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：工具性文化政策的介入： 臺灣地方文化館計畫與英國區域文藝復興計畫之比較研究
作者：林玟伶 引用關係
作者(外文)：Lin, Wen-Ling
校院名稱：國立臺灣藝術大學
系所名稱：藝術管理與文化政策研究所
指導教授：張婉真
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2013
主題關鍵詞：工具性文化政策；地方文化館計畫；區域文藝復興計畫；地方博物館；instrumental cultural policy；Local Cultural Museum Project；Renaissance in the Regions；local museum
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(0) 專書(0) 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:254
工具性文化政策已經成為全球政策規劃的趨勢，並深刻影響文化單位的運作。然而學界對工具主義的爭論不休，針對工具性文化政策與文化本質產生的衝突有所批評，因此本研究以臺灣「地方文化館計畫」與英國「區域文藝復興計畫」的政策實踐為研究對象，探討工具性文化政策對地方博物館治理的實踐與影響。研究目的為釐清工具主義如何發展至政策的脈絡中，如何影響文化政策與博物館的發展，並比較與討論臺灣與英國之地方博物館/文化館境遇的異同。
本研究採取質性研究的取徑，研究方法以深度訪談法為主，次級資料分析法為輔。訪談對象分別為「政府部門」、「地方博物館/文化館從業人員」、「計畫輔導團」等利害關係人，臺灣與英國共計41人，以釐清其在計畫執行過程的經驗與感受。
本研究歸納出經濟、政治、社會、美學與教育的工具性，在臺灣與英國的計畫中，受經濟與社會工具性影響最劇。本研究發現工具理性與本質理性是互為主體性的關係，工具性目標的提倡，對博物館工具性價值提升具有助力，讓博物館被放置在更有利的政策位置。然而工具性目標亦對於博物館的本質功能產生衝突與矛盾，同時工具性目標不是全部適用於所有博物館。在治理關係方面，兩計畫屬於多層次治理的模式，中介單位扮演重要角色，然而隨著計畫的開展，秩序理性凌駕於溝通理性之上。在評量方面，兩計畫都是採取質量兼具的評量取徑，但評量具有方法上的困難，因此工具性政策若沒有適當的成果評量，提供工具性的回饋，工具性目標將不被博物館所重視，將會影響政策目標的達成狀況。研究建議工具與本質理性、秩序與溝通理性需要取得平衡，才有助於「正向的工具主義」發展，本研究針對未來政策發展、學術研究、實務工作三方面提出建議，包括政策目標的明確、政策溝通管道的建立、工具性與本質性政策的搭配、適當評量方法的建立等。
Over recent years, instrumental cultural policy has become the major concern of policy development and operation as well as an increasingly influence in the arts and museum sectors all over the world. Given this trend, the debates about the potential tensions may arise when instrumental cultural policy is a threat to the intrinsic value of culture. The research explores the practice and influence in which instrumental cultural policy may affect the governance of local museum and discusses the policy practice between Local Cultural Museum Project in Taiwan and Renaissance in the Regions in the UK. The aims of this research are to analyze the historical context of instrumentalism in policy agenda and influence in the development of cultural policy and museum, then to compare and discuss the situations between local museum in Taiwan and the UK.
The qualitative approach is used to address the questions, and the research methods have included in-depth qualitative interviews and a secondary data analysis. A total of forty-one interviews were conducted in Taiwan and the UK in order to explore the perspectives of the stakeholders. The interviewees have included the stakeholders in governments, local museums and consulting groups.
The research concludes five types of instrumental cultural policies, including economic, politic, social, aesthetic and educational instrumentality. There is a huge influence in economic and social instrumentality both in Taiwan and the UK. The research finds the instrumental reason and intrinsic reason are in the relationship of inter-subjectivity. The advocacy of instrumental cultural policy has increased the instrumental value of museum and has put museums in the better position in terms of policy making. However, there are indeed conflicts and contradictions between instrumental cultural policy and the intrinsic value of museums. Moreover, the instrumental objectives cannot be applied in all types of museums. In terms of governance relationship, both of programmes are the model of multi-level governance and the intermediary sectors play an important role. In the progress of programmes, however, the order reason took power over the communicative reason. Regarding to evaluation, both of programmes have adopted the approach of mixed quantity and quality evaluation method but the truly outcomes and outputs are difficult to be evaluated. Besides, if there are no benefits of instrumental cultural policy, the instrumental objectives will not be valued by museums. In doing so, there may be some limitations of the outcomes and outputs of policy. The research suggests there are needs to find balance between four reasons this research have mentioned above. The results may help the development of “positive instrumentalism.”
文建會，2002。地方文化館計畫（修正計畫核定）。臺北：行政院文化建設委員會。
文建會，2007。磐石行動—地方文化館第二期計畫（97年至102年）。臺北：行政院文化建設委員會。
文建會，2010。地方文化館計畫91~96年成果彙編。臺北：行政院文化建設委員會。
王俐容，2005。文化政策中的經濟論述：從菁英文化到文化經濟？。文化研究，(1): 169-195。new window
王俐容，2006a。全球化下的都市文化政策與發展：以高雄市“海洋城市”的建構為例。國家與社會，1: 125-166。new window
王俐容，2006b。文化公民權的建構：文化政策的發展與公民權的落實。公共行政學報，20: 129-159。new window
王啟祥，2002。博物館與社區互動模式初探，博物館學季刊，16(1): 27-33。new window
王雅各，2004。質性研究導論。頁1-56。收錄於 謝臥龍 等。質性研究。臺北：心理。
田哲榮、司徒懿 譯、Silverman, D. 原著，2010。解析質性研究法與資料。新北市：韋伯文化。
田潔菁，2008。臺灣與英國地方博物館政策探究。博物館學季刊，22(4): 77-89。new window
田潔菁、林詠能，2010。從福利體制探討臺灣文化政策對地方文化館發展之影響。博物館學季刊，24(2): 83-95。new window
朱光潛 譯、Plato. 原著，2005。柏拉圖文藝對話錄。臺北：網路與書。
朱紀蓉，2011。新自由主義與英國的博物館發展。博物館學季刊，25(2): 5-17。new window
朱紀蓉，2012。重新審視博物館與文創產業――臺灣的困境與機會。博物館學季刊，26(3): 101-109。new window
江妍儀，2008。政府角色與功能影響地方文化館政策之研究－以臺北縣三峽鎮歷史文物館與臺北縣李梅樹紀念館為例。臺北：國立臺北大學公共行政暨政策學系碩士論文（未出版）。
江靜玲 譯、Pick, J. 原著，1995。藝術與公共政策。臺北：桂冠圖書公司。
何道寬 譯、McGuigan, J. 原著，2010。重新思考文化政策。北京：中國人民大學出版社。
呂理政，2010。種樹成林，看見希望，頁14-15。。收錄於：文建會，2010。地方文化館計畫91~96年成果彙編。臺北：行政院文化建設委員會
李俊明 譯、Smith, C. 原著，2005。創意英國。臺北市：五觀藝術管理。
周公鑫，2010。國立故宮博物院與文創產業。研考雙月刊，34(1): 77-81。
林仲如，2010。漫步的權利：英國文藝復興計畫所描繪的博物館文化導覽地圖。頁231-244。收錄於 博物館展示的景觀第四屆博物館研究雙年學術研討會論文彙編。臺北：國立臺灣博物館。未出版論文。
林玟伶、林詠能，2008。收費或不收費？—國立博物館門票政策探究。博物館學季刊，22(3): 55-71。new window
林詠能、田潔菁，2009。邁向卓越：我國博物館評量指標建置計畫。科技博物，13(3): 39-70。new window
林慧如，2008。地方博物館政策研究—以英國地區文藝復興計畫為例。臺南：國立臺南藝術大學博物館學研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
林曉薇 等，2009。地方文化館第二期計畫效益評估。臺北：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
洪芷如，2008。臺灣地方文化館輔導機制之研究。臺北：國立臺灣師範大學美術學系在職進修研究碩士論文（未出版）。
胡幼慧 主編，1996。質性研究：理論、方法及本土女性研究實例。臺北：巨流。
英國文化協會，2006。追求卓越－台灣博物館現況調查之旅－嶄新的台英夥伴關係。台北：英國文化協會、文建會。
范麗娟，2004。深度訪談。頁81-126。謝臥龍 等。質性研究。臺北：心理。
孫本初，2009。新公共管理修訂二版。臺北：一品。new window
張宇梁、吳蓿椒 譯、Creswell, J. W. 原著，2007。研究設計：質化、量化及混合方法取向。臺北：學富文化。
張芬芬 譯、Miles, M. B. & Huberman, M. 原著，2005。質性研究資料分析。台北：雙葉。
張家銘，2002。由企業型政府談博物館的營運趨勢─以國立海洋生物博物館為例。博物館學季刊，16(2): 97-111。new window
張婉真 譯、安德烈˙德瓦雷 等著，2010。博物館學關鍵概念， 巴黎: Armand Colin 。
張譽騰，2003。博物館大勢觀察。臺北：五觀。new window
張譽騰，2007。臺灣的文化政策與博物館發展。研習論壇月刊，73(1): 28-30。
梁婉玲 譯、Flick, U. 原著，2010。質性研究的品質控管。臺北：韋伯文化。
莊欣宜，2010。臺灣地方文化館政策形成與規劃探究。新北市：國立臺灣藝術大學藝術與文化政策管理研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
郭敏慧，2006。縣市文化局執行地方文化館之計畫研究－以臺中縣為例。嘉義：南華大學美學與藝術管理研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
陳佳利，2004。社區博物館運動：全球化的觀點。博物館學季刊，18(4): 43-57。new window
陳佳利，2009。社區互動與文化參與新取徑：探萊斯特郡開放博物館的理念與實務，博物館學季刊，20(2): 21-40。new window
陳國寧、于瑞珍 等，2008。96 年度地方文化館計畫外部評量之研究。臺北：文建會。
陳國寧、王本壯 等，2006。地方文化館實施與檢討研究計畫結案報告。臺北：文建會。
曾婉琳，2007。地方文化館的依賴發展—一個反身式的思考。臺南：國立臺南藝術大學博物館學研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
黃心容，2010。英國文藝復興計畫之操作與案例。文建會電子報，第五期。
黃光男，1999。博物館新視覺。臺北：中正。new window
黃光男，2009。文化政策與臺灣當今博物館現象。收錄於「文化政策與博物館管理」國際學術研討會。臺北：國立歷史博物館、國立臺灣藝術大學。
黃彩雲、黃文杰，2003。國內公立博物館公辦民營之案例分析：以四座博物館為例。博物館學季刊，17(4): 105-126。new window
黃煌雄、郭石吉、林時機 等調查，2001。社區總體營造總體檢調查報告書。臺北市：遠流。
黃煜文 譯、Savas, E. S. 原著，2005。民營化歷程：公部門．非營利．企業的夥伴雙贏之道。臺北市：五觀藝術管理。
黃榮源，2009。英國政府治理：歷史制度的分析。臺北：韋伯。new window
董旭英、黃儀娟 譯、Steward, D. W. and Kamins, M. A. 原著，2000。次級資料研究方法。臺北縣：旭昇。
廖仁義 譯、Bottomore, T. 原著，1991。法蘭克福學派。臺北：桂冠圖書。
監察院，2009。糾正案文－文建會對於「地方文化館計畫」未善盡管理之責。臺北：中華民國監察院。
劉俊裕，2011。歐洲文化治理的脈絡與網絡：一種治理的文化轉向與批判。Intergrams，11(2)。new window
慕思勉，1999。臺灣的異質地方―90年代地方或社區博物館的觀察。國立臺灣大學建築與城鄉研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
潘淑滿，2003。質性研究：理論與應用。臺北市：心理。
蔣玉嬋，2006。地方文化館與地方文化產業之研究：以新竹市玻璃工藝博物館為例。博物館學季刊，20(3): 81-97。new window
蔣淑貞、馮建三 譯、Miller, T. and Yùdice, G. 原著，2006。文化政策。臺北：巨流圖書與國立編輯館。
薛平山、薛平海，2006。BOT，博物館的最佳抉擇？。博物館學季刊，20(2): 117-122。new window
藍毓仁 譯、Ritchie, J. & Lewis, J. 原著，2008。質性研究方法。臺北：巨流。
顏寧 譯、Merriam, S. B. 原著，2011。質性研究：設計與施作指南。臺北：五南。
羅秀芝 譯、Rentschler, R. 原著，2003。文化新形象：藝術與娛樂管理。臺北：五館藝術管理。
蘇明如，2011。多元文化時代的博物館——臺灣地方文化館政策十年（2002-2011）。新北市：國立臺灣藝術大學藝術管理與文化政策研究所博士論文（未出版）。new window
蘇昭英 等，1999。臺灣縣市文化藝術發展―理念與實務。臺北：行政院文建會。
蘇國勛，1989。理性化及其限制：韋伯思想引論。臺北：桂冠圖書。

ACE, 2011a. Culture, knowledge and understanding: great museums and libraries for everyone. London: Arts Council England.
ACE, 2011b. Renaissance Major Grants Programme－Guidance for applicants. London: Arts Council England.
Ahearne, J., 2003. Cultural policy in the old europe: France and Germany. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 9(2): 127-131.
Anderson , D., 1999. A common wealth : museums in the learning age : a report to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. London : Stationery Office.
Andres, L. & Grésillon, B., 2011. Cultural brownfields in European cities: a new mainstream object for cultural and urban policies. International Journal of Cultural Policy, iFirst Article: 1–23.
Arendt, H., 1958. The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Babbidge, A., 2005. Forty years on, Cultural Trends, 14(1): 3-66.
Bailey, M., 2000. How about quality rather than quantity?. The art newspaper, 11 (109): 9.
Baklien, B., 2000. Culture is healthy. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 7(2): 235-257.
Belfiore, E. & Bennett, O., 2008. The social impact of the arts: an intellectual history. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Belfiore, E., 2002. Art as a means towards alleviating social exclusion: Does it really work? A critique of instrumental cultural policies and social impact studies in the UK. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 8(1): 91-106.
Belfiore, E., 2004. Auditing culture. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 10(2): 183-202.
Belfiore, E., 2006a. The unacknowledged legacy: Plato, the Republic and cultural policy. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 12(2): 229-244.
Bennett, O., 1995. Cultural policy in the United Kingdom: Collapsing rationales and the end of a tradition. European Journal of Cultural Policy, 1: 199-216.
Bennett, O., 1996. Cultural Policy and the Crisis of Legitimacy: Entrepreneurial Answers in the United Kingdom. Kultur I Norden: Forskning & Praktik.
Bennett, O., 2004. The torn halves of cultural policy research. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 10(2): 237-248.
Bernadette, L., 2009. Whose Cake is It Anyway? Lonson: Paul Hamlyn Foundation.
Bianchini, F., 1993. Remaking European cities: the role of cultural policies, in: F. Bianchini & M. Parkinson (Eds) Cultural Policy and Urban Regeneration: the West European Experience, Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 1-19.
Bianchini, F., 1999. Cultural planning for urban sustainability, in: L. Nystro¨m & C. Fudge (Eds) Culture and Cities. Cultural Processes and Urban Sustainability, Stockholm: The Swedish Urban Development Council, pp. 34–51.
Bickers, P., 2002. The numbers game. Art monthly. 257: 15.
Bickers, P., 2003. Culture vultures. Art monthly. 271: 8.
Bourdieu, P., 1990. Artistic taste and cultural capital. In: Alexander, J. C. and Seidman, S. (Ed.), 1990, Culture and Society: Contemporary Debates, pp. 205-215. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.
Bunting, C., 2007. Public value and the arts in England: Discussion and conclusions of the arts debate. London: Arts Council England.
Bunting, C., 2008. What instrumentalism? A public perception of value. Cultural Trends, 17(4): 323-328.
Burnham, A., 2009. Things did get better. Cultural Trends, 18(3): 249-252.
Carey, J., 2005. What good are the arts? London: Faber & Faber.
Caust, J., 2003. Putting the “art” back into arts policy making: how arts policy has been “captured” by the economists and the marketers. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 9(1): 51-63.
Charlesworth, J. J., 2000. The art of the third way. Art monthly, 241: 7-10.
Chen, K.N., 2008. Museums in Taiwan and the Development of Cultural Awareness. Museum International, 60(1-2): 123-131.
Clark, K. & Maeer, G., 2008. The cultural value of heritage: Evidence from the Heritage Lottery Fund. Cultural Trends, 17(1): 23-56.
Coles, A., 2008. Instrumental death of a reductionist. Cultural Trends, 17(4): 329-334.
Connolly, M. G., 2011. The ‘Liverpool model(s)’: cultural planning, Liverpool and Capital of Culture 2008. International Journal of Cultural Policy, iFirst Article: 1-20.
Cowell, B., 2007. Measuring the impact of free admission. Cultural Trends,16(3): 203-224.
Damen, L., 1987. Culture Learning: The Fifth Dimension on the Language Classroom. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Davies, S., 1994. By Popular Demand: A strategic analysis of the market potential for museums and art galleries in the UK. London: MGC Publications.
DCMS, 1999. Policy Action Team 10; A Report to the Social Exclusion Unit: Arts and Sport. UK: Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
DCMS, 2000. Centres for social change. Museums, galleries and archives for all: Policy guidance on social inclusion for DCMS funded and local authority museums, galleries and archives in England. London: DCMS.
Deirdre, C. S., 1993. The Informed Muse: The Implications of ‘The New Museology’for Museum Practice. Museum Management and Curatorship 12: 267-283.
Duelund, P., 2008. Nordic cultural policies: A critical view. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 14(1): 7-24.
Evans, G., 2005. Measure for measure: Evaluating the evidence of culture’s contribution to regeneration. Urban Studies, 42(5/6): 959-983.
Fox, C., 2002. Political correctness UK: ‘the government’s cultural agenda chills me’. The art newspaper, 13(121): 20.
Galloway, S. & Dunlop, S., 2007. A critique of definitions of the cultural and creative industries in public policy, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 13(1): 17-31.
Gamble, A., 1988. The Free Economy and the Strong State: The Politics of Thatcherism, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Garcı´a, B., 2004. Cultural policy and urban regeneration in Western European cities: lessons from experience,prospects for the future. Local Economy, 19(4): 312–326.
Gattinger, M. & Saint-Pierre, D., 2008. Can national cultural policy approaches be used for sub-national comparisons? An analysis of the Québec and Ontario experiences in Canada. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 14(3): 335-354.
Gattinger, M., Saint-Pierre, D. and Gagnon, A. C., 2008. Toward Subnational Comparative Cultural Policy Analysis: The Case of Provincial Cultural Policy and Administration in Canada. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 38(3): 167-186.
Gibson, L. 2008. In defence of instrumentality. Cultural Trends, 17(4): 247-257.
Gilmore, A., 2012. Counting eyeballs, soundbites and ‘plings’: arts participation, strategic instrumentalism and the London 2012 Cultural Olympiad. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 18(2): 151-167.
Glow, H., and Johanson, K., 2009. Instrumentalism and the 'helping' discourse: Australian Indigenous performing arts and policy. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 15(3): 315-328.
Gray C., 1996. Comparing cultural policy: A reformulation. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 2(2): 213-222.
Gray C., 2008a. Instrumental policies: Causes, consequences, museums, galleries. Cultural Trends, 17(4): 209-22.
Gray, C. & Wingfield, M., 2011. Are governmental culture departments important? An empirical investigation. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 17(5): 590-604.
Gray, C., 2000. The politics of the arts in Britain. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.
Gray, C., 2007. Commodification and instrumentality in cultural policy. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 13: 201-215.
Gray, C., 2008b. Arts Council England and public value: a critical review. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 14(2): 209-214.
Habermas, J., 1973. Theory and practice. Boston: Beacon.
Habermas, J., 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action Volune One. Polity Press.
Habermas, J., 1987. The Theory of Communicative Action Volune Two. Polity Press.
Hadaway, P., 2003. Art for whose sake? Architects’ journal, 218 (4): 38-40.
Hall, S., (Ed.) 1997. Representation: Cultural Representation and Signifying Practices. SAGE Publications Ltd.
Harrison, J. D., 1994. Ideas of Museums in the 1990s. Museum Management and Curatorship, 13(2): 160-176.
Heal, S., 2007. The end of an era: what have Tony Blair and New Labour done for museums? Museums journal, 107 (7): 13.
Hesmondhalgh, D., 2005. Media and cultural policy as public policy: the case of the British Labour government. International journal of cultural policy, 11(1): 95-109.
Holden, J., 2004. Capturing cultural value. London: Demos.
Holden, J., 2006. Cultural value and the crisis of legitimacy. London: Demos.
Hooper-Greenhill, E., 1994. Museums and Their Visitors. London: Routledge.
Horkheimer, M., 1985. The eclipse of reason. New York: Continuum.
Janaway, C., 1995. Images of Excellence: Plato’s Critique of the Arts. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Jowell, T., 2004. Government and the value of culture. London: DCMS.
Kawashima, N., 1997. Museum Management in a Time of Change, Centre for the Study of Cultural Policy, Warwick: University of Warwick.
Kawashima, N., 2006. Audience development and social inclusion in Britain. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 12(1): 55-72.
Khan, R., 2010. Going ‘‘mainstream’’: evaluating the instrumentalisation of multicultural arts. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 16(2): 184-199.
Kong, L., 2000. Culture, Economy, Policy: Trends and Developments. Cultural Industries and Cultural Policies, 31(4): 385-390.
Lawley, I., 2003. Local authority museums and the modernizing government agenda in England. museum and society, 1(2): 75-86.
Lee, D. H., Oakley, K. & Naylor, R., 2011. ‘The public gets what the public wants’? The uses and abuses of ‘public value’ in contemporary British cultural policy. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 17(3): 289-300.
Levitt, R., 2008. The political and intellectual landscape of instrumental museum policy. Cultural Trends, 17(4): 223–231.
Lin, Y. N., 2006a. Admission Charges, the Representative Audience and Public Museums, unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Leicester: University of Leicester.
Lin, Y. N., 2006b. Leisure－A function of museums? The Taiwan perspective. Museum Management and Curatorship, 21: 302-316.
Lukacs, G., 1971. History and Class Consciousness. London: Merlin Press.
Marcuse, H., 1964. One Dimensional Man. Boston: Beacon.
Matarasso, F., 1997. Use or Ornament? The Social Impact of Participation in the Arts. Comedia.
McCarthy, K., Ondaatje, E. Zakaras, L. and Brooks, A., 2004. Gifts of the muse: Reframing the debate about the benefits of the arts. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation.
McGuigan, J., 2001. Three Discourses of Cultural Policy. In: Stevenson, N. (Ed.), Culture & Citizenship , pp. 124-137. London: Sage.
McGuigan, J., 2004. Rethinking Cultural Policy. Open University Press.
Merli, P., 2002. Evaluating the social impact of participation in arts activities. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 8(1):107-118.
Merriman, N. 1991. Beyond the Glass Case: The Past, the Heritage and the Public in Britain. Leicester: Leicester University Press.
MGC. 1999a. Creative Industry, generating income for Museums and Galleries. London : Museums & Galleries Commission.
MGC. 1999b. Global Assets – Opportunities for UK museums and galleries to export their skills and servicesabroad. London : Museums & Galleries Commission.
Miller, T. and Yùdice, G., 2002. Cultural Policy. London: Sage.
Mirza, M., 2005. The therapeutic state – addressing the emotional needs of the citizen through the arts. International journal of cultural policy, 11(3): 261–273.
Mirza, M., ed., 2006. Culture vultures: is UK arts policy damaging the arts? London: Policy Exchange.
MLA, 2001. Renaissance in the Regions: A New Vision for England’s Museums. UK: The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council.
MLA, 2009a. The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council’s response to the independent Review of Renaissance. UK: The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council.
MLA, 2009b. Renaissance in the Regions: Realising the Vision. UK: The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council.
MLA, 2010. Overview of the approach to Renaissance Planning for 2011-12. UK: The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council.
Morris, J., 2005. Missing evidence: Why museums should learn from the past, Cultural Trends, 14(1): 107-111.
Mulcahy, K.V., 2006. Cultural Policy: Definitions and Theoretical Approaches. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 35(4): 319-330.
Newman, A. and McLean, F., 2004. Presumption, policy and practice: the use of museums and galleries as agents of social inclusion in Great Britain. International journal of cultural policy, 10(2): 167-181.
Nisbett, M. 2011. Protection, survival and growth: an analysis of international policy documents. International Journal of Cultural Policy, iFirst Article 1-19.
Nylöf, G., 1997. A method for evaluating cultural policy. The European Journal of Cultural Policy, 3(2): 361-376.
O’Neill, M., 2008. Museums, professionalism and democracy. Cultural trends, 17 (4): 289–307.
Orr, J., 2008. Instrumental or intrinsic? Cultural policy in Scotland since devolution. Cultural Trends, 17(4): 309-316.
Parson, T., 1949. Essays in Sociological Theory. Glencoe, The Free Press .
Predelli, L. N., & Baklien, B., 2003. Autonomy and dependence in state cultural policy: a case study of the foundation culture of the future in sweden, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 9(3): 299-317.
Rimmer, M., 2009. ‘Instrumental’ playing? Cultural policy and young people's community music participation. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 15(1): 71-90.
Sandell, R., (Ed.) 2002. Museums and the Combating of Social Inequality: Roles, Responsibilities, Resistance. London: Routledge.
Scott, C. & Soren, B. J. 2009. Introduction to the special issue - exploring the value of museums. Museum Management and Curatorship, 24(3): 189-193.
Scott, C., 2002. Measuring social Value. In: Sandell, R. (Ed.), Museums, society, inequality. London and New York: Routledge, pp.41-55.
Scott, C., 2006. Museums: Impact and Value. Culture Trends, 15(1): 45-75.
Scott, C., 2008. Using Values to Position and Promote Museums. International Journal of Arts Management. 11(1): 28-41.
Scott, C., 2009. Exploring the evidence base for museum value. Museum Management and Curatorship, 24(3): 195-212.
Scullion, A. & García, B., 2005. What is Cultural Policy Research? International Journal of Cultural Policy, 11(2): 113-127.
Smith, C. S., 2001. The Nation's Museums: Politics and Policies. Museum Management and Curatorship, 19(2): 187-196.
Smith, C., 2003. Valuing culture. London: DEMOS.
Stanbridge, A., 2002. Detour or dead-end? Contemporary cultural theory and the search for new cultural policy models, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 8(2): 121-134.
Throsby, D., 2001. Economics and Culture. Cambridge University Press.
Throsby, D., 2009. Explicit and implicit cultural policy: some economic aspects, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 15(2): 179-185.
Tusa, J., 1999. Art matters: reflecting on culture. London: Methuen.
Vergo, P., 1989. Introduction. In: Vergo, P. (Ed.), 1989. The New Museology. London: Reaktion Books Ltd.
Vestheim, G., 1994. Instrumental cultural policy in Scandinavian countries: A critical historical perspective. International Journal of Cultural Policy, (1): 57-71.
Vestheim, G., 2007. Theoretical reflections, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 13(2): 217-236.
Vuyk, K., 2010. The arts as an instrument? Notes on the controversy surrounding the value of art. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 16(2): 173-183.
Watson, S. (Ed.), 2007. Museums and Their Communities. London: Routledge.
Weber, M., 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York : Free Press ; London: Collier-MacMillan.
Weber, M., 1978. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Wengraf, T. 2001. Qualitative Research Interviewing: Biographic Narratives and Semi-structured Methods. London: Sage.
West, C. and Smith, C., 2005. ‘We are not a government poodle’ museums and social inclusion under New Labour. International journal of cultural policy, 11 (3): 275-288.
Wilkinson, H., 2008a. Appendix 5－Review of Renaissance: Expectations. In MLA, 2009b. Renaissance in the Regions: Realising the Vision. UK: The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council.
Wilkinson, H., 2008b. Conceptualizing impact: museums, government and value-irreconcilable differences? Cultural Trends, 17(4): 335-339.
Williams, R., 1958. Culture and Society: 1780-1950. London : Chatto and Windus.
Williams, R., 1976. Keywords : a vocabulary of culture and society. London: Fontana.
Wu, C., 2002. Privatizing culture. London: Verso.

 
 
 
 
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：1132（臺灣：1099，外國：33） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1408417 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67214954
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