1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. College of Social Science
  4. 學位論文
  5. Item

學術產出-學位論文

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

Citation Infomation

題名 透過委託 - 代理關係的社會資本發展及交換
Researching Research in Action: Social Capital Development and Exchange Through Principal-Agent Relationships
作者 湯姆
Robertson, Thomas
貢獻者 魏玫娟
Wei, Mei-Chuan
湯姆
Robertson, Thomas
關鍵詞 代理理論
行動研究
社會資本
信任
互惠
烏來
泰雅族
Agency theory
Action research
Social capital
Trust
Reciprocity
Wulai
Atayal
日期 2018
上傳時間 1-Oct-2018 12:20:03 (UTC+8)
摘要 世界各地的原住民因殖民歷史而面臨經濟、社會和文化的種種困境。現代社會與團結經濟理論帶來了發展倡議，在現代市場系統中透過文化知識、價值觀和傳統的運用，為邊緣化的民族提供更公平的條件。行動研究計畫的創建亦使當地民族得以融入並參與自身的發展。將當地民族與外界資源（如科技、科學和政治等專門知識）連結，預期會在經濟、社會和政治等層面帶來長期效益。
台灣國立政治大學的學者就發起一個這樣的計畫，名為「樂酷計畫」。這是針對提升烏來地區原住民族泰雅族的社區能力、以SSE為基礎的行動研究專案。「樂酷計畫」背後的學界人士運用其資源，使原民社區動起來並達到某些發展成效。然而，對經歷過許多停滯不前的計畫、一開始就抱持懷疑的社區來說，建立關係的過程並不容易。凝聚專案前進的動力需要大量且持續性的互惠關係。
來自外界的計畫發起人和參與其內的社區人員，兩者間協調利益的困難性或許可從「委託代理人理論」找到一些洞察。但代理關係並不會在「社會真空」狀態下發生。尤其是社會資本的文獻將信任、互惠和公平觀念視為連結委託人和代理人的關係因素，用來建立關係並降低代理成本。
本研究旨在透過社會資本視角，檢視「樂酷計畫」的代理關係，藉此為實際運作提供可推論的一般性見解，盼能為日後「樂酷計畫」或其他計畫框架下的專案提供參考，提升其成功的機會。
Indigenous peoples around the world are faced with many economic, social, and cultural difficulties as a result of colonial histories. Modern social and solidarity economic theory has led to developmental initiatives that seek to create more equitable conditions for marginalized peoples by leveraging cultural knowledge, values, and traditions in a modern market system, and action research programs have been created to allow inclusion and participation of local peoples in their own development. By linking local peoples to outside resources, such as technological, scientific, and political expertise, long term economic, social, and political benefits are expected.
One such program developed by scholars at National Chengchi University in Taiwan, was the Lokah Initiative; an SSE based action research project that focused on increasing community capacity of the indigenous Atayal people of Wulai. By mobilizing resources, academics behind the Lokah Initiative were able to activate the local community and reach some developmental successes. The process, however, required no small effort to build relationships with an initially skeptical community that had experienced many stalled projects in the past.
Principal-agent theory may provide some insight into the difficulty in aligning interests between outside experts who create programs and community members who participate in them. However, agency relationships do not occur in a social vacuum. In particular, literature on social capital implicates trust, reciprocity, and a sense of fairness as relational factors that indicate bridging links between principals and agents that can be used to build relationships and reduce agency costs.
This thesis seeks to examine the Lokah Initiative’s agency relationships through the lens of social capital. By doing this it is hoped to provide generalizable insights into practices that can help increase the likelihood of success for future projects under the Lokah umbrella and beyond.
參考文獻 Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S.-W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. The Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17–40. https://doi.org/10.2307/4134367

Aldrich, D. P., & Meyer, M. A. (2014). Social capital and community resilience. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214550299

Ansari, S., Munir, K., & Gregg, T. (2012). Impact at the “Bottom of the Pyramid”: The role of social capital in capability development and community empowerment. Journal of Management Studies, 49(4), 813–842. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01042.x

Belair C., Ichikawa K., Wong B.Y.L., M. K. . (2010). Sustainable use of biological diversity in socio-ecological production landscapes: Background to the ’Satoyama Initiative for the benefit of biodiversity and human well-being. CBD Technical Series No. 52. https://doi.org/Technical Series no. 52

Bennett, N., Lemelin, R. H., Koster, R., & Budke, I. (2012). A capital assets framework for appraising and building capacity for tourism development in aboriginal protected area gateway communities. Tourism Management, 33(4), 752–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.08.009

Blackstock, K. L., Kelly, G. J., & Horsey, B. L. (2007). Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability. Ecological Economics, 60(4), 726–742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.014

Blackstock, K. L., Waylen, K. A., Dunglinson, J., & Marshall, K. M. (2012). Linking process to outcomes - Internal and external criteria for a stakeholder involvement in river basin management planning. Ecological Economics, 77, 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.02.015

Bosse, D. A., Phillips, R. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2016). Agency theory and bounded self-interest. Academy of Management Review, 41(2), 276–297. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0420

Braun, D., & Guston, D. H. (2003). Principal–agent theory and research policy: an introduction. Science and Public Policy, 30(5), 302–308. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154303781780290

Brosnan, S. F. (2006). Nonhuman species’ reactions to inequity and their implications for fairness. Social Justice Research, 19(2), 153–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-006-0002-z

Cargo, M., & Mercer, S. L. (2008). The value and challenges of participatory research: Strengthening its practice. Annual Review of Public Health, 29(1), 325–350. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.091307.083824

Chao, C.-L. C.-L., & Hsu, P.-H. (2011). Learning about the development of ecotourism in the context of the Smangus tribe’s traditional ecological knowledge. GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites, 7(1), 7–21.

Colton, J. W., & Whitney-Squire, K. (2010). Exploring the relationship between aboriginal tourism and community development. Leisure/ Loisir, 34(3), 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/14927713.2010.521321

Dash, A. (2016). An epistemological reflection on social and solidarity economy. Forum for Social Economics, 45(1), 61–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/07360932.2014.995194

Döhler, M. (2018). Discovering the dark side of power: The principal’s moral hazard in political-bureaucratic relations. International Journal of Public Administration, 41(3), 190–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2016.1256893

Dyer, J., Stringer, L.C., Dougill, A. . (2014). Assessing participatory practices in community-based natural resource management: experiences in community engagement from southern Africa. Journal of Environmental Management, 137, 137–145.

Gordon, M. E. G., Kayseas, B., & Moroz, P. W. (2017). New venture creation and opportunity structure constraints: Indigenous-controlled development through joint ventures in the Canadian potash industry. Small Enterprise Research, 24(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13215906.2017.1291361

Graci, S. R., & Ph, D. (2012). Putting community based tourism into practice: The case of the Cree village ecolodge in Moose Factory, Ontario. Téoros: Revue de Recherche En Tourisme, TÉOROS, Sp, 65–70. https://doi.org/10.7202/1036565ar

Grano, S. A. (2015). Environmental Governance on Taiwan. London and New York: Routledge.

Grootaert, C., & Bastelaer, T. Van. (2001). Understanding and measuring social capital: A synthesis of findings and recommendations from the social capital initiative. Social Capital Initiative Working Paper (Vol. 24). https://doi.org/10.1227/00006123-197907010-00058

Grootaert, C., & Van Bastelaer, T. (2002). Understanding and measuring social capital.

Harrison, L., & Callan, T. (2013). Action research. Key Research Concepts in Politics and International Relations, 2–4.

Jagosh, J., Bush, P. L., Salsberg, J., Macaulay, A. C., Greenhalgh, T., Wong, G., … Pluye, P. (2015). A realist evaluation of community-based participatory research: Partnership synergy, trust building and related ripple effects. BMC Public Health, 15(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1949-1

Johnson, N. B., & Droege, S. (2004). Reflections on the generalization of agency theory: Cross-cultural considerations. Human Resource Management Review, 14(3), 325–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2004.06.003

Judge, T. A., & Zapata, C. P. (2015). The person-situation debate revisited: Effect of situation strength and trait activation on the validity of the big five personality traits in predicting job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 1149–1179. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0837

Kagan, C., Burton, M., & Siddiquee, A. (2006). The Handbook of Action Research - Introduction. Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in Psychology, 468. https://doi.org/0432

Kapashesit, R., & Klippenstein, M. (1991). Aboriginal group rights and environmental protection. McGill Law Journal, 36, 925–961.

Kivisto, J. (2008). An assessment of agency theory as a framework for the government-university relationship. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 30(4), 339–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800802383018

Klain, S. C., Beveridge, R., & Bennett, N. J. (2014). Ecologically sustainable but unjust? Negotiating equity and authority in common-pool marine resource management. Ecology and Society, 19(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07123-190452

Kuan, D.-W., Yen, & Ai-Ching. (2003). Traditional institution and the institutional choice: Two CPR self-governing cases of Atayal tribe in Taiwan indigenes. In Joining the northern commons: Lessons for the world, lessons from the world. IASCP Northern polar regional conference. Retrieved from https://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/1616/Kuan,DaWei.pdf?sequence=1

Kurzban, R. (2003). Biological foundations of reciprocity. In E. Ostrom & J. Walker (Eds.), Trust and Reciprocity (pp. 105–127). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Laville, J.-L. (2013). The social and solidarity economy: A theoretical and plural framework. In Potential and Limits of Social and Solidarity Economy (pp. 1–15). Retrieved from http://www.unrisd.org/80256B42004CCC77/(httpInfoFiles)/2A922D7DFB4821EEC1257B720032E1F4/$file/Jean-Louis Laville.pdf

Lemelin, R. H., Koster, R., & Youroukos, N. (2015). Tangible and intangible indicators of successful aboriginal tourism initiatives: A case study of two successful aboriginal tourism lodges in Northern Canada. Tourism Management, 47, 318–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.10.011

Lin, Y., & Hsiao, H. (2002). Contesting Aboriginal Community Mapping : a Critical View From Local Aboriginal Participation. In Proceedings of IUCN/WCPA-EA-4 Taipei Conference.

Lin, Y., & Icyeh, L. (2000). Indigenous Language-Informed Participatory Policy in Taiwan: A Socio-Political Perspective. In Documenting and Revitalizing Austronesian Languages (p. 134).

Maiter, S., Simich, L., Jacobson, N., & Wise, J. (2008). Reciprocity. Action Research, 6(3), 305–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750307083720

Marques, J. S. (2013). Social and Solidarity Economy, Between Emancipation and Reproduction. In Potential and Limits of Social and Solidarity Economy (pp. 1–13).

Matanle, P. (2011). The great east Japan earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear meltdown: Towards the (re)construction of a safe, sustainable, and compassionate society in Japan’ s shrinking regions. Local Environment, 16(January 2012), 37–41.

McTaggart, R., Nixon, R., & Kemmis, S. (2017). Critical Participatory Action Research. In L. L. Rowell, C. D. Bruce, J. M. Shosh, & M. M. Riel (Eds.), The Palgrave International Handbook of Action Research (pp. 21–35). New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-40523-4_2

Moller, H., Berkes, F., Lyver, P. O. B., & Kislalioglu, M. (2004). Combining science and traditional ecological knowledge: Monitoring populations for co-management. Ecology And Society, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.02.016

Moss, Q. Z., Alho, J., & Alexander, K. (2007). Performance measurement action research. Journal of Facilities Management, 5(4), 290–300. https://doi.org/10.1108/14725960710822277

Nadasdy, P. (2003). Reevaluating the comangement success story. Arctic, 56(4), 367–380. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic634

Nielson, D. L., & Tierney, M. J. (2003). Delegation to international organizations: Agency theory and World Bank environmental reform. International Organization, 57(02), 241–276. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818303572010

Noffke, S. (1997). Professional, personal, and political dimensions of action research. Review of Research in Education, 22(1997), 305–343. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X022001305

Oetzel, J. G., Wallerstein, N., Duran, B., Sanchez-Youngman, S., Nguyen, T., Woo, K., … Alegria, M. (2018). Impact of participatory health research: A test of the community-based participatory research conceptual model. BioMed Research International, 2018, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7281405

Ostrom, E. (2003). Toward a Behavioral Theory Linking Trust, Reciprocity, and Reputation. In Trust and Reciprocity (pp. 19–79). Russell Sage Foundation.

Pargal, S., Huq, M., & Gilligan, D. (1999). Social capital in solid waste management: Evidence from Dhaka, Bangladesh. Sustainable Development.

Pereira Morais, L., & Juan Bacic, M. (2017). Social and solidarity economy as a tool for territorial development and socio-occupational inclusion (No. 2017/06). Retrieved from http://www.ciriec.ulg.ac.be/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/WP2017-06.pdf

Pierotti, R., & Wildcat, D. (2000). Traditional ecological knowledge: the third alternative. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1333–1340. Retrieved from http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1333:TEKTTA]2.0.CO;2

Popova, U. (2014). Conservation, traditional knowledge, and indigenous peoples. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(1), 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213495043

Portes, A. (2014). Downsides of social capital. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(52), 18407–18408. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1421888112

Reid, D. (2011). Nation versus tradition: Indigenous rights and Smangus. In D. Blundell (Ed.), Taiwan Since Martial Law: Society, Culture, Politics, Economy (pp. 453–484). National Taiwan University Press.

Reo, N. J., & Whyte, K. P. (2012). Hunting and morality as elements of traditional ecological knowledge. Human Ecology, 40(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-011-9448-1

Riel, M. M. (2017). Digital technology in service of action research. In L. L. Rowell, C. D. Bruce, J. M. Shosh, & M. M. Riel (Eds.), The Palgrave International Handbook of Action Research (pp. 627–646). New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-40523-4_38

Robertson, J. (2000). The three Rs of action research methodology: reciprocity, reflexivity and reflection-on-reality. Educational Action Research, 8(2), 307–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790000200124

Rowell, L. L., Bruce, C. D., Shosh, J. M., & Riel, M. M. (2017). Introduction. In L. L. Rowell, C. D. Bruce, J. M. Shosh, & M. M. Riel (Eds.), The Palgrave International Handbook of Action Research (pp. 1–13). New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-40523-4_1

Shapiro, S. P. (2005). Agency theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 31(1), 263–284. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.31.041304.122159

Shih, C. (2010). Academic colonialism and the struggle for indigenous knowledge systems in Taiwan. Social Alternatives, 29(1), 44–48. Retrieved from http://faculty.ndhu.edu.tw/~cfshih/politics observation/newspaper/2010V29I12.pdf

Simon, S. (2013). Of Boars and men: Indigenous knowledge and co-management in Taiwan. Human Organization, 72(3), 220–229. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.72.3.xq24071269xl21j6

Somekh, B., & Zeichner, K. (2009). Action research for educational reform: Remodelling action research theories and practices in local contexts. Educational Action Research, 17(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790802667402

Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2011). A social capital framework for the study of institutional agents and their role in the empowerment of low-status students & youth. Youth & Society, 43(3), 1–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X10382877

Steets, J. (2010). Accountability in public policy partnerships. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230290617

Stephenson, J., Berkes, F., Turner, N. J., & Dick, J. (2014). Biocultural conservation of marine ecosystems: Examples from New Zealand and Canada. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge, 13(2), 257–265. Retrieved from http://www.niscair.res.in/sciencecommunication/ResearchJournals/rejour/ijtk/ijtk0.asp

Tai, H. S. (2007). Development through conservation: An institutional analysis of indigenous community-based conservation in Taiwan. World Development, 35(7), 1186–1203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.09.015

Urquhart, R., & Wearing, M. (2017). Organisational change in non-profit human services: Reflections on a collaborative action research approach to working with child, youth, and family organisations. In L. L. Rowell, C. D. Bruce, J. M. Shosh, & M. M. Riel (Eds.), The Palgrave International Handbook of Action Research (pp. 545–561). New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-40523-4_33

Utting, P. (2012). Social and solidarity economy: A pathway to socially sustainable development? Retrieved from http://www.unrisd.org/unrisd/website/newsview.nsf/0/ab920b156339500ac1257b5c002c1e96?opendocument&utm_campaign=ebulletin_23_5_2013&utm_medium=email_html&utm_source=en&utm_content=content_link

Utting, P. (2015). Introduction: The challenge of scaling up social and solidarity economy. Social and Solidarity Economy: Beyond the Fringe.

Van Puyvelde, S., Caers, R., du Bois, C., & Jegers, M. (2012). The governance of nonprofit organizations: Integrating agency theory with stakeholder and stewardship theories. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(3), 431–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764011409757

Vining, A. R., & Richards, J. (2016). Indigenous economic development in Canada: Confronting principal-agent and principal–principal problems to reduce resource rent dissipation. Resources Policy, 49, 358–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2016.07.006

Von der Porten, S., & De Loë, R. C. (2013). Collaborative approaches to governance for water and Indigenous peoples: A case study from British Columbia, Canada. Geoforum, 50, 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.09.001

Wiseman, R. M., Cuevas-Rodríguez, G., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2012). Towards a social theory of agency. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2011.01016.x

Woolcock, M., & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for development theory, research, and policy. World Bank Research Observer, 15(2), 225–249. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/15.2.225

Worsham, J., & Gatrell, J. (2005). Multiple principals, multiple signals: A signaling model of principal-agent relations. The Policy Studies Journal, 33(3), 363–377. Retrieved from http://www.pmranet.org/conferences/georgetownpapers/Worsham.pdf

Yoshimura, M., & Wall, G. (2010). The reconstruction of Atayal identity in Wulai, Taiwan. In M. Hitchcock, V. T. King, & M. Parnwell (Eds.), Heritage Tourism in Southeast Asia (pp. 49–71). NIAS Press.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
亞太研究英語碩士學位學程(IMAS)
999260231
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0999260231
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 魏玫娟zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Wei, Mei-Chuanen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 湯姆zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Robertson, Thomasen_US
dc.creator (作者) 湯姆zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Robertson, Thomasen_US
dc.date (日期) 2018en_US
dc.date.accessioned 1-Oct-2018 12:20:03 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 1-Oct-2018 12:20:03 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Oct-2018 12:20:03 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0999260231en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/120314-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 亞太研究英語碩士學位學程(IMAS)zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 999260231zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 世界各地的原住民因殖民歷史而面臨經濟、社會和文化的種種困境。現代社會與團結經濟理論帶來了發展倡議，在現代市場系統中透過文化知識、價值觀和傳統的運用，為邊緣化的民族提供更公平的條件。行動研究計畫的創建亦使當地民族得以融入並參與自身的發展。將當地民族與外界資源（如科技、科學和政治等專門知識）連結，預期會在經濟、社會和政治等層面帶來長期效益。
台灣國立政治大學的學者就發起一個這樣的計畫，名為「樂酷計畫」。這是針對提升烏來地區原住民族泰雅族的社區能力、以SSE為基礎的行動研究專案。「樂酷計畫」背後的學界人士運用其資源，使原民社區動起來並達到某些發展成效。然而，對經歷過許多停滯不前的計畫、一開始就抱持懷疑的社區來說，建立關係的過程並不容易。凝聚專案前進的動力需要大量且持續性的互惠關係。
來自外界的計畫發起人和參與其內的社區人員，兩者間協調利益的困難性或許可從「委託代理人理論」找到一些洞察。但代理關係並不會在「社會真空」狀態下發生。尤其是社會資本的文獻將信任、互惠和公平觀念視為連結委託人和代理人的關係因素，用來建立關係並降低代理成本。
本研究旨在透過社會資本視角，檢視「樂酷計畫」的代理關係，藉此為實際運作提供可推論的一般性見解，盼能為日後「樂酷計畫」或其他計畫框架下的專案提供參考，提升其成功的機會。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) Indigenous peoples around the world are faced with many economic, social, and cultural difficulties as a result of colonial histories. Modern social and solidarity economic theory has led to developmental initiatives that seek to create more equitable conditions for marginalized peoples by leveraging cultural knowledge, values, and traditions in a modern market system, and action research programs have been created to allow inclusion and participation of local peoples in their own development. By linking local peoples to outside resources, such as technological, scientific, and political expertise, long term economic, social, and political benefits are expected.
One such program developed by scholars at National Chengchi University in Taiwan, was the Lokah Initiative; an SSE based action research project that focused on increasing community capacity of the indigenous Atayal people of Wulai. By mobilizing resources, academics behind the Lokah Initiative were able to activate the local community and reach some developmental successes. The process, however, required no small effort to build relationships with an initially skeptical community that had experienced many stalled projects in the past.
Principal-agent theory may provide some insight into the difficulty in aligning interests between outside experts who create programs and community members who participate in them. However, agency relationships do not occur in a social vacuum. In particular, literature on social capital implicates trust, reciprocity, and a sense of fairness as relational factors that indicate bridging links between principals and agents that can be used to build relationships and reduce agency costs.
This thesis seeks to examine the Lokah Initiative’s agency relationships through the lens of social capital. By doing this it is hoped to provide generalizable insights into practices that can help increase the likelihood of success for future projects under the Lokah umbrella and beyond.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents Table of Contents

Acknowledgements i
Abstract ii
Keywords iv

Chapter 1: Introduction 1
1.1 A Brief History of Indigenous Issues in Taiwan 4
1.2 Social and Solidarity Economy 6

Chapter 2: Literature Review 10
2.1 Action Research 10
2.2 Agency Theory 14
2.3 Social Capital 21
2.4 Measuring Social Capital 28

3. Methods 30
3.1 Framework 30
3.2 Proxy Indicators 33

4. Results 37
4.1 Background 37
4.2 Indicators of Social Capital: Trust and Reciprocity 41
4.3 Subprojects 43
4.4 Social Capital 45

5. Discussion 47
5.1 Social Capital Indicators 47
5.2 Perceived Motivations 47
5.3 Second-Best Goals 50
5.4 Layers of Agency 51
5.5 Power, Hierarchy, and Communication 59

6. Conclusion 64
6.1 Researching Research in Action? 64
6.2 Managing Agency Relationships 66
6.3 Future Directions and Long Term Outlook 71
6.4 Returning to Social Capital 72
6.5 Limitations and Directions for Future Research 73
6.7 Final Thoughts: The Risk of Reversion 74

References 76

Appendix 84
Appendix 1: Interview outline 84		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 948726 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0999260231en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 代理理論zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 行動研究zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 社會資本zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 信任zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 互惠zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 烏來zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 泰雅族zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Agency theoryen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Action researchen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Social capitalen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Trusten_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Reciprocityen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Wulaien_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Atayalen_US
dc.title (題名) 透過委託 - 代理關係的社會資本發展及交換zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Researching Research in Action: Social Capital Development and Exchange Through Principal-Agent Relationshipsen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S.-W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. The Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17–40. https://doi.org/10.2307/4134367

Aldrich, D. P., & Meyer, M. A. (2014). Social capital and community resilience. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214550299

Ansari, S., Munir, K., & Gregg, T. (2012). Impact at the “Bottom of the Pyramid”: The role of social capital in capability development and community empowerment. Journal of Management Studies, 49(4), 813–842. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01042.x

Belair C., Ichikawa K., Wong B.Y.L., M. K. . (2010). Sustainable use of biological diversity in socio-ecological production landscapes: Background to the ’Satoyama Initiative for the benefit of biodiversity and human well-being. CBD Technical Series No. 52. https://doi.org/Technical Series no. 52

Bennett, N., Lemelin, R. H., Koster, R., & Budke, I. (2012). A capital assets framework for appraising and building capacity for tourism development in aboriginal protected area gateway communities. Tourism Management, 33(4), 752–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.08.009

Blackstock, K. L., Kelly, G. J., & Horsey, B. L. (2007). Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability. Ecological Economics, 60(4), 726–742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.014

Blackstock, K. L., Waylen, K. A., Dunglinson, J., & Marshall, K. M. (2012). Linking process to outcomes - Internal and external criteria for a stakeholder involvement in river basin management planning. Ecological Economics, 77, 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.02.015

Bosse, D. A., Phillips, R. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2016). Agency theory and bounded self-interest. Academy of Management Review, 41(2), 276–297. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0420

Braun, D., & Guston, D. H. (2003). Principal–agent theory and research policy: an introduction. Science and Public Policy, 30(5), 302–308. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154303781780290

Brosnan, S. F. (2006). Nonhuman species’ reactions to inequity and their implications for fairness. Social Justice Research, 19(2), 153–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-006-0002-z

Cargo, M., & Mercer, S. L. (2008). The value and challenges of participatory research: Strengthening its practice. Annual Review of Public Health, 29(1), 325–350. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.091307.083824

Chao, C.-L. C.-L., & Hsu, P.-H. (2011). Learning about the development of ecotourism in the context of the Smangus tribe’s traditional ecological knowledge. GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites, 7(1), 7–21.

Colton, J. W., & Whitney-Squire, K. (2010). Exploring the relationship between aboriginal tourism and community development. Leisure/ Loisir, 34(3), 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/14927713.2010.521321

Dash, A. (2016). An epistemological reflection on social and solidarity economy. Forum for Social Economics, 45(1), 61–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/07360932.2014.995194

Döhler, M. (2018). Discovering the dark side of power: The principal’s moral hazard in political-bureaucratic relations. International Journal of Public Administration, 41(3), 190–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2016.1256893

Dyer, J., Stringer, L.C., Dougill, A. . (2014). Assessing participatory practices in community-based natural resource management: experiences in community engagement from southern Africa. Journal of Environmental Management, 137, 137–145.

Gordon, M. E. G., Kayseas, B., & Moroz, P. W. (2017). New venture creation and opportunity structure constraints: Indigenous-controlled development through joint ventures in the Canadian potash industry. Small Enterprise Research, 24(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13215906.2017.1291361

Graci, S. R., & Ph, D. (2012). Putting community based tourism into practice: The case of the Cree village ecolodge in Moose Factory, Ontario. Téoros: Revue de Recherche En Tourisme, TÉOROS, Sp, 65–70. https://doi.org/10.7202/1036565ar

Grano, S. A. (2015). Environmental Governance on Taiwan. London and New York: Routledge.

Grootaert, C., & Bastelaer, T. Van. (2001). Understanding and measuring social capital: A synthesis of findings and recommendations from the social capital initiative. Social Capital Initiative Working Paper (Vol. 24). https://doi.org/10.1227/00006123-197907010-00058

Grootaert, C., & Van Bastelaer, T. (2002). Understanding and measuring social capital.

Harrison, L., & Callan, T. (2013). Action research. Key Research Concepts in Politics and International Relations, 2–4.

Jagosh, J., Bush, P. L., Salsberg, J., Macaulay, A. C., Greenhalgh, T., Wong, G., … Pluye, P. (2015). A realist evaluation of community-based participatory research: Partnership synergy, trust building and related ripple effects. BMC Public Health, 15(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1949-1

Johnson, N. B., & Droege, S. (2004). Reflections on the generalization of agency theory: Cross-cultural considerations. Human Resource Management Review, 14(3), 325–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2004.06.003

Judge, T. A., & Zapata, C. P. (2015). The person-situation debate revisited: Effect of situation strength and trait activation on the validity of the big five personality traits in predicting job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 1149–1179. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0837

Kagan, C., Burton, M., & Siddiquee, A. (2006). The Handbook of Action Research - Introduction. Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in Psychology, 468. https://doi.org/0432

Kapashesit, R., & Klippenstein, M. (1991). Aboriginal group rights and environmental protection. McGill Law Journal, 36, 925–961.

Kivisto, J. (2008). An assessment of agency theory as a framework for the government-university relationship. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 30(4), 339–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800802383018

Klain, S. C., Beveridge, R., & Bennett, N. J. (2014). Ecologically sustainable but unjust? Negotiating equity and authority in common-pool marine resource management. Ecology and Society, 19(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07123-190452

Kuan, D.-W., Yen, & Ai-Ching. (2003). Traditional institution and the institutional choice: Two CPR self-governing cases of Atayal tribe in Taiwan indigenes. In Joining the northern commons: Lessons for the world, lessons from the world. IASCP Northern polar regional conference. Retrieved from https://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/1616/Kuan,DaWei.pdf?sequence=1

Kurzban, R. (2003). Biological foundations of reciprocity. In E. Ostrom & J. Walker (Eds.), Trust and Reciprocity (pp. 105–127). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Laville, J.-L. (2013). The social and solidarity economy: A theoretical and plural framework. In Potential and Limits of Social and Solidarity Economy (pp. 1–15). Retrieved from http://www.unrisd.org/80256B42004CCC77/(httpInfoFiles)/2A922D7DFB4821EEC1257B720032E1F4/$file/Jean-Louis Laville.pdf

Lemelin, R. H., Koster, R., & Youroukos, N. (2015). Tangible and intangible indicators of successful aboriginal tourism initiatives: A case study of two successful aboriginal tourism lodges in Northern Canada. Tourism Management, 47, 318–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.10.011

Lin, Y., & Hsiao, H. (2002). Contesting Aboriginal Community Mapping : a Critical View From Local Aboriginal Participation. In Proceedings of IUCN/WCPA-EA-4 Taipei Conference.

Lin, Y., & Icyeh, L. (2000). Indigenous Language-Informed Participatory Policy in Taiwan: A Socio-Political Perspective. In Documenting and Revitalizing Austronesian Languages (p. 134).

Maiter, S., Simich, L., Jacobson, N., & Wise, J. (2008). Reciprocity. Action Research, 6(3), 305–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750307083720

Marques, J. S. (2013). Social and Solidarity Economy, Between Emancipation and Reproduction. In Potential and Limits of Social and Solidarity Economy (pp. 1–13).

Matanle, P. (2011). The great east Japan earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear meltdown: Towards the (re)construction of a safe, sustainable, and compassionate society in Japan’ s shrinking regions. Local Environment, 16(January 2012), 37–41.

McTaggart, R., Nixon, R., & Kemmis, S. (2017). Critical Participatory Action Research. In L. L. Rowell, C. D. Bruce, J. M. Shosh, & M. M. Riel (Eds.), The Palgrave International Handbook of Action Research (pp. 21–35). New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-40523-4_2

Moller, H., Berkes, F., Lyver, P. O. B., & Kislalioglu, M. (2004). Combining science and traditional ecological knowledge: Monitoring populations for co-management. Ecology And Society, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.02.016

Moss, Q. Z., Alho, J., & Alexander, K. (2007). Performance measurement action research. Journal of Facilities Management, 5(4), 290–300. https://doi.org/10.1108/14725960710822277

Nadasdy, P. (2003). Reevaluating the comangement success story. Arctic, 56(4), 367–380. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic634

Nielson, D. L., & Tierney, M. J. (2003). Delegation to international organizations: Agency theory and World Bank environmental reform. International Organization, 57(02), 241–276. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818303572010

Noffke, S. (1997). Professional, personal, and political dimensions of action research. Review of Research in Education, 22(1997), 305–343. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X022001305

Oetzel, J. G., Wallerstein, N., Duran, B., Sanchez-Youngman, S., Nguyen, T., Woo, K., … Alegria, M. (2018). Impact of participatory health research: A test of the community-based participatory research conceptual model. BioMed Research International, 2018, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7281405

Ostrom, E. (2003). Toward a Behavioral Theory Linking Trust, Reciprocity, and Reputation. In Trust and Reciprocity (pp. 19–79). Russell Sage Foundation.

Pargal, S., Huq, M., & Gilligan, D. (1999). Social capital in solid waste management: Evidence from Dhaka, Bangladesh. Sustainable Development.

Pereira Morais, L., & Juan Bacic, M. (2017). Social and solidarity economy as a tool for territorial development and socio-occupational inclusion (No. 2017/06). Retrieved from http://www.ciriec.ulg.ac.be/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/WP2017-06.pdf

Pierotti, R., & Wildcat, D. (2000). Traditional ecological knowledge: the third alternative. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1333–1340. Retrieved from http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1333:TEKTTA]2.0.CO;2

Popova, U. (2014). Conservation, traditional knowledge, and indigenous peoples. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(1), 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213495043

Portes, A. (2014). Downsides of social capital. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(52), 18407–18408. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1421888112

Reid, D. (2011). Nation versus tradition: Indigenous rights and Smangus. In D. Blundell (Ed.), Taiwan Since Martial Law: Society, Culture, Politics, Economy (pp. 453–484). National Taiwan University Press.

Reo, N. J., & Whyte, K. P. (2012). Hunting and morality as elements of traditional ecological knowledge. Human Ecology, 40(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-011-9448-1

Riel, M. M. (2017). Digital technology in service of action research. In L. L. Rowell, C. D. Bruce, J. M. Shosh, & M. M. Riel (Eds.), The Palgrave International Handbook of Action Research (pp. 627–646). New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-40523-4_38

Robertson, J. (2000). The three Rs of action research methodology: reciprocity, reflexivity and reflection-on-reality. Educational Action Research, 8(2), 307–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790000200124

Rowell, L. L., Bruce, C. D., Shosh, J. M., & Riel, M. M. (2017). Introduction. In L. L. Rowell, C. D. Bruce, J. M. Shosh, & M. M. Riel (Eds.), The Palgrave International Handbook of Action Research (pp. 1–13). New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-40523-4_1

Shapiro, S. P. (2005). Agency theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 31(1), 263–284. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.31.041304.122159

Shih, C. (2010). Academic colonialism and the struggle for indigenous knowledge systems in Taiwan. Social Alternatives, 29(1), 44–48. Retrieved from http://faculty.ndhu.edu.tw/~cfshih/politics observation/newspaper/2010V29I12.pdf

Simon, S. (2013). Of Boars and men: Indigenous knowledge and co-management in Taiwan. Human Organization, 72(3), 220–229. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.72.3.xq24071269xl21j6

Somekh, B., & Zeichner, K. (2009). Action research for educational reform: Remodelling action research theories and practices in local contexts. Educational Action Research, 17(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790802667402

Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2011). A social capital framework for the study of institutional agents and their role in the empowerment of low-status students & youth. Youth & Society, 43(3), 1–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X10382877

Steets, J. (2010). Accountability in public policy partnerships. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230290617

Stephenson, J., Berkes, F., Turner, N. J., & Dick, J. (2014). Biocultural conservation of marine ecosystems: Examples from New Zealand and Canada. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge, 13(2), 257–265. Retrieved from http://www.niscair.res.in/sciencecommunication/ResearchJournals/rejour/ijtk/ijtk0.asp

Tai, H. S. (2007). Development through conservation: An institutional analysis of indigenous community-based conservation in Taiwan. World Development, 35(7), 1186–1203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.09.015

Urquhart, R., & Wearing, M. (2017). Organisational change in non-profit human services: Reflections on a collaborative action research approach to working with child, youth, and family organisations. In L. L. Rowell, C. D. Bruce, J. M. Shosh, & M. M. Riel (Eds.), The Palgrave International Handbook of Action Research (pp. 545–561). New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-40523-4_33

Utting, P. (2012). Social and solidarity economy: A pathway to socially sustainable development? Retrieved from http://www.unrisd.org/unrisd/website/newsview.nsf/0/ab920b156339500ac1257b5c002c1e96?opendocument&utm_campaign=ebulletin_23_5_2013&utm_medium=email_html&utm_source=en&utm_content=content_link

Utting, P. (2015). Introduction: The challenge of scaling up social and solidarity economy. Social and Solidarity Economy: Beyond the Fringe.

Van Puyvelde, S., Caers, R., du Bois, C., & Jegers, M. (2012). The governance of nonprofit organizations: Integrating agency theory with stakeholder and stewardship theories. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(3), 431–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764011409757

Vining, A. R., & Richards, J. (2016). Indigenous economic development in Canada: Confronting principal-agent and principal–principal problems to reduce resource rent dissipation. Resources Policy, 49, 358–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2016.07.006

Von der Porten, S., & De Loë, R. C. (2013). Collaborative approaches to governance for water and Indigenous peoples: A case study from British Columbia, Canada. Geoforum, 50, 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.09.001

Wiseman, R. M., Cuevas-Rodríguez, G., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2012). Towards a social theory of agency. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2011.01016.x

Woolcock, M., & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for development theory, research, and policy. World Bank Research Observer, 15(2), 225–249. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/15.2.225

Worsham, J., & Gatrell, J. (2005). Multiple principals, multiple signals: A signaling model of principal-agent relations. The Policy Studies Journal, 33(3), 363–377. Retrieved from http://www.pmranet.org/conferences/georgetownpapers/Worsham.pdf

Yoshimura, M., & Wall, G. (2010). The reconstruction of Atayal identity in Wulai, Taiwan. In M. Hitchcock, V. T. King, & M. Parnwell (Eds.), Heritage Tourism in Southeast Asia (pp. 49–71). NIAS Press.		zh_TW
dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMAS.012.2018.A07en_US