Publications-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 設計在公共政策應用之研究 —以公園不再大眾臉計畫為例
Public Policy Design—A Case Study On “Transform Taipei Parks into inclusive playgrounds”movement, from 2016 to 2018作者 潘世佳
Pan, Shih-Chia貢獻者 蕭乃沂
Hsiao, Nai-Yi
潘世佳
Pan, Shih-Chia關鍵詞 世界設計之都
社會設計
共融設計
政策擴散
World design capital
Social design
Inclusive design
Policy diffusion日期 2018 上傳時間 1-Oct-2018 12:15:43 (UTC+8) 摘要 隨著各領域設計實務在公共政策應用的發展，歐盟與學術單位的合作研究中顯示設計在公共政策的應用有三個層次，分別為設計在個別公共問題的應用、公共組織設計培力，以及輔助政策創新發展；其中，關於公共組織設計培力和輔助政策發展的研究相較缺乏。本研究藉由個別深度訪談、次級資料分析與內容分析法，分析延續台北市政府文化局於2016年辦理世界設計之都有關公共空間再造、鄰里公園遊戲場設計再造議題的公園不再大眾臉計畫中，當代公共政策中的設計參與和過往的不同、設計培力對政策創新發展的影響、以及面對當代設計參與公共議題模式的轉變，設計與公共行政二種專業未來在政策創新發想的搭配架構。本研究發現，不同於過往公部門在公共空間規畫案以說明會為主的單向式公民參與模式，設計工作者的參與對公部門與使用者而言，皆帶來相當設計教育投入，從而影響最終共融遊戲場的設計成果。本次計畫由民間發起議題倡議、並藉由設計工作者對多元使用者類別和需求洞察的協力，公部門得以更準確地界定問題和使用者，並據以規劃適當的使用者參與機制；對使用者而言，本次計畫的設計推動過程，亦富有相當的教育意涵，因為多元使用者得以藉由設計此一介面，學習到對彼此的接納和理解。最後，本研究藉由在公園不再大眾臉計畫，各局處就共融遊戲場議題的投入而觀察到政策擴散的現象，就我國未來就政策創新發想如何持續發展、實踐於政策場域提出建議和省思。
By reviewing the design research that European Union issued on 2013, “design as capability” and “design for policy innovation” isn’t being discussed much in current design and policy research. This research aims to review “Transform Taipei Parks into inclusive playground” movement during 2016 to 2018”, explores how design empowerment and design for innovation was applied to public policy, and what the result is. This research found that public administration limited to departmentalism, and the outsider design team had the potential to play an important role to collaborate diverse stakeholders on cross sector governance issue. But governors still need to tackle the following problems head-on: How to support these policy diffusions against departmentalism. It seems a lot of efforts, but the governors must figure out solutions to solve more wicked problems in the long run.參考文獻 中文文獻王希敏、郝冰（2016）（譯）。失去山林的孩子（第三版）（原作者：Richard Louv）。台北：野人文化。杜文苓、陳致中（2007）。民眾參與公共決策的反思 —以竹科宜蘭基地設置為例。臺灣民主季刊，4(3)，33-62。林啟新（2005）。公民參與與公共行政─以台北市政府鄰里公園改造說明會為例。世新大學行政管理學系碩士學位論文，未出版，台北。孫本初（2010）。公共管理，臺北：智勝。陳向明（2002）。社會科學質的研究。台北：五南。陳恒鈞、梁瑋倩（2009）。建成圓環再生計畫失敗因素之探討：參與治理觀點。文官制度季刊，考試院80周年慶特刊，81-124。翁註重（2002）。當「歷史」碰上「設計」—重看「設計史或設計研究」的爭論及其背後的歷史思維。設計學報，7(1)，15-31。莊雅秀（2015）（譯）。社區設計（原作者：山崎亮）。台北：城邦文化。高詹燦（2009）（譯）。設計=社會（原作者：柳本浩市）。台北：瑞昇文化。廖秋芬（2017）。打造台北市共融遊戲場。輔具之友。41，61-65。廖麗娟、呂雅雯（2010）。提升政府服務品質策略之探討。研考雙月刊，34(5)，12-23。劉維公（2006）。風格社會（第一版）。台北：天下雜誌。盧永毅、盧小未（1997）。工業設計史（第一版）。台北：田園城市文化。聯合報（2016年8月1日）。當童年只剩罐頭遊具 兒童心樂園又在哪？聯合報願景工程。取自：https://vision.udn.com/vision/story/10115/1864997台北市政府社會局（2017年5月9日）。共融式遊戲場宣導專區，取自：https://dosw.gov.taipei/News_Content.aspx?n=4E0583E8B33CEE25&sms=70221DE82F111A43&s=45914F7CFD7B64DF英文文獻Acharya, K. (2017, September). Can a Trash Can Reveal a Community’s Values? Retrieved June 19, 2018, from https://gehlinstitute.org/dialogue/can-trash-can-reveal-communitys-values/Allio, L. (2014, December). Design thinking for public service excellence. Paper presented at the 2013 UNDP Co-Design of Public Policy and Services Consultation, Singapore.Body, J. (2008). Design in the Australian Taxation Office. Design Issues. 24(1), 55-67.Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter, 31-36.Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues. 8(2), 5-21.Coleman, R., Lebbon, C., Clarkson, P., & Keates, S. (2003). From margins to mainstream: Why inclusive design is better design. In P.Clarkson (Ed.), Inclusive design: Design for the whole population (pp. 1e25). London: Springer.Considine, M. (2012). Thinking Outside the Box? Applying Design Theory to Public Policy. Politics & Policy, 40(4), 704-724.DESIS. (2016) From single storyteller to multiple stories enabler. The Pearl Diver, 1, 63-64.Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application.Design Studies. 32(6), 521-532.Falkeis, A. (2013, Fall). Social design = Public action urbanizing the world. SLUM LAB, 8, 4-5.Francis, M. “Reflections on Community Design,” paper presented at National Conference on Participatory Design on Low Income Communities, American institute of Architects, Washington, D.C., October 26-27, 1982.Francis, M. (2005). (Re)Constructing Communities: Design Participation in the Face of Change. University of California, Center for Design Research.Keats, S. & Clarkson, J. (2004). Countering Design Exclusion: An Introduction to Inclusive Design. United Kingdom: Springer-Verlag London Limited.Kershaw, A. & Quattrucci, Q. (2015, Spring). Citizen-centered design: Placing Citizens at the Centre of Policy Making, Rotman Management, 71-76.Lin, R. & Yen, C.C. & Chen, R. (2014). From Adaptive Design to Adaptive City-Design in Motion for Taipei. In Rau, P(Ed.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp.643-649). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.Logan, R. K. (2014). Design Thinking, governance and public policy: A green position paper. Razóny Y Palabra. 18(1), 1-6.Luck, R. (2018). Inclusive design and making in practice: Bringing bodily experience into closer contact with making. Design Studies (54), 96-119.Manzini, E., & Coad, R. (2015). Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation. MIT Press.Margolin, V. (2002). The Politics of Artificial, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.McCullagh, K. (2010). Stepping up: Design Thinking Has Uncovered Real Opportunities. Design Management Review. 21(3), 36-39.Papanek, V. (1974). Design for the real world (1st ed.). Glasgow, Scotland: HarperCollins Distribution Services.SEE Platform. (2013). Design for public good (Rep. No. 272099). London, United Kingdom: European Commission.Shedroff, N. (2009). Design Is the Problem: The Future of Design Must be Sustainable. Brooklyn, NY: Rosenfeld Media.Sommer, R. (1983). Social design. Creating buildings with people in mind. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Stickdorn, M., &Schneider, J. (2011). This is service design thinking. Basics-Tools-Cases. Amsterdam, Nederland: BIS Publishers.Terrey, N. (2009). Distributed Design Management in a Large Public-Sector Organization: Methods, Routines, and Processes. Design Management Journal. 4(1), 48-60.Tonkinwise, C. (2015). Just design: Being dogmatic about defining speculative, critical design future fiction. In K. Moline, & P. Hall (Eds.), Experimental thinking/design practices. Brisbane: Griffith University Art Gallery.Troll, S. (2017, November 13). In Copenhagen, a “People’s Park” Design Includes Dark Corners. Retrieved June 19, 2018, from https://nextcity.org/features/view/copenhagen-park-design-includes-dark-cornersSisk, A. T. (2018, January 17). When Designing Public Spaces, Start with Half a Plan. Retrieved June 19, 2018, from http://www.neighborworks.org/Media-Center/Blog-IdeaWorks/2018/January-2018/When-designing-public-spaces,-start-with-half-a-plan 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
公共行政學系
101256020資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1012560202 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 蕭乃沂 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Hsiao, Nai-Yi en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 潘世佳 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Pan, Shih-Chia en_US dc.creator (作者) 潘世佳 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Pan, Shih-Chia en_US dc.date (日期) 2018 en_US dc.date.accessioned 1-Oct-2018 12:15:43 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 1-Oct-2018 12:15:43 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Oct-2018 12:15:43 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G1012560202 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/120287 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 公共行政學系 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 101256020 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 隨著各領域設計實務在公共政策應用的發展，歐盟與學術單位的合作研究中顯示設計在公共政策的應用有三個層次，分別為設計在個別公共問題的應用、公共組織設計培力，以及輔助政策創新發展；其中，關於公共組織設計培力和輔助政策發展的研究相較缺乏。本研究藉由個別深度訪談、次級資料分析與內容分析法，分析延續台北市政府文化局於2016年辦理世界設計之都有關公共空間再造、鄰里公園遊戲場設計再造議題的公園不再大眾臉計畫中，當代公共政策中的設計參與和過往的不同、設計培力對政策創新發展的影響、以及面對當代設計參與公共議題模式的轉變，設計與公共行政二種專業未來在政策創新發想的搭配架構。本研究發現，不同於過往公部門在公共空間規畫案以說明會為主的單向式公民參與模式，設計工作者的參與對公部門與使用者而言，皆帶來相當設計教育投入，從而影響最終共融遊戲場的設計成果。本次計畫由民間發起議題倡議、並藉由設計工作者對多元使用者類別和需求洞察的協力，公部門得以更準確地界定問題和使用者，並據以規劃適當的使用者參與機制；對使用者而言，本次計畫的設計推動過程，亦富有相當的教育意涵，因為多元使用者得以藉由設計此一介面，學習到對彼此的接納和理解。最後，本研究藉由在公園不再大眾臉計畫，各局處就共融遊戲場議題的投入而觀察到政策擴散的現象，就我國未來就政策創新發想如何持續發展、實踐於政策場域提出建議和省思。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) By reviewing the design research that European Union issued on 2013, “design as capability” and “design for policy innovation” isn’t being discussed much in current design and policy research. This research aims to review “Transform Taipei Parks into inclusive playground” movement during 2016 to 2018”, explores how design empowerment and design for innovation was applied to public policy, and what the result is. This research found that public administration limited to departmentalism, and the outsider design team had the potential to play an important role to collaborate diverse stakeholders on cross sector governance issue. But governors still need to tackle the following problems head-on: How to support these policy diffusions against departmentalism. It seems a lot of efforts, but the governors must figure out solutions to solve more wicked problems in the long run. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 目次 I表次 III圖次 IV第一章 緒論 1第一節 研究背景 1第二節 研究動機與目的 2第三節 研究問題 4第四節 重要概念界定 4第二章 設計與公共政策 11第一節 當代公共政策中設計參與模式的轉變 11第二節 設計在公共政策的運用 14第三節 設計導入公共空間再造個案研析 24第四節 本章小結 28第三章 個案介紹 31第一節 世界設計之都 31第二節 Re-create Taipei 臺北鄰里公園翻轉計畫 37第三節 公園不再大眾臉計畫 39第四章 研究設計 45第一節 研究架構 45第二節 資料搜集方法與研究流程 47第三節 參與觀察法 49第四節 個別深度訪談 51第五節 研究倫理 54第五章 公共政策中的設計、行政與使用者參與 55第一節 鄰里公園遊戲場翻轉計畫中的設計參與 55第二節 設計教育對政策產出的影響 58第三節 設計與公共政策的搭配 74第四節 綜合分析與討論 77第六章 結論與建議 88第一節 研究發現 88第二節 實務建議 89第三節 研究限制與後續研究建議 92參考文獻 95附錄 99附錄一 朝陽公園好玩遊具工作坊參與觀察紀錄 第1場次 99附錄二 朝陽公園好玩遊具工作坊參與觀察紀錄 第2場次 103附錄三 中安公園使用者遊戲與社會互動行為 觀察筆記 106附錄四 朝陽茶葉公園使用者遊戲與社會互動行為 觀察筆記 106附錄五 訪談摘錄整理 108 zh_TW dc.format.extent 2592446 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1012560202 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 世界設計之都 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 社會設計 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 共融設計 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 政策擴散 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) World design capital en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Social design en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Inclusive design en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Policy diffusion en_US dc.title (題名) 設計在公共政策應用之研究 —以公園不再大眾臉計畫為例 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Public Policy Design—A Case Study On “Transform Taipei Parks into inclusive playgrounds”movement, from 2016 to 2018 en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文文獻王希敏、郝冰（2016）（譯）。失去山林的孩子（第三版）（原作者：Richard Louv）。台北：野人文化。杜文苓、陳致中（2007）。民眾參與公共決策的反思 —以竹科宜蘭基地設置為例。臺灣民主季刊，4(3)，33-62。林啟新（2005）。公民參與與公共行政─以台北市政府鄰里公園改造說明會為例。世新大學行政管理學系碩士學位論文，未出版，台北。孫本初（2010）。公共管理，臺北：智勝。陳向明（2002）。社會科學質的研究。台北：五南。陳恒鈞、梁瑋倩（2009）。建成圓環再生計畫失敗因素之探討：參與治理觀點。文官制度季刊，考試院80周年慶特刊，81-124。翁註重（2002）。當「歷史」碰上「設計」—重看「設計史或設計研究」的爭論及其背後的歷史思維。設計學報，7(1)，15-31。莊雅秀（2015）（譯）。社區設計（原作者：山崎亮）。台北：城邦文化。高詹燦（2009）（譯）。設計=社會（原作者：柳本浩市）。台北：瑞昇文化。廖秋芬（2017）。打造台北市共融遊戲場。輔具之友。41，61-65。廖麗娟、呂雅雯（2010）。提升政府服務品質策略之探討。研考雙月刊，34(5)，12-23。劉維公（2006）。風格社會（第一版）。台北：天下雜誌。盧永毅、盧小未（1997）。工業設計史（第一版）。台北：田園城市文化。聯合報（2016年8月1日）。當童年只剩罐頭遊具 兒童心樂園又在哪？聯合報願景工程。取自：https://vision.udn.com/vision/story/10115/1864997台北市政府社會局（2017年5月9日）。共融式遊戲場宣導專區，取自：https://dosw.gov.taipei/News_Content.aspx?n=4E0583E8B33CEE25&sms=70221DE82F111A43&s=45914F7CFD7B64DF英文文獻Acharya, K. (2017, September). Can a Trash Can Reveal a Community’s Values? Retrieved June 19, 2018, from https://gehlinstitute.org/dialogue/can-trash-can-reveal-communitys-values/Allio, L. (2014, December). Design thinking for public service excellence. Paper presented at the 2013 UNDP Co-Design of Public Policy and Services Consultation, Singapore.Body, J. (2008). Design in the Australian Taxation Office. Design Issues. 24(1), 55-67.Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter, 31-36.Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues. 8(2), 5-21.Coleman, R., Lebbon, C., Clarkson, P., & Keates, S. (2003). From margins to mainstream: Why inclusive design is better design. In P.Clarkson (Ed.), Inclusive design: Design for the whole population (pp. 1e25). London: Springer.Considine, M. (2012). Thinking Outside the Box? Applying Design Theory to Public Policy. Politics & Policy, 40(4), 704-724.DESIS. (2016) From single storyteller to multiple stories enabler. The Pearl Diver, 1, 63-64.Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application.Design Studies. 32(6), 521-532.Falkeis, A. (2013, Fall). Social design = Public action urbanizing the world. SLUM LAB, 8, 4-5.Francis, M. “Reflections on Community Design,” paper presented at National Conference on Participatory Design on Low Income Communities, American institute of Architects, Washington, D.C., October 26-27, 1982.Francis, M. (2005). (Re)Constructing Communities: Design Participation in the Face of Change. University of California, Center for Design Research.Keats, S. & Clarkson, J. (2004). Countering Design Exclusion: An Introduction to Inclusive Design. United Kingdom: Springer-Verlag London Limited.Kershaw, A. & Quattrucci, Q. (2015, Spring). Citizen-centered design: Placing Citizens at the Centre of Policy Making, Rotman Management, 71-76.Lin, R. & Yen, C.C. & Chen, R. (2014). From Adaptive Design to Adaptive City-Design in Motion for Taipei. In Rau, P(Ed.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp.643-649). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.Logan, R. K. (2014). Design Thinking, governance and public policy: A green position paper. Razóny Y Palabra. 18(1), 1-6.Luck, R. (2018). Inclusive design and making in practice: Bringing bodily experience into closer contact with making. Design Studies (54), 96-119.Manzini, E., & Coad, R. (2015). Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation. MIT Press.Margolin, V. (2002). The Politics of Artificial, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.McCullagh, K. (2010). Stepping up: Design Thinking Has Uncovered Real Opportunities. Design Management Review. 21(3), 36-39.Papanek, V. (1974). Design for the real world (1st ed.). Glasgow, Scotland: HarperCollins Distribution Services.SEE Platform. (2013). Design for public good (Rep. No. 272099). London, United Kingdom: European Commission.Shedroff, N. (2009). Design Is the Problem: The Future of Design Must be Sustainable. Brooklyn, NY: Rosenfeld Media.Sommer, R. (1983). Social design. Creating buildings with people in mind. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Stickdorn, M., &Schneider, J. (2011). This is service design thinking. Basics-Tools-Cases. Amsterdam, Nederland: BIS Publishers.Terrey, N. (2009). Distributed Design Management in a Large Public-Sector Organization: Methods, Routines, and Processes. Design Management Journal. 4(1), 48-60.Tonkinwise, C. (2015). Just design: Being dogmatic about defining speculative, critical design future fiction. In K. Moline, & P. Hall (Eds.), Experimental thinking/design practices. Brisbane: Griffith University Art Gallery.Troll, S. (2017, November 13). In Copenhagen, a “People’s Park” Design Includes Dark Corners. Retrieved June 19, 2018, from https://nextcity.org/features/view/copenhagen-park-design-includes-dark-cornersSisk, A. T. (2018, January 17). When Designing Public Spaces, Start with Half a Plan. Retrieved June 19, 2018, from http://www.neighborworks.org/Media-Center/Blog-IdeaWorks/2018/January-2018/When-designing-public-spaces,-start-with-half-a-plan zh_TW dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/THE.NCCU.PA.014.2018.F09 en_US
