Publications-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
Google ScholarTM
NCCU Library
Citation Infomation
Related Publications in TAIR
題名 民眾對政府輿情分析方法之信任研究-民意調查與網路輿情分析的比較
Citizens Trust for Public Opinion Survey Methods by Government- A Comparative Study of Public Opinion Analysis by Telephone and Internet作者 呂建億
Lu, Jian Yi貢獻者 蕭乃沂
Hsiao, Nai Yi
呂建億
Lu, Jian Yi關鍵詞 民意調查
網路輿情分析
信任
網路信任
網路政治效能感
public opinion
internet public opinion analysis
trust
internet trust
political efficacy日期 2014 上傳時間 1-Jun-2015 11:05:23 (UTC+8) 摘要 民意是一個相當模糊的概念,民意測量的結果和真實民意的狀態是否相同沒有人能夠解答,而政府經常以民意作為政策規劃的基礎,測量方法的可信度便成為民主政府在政策制定上需要加以考量重點之一,當民眾不信任民意調查工具時,政策規劃的過程也會遭到民眾的質疑。然而,過去針對民眾對於民意蒐集分析方法信任程度的相關研究相當缺乏,本研究除了整理人口變項的影響文獻,也將可能影響民意調查的政治行為與政治態度作為自變數納入分析模型中,試圖探尋具有影響力的重要自變數。在網路堀起的現代,網路民意漸漸被政府重視,網路輿情分析的存在是為了因應網路民意發展而產生的新技術。本研究將網路輿情分析視為民意蒐集與分析的工具之一,並利用民意調查相關的文獻作為基礎,探究網路信任、網路政治效能感等變數影響網路輿情分析信任程度的情況。本研究使用網路民意調查作為資料蒐集方法,問卷設計上以簡單的圖示與表格介紹民意調查與網路輿情分析的流程,再以結構化問卷方式測量受訪者的網路使用、網路信任、政治參與、政治信任、網路政治效能感、機構信任、對民意調查的信任程度題組與對網路輿情分析的信任題組。再以多元迴歸分析建立變數間影響力的模型,綜合文獻與研究結果探討民眾對於不同調查方法的信任程度差異。研究發現,年齡越高對於兩種民意分析方法的技術信任程度越低,政治信任程度會顯著影響民意調查的信任,對於網路輿情分析的信任則無顯著影響,而網路政治效能感越高,對於網路輿情分析的技術信任則會越高。而政治參與程度高的民眾對於民意調查支持程度越高,對於網路輿情分析的支持程度越低。政治機構信任對於兩種分析方法的信任都是具有顯著影響力的變數。從研究結果可知,網路快速傳播的特性造就了其在議題領導上的優勢,如果政府欲進行網路輿情分析進行網路民意的探戡與分析,甚至是以網路上的民意作為政策行銷的依據,藉由增進民眾對於網路信任、政治信任、網路政治效能感等政治態度,來提昇民眾對網路輿情分析的信任,且提昇民眾的政治參與程度並增加政策資訊的透明度,消除民眾對於網路隱私權的疑慮,可能會有效提昇民眾對網路輿情分析的支持,政府如果能夠與研究機構進行民意的研究,民眾將較相信且支持。
Public opinion is an ambiguous concept. There is no answer to the question whether opinion polls genuinely reflect public opinion or not; thus, reliability of the survey methods of measurement becomes a significant issue. This is particularly important to government as its policy-making process heavily relies on the results of opinion poll. If citizens don’t trust the survey methods, they inevitably have significant doubt on the public policy. However, there are few empirical studies engaging in the issues of the trust for public opinion surveys. This study, accordingly, first examines the influence of demographic variabes on citizen trust in two diffrenet suvery methods. It then examines the effect of political behavior and attitude to identify the most influential independent variables to explain citizen trust for the survey methods. In addition to the existing telephone survey (TS), there is now a new method called internet public opinion analysis (IPOA). The study compares both survey methods in terms of internet trust, political participation, political trust, internet political efficacy and house trust by using multiple regression models.The key findings show that, among all demographics status, the elder citizens have lower trust in both survey methods. Despite of its statistical significance for TS, political trust is relatively insignificant to IPOA. Internet political efficacy and political participation are also significant factors to IPOA. Similarly, political house trust is significant to both TS and IPOA.Based on the key findings, political issues spread rapidly on the internet, and online public opinion becomes more important. If government attempts to utilize IPOA as one of the survey methods for public policies, it is suggested to increase citizen’s internet trust, political trust, internet political efficacy. In addition, political participation may increase citizen’s trust and support for IPOA. By increasing policy transparency, decreasing citizen’s doubts on privacy and cooperating with academic institutions, government would be possibly able to reinforce citizen’s trust in IPOA.參考文獻 一、 中文部份王靖興、王德育(2007)。台灣民眾的政治參與對其政治功效意識之影響:以2004年總統選舉為例。台灣政治學刊,11(1),69-107。王鼎銘(2007)。成本效益、公民責任與政治參與:2004年公民投票的分析。東吳政治學報,25(1),1-37。王維菁、馬綺韓、陳釗偉(2013)。網際網路時代的社會運動:以台灣環境運動組織為例。資訊社會研究,25,1-22。左正東(2009)。網路言論管制和網路自由運動。資訊社會研究,17,239-255。朱斌妤、黃東益、洪永泰、李仲彬、曾憲立(2014)。數位國家治理(2):國情追蹤與方法整合。國家發展委員會委託研究報告(編號:NDC-MIS-103-001)。余致力(2002)。民意與公共政策:理論探討與實證研究。臺北:五南圖書出版公司。吳定(1997)。公共政策辭典。臺北:五南圖書出版公司。吳統雄(1985)。態度與行為研究的信度與效度:理論、應用、反省。民意學術專刊,1,29-53。吳親恩(2007)。台灣民眾的政治信任差異:政治人物、政府與民主體制三個面向的觀察。台灣政治學刊,11(1),147-200。呂亞力(1995)。政治學。臺北:三民書局。李仲彬(2011)。「信任」在電子治理中所扮演的角色:以文獻檢閱為基礎的初探性分析。公共行政學報,39,105-147。李明穎(2012)。網路潛水者的公民參與實踐之探索:以「野草莓運動」為例。新聞學研究,112,77-116。杜素豪、瞿海源、張苙雲(2012)。抽樣調查研究法。載於瞿海源、畢恆達、劉長萱與楊國樞(主編),社會及行為科學研究法(一):總論與量化研究法。臺北:東華書局。汪萬里(2008)。網路科技在選舉中扮演的角色:2008年美國總統選戰的經驗。選舉評論,5,1-14。林啟耀、胡詩憶(2011)。相信媒體還是相信政府?-探討台灣民眾媒體信任感與政治信任感之關連。2011年台灣政治學會年會暨「辛亥百年與兩岸政治發展」學術研討會,台北。林震岩(2007)。多變量分析:SPSS的操作與應用。台北:智勝文化。林聰吉(2012)。台灣民眾的機構信任:以媒體信任為分析焦點。東吳政治學報,30(1),43-79。林聰吉(2013)。欲迎還拒:臺灣民眾對政黨必要性與政黨信任的態度分析。台灣政治學刊,17(1),185-226。林瓊珠、蔡佳泓(2010)。政黨信任、機構信任與民主滿意度。政治與社會哲學評論,35,147-194。邱皓政(2010)。量化研究法(二)。台北:雙葉書廊。邱顯貴、楊亨利(2003)。線上購物網站值得消費者信任的因素之研究。資訊社會研究,5,139-174。俞振華(2011)。選舉民調與選戰動態分析:貝式統計模式的應用。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫(編號:NSC 99-2410-H-004-005-),未出版。俞振華(2013)。網路民意調查的理論與實務。載於陳陸輝(主編),民意調查新論。臺北:五南。城田真琴(2013)。Big Data大數據的獲利模式:圖解、案例、策略、實戰(鐘慧真與梁世英譯)。台北:經濟新潮社。國家發展委員會(2014)。103年個人/家戶數位機會調查報告。國家發展委員會。張乃文(2009)。Web2.0網站平台管理之法制議題研析-以網路實名制與揭露使用者身份資料爲中心。科技法律透析,21(6),42-60。張俐慧(2005)。民意調查機構效應、調查主題與發佈媒體管道對民調可信度評價影響之研究。輔仁大學大眾傳播學研究所,未出版,台北。張卿卿(2006)。網路的功與過:網路使用與政治參與及社會資產關係的探討。新聞學研究,86,45-90。莫季雍(2006)。民意調查與為民服務:精緻的年代需要創新的作為。研考雙月刊,30(4),28-38。陳正昌、程炳林、陳新豐、劉子鍵(2011)。多變量分析方法–統計軟體應用(第6版)。台北:五南。陳志瑋(2013)。發揚公務倫理暨端正警政風紀學術研討會。政府開門—建立透明化政府的政策工具,國立台北大學。陳俊明、朱斌妤、黃東益、蔣麗君、李仲彬、張鎧如(2013)。數位國家治理:國情分析架構與方法。行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告(編號:RDEC-MIS-102-001)。陳陸輝(2002)。政治信任感與台灣地區選民投票行為。選舉研究,9(2),65-84。陳陸輝、耿曙(2008)。政治效能感與政黨認同對選民投票抉擇的影響—以2002年北高市長選舉為例。臺灣民主季刊,5(1),87-118。陳陸輝、連偉廷(2008)。知性、黨性與資訊—台灣民眾政治效能感的分析。臺灣民主季刊,5(3),121-156。陳敦源、劉宜君、蕭乃沂、林昭吟(2011)。政策利害關係人指認的理論與實務:以全民健保改革為例。國家與社會,10,1-65。陳義彥、黃紀、洪永泰、盛杏湲、游清鑫、鄭夙芬等人(2013)。民意調查新論。臺北:五南。黃信豪(2005)。台灣民眾政治功效意識的持續與變遷:政黨輪替前後的分析。選舉研究,12(2),111-147。廖洲棚、陳敦源、蕭乃沂、廖興中(2013)。運用巨量資料實踐良善治理:網路民意導入政府決策分析之可行性研究。行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告(編號:RDEC-MIS-102-003)。劉慧雯(2008)。網際網路公共領域角色的反思:以東海劈腿事件與鴻海打壓新聞自由事件為例。新聞學研究,97,45-81。鄭國威(2011)。台灣社會媒體與網路動員(2009-2011)。台灣社會研究季刊,85,451-482。蕭乃沂、陳敦源、廖洲棚(2014)。政府應用巨量資料精進公共服務與政策分析之可行性研究。國家發展委員會委託研究報告(編號:NDC-MIS-103-003)。蕭怡靖、林聰吉(2012)。台灣政治極化之初探:測量與分析。TEDS 2012年國際學術研討會,台北。蕭遠(2011)。網際網路如何影響社會運動中的動員結構與組織型態?─以台北野草莓為個案研究。臺灣民主季刊,8(3),45-85。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。 二、 英文部份Ainsworth, S., Hardy, C., & Harley, B. (2005). Online Consultation: E-Democracy and E-Resistance in the Case of the Development Gateway. Management Communication Quarterly, 19(1), 120–145.Barnett, J., Cooper, H., & Senior, V. (2007). Belief in Public Efficacy, Trust, and Attitudes Toward Modern Genetic Science. Risk Analysis, 27(4), 921–933.Beldad, A., De Jong, M., & Steehouder, M. (2010). How shall I trust the faceless and the intangible? A literature review on the antecedents of online trust. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 857–869.Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27, 264–271.Blank, G., & Dutton, W. H. (2012). Age and Trust in the Internet: The Centrality of Experience and Attitudes Toward Technology in Britain. Social Science Computer Review, 30(2), 135–151.Boyd, D., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 662–679.Caverlee, J., Liu, L., & Buttler, D. (2004). Probe, cluster, and discover: focused extraction of QA-Pagelets from the deep Web. In Data Engineering, 2004. Proceedings. 20th International Conference (pp. 103–114).Decker, P. T. (2014). Presidential Address: False Choices, Policy Framing, and the Promise of “Big Data.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 33(2), 252–262.Dran, E. M., & Hildreth, A. (1995). What the public thinks about how we know what it is thinking. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 7(2), 128–144.Dutton, W. H., & Shepherd, A. (2006). Trust in the Internet as an experience technology. Information, Communication & Society, 9(4), 433–451.Easton, D. (1975). A Re-Assessment of the Concept of Political support. British Journal of Political Science, 5, 435–457.Effing, R., van Hillegersberg, J., & Huibers, T. (2011). Social Media and Political Participation: Are Facebook, Twitter and YouTube Democratizing Our Political Systems? In Electronic Participation (pp. 25–35). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Etzioni, O. (1996). The World-Wide Web: quagmire or gold mine? Communications of the ACM, 39(11), 65–68.Evans-Cowley, J., & Hollander, J. (2010). The New Generation of Public Participation: Internet-based Participation Tools. Planning Practice & Research, 25(3).Fayyad, U. M., Piatetsky-Shapiro, G., Smyth, P., & Uthurusamy, R. (1996). Advances in knowledge discovery and data mining. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Finkel, S. E. (1985). Reciprocal Effects of Participation and Political Efficacy: A Panel Analysis. American Journal of Political ScienceScience, 29(4), 891–913.Fu, Y., & Chu, Y. (2008). Different Survey Modes and International Comparisons. In W. Donsbach & M. W. Traugott, The SAGE Handbook of Public Opinion Research. SAGE Publications.Goyder, J. (1986). Surveys on Surveys: Limitations and Potentialities. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 50(1), 27–41.Grabner-Krauter, S., & Kaluscha, E. A. (2003). Empirical research in on-line trust: a review and critical assessment. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 783–812.Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective (7th ed.). Pearson Education.Hetherington, M. J. (1998). The Political Relevance of Political Trust. The American Political Science Review, 92(4), 791–808.Hetherington, M. J. (2005). Why Trust Matters: Declining Political Trust and the Demise of American Liberalism. Princeton University Press.Hildreth, A. (2008). Attitudes of the Public Towards Public Opinion Research and Polling. In W. Donsbach & M. W. Traugott (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Public Opinion Research. SAGE Publications.Hoffman, D. L., Novak, T. P., & Schlosser, A. (2000). The Evolution of the Digital Divide: How Gaps in Internet Access May Impact Electronic Commerce. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 5(3), 0–0.Kaiser Family Foundation. (2001). National Survey of the Role of Polls in Policymaking. Menlo Park, CA.Kakabadse, & Kouzmin. (2003). Reinventing the democratic governance project through information technologys? A growing agenda for debat. Public Administration Review, 63(1), 44–60.Kohut, A. (1986). Rating the Polls: The Views of Media Elites and the General Public. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50(1), 1–10.Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 213–236.Loges, W. E., & Jung, J.-Y. (2001). Exploring the digital divide internet connectedness and age. Communication Research, 28(4), 536–562.McKnight, D. H., & Chervany, N. L. (2001). Trust and Distrust Definitions: One Bite at a Time. In Trust in Cyber-societies: Integrating the Human and Artificial Perspectives (pp. 22–54). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Nie, Z., & Kambhampati, S. (2004). A frequency-based approach for mining coverage statistics in data integration. In Proceedings of International Conference on Data Engineering (pp. 387–398).Niemi, R. G., Craig, S. C., & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring Internal Political Efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study. The American Political Science Review, 85(4), 1407–1413.O’Reilly, T. (2005). What Is Web 2.0. Retrieved May 30, 2014, from http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.htmlOberschall, A. (2008). The Historical Roots of Public Opinion Research. In W. Donsbach & M. W. Traugott, The SAGE Handbook of Public Opinion Research. SAGE Publications.Paletz, D. L., Short, J. Y., Baker, H., Campbell, B. C., Cooper, R. J., & Oeslander, R. M. (1980). Polls in the Media: Content, Credibility, and Consequences. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44(4), 495–513.Salisbury, R. H. (1975). Research on Political Participation. American Journal of Political Science, 19(2), 323–341.Sjoberg, G. (1954). A Questionnaire on Questionnaires. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 18(4), 423–427.Strover, S. (2001). Rural internet connectivity. Telecommunications Policy, 25(5), 331–347.Tourangeau, R. (1987). Attitude measurement: A cognitive perspective. In H.-J. Hippler, N. Schwarz, & S. Sudman, Social information processing and survey methodology (pp. 149–162). New York: Springer-Verlag.Turow, J., & Hennesey, M. (2007). Internet privacy and institutional trust: insights from a national survey. New Media & Society, 9(2), 300–318.Wang, Y. D., & Emurian, H. H. (2005). An overview of online trust: Concepts, elements, and implications. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 105–125.Welch, E. W., Hinnant, C. C., & Moon, M. J. (2005). Linking Citizen Satisfaction with E-Government and Trust in Government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(3), 371–391. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
公共行政研究所
100256017
103資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100256017 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 蕭乃沂 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Hsiao, Nai Yi en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 呂建億 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Lu, Jian Yi en_US dc.creator (作者) 呂建億 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Lu, Jian Yi en_US dc.date (日期) 2014 en_US dc.date.accessioned 1-Jun-2015 11:05:23 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 1-Jun-2015 11:05:23 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Jun-2015 11:05:23 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0100256017 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/75436 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 公共行政研究所 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 100256017 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 103 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 民意是一個相當模糊的概念,民意測量的結果和真實民意的狀態是否相同沒有人能夠解答,而政府經常以民意作為政策規劃的基礎,測量方法的可信度便成為民主政府在政策制定上需要加以考量重點之一,當民眾不信任民意調查工具時,政策規劃的過程也會遭到民眾的質疑。然而,過去針對民眾對於民意蒐集分析方法信任程度的相關研究相當缺乏,本研究除了整理人口變項的影響文獻,也將可能影響民意調查的政治行為與政治態度作為自變數納入分析模型中,試圖探尋具有影響力的重要自變數。在網路堀起的現代,網路民意漸漸被政府重視,網路輿情分析的存在是為了因應網路民意發展而產生的新技術。本研究將網路輿情分析視為民意蒐集與分析的工具之一,並利用民意調查相關的文獻作為基礎,探究網路信任、網路政治效能感等變數影響網路輿情分析信任程度的情況。本研究使用網路民意調查作為資料蒐集方法,問卷設計上以簡單的圖示與表格介紹民意調查與網路輿情分析的流程,再以結構化問卷方式測量受訪者的網路使用、網路信任、政治參與、政治信任、網路政治效能感、機構信任、對民意調查的信任程度題組與對網路輿情分析的信任題組。再以多元迴歸分析建立變數間影響力的模型,綜合文獻與研究結果探討民眾對於不同調查方法的信任程度差異。研究發現,年齡越高對於兩種民意分析方法的技術信任程度越低,政治信任程度會顯著影響民意調查的信任,對於網路輿情分析的信任則無顯著影響,而網路政治效能感越高,對於網路輿情分析的技術信任則會越高。而政治參與程度高的民眾對於民意調查支持程度越高,對於網路輿情分析的支持程度越低。政治機構信任對於兩種分析方法的信任都是具有顯著影響力的變數。從研究結果可知,網路快速傳播的特性造就了其在議題領導上的優勢,如果政府欲進行網路輿情分析進行網路民意的探戡與分析,甚至是以網路上的民意作為政策行銷的依據,藉由增進民眾對於網路信任、政治信任、網路政治效能感等政治態度,來提昇民眾對網路輿情分析的信任,且提昇民眾的政治參與程度並增加政策資訊的透明度,消除民眾對於網路隱私權的疑慮,可能會有效提昇民眾對網路輿情分析的支持,政府如果能夠與研究機構進行民意的研究,民眾將較相信且支持。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) Public opinion is an ambiguous concept. There is no answer to the question whether opinion polls genuinely reflect public opinion or not; thus, reliability of the survey methods of measurement becomes a significant issue. This is particularly important to government as its policy-making process heavily relies on the results of opinion poll. If citizens don’t trust the survey methods, they inevitably have significant doubt on the public policy. However, there are few empirical studies engaging in the issues of the trust for public opinion surveys. This study, accordingly, first examines the influence of demographic variabes on citizen trust in two diffrenet suvery methods. It then examines the effect of political behavior and attitude to identify the most influential independent variables to explain citizen trust for the survey methods. In addition to the existing telephone survey (TS), there is now a new method called internet public opinion analysis (IPOA). The study compares both survey methods in terms of internet trust, political participation, political trust, internet political efficacy and house trust by using multiple regression models.The key findings show that, among all demographics status, the elder citizens have lower trust in both survey methods. Despite of its statistical significance for TS, political trust is relatively insignificant to IPOA. Internet political efficacy and political participation are also significant factors to IPOA. Similarly, political house trust is significant to both TS and IPOA.Based on the key findings, political issues spread rapidly on the internet, and online public opinion becomes more important. If government attempts to utilize IPOA as one of the survey methods for public policies, it is suggested to increase citizen’s internet trust, political trust, internet political efficacy. In addition, political participation may increase citizen’s trust and support for IPOA. By increasing policy transparency, decreasing citizen’s doubts on privacy and cooperating with academic institutions, government would be possibly able to reinforce citizen’s trust in IPOA. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 目次 I表目錄 II圖目錄 IV第一章 緒論 1第一節 研究背景 1第二節 研究動機與目的 2第三節 研究問題 4第四節 研究流程 4第二章 文獻檢閱 6第一節 民眾對民意調查的信任程度 6第二節 網路民意的蒐集與分析 16第三節 影響民意蒐集分析方法態度相關文獻 22第三章 研究方法 33第一節 研究架構 33第二節 資料蒐集方法 37第三節 變數操作化 39第四節 資料分析方法 45第四章 研究結果與分析 46第一節 問卷結果與結果概況 46第二節 不同特質民眾對輿情分析方法的信任差異 59第三節 影響民眾對民意分析方法態度之因素 68第四節 綜合討論 79第五章 結論與建議 94第一節 研究發現與貢獻 94第二節 研究限制 96第三節 研究建議 97參考文獻 100附錄一:網路民意調查問卷 108附錄二:各題描述性統計 115附錄三:因素分析結果 121 zh_TW dc.format.extent 1962422 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100256017 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 民意調查 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 網路輿情分析 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 信任 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 網路信任 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 網路政治效能感 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) public opinion en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) internet public opinion analysis en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) trust en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) internet trust en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) political efficacy en_US dc.title (題名) 民眾對政府輿情分析方法之信任研究-民意調查與網路輿情分析的比較 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Citizens Trust for Public Opinion Survey Methods by Government- A Comparative Study of Public Opinion Analysis by Telephone and Internet en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、 中文部份王靖興、王德育(2007)。台灣民眾的政治參與對其政治功效意識之影響:以2004年總統選舉為例。台灣政治學刊,11(1),69-107。王鼎銘(2007)。成本效益、公民責任與政治參與:2004年公民投票的分析。東吳政治學報,25(1),1-37。王維菁、馬綺韓、陳釗偉(2013)。網際網路時代的社會運動:以台灣環境運動組織為例。資訊社會研究,25,1-22。左正東(2009)。網路言論管制和網路自由運動。資訊社會研究,17,239-255。朱斌妤、黃東益、洪永泰、李仲彬、曾憲立(2014)。數位國家治理(2):國情追蹤與方法整合。國家發展委員會委託研究報告(編號:NDC-MIS-103-001)。余致力(2002)。民意與公共政策:理論探討與實證研究。臺北:五南圖書出版公司。吳定(1997)。公共政策辭典。臺北:五南圖書出版公司。吳統雄(1985)。態度與行為研究的信度與效度:理論、應用、反省。民意學術專刊,1,29-53。吳親恩(2007)。台灣民眾的政治信任差異:政治人物、政府與民主體制三個面向的觀察。台灣政治學刊,11(1),147-200。呂亞力(1995)。政治學。臺北:三民書局。李仲彬(2011)。「信任」在電子治理中所扮演的角色:以文獻檢閱為基礎的初探性分析。公共行政學報,39,105-147。李明穎(2012)。網路潛水者的公民參與實踐之探索:以「野草莓運動」為例。新聞學研究,112,77-116。杜素豪、瞿海源、張苙雲(2012)。抽樣調查研究法。載於瞿海源、畢恆達、劉長萱與楊國樞(主編),社會及行為科學研究法(一):總論與量化研究法。臺北:東華書局。汪萬里(2008)。網路科技在選舉中扮演的角色:2008年美國總統選戰的經驗。選舉評論,5,1-14。林啟耀、胡詩憶(2011)。相信媒體還是相信政府?-探討台灣民眾媒體信任感與政治信任感之關連。2011年台灣政治學會年會暨「辛亥百年與兩岸政治發展」學術研討會,台北。林震岩(2007)。多變量分析:SPSS的操作與應用。台北:智勝文化。林聰吉(2012)。台灣民眾的機構信任:以媒體信任為分析焦點。東吳政治學報,30(1),43-79。林聰吉(2013)。欲迎還拒:臺灣民眾對政黨必要性與政黨信任的態度分析。台灣政治學刊,17(1),185-226。林瓊珠、蔡佳泓(2010)。政黨信任、機構信任與民主滿意度。政治與社會哲學評論,35,147-194。邱皓政(2010)。量化研究法(二)。台北:雙葉書廊。邱顯貴、楊亨利(2003)。線上購物網站值得消費者信任的因素之研究。資訊社會研究,5,139-174。俞振華(2011)。選舉民調與選戰動態分析:貝式統計模式的應用。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫(編號:NSC 99-2410-H-004-005-),未出版。俞振華(2013)。網路民意調查的理論與實務。載於陳陸輝(主編),民意調查新論。臺北:五南。城田真琴(2013)。Big Data大數據的獲利模式:圖解、案例、策略、實戰(鐘慧真與梁世英譯)。台北:經濟新潮社。國家發展委員會(2014)。103年個人/家戶數位機會調查報告。國家發展委員會。張乃文(2009)。Web2.0網站平台管理之法制議題研析-以網路實名制與揭露使用者身份資料爲中心。科技法律透析,21(6),42-60。張俐慧(2005)。民意調查機構效應、調查主題與發佈媒體管道對民調可信度評價影響之研究。輔仁大學大眾傳播學研究所,未出版,台北。張卿卿(2006)。網路的功與過:網路使用與政治參與及社會資產關係的探討。新聞學研究,86,45-90。莫季雍(2006)。民意調查與為民服務:精緻的年代需要創新的作為。研考雙月刊,30(4),28-38。陳正昌、程炳林、陳新豐、劉子鍵(2011)。多變量分析方法–統計軟體應用(第6版)。台北:五南。陳志瑋(2013)。發揚公務倫理暨端正警政風紀學術研討會。政府開門—建立透明化政府的政策工具,國立台北大學。陳俊明、朱斌妤、黃東益、蔣麗君、李仲彬、張鎧如(2013)。數位國家治理:國情分析架構與方法。行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告(編號:RDEC-MIS-102-001)。陳陸輝(2002)。政治信任感與台灣地區選民投票行為。選舉研究,9(2),65-84。陳陸輝、耿曙(2008)。政治效能感與政黨認同對選民投票抉擇的影響—以2002年北高市長選舉為例。臺灣民主季刊,5(1),87-118。陳陸輝、連偉廷(2008)。知性、黨性與資訊—台灣民眾政治效能感的分析。臺灣民主季刊,5(3),121-156。陳敦源、劉宜君、蕭乃沂、林昭吟(2011)。政策利害關係人指認的理論與實務:以全民健保改革為例。國家與社會,10,1-65。陳義彥、黃紀、洪永泰、盛杏湲、游清鑫、鄭夙芬等人(2013)。民意調查新論。臺北:五南。黃信豪(2005)。台灣民眾政治功效意識的持續與變遷:政黨輪替前後的分析。選舉研究,12(2),111-147。廖洲棚、陳敦源、蕭乃沂、廖興中(2013)。運用巨量資料實踐良善治理:網路民意導入政府決策分析之可行性研究。行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告(編號:RDEC-MIS-102-003)。劉慧雯(2008)。網際網路公共領域角色的反思:以東海劈腿事件與鴻海打壓新聞自由事件為例。新聞學研究,97,45-81。鄭國威(2011)。台灣社會媒體與網路動員(2009-2011)。台灣社會研究季刊,85,451-482。蕭乃沂、陳敦源、廖洲棚(2014)。政府應用巨量資料精進公共服務與政策分析之可行性研究。國家發展委員會委託研究報告(編號:NDC-MIS-103-003)。蕭怡靖、林聰吉(2012)。台灣政治極化之初探:測量與分析。TEDS 2012年國際學術研討會,台北。蕭遠(2011)。網際網路如何影響社會運動中的動員結構與組織型態?─以台北野草莓為個案研究。臺灣民主季刊,8(3),45-85。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。 二、 英文部份Ainsworth, S., Hardy, C., & Harley, B. (2005). Online Consultation: E-Democracy and E-Resistance in the Case of the Development Gateway. Management Communication Quarterly, 19(1), 120–145.Barnett, J., Cooper, H., & Senior, V. (2007). Belief in Public Efficacy, Trust, and Attitudes Toward Modern Genetic Science. Risk Analysis, 27(4), 921–933.Beldad, A., De Jong, M., & Steehouder, M. (2010). How shall I trust the faceless and the intangible? A literature review on the antecedents of online trust. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 857–869.Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27, 264–271.Blank, G., & Dutton, W. H. (2012). Age and Trust in the Internet: The Centrality of Experience and Attitudes Toward Technology in Britain. Social Science Computer Review, 30(2), 135–151.Boyd, D., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 662–679.Caverlee, J., Liu, L., & Buttler, D. (2004). Probe, cluster, and discover: focused extraction of QA-Pagelets from the deep Web. In Data Engineering, 2004. Proceedings. 20th International Conference (pp. 103–114).Decker, P. T. (2014). Presidential Address: False Choices, Policy Framing, and the Promise of “Big Data.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 33(2), 252–262.Dran, E. M., & Hildreth, A. (1995). What the public thinks about how we know what it is thinking. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 7(2), 128–144.Dutton, W. H., & Shepherd, A. (2006). Trust in the Internet as an experience technology. Information, Communication & Society, 9(4), 433–451.Easton, D. (1975). A Re-Assessment of the Concept of Political support. British Journal of Political Science, 5, 435–457.Effing, R., van Hillegersberg, J., & Huibers, T. (2011). Social Media and Political Participation: Are Facebook, Twitter and YouTube Democratizing Our Political Systems? In Electronic Participation (pp. 25–35). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Etzioni, O. (1996). The World-Wide Web: quagmire or gold mine? Communications of the ACM, 39(11), 65–68.Evans-Cowley, J., & Hollander, J. (2010). The New Generation of Public Participation: Internet-based Participation Tools. Planning Practice & Research, 25(3).Fayyad, U. M., Piatetsky-Shapiro, G., Smyth, P., & Uthurusamy, R. (1996). Advances in knowledge discovery and data mining. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Finkel, S. E. (1985). Reciprocal Effects of Participation and Political Efficacy: A Panel Analysis. American Journal of Political ScienceScience, 29(4), 891–913.Fu, Y., & Chu, Y. (2008). Different Survey Modes and International Comparisons. In W. Donsbach & M. W. Traugott, The SAGE Handbook of Public Opinion Research. SAGE Publications.Goyder, J. (1986). Surveys on Surveys: Limitations and Potentialities. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 50(1), 27–41.Grabner-Krauter, S., & Kaluscha, E. A. (2003). Empirical research in on-line trust: a review and critical assessment. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 783–812.Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective (7th ed.). Pearson Education.Hetherington, M. J. (1998). The Political Relevance of Political Trust. The American Political Science Review, 92(4), 791–808.Hetherington, M. J. (2005). Why Trust Matters: Declining Political Trust and the Demise of American Liberalism. Princeton University Press.Hildreth, A. (2008). Attitudes of the Public Towards Public Opinion Research and Polling. In W. Donsbach & M. W. Traugott (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Public Opinion Research. SAGE Publications.Hoffman, D. L., Novak, T. P., & Schlosser, A. (2000). The Evolution of the Digital Divide: How Gaps in Internet Access May Impact Electronic Commerce. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 5(3), 0–0.Kaiser Family Foundation. (2001). National Survey of the Role of Polls in Policymaking. Menlo Park, CA.Kakabadse, & Kouzmin. (2003). Reinventing the democratic governance project through information technologys? A growing agenda for debat. Public Administration Review, 63(1), 44–60.Kohut, A. (1986). Rating the Polls: The Views of Media Elites and the General Public. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50(1), 1–10.Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 213–236.Loges, W. E., & Jung, J.-Y. (2001). Exploring the digital divide internet connectedness and age. Communication Research, 28(4), 536–562.McKnight, D. H., & Chervany, N. L. (2001). Trust and Distrust Definitions: One Bite at a Time. In Trust in Cyber-societies: Integrating the Human and Artificial Perspectives (pp. 22–54). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Nie, Z., & Kambhampati, S. (2004). A frequency-based approach for mining coverage statistics in data integration. In Proceedings of International Conference on Data Engineering (pp. 387–398).Niemi, R. G., Craig, S. C., & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring Internal Political Efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study. The American Political Science Review, 85(4), 1407–1413.O’Reilly, T. (2005). What Is Web 2.0. Retrieved May 30, 2014, from http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.htmlOberschall, A. (2008). The Historical Roots of Public Opinion Research. In W. Donsbach & M. W. Traugott, The SAGE Handbook of Public Opinion Research. SAGE Publications.Paletz, D. L., Short, J. Y., Baker, H., Campbell, B. C., Cooper, R. J., & Oeslander, R. M. (1980). Polls in the Media: Content, Credibility, and Consequences. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44(4), 495–513.Salisbury, R. H. (1975). Research on Political Participation. American Journal of Political Science, 19(2), 323–341.Sjoberg, G. (1954). A Questionnaire on Questionnaires. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 18(4), 423–427.Strover, S. (2001). Rural internet connectivity. Telecommunications Policy, 25(5), 331–347.Tourangeau, R. (1987). Attitude measurement: A cognitive perspective. In H.-J. Hippler, N. Schwarz, & S. Sudman, Social information processing and survey methodology (pp. 149–162). New York: Springer-Verlag.Turow, J., & Hennesey, M. (2007). Internet privacy and institutional trust: insights from a national survey. New Media & Society, 9(2), 300–318.Wang, Y. D., & Emurian, H. H. (2005). An overview of online trust: Concepts, elements, and implications. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 105–125.Welch, E. W., Hinnant, C. C., & Moon, M. J. (2005). Linking Citizen Satisfaction with E-Government and Trust in Government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(3), 371–391. zh_TW