:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:循證公共行政下的文官調查:臺灣經驗的觀點、方法、與實務意義
書刊名:公共行政學報. 政大
作者:陳敦源 引用關係呂佳螢
作者(外文):Chen, Don-yunLu, Chia-ying
出版日期:2009
卷期:31
頁次:頁187-225
主題關鍵詞:文官調查實證調查循證基礎的公共行政公共行政研究人事制度Bureaucratic surveyEmpiricalEvidence-basedPublic administrative researchPersonnel system
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(15) 博士論文(1) 專書(1) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:8
  • 共同引用共同引用:20
  • 點閱點閱:253
文官調查是一種對統治精英集體經驗的探索,過去統治精英的研究過度集中於政治人物,但是,一國治理績效的關鍵無法忽略文官系統的影響,公共行政學界理應開發探索文官體系的經驗研究技術,以期更多地了解治理的「績效秘密」(performance secret);更重要的,文官體制是中國文明重要的社會發明,但是,學界過去對這具有數千年傳統的體制,最多只能從規範性或是個案性的角度進行探索,缺乏系統性的了解;更甚者,在台灣這古老體制目前正與西方民主政治進行磨合,其過程與結果的探究是台灣公共行政學界對國際學界責無旁貸的任務。 本文先從台灣公共行政理論發展的角度,討論「循證基礎的公共行政」(evidence-based pubic administration)下文官調查的意涵,尋找台灣學界建構文官調查能力的正當性與時代意義;再者,本文將從方法應用的角度,藉由過去半世紀政治學門發展出來的民意調查技術,對台灣文官系統進行系統性抽樣普查;最後,本文植基於二○○八年所進行的台灣文官調查經驗,從抽樣、調查、以及資料分析等三個角度,討論傳統民意調查方法在文官調查中的應用予限制,並且從中尋找未來建構文官調查的知識管理基礎。 從人事制度改革與學術結合的角度,本文提出未來台灣公共行政研究以常態性文官調查為基本內容的可行性與限制,本文展望未來有三點機會與挑戰值得注意:其一,研究的持續需要與實務界建立共識,取得穩定的經費與母體清冊的來源;其二,在資源有限的前提下,理論焦點研究與全國性普查要做適當的切割;其三,往後執行過程中的監控應該加強,以建立方法論改革的循證資料,持續改進文官調查技術。
Bureaucrat Survey is a method to explore the collective experience of the ruling elites in civil service system. Students of public administration should develop the tool to understand the “performance secret” of governance Also, bureaucratic system is a social product of Chinese society. Scholars in Taiwan have a rare occasion to observe the reconciliation between Western democracy and the century-old bureaucracy. A systematic way of researching the Taiwanese bureaucracy will bring fruitful contribution to the world academia. In this research note, authors first argue for justifications of doing bureaucrat survey in nowadays Taiwan. Then, based on the experience of 2008 Taiwan Bureaucrat Survey, authors describe and reflect on sampling, surveying and data analyzing experiences. Finally, authors discuss the limitations and opportunities of the Taiwan Bureaucrat Survey in the future.
期刊論文
1.Ferris, James、Graddy, Elizabeth(1985)。Contracting Out: For what? With whom?。Public Administration Review,46(4),332-344。  new window
2.Wilson, W.(1887)。The Study of Public Administration。Political Science Quarterly,2(2),197-222。  new window
3.Knill, C.(1999)。Explaining Cross-National Variance in Administrative Reform: Autonomous versus Instrumental Bureaucracies。Journal of Public Policy,19(2),113-139。  new window
4.Peters, B. Guys、Savoie, Donald(1996)。Managing Incoherence: The Coordination and Empowerment Conundrum。Public Administration Review,56(3),281-289。  new window
5.Gill, J.、Meier, K. J.(2000)。Public Administration Research and Practice: A Methodological Manifesto。Journal of Public Administration: Research and Theory,10(1),157-199。  new window
6.Luton, L. S.(2007)。Deconstructing Public Administration Empiricism。Administration & Society,39(4),527-544。  new window
7.Hood, Christopher、Peters, B. Guy(2004)。The Middle Aging of New Public Management: Into the Age of Paradox?。Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,14(3),267-282。  new window
8.Wildavsky, Aaron(1973)。If planning is everything, maybe it's nothing。Policy Sciences,4(2),127-153。  new window
9.Dahl, Robert Alan(1947)。The science of public administration: Three problems。Public Administration Review,7(1),1-11。  new window
10.Sanderson, I.(2002)。Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making。Public Administration,80(1),1-22。  new window
11.Meier, Kenneth J.、O'Toole, Laurence J. Jr.(2009)。The proverbs of new public management: Lessons from an evidence-based research agenda。The American Review of Public Administration,39(1),4-22。  new window
12.Meier, K. J.、O'Toole, L. J. Jr.(2007)。Deconstructing Larry Luton or What Time is the Next Train to Reality Junction?。Administration & Society,39(6),786-796。  new window
13.洪永泰(20031100)。原始樣本、替代樣本、與追蹤樣本的比較:「2001年臺灣選舉與民主化調查研究」訪問失敗問題的探討。選舉研究,10(2),37-58。new window  延伸查詢new window
14.Romzek, Barbara S.、Dubnick, Melvin J.(1987)。Accountability in the Public Sector: Lessons from the Challenger Tragedy。Public Administration Review,47(3),227-238。  new window
15.Kim, C. K.(2003)。The effects of a president’s party on federal senior executive employment- An empirical analysis on representative bureaucracy。Administration & Society,35(2),160-183。  new window
16.Learmonth, M.,、N. Harding(2006)。Evidence-based management: The very idea。Public Administration,84(2),245-266。  new window
17.Light, P.(2006)。The tides of reform revisited: Patterns in making government work, 1945-2002。Public Administration Review,66(1),6-19。  new window
18.Luton, L. S.(2008)。Beyond empiricists versus postmodernists。Administration & Society,40(2),211-219。  new window
19.李震洲(2008)。廢除分區定額錄取與取消列考三民主義的歷史省思-從轉型正義角度加以觀察。國家菁英季刊,4(2),53-70。  延伸查詢new window
20.Bozeman, B.,、M. K. Feeney(2008)。Public management mentoring: What affects out-comes?。Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,19(2),427-52。  new window
21.Bowman, J. S.(1990)。Ethics in government: A national survey of public administration。Public Administration Review,50(3),345-353。  new window
22.Brunsson, N.(2006)。Administrative reforms as routines。Scandinavian Journal of Management,22(5),243-252。  new window
23.Evans, B., J. Lum,、J. Shields(2007)。Profiling of the public-service elite: A demographic and career trajectory survey of deputy and assistant deputy ministers in Canada。Canadian Public Administration-Administration,50(4),609-634。  new window
24.Lynn, L. E., C. J. Heinrich Jr.,、C. J. Hill(2008)。The empiricist goose has not been cooked!。Administration & Society,40(1),104-109。  new window
25.Muldrow, T. W., T. Buckley,、B. W. Schey(2002)。Creating high-performance organizations in the public sector。Human Resource Management,41(3),341-354。  new window
26.Rainey, H. G., S. Pandey,、B. Bozeman(1995)。Research note: Public and private managers’ perceptions of red tape。Public Administration Review,55(6),567-574。  new window
27.Scott, P. G.,、S. K. Pandey(2005)。Red tape and public service motivation: Findings from a national survey of managers in state health and human services agencies。Review of Public Personnel Administration,25(2),155-180。  new window
28.Schay, B., M. E. Beach, J. Caldwell,、C. LaPolice(2002)。Using standardized outcome measures in the federal government。Human Resource Management,41(3),355-368。  new window
29.Vigoda-Gadot, E., S. Mizrahi, R. Miller-Mor,、E. Tevet(2008)。The bureaucracydemocracy tango: A dual-source empirical revalidation by structural equation modeling in the Israeli public sector。Policy and Politics,36(3),431-448。  new window
30.Wandersman, A., P. Imm, M. Chinman,、S. Kaftarian(2000)。Getting to outcomes: A results-based approach to accountability。Evaluation and Program Planning,23(3),389-395。  new window
31.Wynia, B.(1974)。Federal bureaucrats’ attitudes toward a democratic ideology。Public Administrative Review,34(2),156-162。  new window
會議論文
1.蕭乃沂、黃東益、陳敦源、呂佳螢(2008)。台灣文官意見調查的挑戰與反思--以「2008年台灣民主治理機制鞏固之研究」為例。中央研究院第八屆調查研究方法與應用國際學術研討會,中研院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心 (會議日期: 9月11-12日)。台北:中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心。  延伸查詢new window
2.陳敦源、呂佳螢(2009)。政治與行政的二分與重整? 台灣文官態度與行為的實證分析。2009TASPAA 全球化下新公共管理趨勢與挑戰—理論與實踐研討會,(會議日期: 5月23-24日)。高雄:中山大學公共事務管理研究所。  延伸查詢new window
3.蔡秀涓、王千文(2008)。研究架構、議題選取與問卷設計:民主治理系絡之台灣政府文官調查。2008年台灣政治學會年會暨學術研討會,國立暨南大學公共行政暨政策學系 (會議日期: 11月22至23日)。  延伸查詢new window
4.Jan, Chung-yuang, Yan-Yi Chang,、Chun-Yuan Wang.(2009)。The cognitions, attitudes, and responsive behaviors of bureaucrats and political appointees to privatization in Taiwan。  new window
5.LeRous, K.,、S. K. Pandey(2008)。City managers, career incentives, and service delivery decisions: The effects of managerial ambition on interlocal cooperation choice。Boston。  new window
6.陳敦源、呂佳螢(2008)。2008 年台灣政府文官調查經驗:理論、方法、與挑戰。南投縣。  延伸查詢new window
7.黃東益、謝忠安(2008)。管道取得與信任建立:新興民主國家文官意見蒐集方法的探討。2008年度台灣政治學會年會暨學術研討會,暨南大學 (會議日期: 2008年11月)。南投縣。  延伸查詢new window
8.黃東益、陳敦源、施佳良(2009)。公共行政規範性根基的探索-2008年台灣公務人員民主價值的分析。高雄市。  延伸查詢new window
9.張智凱、高培智、詹中原(2008)。文官調查的跨國比較:機會與挑戰。2008年度台灣政治學會年會暨學術研討會,暨南大學 。南投縣。  延伸查詢new window
10.詹中原、張智凱、高培智、林子寧(2009)。台灣文官之國家角色認知與政策哲學態度-新管理主義下民營化政策角度的實證觀察。高雄市。  延伸查詢new window
11.蔡秀涓、王千文(2009)。台灣民主治理重要基礎:公務人員公共服務倫理認知分析。高雄市。  延伸查詢new window
12.蕭乃沂、陳敦源、蘇偉業(2008)。發展循證基礎的文官研究與實務:「台灣文官調查資料庫」芻議。2008年度台灣政治學會年會暨學術研討會,暨南大學 。南投縣。  延伸查詢new window
13.Don-yun Chen, Tong-yi Huang,、Chih-kai Chang.(2009)。Delving into the mystery of neutrality ethic in a consolidating democracy: A preliminary exploration from the Taiwan bureaucrat survey (Tbs) in 2008。  new window
14.Tong-yi Huang, Naiyi Hsiao, Don-yun Chen,、Chia-ying Lu(2009)。Laying groundwork for evidence-based public management: Methodological issues in surveying civil servants in a newly democratized country。Miami。  new window
15.Wright, B. E.,、S. K. Pandey(2005)。Exploring the nomological map of the public service motivation concept。Los Angeles, CA。  new window
研究報告
1.傅仰止、張晉芬(2007)。台灣社會變遷基本調查計畫:第五期第二次調查計畫執行報告 (計畫編號:NSC 95-2420-H-001-006-B1)。臺北:中央研究院社會學研究所。  延伸查詢new window
2.Kaufmann, D., A. Kraay,、M. Mastruzzi(2009)。Governance matters VIII: Aggregate and individual governance indicators, 1996-2008。Washington D.C.。  new window
3.黃秀端(2006)。2008年選舉與民主化調查四年期研究規劃(II):2006年北高兩市選舉面訪案。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.Kjaer, Anne Mette(2004)。Governance: Key Concepts。Polity。  new window
2.Pawson, P.(2006)。Evidence-based policy: A realist perspective。London:Sage Publication。  new window
3.David, H., S. Mutley,、P. Smith Eds.(2000)。What Works? Evidence-based Policy and Practice in Public Services。Bristol:The Policy Press。  new window
4.Fukuyama, F.(2004)。State-building: Governance and world order in the 21st century。Ithaca, NY:Cornell University Press。  new window
5.Levine, C. H.、Peters, B. G.、Thompson, F. J.(1990)。Public Administration: Challenges, Choices, Consequences。Glenview, IL:Scott, Foresman/Little Brown Higher Education。  new window
6.Caiden, Gerald E.(1991)。Administrative Reform Comes of Age。Berlin:New York, NY:Walter de Gruyter。  new window
7.Mosher, F. C.(1982)。Democracy and the Public Service。New York, NY。  new window
8.Cook, T. D.、Campbell, D. T.(1979)。Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings。Boston:Houghton Mifflin Company。  new window
9.Evans, Peter B.、Rueschemeyer, Dietrich、Skocpol, Theda(1985)。Bringing the State Back In。New York:Cambridge University Press。  new window
10.van de Ven, Andrew H.、Ferry, Diane L.(1980)。Measuring and Assessing Organizations。John Wiley & Sons, Inc.。  new window
11.Kaplan, Robert S.、Norton, David P.(1996)。The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action。Boston:Harvard Business School Press。  new window
12.Fulton, L.(1970)。The civil service (vol. i~vii)。London。  new window
13.Pfeffer, J.,、R. I. Sutton(2006)。Hard facts: Dangerous half-truth & total nonsense。Mass.。  new window
14.Stewart, R.(2002)。Evidence-based management: A practical guide for health professionals。Abingdon。  new window
15.Taylor, J. C.,、D. G. Bowers Eds.(1972)。Survey of organizations: A machinescored standardized questionnaire instrument。MI.。  new window
圖書論文
1.Peters, B. Guy(1993)。Managing the Hollow State。Managing Public Organizations: Lessons From Contemporary European Experience。Sage Publications。  new window
2.Waldo, Dwight(1990)。A Theory of Public Administration Means in Our Time a Theory of Politics Also。Public Administration: The State of the Discipline。Chatham, New Jersey:Chatham Hourse。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
1. 不同抽樣底冊之選民母體與投票母體的輪廓分析:以2016年總統選舉民調為例
2. 員工幸福感的意涵與影響因素之探討
3. 個案教學是公共管理專業訓練的未來嗎?一個來自實驗研究的循證論述
4. 以地址最末兩碼調整之戶中選樣表
5. 政務事務互動關係:臺灣文官對政治的容忍之研究
6. 政策試點解決爭議性道德政策之嘗試:以宜蘭縣流浪犬絕育回置政策為例
7. 考績等第決定的非正式制度:甲等比例限縮政策影響之分析
8. 由「證據基礎」轉向「證據影響」--論「政策試點」方法的侷限與展望
9. 我國政府民意調查委外辦理的現狀與未來:一個簡要的回顧式探索
10. 定群研究之樣本追蹤策略探究
11. 書評:觀察政府菁英[1.R. A. W. Rhodes, P.'t. Hart and M. Noordegraaf eds., «Observing Government Elites» (觀察政府菁英) (Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2007) 2.R. A. W. Rhodes, «Everyday Life in British Government» (英國政府中的日常生活) (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press (OUP), 2011)]
12. 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
13. 公僕所為何來?臺南市政府文官公共服務動機影響工作努力意願之實證研究
14. 訪員如何影響訪問績效?一個互動式的觀點
15. 「聞聲救苦」或「濫用靈性」?職場靈性影響組織行為之實證研究--以文官靈性為中介變項
 
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE