1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Commerce
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 負資源轉換：瀨戶內海島嶼之隨創過程
Conversion of Negative Resource: Bricolage Process within the Urban Regeneration of Setouchi`s Islands
作者 陳煥宏
Chen, Huan-Hung
貢獻者 蕭瑞麟
Hsiao, Ruey-Lin
陳煥宏
Chen, Huan-Hung
關鍵詞 地域創生
隨創
機會辨識
認知轉念
資源轉換
urban regeneration
bricolage
opportunity recognition
cognitive shift
resource conversion
日期 2019
上傳時間 5-Sep-2019 17:28:32 (UTC+8)
摘要 組織的興起與衰敗類似一種生命循環。這樣的歷程似乎也體現在城市發展中。城市面臨衰退階段時，會衝擊居民生活，導致城市的沒落與滅亡。位於偏鄉的城市更是脆弱，創生過程會遇到頑固的抵抗、資源的匱乏、制約的束縛。本研究探討城市如何面對這些制約，並克服資源的限制，發展出地域創生的方案。本文以隨創的資源轉換為視角，分析偏鄉城市如何能突破資源有限的困境，讓城市得以找到重生機會。本研究強調於拓展隨創理論而探討三項「轉換」的做法：就地取材中如何找到轉機、將就著用中如何能夠轉念、資源重組前如何轉換資源價值。本研究追蹤日本「瀨戶內海藝術祭」在三個小島的發展過程，分析制約下如何重新辨識在地「負資源」、動員外部資源與「負資源」結合以及資源轉換意義與價值的作法。本研究點出，地域創生不只是推出藝術行銷方案那麼簡單，更重要的是理解其隨創作法，以便能於劣勢中捉住時機，改變頑固思維，並於制約下轉換資源性質。如此，城市於創生時就不會盲目地抄襲他人的「最佳實務」，而是能因地制宜地運用隨創觀念。於是，城市可飄逸轉身，使城市展現出個性化風貌。
The rise and fall of organization always follow a circle of life. This journey also reflects the development of cities. When cities are decaying, they affect the life of citizens and expediting cities’ deterioration. The suburban cities are even more vulnerable; its regeneration will face stuborn resistance, shortage of resources and bounded by constraints. This research explores how suburban cities confront these constraints and overcome resource limitation while developing solutions to urban regeneration. This thesis employs the lens of bricolage and focuses on resource conversion in order to analyze suburban cities breakthrough resource scarcity and identify opportunities for urban reborn. This research aims to expand bricolage theory through three approaches to ‘conversion’: recognizing opportunity while making use of resource at hand; cognition shift while making-do with limited resources; converting the value of resources while recombingin them. This case study traces Setouchi Art Festival in Japan so as to analyze opportunity recognition, cognitive shift and resource conversion. This research describes not merely regeneration process but also analyzes bricolage through opportunity, cognition and resource. It indicates that urban regeneration should not be equated with marketing events packaged with art festivals, it is more important to appreciate bricolage practice in order to seize window of opportunity, reshape persistent mindset and convert the quality of resource within constraints. In so doing, urgan regeneration will not avoid replicating the ‘best practices’ and may exercise bricolage by adapting to local conditions. As such, cities may turnaround elegantly and illustrate its colorful personality.
參考文獻 中文文獻
中澤康彥（汪平譯），2015，《一線員工成就一流企業：日本新經營之神星野佳路的飯店管理學》，台北市：遠見雜誌出版社。
木下齊（張佩瑩譯），2017，《地方創生：小型城鎮、商店街、返鄉青年的創業十大鐵則》，新北市：不二家出版社。
北川富朗（張玲玲譯），2014，《大地藝術祭：越後妻有三年展的10種創新思維》，台北：遠流出版社。
安藤忠雄，2018，《安藤忠雄：建造屬於自己的世界》，北京：中信出版社。
安藤忠雄，（褚炫初、王筱玲譯），2012，《安藤忠雄：我的人生履歷書》，台北市：聯經。
西村幸夫（王惠君譯），1997，《故鄉魅力俱樂部：日本17個社區營造故事》，台北：遠流出版社。
谷崎潤一郎（劉子倩譯），2016，《陰翳禮讚：幽寂美學的終極書寫》，新北市：大牌出版，遠足文化發行。
岩佐十良（鄭舜瓏譯），2018，《地方創生x設計思考：里山十帖實戰篇》，台北：中衛出版社。
松永安光、德田光弘、中橋惠、鈴木裕一、宮部浩幸、漆原弘、鷹野敦（林詠純譯），2018，《地方創生最前線：全球八個靠新創企業、觀光食文化，和里山永續打開新路的實驗基地》，台北市：行人出版社。
林政逸、辛晚教，2009，「文化導向都市再生之策略模式：臺北市保安宮文化慶典與空間計畫的個案研究」，《都市與計劃》，第3期，第36卷，231-254頁。
洪世章、周婉婷，2010，「整合式服務創新:台灣企業之比較個案研究」，《科技管理學刊》，第15期，第1卷，49-76頁。
秋元雄史（林書嫻譯），2019，⟪直島誕生：地區再生X企業行銷X藝術實驗，從荒涼小島到藝術聖地的30年全記錄⟫，台北市：城邦文化出版。
涂敏芬、洪世章，2012，「有中生有：工研院如何運用B.B.C.策略改造科專制度」，《管理學報》，第3期，第29卷，229-254頁。
神尾文彥、松林一裕（王榆琮譯），2018，《地方創生2.0》，台北市：時報出版社。
陳意文、吳思華、項維欣，2010，「資源基礎觀點下之資源拼湊與價值創造：以台灣翅帆開發創新產品為例」，《科技管理學刊》，第2期，第15卷，1-20頁。
彭康麟、洪碧怡、林明珠，2011，「逆境生存、創新思維─以節慶活動行銷幼教產業」，《產業管理評論》，第1期，第5卷，35-47頁。
湯桂禎，2018，《美麗的制約：星野旅館集團如何以服務創新化劣勢為優勢》，政治大學商學院經營管理碩士學程台商組碩士論文。
福武總一郎、北川富朗，2017，《從直島啟航的賴戶內國際藝術祭—以藝術活化地方》，台北市：遠流。
增田寬也（賴庭筠、李欣怡、雷鎮興、曾鈺珮譯），2019，《地方消滅：地方創生的理論起源》，台北市：行人文化實驗室。
橫石知二（張凌虛譯），2009，《對了，就來賣葉子！樹葉變事業！你不知道的谷底成功術》台北市：高寶。
蕭瑞麟，2016，《思考的脈絡：創新可能不擴散》，台北：天下文化出版社。
蕭瑞麟，2017，《不用數字的研究：質性研究的思辨脈絡》，台北：五南學術原創專書系列。
蕭瑞麟、歐素華、陳蕙芬，2014，「劣勢創新：梵谷策展中的隨創行為」，《中山管理評論》，第2期，第22卷，323-367頁。
蕭瑞麟、歐素華、吳彥寬，2017，「逆勢拼湊：化資源制約為創新來源」，《中山管理評論》，第1期，第25卷，219-268頁。
蕭瑞麟、歐素華、蘇筠，2017，「逆強論：隨創式的資源建構過程」，《台大管理論叢》，第4期，第27卷，43-74頁。
蕭瑞麟、歐素華、陳煥宏. 2019. 「負負得正：相依性如何促成負資源轉換」，《組織與管理》，第1期，第12卷，127-171頁。
英文文獻
Acar, O. A., Tarakci, M., & van Knippenberg, D. 2019. Creativity and innovation under constraints: A cross-disciplinary integrative review. Journal of Management, 45(1): 96-121.
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. 2001. Technology-mediated learning - A call for greater depth and breadth of research. Information Systems Research, 12(1): 1-10.
Baker, T. 2007. Resources in play: Bricolage in the toy store(y). Journal of Business Venturing, 22(5): 694-711.
Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. 2005. Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3): 329-366.
Baker, T., Pollock, T. G., & Sapienza, H. J. 2013. Winning an unfair game: How a resource-constrained player uses bricolage to maneuver for advantage in a highly institutionalized field, Entrepreneurial Resourcefulness: Competing With Constraints. (Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, Vol. 15), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 1-41. 
Barney, J. B. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1): 99-120.
Barney, J. B., Wright, M., & Ketchen Jr., D. J. 2001. The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after 1991. Journal of Management, 27(6): 625–641.
Bechky, B. A., & Okhuysen, G. A. 2011. Expecting the unexpected? How SWAT officers and film creams handle surprises. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2): 239-261.
Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. J. (Eds.) 1987. The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Boje, D. M. 1991. The storytelling organization: A study of story performance in an office- supply firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(1): 106-126.
Bouquet, C., & Birkinshaw, J. 2008. Managing power in the multinational corporation: How low-power actors gain influence. Journal of Management, 34(3): 477-508.
Brannen, M. Y. 2004. When Mickey loses face: Recontextualization, semantic fit, and the semiotics of foreignness. Academy of Management Review, 29(4): 593-616.
Brannen, M. Y., Liker, J. K., & Fruin, W. M. 1998. Recontextualisation and Factory-to-factory Knowledge Transfer from Japan to the US: The case of NSK. In J. K. Liker, W. M. Fruin, & P. S. Adler (Eds.), Remade in America: Transplanting and Transforming Japanese Management Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burt, R. S. 1997. The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2): 339-365.
Burt, R. S. 2005. Brokerage and Closure: An Introduction to Social Capital.
Callon, M. 1998. Actor-Network Theory - The Market Test. In J. Law, & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor Network Theory and After: Blackwell.
Chesbrough, H. W. 2003. Open innovation: the New imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.
Codecasa, G., & Ponzini, D. 2011. Public-Private Partnership: A Delusion for Urban Regeneration? Evidence from Italy. European Planning Studies, 19(4): 647-667.
Dalpiaz, E., Rindova, V., & Ravasi, D. 2016. Combining Logics to Transform Organizational Agency: Blending Industry and Art at Alessi. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(3): 347-392.
Delmestri, G., & Greenwood, R. 2016. How Cinderella Became a Queen: Theorizing Radical Status Change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(4): 507-550.
Dijk, M., de Kraker, J., & Hommels, A. 2018. Anticipating Constraints on Upscaling from Urban Innovation Experiments. Sustainability, 10(8).
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. In W. W. Powell, & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis: 63-82. Chicago and London.
Dutton, J. E., Roberts, L. M., & Bednar, J. 2010. Pathways for positive identity construction at work: Four types of positive identity and the building of social resources. Academy of Management Review, 35(2): 265-293.
Eizenberg, E., & Cohen, N. 2015. Reconstructing urban image through cultural flagship events: The case of Bat-Yam. Cities, 42: 54-62.
Feldman, M. S., & Orlikowski, W. J. 2011. Theorizing Practice and Practicing Theory. Organization Science, 22(5): 1240-1253.
Ferilli, G., Sacco, P. L., Blessi, G. T., & Forbici, S. 2017. Power to the people: when culture works as a social catalyst in urban regeneration processes (and when it does not). European Planning Studies, 25(2): 241-258.
Fiss, P. C., & Zajac, E. J. 2006. The sympbolic management of strategic change: Sensegiving via framing and decouping. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6): 1173-1193.
García, B. 2005. Deconstructing the city of culture: The long-term cultural legacies of Glasgow 1990. Urban Studies (Routledge), 42(5/6): 841-868.
Garud, R., & Karnøe, P. 2003. Bricolage versus breakthrough: Distributed and embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 32(2): 277–300.
Garud, R., Lant, T. K., & Schildt, H. A. 2019. Generative imitation, strategic distancing and optimal distinctiveness during the growth, decline and stabilization of Silicon Alley. Innovation-Organization & Management, 21(1): 187-213.
Garud, R., Schildt, H. A., & Lant, T. K. 2014. Entrepreneurial storytelling, future expectations, and the paradox of legitimacy. Organization Science, 25(5): 1479-1492.
Gertsen, M. C., & Zolner, M. 2012. Recontextualization of the corporate values of a Danish MNC in a subsidiary in bangalore. Group & Organization Management, 37(1): 101-132.
Granovetter, M. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78: 1360-1380.
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. 1993. Strategy as stretch and leverage. Harvard Business Review, 71(2): 75-84.
Hargadon, A. 1998. Firms as knowledge brokers: Lessons in pursuing continuous innovation. California Management Review, 40(3): 209-227.
Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. 1997. Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4): 716-749.
Hargadon, A. B., & Douglas, Y. 2001. When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(3): 476-501.
Hommels, A. 2000. Obduracy and urban sociotechnical change: Changing Plan Hoog Catharijne. Urban Affairs Review, 35(5): 649-676.
Hommels, A. 2005. Studying obduracy in the city: Toward a productive fusion between technology studies and urban studies. Science Technology & Human Values, 30(3): 323-351.
Hutton, T. A. 2000. Reconstructed production landscapes in the postmodern city: applied design and creative services in the metropolitan core. Urban Geography, 21(4): 285-317.
Hyde, C. A. 2018. Leading from below: Low-power actors as organizational change agents. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 42(1): 53-67.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Välikangas, L. 2014. Opportunity creation in innovation networks: Interactive revealing practices. California Management Review, 57(1): 67-87.
Jenkins, J. C., & Perrow, C. 1977. Insurgency of the powerless: Farm worker movements (1946-1972). American Sociological Review, 42(2): 249-268.
Kang, T. 2017. Bricolage in the urban cultural sector: the case of Bradford city of film. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 29(3-4): 340-356.
Khaire, M. 2019. Entrepreneurship by design: the construction of meanings and markets for cultural craft goods. Innovation, 21(1): 13-32.
Levi-Strauss, C. 1968. The savage mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lounsbury, M., Cornelissen, J., Granqvist, N., & Grodal, S. 2019. Culture, innovation and entrepreneurship. Innovation-Organization & Management, 21(1): 1-12.
Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. 2019. Cultural entrepreneurship: A new agenda for the study of entrepreneurial processes and possibilities. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. 2001. Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6-7): 545-564.
Lysgård, H. K. 2012. Creativity, culture and urban strategies: A fallacy in cultural urban strategies. European Planning Studies, 20(8): 1281-1300.
McCarthy, J. D., & Wolfson, M. 1996. Resource mobilization by local social movement organizations: Agency, strategy, and organization in the movement against drinking and driving. American Sociological Review: 1070-1088.
McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. 1977. Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82(6): 1212-1241.
McGrath, R. G. 1995. Advantage from adversity: Learning from disappintment in internal corporate venture. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(2): 121.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83: 340-363.
Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. 2018. Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1): 26-45.
Morgan, G., & Smircich, L. 1980. The case for qualitative research. Academy of Management Review, 5(4): 491-500.
Nappi-Choulet, I. 2006. The role and behaviour of commercial property investors and developers in French urban regeneration: The experience of the Paris region. Urban Studies, 43(9): 1511-1535.
Orlikowski, W. J. 2010. Practice in research: phenomenon, perspective and philosophy. Cambridge handbook of strategy as practice: 23-33.
Orlikowski, W. J. 2015. Practice in research: phenomenon, perspective and philosophy. In D. Golsorkhi, D. Seidl, E. Vaara, & L. Rouleau (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice, 2 ed.: 33-43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. 2013. Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4): 972-1001.
Phillips, N., & Tracey, P. 2007. Opportunity recognition, entrepreneurial capabilities and bricolage: Connecting institutional theory and entrepreneurship in strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 5(3): 313-320.
Powell, E. E., & Baker, T. 2014. It`s what you make of it: Founder identity and enacting strategic responses to adversity. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5): 1406-1433.
Powell, E. E., Hamann, R., Bitzer, V., & Baker, T. 2018. Bringing the elephant into the room? Enacting conflict in collective prosocial organizing. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(5): 623-642.
Radjou, N., & Prabhu, J. 2015. Frugal Innovation: How to do more with less: PublisAffairs.
Rindova, V., Dalpiaz, E., & Ravasi, D. 2011. A cultural quest: A study of organizational use of new cultural resources in strategy formation. Organization Science, 22(2): 413-431.
Rogers, E. M. 1995. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
Rosso, B. D. 2014. Creativity and constraints: Exploring the role of constraints in the creative processes of Research and Development Teams. Organization Studies, 35(4): 551-585.
Rouleau, L. 2015. Studying strategizing through biographical methods: narratives of practices and life trajectories of practitioners. In D. Golsorkhi, D. Seidl, E. Vaara, & L. Rouleau (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice, 2 ed.: 462-476. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Salignac, F., Galea, N., & Powell, A. 2018. Institutional entrepreneurs driving change: The case of gender equality in the Australian construction industry. Australian Journal of Management, 43(1): 152-169.
Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. 1994. Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.
Senyard, J., Baker, T., Steffens, P., & Davidsson, P. 2014. Bricolage as a path to innovativeness for resource-constrained new firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(2): 211-230.
Shane, S. 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4): 448-469.
Sonenshein, S. 2017. Stretch: Unlock the power of less and achieve more than you ever imagined. New York: Harper Business.
Sunduramurthy, C., Zheng, C., Musteen, M., Francis, J., & Rhyne, L. 2016. Doing more with less, systematically? Bricolage and ingenieuring in successful social ventures. Journal of World Business, 51(5): 855-870.
Swidler, A. 1986. Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51(2): 273-286.
Tang, J., Kacmar, K. M., & Busenitz, L. 2012. Entrepreneurial alertness in the pursuit of new opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(1): 77-94.
Teece, D. J. 1998. Capturing value from knowledge assets: The new economy, markets for know-how and intangible assets. California Management Review, 40(3).
Teece, D. J. 2010. Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3): 172-194.
Tyre, M., & Orlikowski, W. 1994. Windows of opportunity: Temporal patterns of technological adaptation in organizations. Organization Science, 5(1): 98-118.
Vaara, E., & Whittington, R. 2012. Strategy-as-Practice: Taking Social Practices Seriously. Academy of Management Annals, 6: 285-336.
Vaghely, I. P., & Julien, P.-A. 2010. Are opportunities recognized or constructed? An information perspective on entrepreneurial opportunity identification. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(1): 73-86.
Verdu-Jover, A. J., Alos-Simo, L., & Gomez-Gras, J. M. 2018. Adaptive culture and product/service innovation outcomes. European Management Journal, 36(3): 330-340.
Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2): 171-180.
West, J., & Bogers, M. 2014. Leveraging external sources of innovation: A review of research on open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4): 814-831.
Witell, L., Gebauer, H., Jaakkola, E., Hammedi, W., Patricio, L., & Perks, H. 2017. A bricolage perspective on service innovation. Journal of Business Research, 79: 290-298.
Wright, A. L., & Zammuto, R. F. 2013. Creating opportunities for institutional entrepreneurship: The Colonel and the Cup in English County Cricket. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(1): 51-68.
Yin, R. K. 1994. Case study research : design and methods: New Delphi, Newbury Park.
Zaheer, S., & Rajan, R. 2003. Creativity under constraint: Technological imprinting and the migration of Indian business to the new economy. In B. Kogut (Ed.), The Global Internet Economy: MIT Press.
Zimmerman, M. A., & Zeitz, G. J. 2002. Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27(3): 414-431.
Zott, C., & Huy, Q. N. 2007. How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire resources. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1): 70-105.
描述 博士
國立政治大學
科技管理與智慧財產研究所
100359501
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100359501
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 蕭瑞麟zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Hsiao, Ruey-Linen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 陳煥宏zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Chen, Huan-Hungen_US
dc.creator (作者) 陳煥宏zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Chen, Huan-Hungen_US
dc.date (日期) 2019en_US
dc.date.accessioned 5-Sep-2019 17:28:32 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 5-Sep-2019 17:28:32 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 5-Sep-2019 17:28:32 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0100359501en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/125914-
dc.description (描述) 博士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 科技管理與智慧財產研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 100359501zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 組織的興起與衰敗類似一種生命循環。這樣的歷程似乎也體現在城市發展中。城市面臨衰退階段時，會衝擊居民生活，導致城市的沒落與滅亡。位於偏鄉的城市更是脆弱，創生過程會遇到頑固的抵抗、資源的匱乏、制約的束縛。本研究探討城市如何面對這些制約，並克服資源的限制，發展出地域創生的方案。本文以隨創的資源轉換為視角，分析偏鄉城市如何能突破資源有限的困境，讓城市得以找到重生機會。本研究強調於拓展隨創理論而探討三項「轉換」的做法：就地取材中如何找到轉機、將就著用中如何能夠轉念、資源重組前如何轉換資源價值。本研究追蹤日本「瀨戶內海藝術祭」在三個小島的發展過程，分析制約下如何重新辨識在地「負資源」、動員外部資源與「負資源」結合以及資源轉換意義與價值的作法。本研究點出，地域創生不只是推出藝術行銷方案那麼簡單，更重要的是理解其隨創作法，以便能於劣勢中捉住時機，改變頑固思維，並於制約下轉換資源性質。如此，城市於創生時就不會盲目地抄襲他人的「最佳實務」，而是能因地制宜地運用隨創觀念。於是，城市可飄逸轉身，使城市展現出個性化風貌。zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) The rise and fall of organization always follow a circle of life. This journey also reflects the development of cities. When cities are decaying, they affect the life of citizens and expediting cities’ deterioration. The suburban cities are even more vulnerable; its regeneration will face stuborn resistance, shortage of resources and bounded by constraints. This research explores how suburban cities confront these constraints and overcome resource limitation while developing solutions to urban regeneration. This thesis employs the lens of bricolage and focuses on resource conversion in order to analyze suburban cities breakthrough resource scarcity and identify opportunities for urban reborn. This research aims to expand bricolage theory through three approaches to ‘conversion’: recognizing opportunity while making use of resource at hand; cognition shift while making-do with limited resources; converting the value of resources while recombingin them. This case study traces Setouchi Art Festival in Japan so as to analyze opportunity recognition, cognitive shift and resource conversion. This research describes not merely regeneration process but also analyzes bricolage through opportunity, cognition and resource. It indicates that urban regeneration should not be equated with marketing events packaged with art festivals, it is more important to appreciate bricolage practice in order to seize window of opportunity, reshape persistent mindset and convert the quality of resource within constraints. In so doing, urgan regeneration will not avoid replicating the ‘best practices’ and may exercise bricolage by adapting to local conditions. As such, cities may turnaround elegantly and illustrate its colorful personality.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 中文摘要 i
英文摘要 ii
圖目錄 vi
表目錄 vii
壹、緒論 1
第一節 研究動機 1
第二節 研究目的 13
第三節 預期效應與論文架構 16
一、預期新觀念 16
二、預期新作法 18
貳、文獻回顧 23
第一節 城市的地方創生沿革 23
一、荷蘭烏支列特的地方創生 24
二、日本上勝町的地方創生 30
三、英國布拉芙德的翻轉 32
四、制約下劣勢隨創 37
五、地方創生案例的回顧 42
第二節 拼湊論─有限資源重組 45
一、野性思維的創意 45
二、即興創意 47
三、資源延展，讓少變巧 52
第三節 建構論─象徵性行動 55
一、象徵性行動取得合法性 55
二、故事重塑意會 58
第四節 理論缺口─轉換論 60
一、制約激發創意 62
二、制約是轉化創新的催化劑 66
三、負資源轉換 69
參、研究方法 73
第一節 案例選擇與理論取樣 73
第二節 分析架構 76
第三節 資料蒐集與分析 79
肆、研究發現 89
第一節 香川縣的地方創生 89
一、香川的偏鄉困境 89
二、瀨戶內海藝術季的歷史 91
三、島嶼創生 96
第二節 直島─倍樂生的創生 100
一、內部資源活化─露營轉成進研專討 100
二、外部資源動員─引進美術館，形成跳島旅行風潮 108
三、資源價值轉換─離島轉型為藝術島 113
第三節 直島─本村社區的創生 119
一、內部資源活化─老舊社區，也孕育創意 119
二、外部資源動員─佈新不必除舊，傳統與現代結合 125
三、資源價值轉換─跨越歷史，地方風華再現 132
第四節 直島─宮浦港區的創生 135
一、內部資源活化─港口化為小島窗口 135
二、外部資源動員─藝術櫥窗更新價值 139
三、資源價值轉換─藝術旅遊體驗入口 142
第五節 犬島的創生 145
一、內部資源活化─廢墟變為歷史教材 146
二、外部資源動員─傷痕記憶做為反省起點 150
三、資源價值轉換─驅動進步的文化記憶 156
第六節 豊島的創生 159
一、內部資源活化─危機促動環保意識 161
二、外部資源動員─負面標籤，凸顯環保重要性 163
三、資源轉換─藝術結合環保借鏡 171
五、討論 176
第一節 學術意涵 176
一、隨創理論之貢獻 177
二、再脈絡化理論之貢獻 189
第二節 實務啟示 194
一、對地方政府之啟發 194
二、對劣勢企業之啟發 198
第三節 研究限制與未來方向 199
一、探索及比較其他藝術祭的創生方式 199
二、探索隨創的內涵 201
三、探索負資源的轉換 203
陸、結論 205
第一節 困境是上天賜的禮物 205
第二節 轉念則拓展視野 207
第三節 逆境中的集體記憶 211
參考文獻 217
中文文獻 217
英文文獻 219
附件一：訪談對象紀錄重點彙整 227


圖目錄
圖 1：探索資源轉化的分析架構（根據隨創理論修正） 76
圖 2：田野調查之四階段行程規劃 80
圖 3：2016年瀨戶內國際藝術祭各離島位置示意圖 82
圖 4：資源轉換的分析步驟 86
圖 5：香川縣直島國立公園位置示意圖 102
圖 6：露營場將旅遊用途轉變成教育用途 104
圖 7：利用地形特色設計的地中美術館與堤岸的《黃南瓜》 116
圖 8：建築、藝術品散佈於倍樂生藝術園區，讓荒涼土地展現生機 118
圖 9：本村社區《家計畫》作品位置圖 124
圖 10：《角屋》以及安藤忠雄博物館都是以整修讓作品與古民宅和諧共存 126
圖 11：「直島錢湯」是藝術創作也是社區湯屋；《海の駅》的簡約設計吸引訪客 139
圖 12：宮浦港區藝術品位置圖 144
圖 13：犬島是岡山的離島，也是倍樂生最早以藝術改變地方的小島 146
圖 14：三分一博志的作品「公民會館」，展現與自然對話的設計 148
圖 15：犬島精鍊美術館空間剖面圖，採自然通風採光的綠建築設計 149
圖 16：犬島精鍊美術館保留工廠廢墟原貌 150
圖 17：犬島藝術展區佈置集中在工廠與社區兩地 151
圖 18：精鍊美術館（左）三島由紀夫的起居室，（右上、下）自殺前演講文稿 152
圖 19：犬島「家計畫」（左，右下）遊客服務中心，（右上）社區鳥瞰圖 155
圖 20：豊島公害抗爭的歷史 160
圖 21：豊島周邊島嶼位置示意圖 162
圖 22：豊島藝術品展出分佈在三個社區聚落 164
圖 23：豊島美術館之裝置藝術設計 165
圖 24：豊島推出島廚房拉近鄰里關係 166
圖 25：Tobias Rehberger設計的咖啡館 168
圖 26：豊島橫尾美術館 169
圖 27：八百萬實驗室 170
圖 28：日本地方創生政策架構─三目標（圖左虛線）與三工具（圖下虛線） 195
圖 29：國發會地方創生政策，重點在人口回流（圖左）與提升地方經濟（圖右） 196

表目錄
表 1：劣勢創新的兩種論點 43
表 2：田野資料採訪一覽 83
表 3：各案例的負資源轉換過程 97
表 4：資源的轉換過程 174
表 5：負資源轉換的方式 180
表 6：認知轉移─資源性質的改變，轉成價值的改變 184
表 7：負資源轉換的原則 188		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 20102034 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100359501en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 地域創生zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 隨創zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 機會辨識zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 認知轉念zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 資源轉換zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) urban regenerationen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) bricolageen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) opportunity recognitionen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) cognitive shiften_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) resource conversionen_US
dc.title (題名) 負資源轉換：瀨戶內海島嶼之隨創過程zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Conversion of Negative Resource: Bricolage Process within the Urban Regeneration of Setouchi`s Islandsen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文文獻
中澤康彥（汪平譯），2015，《一線員工成就一流企業：日本新經營之神星野佳路的飯店管理學》，台北市：遠見雜誌出版社。
木下齊（張佩瑩譯），2017，《地方創生：小型城鎮、商店街、返鄉青年的創業十大鐵則》，新北市：不二家出版社。
北川富朗（張玲玲譯），2014，《大地藝術祭：越後妻有三年展的10種創新思維》，台北：遠流出版社。
安藤忠雄，2018，《安藤忠雄：建造屬於自己的世界》，北京：中信出版社。
安藤忠雄，（褚炫初、王筱玲譯），2012，《安藤忠雄：我的人生履歷書》，台北市：聯經。
西村幸夫（王惠君譯），1997，《故鄉魅力俱樂部：日本17個社區營造故事》，台北：遠流出版社。
谷崎潤一郎（劉子倩譯），2016，《陰翳禮讚：幽寂美學的終極書寫》，新北市：大牌出版，遠足文化發行。
岩佐十良（鄭舜瓏譯），2018，《地方創生x設計思考：里山十帖實戰篇》，台北：中衛出版社。
松永安光、德田光弘、中橋惠、鈴木裕一、宮部浩幸、漆原弘、鷹野敦（林詠純譯），2018，《地方創生最前線：全球八個靠新創企業、觀光食文化，和里山永續打開新路的實驗基地》，台北市：行人出版社。
林政逸、辛晚教，2009，「文化導向都市再生之策略模式：臺北市保安宮文化慶典與空間計畫的個案研究」，《都市與計劃》，第3期，第36卷，231-254頁。
洪世章、周婉婷，2010，「整合式服務創新:台灣企業之比較個案研究」，《科技管理學刊》，第15期，第1卷，49-76頁。
秋元雄史（林書嫻譯），2019，⟪直島誕生：地區再生X企業行銷X藝術實驗，從荒涼小島到藝術聖地的30年全記錄⟫，台北市：城邦文化出版。
涂敏芬、洪世章，2012，「有中生有：工研院如何運用B.B.C.策略改造科專制度」，《管理學報》，第3期，第29卷，229-254頁。
神尾文彥、松林一裕（王榆琮譯），2018，《地方創生2.0》，台北市：時報出版社。
陳意文、吳思華、項維欣，2010，「資源基礎觀點下之資源拼湊與價值創造：以台灣翅帆開發創新產品為例」，《科技管理學刊》，第2期，第15卷，1-20頁。
彭康麟、洪碧怡、林明珠，2011，「逆境生存、創新思維─以節慶活動行銷幼教產業」，《產業管理評論》，第1期，第5卷，35-47頁。
湯桂禎，2018，《美麗的制約：星野旅館集團如何以服務創新化劣勢為優勢》，政治大學商學院經營管理碩士學程台商組碩士論文。
福武總一郎、北川富朗，2017，《從直島啟航的賴戶內國際藝術祭—以藝術活化地方》，台北市：遠流。
增田寬也（賴庭筠、李欣怡、雷鎮興、曾鈺珮譯），2019，《地方消滅：地方創生的理論起源》，台北市：行人文化實驗室。
橫石知二（張凌虛譯），2009，《對了，就來賣葉子！樹葉變事業！你不知道的谷底成功術》台北市：高寶。
蕭瑞麟，2016，《思考的脈絡：創新可能不擴散》，台北：天下文化出版社。
蕭瑞麟，2017，《不用數字的研究：質性研究的思辨脈絡》，台北：五南學術原創專書系列。
蕭瑞麟、歐素華、陳蕙芬，2014，「劣勢創新：梵谷策展中的隨創行為」，《中山管理評論》，第2期，第22卷，323-367頁。
蕭瑞麟、歐素華、吳彥寬，2017，「逆勢拼湊：化資源制約為創新來源」，《中山管理評論》，第1期，第25卷，219-268頁。
蕭瑞麟、歐素華、蘇筠，2017，「逆強論：隨創式的資源建構過程」，《台大管理論叢》，第4期，第27卷，43-74頁。
蕭瑞麟、歐素華、陳煥宏. 2019. 「負負得正：相依性如何促成負資源轉換」，《組織與管理》，第1期，第12卷，127-171頁。
英文文獻
Acar, O. A., Tarakci, M., & van Knippenberg, D. 2019. Creativity and innovation under constraints: A cross-disciplinary integrative review. Journal of Management, 45(1): 96-121.
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. 2001. Technology-mediated learning - A call for greater depth and breadth of research. Information Systems Research, 12(1): 1-10.
Baker, T. 2007. Resources in play: Bricolage in the toy store(y). Journal of Business Venturing, 22(5): 694-711.
Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. 2005. Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3): 329-366.
Baker, T., Pollock, T. G., & Sapienza, H. J. 2013. Winning an unfair game: How a resource-constrained player uses bricolage to maneuver for advantage in a highly institutionalized field, Entrepreneurial Resourcefulness: Competing With Constraints. (Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, Vol. 15), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 1-41. 
Barney, J. B. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1): 99-120.
Barney, J. B., Wright, M., & Ketchen Jr., D. J. 2001. The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after 1991. Journal of Management, 27(6): 625–641.
Bechky, B. A., & Okhuysen, G. A. 2011. Expecting the unexpected? How SWAT officers and film creams handle surprises. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2): 239-261.
Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. J. (Eds.) 1987. The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Boje, D. M. 1991. The storytelling organization: A study of story performance in an office- supply firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(1): 106-126.
Bouquet, C., & Birkinshaw, J. 2008. Managing power in the multinational corporation: How low-power actors gain influence. Journal of Management, 34(3): 477-508.
Brannen, M. Y. 2004. When Mickey loses face: Recontextualization, semantic fit, and the semiotics of foreignness. Academy of Management Review, 29(4): 593-616.
Brannen, M. Y., Liker, J. K., & Fruin, W. M. 1998. Recontextualisation and Factory-to-factory Knowledge Transfer from Japan to the US: The case of NSK. In J. K. Liker, W. M. Fruin, & P. S. Adler (Eds.), Remade in America: Transplanting and Transforming Japanese Management Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burt, R. S. 1997. The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2): 339-365.
Burt, R. S. 2005. Brokerage and Closure: An Introduction to Social Capital.
Callon, M. 1998. Actor-Network Theory - The Market Test. In J. Law, & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor Network Theory and After: Blackwell.
Chesbrough, H. W. 2003. Open innovation: the New imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.
Codecasa, G., & Ponzini, D. 2011. Public-Private Partnership: A Delusion for Urban Regeneration? Evidence from Italy. European Planning Studies, 19(4): 647-667.
Dalpiaz, E., Rindova, V., & Ravasi, D. 2016. Combining Logics to Transform Organizational Agency: Blending Industry and Art at Alessi. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(3): 347-392.
Delmestri, G., & Greenwood, R. 2016. How Cinderella Became a Queen: Theorizing Radical Status Change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(4): 507-550.
Dijk, M., de Kraker, J., & Hommels, A. 2018. Anticipating Constraints on Upscaling from Urban Innovation Experiments. Sustainability, 10(8).
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. In W. W. Powell, & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis: 63-82. Chicago and London.
Dutton, J. E., Roberts, L. M., & Bednar, J. 2010. Pathways for positive identity construction at work: Four types of positive identity and the building of social resources. Academy of Management Review, 35(2): 265-293.
Eizenberg, E., & Cohen, N. 2015. Reconstructing urban image through cultural flagship events: The case of Bat-Yam. Cities, 42: 54-62.
Feldman, M. S., & Orlikowski, W. J. 2011. Theorizing Practice and Practicing Theory. Organization Science, 22(5): 1240-1253.
Ferilli, G., Sacco, P. L., Blessi, G. T., & Forbici, S. 2017. Power to the people: when culture works as a social catalyst in urban regeneration processes (and when it does not). European Planning Studies, 25(2): 241-258.
Fiss, P. C., & Zajac, E. J. 2006. The sympbolic management of strategic change: Sensegiving via framing and decouping. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6): 1173-1193.
García, B. 2005. Deconstructing the city of culture: The long-term cultural legacies of Glasgow 1990. Urban Studies (Routledge), 42(5/6): 841-868.
Garud, R., & Karnøe, P. 2003. Bricolage versus breakthrough: Distributed and embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 32(2): 277–300.
Garud, R., Lant, T. K., & Schildt, H. A. 2019. Generative imitation, strategic distancing and optimal distinctiveness during the growth, decline and stabilization of Silicon Alley. Innovation-Organization & Management, 21(1): 187-213.
Garud, R., Schildt, H. A., & Lant, T. K. 2014. Entrepreneurial storytelling, future expectations, and the paradox of legitimacy. Organization Science, 25(5): 1479-1492.
Gertsen, M. C., & Zolner, M. 2012. Recontextualization of the corporate values of a Danish MNC in a subsidiary in bangalore. Group & Organization Management, 37(1): 101-132.
Granovetter, M. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78: 1360-1380.
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. 1993. Strategy as stretch and leverage. Harvard Business Review, 71(2): 75-84.
Hargadon, A. 1998. Firms as knowledge brokers: Lessons in pursuing continuous innovation. California Management Review, 40(3): 209-227.
Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. 1997. Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4): 716-749.
Hargadon, A. B., & Douglas, Y. 2001. When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(3): 476-501.
Hommels, A. 2000. Obduracy and urban sociotechnical change: Changing Plan Hoog Catharijne. Urban Affairs Review, 35(5): 649-676.
Hommels, A. 2005. Studying obduracy in the city: Toward a productive fusion between technology studies and urban studies. Science Technology & Human Values, 30(3): 323-351.
Hutton, T. A. 2000. Reconstructed production landscapes in the postmodern city: applied design and creative services in the metropolitan core. Urban Geography, 21(4): 285-317.
Hyde, C. A. 2018. Leading from below: Low-power actors as organizational change agents. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 42(1): 53-67.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Välikangas, L. 2014. Opportunity creation in innovation networks: Interactive revealing practices. California Management Review, 57(1): 67-87.
Jenkins, J. C., & Perrow, C. 1977. Insurgency of the powerless: Farm worker movements (1946-1972). American Sociological Review, 42(2): 249-268.
Kang, T. 2017. Bricolage in the urban cultural sector: the case of Bradford city of film. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 29(3-4): 340-356.
Khaire, M. 2019. Entrepreneurship by design: the construction of meanings and markets for cultural craft goods. Innovation, 21(1): 13-32.
Levi-Strauss, C. 1968. The savage mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lounsbury, M., Cornelissen, J., Granqvist, N., & Grodal, S. 2019. Culture, innovation and entrepreneurship. Innovation-Organization & Management, 21(1): 1-12.
Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. 2019. Cultural entrepreneurship: A new agenda for the study of entrepreneurial processes and possibilities. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. 2001. Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6-7): 545-564.
Lysgård, H. K. 2012. Creativity, culture and urban strategies: A fallacy in cultural urban strategies. European Planning Studies, 20(8): 1281-1300.
McCarthy, J. D., & Wolfson, M. 1996. Resource mobilization by local social movement organizations: Agency, strategy, and organization in the movement against drinking and driving. American Sociological Review: 1070-1088.
McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. 1977. Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82(6): 1212-1241.
McGrath, R. G. 1995. Advantage from adversity: Learning from disappintment in internal corporate venture. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(2): 121.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83: 340-363.
Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. 2018. Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1): 26-45.
Morgan, G., & Smircich, L. 1980. The case for qualitative research. Academy of Management Review, 5(4): 491-500.
Nappi-Choulet, I. 2006. The role and behaviour of commercial property investors and developers in French urban regeneration: The experience of the Paris region. Urban Studies, 43(9): 1511-1535.
Orlikowski, W. J. 2010. Practice in research: phenomenon, perspective and philosophy. Cambridge handbook of strategy as practice: 23-33.
Orlikowski, W. J. 2015. Practice in research: phenomenon, perspective and philosophy. In D. Golsorkhi, D. Seidl, E. Vaara, & L. Rouleau (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice, 2 ed.: 33-43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. 2013. Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4): 972-1001.
Phillips, N., & Tracey, P. 2007. Opportunity recognition, entrepreneurial capabilities and bricolage: Connecting institutional theory and entrepreneurship in strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 5(3): 313-320.
Powell, E. E., & Baker, T. 2014. It`s what you make of it: Founder identity and enacting strategic responses to adversity. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5): 1406-1433.
Powell, E. E., Hamann, R., Bitzer, V., & Baker, T. 2018. Bringing the elephant into the room? Enacting conflict in collective prosocial organizing. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(5): 623-642.
Radjou, N., & Prabhu, J. 2015. Frugal Innovation: How to do more with less: PublisAffairs.
Rindova, V., Dalpiaz, E., & Ravasi, D. 2011. A cultural quest: A study of organizational use of new cultural resources in strategy formation. Organization Science, 22(2): 413-431.
Rogers, E. M. 1995. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
Rosso, B. D. 2014. Creativity and constraints: Exploring the role of constraints in the creative processes of Research and Development Teams. Organization Studies, 35(4): 551-585.
Rouleau, L. 2015. Studying strategizing through biographical methods: narratives of practices and life trajectories of practitioners. In D. Golsorkhi, D. Seidl, E. Vaara, & L. Rouleau (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice, 2 ed.: 462-476. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Salignac, F., Galea, N., & Powell, A. 2018. Institutional entrepreneurs driving change: The case of gender equality in the Australian construction industry. Australian Journal of Management, 43(1): 152-169.
Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. 1994. Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.
Senyard, J., Baker, T., Steffens, P., & Davidsson, P. 2014. Bricolage as a path to innovativeness for resource-constrained new firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(2): 211-230.
Shane, S. 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4): 448-469.
Sonenshein, S. 2017. Stretch: Unlock the power of less and achieve more than you ever imagined. New York: Harper Business.
Sunduramurthy, C., Zheng, C., Musteen, M., Francis, J., & Rhyne, L. 2016. Doing more with less, systematically? Bricolage and ingenieuring in successful social ventures. Journal of World Business, 51(5): 855-870.
Swidler, A. 1986. Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51(2): 273-286.
Tang, J., Kacmar, K. M., & Busenitz, L. 2012. Entrepreneurial alertness in the pursuit of new opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(1): 77-94.
Teece, D. J. 1998. Capturing value from knowledge assets: The new economy, markets for know-how and intangible assets. California Management Review, 40(3).
Teece, D. J. 2010. Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3): 172-194.
Tyre, M., & Orlikowski, W. 1994. Windows of opportunity: Temporal patterns of technological adaptation in organizations. Organization Science, 5(1): 98-118.
Vaara, E., & Whittington, R. 2012. Strategy-as-Practice: Taking Social Practices Seriously. Academy of Management Annals, 6: 285-336.
Vaghely, I. P., & Julien, P.-A. 2010. Are opportunities recognized or constructed? An information perspective on entrepreneurial opportunity identification. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(1): 73-86.
Verdu-Jover, A. J., Alos-Simo, L., & Gomez-Gras, J. M. 2018. Adaptive culture and product/service innovation outcomes. European Management Journal, 36(3): 330-340.
Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2): 171-180.
West, J., & Bogers, M. 2014. Leveraging external sources of innovation: A review of research on open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4): 814-831.
Witell, L., Gebauer, H., Jaakkola, E., Hammedi, W., Patricio, L., & Perks, H. 2017. A bricolage perspective on service innovation. Journal of Business Research, 79: 290-298.
Wright, A. L., & Zammuto, R. F. 2013. Creating opportunities for institutional entrepreneurship: The Colonel and the Cup in English County Cricket. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(1): 51-68.
Yin, R. K. 1994. Case study research : design and methods: New Delphi, Newbury Park.
Zaheer, S., & Rajan, R. 2003. Creativity under constraint: Technological imprinting and the migration of Indian business to the new economy. In B. Kogut (Ed.), The Global Internet Economy: MIT Press.
Zimmerman, M. A., & Zeitz, G. J. 2002. Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27(3): 414-431.
Zott, C., & Huy, Q. N. 2007. How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire resources. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1): 70-105.		zh_TW
dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU201901003en_US