請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/86969
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 洪美仁 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.advisor | Mei-Jen Hung | en |
dc.contributor.author | 劉世鏗 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author | Sai-Hang Lau | en |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-05-02T17:08:46Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2023-11-09 | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2023-05-02 | - |
dc.date.issued | 2023 | - |
dc.date.submitted | 2023-01-11 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | 石純瑜,2021,《從資料治理角度看政府服務品質精進—以新北市輔具超音速2.0為例》,臺北:政治大學公共行政學系學位論文。
立法院,2022,<立法程序>,https://www.ly.gov.tw/Pages/List.aspx?nodeid=151,最後檢索日期:2022/11/11。 朱斌妤,曾憲立,2016,《資料開放品質》,《國土及公共治理季刊》, 4(4):54-66。 江明修, 1997, 《公共行政:研究方法論》,臺北: 政大書城。 江斌豪, 2013, 《影響公部門員工績效管理執行意願之因素:個案研究》, 新北:淡江大學公共行政學系公共政策碩士班學位論文。 李莅蒂,2004,《立法院議事資訊公開之研究--以黨團協商機制法制化實施前後為例》, 臺北:世新大學行政管理學系學位論文。 何弘光,2021,《立法院黨團協商制度之法制與實務》,《國會季刊》,49(4):53-82。 林秀蓮,2006,《政府資訊公開法與其他法律之關係》 ,《法務通訊》,2306:3-6。 邱羿儂,2012,《開放政府資料之推動策略研究-英國、美國與臺灣之比較》,臺北:國立臺灣大學資訊管理學系碩士論文。 高毓喬,2007,《從「全觀型治理」論政府組織再造策略--以經濟部工業局工業區服務中心為例》,南投:國立暨南國際大學公共行政與政策學系學位論文。 國家發展委員會,2015,<政府資料開放進階行動方案>,https://file.data.gov.tw/content/about/02-%E6%94%BF%E5%BA%9C%E8%B3%87%E6%96%99%E9%96%8B%E6%94%BE%E9%80%B2%E9%9A%8E%E8%A1%8C%E5%8B%95%E6%96%B9%E6%A1%88-201512.pdf,最後檢索日期:2022/11/11。 國家發展委員會,2021,<臺灣開放政府國家行動方案 2021 年至 2024 年>,https://www.ndc.gov.tw/Content_List.aspx?n=478D4A6E6EABF2D4,最後檢索日期:2022/11/11。 張文彬,2021,《《檔案法》與《政府資訊公開法》之競合:司法實務的見解》,《檔案半年刊》,20(2):90-103。 楊東謀,吳怡融,2019,《臺灣政府開放資料推行之近況調查與探討》,《教育資料與圖書館學》,56(1):7–44。 莊富源,2003,《憲改以來我國立院黨團制度之初探》,《白沙人文社會學報》,2:17-50。 黃偉峰,2012,<選舉不等於民主>,《天下雜誌》, 182。 葉耕榕,王鈿, ,李承翰,2014,《醫療資訊科技服務品質模型:由醫事人員觀點出發》 《資訊管理學報》,21(2):139-160。 錢鉦津,2013,《政府資訊開放的資料品質與測試概念(上篇)》,《品質月刊》, 49(5):22-27。 謝碩駿,2021,《政府資訊公開法制概述》,《T&D 飛訊》,278:1-14。 謝曜鍾,2005,《資訊管理教學品質研究》,臺南:南台科技大學碩士論文。 羅晉,2015,《政府開放資料之系統性與制度性觀點的分析》,《臺灣民主季刊》, 12(4):1-37。 朱柔若譯 (2000),《社會研究方法-質化與量化取向》,臺北: 揚智文化。譯自Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. London: Pearson. 2000。 Open Data聯盟,2022,<常見問題>,http://www.opendata4tw.org.tw/qa.php#a2,最後檢索日期:2022/11/11。 Abu-Shanab, E. A. (2015). Reengineering the Open Government Concept: An empirical support for a proposed model. Government Information Quarterly, 32(4), 453–463. Alexopoulos, C., Zuiderwijk, A., Charapabidis, Y., Loukis, E., & Janssen, M. (2014). Designing a second generation of Open Data Platforms: Integrating Open Data and Social Media. International Conference on Electronic Government, 230–241. Altayar, M. S. (2018). Motivations for open data adoption: An institutional theory perspective. Government Information Quarterly, 35(4), 633–643. Antonio, Canova, L., Torchiano, M., Minotas, C. O., Iemma, R., & Morando, F. (2016). Open Data Quality Measurement Framework: Definition and application to open government data. Government Information Quarterly, 33(2), 325–337. Arcelus, J. (2012). Framework for useful transparency websites for Citizens. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance - ICEGOV '12. , 83-86. Attard, J., Orlandi, F., Scerri, S., & Auer, S. (2015). A systematic review of Open Government Data Initiatives. Government Information Quarterly, 32(4), 399–418. Bates, J. (2014). The strategic importance of information policy for the contemporary neoliberal state: The case of open government data in the United Kingdom. Government Information Quarterly, 31(3), 388–395. Bertot, J. C., Gorham, U., Jaeger, P. T., Sarin, L. C., & Choi, H. (2014). Big Data, open government and e-government: Issues, policies and recommendations. Information Polity, 19(1,2), 5–16. Bovee, M. W. (2004). Information quality: A conceptual framework and empirical validation. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Kansas. Chun, S. A., Shulman, S., Sandoval, R., & Hovy, E. (2010). Government 2.0: Making connections between citizens, Data and Government. Information Polity, 15(1,2), 1–9. Conradie, P., & Choenni, S. (2012). Exploring process barriers to release public sector information in Local Government. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance - ICEGOV '12, 5-13. Damasio, A. R. (2000). The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making of Consciousness. San Diego: Harcourt. David Orban . (2007). The Annotated 8 Principles of Open Government Data. Open Gov Data. Retrieved November 11, 2022, from https://opengovdata.org/. Dawes, S. S., & Helbig, N. (2010). Information strategies for open government: Challenges and prospects for deriving public value from government transparency. International Conference on Electronic Government, 50–60. Democratic Audit. (2014). Parliamentary websites, transparency and the quality of democracy: where does the UK stand? Research Collection School of Social Sciences, Singapore Management University. Paper 2269. Domingue, J., Fensel, D., & Hendler, J. A. (2011). Handbook of Semantic Web Technologies. New York: Springer. Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2017). History of FOIA. Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved November 11, 2022, from https://www.eff.org/issues/transparency/history-of-foia#:~:text=FOIA%20was%20originally%20championed%20by,co%2Dsponsors%20until%20years%20later. Fan, J., Zhang, P., & Yen, D. C. (2014). G2G information sharing among government agencies. Information & Management, 51(1), 120–128. Faria, C., & Rehbein, M. (2018). Open Parliament policy applied to the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 22(4), 115–134. Freedom House. (2021). FREEDOM IN THE WORLD 2021 Taiwan. Freedom House. Retrieved November 11, 2022, from https://freedomhouse.org/country/taiwan/freedom-world/2021. Geiger, C. P., & Von Lucke, J. (2012). Open government and (linked) (open) (government) (data). JeDEM - EJournal of EDemocracy and Open Government, 4(2), 265–278. Guangzhou Municipal Government Legal Affairs Office. (2006). Introduction to open government information work by the Guangzhou municipal government. Government Information Quarterly, 23(1), 13–17. Gurestein, M. (2011). Open data: Empowering the empowered or effective data use for everyone?. First Monday, 16(2-7). Horsley, J. P. (2004). Shanghai Advances the Cause of Open Government Information in China. The China Law Center, Yale Law School. House of Lord Library. (2022). Salisbury Convention: A Decade of Developments. Retrieved November 11, 2022, from https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/lln-2019-0155/. Infoblueprint. (n.d.). What is the difference between a Data Quality and an Information Quality problem? Infoblueprint. Retrieved November 11, 2022, from https://infoblueprint.co.za/what-is-the-difference-between-a-data-quality-and-an-information-quality-problem/#:~:text=Organisations%20rely%20on%20information%20created,have%20an%20Information%20Quality%20problem. Jackson, M. C. (2011). Systems thinking: Creative holism for managers. Hoboken: Wiley. Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y., & Zuiderwijk, A. (2012). Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information Systems Management, 29(4), 258–268. Jetzek, T., Avital, M., & Bjorn-Andersen, N. (2014). Data-driven innovation through Open Government Data. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 9(2), 15–16. Jetzek, T., Avital, M., & Bjørn-Andersen, N. (2014). Generating sustainable value from open data in a sharing society. Creating Value for All Through IT, 62–82. Jiang, M., & Tan, D. (2018). The First Step in the Long March: The Legislation and Practice of Open Government Information in China. In The Right of Access to Public Information (pp. 485–500). New York: Springer. Kalampokis,, E., & Tarabanis , K. (2011). Open Government Data: A Stage Model. In E. Tambouris (Ed.), International Conference on Electronic Government - Electronic Government (pp. 235–246). New York: Springer. Karin Gavelin, Simon Burall, & Richard Wilson. (2009). Open Government: beyond static measures. Involve. Retrieved November 11, 2022, from https://www.oecd.org/gov/46560184.pdf. Katerattanakul, P., & Siau, K. (1999). Measuring Information Quality of Web Sites: Development of an Instrument. ICIS '99: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on Information Systems. 279-287. Kassen, M. (2018). Open data and its institutional ecosystems: A comparative cross-jurisdictional analysis of Open Data Platforms. Canadian Public Administration, 61(1), 109–129. Kim, H. (2018). Analysis of standard vocabulary use of the open government data: The case of the public data portal of Korea. Quality & Quantity, 53(3), 1611–1622. Kim, J., Stern, R. E., Liebman, B. L., & Wu, X. (2021). Closing open government: Grassroots policy conversion of china’s open government information regulation and its aftermath. Comparative Political Studies, 55(2), 319–347. Lathrop, D. (2010). Open government. Springfield: O'Reilly. Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional E-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), 122–136. Lee, G., & Kwak, Y. H. (2012). An open government maturity model for social media-based public engagement. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 492–503. Lee, Y. W., Pipino, L. L., & Wang, R. Y. (2020). Data Quality Assessment. In Multidisciplinary Social Networks Research (pp. 325-333). New York: Springer. Lee, Y. W., Strong, D. M., Kahn, B. K., & Wang, R. Y. (2002). AIMQ: A methodology for information quality assessment. Information & Management, 40(2), 133–146. Leung, H. K. N. (2001). Quality Metrics for Intranet Applications. Information & Management, 38(3), 137–152. Lin, C. S., & Yang, H.-C. (2014). Data quality assessment on Taiwan’s Open data sites. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 325–333. Lipuntsov, Y. P. (2014). Three types of data exchange in the Open Government Information Projects. Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Electronic Governance and Open Society: Challenges in Eurasia - EGOSE '14. 88-94. Madnick, S. E., Wang, R. Y., Lee, Y. W., & Zhu, H. (2009). Overview and framework for data and Information Quality Research. Journal of Data and Information Quality, 1(1), 1–22. Marienfeld ,, F., Schieferdecker Ina Schieferdecker Fraunhofer FOKUS, Berlin View Profile ,, I., Lapi Evanela Lapi Fraunhofer FOKUS, Berlin View Profile, E., & Tcholtchev, N. (2013). Metadata aggregation at GovData.de: an experience report. Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Open Collaboration, 21. 1-5. Murray-Rust, P. (2008). Open data in science. Nature Precedings. 1-23. Méndez, G. G., Chiluiza, K., Tibau, J., Cedeno-Mieles, V. I., Moreno, O., Murillo, M., & Wong-Villacres, M. (2022). Exploring open parliament initiatives in Ecuador through technology. CHI EA '22: Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1-8. Nikiforova, A., & Lnenicka, M. (2021). A multi-perspective knowledge-driven approach for analysis of the demand side of the Open Government Data Portal. Government Information Quarterly, 38(4), 101622. Nikiforova, A., & McBride, K. (2021). Open government data portal usability: A user-centred usability analysis of 41 Open Government Data Portals. Telematics and Informatics, 58, 101539. Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Resources, Co-Evolution and Artifacts, 11(4), 255–305. Paloma, B. O., & Juan Cruz, V. (2011). Access to Information and Targeted Transparency Policies. Inter-American Development Bank. 1-42. Parliament.uk. (2019). Freedom of Information (Extension) Bill - Bills. Retrieved November 11, 2022, from https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2067. Parycek, P., Hochtl, J., & Ginner, M. (2014). Open Government Data Implementation Evaluation. Doctoral Dissertation. Utrecht University. Paul Sabatier. (2007). Theories of the policy process. Boulder: Westview Press. Piotrowski, S. J., Zhang, Y., Lin, W., & Yu, W. (2009). Key issues for implementation of Chinese open government information regulations. Public Administration Review, 69(s1). 5129-5135. Pipino, L. L., Lee, Y. W., & Wang, R. Y. (2002). Data Quality Assessment. Communications of the ACM, 45(4), 211–218. Qiao, Z. (2006). Exploration and practice in promoting Shanghai Municipal Open Government Information. Government Information Quarterly, 23(1), 28–35. Quarati, A. (2021). Open government data: Usage trends and metadata quality. Journal of Information Science, 0. Rumbul, R. & Moulder, G. & Parsons, A. (n.d.). Parliament and the People : How Digital Technologies are shaping Democratic information flow in Sub-Saharan africa. mySociety. Retrieved November 11, 2022, from https://research.mysociety.org/html/parliament-and-the-people/#recommendations. Santos Brito, K., Santos Neto, M., Silva Costa, M. A., Garcia, V. C., & de Lemos Meira, S. R. (2014). Using parliamentary Brazilian open data to improve transparency and public participation in Brazil. Proceedings of the 15th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research. 171-177. Schaltegger, S. (1997). Information costs, quality of information and stakeholder involvement - the necessity of international standards of Ecological Accounting. Eco-Management and Auditing, 4(3). 87–97. Shaw, N. R. (2011). Implementation of China's 2007 Open Government Information Regulation. Hastings Business Law Journal, 7, 169–187. Solar, M., Concha, G., & Meijueiro, L. (2012). A model to assess open government data in public agencies. In H. Scholl, M. Janssen, M. Wimmer, C. Moe & L. Flak (Eds.), Electronic Government, 7443, 210–221. Tayi, G. K. (1998). Examining Data Quality. Communications of the ACM, 41(2). 54-57. Teng, P.-ju (Ed.). (2022). Taiwan ranked 38th in 2022 Rsf press freedom index. Focus Taiwan. Retrieved November 11, 2022, from https://focustaiwan.tw/politics/202205030011. The Constitution Unit, UCL. (n.d.). What is Freedom of Information & Data Protection?. Retrieved November 11, 2022, from https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-freedom-of-information/what-is-the-foi-act/. Thohari, A. H., & Suhardi. (2016). Requirement engineering for open government information network development to support digital startup in Cimahi City Indonesia. 2016 International Conference on Information Technology Systems and Innovation (ICITSI). 1-6. Treude, C., Middleton, J., & Atapattu, T. (2020). Beyond accuracy: Assessing software documentation quality. Proceedings of the 28th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. 1509–1512. UNDP. (2022). Global parliamentary report 2022: Public engagement in the work of Parliament. United Nations Development Programme. Retrieved November 11, 2022, from https://www.undp.org/publications/global-parliamentary-report-2022-public-engagement-work-parliament?utm_source=EN&utm_medium=GSR&utm_content=US_UNDP_PaidSearch_Brand_English&utm_campaign=CENTRAL&c_src=CENTRAL&c_src2=GSR&gclid=CjwKCAiAh9qdBhAOEiwAvxIok_2oyGxI12OArPrvr_j82sMnBYARAHlwsk-Rjnrg17GiHrvKWvhvUxoCdqcQAvD_BwE. U.K. Government. (2022). UK Digital Strategy. GOV.UK . Retrieved November 11, 2022, from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uks-digital-strategy/uk-digital-strategy#:~:text=for%20tech%20IPOs.-,The%20whole%20UK%3A%20spreading%20prosperity%20and%20levelling%20up,region%20to%20accelerate%20productivity%20growth. Vice, J., Farrell, S., Fowler, N., & Bercow, J. (2017). The history of Hansard. House of Lords Library and House of Lords Hansard. 1-52. Retrieved November 11, 2022, from https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/lords-library/History-of-Hansard.pdf. Wang, H.-J., & Lo, J. (2016). Adoption of open government data among government agencies. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 80–88. Wang, L. (2015). Multidisciplinary Social Networks Research. New York: Springer. Wang, V., & Shepherd, D. (2020). Exploring the extent of openness of open government data – a critique of open government datasets in the UK. Government Information Quarterly, 37(1), 101405. Wang, R. Y., & Strong, D. M. (1996). Beyond accuracy: What data quality means to data consumers. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(4), 5–33. Whitmore, A. (2014). Using open government data to predict war: A case study of data and systems challenges. Government Information Quarterly, 31(4), 622–630. Yang, T.-M., & Wu, Y.-J. (2014). Exploring the determinants of cross-boundary information sharing in the public sector: An e-government case study in Taiwan. Journal of Information Science, 40(5), 649–668. Yang, T.-M., & Wu, Y.-J. (2016). Examining the socio-technical determinants influencing government agencies' Open Data Publication: A Study in Taiwan. Government Information Quarterly, 33(3), 378–392. Yi, M. (2019). Exploring the quality of Government Open Data. The Electronic Library, 37(1), 35–48. Yu, W. (2011). Open government information: Challenges faced by Public Human Resource Management in China. International Journal of Public Administration, 34(13), 879–888. Zheng, L. (2007). Enacting and implementing open government information regulations in China. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance - ICEGOV '07. 117-120. Zhu, H., & Fu, H. (2017). Transparency as an Offence: Rights Lawyering for Open Government Information in China. The Journal of Comparative Law, 12(2), 417–436. Zuiderwijk, A., & Janssen, M. (2014). The negative effects of open government data - investigating the Dark Side of Open Data. Proceedings of the 15th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research. 147-152. Zuiderwijk, A., Janssen, M., Poulis, K., & van de Kaa, G. (2015). Open data for competitive advantage. Proceedings of the 16th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research. 79-88. | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/86969 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 資訊品質是政府資訊公開的重要一環,過去臺灣政府雖在政府資訊公開的成果斐然,但如Arcelus(2012)指出政府在公開資訊時,可能只會遵從法定的最低標準,讓民眾得以利用公開資訊來監督政府。立法院作為代議士的議政殿堂,在各機關中享有特殊地位,更需注重資訊品質。英國作為民主國家的先驅,議會公開資訊的歷史可追溯到1911年,而在近代,亦在2000年開始施行《資訊自由法》以規管政府的公開資訊。另外英國在各資訊公開的排名中亦名列前茅。因此本研究選定臺灣與英國作為比較對象,以此來了解立法院與英國下議院在資訊公開上的優劣之處,以期能互相借鏡。
本研究透過研究立法院與英國下議院的公開資訊,旨在回應兩個研究問題,分別為「議會的資訊公開的品質如何被評量?臺灣與英國議會的公開資訊品質如何?」及「什麼因素會影響政府資訊之品質?臺灣與英國議會公開資訊品質的影響因素為何?」。 為了回應這兩個問題,本研究首先透過文獻回顧,探索過去學者資訊品質的定義,與對政府資訊公開質素與其影響因素的研究成果。之後本研究以Wang & Stong (1996) 及 Solar et al. (2012),分別作為資訊品質與影響因素的框架,並結合其他學者的研究發現,經過操作化後整理出本研究所採用的框架。再以個案研究法及深度訪談法探索兩國實務上資訊公開之情況。 在研究發現上,本研究共有六個主要發現,分別為:一)立法院委員會會務報告製作人力不足,不設模板並以列表為主,英國設置模板並以分析為主、二)立法院的資訊大多沒有明確標題,英國的資訊大多能以標題概括內容、三)立法院的資訊大多不能被搜尋引擎所搜尋,英國的資訊大部分能被搜尋、四)臺灣公務員不敢作資訊加值,英國在資訊加值上設有制度、五)處理資訊公開人員缺乏訓練,及六)立法院資訊發布時間較英國下議院為慢。 至於在政策建議上,本研究分別對上述發現提供六個建議,分別為:一)重新思考委員會會務報告定位、二)修改目前資訊的標題,讓標題能概括文件的內容、三)確保立法院資訊能夠被搜尋引擎所搜尋、四)評估是否需要根據使用者需求,改變委員會報告純粹紀錄的格式為彙整並總結委員會討論之理據及決定、五)根據使用者需求擬定訓練計畫,及六)精簡文件發布前之的簽核流程,加強利用自動化系統。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Information quality is an important aspect of open government information, and yet amidst the outstanding achievements of the Taiwan government in this field, many scholars suggest government officials would only comply with the lowest possible legal standard in publishing their information. According to Arcelus(2012), some civil servants may only comply with the legal standard on information quality. As a place to host debates on national policies, the Legislative Yuan of Taiwan should especially be scrutinized for its information quality. On the other hand, the history of open government information in the UK Parliament could be traced back to 1911, and the modern achievements of the UK shine in its history. For example, the Freedom of Information Act has been implemented since 2000, the UK also ranks at the forefront of prominent rankings of open government information. Therefore, this study selected the UK as a comparison to Taiwan to better understand the respective situation of both countries.
By studying the open government information of the Legislative Yuan of Taiwan and the House of Commons of the UK, the researcher aims to answer two sets of research questions: (1) How could information quality be assessed? What is the quality of information for the Legislative Yuan and the House of Commons? and (2) What are the determinants of information quality of open government information? What are the determinants in the case of the Legislative Yuan and the House of Commons? To answer these questions, this study begins with a literature review that discusses the scholarly definitions of information quality, and the academic findings in the determinants of open government information are explored. It then utilized the framework from Wang & Strong (1996) and Solar et al. (2012) as the backbone for further analysis. A case study and in-depth interviews are then conducted to explore the insight from practitioners. In terms of research findings, this study summarized six major findings. They are (1) the production of committee reports of Taiwan suffered from understaffing and no template is designed for the report; reports in the UK are analysis-oriented with a predetermined template, (2) there is a lack of concise titles that can accompany the information given by the Legislative Yuan, while the information from the House of Commons usually has an informative title that summarizes the content, (3) most information in the Legislative Yuan cannot be found by search engines, which stands in striking contrast with the House of Commons, (4) Taiwan’s officials are conservative about value-adding of open government information, while the UK civil servants work with an established mechanism, (5) no training plans for staff specializing in open government information are available in Taiwan, and (6) it takes the Legislative Yuan longer than the House of Commons to publish information. In terms of policy advice, this study proposes six recommendations accordingly: (1) the Legislative Yuan is suggested to reorient the role of the committee report, (2) it is encouraged to revamp the current title of information to conclude the content, (3) the government should ensure the information of the Legislative Yuan could be searched by the search engine, (4) an assessment of the necessity to change the committee reports of the Legislative Yuan from recording basis to analysis basis based on the user’s need is required, (5) it is suggested to draft training plans for staff on open government information according to the needs of the user, and (6) the government should streamline the verification process and rely more on an automated system. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2023-05-02T17:08:46Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2023-05-02T17:08:46Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書 II
誌謝 III 中文摘要 IV 英文摘要 VI 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景及問題 1 第二節 臺灣與英國議會議事流程及文件 5 第三節 章節安排 17 第二章 文獻回顧 19 第一節 政府資訊開放的定義與概念 19 第二節 資訊品質的定義與概念 23 第三節 政府與議會資訊公開的品質 27 第四節 政府資訊公開品質的指標 35 第五節 政府資訊公開品質的影響因素 38 第六節 影響資訊品質因素的指標 41 第三章 研究架構與方法 47 第一節 研究範圍 47 第二節 研究架構 48 第三節 研究方法 50 第四節 訪談問題與對象ß 52 第四章 研究發現 57 第一節 臺灣立法院的資訊品質 57 第二節 英國下議院的資訊品質 67 第三節 比較兩國議會的資訊品質 76 第四節 臺灣立法院影響資訊品質的因素 79 第五節 英國下議院影響資訊品質的因素 87 第六節 比較兩國的影響因素 92 第五章 結論及建議 97 第一節 研究結果 97 第二節 政策建議 101 參考文獻 105 附錄 本研究參閱之政府文件 115 | - |
dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
dc.title | 臺灣立法院與英國下議院資訊公開的資訊品質與影響因素 | zh_TW |
dc.title | The Quality and Determinants of Information Disclosure in the Legislative Yuan of Taiwan and the House of Commons of the UK | en |
dc.type | Thesis | - |
dc.date.schoolyear | 111-1 | - |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 黃琛瑜;蘇彩足 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Chen-Yu Huang;Tsai-Tsu Su | en |
dc.subject.keyword | 資訊公開,資訊品質,開放國會,影響因素,議會文件, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Open government information,Information Quality,Open Parliament,Determinants,Legislative Documents, | en |
dc.relation.page | 118 | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202300049 | - |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | - |
dc.date.accepted | 2023-01-13 | - |
dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | - |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 公共事務研究所 | - |
顯示於系所單位: | 公共事務研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-111-1.pdf | 3.23 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。