Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/132451


Title: 台灣高中生的政治功效意識
Political Efficacy of Senior High School Students in Taiwan
Authors: 陳脩文
Chen, Hsiu-Wen
Contributors: 俞振華
陳脩文
Chen, Hsiu-Wen
Keywords: 政治社會化
政治功效意識
政治態度
Political Socialization
Sense of Political Efficacy
Political Attitude
Date: 2020
Issue Date: 2020-11-03 11:29:02 (UTC+8)
Abstract: 台灣近幾年的政治事件都有青少年的身影,例如太陽花學運、課綱微調、同性婚姻議題等等,顯見青少年對於國家的未來有一定的想像,並積極表達自己的想法,但此時台灣的整體社會環境並沒有給予青少年足夠的空間與條件,讓青少年能夠完整表達自己的想法。目前台灣在「青少年參政」這件事情上面會遇到幾個問題,一方面是社會上普遍認為青少年不夠成熟,無法做出合理的決定;另一方面是法律的不足,我國投票年齡為20歲,是所有民主國家中限制最高的,某種程度而言造成青少年無法透過投票表達自己的想法。因此,本研究希望了解青少年的政治社會化經驗,了解現階段的高中生對治治議題有什麼想法,以及產生什麼行動。
本研究採取質性研究,透過訪談12位高中生,來了解他們與家庭、學校、同儕之間的政治互動,以及從「18歲公民權」這個議題,來觀察學生對於參與政治的想法,以及自己對於台灣政治的期許。研究結果顯示,青少年期待「理性」的對話,若父母親與自身的政治立場相同,會與父母親進行政治議題的討論,反之,若立場不同,可能會選擇「冷處理」。再來,不同的學校在政治議題上採取不同的立場,導致學生在看待政治事務上會出現落差,立場較積極的學校,學生的態度也較為積極,而立場較為保守的學校,學生也會盡量避免觸碰較為敏感的議題。最後,所有受訪者都展現積極的「內在政治功效意識」,認為投票的確可以改變社會,但受訪者同時也擔心身邊的同學是否足夠成熟,能夠決定公共事務。
Taiwan's political events in recent years have all involved young people, such as the Sunflower Movement, the adjustment of senior high school curriculum, same-sex marriage issues, and so on. Young people have a certain amount of imagination about the future of the country and are actively expressing their own ideas, but the social environment in Taiwan does not give them the opportunity to do so. At present, Taiwan has encountered several problems in the issue of "youth participation in politics". On the one hand, there is a general perception in the community that young people are not mature enough to make reasonable decisions. On the other hand, it is the inadequacy of the law. The voting age in our country is 20 years, which is the highest among all democratic countries. The most restrictive, in a way, prevented the youths from expressing their ideas through voting. Therefore, this study hopes to understand adolescents' experiences of political socialization, what current high school students think about governance issues, and what actions arise.
This study adopts a qualitative approach by interviewing 12 high school students to understand their political interactions with their families, schools, and peers. The students' thoughts on political participation, as well as their own views on Taiwan's politics, were observed from the issue of "Voting Age to be Lowered to 18". Research shows that adolescents expect "rational" conversations, so if the parents share the same political stance as themselves, they will discuss political issues with the parents; conversely, if the stance is different, they may choose to "cold deal" with political issues in the home. Furthermore, different schools adopt different stances on political issues, resulting in a gap in students' perception of political issues. Schools with a more positive stance will have more positive attitudes, while schools with a more conservative stance will try to avoid touching the more sensitive issues. Finally, all respondents showed positive internal efficacy of the sense of political efficacy, believing that voting could indeed change society. At the same time, respondents are worried about whether the students around us are mature enough to make decisions on public affairs.
Reference: 一、中文部分
上報,2018,〈【2018美國期中選舉】世代篇:美國年輕選民想什麼?〉,http://bit.ly/2VBafiR,查閱期間:2020年3月3日。
中央社,2018,〈九合一選舉結果 6張圖表快速看懂〉,https://www.cna.com.tw/news/firstnews/201811255007.aspx,查閱期間:2020年3月4日。
中央通訊社,2019,〈日本年輕人冷感 2019多項選舉投票率跌破5成〉,https://www.cna.com.tw/news/aopl/201912300160.aspx,查閱時間:2020年3月3日。
今周刊,2014,〈投票年齡下修到18歲 是時候了〉,http://bit.ly/2IcjZYE,檢索日期:2020年3月1日。
公共電視,2019,〈12位台灣青少年 深談國家認同與未來〉,https://youtu.be/ebRmX-5gPfU,檢索日期:2020年3月2日。
公共電視,2019,〈青少年怎麼看台灣未來?首份【青少年國族認同大調查】公開!〉,https://about.pts.org.tw/pr/latestnews/article/4124,檢索日期:2020年3月2日。
台灣少年權益與福利促進聯盟,2018,〈十八歲公民權〉,http://www.youthrights.org.tw/project/39,檢索日期:2020年3月2日。
民報,2017,〈18-20歲可以公投 但不能選總統〉,https://www.peoplenews.tw/news/63a4efa8-0e35-4fec-9042-b1d995dc9110,檢索日期:2020年3月2日。
自由時報,2016,〈台灣智庫:年輕人投票率74.5% 補刀終結國民黨〉,https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/politics/breakingnews/1579950,查閱時間:2020年3月3日。
吳依珊,2015,〈當代青年政治參與、公民能力與政治效能感之研究〉,《國教新知》,62(1):21-33。
易君博,1993,《政治理論與研究方法》,台北:三民。
林嘉誠、朱浤源,1994,《政治學辭典》,臺北:五南。
阿滴英文,2020,〈2020.01.11 記得喔!〉,https://youtu.be/jGppF61TXsw,查閱時間:2020年3月4日。
香港01,2018,〈【美國中期選舉】投票人數首度突破1億 投票率達49%〉,http://bit.ly/3arD6dl,查閱期間:2020年3月3日。
袁頌西,2003,《當代政治研究-方法與理論探微》,台北:時英。
逆思,2016,〈美國低投票率的解構〉,http://bit.ly/2vBlInL,查閱期間:2020年3月3日。
國民大會秘書處,1994,《第二屆國民大會第四次臨時會實錄》,台北:國民大會秘書處編。
張哲維,2006,〈降低投票年齡的十個理由〉,https://www.youthrights.org.tw/discuss/329,檢索日期:2020年3月2日。
陳文俊,1983,《臺灣地區中學生的政治態度及其形成因素: 青少年的政治社會化》,資訊教育推廣中心基金會出版部。
陳光輝,2018,〈政治學相關科系大學生參與太陽花學運的追蹤分析〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,15(2),51-99。
陳光輝、蔡奇霖,2010,〈學校教育與政治社會化:教育程度與自我認定的關聯性〉,《台灣政治學刊》,14(1),55-103。
陳陸輝,連偉廷,2008,〈知性, 黨性與資訊-台灣民眾政治效能感的分析〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,5(3):121-156。
陳陸輝、黃信豪,2007,〈社會化媒介,在學經驗與台灣大學生的政治功效意識和政治參與〉,《東亞研究》,38(1),1-48。
陳義彥、陳陸輝,2004,〈我國大學生政治價值與態度的持續與變遷-大學四年社會化過程之研究Ⅰ〉,行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計劃,計畫編號:NSC93-2414-H-004-032-SSS。
游美惠,2005,〈身分認同與認同政治〉,《性別平等教育季刊》,31:58-61。
黃信豪,2005,〈台灣民眾政治功效意識的持續與變遷:政黨輪替前後的分析〉,《選舉研究》,12(2): 111-147。
楊婉瑩,2007,〈政治參與的性別差異〉,《選舉研究》,14(2):53-94。
鄭夙芬,2005,〈焦點團體研究法的理論與應用〉,《選舉研究》,12(1):211-239。
盧沛樺,2010,〈網路動員與青年公民參與:以PTT 鄉民救災團為例〉,中華傳播學會2010 年年會。
駱明慶,2018,〈誰是台大學生?(2001-2014)-多元入學的影響〉,《經濟論文叢刊》,46(1):47-95。

二、英文部分
Almond, Gabriel A., and Sidney Verba. 1963. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Beck, Paul Allen, and M. Kent Jennings. 1975. “Parents as ‘Middlepersons’ in Political Socialization.” Journal of Politics 37(1):83-107.
Campbell, Angus, Gerald Gurin, and Warren Miller. 1954. The Voter Decide. Evanston, II. Row, Peterson.
Dahl, R. A. 1989. Democracy and its Critics. Yale University Press.
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
Easton, David & Robert D.Hess, 1962, ”The Childs Political World.” Midwest Journal of Political Science(MJPS), vol.6,229-246.
Easton, David and Jack Dennis. 1967. “The Child's Acquisition of Regime Norm: Political Efficacy”. American Political Science Review, 61:25-38.
Greenstein, Fred I. 1965. Children and Politics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 85-106.
Greenstein, Fred I. 1975. “The Benevolent Leader Revisited: Children's Images of Political Leaders in Three Democracies.” American Political Science Review 69 (4):1371-98.
Greenstein, Fred I. 1968. “Political Socialization” in David. L.Sills, ed., International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Vol.14. New York: The Macmillan Company and the Free Press.
Grönlund, K., & Milner, H. 2006. “The determinants of political knowledge in comparative perspective.” Scandinavian Political Studies 29(4), 386-406.
Inglehart, R. 1981. “Post-materialism in an environment of insecurity.” The American Political Science Review, 880-900.
Jenkins, R. 1996. Social Identity. London & New York: Routledge.
Jennings, M. Kent, and Richard G. Niemi. 1974. The Political Character of Adolescence: The Influence of Families and Schools. N. J.: Princeton University Press, 153-78.
Jennings, M. Kent, and Richard G. Niemi. 1981. Generations and Politics: A Panel Study of Youth Adults and Their Parents. N.J.: Princeton University Press, 230-305.
Jennings, M. Kent. 2007. “Political Socialization.” In Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior, eds. Russell J. Dalton and Hans-Dieter Klingemann. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 29-44.
Lane, Robert E. 1959. Political life. New York: Macmillan Co.
Langton, Kenneth P. 1969. Political Socialization. Oxford University Press.
Madsen, Douglas. 1987. “Political Self-Efficacy Tested.” American Political Science Review 81:571-581.
Manheim, J. B. 1982. The politics within: A primer in political attitudes and behavior. New York: Longman.
Morgan, D. L. 1996. Focus groups as qualitative research (Vol. 16). Sage publications.
Morgan, D. L. and Krueger, R. A. 1998. Developing questions for focus groups. Sage.
NAIL Communications, 2018, “Dear young people, "Don't Vote".” https://youtu.be/t0e9guhV35o, (March 3, 2020).
Nie, Norman H., Jane Junn, and Kenneth Stehlik_Barry. 1996. Education and Democratic Citizenship in America. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press,97-110;131-75.
Quintelier, Ellen, Dietlind Stolle, and Allison Harell. 2012. “Politics in Peer Groups: Exploring the Causal Relationship between Network Diversity and Political Participation.” Political Research Quarterly 65(4):868-881.
Saphir, Melissa Nichols, Steven H. Chaffee. 2002. “Adolescents’ Contributions to Family Communication Patterns.” Human Communication Research 28(1): 86-108.
Steven E. Finkel, 1985. “Reciprocal Effects of Participation and Political Efficacy: A Panel Analysis.” American Journal of Political Science 29(4): 891-913.
Weissberg, Robert. 1975. “Political Efficacy and Political Illusion.” Journal of Politics 37(2):469-487.
Description: 碩士
國立政治大學
政治學系
105252016
Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105252016
Data Type: thesis
Appears in Collections:[政治學系] 學位論文

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
201601.pdf2879KbAdobe PDF43View/Open


All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


社群 sharing