倡議團體於公共政策網路參與平臺進行電子連署的動機、行動策略與自我評估：以2020-2021年成案團體為例

Abstract

為了了解倡議團體為何選擇及如何在公共政策網路參與平臺上進行連署，以及補充國內關於參與平臺的文獻中所缺乏以倡議團體為主的觀察視角，本研究透過質性訪談方法探討影響倡議團體在參與平臺上進行連署的動機、連署時使用的工具與策略、動員或合作模式等，並探討倡議團體如何自我評估成效與影響。 關於研究發現，在倡議團體方面：1) 使用動機可能源自於實體倡議的困境、平臺官方與免費性質、政府限時回應的特色；2) 倡議策略的選擇可能與成員與支持者、議題的政策領域、團體的資源多寡等有關；3) 倡議團體配合連署提案的行動策略是多元混合且有所依循模式；4) 在參與平臺上的提案是作為實體倡議的延伸；5) 提案者的代表性、團體身分揭露動機與共同提案者的合作內涵難以從提案內文判斷。 而在參與平臺方面：1) 提點子功能設計與規則的不明確可能會降低倡議團體對於政府的評價；2) 倡議團體對於行政機關回應的不滿可能致使對於提點子功能的角色存疑。 而在實務建議上，在倡議團體方面：1) 建議可釐清倡議困境的來源以避免錯估議題倡議的對象；2) 建議採用數位工具或策略也應審慎考量其特性與受眾；3) 參與平臺仍可考量作為未來的倡議策略之一；4) 可以針對常用策略進行成效評估。 而在參與平臺方面：1) 建議應公開平臺連署成案後之相關規則指引；2) 建議參與平臺連署操作介面上應考量不同使用族群。 最後，也建議未來後續研究可區分不同議題屬性及倡議團體性質，並擴大研究對象以增進可推論範圍，或可以單一個案分析的方式追蹤提案對於政策的影響。

To understand why advocacy groups choose and how to make a proposal on Join Platforms, and to add the advocacy groups’ perspectives in the literature on Join Platforms in Taiwan, this study explores advocacy groups through qualitative interviews, and focus on the motivation to make a proposal on the Join Platform, the tools and strategies used in e-petition, mobilization or cooperation models, and discusses how the advocacy groups self-evaluates the effectiveness. Regarding the findings of the study, in terms of advocacy groups: 1) The motivation to use Join Platform may be driven by the frustration of the advocacy campaign in the physical world, the official and free nature of the Join Platform, and the government’s time-limited official response; 2) The choice of advocacy strategies may be related to the groups’ members and supporters, the policy area of the issue, and how much resource the advocacy groups have; 3) The strategies of the advocacy groups use in the e-petition are diverse and mixed and follow a pattern; 4) Make a policy proposal on Join Platform may be one of the strategies in a wide range of advocacy campaign for the advocacy groups; 5) It is difficult to judge from the text in the policy proposal of the petitioner’s representation, the motivation to show the name of the group, and the co-signing pattern between groups. In terms of Join Platforms: 1) The unclear design and rules of Join Platform may leads to a lower review that made by advocacy groups; 2) The dissatisfaction of the response from the government leads to doubts about the role of the Platform. In terms of practical suggestions for the advocacy groups: 1) It is suggested that the source of the advocacy dilemma should be clarified to avoid misestimating the audience of the issue advocacy; 2) It is suggested that the use of digital tools or strategies should also carefully consider their characteristics and audience; 3) It can still be considered as one of the future advocacy strategies of using the e-petition function on Join Platform; 4) Effectiveness evaluation can be carried out for regular used strategies. In terms of Join Platforms: 1) It is recommended that the relevant rules and guidelines for the Join platform should be made public; 2) It is suggested that different user groups should be considered in the Join Platform. Finally, it is also suggested that the future follow-up research can distinguish the characteristic of different issues and the nature of advocacy groups, and expand the research objects to increase the scope of inference, and track the impact of proposals on policies in a single case analysis.