請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/62038
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 王宏文(Hong-Wung Wang) | |
dc.contributor.author | Ho-Ching Hsu | en |
dc.contributor.author | 許荷青 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-16T13:24:29Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2022-06-18 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2020-07-02 | |
dc.date.issued | 2020 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2020-06-18 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 壹、中文部分 王石番,1992,《傳播內容分析法:理論與實證》,台北:幼獅文化。 王文誠,2016,〈災難政治—2014年高雄石化氣爆後的尺度政治與不均地理發展〉,《政治學報》,61:87-113。 行政院,2018,《臺鐵6432次列車新馬站內正線出軌事故調查事實、原因及問題改善建議報告》,台北市:行政院。 李宗勳,1999,〈危機管理與戰略思維─幾個概念的檢視與省思〉,《中央警察大學學報》,34:105-134。 李宗勳,2016,《危機管理與談判》,台北:智勝。 林水波,2011,〈意外管理〉,《T D飛訊》,114:1-35。 林水波、陳志瑋,2001,〈政策失靈與責任歸屬〉,《公共政策分析的理論與實務》,台北:韋伯文化,31-61。 林淑馨,2012,《公共管理》,台北市:巨流。 邱靖鈜,2011,〈究責迴避的策略應用–以台北國際花卉博覽會為例〉,《東吳政治學報》,30(3):161-209。 迪利、湯瑪斯,2008,張文隆譯《當責式管理》,台北:中國生產力中心。 施富議,2014,〈台灣食品安全事件危機管理之研究–以2013年順丁烯二酸酐為例〉,台北:淡江大學公共行政學系公共政策碩士在職專班論文。 張文隆,2006,《當責》,台北:中國生產力中心。 張世杰,2010,〈災難學習與咎責政治〉,《T D飛訊》,95:1-21。 湯京平等,2002,〈災難與政治:九二一地震中的集體行為與災難情境的治理〉,《政治科學論叢》,16:137-162。 黃丙喜、馮志能,2009,《動態危機管理:如何管理風險與議題,並避免危機?》,台北市:商周。 傅篤顯,2009,〈危機處理:以突發事件為例〉,《危機管理學刊》,6(2):39-54。 傅篤顯,2010,〈突發事件處理:化危機為轉機〉,《危機管理學刊》,7(2):25-36。 黃讚松、于周峰,2017,〈八仙塵暴事件政府危機管理之研究〉,《危機管理學刊》,14(1):83-94。 詹中原,2004,《危機管理–理論架構》,台北:聯經。 董旭英、黃怡娟譯,2000,《次級資料研究法》,臺北市:弘智文化。 趙君平,2009,〈重大公眾事件政府危機溝通策略之研究–以中國大陸毒奶粉事件為例〉,台北:國立臺灣大學國家發展研究所碩士論文。 廖洲棚、吳秀光,2007,〈政府危機管理之協調行動模式:概念與模式建立〉,《行政暨政策學報》,45:35-72。 臺灣鐵路工會,2019,〈臺灣鐵路管理局現況議題檢討與建議:臺灣鐵路工會立場與看法〉,台北市:臺灣鐵路工會文宣及研究組。 臺灣鐵路工會,2019,〈臺灣鐵路工會安全白皮書〉,台北市:臺灣鐵路工會。 賴清德,2018,《1021普悠瑪事故等東部交通運輸問題專案報告》,立法院第9屆第6會期,台北市:立法院。 闕河嘉,2018,〈庫博中文語料庫分析工具的數位人文價值〉,《人文與社會科學簡訊》,19(2):118-123。 闕河嘉、陳光華,2016,〈庫博中文獨立語料庫分析工具之開發與應用〉,《數位人文:在過去、現在和未來之間》,台北:台大出版中心,頁285-313。 瞿海源、畢恆達、劉長萱、楊國樞,2019,《社會及行為科學研究法–質性研究 法》,台北:東華。 貳、西文部分 Alistair, G., Roger, H., Diane, G., Sophie, H., Roy D. 2006. “What causes accidents?” Proceedings of ICE - Civil Engineering 159(6): 46-50. Akhmad S., A., Roy, D., Stephen J. P. 2001. “Development of causal model of construction accident causation.” Journal of Construction Engineering And Management, 337-344. Barker, A. 1994. “The Upturned Stone: Political Scandals and their Investigative Processes in Twenty Democracies.” Crime, Law and Social Change 21(4): 337-373. Biber, D., Conrad, S. Reppen, R. 1998. “Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use.” Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bovens, M., Hart, P., Dekker, S. Verheuvel, G. 1999. “The politics of blame avoidance: defensive tactics in a Dutch crime-fighting fiasco.” In H. K. Anheier (Ed.), “When things go wrong: Organizational failures and breakdowns.” Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 123-148. Dixon, R., C. Arndt. M. Mullers, J. Vakkuri, K. Engblom-Pelkkala, C. Hood. 2013. “A Lever for Improvement or a Magnet for Blame? Press and Political Responses to International Educational Rankings in Four EU Countries.” Public Administration 91(2): 484-505. Doreen, S.W., Frank, M. 2010. “Is Talk Always Silver and Silence Golden?” Javnost - The Public 17(2): 5-26. Ellis, R.J. 1994. “Presidential Lightning Rods: The Politics of Blame Avoidance.” Lawrence: University of Kansas Press. Haslam R. A., Hide S. A., Gibb, A. G. F., Gyid, E., Pavitt, T., Atkinson, S. Duffa, R. 2005. “Contributing factors in construction accidents.” Applied Ergonomics 36(4): 401-416. Hearit, K.M. 2006. “Crisis Management by Apology: Corporate Response to Allegations of Wrongdoing.” Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hood, C. 2002. “The Risk Game and the Blame Game.” Government and Opposition 37(1): 15-37. Hood, C. 2011. “The Blame Game: Spin, Bureaucracy, and Self-Preservation in Government.” Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Hood, C. Dixon R. 2010. “The Political Payoff from Performance Target Systems: No-Brainer or No-Gainer?” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20(2): 281-298. Hood, C.,W. Jennings, B. Hogwood, R. Dixon C. Beeston. 2009. “Testing Times: Exploring Staged Responses and the Impact of Blame Management Strategies in Two Exam Fiasco Cases.” European Journal of Political Research 48(6): 695-722. Jones, B., F. Baumgartner. 2005. “The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems.” Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Kagay, M. 1999. “Presidential Address: Public Opinion and Polling during Presidential Scandal and Impeachment.” Public Opinion Quarterly 63(3): 449-463. Krippendorff, K. 2013. “Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology(3rd ed)”. California, CA: Sage Publication. Lau, R.R. 1985. “Two Explanations for Negativity Effects in Political Behaviour.” American Journal of Political Science 29(1): 119-138. Mason, 2017. “Qualitative Researching(3rd ed)”. SAGE Publications UK. McConnell, A. 2003. “Overview: Crisis Management, Influences, Responses and Evaluation”. Parliamentary Affairs, 56(3):393-409. McGraw, K.M. 1990. “Avoiding Blame: An Experimental Investigation of Political Excuses and Justifications.” British Journal of Political Science 20(1): 119-32. McGraw, K.M. 1991. “Managing Blame: An Experimental Test of the Effects of Political Accounts.” American Political Science Review 85(4): 1133-1157. McGraw, A.P., A. Todorov and H. Kunreuther. 2011. “A Policy Maker’s Dilemma: Preventing Terrorism or Preventing Blame” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 115(1):25-34. Milton, D. Dealy, Andrew R. Thomas. 2006. “Managing by Accountability: What Every Leader Needs to Know about Responsibility, Integrity--and Results” Praeger. Olson, Richard S. 2000. “Toward a Politics of Disaster: Losses, Values, Agendas, and Blame”. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 18(2): 265-87. Rozin, P., E.B. Royzman. 2001. “Negativity Bias, Negativity Dominance, and Contagion”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4):296-320. Sandra L. R., B.J. Carroll, C.J.A. van Eijk, S. Maris. 2016. “Why Traditional Responses to Blame Games Fail: The Importance of Context, Rituals, and Sub-Blame Games in the Face of Raves Gone Wrong.” Public Administration 94(2): 350-363. Scott, Marvin B., Stanford M. Lyman. 1968. “Accounts.” American Sociological Review 33: 46-62. Stephanie N. 2013. “The Silence of Ministers: Consensus and Blame Avoidance in the Council of the European Union.” JCMS 51(6): 1091-1107. Sulitzeanu-Kenan, R., Hood., C. 2005. “Blame Avoidance with Adjectives? Motivation, Opportunity, Activity and Outcome.” ECPR Joint Sessions, Granada, Spain. Thomas V.P. 2005. “The Swiss cheese model of safety incidents: are there holes in the metaphor?” BMC Health Services Research 2005, 5: 71. Toby J. Kash, John R. Darling. 1998. “Crisis management: prevention, diagnosis and intervention” Leadership Organization Development Journal 19(4):179-186. Weaver, R.K. 1986. “The Politics of Blame Avoidance.” Journal of Public Policy 6(4):371-398. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/62038 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 當危機事件發生後,政府相關單位便會開始進行危機處理程序,以降低危機所造成的損害。綜觀國內危機管理之相關研究,多從事件處理的角度或目的切入,然實際上,危機管理經常涉及責難規避(Blame Avoidance)的策略行動,藉此降低當事機關受到責難程度。 本文以2018年10月21日發生的普悠瑪翻車事件作為個案,選擇台鐵局、司機員、交通部、行政院等主要受到責難的標的族群作為利害關係人,探討這些利害關係人在事件發生後,如何採用避責策略,而在這些避責行動後,對於自身受責難的程度又產生什麼影響,藉此分析每位利害關係人於事件當中的避責效果,並提出觀察與建議。 為回應上述研究問題,本文將研究設計分為兩部分進行:第一部分以次級資料分析及個人深度訪談,將普悠瑪事件之發生原因進行歸納與探究,藉此釐清利害關係人所應負之責任,以利於後續避責策略之分析;第二部分則是以內容分析的方式探究利害關係人的避責效果,首先計算個別利害關係人在事件發生後62天內,分別於《自由時報》及《聯合報》受到責難的數量,再以Hood(2009)提出的九種避責策略作為基本架構,進行避責策略的編碼,檢視利害關係人在不同時點採用的避責策略,最後將個別利害關係人受責難數量及避責策略使用之編碼資料合併製成圖像,觀察利害關係人在特定時點採用何種避責策略,而後對於其受責難數量又產生如何的影響。 分析結果發現,事件發生的主要責任歸屬在於台鐵局與司機員,但司機員卻是使用避責策略期間最短、受到責難數量最少的利害關係人,而交通部則是與事件發生並無直接關聯,卻採用責任程度最高的避責策略才將責難有效控制,由此可見,利害關係人使用避責策略的合適性能夠改變自身受事件牽連及影響之程度,而相較於個人而言,代表政府部門的利害關係人對於避責策略的使用須具備較高的敏感度,否則反而會因此引來更多的責難。而在本文個案特性及台灣環境背景之差異下,亦發現不同於Hood(2009)提出的避責策略採用次序,由見利害關係人不僅要依據角色立場選擇合適的避責策略,亦須考慮到自身所處的環境背景因素,以將避責策略發揮最大的避責效果。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | When crises happen, government will start crisis process to reduce the damage caused by the crisis. Through an overview of related research in domestic crisis management, most of them is from the perspective or purpose of event process. Actually, crisis management is usually related to strategic actions of Blame Avoidance to decrease the degree of blame for the agency. This article takes Puyuma Incident on October 21, 2018 as the case, and selects target groups who are mainly blamed, such as Taiwan Railways Administration, the driver, Ministry of Transportation and Communications, and Executive Yuan, as stakeholders. The main purpose of this article is to discusses how these stakeholders adopt Blame Avoidance strategies, and how these strategic actions influent the degree of their blame. After analyzing the effect of Blame Avoidance strategy in each stakeholder, this article will go further to explore the Blame Avoidance interaction between stakeholders, making observations and suggestions in conclusion. Results suggest that the suitability of stakeholders using Blame Avoidance strategy can change the extent in which they are implicated and affected by the incident. Take the driver for example, who is directly responsible for the incident, has the least blame; on the contrary, Ministry of Transportation and Communications is not that directly related to this incident, but it has to make someone resign to control the degree of blame. This phenomenon also indicates that stakeholders who represent government department have to be more sensitive than individual when choosing Blame Avoidance strategy, because the public has higher degree of accountability on them. Thus, they are more likely to be blamed due to their inappropriate Blame Avoidance behaviors. In addition, based on the differences between the characteristic of Puyuma incident and the environmental background in Taiwan, results also found that the sequences which stakeholders adopt are different from the theory proposed by Hood(2009). Therefore, in order to maximize the effect of Blame Avoidance strategy, stakeholders not only choose the appropriate Blame Avoidance strategy based on their roles, but also consider the environmental background factors. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-16T13:24:29Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-1806202013325500.pdf: 4429700 bytes, checksum: 9b8031e5c70be12925b7e54c9c499ff5 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2020 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 圖目錄………………………………………………………………………………………………………xi 表目錄………………………………………………………………………………………………………xii 第一章 緒論…………………………………………………………………………………………………………1 第一節 研究背景與動機……………………………………………………………………………1 第二節 研究目的與研究問題…………………………………………………………………4 第二章 文獻回顧………………………………………………………………………………………………5 第一節 責難規避的起源與研究發展…………………………………………………5 第二節 我國責難規避之研究–從災難治理的角度出發…………15 第三節 綜合討論………………………………………………………………………………………18 第三章 普悠瑪翻車事件簡介……………………………………………………………………20 第一節 事件簡介………………………………………………………………………………………20 第二節 研究標的………………………………………………………………………………………22 第四章 研究設計……………………………………………………………………………………………23 第一節 研究步驟………………………………………………………………………………………23 第二節 次級資料分析……………………………………………………………………………25 第三節 個人深度訪談……………………………………………………………………………27 第四節 內容分析………………………………………………………………………………………32 第五節 編碼圖像化與結合……………………………………………………………………43 第五章 普悠瑪事件發生之原因分析……………………………………………………45 第一節 分析模型………………………………………………………………………………………45 第二節 原因分析結果………………………………………………………………………………49 第三節 小結…………………………………………………………………………………………………70 第六章 研究結果與討論………………………………………………………………………………72 第一節 利害關係人受到新聞報紙責難之數量……………………………73 第二節 利害關係人使用避責策略與受責難數量之關係…………76 第三節 利害關係人之間的互動關係…………………………………………………101 第四節 綜合討論…………………………………………………………………………………………116 第七章 結論與研究建議………………………………………………………………………………122 第一節 研究發現…………………………………………………………………………………………122 第二節 研究建議…………………………………………………………………………………………130 參考文獻 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………135 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 普悠瑪事件避責策略之分析 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Analysis of Blame Avoidance Strategy in Puyuma Incident | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 108-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 李宗勳(Tzung-shiun LI),闕河嘉(Ho-Chia Chueh) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 普悠瑪,責難規避,責難,避責,危機,危機處理,危機管理, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Puyuma,Blame Avoidance,Blame,Crisis,Crisis Management,Crisis Process, | en |
dc.relation.page | 140 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202000875 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2020-06-18 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 公共事務研究所 | zh_TW |
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 | |
---|---|---|---|
U0001-1806202013325500.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 4.33 MB | Adobe PDF |
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。