:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:本土社會信任理論模型的建構:環境決策過程中的社會信任分析
作者:王怡文
作者(外文):Yi-Wen Wang
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:建築與城鄉研究所
指導教授:陳亮全
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2007
主題關鍵詞:社會信任關係網絡核四鄰避設施風水習俗信任社會符號學文化圖式social trustrelation contextNIMBY facilitynuclear power plantfeng-shuicustomary trustsocio-semioticcultural schema
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(1) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:1
本論文主要目的是:建構能充分解釋本土社會信任現象的理論模型。為建構本土社會信任理論模型,首先,透過批判式文獻回顧,認為將西方信任理論「套用」於本土社會,無法清楚說明華人社會普遍存在的信任現象與經驗,也難有助於理解華人社會信任的特殊性。由於人與人之間的相互信任,涉及在他們所認同的群體裡,彼此建構的價值與規範系統,所以在不同的文化中,信任的建構各有其獨特的過程。許多文化心理學的文獻指出:人們依賴其文化背景,以感知與判斷本身所處的社會環境,人們彼此相信與互相評定對方的方法,反映他們共有的文化經驗(如:Triandis, 1989; Markus & Kitaymama, 1991; Peng &Nisbett, 1999; Hong &Chiu, 2001等)。因此,本論文旨在探討華人文化中,尤其在台灣社經脈絡下的信任策略特性。其次,整合既有的文獻,提出本土社會信任的理論模型。本論文以華人的關係主義(relationalism)為預設,提出本土社會中五種信任的原形(prototypes),其中兩種是屬於關係網絡內的社會信任,包括:基於血緣關係的血親信任及根植於情感與認同的滋生信任。其餘三種是屬於關係網絡外的社會信任,其一是:常民在文化實踐中累積的習俗,形成的習俗信任;其二是:奠基於專業知識與能力的專業信任;其三是:基於利益最大化的理性計算,形成的制度信任。以上五種信任原形的各有其意涵,其中,本論文所提出的血親信任與習俗信任,對於理解華人社會信任,具有獨特的意義。
此外,為確證、說明並修正前述筆者建構之本土社會信任暫時性的理論模型,以環境決策過程中涉及的各種社會信任為經驗研究對象,其目的是為了在生活世界中獲取豐富的資料。其中經驗研究包括二個主要個案:其一係屬「公共環境決策」過程之台灣電力公司第四核能電廠(簡稱核四廠)之鄰避公共設施之決策過程;其二係偏向於「個體環境決策」過程,且深嵌於文化環境觀之風水習俗的意義與內涵,為彰顯風水習俗的意義,本論文係以社會符號學(socio-semiotic)作為分析的方法。筆者並且認為:核四的決策與風水的決策分別涉及兩個不同的知識體系,前者屬「科學微世界」、後者屬「生活世界」的知識型,兩者涉及的社會信任有很大的差異。而後根據前述經驗研究的結果修正前述理論模型。
本論文之主要研究成果,第一為:建構「建構本土社會信任理論模型」,該理論模型能與西方既有的相關信任理論對話,且該理論提出「信任的兩重檢驗」:「關係」的檢驗與「意圖」的檢驗。其理論意涵與特性在於主張:社會信任的心智運作是「主觀且去理性化」的判斷,與西方多數信任理論主張信任是根據客觀風險評估與理性計算的結果決定是否信任,係截然不同的論述。第二為:提出本土特殊的「習俗信任」的概念,係將文化深層的信念系統與信任加以連結,並提出「風水圖式」的概念,該文化圖式包含:常民的風水圖式與風水師的圖式,得以解釋:為何高級知識份子經常輕易相信或信任「得道」的風水師?也有助於解釋為何隨著知識水準普遍提升的趨勢下,傳統且難以驗證的風水術數行為卻越來越流行?等現象。最後,習俗「信任」的概念與習俗「信仰」的概念的釐清,旨在強化對習俗信任心智運作的理解。
The main purpose of this dissertation is to construct a social trust theory capable of interpreting adequately various phenomena related social trusts in Taiwanese society. At first, a critical review of the literature on trust indicated that it is very difficult to use theories of trust developed by Western scholars to explain some prevailing phenomena related to trust in indigenous society. Because interpersonal trust is generally supported by the value system and social norms constituting the meaning of life in a given culture, it is necessary to investigate the process of trust within a particular cultural context. A social trust theory based on Confucian relationalism is proposed to analyze the domains and features of five prototypes of trust in Taiwanese culture. Two of the prototypes concern trust within the network of one''s intimate society, namely, kinship trust and emergent trust constituted on the grounds of shared identity. The other three concern trust of social targets outside one''s intimate society, including customary trust derived from the cultural practices that have long been adopted as customs, professional trust that is created by the professional knowledge and ability of the trustee, and institutional trust that is established on rational calculation to maximize one''s own interests in dealing with an institutional operation. A person may adopt different trust strategies in consideration of the relation with the trustee. Implications of each prototype of trust are elaborated in the dissertation. In particular, the kinship trust and the customary trust have important meanings for understanding the social trust in the society.
Furthermore, various social trust phenomena during an environmental decision-making process are observed and analyzed so as to gather plentiful data related to social trust from the life world for confirming, explaining and revising the indigenous social trust theory. The selected environmental decision-making process included two cases: one is a NIMBY public facility of the forth nuclear power plant of Taiwan Power Company, which is categorized into public environmental decision-making; and the other one is feng-shui customary, which is categorized into private environmental decision-making embedded in a indigenous cultural environment perspectives by a socio-semiotic method to manifest the meanings of feng-shui. Besides, the forth nuclear power plant case and the feng-shui case implicate two different knowledge systems, one is knowledge of “scientific micro-world” and the other one is knowledge of “life-world”. The two different knowledge systems are relative to two different social trust prototypes (e.g. professional trust and customary trust). The above-mentioned indigenous social trust theory is revised according to results of the experimental researches.
There are three major research outcomes of the dissertation. The first is to construct an “Indigenous social trust theory”. The theory claims that a mental operation of a truster includes two mental inspection processes before making a trust decision, including a relation inspection and an intention inspection. In other words, a relation with the truster and an intention of the trust will be two key factors to influence the trust mental operation implicating a “subjective and an irrational” trust mental operation. The claim is entirely different from Western trust theories based on a rational calculation and an objective risk assessment of trust. The second outcome is to propose a unique concept of “customary trust” by connecting subtly to an indigenous cultural belief system so as to form a “feng-shui schema” concept. The concept of feng-shui schema is helpful for explaining many indigenous trust phenomena, such as why even well-educated scholars trust easily a feng-shui master etc. Finally, the concept of the customary trust is clarified by differentiating from a “customary belief” concept.
一、英文參考書目
Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S.-W. (2002). Social Capital: Prospects for A New Concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17-40.
Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. A. (1990). A Model of Distributor Firm and Manufacturer Firm Working Partnerships. Journal of Marketing, 54, 42-58.
Banaji, M. R., & Prentice, D. A. (1994). The Self in Social Context. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 45, 279-332.
Barber, B. (1983). The Logic and Limits of Trust. NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press.
Barney, J. B., & Gupta, A. K. (1999). Trust within the Organization: Integrating the Trust Literature with Agency Theory and Transaction Costs Economics. Public Administration Quarterly, 23(2), 177-203.
Bateson, P. (1988). The Biological Evolution of Cooperation and Trust. In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Beck, U., Giddens, A., & Lash, S. (1994). Reflexive Modernization. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Bhattacharya, R., Devinney, T. M., & Pillutla, M. M. (1998). A Formal Model of Trust Based on Outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 459-472.
Bigley, G. A. (1998). Straining for Shared Meaning in Organization Science: Problems of Trust in and Between Organizations. Academy of Management Review.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Joh Wiley.
Blau, P. (1977). A Macro-sociological Theory of Social Structure. New York: Columbia.
Blau, P. (1978). Microprocess and Macrostructure. Newbury park: Sage publications.
Brion, D. J. (1991). Essential industry and the NIMBY phenomenon. NY: Quorum Books.
Bullard, R. D. (1995). Environmental justice: It''s more than waste facility siting. Social Science Quarterly, 77, 493-499.
Butler, J. K. (1991). Toward Understanding and Measuring Conditions of Trust: Evolution of a Conditions of Trust Inventory. Journal of Management, 17.,No.3, 643-663.
Cohen, M., March, J., & Olson, J. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1-25.
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. MA: Harvard University Press.
Coleman, J. S. (2000). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. In E. L. Lesser (Ed.), Knowledge & Social Capital. Boston: Butterworth Heinemann.
Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyachy:Participation & Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Das, T. K., & Teng, B. (1998). Between Trust and Control: Developing Confidence in Partner Cooperation in Alliances. Academy of Management Review, 23(3).
Doney, P. M., Cannon, J. P., & Mulllen, M. R. (1998). Understanding the Influence of National Culture on Development of Trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 601-620.
Dunne, W. N. (1981). Public Policy Analysis: An introduction. NJ: Prentice-Hall Press.
Eco, U. (1994). The theory of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Emerson, R. (1981). Social Exchange Theory. In M. Rosenberg & R. H. Turner (Eds.), Social Psychology: Sociological Perspectives. (pp. 30-65). New York: Basic Books.
Fiske, A. P. (1992). The Four Elementary Forms of Social Life:Framework for a Unified Theory of Social Relations. Psychological Review, 99(4), 689-723.
Fiske, A. P. (2002). Using Individualism and Collectivism to Compare Culture-A Critique of the Validity and Measurement of the Constructs:Comment on Oyserman et al.(2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 78-88.
Fiske, A. P., Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Nisbett, R. E. (1998). The Cultural Matrix of Social Psychology. In D. T. Gillbert & S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 915-981). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fisman, R., & Khanna, T. (1999). Is Trust a Historical Residue? Information Flows and Trust Levels. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 38, 79-92.
Foa, E. B., & Foa, U. G. (1980). Resource Theory : Interpersonal Behavior as Exchange. In K. J. e. a. Gergen (Ed.), Social Exchange Theory (pp. 77-101). New York: Plenum Press.
Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the Face of Power. CA: University of California Press.
Foucault, M. (1970). The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. (A. Sheridan-Smith, Trans.). New York: Random House.
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York: Free Press.
Gambetta, D. (1988). Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Gergen, K. J., Gulerce, A., Lock, A., & Misra, G. (1996). Psychological science in cultural context. American Psychologist, 51, 496-503.
Gottdiener, M. (1995). Postmodern semiotics:Material culture and the forms of postmodern life. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength o f Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380.
Gregory, R., Flynn, J., & Slovic, P. (2001). Technological stigma. In J. Flynn & P. Slovic & H. Kunreuther (Eds.), Risk, Media, and Stigma: Understanding public challenges to modern science and technology. VA: Earthscan Publications Ltd.
Gross, P. R., & Levitt, N. (1998). Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Gunter, H. (1995). Jurassic management Chaos and management development in educational instituitious. Journal of Educational Administration, 33(4), 5-20.
Hagen, J. M., & Choe, S. (1998). Trust in Japanese Interfirm Relations: Institutional Sanctions Matter. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 589-600.
Hardin, R. (1993). The Street-level Epistemology of Trust. Politics & Society, 21(4), 505-529.
Hardin, R. (1998). Trust in Government. In V. Braithwaite & M. Levi (Eds.), Trust and Governance. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
Hayles, N. K. (1990). Chaos Bound: Orderly disorder in comtemporary literature and science. New York: Cornell University Press.
Ho, D. (1993). Relational Orientation in Asian Social Psychology. In U. Kim & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Indigenous Psychologies: Research and Experience in Cultural Context. (pp. 240-259). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ho, D. (1998). Interpersonal Relationship and Relationship Dominance: An Analysis Based on Methodological Relationalism. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 1(1), 1-16.
Hong, Y. Y., & Chiu, C. Y. (2001). Toward A Paradigm Shift: From Cross-Cultural Differences in Social Cognition to Social-Cognitive Mediation of Cultural Differences. Social Cognition, 19(3), 181-196.
Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Trust: The Connecting Link Between Organizational Theory and Philosophical Ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 379-403.
Hsu, F. K. L. (1971). Kinship and Culture. Chicago: Aldine.
Hsu, F. L. K. (1963). Clan, Caste and Club. New York: van Nostrand.
Hwang, K. K. (1999). Filial Piety and Loyalty: Two Types of Social Identification in Confucianism. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 163-183.
Hwang, K. K. (2000). Chinese Relationalism: Theoretical Construction and Methodological Considerations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 30(2), 155-178.
Hwang, K. K. (2004). The epistemological goal of indigenous psychology: The perspective of constructive realism. In N. S. Bernadette & A. Supratiknya & J. L. Walter & H. P. Ype (Eds.), Ongoing themes in psychology and culture. Indonesia: The International Association for Cross-cultural Psychology.
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (1999). Rethinking the Value of Choice: A Culture Perspective on Intrinsic Motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 349-366.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Jenson, J. (1998, Oct.,1,1998). Mapping Social Cohesion. Paper presented at the The Policy Research Secretariat''s Conference: Policy Research: Creating Linkages, Ottawa.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (2000). Choices, values, and frames. New York: Russell sage Foundation.
Kasperson, R. E., Golding, D., & Tuler, S. (1992). Social Distrust as a Factor in Siting Hazardous Facilities and Communication Risks. Journal of Social Issues, 48(4).
Kitayama, S. (2002). Culture and Basic Psychological Processes-Toward a System View of Culture: Comment on Oyserman et al.(2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 89-96.
Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and Distrust in Organizations: Emerging Perspectives, Enduring Question. Annual Reviews of Psychology.
Kramer, R. M., & Tyler, T. R. (1996). Trust in Organization: Frontiers of Theory and Research. CA: Sage.
Lasswell, H. D. (1971). A Pre-View of Policy Science. NY: American Elsevier Publishing Co.
Leana, R. C., & Van Vurenn, H. J. (1999). Organizational Social Capital and Employment Practices. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 538-555.
Lesbirel, H. S. (1998). NIMBY Politics in Japan:Energy sitting and the management of environmental conflict. NY: Cornell University press.
Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1995). Trust in Relationships: A Model of Development and Decline. In B. B. Bunker & J. Z. Rubin (Eds.), Conflict, Cooperation and Justice (pp. 133-173). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and Maintaining Trust in Working Relationships. In R. M. a. T. Kramer, T. R. (Ed.), Trust in Organization-Frontier of Theory and Research. CA: Sage Publication.
Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a Social Reality. Social Forces, 63, 967-985.
Lweicki, R., & Bunker, B. B. (1995). A Model of Development and Decline. In B. B. Bunker & J. Z. Rubin (Eds.), Conflict, Cooperation and Justice (pp. 133-173). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
March, J. G. (1994). A Primer on Decision Making. New York: Free Press.
Markus, H. R., & Kitaymama, S. (1991). Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion and Motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J.H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734.
McAllister, D. H. (1995). Affect- and Cognition-based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 24-59.
Mcknight, D. H., & Chervany, N. L. (1996). The Meaning of Trust. Paper presented at the Organizational Behavior Division of the Academy of Management, Minnesota.
Mcknight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. (1998). Initial Trust Formation in new Organizational Relationships. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 473-490.
Mead, G. H. (1964). On Social Psychology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Miller, J. G. (2002). Bringign Culture to Basic Psychological Theory-Beyond Individualism and Collectivism: Comment on Oyserman et al.(2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 97-109.
Mishra, A. K. (1996). Organizational Responses to Crisis: The Centrality of Trust. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. (pp. 261-278). CA: Sage.
Mistzal, B. A. (1996). Trust in Modern Societies. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpande, R. (1992). Relationships Between Providers and Users of Market Research: The Dynamics of Trust Within and Between Organizations. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 314-328.
Newton, K. (1997). Social Capital and Democracy. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 575-586.
Nooteboom, B. H. (1997). Effects of Trust and Governance on Relational Risk. Academy of Management Review, 40(2), 308-338.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002a). Cultural Psychology, A new Look: Reply to Bood(2002), Fiske(2002), Ketayama(2002), and Miller(2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 110-117.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002b). Rethinking Individualism and Collectivism: Evaluation of Theoretical Assumptions and Meta-Analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3-72.
Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, Dialectics, and Reasoning About Contradiction. American Psychologist, 54, 185-200.
Porter, A. (2000). Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology. In E. L. Lesser (Ed.), Knowledge & Social Capital. Boston: Butterworth Heinemann.
Portney, K. E. (1991). Siting harzard waste treatment facilities: the NIMBY syndrome. NY: Auburn House.
Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Quah, E., & Tan, K. C. (2002). Siting environmentally unwanted facilities: Risks, trade-offs, and choices. MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Rabe, B. G. (1994). Beyond NIMBY: Harzards waste siting in Canada and the United States. MA: The Brookings Institution.
Reis, H. T., Collins, W. A., & Berscheid, E. (2000). The Relationship Context of Human Behavior and Development. Psychological Bulletin, 126(6), 844-872.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, S. R., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so Different After All: A Cross-Discipline View of Trust. Academy of Management Review, 23,No.3.
Sabel, C. F. (1993). Studies Trust: Building new forms of Cooperation in a Volatile Economy. Human Relations, 46, 1133-1170.
Sandefur, R. L., & Laumann, E. O. (2000). A Paradigm for Social Capital. In E. L. Lesser (Ed.), Knowledge & Social Capital. Boston: Butterworth Heinemann.
Schacter, D. L. (2001). The Seven Sins of Memory: How the Mind Forgets and Remembers. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Seligman, A. (1997). The Problem of Trust. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Shapiro, D. (1987). The Social Control of Impersonal Trust. American Journal of Sociology, 93(3), 623-658.
Shapiro, D., Sheppard, B., & Cheraskin, L. (1992). Business on a Handshake. The Negotiations Journal, 8(4), 356-377.
Sheppard, B. H., & Sherman, D. M. (1998). The Grammars of Trust: A Model and General Implications. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 422-437.
Sitkin, S. B., & Roth, N. L. (1993). Explaining the Limited Effectiveness of Legalistic "Remedies" for Trust/Distrust. Organization Science, 4(3), 367-392.
Sztompka, P. (1999). Trust: A Sociological Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tarter, C. J., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Toward a contigency theory of decision making. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(3), 212-228.
Triandis, H. C. (1989). The Self and Social Behavior in Differing Cultural Contexts. Psychological Review, 96(3), 506-520.
Tyler, R. T. (1998). Trust and Democratic Governance. In V. Braithwaite & M. Levi (Eds.), Trust and Governance. NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Uslaner, E. M. (2002). The Moral Foundations of Trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wallner, F. (1994). Constructive Realism. Vienna: Wilbelm Braumuller.
Weber, M. (1946). Politics as a Vocation (Hans C. G. and C. Wright Mills eds. ed.). NY: Oxford University Press.
Williamson, O. E. (1993). Calculativeness, Trust and Economic Organization. Journal of Law and Economics, 36(1993), 453-486.
Yamagishi, T., & Yamagishi, M. (1994). Trust and Commitment in the United States and Japan. Motivation and Emotion., 18(2), 129-166.
Zeman, J. J. (1976). Peirce''s theory of signs. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), A profusion of signs. Berlin: Mouton Publishers.



二、中文參考書目
ASKEVIS-LEHERPEUX(1988/1989)《迷信》(曾義治譯)。台北:遠流出版社。
KAKU, M., and J. TRAINER(1982/1987)《核能兩面觀》(陳晴美譯)。台北:遠流。
WALLNER, F.(1993/1998)《建構實在論》(王榮麟、王超群譯)。台北:五南。
上海圖書館(1986)《中國叢書綜錄》。上海:上海古籍社。
于國欽(2000.6.2)〈貢寮要求加入核四評估小組〉。《中國時報》,第1版。
中央研究院經濟研究所(2004)《核能四廠人文及社會經濟影響研究:民眾關切事項之評估》。台灣電力公司委託中央研究院經濟研究所。
中國時報社論(2000.4.4)〈核四將是綠色執政的一大考驗〉。《中國時報》,第2版。
丹宇、白智平(1993)〈生態與風水環境意向:生態居住方案介紹〉。見王其亨(主編),《風水理論研究》。台北:地景企業公司。
王玉德(1994)《神秘的風水》。台北:書泉出版社。
王怡文、陳亮全、黃光國(2006)〈華人社會中的信任策略〉。《本土心理學研究》,第25期,199-242。
王怡文、蕭新煌(2004)〈爭議性公共設施的回饋制度:對核一廠、核二廠及台中火力發電廠的分析〉。《都市與計畫》,第31卷,1期,65-90。
王俊秀(1994a)〈風水圈及變形蟲理論:試論中國式環境規劃及管理的空間極相〉。《中央研究院民族研究所集刊》,第77期,193-214。
王俊秀(1994b)《環境社會學的出發:讓故鄉的風水有面子》。台北:桂冠。
王俊秀(1998)〈新竹市「檳榔景觀」的調查與分析:「環境正義」的觀點〉。《台大建築與城鄉研究所學報》,第9卷,23-31。
王俊秀(2001)《環境社會學的想像》。台北:巨流。
王飛雪(2001)〈跨文化比較中國人的信任研究〉。見楊中芳(主編),《中國人的人際關係、情感與信任》。台北:遠流。
王复昆(1993)〈風水理論的傳統哲學框架〉。見王其亨(主編),《風水理論研究》。台北:地景企業公司。
王復昆(1993)〈風水理論的傳統哲學框架〉。見王其亨(主編),《風水理論研究》。台北:地景企業公司。
王豪(1984)《風水要義:尋龍點穴秘訣》。台北:武陵出版社。
史箴(1990)〈辨正方位,指南針的發明與磁偏角的發現-古代堪輿家的偉大歷史貢獻〉。見天津大學建築系(主編),《景觀˙建築•風水》。台北:地景企業公司。
台北縣政府(2002)《修訂台北縣綜合發展計畫報告書》。台北縣:台北縣政府。
台灣電力公司(1991)《核能四廠第一、二號機發電計畫環境影響評估報告(壓水式)》。台北:台灣電力公司。
平烈浩(2005.2.24)〈核四大事記〉。[Online] available: http://linshi.twbbs.org/blog/item/lawchen/30130(2005.9.15)。
皮亞傑(1972/1990)《心理學與認識論-一種有關知識的理論》(黃道譯)。台北:結構群文化公司。
艾定增(1998)《風水鉤沈:中國建築人類發源》。台北:田園城市文化出版社。
何明修(2000)《民主過程轉型中的國家與民間社會:以台灣的環境運動為例》。台灣大學社會學研究所博士論文。
何曉昕(1995)《風水史》。上海:文藝出版社。
余英時(1984)《從價值系統看中國文化的現代意義》。台北:時報文化公司。
吳介民(1989)〈反對運動與社會抗議的互動〉。《中國論壇》,第335期,29-40。
吳定(1988)《公共行政論叢》。台北:天一出版社。
吳明修(1983)《易經地理學》。台北:武陵出版社。
吳焜裕(1999)〈勿讓環境決策程序流於形式化〉。[Online] available: http://taup.yam.org.tw/comm/comm9912/t012.htm(2001.6.29)。
吳逸中(1994)《陽宅與人生》。台北:聯經出版社。
呂志鵬(2000)《道教哲學》。台北:文津出版社。
呂宗芬(2003)《台灣反核四運動與政治轉型:政治機會結構的觀點》。台灣大學社會學研究所碩士論文。
呂淳風(1995)《商用風水學》。台北:時學出版社。
李永展、何紀芳(1999)〈環境正義與鄰避設施選址之探討〉。《規劃學報》,第9卷,91-107。
李永展、翁久惠(1995)〈鄰避設施對主觀環境品質影響之探討〉。《經社法制論叢》,第16卷,89-117。
李亦園(1999)《宇宙觀、信仰與民間文化》。台北:稻鄉。
李亦園(2004)《宗教與神話》。台北:立緒出版社。
李宗祐(2000.7.31)〈核能資訊宜透明化〉。《中國時報》,第2版。
李慶鋒(1992)〈1003事件的影響〉。《台灣環境》,第52期,第3頁。
杜聲鋒(1988)《皮亞傑及其思想》。台北:遠流出版公司。
汪明生、朱斌妤等(1999)《衝突管理》。台北:五南。
阮新邦(2000)〈從詮釋學的角度評楊國樞的本土化社會學觀〉。《社會理論學報》,第3卷,1期,1-30。
尚廓(1990)〈中國風水格局的構成、生態環境與景觀〉。見天津大學建築系(主編),《景觀•建築•風水》。台北:地景企業公司。
林水波、張世賢(1990)《公共政策》。台北:五南出版社。
林本炫(1998)《當代臺灣民眾宗教信仰變遷的分析》。台灣大學社會學研究所博士論文論文。
林信華(1999)《社會與符號》。台北:唐山出版社。
林淑萍(1998)《情理與法理:事件合理性判斷的兩種準則》。台灣大學心理學研究所碩士論文論文。
林鉦岑(1996)〈組織公正、信任、公民行為的研究:社會交換理論的觀點〉。《管理科學學報》,第13卷,3期,391-415。
金正耀(1993)《中國的道教》。台北:臺灣商務印書館。
非核台灣聯盟(2004.02.06)〈台灣歷年核電廠異常、違規事件及事故一覽表〉。[Online] available: http://home.kimo.com.tw/stcf1/20040206.htm(2006.1.12)。
俞孔堅(1998)《生物與文化基因上的圖式:風水與理想景觀的深層意義》。台北:田園城市文化。
施信民(1991)〈反對權威宰制、維護美麗家園:505反核行動的意義〉。《台灣環境》,第35期,第20頁。
柯耀輝(2004)《林業文化園區之衝突管理研究:以花蓮林山文化區為例》。台灣大學森林學研究所碩士論文。
胡思聰(1993)〈現行「政府政策環境影響評估」制度研析〉。[Online] available: http://www.npf.org.tw/monthly/0302/theme-101.htm(2005.12.27)。
胡道靜(1989)《道教要輯選刊》。上海:上海古籍出版社。
唐湘龍(2000.5.10)〈連戰宣示:全黨落實反核四〉。《中時晚報》,第6版。
崔愫欣(2001)《貢寮的生與死:貢寮的反核運動紀錄》。世新大學社會發展研究所碩士論文。
康文尚(1996)《論第三人就環境影響評估法提起爭訟之可能性》。東吳大學法律學研究所碩士論文。
張茗陽(2000)《生存風水學:中國風水的源流與科學觀(陳怡魁講述)》。台北:易學研究發展基金會。
張珣(1987)《疾病與文化》。台北:稻香出版社。
張笠雲(1999)《1997台灣的社會信任》。台北:中央研究院民族研究所。
張笠雲(2000)〈制度信任及行為的信任意涵〉。《台灣社會學刊》,第23卷,179-223。
戚珩、丹宇(1993)〈景觀建築學、生態建築與風水理論辨析〉。見王其亨(主編),《風水理論研究》。台北:地景企業公司。
曹以會(1997.10.12)〈為核四花錢堵學者的口〉。《中時晚報》,第1版。
曹以會(2000.5.13)〈反核下午遊行要求廢核四別跳票〉。《中時晚報》,第6版。
曹以會、全光輝(2001.2.14)〈鹽寮反核自救會:台灣人民被喊價、被出賣〉。《中時晚報》,第5版。
曹羅羿(1996)《風水:傳統環境論述與空間實踐的認識與批判-以相宅術中八宅法之論述分析為例》。台灣大學建築與城鄉研究所碩士論文論文。
梁雪(1990)〈從聚落選址看中國人的環境觀〉。見天津大學建築系(主編),《景觀•建築•風水》。台北:地景企業公司。
梁銀河(1985)《我國最偉大科學之創造發明》。台北:龍園雜誌社。
郭士賢、張思嘉(2002.11.10)〈華人生活世界中的多面向因果思維〉。中央研究院民族研究所等主辦「泛華心理學研究國際研討會」(台北)宣讀之論文。
陳建利(1993)《正宗九星法二十四山至寶全書》。台北:進源出版社。
陳基發(2004)《應用衝突管理於策略規劃之研究:南投縣內湖國小遷校個案》。台灣大學森林學研究所碩士論文。
彭泗清(2001)〈信任的建立機制:一個人際關係的觀點〉。見楊中芳(主編),《中國人的人際關係、情感與信任》。台北:遠流。
彭倩文(1987)《核四建廠爭議:一個社會學的分析》。東吳大學社會學研究所碩士論文論文。
游謙(2001)〈傳統術數與學校教育的關係〉。中央研究院社會學研究所主辦「宗教與社會變遷研討會」(台北)宣讀之論文。
程詩郁(2001)《論環境運動的自主性 : 以台灣反核四運動為例 》。台灣大學建築與城鄉研究所碩士論文。
費孝通(1973)《鄉土中國》。香港:鳳凰出版社。
黃光國(1997)〈本土契合性:學術研究的方向或學術研究的判準〉。《本土心理學研究》,第8期,159-171。
黃光國(1998)《知識與行動:中華文化傳統的社會心理學詮釋》。台北:心理出版社。
黃光國(1999)〈多元典範的研究取向:論社會心理學的本土化〉。《社會理論學報》,第2卷,1-51。
黃光國(2000)〈現代的不連續性假說與建構實在論—論本土心理學的哲學基礎〉。《香港社會學學報》,第18卷,1-32。
黃光國(2001)《社會科學的理路》。台北:心理出版社。
楊中芳(1993)〈試論如何深化本土心理學研究:兼評現階段之研究成果〉。《本土心理學研究》,第1期,224-239。
楊中芳(2001)〈有關關係與人情構念化之綜述〉。見楊中芳(主編),《中國人的人際關係、情感與信任:一個人際交往的觀點》。台北:遠流。
楊宜音(2001)〈「自己人」:一項有關中國人關係的分類的個案研究〉。見楊中芳(主編),《中國人的人際關係、情感與信任》。台北:遠流。
楊國樞(1993a)〈中國人的社會取向:社會互動的觀點〉。見楊國樞、余安邦(主編),《中國人的心理與行為:理念與方法篇》。台北:桂冠圖書。
楊國樞(1993b)〈我們為什麼要建立中國人的本土心理學?〉。《本土心理學研究》,第1期,6-88。
楊國樞(2002)《華人心理的本土化研究》。台北:桂冠圖書。
葉名森(2002)《環境正義檢視鄰避設施選址決策之探討》。台灣大學地理環境資源研究所碩士論文。
董斌(2002)《現代風水精鑒》。台北:武陵出版社。
詹石窗(1994)《道教風水學》。台北:文津出版社。
劉仲宇(1997)《道教的內秘世界》。台北:文津出版社。
劉清渭(2000)〈貢寮反核自救會鳴炮歡呼〉。《中國時報》,第6版。
蔡添財(2004)《建築藝術陽宅風水裝潢大觀》。台北:國家出版社。
蔡源德(1998)《台北路外停車場興建衝突管理分析》。中興大學都市計畫研究所論文。
鄭伯壎(2001)〈企業組織中上下屬的信任關係〉。見楊中芳(主編),《中國人的人際關係、情感與信任》。台北:遠流。
鄭坤從(1996)《台灣反核運動的構框:台灣環境保護聯盟的個案分析(1988-1955)》。東吳大學治學研究所碩士論文。
鄭淑麗(1995)《社會運動與地方社區變遷:以貢寮鄉反核四為例》。台灣大學社會學研究所碩士論文。
蕭代基(1996)〈污染設施之設置與民眾信心之建立〉。《台灣經濟預測與政策》,第27卷,1期,39-52。
蕭新煌(1989)〈民間社會的「反支配」性格:社會運動本質界定〉。《中國論壇》,第331期,60-64。
蕭新煌(1997)《台灣的地方環保抗爭運動》。香港:香港海峽兩岸關係研究中心。
蕭新煌(1999)〈當前環評制度面臨的信任差距的問題:從地方環保抗爭事件談起〉。《勞工之友》,第580期,6-12。
蕭新煌、尹寶珊(1996)〈公共領域的信心差距:台灣與香港比較〉。見劉兆家、黃紹倫等(主編),《華人社會指標研究的新領域》。香港:香港中文大學香港亞太研究所。
龍天機(1995)《風生水起好運來》。台北:華視文化出版社。
瞿海源(1993)〈術數、巫術與宗教行為的變遷與變異〉。《行政院國科會人文及社會科學研究彙刊》,第2卷,3期,125-143。
瞿海源(1997)《台灣宗教變遷的社會政治分析》。台北:桂冠圖書。
羅新興、戚樹誠(2002.11.10)〈組織成員對主管親信的評價:取決於才能或是社會關係〉。中央研究院民族研究所等主辦「泛華心理學研究國際研討會」(台北)宣讀之論文。
鹽寮反核自救會(2003.2.17)〈鹽寮反核自救會要求重作環評的理由與說明〉。[Online] available: http://www.taiwanwatch.org.tw/issue/nuclear/news/88042303.htm(2006.1.11)。
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE