
9).With reference to the development of school education, the implementation of the current selection policy leads to the results: the level of participation, teachers’ mood, parents’ attitudes, the operations of authorities, conducts of the selection, all of these emerge negative influences on the development of school education.
According to the above conclusions, this research puts forward the following
suggestions.
1).With respect to the mode of policy implementation, the implementation of the selection policy should reinforce the organism of interaction and adjustment among committee members, target groups, PTA, Teacher’ Association and school administrators.
2).With respect to the measures of policy implementation, the implementation of the selection policy should seek to improve the selection of committee members, the coordinate measures, and the discipline of selection to achieve the goal of the policy.
3).With respect to the operations of policy implementation, the execution of the selection policy should establish a mode and norm of power and responsibility for the operations of committee members, PTA, Teachers’ Association and school administrators.
4).With respect to the utilization of educational human-power, a data bank of principal’s talent should be established.
5).With respect to the professional maturity of principal, the ability of career planning of the principal candidates should be enhanced.
6).With respect to the molding of high quality campus culture, the abilities of strategy application, inter-communication and rational dialogue of the principals should be strengthened.
7).With respect to showing honor to the educational professionalism, reasonable norms should be established to formulate the ways for parents to attend the school affairs and perform their rights.
8).With respect to upholding the rights and interests of human loving care, channels for appealing should be set up for the execution of principal selection.
9).With respect to suggesting for further researches, there are:
(a). Expanding the subjects of the study--
The committee members of principal selection; PTA;
Teachers’ Association; school administrators and
representatives of educational authority of other counties
might be included as the subjects of the study.
(b). Elaborating the methods of the study--
Other methods of qualitative research can be adopted, such
as: case study;phenomenology approaches; hermeneutics
approaches; ethnography approaches etc. to research the
uniqueness and complexity of the influences that the
implementation of principal selection policy has affected
the target groups.
(c). Scrutinizing the policy issues--
The research problems might be deepened: to analyze the
principal selection policy which includes the issues of
policy problems; policy formulation; policy legitimation
and policy evaluation.
Key words : principal’s selection, implementation policy, target group
一、中文部分
小名﹙民88﹚。遴選,我們有制度─教育部的說法。師說,127,頁49-50。
尹萍譯,約翰、奈斯比著﹙民79﹚。大趨勢。台北:天下。
王玉玲﹙民79﹚。由兩岸關係探討台灣的統獨問題:以博奕理論析之﹙1979-1990﹚。淡江大學國際事務與戰略研究所碩士論文﹙未出版﹚。
王秀玲﹙民89﹚。國民小學校長遴選制度實施之研究。國立台北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文﹙未出版﹚。
王慧蘭﹙民88﹚。教育政策社會學初探。教育研究資訊,7(3),頁87-108。new window
司 琦﹙民70﹚。中國國民教育發展史。台北:三民。
左潞生﹙民60﹚。行政學概要。台北:三民。
朴濟英﹙民83﹚。中韓兩國國民小學校長甄選制度之比較研究。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文﹙未出版﹚。
朱志宏﹙民84﹚。公共政策。台北:三民。
朱志宏和丘昌泰﹙民84﹚。政策規劃。台北:國立空中大學。
江偉平﹙民86﹚。政策制定與執行─以警政作業為例。研考雙月刊,21﹙5﹚,頁10-23。
考試院譯﹙民45﹚。美加文官協會著﹙1946﹚。公務員的徵選。考試院職位分類計劃委員會。
吳定﹙民80﹚。公共行政論叢。台北:天一。
吳定﹙民83﹚。公共政策。台北:華視。
吳定﹙民89﹚。公共政策。台北:華視。
吳三靈﹙民88﹚。公教人事分途管理提升教師競爭力─人事制度再造系列座談之二─貫徹教師法規定研訂教師人事法規。人事月刊,28(6),頁26-34。
吳宜蓁﹙民82﹚。遊戲理論:一個新的公共關係研究典範簡介。傳播文化,創刊號,頁203-220。
吳明清﹙民83﹚。教育開放與開放教育─教育革新的省思與對策。教育資料與研究,創刊號,頁9-15。new window
吳明清﹙民84﹚。鬆綁與控制─學校教育改革的理念。台灣教育,539,頁35-40。
吳明清﹙民85﹚。選擇與控制:學校教育改革的理念爭議。教育資料與研究,9,頁2-10。new window
吳明清﹙民87a﹚。師說座談─台北市國民中小學擬試辦校長遴選制度探討─資格條件一提昇。師說,113,頁4。
吳明清﹙民87b﹚。鬆綁後的學校教育改革課題。教師天地,95,頁8-14。
吳明清﹙民90﹚。教育向前跑﹙續﹚─教育改革的思維與實踐。台北:師大書苑。
吳研圖和翁之達﹙民46﹚。三十五年來中國之小學教育。載於第三次中國教育年鍵附錄一,頁4-6。台北:宋青。
吳清山﹙民86a﹚。學習型組織理論及其對教育革新的啟示。國教月刊,43﹙5.6﹚,頁1-7。
吳清山﹙民86b﹚。跨世紀的重要教育工程─談國民教育革新的動向。教師天地,91,頁9-15。new window
吳清山﹙民87﹚。解嚴以後教育改革運動之探究。教育資料集刊,23,頁261-275。new window
吳清山﹙民88a﹚。跨世紀學校組織再造之重要課題及其策略。教師天地,98,頁4-9。new window
吳清山等人﹙民88b﹚。台北市國民中小學校長遴選方案探討。台北市政府教育局委託。
吳清山、張素偵﹙民90﹚。當前國民中小學校長遴選制度之檢討與改進。台灣教育,205,頁2-9。new window
吳清基(民76)。教學問題。載於莊懷義﹑謝文全﹑吳清基﹑陳伯彰編著:教育問題研究(第九章﹐頁307-354)。台北:國立空中大學。
李允傑和丘昌泰﹙民89﹚。政策執行與評估。台北:國立空中大學。
李俊輝﹙民89﹚。從社區成人教育觀點探討公民參與政策執行的可行性做法。社教雙月刊,96,頁21-28。
李振清﹙民87﹚。平心論「教授治校與校長遴選」─讀「田長霖沈君山世紀訪談」有感。海外學人,294,頁18-20。
李素貞﹙民83﹚。政策執行人員行政裁量權之研究。人事月刊,18﹙2﹚,頁6-13。
李敦義﹙民88﹚。國民中、小學校長遴選之評議。教育研究資訊,7﹙5﹚,頁40-59。new window
李敦義﹙民89﹚。國民中小學校長遴選制度之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文﹙未出版﹚。
李慈純﹙民89﹚。國民小學校長遴選制度之研究。國立台中師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文﹙未出版﹚。
李廣訓﹙民71﹚。各國人事制度。台北:五南。
沈銀和﹙民68﹚。教育人員實用法律。台北:偉文。
沈霓﹙民88﹚。校長遴選制、問題一籮筐。康軒教育雜誌,36,頁14-21。
汪知亭﹙民67﹚。台灣教育史料新編。台北:商務。
周文勇﹙民78a﹚。刑事司法體系之研究─以自由裁量權為中心。中央警官學校警政研究所碩士論文﹙未出版﹚。
周文勇﹙民78b﹚。警察自由裁量權之研究─以偵查犯罪及逮捕為中心。刑事科學,28,頁129-141。new window
周秋敏﹙民88﹚。落實校長遴選制─談校長資格之放寬。民眾日報,3月3日,12版。
林武﹙民77﹚。我國國民中小學校長主任甄選制度之研究。高雄:復文。
林天祐﹙民85﹚。教育政策形成及制定過程之分析。初等教育學刊,5,頁1-40。
林天祐﹙民88﹚。新世紀國民中小學校長任用的探討。教育資料與研究,28,頁27-29。new window
林天祐﹙民89﹚。國民中小學校長遴選過程的再建構─以台北市為例。教育改革與轉型─領導角色、師資培育、夥伴關係學術研討會手冊,淡江大學主辦,頁1-16。
林天祐、柯平順﹙民84﹚。國民中小學校長主任培育制度改革研究。初等教育學刊,4,頁63-88。new window
林文生﹙民88﹚。校長的遴選制度的多面向。國民教育,40﹙2﹚,頁11-13。
林文律﹙民88﹚。校長職務與校長職前教育、導入階段與在職進修。教育資料與研究,29,頁1-10。new window
林水波﹙民88﹚。公共政策新論。台北:智勝。
林水波、施能傑和葉匡時﹙民82﹚。強化政策執行能力之理論建構。台北:行政院研究發展考核委員會。
林水波和張世賢﹙民88﹚。公共政策。台北:五南。
林奇佐﹙民88﹚。基隆市國民中小學校長遴選方案省思。國民教育,40﹙2﹚,頁52-56。
林奇佐﹙民89﹚。基隆市國民中小學校長遴用制度之研究。國立台北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文﹙未出版﹚。
林明地﹙民87﹚。教育政策執行時所應考慮的問題:來自於組織研究結果的啟示。教育政策論壇,1﹙1﹚,頁24-37。new window
林逸青﹙民88﹚。中小學校長遴選制度之看法。國民教育,40﹙2﹚,頁68-72。
林瑜芬﹙民82﹚。核四爭議中台電公司與環保聯盟衝突互動之研究:以博奕理論﹙Game Theory﹚為分析架構。輔仁大學大眾傳播研究所碩士論文﹙未出版﹚。
林賢文﹙民89﹚。台北市身心障礙者就業促進政策執行之探討。國立中正大學社會福利系碩士論文﹙未出版﹚。
林鍾沂﹙民80﹚。公共事務的設計與執行。台北:幼獅。
邱玉玲﹙民88﹚。國小校長遴選制度之我見。師友,386,頁54-56。
雨田﹙民88﹚。如何能杜悠悠之口─家長看遴選。師說,133,頁31-32。
侯世昌﹙民88﹚。校長遴選制度的檢討與省思。國民教育,40﹙2﹚,頁40-48。
姚富春﹙民88﹚。近親繁殖,物種滅絕─談校長遴選。人本教育札記,121,頁7-8。
施能傑﹙民88﹚。政策執行的要素分析。研考雙月刊,23﹙4﹚,頁6-15。
柯三吉﹙民75﹚。環境保護政策執行之研究─墾丁國家公園的個案分析。台北:五南。
柯三吉(民79)。政策執行:理論與台灣經驗。台北:時英。
段重祺﹙民75﹚。行政機關特性與公共政策困境─自來水生飲計劃之各案分析。思與言,24﹙1﹚,頁97-118。new window
苗族﹙民88﹚。遴選,我們有信心!─一位家長的意見。師說,127,頁54-55。
孫本初﹙1990﹚。政策分析中的垃圾桶模式。美國月刊,4﹙10﹚,頁14-19。
徐南號﹙民85﹚。台灣教育史。台北:師大書苑。
徐政權﹙民85﹚。誰夠資格當校長?國中小校長產生方式之我見。教育心,13,頁3。
徐惠東﹙民88﹚。國中小學校長「遴選制」後之省思。教育資料文摘,257,頁19-22。
珠海﹙民88﹚。我的一票選校長─遴選問題面面觀,台北縣安全上壘。師說,133,頁28-30。
秦夢群﹙民87﹚。教育行政實務部分。台北:五南。
秦夢群﹙民88a﹚。國民中小學校長遴選制度之評析。國民教育,40(2),頁28-31。
秦夢群﹙民88b﹚。校長職前教育之分析與檢討。教育資料與研究,29,頁11-16。new window
翁興利、施能傑、官有桓和鄭麗嬌﹙民87﹚。公共政策。台北:空中大學。
高承恕﹙民78﹚。台灣新興社會運動結構因素之探討。載於徐光正、宋文理﹙主編﹚,台灣新興社會運動,頁9-19。台北:巨流。new window
高強華﹙民81﹚。論大學校長的道德角色。教育研究雙月刊,26,頁40-43。new window
高強華﹙民85﹚。教育改革的另類選擇─應獎勵教改工程中的平民勇士。教改通訊,24,頁26-27。
高強華﹙民86﹚。明日的教師與明日的學校。高中圖書館,21,頁12-18。new window
高強華﹙民88﹚。知識份子的虛擬與創見─兼評教育社會學研究的困境與出路。中等教育,50﹙4﹚,頁42-45。new window
高強華﹙民89﹚。前瞻廿一世紀新教育。台北:南宏。new window
張文昌﹙民85﹚。校長遴選之省思。國立成功大學校刊,178,頁19-20。
張世賢﹙民77﹚。公共政策析論。台北:五南。
張世賢和陳恆鈞﹙民86﹚。公共政策─政府與市場。台北:商鼎。
張四明﹙民75﹚。執行人員意向與政策執行之研究─我國國小教師執行體罰禁令的個案探討。中興大學公共政策研究所碩士論文﹙未出版﹚。
張明輝﹙民86﹚。教育鬆綁與學校自主改革。輯於中華民國課程與教學學會主編,課程與教學改革實務,頁1-24,台北:師大書苑。
張明輝﹙民87a﹚。師說座談─台北市國民中小學擬試辦校長遴選制度探討─配套措施要完善。師說,113,頁5。
張明輝﹙民87b﹚。校園應否戒急用忍─中小學學校自主改革成效初探。中等教育,49﹙2﹚,頁78-87。new window
張明輝﹙民87c﹚。企業組織的革新對學校組織再造的啟示。教師天地,98,頁10-16。
張明輝﹙民87d﹚。學校行政革新專輯。國立台灣師範大學。
張明輝﹙民88a﹚。九○年代主要企業組織理論與學校行政革新。教育研究集刊,42,頁155-170。new window
張明輝﹙民88b﹚。九○年代中小學學校教育革新之策略與展望。教育研究集刊,43,頁103-037。new window
張明輝﹙民89a﹚。建構學習型學校的相關策略。北縣教育,34,頁18-24。
張明輝﹙民89b﹚。中小學校長遴選的人性化課題。學校行政雙月刊,9,頁41-45。
張明輝﹙民89c﹚。中小學學校領導的發展趨勢。師友,401,頁11-14。
張金鑑﹙民56﹚。人事行政學。台北:政大公企中心。
張紘炬﹙民88﹚。公教人事分途管理提升教師競爭力─人事制度再造系列座談之二─公教分途兼顧私校發展。人事月刊,28(6),頁26-34。
張清楚﹙民88﹚。正視中小學校長之培育、任用與評鑑─現職校長的看法。教育資料與研究,28,頁22-28。new window
張焯青﹙民85﹚。誰夠資格當校長?以民主平常心論校長任免。教育心,13,頁1-2。
張鈿富(民84)。教育政策分析─理論與實務。台北:五南。
張德銳﹙民87﹚。以校長評鑑提升辦學品質─談校長評鑑的目的、規準與程序。教師天地,96,頁4-9。
張潤書﹙民84﹚。行政學。台北:三民。
教育部﹙民46﹚。第三次中國教育年鑑。台北:正中。
教育部﹙民73﹚。第五次中華民國教育年鑑。台北:正中。
教育部﹙民86﹚。國民中小學校長主任教師甄選儲訓遷調及介聘辦法。台北:教育部。
曹俊漢﹙民79﹚。公共政策。台北:三民。
梁坤明﹙民88﹚。談各縣市校長遴選作業及相關措施。國民教育,40﹙2﹚,頁36-39。
梁恆正(民81)。美國全國教育目標執行策略之研究。教育研究集刊,34,頁203-217。
梁恆正(民82)。由國內教育政策的制定看教育政策研究的發展。教育研究,29,頁16-20。new window
梁恆正(民83)。中學教師在職進修的理念與做法。高市鐸聲,5﹙1﹚,頁7-21。
許必耕﹙民88﹚。教遴選太沉重!師說,133,頁22-24。
許耿地﹙民82﹚。一九九○年代美國公共政策執行理論之發展趨勢。美國月刊,8﹙2﹚,頁129-140。
連添財﹙民79﹚。國民小學校長甄選制度之調查研究。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文﹙未出版﹚。
陳木金﹙民88﹚。從特別權力關係看我國中小學校長之評鑑與甄選。國民教育,40﹙2﹚,頁19-27。
陳加再﹙民88﹚。校長遴聘作業暫行要點評析。國民教育,40﹙2﹚,頁49-51。
陳永宏﹙民88﹚。預約21世紀校長。師說,131,頁54。
陳永和﹙民88﹚。淺談攸關教改成敗關鍵的校長遴選制。師友,383,頁44-47。
陳伯璋﹙民82﹚。社會變遷、課程發展與潛在課程。教育資料文摘,190,頁110-128。
陳伯璋﹙民84﹚。學習社會中的學校教育改革。台灣教育,539,頁10-13。
陳明印﹙民88﹚。析論國民教育法新修訂條文。教育資料文摘,253,頁19-30。
陳書華﹙民77﹚。第一線人員在政策執行中角色與功能之分析。政大公共行政研究所碩士論文﹙未出版﹚。
陳海雄﹙民88﹚。政策內容與政策執行力間的關係─以營建廢棄土管理方案為例。研考雙月刊,23﹙4﹚,頁24-33。
陳添錦﹙民85﹚。改變校長任免方式?在職校長一面倒反對!教育心,13,頁16-17。
陳敦禮﹙民88﹚。公教人事分途管理提升教師競爭力─人事制度再造系列座談之二─學校人力配置減少政府干涉。人事月刊,28(6),頁26-34。
陳榮成譯﹙民62﹚,George Keer著。被出賣的台灣。台北:前衛。
陳德禹﹙民82﹚。行政管理。台北:三民。
陳寶山﹙民83﹚。路是走出來的。載於黃政傑﹙主編﹚,邁向校長之路,頁59-69。台北:師大書苑。
單小琳﹙民88﹚。20秒定一生。教育研究,69,頁5-6。
湯洵章﹙民82﹚。公共政策。台北:華泰。
賀德芬﹙民83﹚。校長遴選與大學法。教師人權,49,頁30-31。
馮丰儀﹙民89﹚。國民中小學校長遴選制度之研究。國立濟南國際大學教育政策與行政研究所碩士論文﹙未出版﹚。
黃乃熒﹙民88﹚。我國中等學校行政病態之診斷研究─中部六縣市為例。教育研究資訊,7(4),頁146-183。new window
黃三吉﹙民87﹚。師說座談─台北市國民中小學擬試辦校長遴選制度探討─校園新文化衝擊。師說,113,頁3。
黃三吉﹙民88﹚。國民中小學校長遴選與校長評鑑。教育資料與研究,29,頁23-26。new window
黃玉清﹙民85﹚。研議當前校長任免制度的幾個盲點。教育心,13,頁18-19。
黃昆輝(民77)。教育行政學。台北:東華。
黃阿修﹙民84﹚。校長產生的方式必須「真的」很慎重!康橋教研學會雜誌,20,頁43-44。
黃裕城﹙民87﹚。師說座談─台北市國民中小學擬試辦校長遴選制度探討─安定性需求迫切。師說,113,頁5。
黃德祥﹙民88﹚。中小學校長遴選制一有配套。教育資料文摘,257,頁23-25。
楊久瑩﹙民88﹚。美日中小學校長遴選制度。自由時報,1月17日,13版。
楊亮功﹙民60﹚。我國教育行政制度之沿革及其發展。載於中國教育學會主編,教育行政制度研究,頁1-20。台北:臺灣商務。
楊振昇﹙民88﹚。我國國民小學校長儲訓制度之困境及其因應策略。初等教育學刊,7,頁85-106。new window
楊深坑﹙民85﹚。理性的冒險、生命的行動及主體性的失落與拯救。教育研究所集刊,37,頁19-38。
楊誠中﹙民88﹚。官員談國中、小校長遴選。師說,133,頁25。
楊誠中和鍾華﹙民88﹚。遴選,我們有意見─國中小校長的反應。師說,127,頁46-48。
楊銘雄﹙民90﹚。台北市國民小學校長遴選制度實施之研究。台北市立師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文﹙未出版﹚。
葉宗文﹙民88﹚。從教改之理念看國民中、小學校長之遴選。國民教育,40﹙2﹚,頁14-18。
葉俊麟﹙民89﹚。從博奕理論觀點解析總統大選─以國民黨連宋衝突互動為例。公共行政學報,4,頁403-420。new window
詹智慧﹙民88﹚。從校長遴選試談校長的專業與發展。國民教育,40﹙2﹚,頁73-76。
賈馥茗﹙民71﹚。教育概論。台北:五南。
賈馥茗﹙民81﹚。全民教育與中華文化。台北:五南。
臺灣省政府﹙民36﹚。台灣省政府公報,36年秋字第72期,頁6。
臺灣省政府教育廳編﹙民75﹚。台灣省教育發展史料彙編教育行政篇﹙上冊﹚。台灣省政府。
劉育真和鍾燕宜﹙民88﹚。建立公共政策倫理性的評估模式。人事管理,36﹙12﹚,頁18-33。
劉時鎰﹙民59﹚。台灣省國民中學校長選用之研究。國立政治大學公共行政研究所碩士論文﹙未出版﹚。
蔡中涵﹙民87﹚。如何贏政府─行政院原住民委員會成立的謀略分析。台北:紅葉。
鄧雅仁﹙民88﹚。政府再造政策執行分析:兼論中央與地方政府政策執行互動之關係。國立中山大學政治研究所碩士論文﹙未出版﹚。
鄧傳楷﹙民60﹚。教育政策。載於中國教育學會主編,教育行政制度研究,頁145-151。台北:臺灣商務。
魯柏君﹙民85﹚。校長遴選的先鋒─國立新竹科學園區實驗高中。教育心,13,頁28-30。
蕭新煌﹙民78﹚。台灣新興社會運動分析架構。載於徐正光、宋文理﹙主編﹚,台灣新興社會運動﹙頁21-31﹚。台北:巨流。
戴振華﹙民88﹚。中小學校長培育、任用、評鑑制度─一個基層教師的看法。教育資料與研究,28,頁51。new window
爵 霖﹙民88﹚。教育政策分析之一。師友,385,頁43-47。
推動教改,5年挹注1571億﹙民87年5月15日﹚。聯合報,6版。
謝文全﹙民74﹚。教育行政論文集。台北:文景。
謝文全﹙民84﹚。比較教育行政。台北:五南。
謝文全﹙民87﹚。教育行政─理論與實務。台北:文景。
謝文全﹙民88﹚。中小學校長培育、任用、評鑑制度。教育資料與研究,28,頁7-12。new window
謝文全、張明輝、游進年、黃嘉莉和劉秀曦(民89)。各縣國民中小學校長遴選辦法分析研究報告。台北:國立臺灣師範大學教育學系,教育部委託研究。
謝嘉梁﹙民83﹚。政策執行與地方自治體制調整。理論與政策,32,頁74-82。new window
鍾邦友﹙民88a﹚。「高雄市立高中職、國中、國小校長遴聘試辦要點」意見調查與問題分析。教育資料文摘,257,頁26-35。
鍾邦友﹙民88b﹚。中小學校長遴選制度的問題析論。公教資訊季刊,3﹙2﹚,84-94。
鍾華﹙民88﹚。珍惜人才培養─中小學校長看遴選。師說,133,頁26-27。
聶鍾杉﹙民66﹚。國民小學校長主任甄選訓練遴用遷調制度研究報告。台灣省國民學校教師研習會。
顏士程﹙民84﹚。校長遴選,後遺症多?康橋教研學會雜誌,20,頁42-43。
顏國樑(民86a)。教育政策執行理論與應用。台北:師大書苑。
顏國樑﹙民86b﹚。教育政策執行及其相關因素之研究─理論建構與應用分析。new window
顏國樑(民86c)。影響執行國民中學常態邊邊的因素及其因應策略。中等教育,48﹙5﹚,頁3-12。new window
顏國樑(民87a)。由政策執行的觀點論影響國民中學常態編班執行成效的因素及其因應策略。教育政策論壇,1﹙1﹚,頁38-63。new window
顏國樑(民87b)。教育政策執行研究的演進、檢討與展望。教育研究資訊,6﹙2﹚,頁87-100。new window
顏慧萍﹙民81﹚。國民中學校長甄選制度之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文﹙未出版﹚。
魏啟林﹙民88﹚。公教人事分途管理提升教師競爭力─人事制度再造系列座談之二─公教分途的發展趨勢。人事月刊,28(6),頁26-34。
魏鏞﹙民71﹚。行政研究與政策的結合。行政研究方法論文集,行政院研究發展考核委員會。
魏鏞、朱志宏、詹中原和黃德福﹙民80﹚。公共政策。台北:國立空中大學。
羅清水﹙民88﹚。從公共政策的形成模式探討教育政策制定的合理性。技術及職業教育,51,頁7-14。
羅清俊和陳志瑋譯﹙民88﹚。Thomas R. Dye著,公共政策新論。台北:韋伯。
二、英文部分
Aaron, H. (1978). Politics and professors. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Adams J. E. Jr. (1994). Implementing program equity: Raising the stakes for educational policy and practice. Educational Policy, 8(4), 518-534.
Adams, J. (1975). Public policy-making. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Allison, G. T. (1971). Essence of decision. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company.
Anderson, J. (1975). Public policy-making. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Appleby, P. (1949). Policy and administration. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
Ashforth, B. E. & Lee, R. T. (1990). Defensive Behavior in organizations : A preliminary model. Human Relations, 43, 621-648.
Ball, S. J. (1990). Politics and policy making in education: Explorations in policy sociology. London: Routledge.
Bardach, E. (1977). The implementation game: What happens after a bill becomes a law. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Bardach, E. (1978). The study of macro and micro implementation. Public Policy, 26, 157-184.
Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Baron, M. A. (1990). A preliminary investigation of superintendents’ perceptions regarding recruitment and selection of principals. ﹙ERIC Document Repoducation Service NO.ED327073﹚.
Barrett, S. & Colin, F. (1981). Policy and action: Essays on the implementation of public policy. London: Methuen.
Benvensite, G. (1989). Mastering the politics of planning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Berman, P. (1978). The study of Macro and Micro implementation. Public Policy, 26, 157-184.
Berman, P. (1980). Thinking about programmed and adaptive implementation: Matching strategies to situations. In H. M. Ingram and D. E. Mann(Eds.), Why Policies Succeed or Fail(pp.205-227). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Blanchard, W. (1986). Evaluating social equity: What does fairness mean and can we measure it? Policy Studies Journal, 5(1), 29-52.
Bowman, A. & Lester, J. (1986). Subnational policy implementation: Testing the Sabatier Mazmanian Model. Administration and society.
Brodkin, E Z. (1990). Implementation as policy politics. In Palumbo & Calista, (Eds.), Implementation and the policy process: Opening up the black box. New York: Geenwood Press.
Buki, C. M. (1993). The process used to select elementary school pricipals in Quebec. [CD-Rom]. Abstract from: Proquest file: Dissertation Abstracts item: AAC MM87876.
Bulmer, M. (1986). Social science and social policy. London: Allen & Unwin.
Burke, J. P. (1986). Bureaucratic responsibility. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.
Chandler, J. A. (1991). Local government today, Mancherter. Mancherter Univ. Press.
Cohen, M.., March, J., & Olson, J. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administration Science Quarterly, 17, 1-25.
Cooper, T. L. (1990). The responsible administrative role (3rd ed). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cronbach, L. J. (1982). Prudent aspiration for social inquiry. In W. Kruskal.
(Ed.), The social sciences: The nature and uses. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago.
Dillon, W. D. (1996). Public school principal selection by Indiana public school superintendent. [CD-ROM]. Abstract from: Proquest file: Dissertation Abstracts item: AAC 9538181.
Downs, A. (1967). Inside bureaucracy. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co.
Dunn, W. (1994). Public policy analysis: An introduction. Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Dunn, Y. (1994). Public policymaking reexamined. Scranton, PA: Chabdler.
Dye, T. R. (1978). Understanding public policy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Dye, T. R. (1992). Understanding public policy (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Easton, D. (1953). The political system. New York: Knopf.
Easton, D. (1965). A framework for political analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Edwards Ⅲ, G. C. (1980). Implementing public policy. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
Edwards Ⅲ, G. C, & Sharkansky, (1978). The policy predicament. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman and Co.
Edwards Ⅲ, G. D. V. (1996). Criteria for the selection of public secondary school principals in the stste of Texas. Unpublished Ed. Doctoral dissertation. East Texas State University.
Elmore, R. F. (1978). Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decision. Political Science Quarterly, 94(4), 601-616.
Elmore, R. F. (1978). Organizational models of social program implementation. Public Policy, 26(2), 185-187.
Elmore, R. F. (1979, Winter). Backward mapping. Political Science Quarterly, 94, 601-616.
Elmore, R. F. (1984). Forward and backward mapping. Reversible logic in the analysis of public policy. In Hanf, K, & Toonen, T. A. J. ed., (1985). Policy implementation in federal and unitary systems, 33-70. Boston, MA: Martinus Nijhoff publishers.
Etzioni, A. (1966). Modern organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Eulau H. & Prewitt, K. (1973). Labyrinths of democracy. IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
Friedrick, C. J. (1963). Man and his government: An empirical theory of politics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fullan, M. G. & Stiegeibauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). New York: The University of Columbia.
Goggin, M. L., et al. (1990). Implementation theory and practice: Toward a third generation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foressman.
Goodwin, L. & Moen, P. (1981). The evolution and implementation of federal welfare policy. In Health, D. C. (Eds.), Effective policy implementation , mazmanian and sabatier(pp.147-168). Lexington, MA: Health.
Hanekom, S. X. (1987). Public policy. New York: International Thomson Publishing Ltd.
Hanf, K. (1982). The implementation of regulatory policy: Enforcement as bargaining. European journal of political research, 10, 159-172.
Hargrove, E. C. (1981). The search for implementation theory. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED). 207- 158.
Heck, L. J. (1995). A case study of stakeholder perceptions of the informal process of selecting elementary principals. Unpublished Ph. Doctoral dissertation. University of Nebraska.
Helco, H. (1972). Policy analysis. British journal of political science, 2(1).
Hjern, B. (1982). Implementation Research: The Link Gone Missing. Journal of Public Policy , 2(3), 301-308.
Hjern, B. & Hull, C. (1982). Implementation research as empirical constitutionalism. European journal of political resaerch, 10, 105-116.
Hjern, B. & Portor, D. O. (1981). Implementation structures: A new unit of administrative analysis. Organization Studies, 2, 211-227.
Hjern, B., Hanf. K., & Portor, D. O. (1978). Local networks of manpower training in the federal republic of germany and sweden. In Hanf, K. & Scharof, F. (Eds.), Interorganizational policy making: Limits to coordination and central control.
Hofferbert, R. (1974). The study of public policy. Indianapolis, IN: The Bobbs-Merrill Company.
Hogwood, B. W. & Gunn, (1985). The pathology of pul policy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Huddleston, W. D. (1993). Principal selection procedures: A descriptive assessment of current practices used in Florida with a comparative analysis of 1992-93 and 1983-84 practices. Unpublished Ed. Doctoral dissertation. The Florida State University.
Hughes, J. A. (1976). Socialogical analysis: Methods of discovery. London : Nelson.
Ingram, H. (1990). Implementation: A review and suggested framework. In Lynn, N. B. & Wiladvsky, A. (Ed.), Public administration: The state of the discipline(pp. 462-480). New York: Chatham House Publishers.
Jansson, B. S. (1994). Social policy : From theory to policy practice. Pacfic Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publi.
Jones, C. O. (1977). An introduction to the study of public policy (2nded.), North Scituate, MA: Duxbury Press.
Jones, C. O. (1984). An introduction to the study of public policy. Monterrey: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
Jones, S. (1984). Application of a framework for implementation analysis to evaluate groundwater management policy. In Two New York counties, master thesis, dept. of city and regional planning. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Kanter, R. M. & Summers, D. V. (1987). Doing well we doing good : Dilemmas of performance measurement in nonprofit organizations and the need for a Multiple-Constituency approach. In Powell, W. W. (Ed.), The nonprofit: A research handbook(pp. 154-164). Yale University Press.
Kast , F. E. &. Rosenzweig, J. E. (1970). Organization and management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kaufman, K. (1973). Administrstive feedback. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Kelly, R. M. (1986). Trends in the logic of policy inquiry: A comparsion of approaches and a commentary. Policy Studies Review, 5(3), 520-528.
Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Harper Collins Publishers.
Knoepfel, P. & Weider, H. (1982). A conceptual framework for studying implementation. In Downing, P. & Hanf, K. (Eds.), The implementation of pollution control programs. Tallahassee, FL: Policy Sciences Program.
Kogan, M. (1975). Educational policy making: A study of interest groups and parliament. London: Allen & Unwin.
Labowitz, S. & Hagedorn, R. (1971). Introduction to social research. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lasswell, H. & Kaplan, A. (1950). Power and society. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Lasswell, H. & Kaplan, A. (1950). Power society: A framework for political inquiry. New Haven, CT: University Press.
Lazin, F. (1973). The failure of federal enforcement of civil rights regulations in public housing, 1963-71. Policy Sciences, 4, 263-274.
Leichter, H. M. (1979). A comparative approach to policy analysis. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Lerner, D. Lasswell, H. D. (1951). The policy science: Recent developments in scope and method. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Levin, M. (1980). Conditions contributing to effective implementation and their limits. Unpublished Manuscript, Brandeis University.
Lindblom, C. E. (1959, Spring). The science of “Muddling Through”. Public Administration Review, 19.
Lipsk, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy. New York: Russell Sage.
Lipsky, M. (1971). Street level bureaucracy and the analysis of urban reform. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 6, 391-409.
Lipsky, M. (1978). Standing the study of implementation on its head. In Burnham, W. D. & Weinberg, M. W. (Eds.), American politics and public policy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of thei individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage.
Louis, W. K. (1986). An introduction to public policy. Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lowry, K. (1985, Summer). Assessing the implementation of federal coastal policy. Journal of the American Planning Association, 51, 288-298.
Marsh, D. D. & Crocker, P. S. (1991). School restructuring: Implementation middle school. In Odden, A. R. (Ed.), Education policy implementation (pp.259-278). New York: The State University of New York.
Marsh, D. D. & Odden, A. R. (1991). Implementation of the California mathematics and science curriculum frameworks. In Odden, A. R. (Ed.), Education policy implementation. New York: The State University of New York.
Mayer, R. R. (1985). Policy and program planning: A developmental perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice — Hall.
McDonnell, L. M, & Elmore, R. F. (1991). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. In Odden, A. R. (Ed.), Education policy implementation (pp.157-183). New York: The State University of New York.
Mclaughlin, M. W. (1976). Implementation as mutual adaptation: Change in classroom organization. Teachers College Record, 77(3), 339-351.
Merton, R. K. (1957). Bureaucratic structure and personality. In Social theory and social structure. New York: The Free Press.
Miller, T. (1984). Conclusion: A design science perspective. In Baltimore, T. M. (Ed.), Public sector performance. MD: John Hopkins University Press.
Montjoy, R. S. & L. J. Toole, Jr., (1979). Toward a theory of policy implementation: An organizational perspective. Public Administration Review, 39, 465.
Murphy, J. (1973). The education bureaucracies implement novel policy: The politics of Titlel of ESEA. In Allan, S. (Ed.), Policy and Politics in America. Boston, MA: Little and Brown.
Nachmias, D. (1979). Public policy evaluation: Approaches and methods. New York: Martin’s Press.
Nagel, S. S. (1986). Conceptualizing public policy analysis. In Dunn, W. N.
(Ed.), Policy analysis : Perspectives, concepts, and methods. JAI Press, 247-248.
Nakamura, R. T. & Smallwood, F.(1980). The politics of policy implementation. New York: Martin’s Press.
Osborne, D. & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing govemment- How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. New York: Plume.
Portney, K. E. (1986). Approaching public policy analysis: An introduction to policy and program research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Pressman, J. L. & Wildavsky, A. a. (1973). Implementation: How great expections in Washington are dashed in Okaland. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Pressman, J. L. & Wildavsky, A. a. (1979). Implementation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Ranney, A. (1968). The study of policy content: A Framework for choice. In Ranney, A. (Ed.), Political science and public policy( pp.3-22). Chicago: Markham.
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.
Rein, M. & Rabinnovitz, F.(1978). Implementation: A theoretical perspective. In Burnham, W. D. & Weinberg, M. W. (Eds.), American Politics and Public Policy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Ripley, R. B. & Franklin, G. A. (1984). Congress, the bureaucracy, and public policy. Homewood, Ⅲ: The Dorsey Press.
Ripley, R. B. & Franklin, G. A. (1986). Policy Implementation and Bureaucracy. Chicago, IL: The Dorsey Press.
Rourke, F. E. (1967). Bureaucracy, politics, and public policy. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co.
Sabatier, P. A. (1986). Top-down and Bottom-up approach to implementation research: A critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 5-6, 21-48.
Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21, 129-168.
Sabatier, P. A. (1991). Two decades of implementation research: From control to guidance and learning. In Kaufmann, F. X. (Ed.), The public sector: Challenge for coordination and learning(pp.257-270). Berlin, New York: de Gruyter.
Sabatier, P. A. (1975). Social movements and regulatory agencies. Policy Sciences, 8, 301-342.
Sabatier, P. A. & Hank C. J-S. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Sabatier, P. A. & Mazmanian, D. (1979-1980). The implementation of public policy: A framework of analysis. Policy Studies Journal, 538-559.
Schelling, T. C. (1980). The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sharkansky, I. (1972). Public administration: Policy-making in government agencies. Chicago, IL: Markham.
Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior. New York: Macmillan.
Smith, T. B. (1973). The policy implementation process. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 197-198.
Snow, C. P. & Trilling, L. (1978). see Elmore, R. F. Organizational models of social program implementation. Public Policy, 26(2), 185-187.
Starling, G. (1988). Strategies for policy making. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.
Stewart, J. & Stoker, G. (1989). The free local government experiments and the programs of public service reform. In Crouch, C. & Marquand, D. (Eds.), The new centralism: Britain out of step in Europe(pp.125-142). London: The Political Quarterly Publishing Co.
Stoker, R. P. (1991). Reluctant partners: Implementing federal policy. Pittsburgh, PA: Univ. of Pittsburgh Press.
Storker, R. P. (1987). A regime framework for implementation analysis. Policy Studies Review, 9(1), 29~49.
Tesar, V. L. (1995). Criteria employed in the selection of beginning elementary school principals in Ohio during 1992-1993. [CD-ROM]. Abstract from: proquest file: Dissertation abstracts item: AAC 950773.
Thomas, D. W. (1997). Selection and evaluation of school principals. Unpublished Ph. Doctoral dissertation: University of Alberta.
Van Dyke, V. (1968). Process and policy as focal concepts in political research. In Ranney, A.(Ed.), Political science and public policy
(pp.23-40). Chicago, IL: Markham.
Van Dyke, V. (1968). Process and policy as focal concepts in public. Chicago, IL: Markham.
Van Horn, C. E. & Van Meter, D. S. (1976). The implementation of intergovernmental policy. In Jones, C. O. & Thomas, R. D. (Eds.), Public Policy Making in Federal System(p45). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Van Meter, D. S. & Van Horn, C. E. (1975). The policy implementation process: A conceptional framework. Administration and Society, 6(4), 445-488.
Von Neumann, J. & Morgenstem, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Weatherly, R. & Lipsky, M. (1977). Street level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: Implementing special-eucation reform. Harvard Educational Review, 47(2), 171-197.
Weber, M.(1947). The theory of social and economic organization. London: Oxford University Press.
Weiss, C. (1977). Using social research in public policy making. Lexington, MA: Health, D. C.
Winter, S. (1990). Integrating implementation research. In Palumbo, D. J. & Calista, D. J.(Eds,) Implementation and the policy process: Opening up the black box. New York: Greenwood Press.
Yanow, D. (1987). Toward a policy culture approach to implementation. Policy Studies Review, 7(1), 103-115.
Zagare, F. C. (1984). Game theory: Concepts and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE