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：臺北市議會議員連署提案網絡之研究
作者：鄭有容 引用關係
作者(外文)：Yu-Jung Cheng
校院名稱：國立臺灣大學
系所名稱：圖書資訊學系
指導教授：陳光華
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2023
主題關鍵詞：議員連署提案；議員連署提案網絡；議員個人背景；議員團體；議員合作結構；指數隨機圖模型；cosponsored proposals；cosponscorship network；councilor’s personal background；councilor’s group；councilor’s cooperative structure；exponential random graph models
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:2
本研究聚焦於臺北市升格為直轄市後，作為首善之都的臺北市議會地方議事發展的情形，以臺北市議會議員連署提案為主題，運用社會網絡分析為研究方法，系統性探究地方議員在連署提案當中的互動關係與合作模式。為系統性檢視長期以來地方政治精英權力互動與動態變遷情形，本研究以臺北市直轄市議會時期中第1屆至第12屆議會議員連署提案（自1969年12月25日至2018年12月24日止，共計長達49年）為研究範圍，從636席民選地方議員所提出之3,203則議員提案中建置大規模與貫時性議員連署提案資料庫，並建立相應社會網絡指標與統計模型詮釋連署提案中所涉及的議員（個體層次）、議員團體（團體層次）與議員合作結構（整體層次）之影響。
植基於從個體、團體與整體層次所取得的研究發現，本研究進而提出以下結論：（一）、自第5屆議會開始，臺北市議會中議員的性別、學歷與黨籍組成漸趨多元，女性議員的比例從第5屆議會的17.65%一舉攀升到第12屆議會的34.92%、具碩士學歷的議員人數比例從第5屆議會的21.57%提升到第12屆議會的61.9%、民主進步黨籍的議員人數比例從第6屆議會的21.57%上升到第12屆議會的42.86%；（二）、從第6屆議會開始，議員連署提案的小世界商值、實際網絡比值與個人程度中心性影響力均大幅轉強，突顯臺北市議會議員於連署提案的互動情形更形密切；（三）、臺北市議會議員團體的所屬成員其政黨同質性比例偏高，且同黨議員合作結構高於跨黨議員合作結構，揭示連署提案係以同黨議員之間合作為主；（四）、臺北市議會議員連署提案存在女性議員之間合作的傾向，在第1屆至第10屆議會當中，女性議員之間合作結構的勝算比均高於異性議員之間合作結構以及男性議員之間的合作結構。
綜合政黨體制、提案互動情形與議員連署合作傾向的差異，本研究提出臺北市議會議員連署提案合作階段模式，認為臺北市議會歷經一黨體制（第1屆至第5屆議會）、多黨體制階段（第6屆至第9屆議會）與兩黨體制階段（第10屆至第12屆議會），在不同政治階段議員連署提案不論是互動情形與合作方式上都呈現階段性差異，突顯臺北市議會的議員連署提案發展並非一成不變，而係伴隨時間推移與政治情勢動態變遷。有鑒於此，本研究茲對於臺北市議會、地方議事機關以及議事研究者臚列研究建議：（一）、臺北市議會應塑造議員之間的交流管道以便凝聚共識；（二）、地方議事機關應擘劃議事資料庋藏與利用策略；（三）、議事研究者宜採用複合式研究方法分析議員合作提案成因。期盼進一步以臺北市議會議員連署提案合作階段模式為起點，除揭示當今臺灣地方政治民主合作上的政黨極化困境以外，也期盼藉由議員連署提案網絡研究的具體成果，思考如何塑造議員之間的交流管道以便凝聚共識，在異中求同尋求地方民意機關議員間協力合作，為臺灣地方民主長期議事發展提供兼具系統性、全盤性與創新性的詮釋。
This study focused on the development of the Taipei City Council’s capability for handling local council affairs after Taipei City, the capital of Taiwan, became a special municipality. Cosponsored proposals raised during Taipei City Council meetings were selected as the research subject, and social network analysis was conducted to examine the collaboration and interactions among councilors during putting forward cosponsoring proposals. To facilitate systematic inspection of the long-term interactions and dynamic changes in power among local political elites, the research scope of this study was limited to cosponsored proposals raised during Taipei City Council meetings, specifically the 1st to 12th Taipei City Council meetings (from December 25, 1969, to December 24, 2018; a period of 49 years). The study investigated 3203 proposals raised by 636 seats of local councilors, established a large-scale longitudinal database of cosponsored proposals, and developed corresponding social network indicators and statistical models to interpret the influences of individual councilors (individual-level factors), councilor groups (group-level factors), and the cooperative structure of councilors (council-level factors) involved in the cosponsorship of proposals.
Base on the study’s findings regarding the influences of individual-, group-, and council-level factors, the following conclusions were drawn: (1) after the fifth council meeting, the sexes, education levels, and party affiliations among the councilors increased in diversity. The proportion of female councilors has risen from 17.65% in the 5th to 34.92% in the 12th meeting, the proportion of master education level councilors has increased from 21.57% in the 5th to 61.9% in the 12th meeting, the proportion of Democratic Progressive Party councilors has risen from 17.65% in the 5th to 34.92% in the 12th meeting; (2) after the sixth council meeting, the small world quotient, the actual small world network ratio, and the degree centrality of the councilors have all grown significantly, highlighting the councilors’ engagement in interactions for putting forward cosponsoring proposals increased; (3) the group members of councilors have a relatively high proportion of political party homogeneity, and the estimated value of the cooperative structure of councilors from the same party is higher than that of different parties, revealing that councilors of the same party cosponsored most proposals raised during Taipei City Council meetings; (4) numerous cosponsored proposals raised during Taipei City Council meetings were formulated through collaboration between female councilors. In the 1st to 10th meetings, the log odds of the cooperative structure between female councilors is higher than opposite-sex councilors and male councilors.
According to the differences in party structures, proposal-related interactions, and cosponsoring trends among councilors, the cosponsorship collaboration phase model proposed herein divided the phases of Taipei City Council meetings into three phases, namely the one-party system phase (1st to 5th council meetings), multiparty system phase (6th to 9th council meetings), and two-party system phase (10th to 12th meetings), each phase was characterized by different interpersonal relationships and models of collaboration among cosponsoring councilors, these differences can be attributed to changes in the political environment and councilor demographics as well as the establishment of new parties. Based on the conclusions of this study, the following suggestions for Taipei City Council, local councils, and researchers in council-related fields were developed: (1) Taipei City Council should establish communication channels among councilors to consolidate consensus; (2) local councils should devise strategies for the storage and use of data on council-related affairs, and (3) researchers in council-related fields can employ mixed methods to analyze factors related to the cosponsoring of proposals by councilors. The cosponsorship collaboration phase model established based on the councilors serving on the Taipei City Council is expected to highlight the problem of political polarization encountered in political and democratic collaborations at the local level. Additionally, the findings of this study regarding the cosponsorship collaboration phase model may serve as a reference in planning communication channels among councilors to consolidate consensus; helping local councilors find common ground to promote coordination and collaboration; and developing a systematic, comprehensive, and innovative view for the long-term development of local council affairs in Taiwan.
中華民國地方議會議事錄總庫。取自https://journal.th.gov.tw/
王光旭、熊瑞梅（2014）。解嚴前後台灣都市政治的再檢視（1986-1992）：網絡觀點下的台中市都市發展。都市與計劃，41(1)，1-41。new window
王御風（2013）。近代臺灣地方議會與領導階層之研究：以高雄市為例。國立成功大學歷史學系博士論文，臺南市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/6nhz5k
吳齊殷、張明宜、陳怡蒨（2008）。尋找機制與過程：長期追蹤研究的功用。αβγ量化研究學刊，2(1)，1-26。new window
李承翰（2013）。立法院臨時提案之研究：以第七屆立法院為例。國立政治大學政治研究所碩士論文，臺北市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/5r233u
李筱峰（1986）。台灣戰後初期的民意代表。臺北市：自立晚報。
林佳儒（2014）。都市更新條例歷次修法過程的社會網絡分析。國立成功大學都市計劃學系碩士論文，臺南市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/fwsunt
林群賀（2013）。日治時期臺灣民主概念的初步考察：1920-1935。國立清華大學社會學研究所碩士論文，新竹市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/a52gtk
邱延正（1999）。臺灣地區解嚴後之政治發展。國立臺灣師範大學三民主義研究所博士論文，臺北市。new window
邵軒磊、黃詩淳（2017）。立法委員法律提案與其網絡特性研究。電子商務研究，15(4)，473-494。new window
倪重華、詹素貞、黃秀政、薛化元、陳鴻圖、何思瞇、李明仁、江志宏（2015）。 續修臺北市志。臺北市：臺北市文獻委員會。取自https://www.chr.gov.taipei/cp.aspx?n=EEBCFC3935F53838
張家敏（2003）。民進黨對台灣政治發展之影響(1986-2000年)。國立臺灣師範大學三民主義研究所碩士論文，臺北市。
盛杏湲（2014）。選制變革前後立委提案的持續與變遷：一個探索性的研究。臺灣政治學刊，18(1)，73-127。doi: 10.6683/TPSR.201406.18(1).73-127new window
黃秀端（2003）。少數政府在國會的困境。臺灣政治學刊，7(2)，3-49。doi: 10.6683/TPSR.200312.7(2).3-49new window
黃俊翰（2013）。台灣立法委員參與提案連署之研究：以第七屆立法院為例。國立政治大學政治研究所碩士論文，臺北市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/2we67k
楊天盾、熊瑞梅 (2018)。性別化的青少年友誼網絡與性別角色態度：單一性別與混合性別的班級脈絡。調查研究-方法與應用，40，7-61。new window
楊舒喻（2020）。立法院提案網絡之政黨合作結盟初探：重大社會事件是否加劇政黨極化？國立臺灣大學公共事務研究所碩士論文，臺北市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/7k8562
臺北市議會議事規則（民103年6月3日）。取自https://www.tcc.gov.tw/cp.aspx?n=13585
鄭牧心（1987）。臺灣議會政治40年。臺北市：自立晚報。
鄭梓（1988）。戰後臺灣議會運動史之研究：本土精英與議會政治（1946-1951）。臺北市：華世出版社。
Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2001). Big questions in public network management research. Journal of public administration research and theory, 11(3), 295-326. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a003504
Alemán, E., & Calvo, E. (2013). Explaining policy ties in presidential congresses: A network analysis of bill initiation data. Political Studies, 61(2), 356-377. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00964.x
Anderson, W. D., Janet M. B., & Valeria S. C. (2003). The Keys to Legislative Success in the U.S. House of Representatives. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 28(3), 357-386. doi:10.3162/036298003X200926
Arnold, L. W., Deen, R. E., & Patterson, S. C. (2000). Friendship and votes: The impact of interpersonal ties on legislative decision making. State and Local Government Review, 32(2), 142-147. doi: 10.1177/0160323X0003200206
Barnes, T. (2016). Gendering legislative behavior. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Barrat, A., & Weigt, M. (2000). On the properties of small-world network models. The European Physical Journal B-Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, 13(3), 547-560. doi: 10.1007/s100510050067
Batagelj, V., Ferligoj, A., & Doreian, P. (1992). Direct and indirect methods for structural equivalence. Social networks, 14(1-2), 63-90. doi: 10.1016/0378-8733(92)90014-X
Bavelas, A. (1948). A mathematical model for group structures. Human organization, 7(3), 16-30. doi: 10.17730/humo.7.3.f4033344851gl053
Bernard, H. R. (2005). The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science. Social networks, 27(4), 377-384. doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2005.06.004
Bonacich, P. (2007). Some unique properties of eigenvector centrality. Social networks, 29(4), 555-564. doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2007.04.002
Borg, I., & Groenen, P. (2003). Modern multidimensional scaling: Theory and applications. Journal of Educational Measurement, 40(3), 277-280. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.2003.tb01108.x
Borgatti, S. P. (2005). Centrality and Network Flow. Social networks, 27(1), 55-71. doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2004.11.008new window
Borgatti, S. P., & Everett, M. G. (2000). Models of core/periphery structures. Social networks, 21(4), 375-395. doi: 10.1016/S0378-8733(99)00019-2
Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2018). Analyzing social networks. London, England: Sage.
Borgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., & Labianca, G. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323(5916), 892-895. doi: 10.1126/science.1165821
Börzel, T. A. (1998). Organizing Babylon‐On the different conceptions of policy networks. Public administration, 76(2), 253-273. doi: 10.1111/1467-9299.00100
Brandes, U. (2001). A faster algorithm for betweenness centrality. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 25(2), 163-177. doi: 10.1080/0022250X.2001.9990249
Bratton, K. A., & Rouse, S. M. (2011). Networks in the legislative arena: How group dynamics affect cosponsorship. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 36(3), 423-460. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-9162.2011.00021.x
Briatte, F. (2016). Network patterns of legislative collaboration in twenty parliaments. Network science, 4(2), 266-271. doi: 10.1017/nws.2015.31
Bryce, J. B. (1924). Modern democracies: Vol. 1. New York, NY: Macmillan.new window
Buja, A., Swayne, D. F., Littman, M. L., Dean, N., Hofmann, H., & Chen, L. (2008). Data visualization with multidimensional scaling. Journal of computational and graphical statistics, 17(2), 444-472. doi: 10.1198/106186008X318440
Burke, K. M. (2005). Examining Sponsorship and Cosponsorship in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1973-2002. (Master’s thesis, Louisiana State University). Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2229&context=gradschool_theses
Burkett, T. L. (1997). Cosponsorship in the United States Senate: A network analysis of Senate communication and leadership, 1973-1990. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina.
Burt, R. (2001). Structural holes versus network closure as social capital. Social capital: Theory and research, 31-56. doi: 10.4324/9781315129457-2
Burt, R. S. (2009). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Caldeira, G. A., & Patterson, S. C. (1987). Political friendship in the legislature. The Journal of Politics, 49(4), 953-975. doi: 10.2307/2130779
Carrington, P. J., Scott, J., & Wasserman, S. (2005). Models and methods in social network analysis. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Cho, W. K., & Fowler, J. H. (2010). Legislative success in a small world: Social network analysis and the dynamics of congressional legislation. The Journal of Politics, 72(1), 124-135. doi: 10.1017/S002238160999051Xnew window
Craig, A., Cranmer, S. J., Desmarais, B. A., Clark, C. J., & Moscardelli, V. G. (2015). The role of race, ethnicity, and gender in the congressional cosponsorship network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.06141. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1512.06141
Davis, G. F., Yoo, M., & Baker, W. E. (2003). The small world of the American corporate elite, 1982-2001. Strategic organization, 1(3), 301-326. doi: 10.1177/14761270030013002new window
Desmarais, B. A., Moscardelli, V. G., Schaffner, B. F., & Kowal, M. S. (2015). Measuring legislative collaboration: The Senate press events network. Social networks, 40, 43-54. doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2014.07.006
Domhoff, G. W. (2017). The Power Elite and the State: How Policy is Made in America. New York, NY: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315134086
Dowding, K. (2001). There must be end to confusion: policy networks, intellectual fatigue, and the need for political science methods courses in British universities. Political studies, 49(1), 89-105. doi: 10.1111/1467-9248.00304new window
Emirbayer, M., & Goodwin. J. (1994). Network Analysis, Culture, and the Problem of Agency. The American journal of sociology, 99(6), 1411-1454. doi: 10.1086/230450
Ertan, G., Çarkoğlu, A., & Aytaç, S. E. (2022). Cognitive political networks: A structural approach to measure political polarization in multiparty systems. Social networks, 68, 118-126. doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2021.05.004
Eulau, H., Wahlke, J. C., Buchanan, W., & Ferguson, L. C. (1959). The role of the representative: Some empirical observations on the theory of Edmund Burke. The American political science review, 53(3), 742-756. doi: 10.2307/1951941
Fischer, M., Varone, F., Gava, R., & Sciarini, P. (2019). How MPs ties to interest groups matter for legislative co-sponsorship. Social networks, 57, 34-42. doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2018.12.001
Fouirnaies, A., Hall, A. B., & Payson, J. (2019). Understanding the legislative gender gap: Evidence from U.S. states. Retrieved from https://stanforddpl.org/papers/fouirnaies_hall_payson_2019/fouirnaies_hall_payson_2019.pdf
Fowler, J. H. (2006a). Legislative cosponsorship networks in the US House and Senate. Social networks, 28(4), 454-465. doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2005.11.003
Fowler, J. H. (2006b). Connecting the Congress: A study of cosponsorship networks. Political Analysis, 14(4), 456-487. doi: 10.1093/pan/mpl002
Freeman, L. C. (1977). A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry, 40(1), 35-41. doi: 10.2307/3033543new window
Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social networks, 1(3), 215-239. doi: 10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7new window
Freeman, L. C. (2011). The development of social network analysis–with an emphasis on recent events. The SAGE handbook of social network analysis, 21(3), 26-39. doi: 10.4135/9781446294413.n3
Freeman, L. C. (2017). Research methods in social network analysis. New York, NY: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315128511
Friedkin, N. E. (1991). Theoretical foundations for centrality measures. The American journal of sociology, 96(6), 1478-1504. doi: 10.1086/229694
Garand, J. C., & Burke, K. M. (2006). Legislative Activity and the 1994 Republican Takeover: Exploring Changing Patterns of Sponsorship and Cosponsorship in the U.S. House. American politics research, 34(2), 159-188. doi: 10.1177/1532673X05284415
Gargiulo, M., & Benassi, M. (2000). Trapped in your own net? Network cohesion, structural holes, and the adaptation of social capital. Organization science, 11(2), 183-196. doi: 10.1287/orsc.11.2.183.12514
Gnyawali, D. R., & Madhavan, R. (2001). Cooperative networks and competitive dynamics: A structural embeddedness perspective. Academy of Management review, 26(3), 431-445. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2001.4845820
Gooch, L. E. (2007). When Politics is Personal: Role of Personal Interests in Bill Sponsorships. Presented at The 2010 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, April 22-25, Chicago, IL.
Granovetter, M. (1974). Getting a job; a study of contacts and careers. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. The American journal of sociology, 91(3), 481-510. doi: 10.1086/228311
Granovetter, M. (2005). The impact of social structure on economic outcomes. The Journal of economic perspectives, 19(1), 33-50. doi: 10.1257/0895330053147958new window
Hanneman, R. A., & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside, CA: University of California.
Hunter, D. R., Goodreau, S. M., & Handcock, M. S. (2008). Goodness of fit of social network models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103(481), 248-258. doi: 10.1198/016214507000000446
Jordan, G. (1990). Sub-governments, policy communities and networks: refilling the old bottles. Journal of theoretical politics, 2(3), 319-338. doi: 10.1177/0951692890002003004
Kaern, M., Phillips, B. S., & Cohen, R. S. (1990). Georg Simmel and Contemporary Sociology. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Kessler, D., & Keith K. (1996). Dynamics of Cosponsorship. The American political science review, 90(3), 555-566. doi: 10.2307/2082608
Kirkland, J. H. (2011). The relational determinants of legislative outcomes: Strong and weak ties between legislators. The Journal of politics, 73(3), 887-898. doi: 10.1017/S0022381611000533
Kirkland, J. H., & Gross, J. H. (2014). Measurement and theory in legislative networks: The evolving topology of Congressional collaboration. Social networks, 36, 97-109. doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2012.11.001
Knoke, D. (1994). Political networks: the structural perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Knoke, D., & Yang, S. (2008). Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences: Social network analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Koger, G. (2003). Position taking and cosponsorship in the US House. Legislative studies quarterly, 28(2), 225-246. doi: 10.3162/036298003X200872
Koniaris, M., Anagnostopoulos, I., & Vassiliou, Y. (2014). Legislation as a complex network: Modelling and analysis of European Union legal sources. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 271, 143-152. doi: 10.3233/978-1-61499-468-8-143
Kruskal, J. B., & Wish, M. (1978). Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences: Multidimensional scaling. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications
Laumann, E. O., & Knoke, D. (1987). The organizational state: Social choice in national policy domains. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1968). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Lazer, D. (2011). Networks in political science: Back to the future. Political Science & Politics, 44(1), 61-68. doi: 10.1017/S1049096510001873new window
Lorrain, F., & White, H. C. (1971). Structural equivalence of individuals in social networks. The Journal of mathematical sociology, 1(1), 49-80. doi: 10.1080/0022250X.1971.9989788new window
Malang, T., Brandenberger, L., & Leifeld, P. (2019). Networks and social influence in European legislative politics. British journal of political science, 49(4), 1475-1498. 10.1017/S0007123417000217
Marsden, P. (2002). Egocentric and sociocentric measures of network centrality. Social networks, 24(4), 407-422. doi: 10.1016/S0378-8733(02)00016-3
Marsh, D., & Rhodes, R. A. W. (1992). Policy networks in British government. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
Marsh, D., & Smith, M. (2000). Understanding policy networks: towards a dialectical approach. Political studies, 48(1), 4-21. doi: 10.1111/1467-9248.00247new window
Mayhew, D. R. (2006). Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
McCambridge, J., Witton, J., & Elbourne, D. R. (2014). Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: new concepts are needed to study research participation effects. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 67(3), 267-277. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.08.015
Mendieta, J. G., & Schmidt, S. (1996). The political network in Mexico. Social networks, 18(4), 355-381. doi: 10.1016/0378-8733(95)00281-2
Merton, R. K. (1967). Social theory and social structure, Revised and enlarged edition. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Michaelson, A., & Contractor, N. S. (1992). Structural position and perceived similarity. Social psychology quarterly, 55(3), 300-310. doi: 10.2307/2786798
Milgram, S. (1967). The small world problem. Psychology today, 1(1), 61-67.new window
Mills, C. W. (1989). The power elite. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Moody, J., & Mucha, P. J. (2013). Portrait of political party polarization1. Network science, 1(1), 119-121. doi: 10.1017/nws.2012.3new window
Moreno, J. L. (1934). Who shall survive?: A new approach to the problem of human interrelations. Washington, D. C.: Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing.
Morgan, L. H., & Tooker, E. (1997). Systems of consanguinity and affinity of the human family. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Nadel, S. F. (2013). Theory of social structure. London, England: Routledge.
Neal, Z. P. (2020). A sign of the times? Weak and strong polarization in the US Congress, 1973-2016. Social networks, 60, 103-112. doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2018.07.007
Neal, Z. P., Domagalski, R., & Yan, X. (2022). Homophily in collaborations among US House Representatives, 1981-2018. Social networks, 68, 97-106. doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2021.04.007
Newman, M. E. (2006). Modularity and community structure in networks. P Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(23), 8577-8582. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0601602103
Newman, M. E., & Watts, D. J. (1999). Scaling and percolation in the small-world network model. Physical review E, 60(6), 7332-7342. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.60.7332
Okamoto, K., Chen, W., & Li, X. Y. (2008). Ranking of Closeness Centrality for Large-Scale Social Networks. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5059, 186-195.
Otte, E., & Rousseau, R. (2002). Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of information science, 28(6), 441-453. doi: 10.1177/016555150202800601
Palla, G., Barabási, A. L., & Vicsek, T. (2007). Quantifying social group evolution. Nature, 446(7136), 664-667. doi: 10.1038/nature05670
Panning, W. H. (1982). Blockmodels: From relations to configurations. American journal of political science, 26(3), 585-608. doi: 10.2307/2110944
Pappi, F. U., & Henning, C. H. (1998). Policy networks: more than a metaphor? Journal of theoretical politics, 10(4), 553-575. doi: 10.1177/0951692898010004008
Parigi, P., & Sartori, L. (2014). The political party as a network of cleavages: disclosing the inner structure of Italian political parties in the seventies. Social networks, 36, 54-65. doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2012.07.005
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (2003). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.
Podolny, J. M., & Baron, J. N. (1997). Resources and relationships: Social networks and mobility in the workplace. American sociological review, 62(5), 673-693. doi: 10.2307/2657354
Prell, C. (2012). Social network analysis: History, theory & methodology. London, England: Sage Publications.
Riley, D., & Eckenrode, J. (1986). Social ties: Subgroup differences in costs and benefits. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(4), 770-778. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.4.770
Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance : policy networks, governance, reflexivity, and accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Ruhnau, B. (2000). Eigenvector-centrality—a node-centrality? Social networks, 22(4), 357-365. doi: 10.1016/S0378-8733(00)00031-9
Salancik, G. R. (1986). An index of subgroup influence in dependency networks. Administrative science quarterly, 31(2), 194-211. doi: 10.2307/2392788
Saramäki, J., Kivelä, M., Onnela, J. P., Kaski, K., & Kertesz, J. (2007). Generalizations of the clustering coefficient to weighted complex networks. Physical Review E, 75(2), 027105.
Schiller, W. J. (1995). Senators as Political Entrepreneurs: Using Bill Sponsorship to Shape Legislative. American journal of political science, 39(1), 186-203. doi: 10.2307/2111763new window
Schwindt-Bayer, L. A. (2010). Political power and women’s representation in Latin America. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Scott, J., & Carrington, P. J. (2014). The SAGE handbook of social network analysis. London, England: Sage Publications.
Shim, J. (2021). Gender politics and legislative networks in Taiwan: An analysis of women-bill co-sponsorship and bill success. Parliamentary Affairs, 74(3), 639-661. doi: 10.1093/pa/gsz050
Simmel, G., & Wolff, K. H. (1969). The sociology of Georg Simmel. New York, NY: Free Press.
Sinclair, P. A. (2007). A representation for the Mexican political networks. Social networks, 29(1), 81-92. doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2006.03.001new window
Sinclair, P. A. (2009). Network centralization with the Gil Schmidt power centrality index. Social networks, 31(3), 214-219. doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2009.04.004
Stokowskik, P. A. (1994). Leisure in society: A network structural perspective. London, England: Mansell Published.
Strøm, K. (1997). Rules, reasons and routines: Legislative roles in parliamentary democracies. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 3(1), 155-174. doi: 10.1080/13572339708420504new window
Swers, M. L. (2005). Connecting descriptive and substantive representation: An analysis of sex differences in cosponsorship activity. Legislative studies quarterly, 30(3), 407-433. doi: 10.3162/036298005X201617
Swers, M. L. (2013). Women in the Club: Gender and Policy Making in the Senate. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Tam, W. K., & Fowler, J. H. (2010). Legislative success in a small world: Social network analysis and the dynamics of congressional legislation. The Journal of politics, 72(1), 124-135. doi: 10.1017/S002238160999051Xnew window
Tsui, S. Y. (2008). State-business Relations in Hong Kong through Executive Council, 1982-2005: A Network Perspective. (Master’s thesis, The Chinese University of Hong Kong). Retrieved from https://repository.lib.cuhk.edu.hk/en/item/cuhk-326303
Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
Uzzi, B., & Spiro, J. (2005). Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. The American journal of sociology, 111(2), 447-504. doi: 10.1086/432782
Veremyev, A., Prokopyev, O. A., & Pasiliao, E. L. (2019). Finding Critical Links for Closeness Centrality. Informs Journal on Computing, 31(2), 367-389. doi: 10.1287/ijoc.2018.0829
Wahlke, J. C. (1962). The legislative system: Explorations in legislative behavior. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons,Inc.
Walker, G., Kogut, B., & Shan, W. (1997). Social capital, structural holes and the formation of an industry network. Organization science, 8(2), 109-125. doi: 10.1287/orsc.8.2.109
Wang, G. X. (2012). A network approach for researching political feasibility of healthcare reform: The case of universal healthcare system in Taiwan. Social science & medicine, 75(12), 2337-2344. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.09.005
Ward, M. D., Stovel, K., & Sacks, A. (2011). Network analysis and political science. Annual review of political science, 14(1), 245-264. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.12.040907.115949new window
Warner, W. L. (1930). Morphology and functions of the Australian murngin type of kinship. American Anthropologist, 32(2), 207-256.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (2019). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393(6684), 440-442. doi: 10.1038/30918
Waugh, A. S., Pei, L., Fowler, J. H., Mucha, P. J., & Porter, M. A. (2009). Party Polarization in Congress: A Network Science Approach. arXiv preprints, arXiv-0907.
Weatherford, M. S. (1982). Interpersonal Networks and Political Behavior. American journal of political science, 26(1), 117-143. doi: 10.2307/2110843new window
White, H. C., Boorman, S. A., & Breiger, R. L. (1976). Social structure from multiple networks. I. Blockmodels of roles and positions. The American journal of sociology, 81(4), 730-780. doi: 10.1086/226141
Wickström, G., & Bendix, T. (2000). The Hawthorne effect-what did the original Hawthorne studies actually show? Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health, 26(4), 363-367.
Wihbey, J. P. (2019). The Social Fact: News and Knowledge in a Networked World. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Wilson, R. K., & Young, C. D. (1997). Cosponsorship in the US Congress. Legislative studies quarterly, 22(1), 25-43.new window
Wojcik, S. (2017). Why Legislative Networks? Analyzing Legislative Network Formation. Political science research and methods, 7(3), 505-522. doi:10.1017/psrm.2017.37
Zhang, Y., Friend, A. J., Traud, A. L., Porter, M. A., Fowler, J. H., & Mucha, P. J. (2008). Community structure in Congressional cosponsorship networks. Physica A, 387(7), 1705-1712. doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2007.11.004
Zuckerman, A. S., & Valentino N. A. (1994). A Structural Theory of Vote Choice: Social and Political Networks and Electoral Flow in Britain and United States. The Journal of politics, 56(4), 1008-1033. doi: 10.2307/2132071
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
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：699（臺灣：643，外國：56） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1166620 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67080597
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