請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/72168
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 黃心怡 | |
dc.contributor.author | Siang-Ting Huang | en |
dc.contributor.author | 黃湘婷 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T06:26:50Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2019-08-21 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2018-08-21 | |
dc.date.issued | 2018 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2018-08-17 | |
dc.identifier.citation | (一)期刊論文
Ajzen,I. 1991. “The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.” Theories of Cognitive Self-Regulation 50(2): 179-211. Attard, Judie. Fabrizio Orlandi, Simon Scerri, and Sören Auer.2015. “A systematic review of open government data initiatives.” Government Information Quarterly 32: 399-418. Barry, Emily. and Frank Bannister. 2014. “Barriers to open data release: A view from the top.” Information Policy 19(1): 129-152. Conradie, Peter.and Sunil Choenni. 2012. “Exploring process barriers to release public sector information in local government.” ICEGOV 12: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance 5-13. Davis, Fred D. 1993. “User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts.” International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 38(3): 475-487. Ferneley, Elaine H. and Polly Sobreperez. 2006. “Resist, comply or workaround? An examination of different facets of user engagement with information systems.” European Journal of Information Systems 15(4): 345-356. Florini, Ann. 2004. “Behind closed doors.” Harvard International Review 26(1): 18-21. Greiling, Dorathea. and Katharina Spraul. 2010. “Accountability and the Challenges of Information Disclosure.” Public Administration Quarterly 34(3): 338-377. Grover,Varun. Seung-Ryul Jeong, William J. Kettinger, and Choong C. Lee. 1993. “The Chief Information Officer: A Study of Managerial Roles.” Journal of Management Information Systems 10(2): 107-130. Harmon, Michael M. 1989. “The Responsible Actor as 'Tortured Soul.' ”Administration & Society 21(3): 283-312. Hood, Christopher. 2007. “What happens when transparency meets blame-avoidance?” Public Management Review 9(2): 191-210. Hupe,Peter. and Michael Hill. 2007. “Street‐Level bureaucracy and public accountability.” Public administration 85(2): 279-299. Janssen, Marijn. Yannis Charalabidis ,and Anneke Zuiderwijk. 2012. “Benefits, Adoption Barriers and Myths of Open Data and Open Government.” Information System Management 29: 258-268. Jetzek, Thorhildur. Michel Avital, and Niels Bjorn-Andersen. 2014. “Data-Driven Innovation through Open Government Data.” Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 9(2): 100-120. Kurniaa, Sherah. Reyner J. Karnalib, and Md Mahbubur Rahimc. 2015. “A qualitative study of business-to-business electronic commerce adoption within the Indonesian grocery industry: A multi-theory perspective.” Information & Management 52(4): 518-536. Parycek, Peter. Johann Höchtl; and Michael Ginner. 2014 “.Open Government Data Implementation Evaluation.” Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 9(2): 80-99. Rotchanakitumnuai, Siriluck. And Mark Speece. 2003. “Barriers to Internet banking adoption: a qualitative study among corporate customers in Thailand.” International Journal of Bank Marketing 21(6): 312-323. Taylor, Shirley. and Peter A. Todd. 1995a. “Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models.” Information Systems Research 6(2): 144-176. Taylor, Shirley. and Peter A. Todd. 1995b. “An Integrated Model of Waste Management Behavior :A Test of Household Recycling and Composting Intentions.” Environment and Behavior 27(5): 603-630. Vedung, Evert. 2015. “Autonomy and street-level bureaucrats’ coping strategies.”Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy 1(2): 15-19. Wang, Hui-Ju. and Jin Lo.2016. “Adoption of open government data among government agencies”. Government Information Quarterly 33: 80-88. Wirtz, W. Bernd. Robert Piehler, Marc-Julian Thomas ,and Peter Daiser. 2015. “Resistance of Public Personnel to Open Government: A cognitive theory view of implementation barriers towards open government data.” Public Management Review 18(9): 1335-1364. Zuiderwijk, Anneke. Marijn Janssen, and Yogesh K. Dwivedi. 2015. “Acceptance and use predictors of open data technologies: Drawing upon the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology”. Government Information Quarterly32: 429-440. 朱斌妤,2015,〈政府資訊公開與加值運用之規劃與績效評估〉,行政院科技部補助專題研究計畫報告。 李治安、林誠夏、莊庭瑞,2014,〈開放資料的基本原則與相關政策議題〉,《公共治理季刊》,2(1):65-76。 何明諠,2016,〈數位時代的隱私邊界:以健保資料庫與ETC交通資料庫為例〉,《臺灣人權學刊》,3(4):139-153。 馬中哲,2016,《政府開放資料承辦人員之資料尋求歷程初探》,國立臺灣大學碩士學位論文。 項靖、楊東謀、羅晉,2014,〈政府開放資料加值營運模式之研究〉,行政院國家發展委員會委託研究報告。 項靖、陳曉慧、楊東謀、羅晉,2015,〈開放資料及其對政府治理與個人隱私影響之研究〉,行政院國家發展委員會委託研究報告。 黃昭謀,2015,〈新自由主義下開放(政府)資料與商品化的困境分析〉,《圖書館學與資訊科學》,41(1):4-17。 曾柏瑜、李梅君,2017,《開放政府觀察報告2014--2016》,開放文化基金會。 張苙雲、譚康榮,2005,〈制度信任的趨勢與結構:「多重等級評量」的分析策略〉,《臺灣社會學刊》,35:75-126。 詹中原、陳敦源、黃東益、蕭乃沂、蔡秀涓,2008,〈臺灣政府文官調查〉 熊子翔,2015,〈文官菁英文化與電子化政府參與──以計畫行為理論的觀 點〉,國立政治大學公共行政學系碩士學位論文。 廖珮妏、余鑑、于俊傑,2012,〈應用整合型科技接受模式與創新擴散通用模型於企業導入數位學習之多層次分析〉,《電子商務學報》,14(4):657-680。 蕭乃沂、黃東益,2014,〈電子治理與資訊產業發展〉,《公共治理季刊》,2(2):51-57。 羅晉、楊東謀、王慧如、項靖,2014,〈政府開放資料的策略與挑戰:使用者觀點的分析〉,《電子商務研究》,12(3): 283-300。 羅晉,2015,〈政府資料開放之系統性與制度性觀點的分析〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,12(4): 1-37。 (二)專書 Lipsky, M.2010. Street-Level Bureaucracy, 30th Ann. Ed. Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Rogers, Everett M.1983. Diffusion of Innovations.3rd.London: The Free Press: A Division of Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. 朱瑞陽,2015,《資通安全法律案例精選》,行政院國家資通安全會報技術服務中心。 陳敦源,2009,《民主治理:公共行政與民主政治的制度性調和》,五南:臺北 陳舜伶、林珈宏、莊庭瑞,2013,《藏智於民─開放政府資料的原則與現況》,中央研究院資訊科技創新研究中心,臺灣創用CC計畫發行。 (三)電子資源 胡瑋佳,2017,〈不只追量,更要重品質,政府開放資料品管邁向自動化與標準化〉,iThome電子報新聞,https://www.ithome.com.tw/news/113322,2017/12/14。 陳坤助,2014,〈開放資料是一種文化〉,《Open Data聯盟月刊》,http://www.opendata4tw.org.tw/article_detail.php?id=8&aid=62,2017/12/14。 科技新報,2018,〈地方政府開放資料應用成果:公私共創地方特色,資料協助區域發展〉,https://technews.tw/2018/04/17/the-application-achievements-of-open-data-utilized-by-local-government-in-taiwan/,2018/07/10。 財團法人資訊工業策進會,2014a,〈主要國家「政府開放資料」(Open Government Data)機制與作法追蹤觀察 報告(一)—美國〉,http://opendata.tca.org.tw/spaw2/uploads/images/Open%20Government%20Data%202014/2014Open%20Government%20Data-U.S..pdf,2016/11/08。 財團法人資訊工業策進會,2014b,〈主要國家「政府開放資料」(Open Government Data)機制與作法追蹤觀察報告(二)—英國〉,http://opendata.tca.org.tw/content_detail.php?id=36,2016/11/08。 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/72168 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 隨著各國政府積極開放,開放政府資料政策於是成為新的研究焦點,不少學者曾針對政府的制度與資源配置進行調查,但較少研究者針對公務人員個人的開放行為進行深入的調查。在台灣開放政府資料政策執行已近五年,整體來看台灣的中央政府資料開放平台在國際評比中獲得佳績,但是分散來看地方政府的執行狀況差異很大,且有許多特殊的開放行為值得深入研究,因此本文針對地方政府中負責執行開放政府資料政策的公務人員進行問卷調查。
本文旨在瞭解影響公務人員的開放行為及影響行為的因素,藉此提出改善公務人員開放行為的政策建議。以政府資料開放行為模型測量公務人員的開放行為,調查個人因素包含:預期效益、人員特質;以及組織制度因素:主觀規範、相容性、便利條件等因素如何影響積極性與策略行的開放行為,此外因為開放政府資料需透過民眾使用才能產生附加價值,具有效益散佈民間成本、政府承擔責任的特性,使得公務人員對於風險認知更加敏感,因此本研究強調風險認知對兩種開放行為的影響力。 本次問卷調查回收600份問卷包含:直轄市政府419份、縣市政府181份,研究發現,直轄市與縣市的公務人員的認知與行為有顯著差異,直轄市的積極開放行為、主觀規範、與便利條件皆高於縣市,策略開放行為則顯著低於縣市,進一步透過模型檢測直轄市與縣市有不同的開放行為模式,共同點是由課責風險、組織風險組成的風險認知,會導致策略性開放行為提升。針對研究發現本文提出相關政策建議,首先建議政府應該正視策略開放行為的存在並設法降低,其次是提供降低風險認知的措施,並因地制宜推動不同的配套措施。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Since governments all over the world actively release government data, Open Government Data (OGD) policy has become a popular research topic. Many researchers focused on the institution and resource allocation in government, however, seldom researcher studied personal behavior of administrative personnel. In Taiwan, OGD policy has been implemented for about 5 years. Overall the central government’s OGD performance was praised by several international organizations. When it comes to the local government, there are unique behaviors that make difference between local governments. Therefore the author surveyed administrative personnel in 22 counties.
The purpose of this study was to understand administrative personnel’s behavior and to analyze factors that influence their behavior. The author used the OGD behavior model. The independent variable included: expected effectiveness, the personalities, subjective norm, compatibility, and facilitating conditions. Last but not least, the author added risk perception as the most important independent variable in order to focus on the influence of risk perception. Since OGD policy has the feature that “citizen can gain benefits from the policy while government takes responsibility.” 600 valid samples were collected using questionnaires, including 419 of special municipality sample and 181 of county sample. The results revealed that the behavior of administrative personnel in special municipality and county were different. Administrative personnel in special municipality’s proactive behavior, subjective norm, and facilitating conditions was significantly higher than administrative personnel in county, with strategic behavior was significantly lower. By OGD behavior model the author pointed out that there was a huge difference between administrative personnel in special municipality and county. By contrast, the similarity was that risk perception, which was consist of responsibility risk and organization risk, would increase the occurrence of strategic behavior. According to the survey result, the author suggested that the government should deal with administrative personnel’s strategic behavior. Besides, the government had to develop some measures to relieve administrative personnel. The most important thing was government should take action that adapted to local conditions. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T06:26:50Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-107-R04343014-1.pdf: 2319857 bytes, checksum: f9fb0cc9a5d7569316cdb261e8b5f6e8 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 緒論 1
第一節 前言 1 第二節 研究動機 4 第三節 研究問題 9 第二章 文獻回顧 12 第一節 臺灣的開放政府資料歷程與現況 12 壹、開放政府資料相關法規政策 12 貳、地方政府開放資料的特性 16 參、小結 18 第二節 執行開放政府資料的政策環境 19 壹、政府推動開放資料時會遇到的障礙 19 貳、影響政策執行者開放行為的因素 23 參、開放政府資料的風險認知 25 肆、公務人員抗拒開放的態度與策略行為 28 伍、小結 33 第三章 研究方法與設計 35 第一節 研究方法 35 壹、調查對象 35 貳、調查方法 36 第二節 研究模型設計與測量方法 38 壹、問卷設計 38 貳、問卷分析方法 38 參、模型設計 39 第四章 研究成果 52 第一節 描述性統計 52 壹、樣本敘述 52 貳、信度分析 54 參、變項敘述統計 55 肆、ANOVA分析 59 第二節 模型結果分析 65 壹、皮爾森相關 65 貳、迴歸模型 68 第五章 結語 73 第一節 研究結論 73 壹、開放行為模式可以分成積極性與策略性兩種 73 貳、直轄市與非直轄市不同的開放模式 76 參、風險認知對公務人員開放行為的影響 79 第二節 政策建議 80 壹、正視策略開放行為的存在並設法降低 81 貳、提供降低風險認知的政策措施 81 第三節 研究限制 82 壹、公務人員可能不容易理解策略開放行為的題目敘述 82 貳、公務人員不願意呈現自己的真實的開放行為 83 參、抽樣下的推論偏誤 83 第四節 未來研究方向 83 參考文獻 85 附錄一:調查問卷 90 附錄二:調查機關列表 104 附錄三:重要題項敘述統計 107 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 我國地方政府資料開放政策執行人員開放行為分析 | zh_TW |
dc.title | The Study on the Local Government Administrative Personnel's Behavior in Open Government Data Policy | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 106-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 蕭乃沂,廖興中 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 開放政府資料,公務人員,開放行為,風險認知,策略行為, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Open government data,Administrative personnel,Risk perception,Open government data Behavior,strategic behavior, | en |
dc.relation.page | 110 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201803052 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2018-08-17 | |
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 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-107-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 2.27 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。