學術產出-學位論文
文章檢視/開啟
書目匯出
-
題名 政府網站電子參與機制分析─以原能會及台電公司為例
Analyzing e-participation mechanism of government websites: The case of Atomic Energy Council and Tai-Power Company作者 張羽婷
Chang, Yu-Ting貢獻者 黃東益
Huang, Tong-Yi
張羽婷
Chang, Yu-Ting關鍵詞 電子參與
網站可用性
資訊架構
核能安全
內容分析法
E-participation
Website usability
Information architecture
Nuclear energy security
Content analysis日期 2019 上傳時間 5-二月-2020 18:02:14 (UTC+8) 摘要 ICTs的發展，帶動政府治理模式的轉變，各國政府愈重視民眾參與並以網站為媒介，將電子參與機制設置其中，讓重大的公共政策與政府決議，更能匯聚各方的民意，網站自此成為了政府與民眾連結的重要平台。過去雖有許多研究評估政府網站，但較少聚焦於網站的資訊架構與其公民參與程度，也甚少以業務作為區分進行探討。基於上述背景，本研究以E-告知、E-諮詢、E-涉入、E-合作、E-賦能為架構，融合資訊架構與尋獲度的概念，以我國討論多時的核能安全議題為論述核心，建構原能會以及台電公司網站電子參與機制評估指標，運用內容分析法檢視兩網站內的電子參與機制陳設情況是否符合法規；整體網站能夠達到多大程度的參與；以及是否便於民眾使用。研究發現兩網站相比政府網站服務管理規範，皆僅完成44%的電子參與機制陳設，具改善空間，兩者針對核安議題所增設的電子參與機制都以E-告知為大宗，同時發現兩網站的機制增設皆受到政府網站服務管理規範的限縮，使得其在E-合作與E-賦能的機制較為缺乏。在網站參與程度的評估上，原能會整體落於E-合作程度，台電公司則落於E-涉入程度。而在資訊架構與尋獲度的評估中發現，資訊架構應以三層為原則，以增加民眾在網站電子參與機制的使用及尋獲度。本研究以內容分析法評估網站電子參與機制的尋獲度，造成推論上的限制，建議未來研究可使用量化研究法、卡片分類法完整原能會及台電公司網站評估。而本文首次嘗試以五階段參與程度建構評估指標，並以文獻作為機制構面分類依據，建議未來研究利用德菲法檢視指標內容，以加深網站電子參與的評估研究。
The development of ICTs has driven the transformation of governance models. Governments of all countries have paid more attention to public participation and use the website as a method, setting up an e-participation mechanism to allow major public policies and government decisions to better gather the opinions of all parties. This made website become an important platform for the government to connect with public. Although there have been many studies evaluating government websites in the past, they have less focused on the information architecture of the website and its level of public participation, and have rarely discussed distinction of business content.Based on the above background, this study uses E-inform, E-consult, E-involve, E- collaborate, and E-empower as the framework, integrates the concepts of information architecture and findability. Using the topic of nuclear energy safety in Taiwan that has been discussed for many years as thesis core, construct the index of the e-participation mechanism of the Atomic Energy Council (AEC)and Tai-Power Company websites, using the content analysis method to review below issue, including if the e-participation mechanism on two websites meets the regulation, which level of public participation can both websites achieve; and whether setting of the e-participation mechanism is convenient for people to find and use.The study found that compared both websites with norm of Government Website Service Management, both websites only completed 44% of the e-participation mechanism, still have much improvement space. The e-participation mechanism added by two websites for nuclear security issues are based on E-inform. Also found that the addition of website mechanisms is limited by the government website service management specifications, making it lack of mechanisms in E-collaborate and E-empower. In the evaluation of the level of public participation, the website of AEC will divide in level E-collaborate, and Tai-Power Company will divide in level E-involve. In the evaluation of the information architecture and findability, it was found that the information structure should be based on the principle of three layers in order to increase the public use and findability.This study uses content analysis to evaluate the findability of the website`s e-participation mechanism, which leads to inferential limitations. It is recommended that future research can use Quantitative Research, Card Sorting to complete the evaluation of AEC and Tai-Power Company website. This article is the first attempt to construct an evaluation index based on the five-stage participation level, and the literature is used as the basis for the classification of the mechanism facets. It is suggested that future studies use the Delphi Survey to review the index content to deepen the evaluation research of the e-participation mechanism of the website.參考文獻 中文部分卜小蝶（2007）。網路搜尋之分類架構評估初探。2019年4月9日，取自：https://concert.stpi.narl.org.tw/uploads/schedule_file/speaker_file/file/57/02-Pu-doc.pdf王石番（1992）。傳播內容分析法─理論與實證（二版）。台北：幼獅文化事業公司。王漢國（2006）。論「公民參與」與決策民主化的關係：民主治理與政策網路。佛光人文社會學刊，6，77-109。行政院研究發展考核委員會（1997）。電子化/網路化政府中程（八十七至八十九年度）推動計畫。2019年2月23日，取自：https://reurl.cc/YeEN0行政院研究發展考核委員會（2001）。電子化政府推動方案。2019年2月23日，取自：https://reurl.cc/zY1jy行政院研究發展考核委員會（2007）。優質網路政府計畫。2019年2月23日，取自：https://reurl.cc/AAjm3何全德（2012）。改變與感動的力量-電子化政府服務創新策略。研考雙月刊，36（5），55-70。何明修（2004）。當本土社會運動遇到西方的新社會運動理論：以台灣的反核運動為例。教育與社會研究，（7），66-97。呂智惠、謝建成、黃琬姿、黃毓絜（2016）。網站資訊架構之使用者經驗研究： 以臺師大科普閱讀網建置與使用性測試為例。大學圖書館，20（1），63-87。宋餘俠、蔡世田（2011）。政府參與社會網絡新思維.。研考雙月刊，35（4），10-22。杜文苓（2010）。環評決策中公民參與的省思：以中科三期開發爭議為例。公共行政學報，（35），29-60。周思伶（2008）。政府網站服務品質指標建構之研究。國立政治大學公共行政學系碩士論文，未出版，台北。周韻采（2003）。電子化政府績效的比較研究：以政府入口網站為例。公共行政學報，（9），35-58。林巧敏（2011）。政府資訊公開與申請應用網站內容分析：以臺灣與美英兩國政府機關為例。大學圖書館，15（2），78-98。范玫芳、邱智民（2011）。英國基因改造作物與食品公共辯論：公民參與科技政策模式評估。公共行政學報，（41），103-133。原能會（2012）。蘭嶼貯存場檢整重裝作業相關缺失之調查報告，2018年7月1日，取自：https://www.aec.gov.tw/webpage/control/report/files/check_lanyu_101-2.pdf。孫悅秐（2013）。電子化參與指標之建立與機制分析。國立政治大學公共行政學系碩士論文，未出版，台北。國家發展委員會（2016）。第五階段電子化政府計畫（106年-109年）-數位政府。2018年12月6日，取自：https://reurl.cc/p630Z國家發展委員會（2018）。服務型智慧政府推動計畫-第五階段電子化政府計畫。2019年2月23日，取自：https://reurl.cc/K0eYq梁世武（2014）。風險認知與核電支持關聯性之研究：以福島核能事故後台灣民眾對核電的認知與態度為例。行政暨政策學報，（58），45-86。許禎元（2003）。內容分析法的研究步驟與在政治學領域的應用。師大政治叢論，1，1-29。陳文姿（2016）。謝曉星首赴立院報告「全民的原能會」增兩席公民代表。環境資源中心。陳敦源、黃東益、蕭乃沂（2004）。電子化參與：公共政策過程中的網路公民參與。研考雙月刊，28（4），36-51。陳憶寜（2014）。福島危機中台灣民眾對核能風險感知與態度：政黨傾向、核能知識、信任與科學傳播的角色。中華傳播學刊，（26），223-265。陳穎峰（2018）。公民參與與核安治理─核四安全監督委員會與新北市安全監督委員會之比較。東吳政治學報36（1），1-63。游美惠（2000）。內容分析、文本分析與論述分析在社會研究的運用。調查研究，（8），5-42。黃東益、李仲彬（2010）。電子化政府對民眾的影響評估：理論架構的提出與G2C個案分析。2010年台灣公共行政與公共事務系所聯合會（TASPAA）年會暨學術研討會，桃園：中央警察大學。黃東益、董祥開、傅凱若（2017）。核電廠除役及核廢料處理議題公眾溝通機制之研究。科技部補助專題研究計畫（編號：MOST 106-2623-E-004-001-NU），未出版。黃朝盟（2001）。電子化政府網站的可用性原則。行政暨政策學報，（3），185-212。黃朝盟、趙美惠（2007）。網站規劃與設計。台北：商鼎文化出版社。葉蒨（2015）。地方政府資訊透明化研究─以我國六度地方政府網站為例。國立政治大學公共行政學系碩士論文，未出版，台北。謝建成、丁依玲、陳慧倫（2011）。大學圖書館網站資訊尋獲度之研究。資訊管理學報，18（3），25-49。謝建成、林黃瑋（2012）。基於網站廣度與深度之網站尋獲度研究。教育資料與圖書館學，50（2），255-288。謝寶煖、周秉貞（2003）。以顧客導向觀點評估政府網站之資訊架構。圖書與資訊學刊，（46），36-89。羅晉（2008）。邁向電子化民主新階段？政府網站民主化指標建立與評估調查。東吳政治學報，26（1），143-198。英文部分Abelson, J., Forest, P. G., Eyles, J., Smith, P., Martin, E., & Gauvin, F. P. (2001). Deliberations about Deliberative Methods: Issues in the Design and Evaluation of Public Consultation Processes (No. 2001-04). Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.Abu-Shanab, E., & Al-Dalou, R. (2012, April). E-participation Initiatives: A Framework for Technical Tools. In International Arab Conference of e-Technology (IACe-T`2012) (pp. 57-64).Åke Grönlund (2011, August). Connecting eGovernment to Real Government - The Failure of the UN eParticipation Index. International Conference on Electronic Government. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.Al-Dalou, R., & Abu-Shanab, E. (2013, May). E-participation Levels and Technologies. In The 6th International Conference on Information Technology (ICIT 2013) (pp. 8-10).Anduiza, E., Gallego, A., & Cantijoch, M. (2010). Online Political Participation in Spain: the Impact of Traditional and Internet Resources. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 7(4), 356-368.Arnstein,S.R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. American Institute of Planners Journal,35(4), 216-224.doi:10.1080/01944366908977225.Baker, D. L. (2009). Advancing E-government Performance in the United States Through Enhanced Usability Benchmarks. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 82-88.Berelson, B. (1952). Content Analysis in Communication Research. New York, NY, US: Free Press.Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40.Brinck, T., Gergle, D., & Wood, S. D. (2002). Usability for the Web: Designing Web Sites that Work. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publisher.Bryson, J. M., Quick, K. S., Slotterback, C. S., & Crosby, B. C. (2013). Designing Public Participation Processes. Public Administration Review, 73(1), 23–34.Dawes,S.S. (2008). The Evolution and Continuing Challenges of E‐governance. Public Administration Review, 68, 86-102.Emad.A.S & Rory.A.D (2013, May) . E-participation Levels and Technologies. 6th International Conference on Information Technology (ICIT2013).Fang, Z. (2002). E-government in Digital Era: Concept, Practice, and Development. International journal of the Computer, the Internet and management, 10(2), 1-22.Fedotova, O., Teixeira, L., & Alvelos, H. (2012). E-participation in Portugal: Evaluation of Government Electronic Platforms. Procedia Technology, 5, 152-161.Fischer, F. (1993). Citizen Participation and the Democratization of Policy Expertise: From Theoretical Inquiry to Practical Cases. Policy Sciences, 26(3), 165-187.Garcia, A. C. B., Maciel, C., & Pinto, F. B. (2005, August). A Quality Inspection Method to Evaluate E-government Sites. In International Conference on Electronic Government (pp. 198-209). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.Gil-García, J. R. (2007). Exploring E-government Benefits and Success Factors. In Encyclopedia of Digital Government (pp. 803-811). IGI Global.Grönlund, Å. (2002). Electronic Government – Design, Applications, and Management. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.Haro-de-Rosario, A., Sáez-Martín, A., & del Carmen Caba-Pérez, M. (2018). Using Social Media to Enhance Citizen Engagement with Local Government: Twitter or Facebook?. New Media & Society, 20(1), 29-49.Hiller, J. S., & Bélanger, F. (2001). Privacy Strategies For Electronic Government. E-government, 200, 162-198.International Association for Public Participation(2000). IAP2’s Public Participation Spectrum. Retrieved January 25, 2019,from https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.iap2.org/resource/resmgr/foundations_course/IAP2_P2_Spectrum_FINAL.pdfIrvin, R. A., & Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the Effort?. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 55-65.Ismailova, R. (2017). Web Site Accessibility, Usability and Security: A Survey of Government Web Sites in Kyrgyz Republic. Universal Access in the Information Society, 16(1), 257-264.Janowski, T. (2015a). From Electronic Governance to Policy-driven Electronic Governance–Evolution of Technology Use in Government. Communication and Technology, 425-439.Janowski, T. (2015b). Digital Government Evolution: From Transformation to Contextualization. Government Information Quarterly, 32 (3), 221-236.Karkin, N., & Janssen, M. (2014). Evaluating Websites from a Public Value Perspective: A Review of Turkish Local Government Websites. International Journal of Information Management, 34(3), 351-363.King, C. S., Feltey, K. M., & Susel, B. O. N. (1998). The Question of Participation: Toward Authentic Public Participation in Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 317-326.Lim, J. H., & Tang, S. Y. (2007). Urban e-government Initiatives and Environmental Decision Performance in Korea. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(1), 109-138.Macintosh, A. (2004, January). Characterizing E-participation in Policy-making. 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2019). Public Participation. Retrieved January 3, 2019. From https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/open/public-participation.html.OECD (2001a). Citizen as Partners. Information, Consultation and Public Participation In Policy Making. Retrieved March 14, 2019,from https://www.eukn.eu/fileadmin/Lib/files/EUKN/2013/Citizens%20as%20partner%20-%20OECD.pdfOECD (2001b). Citizens as Partners. OECD Handbook on Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-Making. Retrieved March 14, 2019,from https://www.internationalbudget.org/wp-content/uploads/Citizens-as-Partners-OECD-Handbook.pdfO`Leary, Z. (2017). The Essential Guide to Doing Your Research Project. Sage.Olga, F., Svetlana, B., Vadim, G., Ildar, I. (2017, September) . E-participation in EEU Countries: A Case Study of Government Websites. 2017 Electronic Governance and Open Society: Challenges in Eurasia (EGOSE 2017), St. Petersburg, Russia.Oni, A. A., Okunoye, A., & Mbarika, V. (2016). Evaluation of E-Government Implementation: The Case of State Government Websites in Nigeria. The Electronic Journal of e-Government, 14(1), 48-59.Osborne & Gaebler (1992). Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Peristeras, V., Mentzas, G., Tarabanis, K. A., & Abecker, A. (2009). Transforming E-government and E-participation through IT. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 24(5), 14-19.Renn, O., Webler, T., Rakel, H., Dienel, P., & Johnson, B. (1993). Public Participation in Decision Making: A Three-step Procedure. Policy Sciences, 26(3), 189-214.Rosenfeld, L. (2018). Falling in and out and in love with Information Architecture. Retrieved April 9, 2019, from https://www.slideshare.net/lrosenfeld/falling-in-and-out-and-in-love-with-information-architecture-95794624.Rosenfeld, L., Morville, P., & Arango, J. (2015). Information Architecture: For the Web and Beyond. (4th Ed.) O`Reilly Media, Inc.Sæbø, Ø., Rose, J., & Flak, L. S. (2008). The Shape of E-Participation: Characterizing an Emerging Research Area. Government Information Quarterly, 25(3), 400-428.Shareef, M. A., Dwivedi, Y. K., Kumar, V., & Kumar, U. (2016). Reformation of Public Service to Meet Citizens’ needs as Customers: Evaluating SMS as an Alternative Service Delivery Channel. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 255-270.Shepherd, A., & Bowler, C. (1997). Beyond the Requirements: Improving Public Participation in EIA. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 40(6), 725-738.Siau, K., & Long, Y. (2005). Synthesizing E-government Stage Models – A Meta-synthesis Based on Meta-ethnography Approach. Industrial Management and Data System (IMDS), 105(4), 443-458.Siau, K., & Long, Y. (2006). Using Social Development Lenses to Understand E-government Development. Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM), 14(1), 47-62.Smith, S., & Dalakiouridou, E. (2009). Contextualising Public (e)Participation in the Governance of the European Union. European Journal of ePractice, 7(1), 4-14.Song, C., & Lee, J. (2016). Citizens’ use of Social Media in Government, Perceived Transparency, and Trust in Government. Public Performance & Management Review, 39(2), 430-453.Tambouris, E., Liotas, N., & Tarabanis, K. (2007, January). A framework for Assessing eParticipation Projects and Tools. 2007 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences （HICSS`07） （pp. 90-90）. IEEE.United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organizations (2007). E-governance Capability Building. Retrieved January 25, 2019,from http://vocabularies.unesco.org/thesaurus/concept17004.United Nations(2019). E-Participation Index. Retrieved March 20, 2019,from https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/About/Overview/E-Participation-Index.Vicente, M. R., & Novo, A. (2014). An Empirical Analysis of E-participation. The Role of Social Networks and E-government over Citizens` online Engagement. Government Information Quarterly, 31(3), 379-387.Vogel, C. (2003). A Roadmap for Proper Taxonomy Design: Part 1 of 2. Computer Technology Review, 23(7), 42-42.Waseda (2018, October). The 14th Waseda-IAC International Digital Government Rankings 2018 Report. Retrieved December 1, 2018. From http://e-gov.waseda.ac.jp/pdf/The_2018_Waseda-IAC_Digital_Government_Rankings_Report.pdfWelch, E. W., Hinnant, C. C., & Moon, M. J. (2004). Linking Citizen Satisfaction with E-government and Trust in Government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(3), 371-391.Zaphiris, P. G. (2000, July). Depth vs Breath in the Arrangement of Web Links. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 453-456). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.Zheng, Y., & Schachter, H. L. (2017). Explaining Citizens’ E-participation Use: The Role of Perceived Advantages. Public Organization Review, 17(3), 409-428. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
公共行政學系
106256034資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1062560341 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 黃東益 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Huang, Tong-Yi en_US dc.contributor.author (作者) 張羽婷 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) Chang, Yu-Ting en_US dc.creator (作者) 張羽婷 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Chang, Yu-Ting en_US dc.date (日期) 2019 en_US dc.date.accessioned 5-二月-2020 18:02:14 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 5-二月-2020 18:02:14 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 5-二月-2020 18:02:14 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G1062560341 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/128619 - 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) 106256034 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) ICTs的發展，帶動政府治理模式的轉變，各國政府愈重視民眾參與並以網站為媒介，將電子參與機制設置其中，讓重大的公共政策與政府決議，更能匯聚各方的民意，網站自此成為了政府與民眾連結的重要平台。過去雖有許多研究評估政府網站，但較少聚焦於網站的資訊架構與其公民參與程度，也甚少以業務作為區分進行探討。基於上述背景，本研究以E-告知、E-諮詢、E-涉入、E-合作、E-賦能為架構，融合資訊架構與尋獲度的概念，以我國討論多時的核能安全議題為論述核心，建構原能會以及台電公司網站電子參與機制評估指標，運用內容分析法檢視兩網站內的電子參與機制陳設情況是否符合法規；整體網站能夠達到多大程度的參與；以及是否便於民眾使用。研究發現兩網站相比政府網站服務管理規範，皆僅完成44%的電子參與機制陳設，具改善空間，兩者針對核安議題所增設的電子參與機制都以E-告知為大宗，同時發現兩網站的機制增設皆受到政府網站服務管理規範的限縮，使得其在E-合作與E-賦能的機制較為缺乏。在網站參與程度的評估上，原能會整體落於E-合作程度，台電公司則落於E-涉入程度。而在資訊架構與尋獲度的評估中發現，資訊架構應以三層為原則，以增加民眾在網站電子參與機制的使用及尋獲度。本研究以內容分析法評估網站電子參與機制的尋獲度，造成推論上的限制，建議未來研究可使用量化研究法、卡片分類法完整原能會及台電公司網站評估。而本文首次嘗試以五階段參與程度建構評估指標，並以文獻作為機制構面分類依據，建議未來研究利用德菲法檢視指標內容，以加深網站電子參與的評估研究。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) The development of ICTs has driven the transformation of governance models. Governments of all countries have paid more attention to public participation and use the website as a method, setting up an e-participation mechanism to allow major public policies and government decisions to better gather the opinions of all parties. This made website become an important platform for the government to connect with public. Although there have been many studies evaluating government websites in the past, they have less focused on the information architecture of the website and its level of public participation, and have rarely discussed distinction of business content.Based on the above background, this study uses E-inform, E-consult, E-involve, E- collaborate, and E-empower as the framework, integrates the concepts of information architecture and findability. Using the topic of nuclear energy safety in Taiwan that has been discussed for many years as thesis core, construct the index of the e-participation mechanism of the Atomic Energy Council (AEC)and Tai-Power Company websites, using the content analysis method to review below issue, including if the e-participation mechanism on two websites meets the regulation, which level of public participation can both websites achieve; and whether setting of the e-participation mechanism is convenient for people to find and use.The study found that compared both websites with norm of Government Website Service Management, both websites only completed 44% of the e-participation mechanism, still have much improvement space. The e-participation mechanism added by two websites for nuclear security issues are based on E-inform. Also found that the addition of website mechanisms is limited by the government website service management specifications, making it lack of mechanisms in E-collaborate and E-empower. In the evaluation of the level of public participation, the website of AEC will divide in level E-collaborate, and Tai-Power Company will divide in level E-involve. In the evaluation of the information architecture and findability, it was found that the information structure should be based on the principle of three layers in order to increase the public use and findability.This study uses content analysis to evaluate the findability of the website`s e-participation mechanism, which leads to inferential limitations. It is recommended that future research can use Quantitative Research, Card Sorting to complete the evaluation of AEC and Tai-Power Company website. This article is the first attempt to construct an evaluation index based on the five-stage participation level, and the literature is used as the basis for the classification of the mechanism facets. It is suggested that future studies use the Delphi Survey to review the index content to deepen the evaluation research of the e-participation mechanism of the website. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 目次第一章、緒論 1第一節、研究動機 1第二節、研究目的與研究問題 8第二章、文獻回顧與評析 11第一節、當ICTs進到政府部門 11第二節、電子化政府與公民參與的碰撞 19第三節、電子參與機制的誕生 27第四節、政府網站與電子參與機制 36第三章、研究設計 43第一節、研究方法 43第二節、研究架構與指標內容 47第三節、研究流程 53第四節、指標調整、編碼信度與分析操作 57第四章、原能會與台電公司網站內容分析 61第一節、原能會網站 61第二節、台電公司網站 67第三節、網站電子參與機制析論 72第五章、原能會及台電公司網站比較分析 77第一節、一般電子參與機制 77第二節、核能安全議題電子參與機制 82第三節、資訊架構與尋獲度交叉分析 87第六章、結論 93第一節、研究發現 93第二節、政策建議 96第三節、研究限制 100第四節、研究建議 102參考文獻 105附錄 113 zh_TW dc.format.extent 2411798 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1062560341 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 電子參與 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 網站可用性 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 資訊架構 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 核能安全 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 內容分析法 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) E-participation en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Website usability en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Information architecture en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Nuclear energy security en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Content analysis en_US dc.title (題名) 政府網站電子參與機制分析─以原能會及台電公司為例 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Analyzing e-participation mechanism of government websites: The case of Atomic Energy Council and Tai-Power Company en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文部分卜小蝶（2007）。網路搜尋之分類架構評估初探。2019年4月9日，取自：https://concert.stpi.narl.org.tw/uploads/schedule_file/speaker_file/file/57/02-Pu-doc.pdf王石番（1992）。傳播內容分析法─理論與實證（二版）。台北：幼獅文化事業公司。王漢國（2006）。論「公民參與」與決策民主化的關係：民主治理與政策網路。佛光人文社會學刊，6，77-109。行政院研究發展考核委員會（1997）。電子化/網路化政府中程（八十七至八十九年度）推動計畫。2019年2月23日，取自：https://reurl.cc/YeEN0行政院研究發展考核委員會（2001）。電子化政府推動方案。2019年2月23日，取自：https://reurl.cc/zY1jy行政院研究發展考核委員會（2007）。優質網路政府計畫。2019年2月23日，取自：https://reurl.cc/AAjm3何全德（2012）。改變與感動的力量-電子化政府服務創新策略。研考雙月刊，36（5），55-70。何明修（2004）。當本土社會運動遇到西方的新社會運動理論：以台灣的反核運動為例。教育與社會研究，（7），66-97。呂智惠、謝建成、黃琬姿、黃毓絜（2016）。網站資訊架構之使用者經驗研究： 以臺師大科普閱讀網建置與使用性測試為例。大學圖書館，20（1），63-87。宋餘俠、蔡世田（2011）。政府參與社會網絡新思維.。研考雙月刊，35（4），10-22。杜文苓（2010）。環評決策中公民參與的省思：以中科三期開發爭議為例。公共行政學報，（35），29-60。周思伶（2008）。政府網站服務品質指標建構之研究。國立政治大學公共行政學系碩士論文，未出版，台北。周韻采（2003）。電子化政府績效的比較研究：以政府入口網站為例。公共行政學報，（9），35-58。林巧敏（2011）。政府資訊公開與申請應用網站內容分析：以臺灣與美英兩國政府機關為例。大學圖書館，15（2），78-98。范玫芳、邱智民（2011）。英國基因改造作物與食品公共辯論：公民參與科技政策模式評估。公共行政學報，（41），103-133。原能會（2012）。蘭嶼貯存場檢整重裝作業相關缺失之調查報告，2018年7月1日，取自：https://www.aec.gov.tw/webpage/control/report/files/check_lanyu_101-2.pdf。孫悅秐（2013）。電子化參與指標之建立與機制分析。國立政治大學公共行政學系碩士論文，未出版，台北。國家發展委員會（2016）。第五階段電子化政府計畫（106年-109年）-數位政府。2018年12月6日，取自：https://reurl.cc/p630Z國家發展委員會（2018）。服務型智慧政府推動計畫-第五階段電子化政府計畫。2019年2月23日，取自：https://reurl.cc/K0eYq梁世武（2014）。風險認知與核電支持關聯性之研究：以福島核能事故後台灣民眾對核電的認知與態度為例。行政暨政策學報，（58），45-86。許禎元（2003）。內容分析法的研究步驟與在政治學領域的應用。師大政治叢論，1，1-29。陳文姿（2016）。謝曉星首赴立院報告「全民的原能會」增兩席公民代表。環境資源中心。陳敦源、黃東益、蕭乃沂（2004）。電子化參與：公共政策過程中的網路公民參與。研考雙月刊，28（4），36-51。陳憶寜（2014）。福島危機中台灣民眾對核能風險感知與態度：政黨傾向、核能知識、信任與科學傳播的角色。中華傳播學刊，（26），223-265。陳穎峰（2018）。公民參與與核安治理─核四安全監督委員會與新北市安全監督委員會之比較。東吳政治學報36（1），1-63。游美惠（2000）。內容分析、文本分析與論述分析在社會研究的運用。調查研究，（8），5-42。黃東益、李仲彬（2010）。電子化政府對民眾的影響評估：理論架構的提出與G2C個案分析。2010年台灣公共行政與公共事務系所聯合會（TASPAA）年會暨學術研討會，桃園：中央警察大學。黃東益、董祥開、傅凱若（2017）。核電廠除役及核廢料處理議題公眾溝通機制之研究。科技部補助專題研究計畫（編號：MOST 106-2623-E-004-001-NU），未出版。黃朝盟（2001）。電子化政府網站的可用性原則。行政暨政策學報，（3），185-212。黃朝盟、趙美惠（2007）。網站規劃與設計。台北：商鼎文化出版社。葉蒨（2015）。地方政府資訊透明化研究─以我國六度地方政府網站為例。國立政治大學公共行政學系碩士論文，未出版，台北。謝建成、丁依玲、陳慧倫（2011）。大學圖書館網站資訊尋獲度之研究。資訊管理學報，18（3），25-49。謝建成、林黃瑋（2012）。基於網站廣度與深度之網站尋獲度研究。教育資料與圖書館學，50（2），255-288。謝寶煖、周秉貞（2003）。以顧客導向觀點評估政府網站之資訊架構。圖書與資訊學刊，（46），36-89。羅晉（2008）。邁向電子化民主新階段？政府網站民主化指標建立與評估調查。東吳政治學報，26（1），143-198。英文部分Abelson, J., Forest, P. G., Eyles, J., Smith, P., Martin, E., & Gauvin, F. P. (2001). Deliberations about Deliberative Methods: Issues in the Design and Evaluation of Public Consultation Processes (No. 2001-04). Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.Abu-Shanab, E., & Al-Dalou, R. (2012, April). E-participation Initiatives: A Framework for Technical Tools. In International Arab Conference of e-Technology (IACe-T`2012) (pp. 57-64).Åke Grönlund (2011, August). Connecting eGovernment to Real Government - The Failure of the UN eParticipation Index. International Conference on Electronic Government. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.Al-Dalou, R., & Abu-Shanab, E. (2013, May). E-participation Levels and Technologies. In The 6th International Conference on Information Technology (ICIT 2013) (pp. 8-10).Anduiza, E., Gallego, A., & Cantijoch, M. (2010). Online Political Participation in Spain: the Impact of Traditional and Internet Resources. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 7(4), 356-368.Arnstein,S.R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. American Institute of Planners Journal,35(4), 216-224.doi:10.1080/01944366908977225.Baker, D. L. (2009). Advancing E-government Performance in the United States Through Enhanced Usability Benchmarks. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 82-88.Berelson, B. (1952). Content Analysis in Communication Research. New York, NY, US: Free Press.Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40.Brinck, T., Gergle, D., & Wood, S. D. (2002). Usability for the Web: Designing Web Sites that Work. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publisher.Bryson, J. M., Quick, K. S., Slotterback, C. S., & Crosby, B. C. (2013). Designing Public Participation Processes. Public Administration Review, 73(1), 23–34.Dawes,S.S. (2008). The Evolution and Continuing Challenges of E‐governance. Public Administration Review, 68, 86-102.Emad.A.S & Rory.A.D (2013, May) . E-participation Levels and Technologies. 6th International Conference on Information Technology (ICIT2013).Fang, Z. (2002). E-government in Digital Era: Concept, Practice, and Development. International journal of the Computer, the Internet and management, 10(2), 1-22.Fedotova, O., Teixeira, L., & Alvelos, H. (2012). E-participation in Portugal: Evaluation of Government Electronic Platforms. Procedia Technology, 5, 152-161.Fischer, F. (1993). Citizen Participation and the Democratization of Policy Expertise: From Theoretical Inquiry to Practical Cases. Policy Sciences, 26(3), 165-187.Garcia, A. C. B., Maciel, C., & Pinto, F. B. (2005, August). A Quality Inspection Method to Evaluate E-government Sites. In International Conference on Electronic Government (pp. 198-209). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.Gil-García, J. R. (2007). Exploring E-government Benefits and Success Factors. In Encyclopedia of Digital Government (pp. 803-811). IGI Global.Grönlund, Å. (2002). Electronic Government – Design, Applications, and Management. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.Haro-de-Rosario, A., Sáez-Martín, A., & del Carmen Caba-Pérez, M. (2018). Using Social Media to Enhance Citizen Engagement with Local Government: Twitter or Facebook?. New Media & Society, 20(1), 29-49.Hiller, J. S., & Bélanger, F. (2001). Privacy Strategies For Electronic Government. E-government, 200, 162-198.International Association for Public Participation(2000). IAP2’s Public Participation Spectrum. Retrieved January 25, 2019,from https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.iap2.org/resource/resmgr/foundations_course/IAP2_P2_Spectrum_FINAL.pdfIrvin, R. A., & Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the Effort?. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 55-65.Ismailova, R. (2017). Web Site Accessibility, Usability and Security: A Survey of Government Web Sites in Kyrgyz Republic. Universal Access in the Information Society, 16(1), 257-264.Janowski, T. (2015a). From Electronic Governance to Policy-driven Electronic Governance–Evolution of Technology Use in Government. Communication and Technology, 425-439.Janowski, T. (2015b). Digital Government Evolution: From Transformation to Contextualization. Government Information Quarterly, 32 (3), 221-236.Karkin, N., & Janssen, M. (2014). Evaluating Websites from a Public Value Perspective: A Review of Turkish Local Government Websites. International Journal of Information Management, 34(3), 351-363.King, C. S., Feltey, K. M., & Susel, B. O. N. (1998). The Question of Participation: Toward Authentic Public Participation in Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 317-326.Lim, J. H., & Tang, S. Y. (2007). Urban e-government Initiatives and Environmental Decision Performance in Korea. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(1), 109-138.Macintosh, A. (2004, January). Characterizing E-participation in Policy-making. 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2019). Public Participation. Retrieved January 3, 2019. From https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/open/public-participation.html.OECD (2001a). Citizen as Partners. Information, Consultation and Public Participation In Policy Making. Retrieved March 14, 2019,from https://www.eukn.eu/fileadmin/Lib/files/EUKN/2013/Citizens%20as%20partner%20-%20OECD.pdfOECD (2001b). Citizens as Partners. OECD Handbook on Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-Making. Retrieved March 14, 2019,from https://www.internationalbudget.org/wp-content/uploads/Citizens-as-Partners-OECD-Handbook.pdfO`Leary, Z. (2017). The Essential Guide to Doing Your Research Project. Sage.Olga, F., Svetlana, B., Vadim, G., Ildar, I. (2017, September) . E-participation in EEU Countries: A Case Study of Government Websites. 2017 Electronic Governance and Open Society: Challenges in Eurasia (EGOSE 2017), St. Petersburg, Russia.Oni, A. A., Okunoye, A., & Mbarika, V. (2016). Evaluation of E-Government Implementation: The Case of State Government Websites in Nigeria. The Electronic Journal of e-Government, 14(1), 48-59.Osborne & Gaebler (1992). Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Peristeras, V., Mentzas, G., Tarabanis, K. A., & Abecker, A. (2009). Transforming E-government and E-participation through IT. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 24(5), 14-19.Renn, O., Webler, T., Rakel, H., Dienel, P., & Johnson, B. (1993). Public Participation in Decision Making: A Three-step Procedure. Policy Sciences, 26(3), 189-214.Rosenfeld, L. (2018). Falling in and out and in love with Information Architecture. Retrieved April 9, 2019, from https://www.slideshare.net/lrosenfeld/falling-in-and-out-and-in-love-with-information-architecture-95794624.Rosenfeld, L., Morville, P., & Arango, J. (2015). Information Architecture: For the Web and Beyond. (4th Ed.) O`Reilly Media, Inc.Sæbø, Ø., Rose, J., & Flak, L. S. (2008). The Shape of E-Participation: Characterizing an Emerging Research Area. Government Information Quarterly, 25(3), 400-428.Shareef, M. A., Dwivedi, Y. K., Kumar, V., & Kumar, U. (2016). Reformation of Public Service to Meet Citizens’ needs as Customers: Evaluating SMS as an Alternative Service Delivery Channel. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 255-270.Shepherd, A., & Bowler, C. (1997). Beyond the Requirements: Improving Public Participation in EIA. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 40(6), 725-738.Siau, K., & Long, Y. (2005). Synthesizing E-government Stage Models – A Meta-synthesis Based on Meta-ethnography Approach. Industrial Management and Data System (IMDS), 105(4), 443-458.Siau, K., & Long, Y. (2006). Using Social Development Lenses to Understand E-government Development. Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM), 14(1), 47-62.Smith, S., & Dalakiouridou, E. (2009). Contextualising Public (e)Participation in the Governance of the European Union. European Journal of ePractice, 7(1), 4-14.Song, C., & Lee, J. (2016). Citizens’ use of Social Media in Government, Perceived Transparency, and Trust in Government. Public Performance & Management Review, 39(2), 430-453.Tambouris, E., Liotas, N., & Tarabanis, K. (2007, January). A framework for Assessing eParticipation Projects and Tools. 2007 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences （HICSS`07） （pp. 90-90）. IEEE.United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organizations (2007). E-governance Capability Building. Retrieved January 25, 2019,from http://vocabularies.unesco.org/thesaurus/concept17004.United Nations(2019). E-Participation Index. Retrieved March 20, 2019,from https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/About/Overview/E-Participation-Index.Vicente, M. R., & Novo, A. (2014). An Empirical Analysis of E-participation. The Role of Social Networks and E-government over Citizens` online Engagement. Government Information Quarterly, 31(3), 379-387.Vogel, C. (2003). A Roadmap for Proper Taxonomy Design: Part 1 of 2. Computer Technology Review, 23(7), 42-42.Waseda (2018, October). The 14th Waseda-IAC International Digital Government Rankings 2018 Report. Retrieved December 1, 2018. From http://e-gov.waseda.ac.jp/pdf/The_2018_Waseda-IAC_Digital_Government_Rankings_Report.pdfWelch, E. W., Hinnant, C. C., & Moon, M. J. (2004). Linking Citizen Satisfaction with E-government and Trust in Government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(3), 371-391.Zaphiris, P. G. (2000, July). Depth vs Breath in the Arrangement of Web Links. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 453-456). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.Zheng, Y., & Schachter, H. L. (2017). Explaining Citizens’ E-participation Use: The Role of Perceived Advantages. Public Organization Review, 17(3), 409-428. zh_TW dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU202000080 en_US
