1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. College of Commerce
  4. Theses
  5. Item

學術產出-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

Citation Infomation

題名 中介者的創新演化歷程 -以台灣文化創意產業的三個個案為例
The innovation and evolution of intermediaries-three cases of Taiwan`s cultural and creative industries
作者 陳明輝
Chen, Ming-Hui
貢獻者 溫肇東
Wen, Chao-Tung
陳明輝
Chen, Ming-Hui
關鍵詞 中介組織
創新演化歷程
社會網絡
核心能耐
intermediary organization
innovation evolution process
social network
core competence
日期 2020
上傳時間 2-Sep-2020 13:09:40 (UTC+8)
摘要 台灣文化創意產業的發展脈絡以及產業結構成形的過程中，在不確定性極高的新興產業裡，為了適應產業狀況和滿足當時的產業與市場需求，各種中介組織因其資源組合條件所發展出的多元樣態。根據其組織任務大致上可歸類為以下四種分類：（1）政策支援型中介組織；（2）公共事務型中介組織；（3）市場中介型中介組織；（4）民間創新型中介組織。本研究透過梳理三個民間創新型中介組織的個案，分析其創新演化歷程。在學理上，本研究指出在特定的時間/演化歷程和產業/空間範疇條件下，影響社會創新型中介組織創新演化的內部關鍵要素包括兩個策略選擇的面向：（1）核心能耐：行動者在其專業領域的優勢能力，或者作為中介組織所累積的行業知識和資源整合能力。（2）社會網絡：經由過去的領域經歷所累積的社會網絡和產業網絡，以及繼承先輩而來的社會關係。本研究發現，民間創新型中介組織除了一般中介的能力外，也需具備（1）文化轉譯能力；（2）辨識創新機會的能力。其創新演化歷程則呈現四個階段的循環演進歷程：（1）邊緣化時期；（2）跨領域中介階段；（3）吸引力模式；（4）創造新產業領域。這四個階段的時間循環端視中介組織所處的產業情境和組織內部所擁有的核心能耐與社會資本的資源而定。本研究的理論貢獻為將「位移」和「文化轉譯」的概念，導入到社會網絡理論的論述中，並且指出中介組織的創新擴散歷程是持續互動反饋的過程。
In the development context of Taiwan’s cultural and creative industries and the process of forming the industrial structure, in order to adapt to industry conditions and meet the needs of the industry and market, there are various intermediary organizations have developed multiple forms due to their resource combination conditions. According to its organizational tasks, it can be roughly classified into the following four categories : (1) Policy support intermediary organizations; (2) Public affairs intermediary organizations; (3) Market intermediary organizations; (4) Private social innovation intermediary organizations. This research analyzes the innovation and evolution process of three social innovation intermediary organizations. In terms of theory, this research points out that under the conditions of a specific time/evolution process and industry/space category, the internal key elements affecting the innovation and evolution of social innovation intermediary organizations include two strategic choices : (1) Core competence: the actor`s superior ability in his professional field, or the industry knowledge and resource integration ability accumulated as an intermediary organization. (2) Social network: social network and industrial network accumulated through past field experience, and social relations inherited from ancestors. This study found that in addition to general intermediary capabilities, private social innovation intermediary organizations also need to have (1) cultural translation capabilities; (2) the ability to identify innovation opportunities. Its innovation evolution process presents a four-stage cyclic evolution process: (1) the period of marginalization; (2) the inter-field intermediary stage; (3) the attractive model; (4) the creation of new industrial fields. The time cycle of these four stages depends on the industrial context of the intermediary organization and the core capabilities and social capital resources within the organization. The theoretical contribution of this research is to introduce the concepts of "displacement" and "cultural translation" into the discourse of social network theory, and point out that the innovation diffusion process of intermediary organizations is a process of continuous interactive feedback.
參考文獻 Allen, T. J. (1977). Managing in the flow of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Allen, James., James , Andrew D.,  Gamlen, Phil. (2007). Formal versus informal knowledge networks in R&D: a case study using social network analysis. R&D management, Volume37, Issue3 Pages 179-196.
Agogué, M., Berthet, E., Fredberg, T., Le Masson, P., Segrestin, B., Stoetzel, M., Wiener, M., and Yström, A. (2017). Explicating the role of innovation intermediaries in the “unknown”: a contingency approach. Journal of Strategy and Management, 10, (1), pp. 19-39.
Amsden, A. H. (1989). Asia’s next giant: South Korea and late industrialization, New York: Oxford University Press.
Andrew Y. (2006). Korea boost, Wallpaper. 92, 350–360.
Barney, J. (1991) Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
Beigel, F. & Christou, P. (2006). Paju Book and Media City, near Seoul, Korea, landscape as infrastructure for new cities. Topos, 57, 38–44, ISBN13: 978-3-7667-1713-9.
Bessant, John., Rush, Howard. (1995). Building bridges for innovation; the role of consultants in technology transfer. Research Policy, Volume 24, Issue 1, Pages 97-114.
Birley, Sue. (1985). The role of networks in the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, Volume 1, Issue 1, Pages 107-117.
Bolino, Mark C., Turnley, William H., Bloodgood, James M. (2002). Citizenship Behavior and The Creation of Social Capital in Organizations. Academy of Management ReviewVol. 27, No. 4.
Bourdieu, Pierre. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1992). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Bowman, Edward H. & Hurry, Dileep. (1993). Strategy through the Option Lens: An Integrated View of Resource Investments and the Incremental-Choice Process. Academy of Management ReviewVol. 18, No. 4.
Brown, John Seely., Collins, Allan., and Duguid, Paul. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher, v18 n1, 32-42.
Burns,Lawton R., Wholey, Douglas R., Abeln, Marty O. (1993). Hospital Utilization and Mortality Levels for Patients in the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System. Inquiry, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Summer 1993), 142-156.
Burt, Ronald S. (1987). Social contagion and innovation, cohesion versus structural equivalence. American Journal of Sociology 92: 1287-1335.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Caloffi, Annalisa., Rossi, Federica. and Russo, Margherita. (2015). The emergence of intermediary organizations: a network-based approach to the design of innovation policies. Handbook on Complexity and Public Policy, 314–331. 
Carlsson, B. (2005). Internationalization of innovation system: A survey of the literature. Research Policy, 35, 56–67.
Chang, S. J. (1996). An evolutionary perspective on diversification and corporate restructuring: Entry, exit, and economic performance during 1981-89. Strategic Management Journal, 17(8), 587-611
Chaudhry, A. & Garner, P. (2007). Do governments suppress growth? Institutions, rent-seeking, and innovation blocking in a model of Schumpeterian growth. Economics & Politics, 19, 35–52.
Chen, S. (1997). A new paradigm for knowledge-based competition: building an industry through knowledge sharing. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 9, 4.
Chen, S. R-L. (2006). The role of government in the industrial development of Taiwan. National Elite, 2, 3, 17–37 (in Chinese).
Chen, W-Z. (2000). The miracle of law and economic reform in Taiwan. Angle Publishing, Taipei (in Chinese).
Chesbrough, H. (2005). Open Innovation: A new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation. Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, Oxford University Press.
Chesbrough, H. & Crowther, A. K. (2006). Beyond high tech: Early adopters of open innovation in other industries. R&D Management, 36, 3, 229–236.
Clarysse, B. & Bruneel, J. (2007). Nurturing and growing innovative start-ups: The role of policy as integrator. R&D Management, 37, 2.
Coase, R. H. (1937). The Nature of the Firm. economica 4 (16), 386-405.
Coleman, James S. (1988). ìSocial Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.ì American Journal of Sociology 94:S95-S120.
Coleman, James S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Considine, M. & Lewis, J. M. (2004). Innovation and innovators inside government: from institutions to networks. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 20, 4, 581–607.
Cooke, Phil. (2005). Regionally asymmetric knowledge capabilities and open innovation exploring “Globalisation”—a new model of industry organization. Research Policy, 34, 1128–1149.
Cooper, J. E. (1996). Intermediaries and invention: business agents and the Edison electric pen and duplicating press. Business and Economic History, 25, 1, Fall.
Cross, R. and Parker, A. (2004). The hidden power of social networks, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Christensen, Clayton M.(1997). The Innovator`s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Christensen, Clayton M., Ojomo, Efosa., & Dillon, Karen (2019). The Prosperity Paradox: How Innovation Can Lift Nations out of Poverty, New York, New York, USA: HarperBusiness, ISBN 9780062851826.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity : Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention, New York: Harper Perennial.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of A Systems Perspective for the Study of Creativity in Sternberg, R. J. (ed.). The Handbook of Creativity, First Edition, New York: Cambridge University Press, 313-335.
Dakhli, Mourad. & De Clercq, Dirk. (2007). Human capital, social capital, and innovation: a multi-country study. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development An International Journal, Volume 16, Issue 2.
Davidson, P. & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal
of Business Venturing, 18(3), 301–331.
DiMaggio, Paul. (1992). Nadel’s Paradox Revisited: Relational and Cultural Aspects of Organizational Structure. In N. Nohria and R. G. Eccles (eds.), Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action: 118-142. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
DiMaggio, P.,H. Louch(1998). Socially embedded consumer transactions: For what kinds of purchases do people most often use networks?. American Sociological Review,63,619-637.
Dodgson, M., Gann, D. & Salter, A. (2006). The role of technology in the shift towards open innovation: the case of Procter & Gamble. R&D Management, 36, 3, 333–346.
Drake, Graham. (2003). This place gives me space: place and creativity in the creative industries. Geoforum, 34(2003) 511-524.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
Ellis, Paul D. (2000). Social Ties and Foreign Market Entry. Journal of International Business Studies, 31(3): 443-469.
Ethiraj, S. K., Kale, P., Krishnan, M. S., & Singh, J. V. (2005). Where do capabilities come from and how do they matter? A study in the software services industry. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 25-45.
Fleming, L. & Waguespack, D. M. (2007). Brokerage, boundary spanning and leadership in open innovation communities. Organization Science, 18, 2, .165–180.
Florian B., Philip C. (2003). Designing the rug and not the picnic: Paju landscape script, Paju Book City, Seoul, Korea. 1999–Present, Landscape Urbanism, 76–81, ISBN 1-902902-30-0.
Florida, Richard. (2008). Who’s your City: How the creative economy is making where you live the most important decision of your life, SUSAN SCHULMAN LITERARY AGENCY, INC.
Freeman, C. (1995). The ‘National System of Innovation’ in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19, 5–24.
Gassmann, Oliver. (2006). Opening up the innovation process: towards an agenda. R&D management, Volume36, Issue3, 223-228.
Goto, A. (2000). Japan’s National Innovation System: Current status and problems, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 16, 2, 103–113.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The Strength Of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology 78, 1360-80.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Social Embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology,91(3),481-510.
Granovetter, M. & Swedberg, Richard. （eds.）(1992). The Sociology of Economic Life, Westview Press.
Gulati, R. & Gargiulo, M. (1999). Where do interorganizational networks come from? American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1439–1493.
Hacklin, F., Lopperi, K., Bergman, J.-P. & Marxt, C. (2004). Toward an integrated knowledge management cycle in cumulative open innovation networks. Proceedings of the R&D Management Conference (RADMA), 7–9 July, Sesimbra, Portugal.
Hamel, Gary & C. K. Prahalad. (1996). Competing for the Future, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Hansen, M.T.(1999). The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge Across Organizational Subunits.Administrative Science Quarterly,44,82-111.
Hargadon, A. and Sutton, R.I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 718–749.
Hargadon, A. (1998). Firms as knowledge brokers: lessons in pursu- ing continuous innovation. California Management Review 40, 209–227.
Heydebreck, P., Klofsten, M. & Maier, J. (2000). Innovation support for new technology-based firms: the Swedish teknopol approach. R&D Management, 30, 1, 89–100.
Hikimo, T., & Amsden, A. H. (1994). Staying behind, stumbling back, sneaking up, soaring ahead: late industrialization in historical perspective. in W. J. Baumol, R. R. Nelson, & E. N. Wolff (Eds.), Convergence of Productivity: Cross-national studies and historical evidence. 285–315. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hossain, Mokter. ( 2012 ). Performance and Potential of Open Innovation Intermediaries. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 58, 754 – 764.
Howells, J. (1996). Tacit knowledge, innovation and technology transfer. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 8, 2.
Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35. 715–728.
Howards, J. (2005). Knowledge exchange networks in Australia’s innovation system: overview and strategic analysis. Report of a Study Commissioned by the Department of Education, Science, and Training.
Hsueh, L-M., Hsu, C-K., & Perkins, D. H. (2004). Industrialization and the state: the changing role of the Taiwan Government in the economy, 1945–1998. Harvard University Press.
Jacob, Merle., Lundqvist, Mats., Hellsmark, Hans. (2003). Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish University system: the case of Chalmers University of Technology. Research Policy, Volume 32, Issue 9, October 2003, Pages 1555-1568.
Jamali, Dima, Mary Yianni, and Hanin Abdallah. (2011). Strategic Partnerships, Social Capital and Innovation: Accounting for Social Alliance Innovation. Business Ethics: A European Review 20 (4): 375-391.
Jenkins, G. P., Kuo, C-Y. & Sun K-N. (2003). Taxation and economic development in Taiwan, Harvard University Press.
Johanson, Jan & Vahlne, Jan-Erik. (1990). The Mechanism of Internationalization. International Marketing Review, 7(4): 11-24.
John de la M. (2002). Policy networks in adaptive innovation systems. in J. de la Mothe & A.N. Link (Eds.), Networks, Alliances and Partnerships in the Innovation Process. Kluwer Academic Publishers, USA. 2002.
Kash, D. E. & Rycroft, R. (2002). Emerging patterns of complex technological innovation. Technological forecasting and social change, 69, 581–606.
Kay, A. (2005). A critique of the use of path dependency in policy studies. Public Administration, 83, 3, 553–571, 2005.
Klerkx, Laurens., Leeuwis, Cees. (2009). Establishment and embedding of innovation brokers at different innovation system levels: Insights from the Dutch agricultural sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Volume 76, Issue 6, P. 849-860.
Knockaert, Mirjam., Spithoven, Andre., and Clarysse, Bart. (2014). The impact of technology intermediaries on firm cognitive capacity additionality. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Volume 81, Pages 376-387.
Knott, A. M. (2003). Persistent heterogeneity and sustainable innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 687-705.
Kristin, F., Commerell, H-J. & Seung, H-S. (2005). Paju Book City, Korea, Aedes West, Berlin Exhibition. 20–21, ISBN: 3-937093-52-2.
Kuckartz, M. (2001). Innovation market-the economic exploitation of property rights in high-quality inventions. World Patent Information, 23, 67–70.
Lee, J-D. & Park, C. (2006). Research and development linkage in a national innovation system: factors affecting success and failure in Korea. Technovation, 26 (2006) 1045–1054.
Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Lundvall, B-Å. (ed.) (1992). National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, London: Pinter Publishers.
Lundvall, B.-Å. (1998). Why study national systems and national styles of innovation?. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 10, 4, 1998, 407–422.
Lundvall, B-Å. (2007). National innovation systems-analytical concept and development tool. Industry and Innovation, 14, 1, 95–119.
Lynn L. and M. Reddy. (1996). Linking technology and institutions: the innovation community framework. Research Policy, 25(1), 91–106.
Mahmood, I. P. & Rufin, C. (2005). Government’s dilemma: the role of government in imitation and innovation. Academy of management review, 30, 2, 338–360.
Marceau, J. (2002). Divining directions for development: a cooperative industry-government-public sector research approach to establishing R&D priorities. R&D Management, 32, 3, 209–221.
Marshall, A. (1920). Principles of economics. London: Macmillan.
McEvily, B., Zaheer, A. (1999). Bridging ties: a source of firm hetero- geneity in competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal 20, 1133–1156.
Miller, D. J. (2004). Firms’ technological resources and the performance effects of diversification: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 1097-1119.
Mok, K.Ho. (2005). Fostering entrepreneurship: changing role of government and higher education governance in Hong Kong. Research Policy, 34 (2005) 537–554.
Moore, Geoffrey A. (2014). Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling Disruptive Products to Mainstream Customers. New York, NY : HarperBusiness.
Morse, M. H. (2001). The Limits of Innovation Markets. ABA Antitrust and Intellectual Property, Newsletter.
Nambisan, S., Sawhney, M. (2007). A buyer`s guide to the innovation bazaar. Harv. Bus. Rev. 85 (6), 109–118.
Nelson, Richard R. and Sidney G. Winter (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Belknap Press/
Nelson, R. R. (2004). The market economy, and the scientific commons. Research Policy, 33 (2001) 455–471. Harvard University Press: Cambridge.
Negus, Keith. (2002). the work of cultural intermediaries and the enduring distance between production and consumption. Cultural Studies, 16(4) 2002, 501-515.
Nixon, Sean. & Gay du Paul. (2002). who needs cultural intermediaries?. Cultural Studies, 16(4) 2002 495-500.
Nonaka, Ikujiro, and Takeuchi, Hirotaka. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press.
OECD. (2001). Innovative networks: cooperation in National Innovation Systems, Paris: OECD.
Ohmae, K. (1990). The borderless World: power and strategy in the interlinked economy, New york, Harper Business.
Osborne, s. (1999). Promoting local voluntary and community action: the role of local development agencies, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Penrose, Edith (1959/1995), The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Pavitt, K. (2003). Specialization and systems integration, in Hobday. M. (Ed.), The Business of Systems Integration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, Gerald R. (2003). The External Control of Organizations : A Resource Dependence Perspective. Stanford University Press.
Potts, Jason., Hartley, John., Montgomery, Lucy., (2008). Consumer Co-Creation and Situated Creativity. Industry and Innovation 15(5):459-474.
Portes, A. & Sensenbrenner, J. (1993). Embeddedness and immigration: Notes on the social determinants of economic action. American Journal of Sociology, 98(6), 1320–1350.
Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 79-91.
Quaglia, (2005). Civil Servants, Economic Policies and Economic Ideas: Lessons from Italy. Governance, 18, 4: 545-566.
Ratchford, J. T. (1997). Science and technology in government and industry: whence and whither?. Technology in Society, 19, 3/4, 211–236.
Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1994). Developmental Processes of Cooperative Interorganizational Relationships. The Academy of Management Review, 19, 90-118.
Rodan, S., & Galunic, C. (2004). More than network structure: How knowledge heterogeneity influences managerial performance and innovativeness. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 541-562.
Rogers, E. M. (1976). New product adoption and diffusion. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(March), 192-208.
Reagans, Ray. and McEvily, Bill. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative science quarterly, Volume: 48 issue: 2, page(s): 240-267.
Saxenian, A., Motoyama, Y., & Quan, X. (2002). Local and global networks of immigrant professionals in Silicon Valley. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.
Seitanidi, Maria May, and Andrew Crane. (2009). Implementing CSR through Partnerships: Understanding the Selection, 30 Design and Institutionalization of Nonprofit-business Partnership. Journal of Business Ethics 85 (2): 413-429.
Silva, MuthuDe., Howell, Jeremy., Meyer, Martin. (2018). Innovation intermediaries and collaboration: Knowledge–based practices and internal value creation. Research Policy Volume 47, Issue 1, Pages 70-87.
Singh, L. (2004). Globalization, national innovation systems and response of public policy. International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development, 3, 3, 215–231.
Smedlund, A. (2006). The roles of intermediaries in a regional knowledge system. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2006; 7, 2, 204–220.
Sorenson, O. (2003). Social networks and industrial geography. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 13(5), 513–527.
Spencer, J. W. & Murtha, T. P. (2005). How governments matter to new industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 2005, 30, 2, 321–337.
Stankiewicz, Rikard. (1995).  The Role of the Science and Technology Infrastructure in the Development and Diffusion of Industrial Automation in Sweden. Technological Systems and Economic Performance: The Case of Factory Automation pp 165-210.
Stewart, James. and Hyysalo, Sampsa. (2008). Intermediaries, users and social learning in technological innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 12, No. 03, pp. 295-325.
Suh, J. (2000). Korea’s innovation system: challenges and new policy agenda. Discussion Paper Series No. 2000-4. United Nations University INTECH.
Teece, David, J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15, 285–305.
Tolbert , Pamela S. and Zucker, Lynne G. (1983). Institutional Sources of Change in the Formal Structure of Organizations: The Diffusion of Civil Service Reform, 1880-1935. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 22-39.
Tsukamoto, I. & Nishimura, M. (2006). The emergence of local non-profit-government partnerships and the role of intermediary organizations in Japan. Public Management Review, 8, 4, 561–581.
Tushman, M. (1977). Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 587–605.
Uzzi, B.(1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of Embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly,42,35-67.
Valente, Thomas W. (1995). Network models of the diffusion of innovations. Cresskill, New Jersey. Hampton Press.
van Lente, Harro., Hekkert, Marko., Smits, Ruud., van Waveren, Bas. (2003). Roles of Systemic Intermediaries in Transition Processes. International Journal of Innovation ManagementVol. 07, No. 03, pp. 247-279.
Von Hippel, Eric. (1976). The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process. Research Policy, Volume 5, Issue 3, Pages 212-239.
Wong, Peter Leung-Kwong & Ellis, Paul. (2002). Social Ties and Partner Identification in Sino-Hong International Joint Ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(2): 267-289.
Wade, R. (1990). Governing the market: economic theory and the role of government in East Asian industrialization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wasserman, Stanley. and Faust, Katherine. (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Walsh, James P. & Ungson, Gerardo R. (1991). Organizational Memory. Academy of Management Review, 16: 57-91.
Weick, Karl E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Systems Thinker, 9(5), 1-8.
West, J., Vanhaverbeke, W. and Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open innovation: a research agenda. Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, Oxford University Press.
West, J. and Gallagher, S. (2006). Challenges of open innovation: the paradox of firm investment in open-source software. R&D Management, 36, 3, 319–331.
Williamson , Oliver E. (1991). Comparative Economic Organization: The Analysis of Discrete Structural Alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 269-296.
Wolpert, J. D. (2002). Breaking out of the innovation box. Harvard Business Review, 80 (2), 77–83.
Yang, Chia-Han, Cheng, Chih-Jen, Shyu, Joseph Z.. (2010). A Role of Knowledge Intermediary in Sectoral Innovation System. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 3(2/4), pp.345-369.
Yoo, S. H. (2004). Transformation of innovation systems and governance in Korea: toward a horizontal policy regime. March 2004, Tokyo MONIT Workshop.

司徒達賢，（2013）。管理學的新世界。台北：天下文化。
李慶芳，質性資料分析五部曲，上網日期2012年9月3日，檢自：https://reswithoutnumbers.blogspot.com/2012/09/blog-post.html
侯勝宗，(2012)。見所未見：詮釋性個案研究方法探索。組織與管理，5:1期，p111-153.
吳思華，（2001）。知識經濟、知識資本與知識管理。臺灣產業研究，4，11-50.
陳介玄，(1998)。台灣產業的社會學研究──轉型中的中小企業。台北：聯經出版公司。
廖嘉展，(2015)。揉轉效應：新故鄉文教基金會邁向社會企業的經驗研究。未出版之博(碩)士論文，國立暨南國際大學，公共行政與政策學系，南投。
葛孟堯，(2011)。影響我國大學技術移轉績效因素之研究。未出版之博(碩)士論文，國立政治大學，科技管理與智慧財產研究所，台北。
熊慧嵐、周睦怡、施聖文、陳東升，(2019)。大學社會創新組織間的中介溝通與信任建立機制分析。人文及社會科學集刊, p30-50。
羅育如，(2012)。專利仲介組織在台灣專利交易市場之研究。未出版之博(碩)士論文，國立政治大學，科技管理與智慧財產研究所，台北。
描述 博士
國立政治大學
科技管理與智慧財產研究所
93359504
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0093359504
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 溫肇東zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Wen, Chao-Tungen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 陳明輝zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Chen, Ming-Huien_US
dc.creator (作者) 陳明輝zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Chen, Ming-Huien_US
dc.date (日期) 2020en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2-Sep-2020 13:09:40 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 2-Sep-2020 13:09:40 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-Sep-2020 13:09:40 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0093359504en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/131908-
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) 93359504zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 台灣文化創意產業的發展脈絡以及產業結構成形的過程中，在不確定性極高的新興產業裡，為了適應產業狀況和滿足當時的產業與市場需求，各種中介組織因其資源組合條件所發展出的多元樣態。根據其組織任務大致上可歸類為以下四種分類：（1）政策支援型中介組織；（2）公共事務型中介組織；（3）市場中介型中介組織；（4）民間創新型中介組織。本研究透過梳理三個民間創新型中介組織的個案，分析其創新演化歷程。在學理上，本研究指出在特定的時間/演化歷程和產業/空間範疇條件下，影響社會創新型中介組織創新演化的內部關鍵要素包括兩個策略選擇的面向：（1）核心能耐：行動者在其專業領域的優勢能力，或者作為中介組織所累積的行業知識和資源整合能力。（2）社會網絡：經由過去的領域經歷所累積的社會網絡和產業網絡，以及繼承先輩而來的社會關係。本研究發現，民間創新型中介組織除了一般中介的能力外，也需具備（1）文化轉譯能力；（2）辨識創新機會的能力。其創新演化歷程則呈現四個階段的循環演進歷程：（1）邊緣化時期；（2）跨領域中介階段；（3）吸引力模式；（4）創造新產業領域。這四個階段的時間循環端視中介組織所處的產業情境和組織內部所擁有的核心能耐與社會資本的資源而定。本研究的理論貢獻為將「位移」和「文化轉譯」的概念，導入到社會網絡理論的論述中，並且指出中介組織的創新擴散歷程是持續互動反饋的過程。zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) In the development context of Taiwan’s cultural and creative industries and the process of forming the industrial structure, in order to adapt to industry conditions and meet the needs of the industry and market, there are various intermediary organizations have developed multiple forms due to their resource combination conditions. According to its organizational tasks, it can be roughly classified into the following four categories : (1) Policy support intermediary organizations; (2) Public affairs intermediary organizations; (3) Market intermediary organizations; (4) Private social innovation intermediary organizations. This research analyzes the innovation and evolution process of three social innovation intermediary organizations. In terms of theory, this research points out that under the conditions of a specific time/evolution process and industry/space category, the internal key elements affecting the innovation and evolution of social innovation intermediary organizations include two strategic choices : (1) Core competence: the actor`s superior ability in his professional field, or the industry knowledge and resource integration ability accumulated as an intermediary organization. (2) Social network: social network and industrial network accumulated through past field experience, and social relations inherited from ancestors. This study found that in addition to general intermediary capabilities, private social innovation intermediary organizations also need to have (1) cultural translation capabilities; (2) the ability to identify innovation opportunities. Its innovation evolution process presents a four-stage cyclic evolution process: (1) the period of marginalization; (2) the inter-field intermediary stage; (3) the attractive model; (4) the creation of new industrial fields. The time cycle of these four stages depends on the industrial context of the intermediary organization and the core capabilities and social capital resources within the organization. The theoretical contribution of this research is to introduce the concepts of "displacement" and "cultural translation" into the discourse of social network theory, and point out that the innovation diffusion process of intermediary organizations is a process of continuous interactive feedback.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 第壹章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
一、研究背景 1
二、研究動機 3
第二節 研究目的與問題 5
一、研究目的 5
二、研究問題 8
第貳章 文獻探討 9
第一節 理論背景 9
一、經濟行動與網絡關係 9
三、資源基礎、資源依賴與組織能耐 11
第二節 創新中介研究文獻 15
一、創新網絡、產業聚落和創新生態系裡的中介 16
二、知識和創新管理中的中介問題 20
三、創意經濟與文化產業裡的中介者 22
第三節 產業演化、創新擴散與創新歷程 24
一、產業演化與創新的軌跡 24
二、創新擴散理論 26
三、破壞性創新理論 29
第四節 小結 32
第參章 研究架構與研究方法 35
第一節 研究架構 35
第二節 研究方法 39
一、個案研究範疇 39
二、抽樣（Sampling）方法 39
三、資料收集 40
四、資料分析與詮釋 41
第肆章 個案研究 43
第一節 台灣文化創意產業發展脈絡 43
第二節 文化創業產業裡的中介組織 46
第三節 從創意聚落到宜居群落：范特喜微創文化股份有限公司 49
一、個案文本描述 49
二、個案討論 59
第四節 打造創新生態系統的挑戰：希嘉文化有限公司 63
一、個案文本描述 63
二、個案討論 77
第五節 職人精神為核心的體驗學習平台：台灣工藝美術學校 79
一、個案文本描述 79
二、個案討論 87
第伍章 個案詮釋與研究發現 90
第一節 個案詮釋與分析 90
一、「文化轉譯」的能力 90
二、開放式的變形蟲組織 91
三、非正式社會網絡的建構與維繫 91
四、雙向互動的創新擴散歷程 92
五、賦能給他人的利他主義 92
第二節 研究架構修正與延伸 93
一、X軸：時間 / 階段論觀點 93
（一）Phase 1：邊緣化時期 93
（二）Phase 2：跨領域中介階段 95
（三）Phase 3：吸引力模式，拉動產業跨界交疊的時空扭曲力量 97
（四）Phase 4：創造新產業領域 99
二、Y軸：產業 / 空間範疇 100
第三節 小結 103
第陸章 結論與建議 105
第一節 研究結論 105
一、中介組織在創新情境裡的功能 105
二、中介組織的創新演化階段 106
（一）時間維度 / 演化階段 106
（二）產業範疇 / 空間範疇 107
三、小結 108
第二節 理論貢獻、研究限制與後續研究建議 109
一、理論貢獻 109
二、研究限制 110
三、後續研究建議 110
參考文獻 112		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 14064684 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0093359504en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 中介組織zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 創新演化歷程zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 社會網絡zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 核心能耐zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) intermediary organizationen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) innovation evolution processen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) social networken_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) core competenceen_US
dc.title (題名) 中介者的創新演化歷程 -以台灣文化創意產業的三個個案為例zh_TW
dc.title (題名) The innovation and evolution of intermediaries-three cases of Taiwan`s cultural and creative industriesen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Allen, T. J. (1977). Managing in the flow of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Allen, James., James , Andrew D.,  Gamlen, Phil. (2007). Formal versus informal knowledge networks in R&D: a case study using social network analysis. R&D management, Volume37, Issue3 Pages 179-196.
Agogué, M., Berthet, E., Fredberg, T., Le Masson, P., Segrestin, B., Stoetzel, M., Wiener, M., and Yström, A. (2017). Explicating the role of innovation intermediaries in the “unknown”: a contingency approach. Journal of Strategy and Management, 10, (1), pp. 19-39.
Amsden, A. H. (1989). Asia’s next giant: South Korea and late industrialization, New York: Oxford University Press.
Andrew Y. (2006). Korea boost, Wallpaper. 92, 350–360.
Barney, J. (1991) Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
Beigel, F. & Christou, P. (2006). Paju Book and Media City, near Seoul, Korea, landscape as infrastructure for new cities. Topos, 57, 38–44, ISBN13: 978-3-7667-1713-9.
Bessant, John., Rush, Howard. (1995). Building bridges for innovation; the role of consultants in technology transfer. Research Policy, Volume 24, Issue 1, Pages 97-114.
Birley, Sue. (1985). The role of networks in the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, Volume 1, Issue 1, Pages 107-117.
Bolino, Mark C., Turnley, William H., Bloodgood, James M. (2002). Citizenship Behavior and The Creation of Social Capital in Organizations. Academy of Management ReviewVol. 27, No. 4.
Bourdieu, Pierre. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1992). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Bowman, Edward H. & Hurry, Dileep. (1993). Strategy through the Option Lens: An Integrated View of Resource Investments and the Incremental-Choice Process. Academy of Management ReviewVol. 18, No. 4.
Brown, John Seely., Collins, Allan., and Duguid, Paul. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher, v18 n1, 32-42.
Burns,Lawton R., Wholey, Douglas R., Abeln, Marty O. (1993). Hospital Utilization and Mortality Levels for Patients in the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System. Inquiry, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Summer 1993), 142-156.
Burt, Ronald S. (1987). Social contagion and innovation, cohesion versus structural equivalence. American Journal of Sociology 92: 1287-1335.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Caloffi, Annalisa., Rossi, Federica. and Russo, Margherita. (2015). The emergence of intermediary organizations: a network-based approach to the design of innovation policies. Handbook on Complexity and Public Policy, 314–331. 
Carlsson, B. (2005). Internationalization of innovation system: A survey of the literature. Research Policy, 35, 56–67.
Chang, S. J. (1996). An evolutionary perspective on diversification and corporate restructuring: Entry, exit, and economic performance during 1981-89. Strategic Management Journal, 17(8), 587-611
Chaudhry, A. & Garner, P. (2007). Do governments suppress growth? Institutions, rent-seeking, and innovation blocking in a model of Schumpeterian growth. Economics & Politics, 19, 35–52.
Chen, S. (1997). A new paradigm for knowledge-based competition: building an industry through knowledge sharing. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 9, 4.
Chen, S. R-L. (2006). The role of government in the industrial development of Taiwan. National Elite, 2, 3, 17–37 (in Chinese).
Chen, W-Z. (2000). The miracle of law and economic reform in Taiwan. Angle Publishing, Taipei (in Chinese).
Chesbrough, H. (2005). Open Innovation: A new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation. Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, Oxford University Press.
Chesbrough, H. & Crowther, A. K. (2006). Beyond high tech: Early adopters of open innovation in other industries. R&D Management, 36, 3, 229–236.
Clarysse, B. & Bruneel, J. (2007). Nurturing and growing innovative start-ups: The role of policy as integrator. R&D Management, 37, 2.
Coase, R. H. (1937). The Nature of the Firm. economica 4 (16), 386-405.
Coleman, James S. (1988). ìSocial Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.ì American Journal of Sociology 94:S95-S120.
Coleman, James S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Considine, M. & Lewis, J. M. (2004). Innovation and innovators inside government: from institutions to networks. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 20, 4, 581–607.
Cooke, Phil. (2005). Regionally asymmetric knowledge capabilities and open innovation exploring “Globalisation”—a new model of industry organization. Research Policy, 34, 1128–1149.
Cooper, J. E. (1996). Intermediaries and invention: business agents and the Edison electric pen and duplicating press. Business and Economic History, 25, 1, Fall.
Cross, R. and Parker, A. (2004). The hidden power of social networks, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Christensen, Clayton M.(1997). The Innovator`s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Christensen, Clayton M., Ojomo, Efosa., & Dillon, Karen (2019). The Prosperity Paradox: How Innovation Can Lift Nations out of Poverty, New York, New York, USA: HarperBusiness, ISBN 9780062851826.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity : Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention, New York: Harper Perennial.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of A Systems Perspective for the Study of Creativity in Sternberg, R. J. (ed.). The Handbook of Creativity, First Edition, New York: Cambridge University Press, 313-335.
Dakhli, Mourad. & De Clercq, Dirk. (2007). Human capital, social capital, and innovation: a multi-country study. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development An International Journal, Volume 16, Issue 2.
Davidson, P. & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal
of Business Venturing, 18(3), 301–331.
DiMaggio, Paul. (1992). Nadel’s Paradox Revisited: Relational and Cultural Aspects of Organizational Structure. In N. Nohria and R. G. Eccles (eds.), Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action: 118-142. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
DiMaggio, P.,H. Louch(1998). Socially embedded consumer transactions: For what kinds of purchases do people most often use networks?. American Sociological Review,63,619-637.
Dodgson, M., Gann, D. & Salter, A. (2006). The role of technology in the shift towards open innovation: the case of Procter & Gamble. R&D Management, 36, 3, 333–346.
Drake, Graham. (2003). This place gives me space: place and creativity in the creative industries. Geoforum, 34(2003) 511-524.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
Ellis, Paul D. (2000). Social Ties and Foreign Market Entry. Journal of International Business Studies, 31(3): 443-469.
Ethiraj, S. K., Kale, P., Krishnan, M. S., & Singh, J. V. (2005). Where do capabilities come from and how do they matter? A study in the software services industry. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 25-45.
Fleming, L. & Waguespack, D. M. (2007). Brokerage, boundary spanning and leadership in open innovation communities. Organization Science, 18, 2, .165–180.
Florian B., Philip C. (2003). Designing the rug and not the picnic: Paju landscape script, Paju Book City, Seoul, Korea. 1999–Present, Landscape Urbanism, 76–81, ISBN 1-902902-30-0.
Florida, Richard. (2008). Who’s your City: How the creative economy is making where you live the most important decision of your life, SUSAN SCHULMAN LITERARY AGENCY, INC.
Freeman, C. (1995). The ‘National System of Innovation’ in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19, 5–24.
Gassmann, Oliver. (2006). Opening up the innovation process: towards an agenda. R&D management, Volume36, Issue3, 223-228.
Goto, A. (2000). Japan’s National Innovation System: Current status and problems, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 16, 2, 103–113.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The Strength Of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology 78, 1360-80.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Social Embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology,91(3),481-510.
Granovetter, M. & Swedberg, Richard. （eds.）(1992). The Sociology of Economic Life, Westview Press.
Gulati, R. & Gargiulo, M. (1999). Where do interorganizational networks come from? American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1439–1493.
Hacklin, F., Lopperi, K., Bergman, J.-P. & Marxt, C. (2004). Toward an integrated knowledge management cycle in cumulative open innovation networks. Proceedings of the R&D Management Conference (RADMA), 7–9 July, Sesimbra, Portugal.
Hamel, Gary & C. K. Prahalad. (1996). Competing for the Future, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Hansen, M.T.(1999). The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge Across Organizational Subunits.Administrative Science Quarterly,44,82-111.
Hargadon, A. and Sutton, R.I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 718–749.
Hargadon, A. (1998). Firms as knowledge brokers: lessons in pursu- ing continuous innovation. California Management Review 40, 209–227.
Heydebreck, P., Klofsten, M. & Maier, J. (2000). Innovation support for new technology-based firms: the Swedish teknopol approach. R&D Management, 30, 1, 89–100.
Hikimo, T., & Amsden, A. H. (1994). Staying behind, stumbling back, sneaking up, soaring ahead: late industrialization in historical perspective. in W. J. Baumol, R. R. Nelson, & E. N. Wolff (Eds.), Convergence of Productivity: Cross-national studies and historical evidence. 285–315. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hossain, Mokter. ( 2012 ). Performance and Potential of Open Innovation Intermediaries. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 58, 754 – 764.
Howells, J. (1996). Tacit knowledge, innovation and technology transfer. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 8, 2.
Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35. 715–728.
Howards, J. (2005). Knowledge exchange networks in Australia’s innovation system: overview and strategic analysis. Report of a Study Commissioned by the Department of Education, Science, and Training.
Hsueh, L-M., Hsu, C-K., & Perkins, D. H. (2004). Industrialization and the state: the changing role of the Taiwan Government in the economy, 1945–1998. Harvard University Press.
Jacob, Merle., Lundqvist, Mats., Hellsmark, Hans. (2003). Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish University system: the case of Chalmers University of Technology. Research Policy, Volume 32, Issue 9, October 2003, Pages 1555-1568.
Jamali, Dima, Mary Yianni, and Hanin Abdallah. (2011). Strategic Partnerships, Social Capital and Innovation: Accounting for Social Alliance Innovation. Business Ethics: A European Review 20 (4): 375-391.
Jenkins, G. P., Kuo, C-Y. & Sun K-N. (2003). Taxation and economic development in Taiwan, Harvard University Press.
Johanson, Jan & Vahlne, Jan-Erik. (1990). The Mechanism of Internationalization. International Marketing Review, 7(4): 11-24.
John de la M. (2002). Policy networks in adaptive innovation systems. in J. de la Mothe & A.N. Link (Eds.), Networks, Alliances and Partnerships in the Innovation Process. Kluwer Academic Publishers, USA. 2002.
Kash, D. E. & Rycroft, R. (2002). Emerging patterns of complex technological innovation. Technological forecasting and social change, 69, 581–606.
Kay, A. (2005). A critique of the use of path dependency in policy studies. Public Administration, 83, 3, 553–571, 2005.
Klerkx, Laurens., Leeuwis, Cees. (2009). Establishment and embedding of innovation brokers at different innovation system levels: Insights from the Dutch agricultural sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Volume 76, Issue 6, P. 849-860.
Knockaert, Mirjam., Spithoven, Andre., and Clarysse, Bart. (2014). The impact of technology intermediaries on firm cognitive capacity additionality. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Volume 81, Pages 376-387.
Knott, A. M. (2003). Persistent heterogeneity and sustainable innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 687-705.
Kristin, F., Commerell, H-J. & Seung, H-S. (2005). Paju Book City, Korea, Aedes West, Berlin Exhibition. 20–21, ISBN: 3-937093-52-2.
Kuckartz, M. (2001). Innovation market-the economic exploitation of property rights in high-quality inventions. World Patent Information, 23, 67–70.
Lee, J-D. & Park, C. (2006). Research and development linkage in a national innovation system: factors affecting success and failure in Korea. Technovation, 26 (2006) 1045–1054.
Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Lundvall, B-Å. (ed.) (1992). National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, London: Pinter Publishers.
Lundvall, B.-Å. (1998). Why study national systems and national styles of innovation?. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 10, 4, 1998, 407–422.
Lundvall, B-Å. (2007). National innovation systems-analytical concept and development tool. Industry and Innovation, 14, 1, 95–119.
Lynn L. and M. Reddy. (1996). Linking technology and institutions: the innovation community framework. Research Policy, 25(1), 91–106.
Mahmood, I. P. & Rufin, C. (2005). Government’s dilemma: the role of government in imitation and innovation. Academy of management review, 30, 2, 338–360.
Marceau, J. (2002). Divining directions for development: a cooperative industry-government-public sector research approach to establishing R&D priorities. R&D Management, 32, 3, 209–221.
Marshall, A. (1920). Principles of economics. London: Macmillan.
McEvily, B., Zaheer, A. (1999). Bridging ties: a source of firm hetero- geneity in competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal 20, 1133–1156.
Miller, D. J. (2004). Firms’ technological resources and the performance effects of diversification: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 1097-1119.
Mok, K.Ho. (2005). Fostering entrepreneurship: changing role of government and higher education governance in Hong Kong. Research Policy, 34 (2005) 537–554.
Moore, Geoffrey A. (2014). Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling Disruptive Products to Mainstream Customers. New York, NY : HarperBusiness.
Morse, M. H. (2001). The Limits of Innovation Markets. ABA Antitrust and Intellectual Property, Newsletter.
Nambisan, S., Sawhney, M. (2007). A buyer`s guide to the innovation bazaar. Harv. Bus. Rev. 85 (6), 109–118.
Nelson, Richard R. and Sidney G. Winter (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Belknap Press/
Nelson, R. R. (2004). The market economy, and the scientific commons. Research Policy, 33 (2001) 455–471. Harvard University Press: Cambridge.
Negus, Keith. (2002). the work of cultural intermediaries and the enduring distance between production and consumption. Cultural Studies, 16(4) 2002, 501-515.
Nixon, Sean. & Gay du Paul. (2002). who needs cultural intermediaries?. Cultural Studies, 16(4) 2002 495-500.
Nonaka, Ikujiro, and Takeuchi, Hirotaka. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press.
OECD. (2001). Innovative networks: cooperation in National Innovation Systems, Paris: OECD.
Ohmae, K. (1990). The borderless World: power and strategy in the interlinked economy, New york, Harper Business.
Osborne, s. (1999). Promoting local voluntary and community action: the role of local development agencies, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Penrose, Edith (1959/1995), The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Pavitt, K. (2003). Specialization and systems integration, in Hobday. M. (Ed.), The Business of Systems Integration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, Gerald R. (2003). The External Control of Organizations : A Resource Dependence Perspective. Stanford University Press.
Potts, Jason., Hartley, John., Montgomery, Lucy., (2008). Consumer Co-Creation and Situated Creativity. Industry and Innovation 15(5):459-474.
Portes, A. & Sensenbrenner, J. (1993). Embeddedness and immigration: Notes on the social determinants of economic action. American Journal of Sociology, 98(6), 1320–1350.
Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 79-91.
Quaglia, (2005). Civil Servants, Economic Policies and Economic Ideas: Lessons from Italy. Governance, 18, 4: 545-566.
Ratchford, J. T. (1997). Science and technology in government and industry: whence and whither?. Technology in Society, 19, 3/4, 211–236.
Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1994). Developmental Processes of Cooperative Interorganizational Relationships. The Academy of Management Review, 19, 90-118.
Rodan, S., & Galunic, C. (2004). More than network structure: How knowledge heterogeneity influences managerial performance and innovativeness. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 541-562.
Rogers, E. M. (1976). New product adoption and diffusion. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(March), 192-208.
Reagans, Ray. and McEvily, Bill. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative science quarterly, Volume: 48 issue: 2, page(s): 240-267.
Saxenian, A., Motoyama, Y., & Quan, X. (2002). Local and global networks of immigrant professionals in Silicon Valley. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.
Seitanidi, Maria May, and Andrew Crane. (2009). Implementing CSR through Partnerships: Understanding the Selection, 30 Design and Institutionalization of Nonprofit-business Partnership. Journal of Business Ethics 85 (2): 413-429.
Silva, MuthuDe., Howell, Jeremy., Meyer, Martin. (2018). Innovation intermediaries and collaboration: Knowledge–based practices and internal value creation. Research Policy Volume 47, Issue 1, Pages 70-87.
Singh, L. (2004). Globalization, national innovation systems and response of public policy. International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development, 3, 3, 215–231.
Smedlund, A. (2006). The roles of intermediaries in a regional knowledge system. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2006; 7, 2, 204–220.
Sorenson, O. (2003). Social networks and industrial geography. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 13(5), 513–527.
Spencer, J. W. & Murtha, T. P. (2005). How governments matter to new industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 2005, 30, 2, 321–337.
Stankiewicz, Rikard. (1995).  The Role of the Science and Technology Infrastructure in the Development and Diffusion of Industrial Automation in Sweden. Technological Systems and Economic Performance: The Case of Factory Automation pp 165-210.
Stewart, James. and Hyysalo, Sampsa. (2008). Intermediaries, users and social learning in technological innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 12, No. 03, pp. 295-325.
Suh, J. (2000). Korea’s innovation system: challenges and new policy agenda. Discussion Paper Series No. 2000-4. United Nations University INTECH.
Teece, David, J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15, 285–305.
Tolbert , Pamela S. and Zucker, Lynne G. (1983). Institutional Sources of Change in the Formal Structure of Organizations: The Diffusion of Civil Service Reform, 1880-1935. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 22-39.
Tsukamoto, I. & Nishimura, M. (2006). The emergence of local non-profit-government partnerships and the role of intermediary organizations in Japan. Public Management Review, 8, 4, 561–581.
Tushman, M. (1977). Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 587–605.
Uzzi, B.(1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of Embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly,42,35-67.
Valente, Thomas W. (1995). Network models of the diffusion of innovations. Cresskill, New Jersey. Hampton Press.
van Lente, Harro., Hekkert, Marko., Smits, Ruud., van Waveren, Bas. (2003). Roles of Systemic Intermediaries in Transition Processes. International Journal of Innovation ManagementVol. 07, No. 03, pp. 247-279.
Von Hippel, Eric. (1976). The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process. Research Policy, Volume 5, Issue 3, Pages 212-239.
Wong, Peter Leung-Kwong & Ellis, Paul. (2002). Social Ties and Partner Identification in Sino-Hong International Joint Ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(2): 267-289.
Wade, R. (1990). Governing the market: economic theory and the role of government in East Asian industrialization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wasserman, Stanley. and Faust, Katherine. (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Walsh, James P. & Ungson, Gerardo R. (1991). Organizational Memory. Academy of Management Review, 16: 57-91.
Weick, Karl E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Systems Thinker, 9(5), 1-8.
West, J., Vanhaverbeke, W. and Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open innovation: a research agenda. Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, Oxford University Press.
West, J. and Gallagher, S. (2006). Challenges of open innovation: the paradox of firm investment in open-source software. R&D Management, 36, 3, 319–331.
Williamson , Oliver E. (1991). Comparative Economic Organization: The Analysis of Discrete Structural Alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 269-296.
Wolpert, J. D. (2002). Breaking out of the innovation box. Harvard Business Review, 80 (2), 77–83.
Yang, Chia-Han, Cheng, Chih-Jen, Shyu, Joseph Z.. (2010). A Role of Knowledge Intermediary in Sectoral Innovation System. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 3(2/4), pp.345-369.
Yoo, S. H. (2004). Transformation of innovation systems and governance in Korea: toward a horizontal policy regime. March 2004, Tokyo MONIT Workshop.

司徒達賢，（2013）。管理學的新世界。台北：天下文化。
李慶芳，質性資料分析五部曲，上網日期2012年9月3日，檢自：https://reswithoutnumbers.blogspot.com/2012/09/blog-post.html
侯勝宗，(2012)。見所未見：詮釋性個案研究方法探索。組織與管理，5:1期，p111-153.
吳思華，（2001）。知識經濟、知識資本與知識管理。臺灣產業研究，4，11-50.
陳介玄，(1998)。台灣產業的社會學研究──轉型中的中小企業。台北：聯經出版公司。
廖嘉展，(2015)。揉轉效應：新故鄉文教基金會邁向社會企業的經驗研究。未出版之博(碩)士論文，國立暨南國際大學，公共行政與政策學系，南投。
葛孟堯，(2011)。影響我國大學技術移轉績效因素之研究。未出版之博(碩)士論文，國立政治大學，科技管理與智慧財產研究所，台北。
熊慧嵐、周睦怡、施聖文、陳東升，(2019)。大學社會創新組織間的中介溝通與信任建立機制分析。人文及社會科學集刊, p30-50。
羅育如，(2012)。專利仲介組織在台灣專利交易市場之研究。未出版之博(碩)士論文，國立政治大學，科技管理與智慧財產研究所，台北。		zh_TW
dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU202001585en_US