臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：地方教育利益團體對教育改革政策影響之研究－以高雄市為例－
作者：葉宗文
校院名稱：高雄師範大學
系所名稱：教育學系
指導教授：陳麗珠 博士
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2010
主題關鍵詞：利益團體；教育利益團體；教育改革政策；影響策略；因應策略；Interest groups；education interest groups；educational reform policy；influence strategy；coping strategy
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(0) 博士論文(2) 專書(1) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:85
本研究旨在探討「地方教育利益團體」對教育改革政策之影響，藉此瞭解教育利益團體於教育政策過程中的政策形成與政策合法化階段，其參與機會、影響策略、影響力大小以及教育行政人員相對應的因應情形，進而提出訂定教育利益團體參與教育政策規範之建議。為達上述研究目的，本研究採用問卷調查法、訪談調查法等研究方法，以高雄市121所國中、小學校之家長團體、教師團體、校長團體和學校暨地方教育行政人員等人員，依立意取樣抽取研究樣本合計827人進行問卷調查，有效樣本為640人（77.38%）。另外，又針對四位教育利益團體負責人及一位教育局主管進行訪談，訪談結果做為編制修訂問卷內容之參考。資料使用描述統計、結構方程模式、變異數分析、因素分析和相關分析等統計方法進行資料分析。本研究主要發現如下：
一、教育利益團體參與各項教育決策之機會
（一）教育利益團體參與決策機會最多的向度是教育行政事務。
（二）教育行政人員平均參與決策機會最多；各團體成員參與機會因背景不同而有所差異
（三）校長團體參與機會最多也最為足夠
（四）團體成員參與決策時能否勝任與教育政策議題專業性程度有關；也與個人具備的教育專業知能多寡有關
（五）教育利益團體越重視之政策其參與機會也越多；對決策之期望越高者，決策結果符合期望的程度也越低
（六）參與決策機會多寡、足夠程度與對議題勝任程度等三項，分數最佳者都是校長團體
二、教育利益團體對教育政策的影響力
（一）發聲影響力和重要性知覺，是評鑑團體影響力大小的兩項重要指標
（二）各團體對教育政策之影響力大小懸殊；而影響力大小則與參與機會多寡無關
三、教育利益團體運用影響策略情形
（一）教育利益團體影響教育政策時，其對口單位是與該政策有直接關係之首長或主管
（二）教育利益團體依據現實原則選擇採用何種影響策略；而該團體採用何種影響策略則與成員之背景無關
（三）就本研究而言，非通路策略傾向正向影響策略，而通路策略則傾向負面的影響策略；整體而言、教育利益團體最常使用通路策略
四、教育行政機關與學校行政人員之因應策略
（一）面對教育利益團體施壓時，教育行政人員優先採用理性、有效的因應策略；同時以專業理念獨立解決問題
（二）校長專業性表現最高，教育行政人員次之
（三）學校主任面對教育利益團體施壓時較容易妥協，如此現象值得進一步探討
五、影響策略與因應策略之關係
（一）因應策略與影響策略有關：當影響策略對決策者產生較大壓力、或意見有效被採納時，教育行政人員會運用較多奧援性與調適性策略、而較少專業性策略。
（二）教育行政人員面對愈大壓力，則愈趨向採用調適性策略較少採用專業性策略；整體而言民意代表對他們的壓力最大
針對上述研究發現，本研究提出建議如下：
一、對地方教育行政機關之建議
（一）應隨時檢視各項決策之依據，是否過度偏重取決於單一教育利益團體之意見，而忽視了其他團體或教育專業人員之看法
（二）教育行政單位推薦各族群參與教育決策時，應兼顧各族群團體代表與個別代表之機會，俾使不同背景之成員都有相同之機會
（三）政策過程中在政策形成階段，其參與對象應再擴大範圍與次數，俾使參與的機會更多元、更廣泛
（四）教育人員應善用遊說法之規範，俾適度排除民代不當之關說，以確保教育決策之專業性、公平性與合理性
（五）教育政策之決策應朝依理、依法、不依人之原則，俾導引教育利益團體採取正向影響策略，進而提昇教育決策之品質
（六）地方首長應全力支持、鼓勵教育行政人員採取專業性因應策略，以提昇教育決策之專業性與合理性
（七）地方教育行政人員面對壓力時，應善巧地透過長官之協助以作為專業性決策之保護傘
（八）在「政策形成」與「政策合法化」階段，研議、規劃一套合宜、透明的教育政策參與規範
二、對地方教育利益團體之建議
（一）教育利益團體組織之分工宜就教育事務之性質分組，並建立人才庫或聘請專業人員為顧問，以提昇決策參與之效能
（二）擴大成員參與面，俾使更多成員有參與各項教育決策之機會，進而深化全民參與之理念
（三）各教育利益團體應多支持、鼓勵並肯定教育行政人員善用專業性因應策略，以提昇整體決策之品質
三、對後續研究者之建議
（一）有關地方教育利益團體對教育政策影響之研究，可採用質性研究法
（二）可將學校主任作為進一步研究之對象，以探討他們偏重採用妥協性因應策略之背後因素素
（三）以全國性和中央層級之教育利益團體為對象，俾比較分析中央與地方教育利益團體影響教育政策之異同
This study aims to discuss the influence of local education interest groups on education reform policymaking, in order to explore the participation, the kind/degree of influence strategies, and the coping strategies of administrators from local government and school sites, in policy formation and policy legitimization stages, and propose suggestions for future policymaking. 827 questionnaires were disseminated to interest group representatives, as well as administrators from local education agency and schools.640 samples were valid after processing, with the respondent rate of 77.38%. In addition, researchers interviews leaders of education interest groups and one Education Bureau director, in order to explore the implications of survey findings. Finally, the data were analyzed with descriptive statistics, structural equation modeling, variance analysis, factor analysis and related statistical methods. The major findings were as follows:
I. The opportunity to participate in education policymaking of education interest groups
1. Education administration affairs are the area that education interest groups have the most opportunities to participate.
2. The opportunity to participate varies among members of the groups with various backgrounds.
3. School principals, on average, have the most opportunities to participate.
4. The competency of group representatives in policymaking depends on the professional complexity of the specific policy issues, and the professional knowledge and skill of those representatives.
5. The more the groups value, the more opportunities to participate; however, the more expectation from the groups, the less satisfaction of the results.
6. The amount of participation in decision-making opportunities, and adequacy competence on the subject and so on three items, score best is the principal association.
II.The influence of education interest groups in education policymaking
1. The voice influence and perceived importance are the two indices for evaluating the influence of interest groups.
2. The degree of influence varies among groups, and is not related with the frequency of participation.
III. The influencing strategies of education interest groups
1. The counterparts of interest groups are the responsible directors of the education authorities when the groups are trying to influence education policymaking.
2. The education interest groups adopt strategies by pragmatic principles, and those strategies are unrelated with the backgrounds of group representatives.
3. There are two kinds of influence strategies adopted by interest groups: “access-requiring tactics” and “non access-requiring tactics”, the former tend to be making negative influences and the latter tend to make positive influences toward policymaking.
IV. The coping strategies of the public education officials and school administrators
1.Education administrators tend to adopt rational coping strategies when they face stresses from interest groups; and they solve problems with professional rationale independently.
2.Among those coping strategies adopted, school principals have the highest professional performance, and education officials followed.
3. School director of educational interest groups are prone to compromise when facing pressures. Such a phenomenon is worthy of further study.
V. The relationship between influence strategy and coping strategy
1. Coping strategies and influence policy are related. When influence strategy conveys greater pressure on policymakers, or when the opinion has been adopted, education administrators will be take more assistance and adaptive strategies, but fewer professional strategies.
2. When facing greater pressures, education administrators tend to adopt adapting strategies than professional ones. The elective public officials are their biggest sources of pressures.
Based on the above findings, this study proposes the following suggestions:
I. The suggestions to local education authorities
1.The local education authorities should examine the rationale of policymaking at any time, to avoid any possibilities of overemphasizing one single interest group and ignore the others.
2. the local education authorities should value the variety of interest groups entering policymaking, to ensure the opportunities of each group with different backgrounds.
3. The local education authorities should increase the number of participating parties and meeting frequencies during policy process.
4. Education administrators should eliminate any inappropriate lobbying, to ensure the professionalism, equity, and reasonableness of education policymaking.
5. Education policymaking should based upon reasonableness and related regulations.
6. Local officials should fully support education administrators to take professional coping strategies, to enhance the professionalism of education policymaking.
7. The public education officials should request the assistance of their superiors when facing pressures, in order to maintain their professionalism.
8. The local education authorities should set a model of appropriate participation for interest groups during policy formation and legalization stage.
II. The suggestions to local education interest groups
1. The interest groups should enhance the quality of participation.
2. The interest groups should increase the opportunities of participation for their members in education policymaking.
3. Education interest groups should encourage education administrators to adopt professional strategies.
III. Suggestions for follow-up studies
1. To adopt qualitative research methods.
2. To recruit school directors as research respondents and explore the implicit factors in school level.
3. To make comparisons with national groups.
中文部分
內政部（2008a）。人民團體法。2008/3/2取自http://co- is.moi .gov.tw/moiweb/web/frmForm.aspx?FunID=13b2a3484e66c05e
內政部（2008b）。職業團體解釋令彙編。2008/3/2取自 http://cois.moi.gov.tw/moiweb/web/frmForm.aspx?FunID=6c8a8a0deb2f94
內政部（2008c）。內政部統計年報。四、社會 01中央政府所轄人民團體。2008/06/12取自http://www.moi.gov.tw/stat/index.asp
王如哲、林明哲、張志明、黃乃熒、楊振昇（1998）。教育行政。高雄市：麗文。
王俊權（1989）。我國壓力團體與教育行政決策之關係。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
王政彥（1991）。團體式教育決策參與之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文，未出版，台北市。new window
王逸舟(譯)（1995）。A. Isaak原著。政治學新論(An Introduction to Politics)。台北市：五南。
王業立、郭應哲、林佳龍(譯) (1999)。M. L. Herbert原著。政治學中爭辯的議題(Political issues debated : an introduction to politics)。台北市：韋伯。
王麗雲、潘慧玲（2000）。教師彰權益能的概念與實施策略。教育研究集刊，44，173-199。new window
王鐵生(譯)（1998）。G. K. Willson 原著。利益團體(Interest Groups)。台北市：五南。
丘昌泰（1998）。政策科學之理論與實際：美國與台灣經驗。台北市：五南。
丘昌泰（2004）。公共政策：基礎篇。高雄市：巨流。
朱志宏（1995）。公共政策。台北市：三民書局。
朱志宏、謝復生等（1989）。利益團體參與政治過程之研究。行政院研考會研究報告(研考Ⅱ－1197)。台北市:行政院研考會。
朱敬一(1995)。教育鬆綁的理論與實際。載於行政院教育改革審議委員會第4期報告書(頁54-57)。台北市：行政院教育改革審議委員會。new window
行政院教育改革審議委員會(1996)。教育改革總諮議報告書。台北市：作者。
吳定（1999a）。公共行政論叢。台北市：天一。
吳定（1999b）。公共政策辭典。台北市：五南。
吳定（2003）。政策管理。台北市：聯經。
吳宛真（2004）。教育政策制定過程中壓力團體運作策略之探討-以中華民國全國教師會為例。國立臺南大學教育經營與管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，台南市。
吳明隆、涂金堂（2006）。SPSS與統計應用分析。台北市：五南。
吳惠林（2007）。中產階級的危機與轉機。永豐金融季刊，38，1-33。
周育仁（1997）。認識政治。台北市：台灣書店。
周愚文（2002）。影響我國近百年教育發展的重要教育改革述評。中國教育學會(主編)，跨世紀教育的回顧與前瞻。2007/01/27，取自 http://www.ycrc.com.tw/txt/A9210.htm
林純雯（2005）。教育政策合法化理論建構與實際運作之研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育學系博士論文，未出版，台北市。new window
林淑萱（2005）。政策利害關係人的分析：以老人福利修法為例。社區發展季刊，110，392-400。new window
侯念祖（2007）。國家退出、市場介入～十年教改的問題根源。2007/4/5，引自http://www.highqualityeducation .com/m4.htm
胡健蘭（2000）。企業與利益團體間的議題管理策略之研究－以拜耳公司在台設廠案為例。國立台灣師範大學大眾傳播研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
孫志麟（1992）。利益團體對教育行政決策的影響。師友，302，30-34。
桂宏誠（2002）。制定「遊說法」之背景分析-以美國「聯邦遊說管理法」及「遊說公開法」為例。2007/4/5，http://old.npf.org.tw /PUBLICATION/IA/091/IA-R-091-017.htm
荒野保護協會（2007）。是否興建蘇花高速公路及其替代方案專案報告會議會後新聞稿。2007/11/04，引自 http://www.wretch.cc/blog/sow1995&- article_id=18189207
張世熒（2000）。利益團體影響政府決策之研究。中國行政評論，9(3)，23-52。new window
張炳九(譯)（1998）。D. B. Truman原著。政治過程：政治利益與輿論（上、下）(The Government Process Political Interests and Public Opinion)。台北市：桂冠。
教育基本法(2006) 。教育基本法。2007/04/06，引自http://law.moj.gov. tw/Scripts/ Query4A.asp?FullDoc=all&Fcode=H0020045
許秋萍（2004）。我國民間教育利益團體參與九年一貫課程政策制定過程之研究-以主婦聯盟為例。淡江大學教育政策與領導研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
郭重吉、張惠博（2005）。從政策層面評述國際間科學教育的改革。2007/9/30。引自 http://www.sec.ntnu.edu.tw/journal/94(276-285)/284- pdf/284-02-郭重吉.pdf4.
陳一新、鄧毓浩、陳景堯(譯)（2003）。A. R. Ball & B. G. Peters 原著。最新現代政治與政府(Modern politics and government)。台北市：韋伯文化。
陳恆鈞、王崇斌、李珊瑩(譯)（1998）。C. E. Lindblom與E. J. Woodhouse 原著。政策制定的過程(The policy-making process)。台北市：韋伯文化。
陳浩(譯)（1990）。J. A. Basso原著。壓力團體(Les Groupes de pression)。台北市：遠流。
黃光國（1988）。人情與面子：中國人的權力遊戲。輯於黃光國(主編)，中國人的權力遊戲(7-55)。台北市：巨流。new window
楊泰順（1994a）。利益團體政治。民主基金會年刊，1994，41-42。
楊泰順（1994b）。美國政黨與利益團體的消長。輯於彭錦鵬(主編)，美國政黨與利益團體(頁259-261)。台北市：中央研究院歐美研究所。
劉明德(譯)（1991）。C. E. Lindblom與 E.J. Woodhouse 原著。政策制定的過程(The Policy-making Process )。台北市：桂冠。
蔡淑萍（1992）。我國公共利益團體影響教育政策過程之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
賴育邦（2005）。利益團體、工資談判與環境政策。農業與經濟, 35, 87-118。new window
賴綉妮 （2001）。政策制定過程中公民參與之研究。暨南國際大學。公共行政與政策學系碩士論文，未出版，南投縣。
龍太江（2007）政治妥協與西方政治文明。2007/10/16，取自http://www.pspm.whu.edu.cn/lr2/Read.asp?id=375
羅清俊、陳志瑋(譯)（1999）。T. R. Dye原著。公共政策新論（第九版）(Understanding Public Policy 9th ed.)。台北市：韋伯文化。
羅標團（2005）。我國教師組織參與教育立法之研究。國立臺灣師範大學政治學研究所在職進修碩士班，未出版，台北市。
譚秉源（1996）。教育團體在香港教育政策釐訂過程中的角色。香港教育專業人員協會個案研究香港中文大學教育學院，哲學教育碩士論文 未出版，香港。2007/09/30，取自http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/en/ cumphil/96pytam/concl- usion.htm

英文部分
Adams, G. (1981). The politics of defense contracting: The iron triangle. New York: Council on Economic Priorities.
Anderson, J. E. (1984). Public Policy-Making(3rd.ed.). Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Andrew, H. (2000). Key Concept in Politics. New York: Palgrave.
Andrew, H. (2002). Politics( 2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave.
Andrews, K. T., & Edwards, B. (2004). Advocacy organizations in the U.S. political process. Annual Review of Sociology, 30(1), 479-506. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110542 (AN 13975152)
Apple. M, W. (2004). Creating difference: Neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism and the politics of educational. Educational Policy, 18(1), 12-44. DOI: 10.1177/0895904803260022
Austin, R. (2001). Governing: An introduction to political science(8th ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Baumgartner, F. R., & leech, B. L. (1998). Basic interests: The importance of groups in politics and political science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University press.
Berry, J. M. (1989). The interest group society. New York: Harper Collins.
Betty, M. (2001). Generating interest in interest groups. Educational Policy, 15(1), 168-186. DOI: 10.1177/0895904801015001010
Birch, A. (2000). The concepts and theories of modern democracy. London: Routledge.
Birkland, T. A. (2001). An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts and models of public policy making. New York: M. E. Armonk.
Bjork , L., & Lindle, J. C. (2001). Superintendents and Interest Groups Educational Policy, 5 (1). 76-91.
Bob, L., & Johnson, Jr. (2001). Micropolitical dynamics of education interests: A view within. Educational Policy, 15(1), 115-134. DOI: 10.1177/0895904801015001007
Boyan, N. J. (1988). Describing and explaining administrative behavior. In N. Boyan (Ed.), The handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 77-97). New York: Longman.
Browne, W. P., & Allan, J. C. (1990). U.S agriculture group: Institutional profiles. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Browne, W. P. (1988). Private interests, public, and American agriculture. Lawrence,University of Kansas Press.
Butler, G. S., & Slack, J, D. (1994). U. S. educational policy interest groups. Westport, MA: Greenwood Press.
Carter, G., & Cunningham, W. (1997). The American school superintendent: Leading in the age of pressure. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Cibulka, J. G. (2001). The changing role of interest groups in education: Nationalization and the new politics of education productivity. Educational Policy, 15, 12. DOI: 10.1177/0895904801015001002
Cigler, A. J., & Loomis, B. A. (2002). Interest group polities(6th.ed). Washington,DC: CQ Press.
Cook, C. E., & College, A. (1984). Participation in public interest groups membership motivations. American Politics Research, 12(4), 409-430. DOI: 10.1177/1532673X8401200402
Dahl, R. (1986). Power as the control of behavior. In S. Lukes (Ed.), Power (pp. 37-58). New York: New York University Press.
Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Deirdre, M. (2006). Interest group goal formation: The response to charter schools by NCLR and LULAC. (Doctoral dissertation University of Pennsylvania Ph. D 2006)(0175). Dissertation Abstracts international 67(03), Section: A 1076.
Diconti, V. D. (1996). Interest group and education reform: The latest crusade to restructure the school. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Dunn, W. N. (2004). Public policy analysis: An introduction (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Dye, T. R. (2002). Understanding public policy(10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Evans, A., & Evans, G. (2001). Improving government decision-making systems in Lithuania and Latvia. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(6), 933-959. DOI: 10.1080/13501760- 110098297
Fellowes, M. C. (2004). The art of interest group war: Why organized interests compete for public policy. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (0153). Retrieved April 22, 2007, DAI Vol. 65-04, Section: A, page: 1520
Fowler, F. C. (2004). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merill.
Franceschi, J. D. (2007). Influencing power in Washington voice of America. Retrieved April 22, 2007, http://www.voanews.com/english/News Analysis/2007-10-16-voa61.cfm
Grossmann, M. (2006). The Organization of Factions: Interest Mobilization and the Group Theory of Politics. Public Organization Review 6(2), 107-124. Retrieved April 22, 2007, ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1103658071)
Heinz, J. P., Laumann, E. O., Nelson, R. L., & Salisbury, R. H. (1993). The hollow core: Private interests in national policy making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Henderson, R. D., Urban, W. J., & Wolman, P. (2004). Teacher unions and education policy: retrenchment or reform？[Introduction]. Education in diverse communities: Research, policy and Praxis, 3, 1-33.
Herrnson, P. S., Shaiko, R. G., & Wilcox, C. (2005). The interest group connection: electioneering, lobbying, and policymaking in Washington(2nd ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Heywood,A. (2002). Politics(2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave Foundations.
Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (1995). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policys Subsystems. Toronto, Canada: Oxford University Press.

Hoy, K. K. Miskel & Cecil, G.. (2001). Educational Administration: Theory, Research, and Practice.Publisher: McGraw-Hill Companies, ISBN-13: 9780072322897.
Jansson, B. S. (2003). Becoming an Effective Policy Advocate: policy practice to social justice (4th ed.). Stamford, CT: Brooks /Cole.
Karper, J. H., & Boyd. W. L. (1988). Interest group and the changing environment of State educational policymaking: developments in Pennsylvania. Educational administration Quarterly, 24, 21-54.
Kenneth, J. M. (2002). A research agenda on elections and education. Educational Policy, 16, 219. DOI: 10.1177/0895904802016 001011
Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies(2nd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.
Knoke, D. (1989). Organizing for collective action: the political economies of association. New York: University of Maryland Press.
Kowalski, T. J. (1995). Keeper of the flame: Contemporary urban superintendents. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Kowalski, T. J. (1999). The school superintendent: Theory, practice, and cases. Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Laumann, E. O., & Knoke, D. (1987). The organizational state: Social choice in national policy domains. Madison: WI. University of Wisconsin Press.
Lavis, J. N. (2006). Research, public policymaking, and knowledge translation Processes: Canadian efforts to build bridges. The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26(1), 37-45. DOI: 10.1002/chp
Leech, B. L. (2006). Funding faction or buying silence? Grants, contracts, and interest group lobbying behavior. Policy Studies Journal, 34(1), 17-30. DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2006.00143.x.
Maritime, E. S. (2005). Policy making and planning for the port sector: paradigms in conflict. Policy & Management, 32(4), 347-362. DOI: 10.1080/03088830500300487
Mawhinney. H. B., & Lugg, C. A. (2001). Introduction: interest groups in united states education. Educational Policy, 15, 3-3. DOI: 10.1177/0895904801015001001.
McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, J. D. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movement: A partial theory. American Journal of sociology, 82, 1212-1241.
McCarthy, M., Langdon, C., & Olson, J. (1993). State education governance structures. Denver, CO: Education commission of the States.
McCarty, D. J., & Ramsey, C. E. (1971). The school managers. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
McDaniel, J. E., Sims, C. H., & Miskel, C. G. (2001). The national reading policy arena: Policyactors and perceived influence. Education Policy, 15(1), 92-114.
Michelle, R. S. (2003). Consensus and conflict: Interest group strategy in the policy process. Ph. D. dissertation, State University of New York at Stony Brook,New York. Retrieved September 5, 2007, ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 3098814)
Milbrath, L. W. (1976). The Washington lobbyists. Greenwood press reprint. DOI: 10.1336/0837188024
Murphy, J. (Ed.). (1990). The reform of American public education in the 1980s: Perspectives and cases. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Muth, R. (1984). Toward an integrative theory of power and education organization. Educational Administration Quarterly, 20, 25-42.
Mutter, L. R., Virden, R. J.,&Cayer, N. J. (1999). Interest group influence in state natural resource. policymaking. Retrieved April 22, 2007, Society & Natural Resources, 99, 12(3), 243-255. DOI: 10.1080/089419299279722
Nakamura, R.T., & Smallwood, F. (1980). The politics of policy implementation. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Olson, M. Jr. (1970). Orthodox theories of pressure groups. In R. Salisbury(Ed.), Interest group politics in America(pp9-15). New York: Harper Row.
Opfer, V. D. (2001). Beyond self-interest: educational interest groups and congressional influence. Educational Policy, 15, 135. DOI: 10.1177/0895904801015001008
Parsons, W. (1995). Public policy. Aldershot, England: Edward Elgar.
Richardson. J. (2000). Government, interest groups and policy change. Political Studies, 48, 1006–1025.
Robbins, S. M. (2003). Consensus and conflict: Interest group strategy in the policy process. Ph. D. dissertation, State University of New York at Stony Brook,New York. Retrieved September 5, 2007, ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 3098814)
Salisbury, R. H. (1991). Putting interests back into interest groups. In A. J. Cigler & B. A. Loomis (Eds.), Interest group politics (3rd ed)(pp. 371-384). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Schmidt, V. A. (2006). Procedural democracy in the EU: the Europeanization of national and sectoral policy-making processes. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(5), 670-691. DOI: 10.1080/13501760600808444
Song, M. (2003). Influence in the reading policy domain: A cross-state social network analysis. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan,MI. Retrieved September 5, 2007, ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 3079532)
Song, M., & Miskel, C. G. (2005). Who are the influential? A cross-state social network analysis of the reading policy domain. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41, 7-7. DOI: 10.1177/0013161X04269515
Taminiau, Y., & Wilts, A. (2006). Corporate lobbying in Europe, managing knowledge and information strategies. Journal of Public Affairs, 6(2), 122-130. DOI: 10.1002/pa.215
Tepper, S. J. (2004). Setting agendas and designing alternatives: policymaking and the strategic role of meetings. Review of Policy Research, 21(4), 523-542. DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.2004.00092.x
Thomas, C. S., & Hrebenar, R. J. (1992). Changing patterns of interest group activity: Regional perspective. In M. P. Petracca(Ed.),The politics of interests: Interest groups transformed (pp. 150-174). Boulder, CO: West View.
Thomas, C. S., & Hrebenar, R. J. (1999). Interest group in the state. In V. Gray & H. Jacob (Eds.), Politics in the American state(7th ed.)(pp. 113-143). Washington, D.C: Congressional Quarterly Press.
Truman, D. B. (1951). The governmental process .New York: Knopf.
Unite State Senate (2007). The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. Retrieved April 22, 2007, http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/g_ three_sections_with_teasers/lobbyingdisc.htm
Walton, J. L. (2006). The case of Tennessee education association: An analysis of factors affecting the power and influence of special interest groups. Ph. D. dissertation, Vanderbilt University, TN. Retrieved September 10, 2007, ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 3229952)
Wikipedia. (2007). Iron triangle. Retrieved November 2, 2007. Retrieved April 22, 2007, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_triangle
Young, T. V. (2005) .Understanding coalitions in state educational policy: The selection of alliance partners in reading policy issue networks. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Michigan, MI. Retrieved September 5, 2007, ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 3163976)

 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：922（臺灣：882，外國：40） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1451226 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67257998
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上