請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/86641完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 林國明(Kuo-Ming Lin) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Meng-Tsung Lu | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 盧孟宗 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2023-03-20T00:08:23Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2022-08-12 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2022 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2022-08-05 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 內政部，2005，《性別影響評估操作手冊》。台北：（未出版） 王孟甯，2000，〈婦女運動與政府體制的節合？台北市婦女權益促進委員會的分析〉。頁539-579，收入蕭新煌、林國明編，《台灣的社會福利運動》。台北：巨流。 古允文、許雅惠，2001，《設立婦女權益及福利專責機關可行性研究》。內政部委託研究計畫報告。台北：內政部。 申蕙秀，2003，〈性別平等與性別主流化〉。《性別主流化：2003年國際婦女論壇會議實錄》。台北：財團法人婦女權益促進發展基金會。 成令方，1996，〈改造國家機器比國家認同更急切！〉。《騷動》2：84-90。 江啟臣，2006，《APEC架構下以貿易自由化促進婦女經濟地位之研究》。經濟部國貿局委託研究計畫報告。 行政院性別平等處，2013，《101年性別平等年報》。台北：行政院性別平等處。 行政院性別平等處，2014，《102年性別平等年報》。台北：行政院性別平等處。 行政院性別平等處，2015，《103年性別平等年報》。台北：行政院性別平等處。 行政院研究發展考核委員會，2009a，《性別影響評估操作指南》。台北：行政院研究發展考核委員會。 行政院研究發展考核委員會，2009b，《行政院性別平等專責機制分區公聽會實錄》。台北：行政院研究發展考核委員會。 行政院婦女權益促進委員會，2011，《性別平等政策綱領》。台北：內政部。 何春蕤，1996，〈女人賭爛票的政治〉。《騷動》1：81-88。 李元貞，1996，〈婦女、民主、國家的認同經驗〉。《騷動》1：63-68。 李元貞，2003，〈女學會十年，婦運萬水千山〉。《歷史月刊》188：80-83。 李元貞，2014，眾女成城：台灣婦運回憶錄（下）。台北：女書。 李文英，2011，《從民主治理探討台北市女性權益促進委員會之變遷（1996-2010年）》。台北：國立臺灣大學政治學研究所碩士論文。 李秉叡，2009，《全球論述中的性別平等─以性別主流化為例》。台北：世新大學性別研究所碩士論文。 杜文苓、彭渰雯，2008，〈社運團體的體制內參與及影響─以環評會與婦權會為例〉。《臺灣民主季刊》5（1）：119-48。 林依依，2008，《行政院「性別主流化」種籽師資培訓班之政策行銷分析》。花蓮：國立東華大學公共行政研究所碩士論文。 林芳玫，2008，〈政府與婦女團體的關係及其轉變〉。《國家與社會》5：159-203。 林國明、蕭新煌，2000，〈台灣的社會福利運動導論：理論與實踐〉。頁1-32，收入蕭新煌、林國明編，《台灣的社會福利運動》。台北：巨流。 林雅珍，2011，《性別主流化下基層公務人員性別意識認知之研究─以台北市戶政事務所為例》。台北：國立台北大學公共行政暨政策學系碩士論文。 林嘉誠，2005，〈基準法制定與政府改造〉。《考銓季刊》41：1-12。 林虢鋐，2015，《縣市政府性別平等之研究─以花蓮縣政府為例》。花蓮：國立東華大學公共行政學系碩士論文。 邱貴芬，1996a，〈在台灣，婦解運動和國族主義能不能「牽手」？〉。《騷動》1：58-62。 邱貴芬，1996b，〈沒有「要不要國家」的問題，只有「我們要什麼樣國家」的問題〉。《騷動》2：76-83。 紀 欣，2000，女人與政治：九○年代婦女參政運動。台北：女書。 胡淑雯，1996，〈從女人治國到性別解放：以國家女性主義顛覆家庭父權（劉毓秀專訪）〉。《騷動》2：20 -26。 范 雲，2003，〈政治轉型過程中的婦女運動：以運動者及其生命傳記背景為核心的分析取向〉。《台灣社會學》5：133-194。 范 雲，2014，〈靜默中耕耘細節的婦運革命〉。頁133-154，收入吳介民、范雲、顧爾德等編，《秩序繽紛的年代1990-2010：走向下一輪民主盛世》。台北：左岸。 張懿云、盧孳豔，2002，〈「打開」婦權基金會的運作黑箱〉。《婦女新知通訊》237：9-10。 盛盈仙、盧國益，2013，〈跨國倡議網絡下的女權運動─以性別主流化政策為例〉。《長庚人文社會學報》6（1）：69-98。 許雅惠，2011，〈未完成的革命：臺灣婦女權益與福利之發展〉。《社區發展季刊》133：363-383。 郭玲惠，1998，〈行政院婦女權益委員會介紹〉。發表於「第三屆婦女國是會議『女人與公共參與』研討會」，台北：台北市市政資料館，1998年3月13日。 陳佩瑩，2014，《行政機關推動性別平等策略之研究─以行政院研究發展考核委員會為例》。台北：國立政治大學行政管理碩士學程碩士論文。 陳俞安，2016，《行政院性別平等政策機制運作之研究》。台北：國立政治大學公共行政學系碩士論文。 陳瑤華，2003，〈性別主流化與性別平等建制〉。《性別主流化：2003年國際婦女論壇會議實錄》。台北：財團法人婦女權益促進發展基金會。 傅立葉，1999，《行政院與北、高兩市「婦女權益促進委員會」的比較分析》。台北：國立政治大學社會學系。 彭渰雯，2008，〈當官僚遇上婦運：台灣推動性別主流化的經驗初探〉。《東吳政治學報》26（4）：1-59。 彭渰雯，2015，《性別主流化政策執行成效探討》。行政院性別平等處委託研究計畫報告。台北：行政院。 黃心玫，2015，《性別主流化政策執行之研究─以經濟部為例》。新北：國立臺北大學公共行政暨政策學系研究所碩士論文。 黃長玲，2008，〈民主深化與婦運歷程〉。頁 263-279，收入王宏仁、李廣均及龔宜君編，《跨戒：流動與堅持的台灣社會》。台北：群學。 黃長玲，2016，〈彼此協力或相互抵銷？國家女性主義的動能與挫折〉。於楊巧玲、張盈堃等編者《發聲與行動：大學教師的學術勞動與性別運動》，頁 201-211。台北：女書。 黃長玲，2017，〈性別主流化的在地實踐〉。頁 43-66，收入黃淑玲編，《性別主流化：臺灣經驗與國際比較》。台北：五南。 黃淑玲，2008，〈性別主流化─台灣經驗與國際的對話〉。《研考雙月刊》32（4）： 3-12。 黃淑玲，2014，〈全球典範？瑞典性別主流化實施模式〉。《公共治理季刊》2（2）： 69-82。 黃淑玲，2017，〈導論：臺灣與全球的性別主流化之路〉。頁 1-10，收入黃淑玲編，《性別主流化：臺灣經驗與國際比較》。台北：五南。 黃淑玲、伍維婷，2016，〈當婦運衝撞國家〉。《台灣社會學》32：1-55。 黃朝盟，2011，《行政院組織改造回顧研究》。台北：行政院研究發展考核委員會。 黃鈴翔，2014，《APEC婦女議題發展沿革》。台北：財團法人婦女權益促進發展基金會。 楊婉瑩，2004，〈婦權會到性別平等委員會的轉變：一個國家女性主義的比較觀點分析〉。《政治科學論叢》21：117-148。 楊婉瑩，2014，〈鑿壁取光或是拆除高牆〉。頁 117-170，收入陳瑤華編，《台灣婦女處境白皮書：2014年》。台北：女書。 楊麗瓊，2016，《臺北市政府性別主流化政策執行之研究─以政策網絡觀點》。台北：國立政治大學公共行政學系碩士論文。 盧孟宗，2017，〈性別預算：概念與實踐策略建議〉。頁137-168，收入黃淑玲編，《性別主流化：臺灣經驗與國際比較》。台北：五南。 謝小芩，2003，〈女學進行式：性別主流化〉。《歷史月刊》188：119-123。 魏美娟，2010a，《我國推動性別主流化發展之研究：從參與式民主觀點探討》。台北：國立政治大學國家發展研究所博士論文。 魏美娟，2010b，〈性別已經主流化嗎？從參與式民主觀點初探我國性別主流化的發展〉。《建國科大學報》29（4）：17-36。 蘇偉業、楊和縉，2015，〈從行政院研究發展考核委員會檢視我國績效體系的形成與發展〉。《文官制度》7(4): 1-38. 顧燕翎，1996，〈母土與父國〉。《騷動》1：89-94。 顧燕翎，2020，《台灣婦女運動：爭取性別平等的漫漫長路》。台北：貓頭鷹。 Abbott, Andrew. 2001. Time Matters: On Theory and Method. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bächtiger, Andre, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark Warren, 2018, “Deliberative Democracy an Introduction” Pp. 1-30 in The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy, edited by Andre Bächtiger, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark Warren. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Beckert, Jens. 1999. 'Agency, Entrepreneurs, and Institutional Change. The Role of Strategic Choice and Institutionalized Practices in Organizations.' Organization Studies 20(5): 777-799. Berkovitch, Nitza. 1999. 'Introduction: Women's Rights and Global Discourse.' Pp.1-17 in From Motherhood to Citizenship: Women’s Rights and International Organizations.Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press. Beveridge, Fiona and Sue Nott. 2002. 'Mainstreaming: A Case for Optimism and Cynicism.' Feminist Lega Studies 10(3): 299-311. Blackler, Frank, and Suzanne Regan. 2009. “Intentionality, Agency, Change: Practice Theory and Management.” Management Learning 40(2): 161–176. Brown, Wendy. 1992. 'Finding the Man in the State.' Feminist Studies 18 (1): 7-34. Callerstig, Anne-Charlott. 2014. 'Gender Mainstreaming: History, Prior Research and the Case of Sweden.' Pp.31-50 in Making Equality Work: Ambiguities, Conflicts and Change Agents in the Implementation of Equality policies in Public Sector organisation, edited by Anne-Charlott Callerstig. Linköping: Linköpings universitet. Capoccia, Giovanni. 2015. 'Critical Junctures and Institutional Change.' Pp. 147-179 in Advances in Comparative-Historical Analysis, edited by James Mahoney and Kathleen Thelen. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Cavaghan, Rosalind. 2017. 'Bridging Rhetoric and Practice: New Perspectives on Barriers to Gendered change.' Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 38(1): 42-63. Clemens, Elisabeth S. 1993. 'Organizational Repertoires and Institutional Change: Women's Groups and the Transformation of US politics, 1890-1920.' American Journal of Sociology 98(4): 755-798. Clemens, Elisabeth S., and James M. Cook. 1999. 'Politics and Institutionalism: Explaining Durability and Change.' Annual Review of Sociology 25(1): 441-466. Connell, Raewyn. 1987. Gender and Power : Society, the Person and Sexual politics. Cambridge: Polity Press. Connell, Raewyn. 2001. 'Gender and the State.' Pp. 117-126 in The Blackwell Companion to Political Sociology, edited by Kate Nash and Alan Scott. Malden: Blackwell Publishers Inc. Council of Europe. 1998. Gender Mainstreaming: Conceptual Framework, Methodology, and Presentation of Good Practices, https://www.unhcr.org/3c160b06a.pdf （Date visited: June 9, 2022） Dahl, Robert. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press. Dahlerup, Drude. 1987. 'Confusing Concepts - Confusing Reality: A Theoretical Discussion of the Patriarchal State.' Pp. 93-127 in Women and the State: The Shifting Boundaries of Public and Private, edited by Anne Showstack Sassoon. London: Unwin Hyman. Daly, Mary. 2005. 'Gender Mainstreaming in Theory and Practice.' Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society 12(3): 433-50. Dean, Jonathan. 2010. Rethinking Contemporary Feminist Politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Deephouse, David. L., Jonathan Bundy, Leigh Plunkett Tost and Mark C. Suchman. 2017. “Organizational Legitimacy: Six Key Questions.” Pp.27-54 In The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, edited by Royston Greenwood, Christine Oliver, Thomas B. Lawrence and Renate E. Meyer. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Diamond, Irene and Nancy Hartsock. 1981. 'Beyond Interests in Politics: A Comment on Virginia Sapiros's 'When Are Interests Interesting? The Problem of Political Representation of Women.' The American Political Science Review 75(3): 717-721. DiMaggio, Paul J. 1988. “Interest and Agency in Institutional Theory.” Pp.3-21 in Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment, edited by Lynne G. Zucker. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Dryzek, John S. and Simon Niemeyer, 2008, “Discursive Representation.” American Political Science Review 102(4): 481-493. Eisenstein, Hester. 1996. Inside Agitators: Australian Femocrats and the State. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Eveline, Joan and Carol Bacchi. 2005. 'What Are We Mainstreaming When We Mainstreaming Gender?' International Feminist Journal of Politics 7(4): 496-512. Franzway, Suzanne and Raewyn Connell. 1989. Staking a Claim: Feminism, Bureaucracy and the State. Cambridge: Polity Press. Friedland, Roger, and Robert R. Alford. 1991. 'Bringing Society Back In: Symbols, Practices, and Institutional Contradictions.” Pp.232-263 in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, edited by Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio. Chicago : University of Chicago Press Gabriel, Yiannis. 2002. “Essai: On Paradigmatic Uses of Organizational Theory—A Provocation.” Organization Studies 23(1): 133-151. Goetz, Anne Marie. 2003. 'National Women's Machineries: Structures and Spaces.' Pp. 69-95 in Mainstreaming Gender, Democratizing the State: Institutional Mechanisms for the Advancement of Women, edited by Shirin M. Rai. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Gordon, Linda. 1990. 'The New Feminist Scholarship on the Welfare State.' Pp. 9-35 in Women, the State, and Welfare, edited by Linda Gordon. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Greenwood, Royston, and Roy Suddaby. 2006. 'Institutional Entrepreneurship in Mature Fields: The Big Five Accounting Firms.' Academy of Management journal 49(1) : 27-48. Greenwood, Royston, Roy Suddaby, and Christopher R. Hinings. 2002. 'Theorizing Change: The Role of Professional Associations in the Transformation of Institutionalized Fields.' Academy of Management Journal 45(1): 58-80. Hafner-Burton, Emilie and Mark A. Pollack. 2002. 'Gender Mainstreaming and Global Governance.' Feminist Legal Studies 10 (3): 285-298. Hall, Peter A. and Rosemary CR Taylor. 1996. 'Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms.' Political Studies 44(5): 936-957. Hampel, Christian E., Thomas B. Lawrence, and Paul Tracey. 2017. 'Institutional Work: Taking Stock and Making It Matter.' Pp.558-590 in The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, Edited by Royston Greenwood, Christine Oliver, Thomas B. Lawrence and Renate E. Meyer. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Haraway, Donna. 1988. 'Situated knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.' Feminist Studies 14(3): 575-599. Harding, Sandra. 1986. The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Hardy, Cynthia, and Steve Maguire. 2017. 'Institutional entrepreneurship and change in fields.' Pp.261-280 in The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, edited by Royston Greenwood, Christine Oliver, Thomas B. Lawrence and Renate E. Meyer. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Hartmann, Heidi I. 1981. 'The Unhappy Marriage between Marxism and Feminism: Toward a More Progressive Union.' Pp. 1-41 in Women and Revolution, edited by Lydia Sargent. Boston: South Press. Hay, Colin and Michael Lister. 2006. 'Introduction: Theories of the State.' Pp. 1-20 in The State: Theories and Issues, edited by Colin Hay, Michael Lister and David Marsh. New York: PALGRAVE MACMILLAN. Hernes, Helga Maria. 1987. Welfare State and Woman Power: Essays in State Feminism. Oslo: Norwegian University Press. Hoard, Season. 2015. Gender Expertise in Public Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Huang, Chang-Ling. 2017. 'Uneasy Alliance: State Feminism and Conservative Government in Taiwan.' Pp. 258-272 in Taiwan's Social Movements under Ma Ying-jeou: From the Wild Strawberries to the Sunflowers, edited by Dafydd Fell. Oxon: Routledge. Jepperson, Ronald. 1991. 'Institutions, Institutional Effects, and Institutionalism.' Pp. 143-163 in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, edited by Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kantola, Johanna. 2006a. 'Feminism.' Pp.118-134 in The State: Theories and Issues, edited by Colin Hay, Michael Lister and David Marsh. New York: PALGRAVE MACMILLAN. Kantola, Johanna. 2006b. Feminist Theorize the State. Houndmills: PALAGRAVE MACMILLAN. Karpowitz, Christopher F. and Chad Raphael, 2014, Deliberation, Democracy, and Civic Forums: Improving Equality and Publicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kobayashi, Yoshie. 2004. A Path Toward Gender Equality: State Feminism in Japan. New York: Routledge. Krook, Mona Lena and Fiona Mackay. 2011. 'Introduction: Gender, Politics, and Institutions.' Pp.1-20 in Gender, Politics and Institutions: Toward a Feminist Intitutionalism, edited by Mona Lena Krook and Fiona Mackay. Houndmills: PALGRAVE MACMILLAN. Lawrence, Thomas B. and Sean Buchanan. 2017. “Power, Institutions and Organizations.” Pp.477-506 in The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, edited by Royston Greenwood, Christine Oliver, Thomas B. Lawrence and Renate E. Meyer. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Lawrence, Thomas B., and Roy Suddaby. 2006. '1.6 Institutions and Institutional Work.' Pp. 215-254 in The Sage Handbook of Organization Studies, edited by Stewart R. Clegg ... [et al.]. London : SAGE. Lawrence, Thomas B., Roy Suddaby, and Bernard Leca eds. 2009. Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lovenduski, Joni. 2005. State Feminism and Political Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MacKinnon, Catharine A. 1983. 'Feminism, Marxism, Method and the State: Toward a Feminist Jurisprudence.' Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society (8): 635-658. MacKinnon, Catharine A. 1989. Toward a feminist theory of the state. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Mahoney, James and Kathleen Thelen. 2010. 'A Theory of Gradual Institutionl Change.' Pp.1-37 in Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power, edited by James Mahoney and Kathleen Thelen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mahoney, James. 2000. 'Path Dependence in Historical Sociology.' Theory and Society (29): 507-48. Marti, Ignasi, and Johanna Mair. 2009. 'Bringing Change Into the Lives of the Poor: Entrepreneurship Outside Traditional Boundaries.' Pp.92-119 in Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations, edited by Thomas B. Lawrence, Roy Suddaby, and Bernard Leca. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mazey, Sonia. 2002. 'Gender Mainstreaming Strategies in the EU: Delivering on An Agenda?' Feminist Legal Studies (10): 227-240. Mazur, Amy G. and Dorothy E. McBride. 2008. 'State feminism.' Pp.244-269 in Politics, Gender and Concepts: Theory and Methodology, edited by Gary Goertz and Amy G. Mazu. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McAdam, Doug and W. Richard Scott. 2005. 'Organizations and Movements.' Pp.1-40 in Social Movement and Organization Theory, edited by Gerlad F. Davis, Doug McAdam, W. Richard Scott and Mayer N. Zald. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McBride, Dorothy E. and Amy G. Mazur. 2010. The Politics of State Feminism: Innovation in Comparative Research. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. McBride, Dorothy E. and Amy G. Mazur. 2013. 'Women's Policy Agencies and State Feminism.' Pp. 654-678 in The Oxford Handbook of Gender and Politics, edited by Georgina Waylen, Karen Celis, Johanna Kantola and S. Laurel Weldon. New York: Oxford University Press. McGauran, Anne-Marie. 2009. 'Gender Mainstreaming and the Public Plicy Implementation Process: Round Pegs in Square Holes?' Policy & Politics 37(2): 215-233. Meyer, John. W., John Boli, George M. Thomas, and Francisco O. Ramirez. 1997. “World Society and the Nation-state.” American Journal of Sociology 103(1): 144-181. Migdal, Joel S. 2001. State in Society: Studying How States and Societies Transform and Constitute One Another. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Montoya, Celesta. 2015. 'Institutions.' Pp. 367-384 in The Oxford Handbook of Feminist Theory, edited by Lisa Disch and Mary Hawkesworth. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Okin, Susan Moller. 1995. 'Gender, the Public, and the Private.' Pp. 116-141 in Feminism and Politics, edited by Anne Phillips. New York: Oxford University Press. OSAGI. 2001. “Gender Mainstreaming: Strategy For Promoting Gender Equality”, https://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/pdf/factsheet1.pdf（Date visited: June 9, 2022） Outshoorn, Joyce and Johanna Kantola. 2007. 'Assesing Changes in State Feminism Over the Last Decade.' Pp. 268-285 in Changing State Feminism, edited by Joyce Outshoorn and Johanna Kantola. Houndmills: PALAGRAVE MACMILLAN. Outshoorn, Joyce. 2004. The Politics of Prostitution: Women's Movements, Democratic States, and the Globalisation of Sex Commerce. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pfeffer, Jeffrey and Gerald R. Salancik. 2003/1978. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Phillips, Anne. 1991. Engendering Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press. Phillips, Anne. 1995. The Politics of Presence. New York: Oxford University Press. Pierson, Paul. 2000. 'Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics.' American Political Science Review (94): 251-268. Pierson, Paul. 2011. Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Piven, Frances Fox. 1990. 'Ideology and the State: Women, Power, and the Welfare State.' Pp. 250-264 in Women, the State, and Welfare, edited by Linda Gordon. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Powell, Walter. 1991. 'Expanding the Scope of Institutional Analysis.' Pp. 183-203 in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, eduted by Walter Powell and Paul DiMaggio. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pringle, Rosemary and Sophie Watson. 1992. ''Women's Interests' and the Poststructuralist State.' Pp. 57-73 in Destablizing Theory: Contemporary Feminist Debates, edited by Michele Barrett and Anne Phillips. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Rai, Shirin M. 2003. 'Institutional Mechanisms for the Advancement of Women: Mainstreaming Gender, Democratizing the State?' Pp. 15-39 in Mainstreaming Gender, Democratizing the State: Institutional Mechanisims for the Advancement of Women, edited by Shirin M. Rai. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Rees, Teresa. 2005. 'Reflections on the Uneven Development of Gender Mainstreaming in Europe.' International Feminist Journal of Politics 7(4): 555-574. Sapiro, Virginia. 1981. 'When Are Interests Interesting? The Problem of Political Representation of Women.' The Amerecan Political Science Review 75(3): 701-716. Sapiro, Virginia. 1991. 'Gender Politics, Gendered Politics: the State of the Field.' Pp.165-187 in Political Science: looking to the Future, edited by William Crotty. Illinois: Northwestern University Press. Schimidt, Vivien A. 2010a. 'Taking Ideas and Dicourse Seriously: Explaining Change Through Discursive Institutionalism as the Fourth New Institutionalsim.' European Political Science Review 2(1): 1-25. Schimidt, Vivien A. 2010b. 'Analyzing Ideas and Tracing Discursive Interactions In Institutional Change: From Historical Institutionalism to Discursive Institutionalism.' Annual Meetings of American Political Science Association. Washington D.C. Schmidt, Vivien A. 2008. 'Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse.' Annual Review of Political Science 11: 303-326. Schneiberg, Marc, and Michael Lounsbury. 2017. 'Social Movements and the Dynamics of Institutions and Organizations.' Pp.281-310 in The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, edited by Royston Greenwood, Christine Oliver, Thomas B. Lawrence and Renate E. Meyer. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Scott, W. Richard and Gerald F. Davis. 2007. Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural and Open Systems Perspectives. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education. Scott, W. Richard. 2014. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests and Identities. London: Sage. Selznick, Philip. 1957. Leadership in Administration. New York: Harper & Row. Simon, Herbert Alexander. 1945/1997. Administratve Behavior: A Study of Decision Making Processes in Administrative Organization. New York: Free Press. Skocpol, Theda. 1985. 'Bringing the State Back In: Strategies of Analysis in Current Research.' Pp.3-37 in Bringing the State Back In, edited by Peter B. Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer and Theda Skocpol. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smets, Michael, Angela Aristidou, and Richard Whittington. 2017. 'Towards a Practice-Driven Institutionalism.' Pp 365-391 in The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, edited by Royston Greenwood, Christine Oliver, Thomas B. Lawrence and Renate E. Meyer. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Snow, David A. 2004. 'Framing Processes, Ideology, and Discursive Fields.' Pp. 380-412 in The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, edited by David A. Snow, Sarah A. Soule, and Hanspeter Kriesi. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. Squires, Judith. 2007. The New Politics of Gender Equality. New York: PALGRAVE MACMILLAN. Stetson, Dorothy McBride and Amy G. Mazur. 1995. 'Introduction.' Pp.1-21 in Comparative State Feminism, edited by Dorothy McBride Stetson and Amy G. Mazur. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Stetson, Dorothy McBride. 2001. Abortion Politics, Women's Movements, and the Democratic State : A Comparative Study of State Feminism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Suchman, Mark C. “Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches.” Academy of Management Review 20(3): 571-610. Tarrow, Sidney G. 2011. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. New York: Cornell University. Thelen, Kathleen. 1999. 'Historical Institutionalism and Comparatiive Politics.' Annul Review of Political Science 2: 369-404. Thelen, Kathleen. 2003. 'How Institutions Evolve: Insights from Comparative Historical Analysis.' Pp.208-240 in Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, edited by James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thornton, Patricia H., and William Ocasio. 1999. 'Institutional Logics and the Historical Contingency of Power in Organizations: Executive Succession in the Higher Education Publishing Industry, 1958–1990.' American Journal of Sociology 105(3): 801-843. Tost, Leigh Plunkett. 2011. 'An Integrative Model of Legitimacy Judgments.' Academy of Management Review 36(4): 686-710. Trank, Christine Quinn, and Marvin Washington. 2009. 'Maintaining an Institution in a Contested Organizational Feld: the Work of the AACSB and Its Constituents.” Pp. 236-261 in Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations, edited by, Thomas B. Lawrence, Roy Suddaby, and Bernard Leca. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. True, Jacqui and Michael Mintrom .2001. 'Transnational Networks and Policy Diffusion.' International Studies Quarterly 45: 27-57. Valiente, Celia. 2007. 'Developing Countries and New Democracies Matter: An Overview of Research on State Feminism Worldwide.' Politics & Gender 3(4): pp. 530-541. Verloo, Mieke. 2005. 'Displacement and Empowerment: Reflections on the Concept and Practive of the Council of Europe Approach to Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equallity.' Social Politics 12(3): 344-365. Vingell, Giovanna. 2014. 'Gender Mainstreaming as Institutional Innovation? Gender Budgeting, Velvet Triangles, and (Good) Practices.' Clepsydra: Revista de Estudios de Género y Teoría Feminista 13: 9-22. Walby, Sylvia. 2005. 'Introduction: Comparative gendermainstreaming in a Global Era.' International Feminist Journal of Politics 7(4): 453-470. Walby, Sylvia. 2011. The Future of Feminism. Malden: Polity Press. Waylen, Georgina. 1998. 'Gender, Feminism and the State: An Overview.' Pp.1-17 in Gender, Politics and the State, edited by Vicky Randall and Georgina Waylen. London: Routledge. Waylen, Georgina. 2014. 'Informal Institutions, Institutional Change, and Gender Equality.' Political Research Quarterly 67 (1): 212-223. Weldon, S. Laurel. 2002. “Beyond Bodies: Institutional Sources of Representation for Women in Democratic Policymaking.” The Journal of Politics 64(4): 1153–1174. Woodward, Alison. 'Building Velvet Triangles: Gender and Informal Govern-ance.' Pp.76-93 in Informal Governance and the European Union, edited by Thomas Christiansen and Simona Piattoni. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Young, Iris Marion. 1994. 'Gender as Seriality: Thinking about Women as a Social Collective.' Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 19(3): 713-738. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/86641 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 本研究以新制度論和組織理論的觀點為取徑，分析行政院性別平等機制自1997年至2020年的發展歷程，解釋性別平等機制如何由規模較小且鬆散的婦女權益促進委員會臨時編制，至2012年變革為行政院性別平等會和性別平等處後運作迄今，演變為具有諮詢、倡議和督導重大性別平等政策議題且有影響力的組織。延伸自以往國際間既有國家女性主義比較研究的相關概念，說明國家如何可能被重構為促進和實踐性別平等政策的重要體制與場域，而逐漸具有國家女性主義（state feminism）的特徵，進一步開展和深化對於婦女政策機構如何成形與演變的研究和理解。 經由訪談歷屆行政院婦權會和性平會民間委員、行政部門文官、民間團體工作者和性別專家等不同部門的行動者，分析其實作與敘事，以及相互參照次級資料後，本文發現，初創時期婦權會由於沒有具體目標與功能，亦無實體的組織和正式成員，因此經常處於正當性爭議狀態，但亦在此爭議中逐漸產生其正當性應建立於行政體系和民間社會共同認可的基礎。然而在2000年首次政黨輪替而政治機會結構改變時，部分民間婦女團體代表進入婦權會，運用其過去與執政者在台北市的網絡與經驗，在體制內尋求擴大參與機制的面向，自2002年起陸續提升婦權會召集人層級、建立三層級會議體制並增加民間團體代表。並在與各個行政部門的會議互動與實作中，以制度企業家的精神將原本定位不明的民間委員職務，逐步制度化為具體的專業定位與認同。 於此同時，體制外民間婦女團體共同提出要求設置獨立機關的性別平等機制以實踐性別主流化這項國際規範，雖然無法在當時的政治結構中完成組織改造，不過性別主流化卻得到行政體系的承諾，並訂定自2006年起的實施計畫。此後婦權會民間委員以倡議、定義、授權、理論和教育等制度工作，開創性別主流化在行政體系內的制度化進程。這些實作不只鞏固婦權會的正當性地位，使其與政府體制更為嵌合，也使民間委員因此再專業化並在集體行動中強化身分認同。而經由與行政文官的協商共作，性別主流化也由規範性概念具體化為操作性工具。其制度化更影響性別平等機制的組織變革，使2009年後的行政組織改造強化原有體制的制度選擇，而非早先期待的獨立機關委員會，並在2012年將婦女權益促進委員會更名為性別平等會，新增行政院性別平等處為專責機關和幕僚單位。 在組織變革和制度鞏固後，組織特質的因素與性別業務的實作交互作用，使得性別平等機制的制度運作在不同場域和面向有多樣的發展情況。就組織而言，性別平等會由於政治首長的態度，政黨光譜間接作用，加上不同屆次的民間委員在性別價值的主張、受聘身份認知、區域經驗和對職位認同等分殊性擴大，使性平會本身的體制效果充滿機遇性特質。相對的，性別平等處的常設組織特徵，在行政體系中則擔任更多日常機制運作工作重要，也使性別平等機制趨於雙元模式。 就制度化面向而言，性別業務和行政組織的制度邏輯經由行動者實作而形成了性別─行政秩序，在此狀況下，雙元的性平機制在經由性別平等處強化性別業務的管控和賦能等組織制度工作，也進一步經由行政規則的獎勵向地方政府擴散。卻也讓性別主流化的操作更傾向工具化和技術官僚模式，而使得性別平等會委員反思並重新定位性別主流化與性別平等政策議題。這些歷程也顯示，當處於制度複雜性的環境中，組織將會持續回應來自不同面向的壓力而生成各種混合策略與制度秩序，而組織與政策之間也始終存在著彼此相嵌和互相構作的關係。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Based on the perspectives of new institutionalism and organization theory, this study analyzes the development process of the gender equality mechanism of the Executive Yuan from 1997 to 2020. It explains how this mechanism transformed from the Committee of Women's Rights Promotion (CWRP), a small, loose and provisional unit, into the Gender Equality Council (GEC) and the Department of Gender Equality (DGE), which can influence equality policies through consulting, advocating and supervising the administrative. Extending related concepts from previous international comparative studies of state feminism, it explains how the state may be reconstructed as a critical system and field for promoting and practicing gender equality policies and gradually have the characteristics of state feminism and develops further research to understand how women's policy agency have formed and evolved. After interviewing actors from different sectors, including the civil members of CWRP and GEC, civil servants in the executive branch, non-government organization workers, and gender experts, analyzing their narratives, as well as cross-referencing secondary data, this research finds that. In the early days, CWRP had neither specific goals and functions nor physical organization and formal members; it was often in a state of debated legitimacy. However, it also gradually emerged from this controversy that its legitimacy should be based on the mutual recognition of the administrative system and civil society. Even so, when the political opportunity structure changed because of the first party rotation in 2000, representatives of some civil women's groups joined the CWRP, using their network and experience with those in power in Taipei City to seek to expand the participation mechanism within the system. Since 2002, the level of convener of the CWRP has gradually increased, a three-level conference system has been established, and representatives of civil society have also been increased. Through the interaction and implementation of meetings with various administrative departments, the CWRP's civil members with institutional entrepreneurship gradually institutionalized specific professional positioning and identification of this committee. Meanwhile, non-governmental women's groups jointly requested the establishment of an independent gender equality mechanism to implement the international norm of gender mainstreaming. Although it was impossible to realize that advocate under the political structure at that time, gender mainstreaming was supported by the administrative system and then set the implementation plan in 2005. This plan assigned the advisory status to civil members of CWRP, and they adopted various forms of institutional work such as advocacy, defining, vesting, theorizing, and educating to create the institutionalization of gender mainstreaming. These practices not only consolidate the legitimacy of CWRP and integrate it with the government more closely, but also re-professionalize these civil members and strengthen their identity in collective action. Gender mainstreaming has also been transformed from a normative concept into an operational tool through consultation and collaboration with administrative and civil servants. Most important, the institutionalization affected the organizational reform of the gender equality mechanism, making the reformation of CWRP after 2009 to choose the proposal that maintained the original system and strengthened it by DGE, rather than the earlier expected independent committee. Thus, in 2012, CWRP was renamed GEC, and DGE was added as a special agency and staff unit. After the reformation, the characteristics of two components of the gender equality mechanism and the practices of gender tasks made the institutional operation diversely in different fields and dimensions. As far as organizations are concerned, the effects of GEC are contingently influenced by the attitude of political will, the indirect effect of the party spectrum, the differences in gender values, members' position recognition, regional experience, and identification of civil members. In contrast, the permanent characteristics of DGE play a more crucial role in maintaining the day-to-day practices in the administrative system, which also lead the gender equality mechanism to be a dual model. As far as institutionalization is concerned, the institutional logics of gender tasks and administrative organization are practiced forming a gender-administrative order. Under this situation, DGE has made efforts to diffuse the gender equality mechanism to local government by strengthening the controlling and rewarding rules and also has maintained the mechanism through some other forms of institutional work such as policing and enabling work. These efforts result in gender mainstreaming being more expert-bureaucratic mode and make GEC members reflect and reposition the policy issues of gender mainstreaming and gender equality. These processes also indicate that in an environment of institutional complexity, organizations will continue to respond to pressures from different aspects, and there is always an embedded and mutually constructive relationship between organizations and policies. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2023-03-20T00:08:23Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-0508202209160600.pdf: 22204762 bytes, checksum: a3974e892bec85644e6f5a3da5a34161 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2022 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 導論 1 第一節 前言：台灣國家的性別化與其研究意義 1 第二節 經驗現象與問題意識：台灣國家女性主義的特徵 3 第三節 文獻回顧：台灣既有成果與國家女性主義的理論架構 16 第四節 替代取徑：歷史制度論與組織制度論的動態框架 27 第五節 研究設計與方法 40 第二章 機制開展與正當性爭議 46 第一節 象徵的定位與模糊的體制 47 第二節 不足的組織和爭議的機制 54 第三節 正當性的內在矛盾 61 第四節 小結：體制的設立與雙重的正當性基礎 71 第三章 制度工作的開創：制度企業家的浮現與專業認同的建構 75 第一節 政治機會結構的轉變與重啟 77 第二節 制度的補綴和強化 83 第三節 「地基」或「遺跡」：婦女政策機構的變革目標與爭議 90 第四節 創造與衝撞的制度工作：民間委員的實作與身份認同建構 100 第五節 小結：從邊緣向主流推移 108 第四章 鑲嵌的能動性：性別主流化的制度化創建 113 第一節 理念引入和倡議策略 115 第二節 概念理論化─從無到有的性別主流化 125 第三節 觀念制度化─認知框架的改變和教育 134 第四節 規則的創造─以性別影響評估制度為例 147 第五節 小結：主流化的建制實作和婦權會的行政嵌合 163 第五章 機制的制度鞏固與組織變革 170 第一節 再起的性別平等專責機制制度之議 172 第二節 制度選擇和機制鞏固─性別平等處的成立 183 第三節 體制的不變與轉變─婦權會到性平會的內在變異 192 第四節 制度變遷下的組織行動邏輯 208 第五節 小結─制度轉變和雙元模式的機制樣貌 229 第六章 制度的複雜性─矛盾、維持與擴散 232 第一節 性別業務與行政組織的制度邏輯 234 第二節 性別主流化的制度矛盾與維持 257 第三節 機制的制度擴散與體制反思 289 第四節 小結 320 第七章 結論 323 第一節 研究發現與章節回顧 323 第二節 反思與建議 331 第三節 研究限制與後續展望 338 《參考書目》 342 附錄一 歷屆行政院婦女權益促進委員會、性別平等會民間委員 355 附錄二 歷次【性別影響評估檢視表】主要項目彙編 357 附錄三 訪談說明與告知同意書 362 附錄四 訪談大綱 363 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 歷史制度論 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 國家女性主義 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 歷史制度論 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 性別主流化 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 國家女性主義 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 制度工作 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 組織制度論 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 制度工作 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 組織制度論 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 性別主流化 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | Historical Institutionalism | en |
| dc.subject | Institutional Work | en |
| dc.subject | Organizational Institutionalism | en |
| dc.subject | Historical Institutionalism | en |
| dc.subject | Gender Mainstreaming | en |
| dc.subject | State Feminism | en |
| dc.subject | State Feminism | en |
| dc.subject | Gender Mainstreaming | en |
| dc.subject | Organizational Institutionalism | en |
| dc.subject | Institutional Work | en |
| dc.title | 到國家女性主義之路─臺灣性別平等機制的新制度論與組織理論分析 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | A Path Toward State Feminism： Analyzing Taiwan’s Gender Equality Mechanism with the New Institutionalism and Organization Theory | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 110-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 博士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 黃長玲(Chang-Ling Huang),范雲(Yun Fan),黃淑玲(Shu-Ling Hwang),彭渰雯(Yen-Wen Peng) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 國家女性主義,性別主流化,歷史制度論,組織制度論,制度工作, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | State Feminism,Gender Mainstreaming,Historical Institutionalism,Organizational Institutionalism,Institutional Work, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 365 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202202078 | |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2022-08-05 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 社會學研究所 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.embargo-lift | 2022-08-12 | - |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 社會學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| U0001-0508202209160600.pdf | 21.68 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。