:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:媒體與司法議程-我國重大矚目貪污案件分析
作者:楊和縉
作者(外文):YANG, HO-CHIN
校院名稱:世新大學
系所名稱:行政管理學研究所(含博、碩專班)
指導教授:邱志淳
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2022
主題關鍵詞:議題設定貪污pythonagenda settingcorruptionPython
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:0
以往,公共行政及傳播學界的領域出發,對於議題設定已有豐碩的成果。但也可發現,僅從政府或媒體的觀點出發,雖然可以證明議題設定理論的影響能力,但對理解事件發展的全貌難免有所偏頗或不足。因此,本論文重點在重大矚目貪污個案的基礎上,觀察司法與媒體對於貪污案件上的議題設定效果。
個案選擇方面,貪污問題不僅是政府治理中難以處理的棘手的議題,同時也備受媒體與司法所關注的議題。儘管,學術嘗試對重大矚目貪污概念上進行解釋,但實際研究操作上仍是面臨困難。因此,本論文回到實務層面,以司法審理的重大矚目貪污案件作為個案對象後,再從四大報內取得貪污案的報導數量與內容資料,以綜整成本論文研究資料。
長期以來,社會大眾對於司法審理公正,始終抱持存疑的態度,這也引發國內多次對司法改革的呼籲與作為。而本論文研究發現,所謂的政黨、個人背景等因素,並不足以影響司法裁判結果,反而,被告人數多寡與媒體矚目的程度,會影響司法裁判的結果;同時,政治人物的貪污案,往往會成為媒體爭相報導的焦點。而就司法與媒體的互動來看,媒體初期關注的焦點在於司法審判的過程與結果,但隨著審判結束,四大報會隨政黨立場以及報社經營方向,進行報導主題的變化。
根據研究發現,本論文認為目前國內從司法觀點研究貪污議題,在眾多學者的投入下,已經有豐碩的成果。但是對於司法與媒體互動的議題設定研究仍然偏少。因此,除本論文採用的重大矚目貪污案件外,建議可以從不同類型貪污案件,進行分析,以確定司法與媒體的議題設定關係。另外,以往在分析文本內容研究方法上,主要以質化或量化為主。在大數據研究已經成為趨勢的當下,本論文採用python軟體以及scattertext套件,對司法裁判書以及媒體報導內容進行兩者內容異同的分析,可謂是國內對議題設定研究的初次嘗試,期望可作為公共行政學界未來對相關方法使用上能有更多的幫助。
The rationale behind the choice of major corruption cases as the focus of this study was that corruption is not only a difficult issue for the government to resolve, but it also receives serious attention from the judiciary and the media. Scholars have examined major corruption cases from a theoretical perspective; empirically—however—such a study is not easy to conduct. This study adopted an empirical method in which corruption cases in Taiwan that had been judged in court were examined and the number of reports published by four major newspapers in Taiwan and the contents of those reports were organized into the data for analysis.
Taiwanese public have long been dubious about the impartiality of court trials, which has prompted repeated calls for judicial reform. This study found that factors such as political affiliation and personal background had an insignificant influence on court judgements, but that the number of defendants involved and the level of media exposure exerted strong effects on the judgements. Moreover, corruption cases involving politicians were often extensively covered in the press. An analysis of the interaction between the judiciary and the press also revealed that the press focused on the process and outcomes of a court trial in the first place. However, when a trial was closed, the four major Taiwanese newspapers covered the event along party lines while taking into account their respective business strategies.
In summary, this study argued that although corruption has been widely researched in Taiwan from the judicial perspective, the relationship between the judiciary and the press remains under-explored with respect to agenda setting. To provide further insight into this relationship, future researchers can investigate not only the corruption cases examined in this study but also other kinds of corruption cases. More importantly, while textual contents have been either qualitatively or quantitatively analyzed in past studies, this study used software programs Python and Scattertext to examine the differences and similarities between court’s judgements and media reports—considering the growing use of big data technologies in research. Such a method is arguably the first of its kind used in academic research into agenda setting in the context of Taiwan; the findings of this study are expected to inform scholars of public administration seeking to employ similar methods.
卜正珉(2003)。公共關係:政府公共議題決策管理:揚智文化。
文化部(2019)。107年臺灣民眾閱讀及消費行為調查報告。台北:文化部。
王 政(2009)。如何消除貪污—四種途徑之分析。文官制度季刊,1,51-76。
王石番(1992)。傳播內容分析法-理論與實證。台北:幼獅文化。
王皇玉(2014)。犯罪報導對刑事政策與司法人權之影響。刑事政策與犯罪研究論文集,17,173 -188。
王紹光(2006)。中國公共政策議程設置的模式。中國社會科學,5,86-99。
王鼎銘(2004)。選民為什麼會支持黑金?一個理性交易的解釋。選舉研究,11(1),99-126。
台北市政府(2013)。臺北市政府102年清廉度民意調查研究報告。台北:台北市政府。
白忠志(2008)。論新刑法公務員定義變更後之影響。台北:台灣士林地方法院檢察署。
任冀平(2011)。法院與政治:美國司法政治初探。全球政治評論,33,75-98。
江明修(1997)。公共行政學:研究方法論。台北:政大書城。
余一鳴(2012)。從個人貪腐到組織腐化的歷程探索-以Bandura的道德疏離理論為分析架構。臺灣民主季刊,9(2),1-38。
余一鳴(2015)。關係與貪瀆:華人關係文化脈絡下的公務員倫理行為。行政暨政策學報,(60),1-40。
余一鳴(2016)。錯不在我!貪污犯合理化心理機制之探索。文官制度季刊,8(2),53-87。
余致力(2006)。倡廉反貪與民主治理。臺灣民主季刊,3(3),165-176。
余致力(2006)。議程設定的理論探討與實證研究。載於余致力(主編),新世紀公共政策理論與實務。(頁1-25)。台北:世新大學。
余致力、方凱弘、蘇毓昌(2018)。貪腐為何難以界定?Q方法論在廉政研究之應用。行政暨政策學報,67,39-78。
余致力、蘇毓昌(2011)。國家廉政體系與測量。載於余致力(主編),廉政與治理(頁4-26)。台北:智勝。
余致力、蘇毓昌、陳偉華、楊和縉(2013)。反貪倡廉知議程設定-非政府組織與媒體的角色與功能。載於倪星、李泉編,廉政制度創新的中國經驗(頁173-187)。廣東:中山大學。
余家緯(2017)。新聞媒體的造神現象?以柯文哲為例〔未出版之碩士論文〕。中國文化大學新聞學系。
吳怡嫺(2018)。媒體報導對公平審判之影響與預防措施之研究。臺中:臺灣臺中地方檢察署。
吳俊穎、楊增暐、陳榮基(2013)。刑事手段對醫療賠償訴訟之影響:以實證取向觀察與分析。科技法學評論,10(1),179-212。
吳俊穎、楊增暐、陳榮基(2013)。實證法學研究之基礎建設:「醫療糾紛判決資料庫」建置計畫。人文與社會科學簡訊,14(2),69-79。
吳俊穎、楊增暐、陳榮基(2015)。醫療糾紛鑑定意見對法官心證之影響。科技法學評論,12(1),97-138。
吳俊穎、楊增暐、陳榮基(2017)。醫療訴訟之實證研究-民事案件之上訴率及其維持率。中正大學法學集刊,55,137-178。
吳俊穎、楊增暐、賴惠蓁、陳榮基(2010)。醫療糾紛民事訴訟時代的來臨:臺灣醫療糾紛民國91年至96年訴訟案件分析。台灣醫學,14(4),359-369。
吳冠霆(2014)。論各類型軍人有無刑法公務員之適用。司法新聲,109,45-61。
吳英明(2006)。廉政不廉價。臺灣民主,3(3),177-184。
吳重禮(2018)。臺灣縣市政府貪腐現象的再檢視:以地方法院司法裁判為例。公共行政學報,55,109-121。 
吳重禮、李伊婷、孫煒(2012)。政治因素對於法院審理之影響分析—以臺灣選舉誹謗司法案件為例。臺灣民主季刊,9(1),1-40。
吳重禮、陳慧玟(2000)。政治與司法:實然面的分析途徑。問題與研究,39(9),1-12。
吳重禮、黃紀(2000)。雲嘉南地區賄選案件判決的政治因素分析:「層狀勝算對數模型」之運用。選舉研究,7(1),87-113。
吳親恩(2008)。地方議會金權政治的變化:司法裁判書的分析。臺灣政治學刊,12(2),165-212。
吳親恩(2012)。立法委員選舉的賄選誘因與效果-從SNTV到FPTP。臺灣民主季刊,9(1),41-80。
宋筱元(1999)。論專責肅貪機構之設立。人力發展,68,8-33。
李念祖(2016)。李念祖專欄:將法院審級制度從啤酒桶變成金字塔。取自://www。upmedia。mg/news_info。php?SerialNo=8174
李建良(2018)。法學方法與基本權解釋方法導論。人文及社會科學集刊,30(2),237-277。
李建強、周宜巍(2009)。新聞自由對貪污的影響:全球資料的實證研究。中華傳播學刊,16,131-174。
邢泰釗(2003)。就我國實務運作觀點評現行貪治罪條例。月旦法學雜誌,94,8-15。
邢泰釗(2010)。圖利罪構成要件解析。屏東:台灣屏東地方法院檢察署。
周海濤、李永賢、張蘅譯(2009)。個案研究-設計與方法(原作者:Robert K. Yin)。台北:五南。
孟維德(2016)。白領犯罪。台北:五南。
孟維德、蔡田木、劉至剛(2010)。公務員貪瀆犯罪原因及預警機制之研究。執法新知論衡,6(2),27-57。
帕梅拉.休梅克、韓綱(2020)。超級把關人:社交媒體時代的把關。傳播與社會學刊,54,223-256。
林山田(2001)。刑法的革新。台北:學林文化。
林水波(1999)。公共政策新論。台北:智勝。
林向愷(2008)。貪腐與民主。台灣民主季刊,5(3),167-176。
林志潔(2012)。貪污犯罪檢舉人之保護與獎勵-以廣義的貪污共犯為核心。月旦法學雜誌,203,136-166。
林志潔(2012)。貪污犯罪檢舉人之保護與獎勵-以廣義的貪污共犯為核心。月旦法學雜誌,203,136-166。
林志潔(2014)。洗錢犯罪與犯罪收益之定義─從USv。Santos案看美國反洗錢法之新發展。科技法學評論,11(2),1-40。
林志潔、麻詠真(2011)。財經犯罪與內線交易重大消息之判斷─臺北地方法院九十六年度重訴字第一三二號(綠點案)刑事判決評釋。月旦裁判時報,10,87-95。
林宗弘、韓佳(2008)。政治貪腐的制度理論:以亞洲各國為例的分析。台灣政治學刊,12(1),53-99。
林青青、徐安平(2000)。由台肥公司案論我國公營事業民營化。取自https://www.twse.com.tw/ch/products/publication/download/0001000040.htm
林執中、陳昭如、顏厥安(2011)。讓法學看見經驗的世界:「臺灣法實證研究資料庫」介紹。人文與社會科學簡訊,12(2),14-32。
法務部(2007)a。法務部96年台灣地區廉政指標民意調查第一次調查報告書。台北:法務部。
法務部(2007)b。法務部96年台灣地區廉政指標民意調查第二次調查報告書。台北:法務部。
法務部(2008)a。法務部97年台灣地區廉政指標民意調查第一次調查報告書。台北:法務部。
法務部(2008)b。法務部97年台灣地區廉政指標民意調查第二次調查報告書。台北:法務部。
法務部(2009)a。法務部98年台灣地區廉政指標民意調查第一次調查報告書。台北:法務部。
法務部(2009)b。法務部98年台灣地區廉政指標民意調查第二次調查報告書。台北:法務部。
法務部(2010)a。法務部99年台灣地區廉政指標民意調查第一次調查報告書。台北:法務部。
法務部(2010)b。法務部99年台灣地區廉政指標民意調查第二次調查報告書。台北:法務部。
法務部(2010)c。重大弊案檢討及制度改進方案報告。台北:法務部。
法務部(2011)a。法務部100年台灣地區廉政指標民意調查第一次調查報告書。台北:法務部。
法務部(2011)b。法務部100年台灣地區廉政指標民意調查第二次調查報告書。台北:法務部。
法務部廉政署(2012)a。法務部廉政署101年廉政民意調查及指標研究期中報告書。台北:法務部廉政署。
法務部廉政署(2012)b。法務部廉政署101年廉政民意調查及指標研究期末報告書。台北:法務部廉政署。
法務部廉政署(2013)a。法務部廉政署102年廉政民意調查及機關廉政評鑑工具研究案期中報告書。台北:法務部廉政署。
法務部廉政署(2013)b。法務部廉政署102年廉政民意調查及機關廉政評鑑工具研究案期末報告書。台北:法務部廉政署。
法務部廉政署(2014)。法務部103年廉政民意調查報告書。台北:法務部廉政署。
法務部廉政署(2015)。推動廉政評鑑方案。台北:法務部廉政署。
邱宜儀、蘇蘅(2009)。政治名人與媒體:馬英九報導的新聞框架初探。新聞學研究,99,1-45。
邱忠義(2009)。財產來源不明罪與貪污所得擬制之評析。月旦法學雜誌,164,77-110。
邱訪義、李誌偉(2012)。立法院積極議程設定之理論與經驗分析:第二至第六屆。臺灣政治學刊,16(1),3-60。
邱皓政(2014)。量化研究與統計分析:SPSS(PASW)-資料分析範例解析。台北:五南。
柯萱如(2016)。媒體犯罪報導對於我國刑事政策之影響〔未出版之碩士論文〕。臺灣大學法律學研究所。
柯耀程(2003)。貪污治罪條例在適用上的檢討與評估。載於柯耀程,刑法的思與辯。台北:元照。
胡志亮(2003)。總統形象建構之研究─以陳水扁總統新聞幕僚為例〔未出版之碩士論文〕,世新大學傳播研究所。
范宜愷、林志潔(2013)。杜絕不當的政商利益輸送―重構公務員旋轉門條款。文官制度季刊,5(3),87-131。
夏春祥(2007)。在傳播的迷霧中:二二八事件的媒體印象與社會記憶。台北:韋伯文化。
孫志鴻、王能超(1991)。地理資訊視覺化之研究。中華民國地圖學會會刊,2,18-24。
徐宗國譯(1998)。質性研究概論(原作者:Strauss, A.、Corbin, J.)。台北:巨流。
浩平、蕭羨一譯(2003)。公共行政之政治經濟學(原作者:Murray J.Horn),台北:商周。
翁興利(1996)。立院新結構與議程設定。中國行政評論,5(2),73-88。
高金桂(2003)。貪污治罪條例各罪之適用與競合。月旦法學雜誌,94,34-45。
高雄市政府(2018)。變更高雄市湖內(大湖地區)主要計畫(第三次通盤檢討暨都市計畫圖重製)案計畫書。高雄:高雄市政府。
國家發展委員會(2015)。103年度臺灣公共治理指標調查。台北:國家發展委員會。
張育君(2004)。從「守門人」理論看兩次波斯灣戰爭的新聞報導─以聯合報為例〔未出版之碩士論文〕。政治作戰學校新聞研究所。
張郁敏(2013)。什麼樣的科學新聞內容會受新聞媒體青睞?報紙與電視科學新聞媒體顯著性之決定因素初探。新聞學研究,117,47-88。
張娟芬(2011)。冤案的共犯結構。司法改革雜誌,82,10-11。
張清溪(1995)。黨營事業、黨員品德與政黨腐化—「不肖子定理」的應用。經濟論文叢刊,23(1),25-42。
張麗卿(2020)。刑事訴訟法理論與運用。台北:五南。
莊文忠(2015)。從議程設定觀點分析政府與媒體的政策溝通與話語權。2015兩岸學者論壇公民參與與公共政策學術研討會。台北:行政院大陸委員會。
莊文忠,陳俊明,胡龍騰、余致力(2007)。廉政認知與民主治理:組織、成員與制度的實證分析。全球化時代的公民與國家暨台灣社會變遷基本調查第十次研討會。台北:中央研究院政治學研究所籌備處。網址http://www.ipsas.sinica.edu.tw/image/ipsas/1/527.pdf
莊文忠、余致力(2017)。貪腐容忍度的類型化建構:內在與外在效度的評估。行政暨政策學報,64,37-67。
莊文忠、徐明莉、張鐙文(2009)。非營利組織的議程設定與政策倡議的形成:質化研究的檢證。公共行政學報,33,121-163。
莊文忠、陳俊明、胡龍騰、余致力(2011)。廉政認知與民主治理。載於余致力(主編),廉政與治理(頁30-59)。台北:智勝。
許恆達(2016)。貪污犯罪的刑法抗制。台北:元照。
陳又新、林志潔(2013)。賄賂罪對價關係之實證研究—兼評最高法院相關判決。法令月刊,64(10),54-84。
陳文政(2006)。總統任命大法官,大法官選任總統?:布希控高爾案之政治分析。政治學報,42,125-187。doi: 10.6229/cpsr.2006.42.04
陳怡廷、欒錦榮(2012)。自然語言處理在口碑研究的應用。中華傳播學刊,22,259-289。
陳俊明(2008)。循證型的廉政政策研究:台灣地區廉政指標民意調查。公共行政學報,29,133-152。
陳恆鈞(2011)。議題管理之初探。T&D飛訊,17,34-44。
陳婉箐(2020)。用統計看法律產業的發展-突破律師市場飽和迷思開闢新藍海。在野法潮,46,16-25。
陳敦源(2019)。民主治理:公共行政與民主政治的制度性調和。台北:五南。
陳敦源、韓智先(2000)。是誰告訴人民他們要什麼﹖媒體、民意與公共議程設定。研考雙月刊,24(1:215),19-31。
陳朝政(2010)。從李乙廷案省思賄選認定之問題。東吳政治學報,28(2),97-151。doi:10.6418/sjps.201006.097
陳慈幸(2015)。東西方貪腐型態與防制策略之比較研究。犯罪防治研究專刊,5,34-49。
陳憶寧(2002)。公共議題之遊戲框架初探:以核四議題為例。新聞學研究,72,85-117。
陳憶寧(2004)。媒體議題與公眾議題演化過程之探討:以2002年台北市長選舉為例。新聞學研究,81,125-162。
陳螢松(2013)。法務部廉政署與調查局肅貪競爭與合作之研究-以博弈理論分析。國會月刊,41(4),34-64。
彭文正、蕭憲文(2006)。犯罪新聞報導對於司法官“認知”、“追訴”及“判決”的影響。臺大法學論叢,35(3),107-193。
彭文正、蕭憲文(2007)。犯罪新聞描述手法與影響認知之實證研究。東吳法律學報,19(2),27-68。
彭立忠、張裕衢(2007)。華人四地貪腐程度之比較-以「貪腐成因」為分析途徑。政大公共行政學報,24,103-135。
彭立忠、張裕衢(2008)。跨國研究的指標爭議:以貪腐印象指數爲例。慈濟大學人文社會科學學刊,7,65-88。
斯儀仙、渠正慈(2019)。以政策問題和議程設定行動談跟蹤騷擾防制法草案之立法過程。中央警察大學學報,56,79-101。
游美惠(2000)。內容分析、文本分析與論述分析在社會研究的運用。調查研究,8,5-42。
馮明珠、楊婉萍、汪秀玲(2020)。台灣醫療糾紛訴訟案件策略之分析。台灣醫學,24(5),524-531。doi:10.6320/fjm.202009_24(5).0005
黃于恬、王振宇(2015)。雲林縣鄉鎮市公所貪瀆犯罪與司法裁判態樣分析。文官制度季刊,7(3),29-65。
黃士軒(2015)。公務員賄賂罪中的職務行為—以我國最近之學說與最高法院實務為中心。國立中正大學法學集刊,48,53-119。
黃世鑫(2012)。由三項司法裁判論「不動產交易所得實價課稅」。當代財政,23,40-45。
黃丙喜、馮志能、劉遠忠(2016)。動態危機管理。台北:商周。
黃東益、鍾道明(2005)。高鐵財務融資爭議與議程設定之研究。逢甲人文社會學報,11,281-309。
黃建勲(2016)。一樣的身分、不一樣的角色:以2008年臺灣政府文官調查庫探索文官回應與類型。文官制度季刊,8(3),81-112。
黃國昌(2009)。法學實證研究方法初探。月旦法學雜誌,175,142-153。
新北市政府(2014)。新北市政府廉能評鑑計畫。新北:新北市政府。
楊合進(2011)。以新制度主義觀點探討我國廉政署的設置。中央警察大學警察行政管理學報,7,87-207。
楊洪常(2000)。政治發展還是政治衰敗:政治腐敗效應之爭。政治科學論叢,12,131-160。
楊尊宇(2015)。基於PCA、LDA和ICA的資料視覺化研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立清華大學資訊系統與應用研究所。
葉一璋、郭迺鋒、鄭佳欣(2020)。國防廉政是國軍戰力的基石:GDAI視覺化是國防透明度的起點。政策與人力管理,11(2),67-82。
葉俊榮(1996)。司法裁判的量化研究:行政法院環保判決的量化分析。臺大法學論叢,26(1),27-77。
葉昱廷(2019)。以文字探勘技術分析台灣四大報文字風格〔未出版之碩士論文〕。政治大學統計學系。
葉毓蘭、汪子錫(2010)。以報紙新聞內容分析法探討社區警政的「玉里經驗」。警察行政管理學報,6,39-54。
廖興中(2014)。全球貪腐傳染之空間分析:以世界銀行貪腐控制指數為例。公共行政學報,46,1-28。
廖興中、徐明莉(2017)。臺灣地方政府貪腐現象之時空掃描。公共行政學報,53,1-23。
監察院(2010)。貪瀆案件定罪率之探討專案調查研究報告。台北:監察院。
劉育偉(2016)。卡其領犯罪關於白領特色之探討-以質性研究貪污案件為例。復興崗學報,109,187-203。
劉育偉、許華孚(2017)。軍人犯罪學之實證研究:卡其領貪污及職權式性犯罪之白領特徵。台北:一品文化。
劉邦揚(2011)。我國地方法院刑事醫療糾紛判決的實證分析:2000年至2010年。科技法學評論,3(2),257-293。
蔡允棟(2001)。官僚組織回應的概念建構評析─新治理的觀點。中國行政評論,10(2),89-134。
蔡炯清、黃瓊儀(2002)。公共政策議題的議程設定─以台北市垃圾費隨袋徵收政策為例。中華傳播學會年會,台北:中華傳播學會。網址 http://ccstaiwan.org/word/HISTORY_PAPER_FILES/366_1.pdf
蔡美瑛(1995)。議題設定理論之發展:從領域遷徙、理論延展到理論整合。新聞學研究,50,97-124。
鄭善印(2010)。兩岸刑法有關公務員概念的比較。軍法專刊,56(3),36-69。
魯炳炎(2009)。從多元流程觀點談蘇花高興建決策之議程設定與政策選擇。東吳政治學報,27(4),171-240。
盧安邦,鄭宇君(2017)。用方法說故事:探析電腦輔助文本分析工具在框架研究之應用。傳播研究與實踐,7(2),145-178。
盧映潔(2005)。台灣性犯罪之分布狀況及再犯率研究。月旦法學雜誌,119,39-53。
蕭全政、朱雲漢、周育仁、趙永茂(2010)。民主與治理—從民治到民享。載於朱雲漢、趙永茂(主編),遠東60週年白皮書(頁583-645)。
蕭宏宜(2012)。賄賂罪的「職務上行為」概念-兼評最高法院99年度台上字第7078號判決。東吳法律學報,24(1),87-119。doi:10.6416/slr.201207.0087
默 蘆(1970)。從政風調查談到政治革新。政治評論,25(2),6-7。
謝煜偉(2015)。特殊圖利罪之解釋與立法建議—論貪污治罪條例第六條第一項第五款。政大法學評論,142,227-279。
瞿海源、畢恆達、劉長萱、楊國樞(2015)。社會及行為科學研究法:質性研究法。台北:東華。
顏嘉俊(2021)。蔡英文總統的領袖魅力對民眾支持度影響之研究:以社群媒體及傳統媒體的使用行為為干擾變項〔未出版之碩士論文〕。淡江大學企業管理學系。
譚躍、蕭蘋(2019)。線上災難傳播的議題設定效果:高雄氣爆事件中媒體臉書粉絲專頁主文與回應文的互動影響。新聞學研究,138,163-224。
蘇彥圖(2014)。釋憲時刻初探—司法院大法官的議程設定及其憲政效應。憲政時代,39(4),25-69。
蘇彥圖(2019)。美國聯邦最高法院審理流程概論。發表於司法院大法官108年度學術研討會(法官學院)。網址:http://ir.sinica.edu.tw/handle/201000000A/77212


Abbo, U., & Bashir, A. (2020). Parochial Political Culture and the Squabbles for National Agenda Setting in Nigeria: A Theoretical Overview.
Abdullah, M. Q., Hayat, N., & Rahman, A. (2020). The Agenda Setting of Corona: Analysis of the Corona Dissemination Impact on the Community. 2020, 13(2), 15. doi: 10.29313/mediator.v13i2.6302
Adams, G. B., & White, J. D. (1994). Dissertation Research in Public Administration and Cognate Fields An Assessment of Methods. Public Administration Review, 54(6), 565-576.
Alitavoli, R., & Kaveh, E. (2018). The US media’s effect on public’s crime expectations: A cycle of cultivation and agenda-setting theory. Societies, 8(3), 58.
Anderson, S. E., DeLeo, R. A., & Taylor, K. (2020). Policy Entrepreneurs, Legislators, and Agenda Setting: Information and Influence. Policy Studies Journal, 48(3), 587-611. doi: 10.1111/psj.12331
Andvig, J. C., Fjeldstad, O.-H., Amundsen, I., Sissener, T. K., & Søreide, T. (2000). Research on Corruption. A Policy Oriented Survey.
Asomah, J. Y. (2020). Can private media contribute to fighting political corruption in sub-Saharan Africa? Lessons from Ghana. Third World Quarterly, 41(12), 2011-2029. doi: 10.1080/01436597.2020.1806707
Atwater, T., & Fico, F. (1986). Source reliance and use in reporting state government. Research Journal, 8(1), 53-62.
Ayodeji-Falade, M., & Osunkunle, O. (2020). Coverage of Corruption in the Nigerian Oil and Gas Industry: A Comparative Content Analysis of Four National Dailies. 11, 31-52.
Bailey, M. T. (1992). Do Physicists Use Case Studies Thoughts on Public Administration Research. Public Administration Review, 52(1), 47-54.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall.
Barzilai‐Nahon, K. (2008). Toward a theory of network gatekeeping: A framework for exploring information control. Journal of the American society for information science and technology, 59(9), 1493-1512.
Bayley, D. H. (1966). The Effects of Corruption in a Developing Nation. The Western Political Quarterly, 19(4), 719-732.
Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. The economic dimensions of crime (pp. 13-68): Springer.
Bhattacharyya, S., & Hodler, R. (2015). Media freedom and democracy in the fight against corruption. European Journal of Political Economy, 39, 13-24.
Bigelow, B., Fahey, L., & Mahon, J. (1991). Political strategy and issues evolution: A framework for analysis and action. In K. Paul (Ed.), Contemporary issues in business ethics and politics. NY: Edwin Mellen Press.
Bigelow, B., Fahey, L., & Mahon, J. (1993). A typology of issue evolution. Business & Society, 32(1), 18-29.
Black, R. C., & Boyd, C. L. (2012). US Supreme Court agenda setting and the role of litigant status. The Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 28(2), 286-312.
Black, R. C., & Owens, R. J. (2009). Agenda setting in the Supreme Court: The collision of policy and jurisprudence. The Journal of Politics, 71(3), 1062-1075.
Bonardi, J.-P., & Keim, G. D. (2005). Corporate political strategies for widely salient issues. Academy of Management Review, 30(3), 555-576.
Brosius, H. B., & Weimann, G. (1996). Who sets the agenda: Agenda-setting as a two-step flow. Communication Research, 23(5), 561-580.
undy, J., Shropshire, C., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2013). Strategic cognition and issue salience: Toward an explanation of firm responsiveness to stakeholder concerns. Academy of Management Review, 38(3), 352-376.
Camaj, L. (2014). The Consequences of Attribute Agenda-Setting Effects for Political Trust, Participation, and Protest Behavior. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 58(4), 634-654. doi: 10.1080/08838151.2014.966363
Ceron, A. (2014). Twitter and the Traditional Media: Who is the Real Agenda Setter? Paper presented at the APSA 2014 Annual Meeting Paper, Washington, DC. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2454310
Chase, W. H. (1982). Issue management conference: A special report. Corporate public issues and their management, 7(23), 1-2.
Chase, W. H. (1984). Issue management. Standford, CT: Issue Action Publications.
Chêne, M. (2010). Overview of corruption and anti-corruption in Sierra Leone: U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre. CMI, Bergen, Norway.
Chermak, S. (1995). Victims in the news: Crime and the American news media. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Chermak, S. (1998). Predicting crime story salience: The effects of crime, victim, and defendant characteristics. Journal of Criminal Justice, 26(1), 61-70.
Chermak, S., & Chapman, N. M. (2007). Predicting crime story salience: A replication. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 351-363.
Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. D. (1983). Participation in American politics: The dynamics of agenda-building: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Cohen, B. C. (1963). The Press and Foreign Policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Colazingari, S. & Rose-Ackerman., S. (1998). Corruption in A Paternalistic Democracy: Lessons from Italy for Latin America. Political Science Quarterly, 113(3), 447-470。
Council, P. A. (1978). The fundamentals of issue management: Public Affairs Council.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions.
De Graaf, G. (2007). Causes of corruption: Towards a contextual theory of corruption. Public Administration Quarterly, 39-86.
Dearing, J. W., & Rogers, E. M. (1996). Agenda-setting. CA:Sage.
Downs, A. (1972). The issue-attention cycle and the political economy of improving our environment. The Political Economy of Environmental Control (University of California Press, Berkeley), 9-34.
Durrani, B., & Alam, R. (2020). Coverage of government and judiciary relationship: a study of Urdu and English newspapers of Pakistan. FWU Journal of Social Sciences, 14(4), 131-139.
Dyussenov, M. (2016). The Issue Attention Cycle Model and Corruption Issues in Canada and Kazakhstan. Public Policy and Adminsitration, 12(2), 264–278.
Easton, D. (1953). The political system: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
Ehrlich, I. & Lui, F. T. (1999). Bureaucratic Corruption and Endogenous Economic Growth. Journal of Political Economy, 107(6), 270-293。
Eisenberg, T. (2000). Empirical Methods and Law. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95(450), 665–669.
Eisenberg, T. (2004). Why Do Empirical Legal Scholarship? San Diego Law Review, 41(4).
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
Fagbadebo, O. (2007). Corruption, governance and political instability in Nigeria. African Journal of Political Science and International Relations, 1(2), 028-037.
Foster, R. (1887). Trial by Newspaper. The North American Review, 144(366), 524-527.
Galanter, M.(1974). Why the haves come out ahead: Speculations on the limits of legal change. Law & Soc'y Rev., 9, 95.
Gans, H. J. (1979). Deciding what’s news: story suitability. Society, 16(3), 65-77.
Giles, M. W., Walker, T. G., & Zorn, C. (2006). Setting a judicial agenda: The decision to grant en banc review in the US Courts of Appeals. The Journal of Politics, 68(4), 852-866.
Goel, R. K., & Nelson, M. A. (1998). Corruption and government size: A disggreated analysis. Public Choice, 97, 107-120.
Goel, R. K., & Nelson, M. A. (2007). Are corrupt acts contagious?: Evidence from the United States. Journal of Policy Modeling, 29(6), 839-850.
Grofman, B. & Brazill, T. J. (2002). Identifying the median justice on the Supreme Court through. Public Choice, 112(1/2), 55-79。
Gruber, E. J. 1988. “Controlling Bureaucracies: Dilemmas in Democratic Governance.” Berkeley: University of California Press.
Grundlingh, L. (2017). Identifying markers of sensationalism in online news reports on crime. Language Matters, 48(2), 117-136.
Grunig, J. E. (1997). A situational theory of publics: Conceptual history, recent challenges and new research. In T. M. D. Moss, & D. Vercic (Ed.), Public relations research: An International Perspective (pp. 3-46). London: International Thomson Business Press.
Hainsworth, B. E. (1990). Issues Management-An Overview. Public Relations Review, 16(1), 3-5.
Hainsworth, B., & Meng, M. (1988). How corporations define issue management. Public Relations Review, 14(4), 18-30.
Hallahan, K. (2001). The Dynamics of Issues Activation and Response: An Issues Processes Model. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(1), 27-59. doi: 10.1207/S1532754XJPRR1301_3
Han, R. (2016). Discussion on relationship between guanxi and corruption in China. British Journal of Economics, Management & Trade, 14, 1-9.
Harding, J. (2013). Corruption or Guanxi: Differentiating between the Legitimate, Unethical, and Corrupt Activities of Chinese Government Officials. UCLA Pac. Basin LJ, 31, 127.
Heath, R. L. (2002). Comment: Issues management: Its past, present and future. Journal of Public Affairs, 2(4), 209-214.
Heath, R. L. (2018). Issues Management The International Encyclopedia of Strategic Communication (pp. 1-15).
Heath, R. L., & Palenchar, M. J. (2008). Strategic issues management: Organizations and public policy challenges: Sage Publications.
Heath, R. L., & Palenchar, M. J. (2009). Strategic Issues Management: Organizations and Public Policy Challenges: SAGE Publications, Inc;.
Holidin, D., & Hariyati, D. (2017). Failing Supports of Transparency against Corruption in Business Permit Service in Indonesia. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 167, 117-127.
Huysmans, J., Martens, D., Baesens, B., Vanthienen, J., & Van Gestel, T. (2006). Country corruption analysis with self organizing maps and support vector machines. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Intelligence and Security Informatics.
Jain, A. K. (2001). Corruption: A review. Journal of economic surveys, 15(1), 71-121.
Janowitz, M. (1968). Harold D. Lasswell's contribution to content analysis. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 32(4), 646-653.
Jaques, T. (2009). Issue and crisis management: Quicksand in the definitional landscape. Public Relations Review, 35(3), 280-286. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.03.003
Jiang, Y. (2014). ‘Reversed agenda-setting effects’ in China Case studies of Weibo trending topics and the effects on state-owned media in China. The Journal of International Communication, 20(2), 168-183. doi: 10.1080/13216597.2014.908785
Jones, B. L., & Chase, W. H. (1979). Managing public policy issues. Public Relations Review, 5(2), 3-23.
June, R., Chowdhury, A., Heller, N., & Werve, J. (2008). A User’s guide to measuring corruption. Oslo: UNDP and Global Integrity.
Kalenborn, C., & Lessmann, C. (2013). The Impact of Democracy and Press Freedom on Corruption: Conditionality Matters. Journal of Policy Modeling, 35, 857-886.
Kathleen M. Eisenhardt. 1989. “An Assessment and Review”, The Academy of Management Review, 14, 1: 57-74.
Kaufmann, D. (2004). Human rights and development: Towards mutual reinforcement. In A paper prepared for a conference co-sponsored by the Ethical Globalization Initiative and The Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, New York University Law School, New York City.
Keim, G. D., & Zeithaml, C. P. (1986). Corporate political strategy and legislative decision making: A review and contingency approach. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 828-843.
Kessler, J. S. (2017). Scattertext: a browser-based tool for visualizing how corpora differ. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.00565.
Kim, S.-H., Scheufele, D. A., & Shanahan, J. (2002). Think about it this way: Attribute agenda-setting function of the press and the public's evaluation of a local issue. Journalism & mass communication quarterly, 79(1), 7-25.
King, P. (2009). Making crime news: newspapers, violent crime and the selective reporting of Old Bailey trials in the late eighteenth century. Crime, Histoire & Sociétés/Crime, History & Societies, 13(1), 91-116.
Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies: Little, Brown Boston.
Klitgaard, R. (1998). Controlling Corruption. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Knack, S. (2007). Measuring corruption: A critique of indicators in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Journal of Public Policy, 27(3), 255-291.
Ko, K., & Weng, C. (2011). Critical Review of Conceptual Definitions of Chinese Corruption: a formal–legal perspective. Journal of Contemporary China, 20(70), 359-378. doi: 10.1080/10670564.2011.565170
Köbis, N. C., van Prooijen, J.-W., Righetti, F., & Van Lange, P. A. (2017). The road to bribery and corruption: Slippery slope or steep cliff? Psychological science, 28(3), 297-306.
Kolstad, I., & Wiig, A. (2016). Does democracy reduce corruption? Democratization, 23(7), 1198-1215.
Kubbe, I., & Engelbert, A. (2017). Corruption and the impact of democracy. Crime, Law and Social Change. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-017-9732-0
Kurer, O. (2015). Definitions of Corruption. In P. M. Heywood (Ed.), Routledge handbook of political corruption (pp. 30-41): Routledge.
Lambsdorff, J. G. (1999). Corruption in empirical research: A review. Transparency International, processed, 6, 2-18.
Lancaster, T. D., & Montinola, G. R. (1997). Toward a methodology for the comparative study of political corruption. Crime, Law and Social Change, 27(3-4), 185-206.
Lang, G. E., & Lang, K. (1991). Watergate: An exploration of the agenda-building process. In D. Protess & M. E. McCombs(eds.), Readings on media, public opinion and policymaking, 277-289. Hillsdale, Ml: Lawrenence Relbaum.
Langseth, P., Stapenhurst, R., & Pope, J. (1997). The role of a national integrity system in fighting corruption. Commonwealth Law Bulletin, 23(1-2), 499-528.
Lewin, K. (1947a). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1, 5–40. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/107769905002700403.
Lewin, K. (1947b). Frontiers in group dynamics II. Channels of group life: Social planning and action research. Human Relations, 1, 143–153. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/ 001872674700100201.
Lin, Min-Wei, & Chilik Yu. (2014). Can Corruption Be Measured? Global versus Local Perceptions of Corruption in East and Southeast Asia. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 16(2): 140-157.
Luo, Y. (2008). The changing Chinese culture and business behavior: The perspective of intertwinement between guanxi and corruption. International Business Review, 17(2), 188-193.
Marek, J. (2015). The effects of scandals on perceived corruption in Spain. Global Journal on Humanities and Social Sciences, 1(2), 1-8.
McCombs, M. E., Shaw, D. L., & Weaver, D. H. (2014). New directions in agenda-setting theory and research. Mass communication and society, 17(6), 781-802.
McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. (1972). The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187. doi: 10.1086/267990
McCurdy, H. E., & Cleary, R. E. (1984). Why Can't We Resolve the Research Issue in Public Administration? Public Administration Review, 44(1), 49-55. doi: 10.2307/975661
Meraz, S. (2009). Is There an Elite Hold? Traditional Media to Social Media Agenda Setting Influence in Blog Networks. J. Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 682-707. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01458.x
Miller, J. M., Krosnick, J. A., & Fabrigar, L. R. (2017). The origins of policy issue salience: Personal and national importance impact on behavioral, cognitive, and emotional issue engagement.
Mitnick, B. M. (1980). The political economy of regulation: Creating, designing, and removing regulatory forms: New York: Columbia University Press.
Mosher, F. C. (1982). Democracy and the public service.New York: Oxford University Press.
Murray, S. (2017). Interactive data visualization for the web: an introduction to designing with D3: O'Reilly Media, Inc.
Oakley, M. R. (2009). Agenda Setting and State Policy Diffusion: The Effects of Media Attention, State Court Decisions, and Policy Learning on Fetal Killing Policy*. Social Science Quarterly, 90(1), 164-178. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00609.x
Oktiani, D. (2017). The Impact of Corruption on Domestic and Foreign Investment in Indonesia. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 84, 275-279.
Ospina, S. M., Esteve, M., & Lee, S. (2018). Assessing Qualitative Studies in Public Administration Research. Public Administration Review, 78(4), 593-605. doi: 10.1111/puar.12837
Owens, R. J. (2010). The Separation of Powers and Supreme Court Agenda Setting. American Journal of Political Science, 54(2), 412-427. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00438.x
Perry, H. W. (2009). Deciding to decide: agenda setting in the United States Supreme Court: Harvard University Press.
Perry, J. L., & Kraemer, K. L. (1986). Research Methodology in the "Public Administration Review," 1975-1984. Public Administration Review, 46(3), 215-226.
Plasser, F. (2005). From hard to soft news standards? How political journalists in different media systems evaluate the shifting quality of news. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 10(2), 47-68.
Pope, J. (2000). Confronting corruption: The elements of a national integrity system. Transparency International.
Pritchard, D. (1986). Homicide and bargained justice: The agenda-setting effect of crime news on prosecutors. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50(2), 143-159.
Pump, B. (2011). Beyond Metaphors: New Research on Agendas in the Policy Process. Policy Studies Journal, 39, 1-12.
Quah, J. S. T. (2010). Taiwan’s Anti-Corruption Strategy : Suggestions for Reform. Baltimore, Md: University of Maryland School of Law.
Reese, S. D., & Danielian, L. H. (1989). A closer look at intermedia influences on agenda setting: The cocaine issue of 1986. Communication campaigns about drugs: Government, media, and the public, 47-66.
Renfro, W. (1993). Issues management in strategic planning. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Riaz, S. (2009). Coverage of the Issue of Judiciary Crisis in National Newspapers of Pakistan. Journal of Political Studies, 16, 81-90.
Rodrigues, U. M. (2014). Social media's impact on journalism: a study of media's coverage of anti-corruption protests in India. Global media journal: Australian edition, 8(1), 1-10.
Rohwer, A. (2009). Measuring Corruption: A comparison between the transparency international's corruption perceptions index and the world bank's worldwide governance indicators. CESifo DICE Report, 7(3), 42-52.
Rose-Ackerman, S. (1978). Corruption: A Study in Political Economy. New York:Academic Press.
Rose-Ackerman, S. (1999). Political corruption and democracy. Journal of International Law, 14, 363-378.
Schildkraut, J., & Donley, A. M. (2012). Murder in black: A media distortion analysis of homicides in Baltimore in 2010. Homicide Studies, 16(2), 175-196.
Sciarini, P., & Tresch, A. (2019). The political agenda-setting power of the media: the Europeanization nexus. Journal of European Public Policy, 26(5), 734-751. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2018.1458890
Scott, J. C. (1972). Comparative political corruption: Prentice Hall.
Sheafer, T. (2007). How to evaluate it: The role of story-evaluative tone in agenda setting and priming. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 21-39.
Sherlock, S. (2002). Combating corruption in Indonesia? The ombudsman and the assets auditing commission. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 38(3), 367-383.
Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (1996). Mediating the Message (2 ed.). New York: Longman.
Sigal, L. V. (1973). Reporters and officials: The organization and politics of newsmaking: DC Heath. 
Silveira, L. (2016). 4 technologies helping us to fight corruption. In World Economic Forum. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/04/4-technologies-helping-us-to-fight-corruption/
Simpson, D., Gradel, T. J., Rossi, M. R., & Taylor, K. (2018). CONTINUING CORRUPTION IN ILLINOIS. Retrieved from http://dig.abclocal.go.com/wls/documents/051518-Corruption-Illinois.pdf
Skolkay, A., & Ištoková, A. (2016). Media coverage of corruption: the role of inter-media agenda setting in the context of media reporting on scandals. doi: 10.14746/ssp.2016.2.8
Soroka, S. N. (2002). Issue attributes and agenda‐setting by media, the public, and policymakers in Canada. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 14(3), 264-285.
Stein, E. A., & Kellam, M. (2014). Programming Presidential Agendas: Partisan and Media Environments That Lead Presidents to Fight Crime and Corruption. Political Communication, 31(1), 25-52. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2012.762075
Tan, Y., & Shaw, P. (2018). Attribute-Priming Effects on Presidential Approval: The Role of Risk Perception and Trust in Government Regulation. Issues & Studies, 54(03), 1840004.
Tavits, M. (2010). Why do people engage in corruption? The case of Estonia. Social Forces, 88(3), 1257–1279.
Thorson, K., & Wells, C. (2015). How gatekeeping still matters: Understanding media effects in an era of curated flows. Gatekeeping in transition, 25-44.
Townsend, B., Schram, A., Labonté, R., Baum, F., & Friel, S. (2019). How do actors with asymmetrical power assert authority in policy agenda-setting? A study of authority claims by health actors in trade policy. Social Science & Medicine, 236, 112430. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112430
Transparency International (2006). Curbging corruption in public procurement. Berlin: Transparency International.
Treisman, D. (2000). The causes of corruption: a cross-national study. Journal of public economics, 76(3), 399-457.
Ugochukwu, C. C. (2020). EVALUATION OF SOCIAL MEDIA INFLUENCE IN THE FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION IN NIGERIA. Nnamdi Azikiwe University Journal of Communication and Media Studies, 1(1).
UNDCCP (2002). Global Programme Against Corruption: Anti-Corruption Tool Kit. New York: United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention.
Wanta, W., & Hu, Y.-W. (1993). The Agenda-setting effects of international news coverage: an examination of examination of differing of differing news frames. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 5(3), 250-264. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/5.3.250
White, J. D. (1986). On the growth of knowledge in public administration. Public Administration Review, 15-24.
Wolfe, M., Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2013). A Failure to Communicate: Agenda Setting in Media and Policy Studies. Political Communication, 30(2), 175-192. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2012.737419
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top