探討青年公民參與中的社會公平： 以教育部青年發展署Let’s Talk計畫為例

Abstract

青年參與公共事務的重要性已受國際肯認，許多國家已有納入青年至政策過程之具體實踐。過往探討青年公民參與時，往往將青年視為同質群體，少有肯認青年會因為來自不同生活背景，針對政策所能提出的建議或貢獻也有所差異，更少有觸及青年參與的實際情況、面臨困境及分析政策參與之效果。為探究擁有不同生活經驗之青年，進行參與時所碰到的不同問題與阻礙及政府與青年對參與Let’s Talk計畫的不同想法，本文以過去文獻為基礎，綜整本研究之社會公平（Social Equity）概念，進一步尋求與本研究架構之基礎框架—Rowe & Frewer（2000）公民參與原則之對話空間。為使討論更聚焦於青年，本研究亦結合Nesrallah et al.（2023）的利益衝突（COIs）框架與Havlicek et al.（2018）的四種青年參與型態至研究架構中，以描繪青年公民參與的社會公平樣貌。 研究結果發現影響Let’s Talk計畫參與代表性的因素有三，分別為此計劃對參與者身分要求的轉變、討論議題性質及主辦團隊所能觸及之利害關係人。在計畫開辦之初，對議題有興趣的青年原則上皆能參與，從民國112年開始，教育部青年發展署為促進青年參與代表性及多元性，在參與對象上則增列「參與者至少有50%與議題有密切關聯」之要求。第二，參與Let’s Talk之青年是否來自不同族群，本研究發現與討論議題之性質有密切相關。若討論主題與青年的生活背景及經驗有所吻合，像是青年本來就是與該議題相關的利害關係人，或是青年在日常生活中長期關注該議題，例如有參與特定組織或社團活動，皆會提升其參與討論的意願。第三，每一個主辦Talk的青年團隊，所關注的議題面向有所不同。團隊會依照自身欲進一步探討的議題面向與每年度的討論主題結合，所辦理的討論大部分都與主辦團隊長期鑽研的議題有關。平日關注特定議題的青年團隊，在辦理相關活動時往往能觸及到都會是特定的青年族群。另一方面，在參與過程中也常有少數青年主導議題討論方向或在討論過程中產生衝突，而形成其他與會青年的參與阻礙。 就原住民青年參與或辦理討論的情況而言，研究結果揭示原青所辦理之討論難以吸引非原青參與討論的現象，並不符合原青對審議活動的期待，原青反而希望藉由原青及非原青不同視角的交織，跳脫既有的思維邏輯，為討論議題提供具有創意的解決方案。本研究亦發現因居住地衍生的交通成本，也是在討論場域難見到原青身影或少有原青團體主辦場次的原因。有原青團體明確表示許多Talk主辦團隊必須參與的活動都辦在臺北，這對住在非北部的團隊成員而言是一大困擾。即便Talk在部落或偏鄉地區辦理，也因為留在家鄉的原住民青年數量極少，大部分已出外求學或工作，能捲動的青年實屬有限。在訪談過程中能發現原住民青年團隊在辦理討論時，認為原民事務應有許多相關部會能夠回應，實際上卻是其它部會反而較能理解也更願意回覆非原民團隊的問題與需求。相較之下，原民團隊認為其他部會似乎抱持者原民事務有原民會回應即已足夠之心態。 本研究亦揭示政府與青年對Let’s Talk執行過程之認知差異主要在於此計劃的參與門檻高低、青年是否能透過此計劃發揮對政府的監督能力，以及對該計劃的獎勵金核發標準存在不同看法。就參與門檻而言，在計劃參與前或參與時必須耗費許多時間及心力，受訪青年大致皆認同Let’s Talk之參與門檻高。政府認為參與門檻不能以所花費的時間及心力加以衡量，討論時間長是為了能夠產生一個完整、聚焦，甚至是能夠影響政策的結論，與其他公民審議活動相比，參與門檻並不高。第二，受訪青年大致認同青年會因彼此間的身分差異，對政府的監督能力有所不同。政府則認為擁有監督能力是一個漸進過程，像是透過持續不斷的參與後，才會逐漸衍生出對政府的監督能力。第三，青年與政府對獎勵金制度的不同看法，主要在於核發依循的標準、各團隊發放獎勵金數額不同未有說明等。 與先前的青年參與研究不同，本研究旨在探討青年群體的異質性，發現不同背景青年的參與共通性問題、特殊青年面臨之參與障礙及政府與青年就實際參與產生想法差異，期望未來青年參與者的生活背景上能有更詳盡的劃分。 關鍵字：公平、社會公平、公民參與、青年公民參與、Let’s Talk計畫

The importance of youth participation in public affairs has been internationally recognized, with many countries implementing specific practices to involve youth in policy processes. Previous discussions on youth participation often treated youth as a homogeneous group, overlooking the fact that youth from different backgrounds may offer diverse recommendations or contributions to policies. There has been minimal exploration of the actual circumstances of youth participation, the challenges they face, and an analysis of the effectiveness of policy engagement. This paper aims to investigate the different issues and obstacles encountered by youth with varying life experiences during participation, as well as the differing perspectives between governments and youth on the Let’s Talk program. Building on past literature, this paper integrates the concept of social equity and dialogic space from Rowe & Frewer’s (2000) principles of public participation into its framework. Additionally, it incorporates Nesrallah et al.’s (2023) conflict of interest (COIs) framework and Havlicek et al.’s (2018) four types of youth participation to depict the social equity aspects of youth civic engagement. The results have shown that three factors affect the representativeness of participation in the Let's Talk program: changes in participant identity requirements, the nature of the discussion topics, and the stakeholders the organizing team can reach. Initially, any youth interested in the topic could participate. However, starting in 2023, the Youth Development Administration of the Ministry of Education added a requirement that at least 50% of participants must have a close connection to the topic to promote representative and diverse youth participation. Second, whether the participating youth come from different groups is closely related to the nature of the discussion topics. If the discussion topic aligns with the youths' backgrounds and experiences, their willingness to participate increases. Third, each organizing youth team focuses on different aspects of the issues. They combine their areas of interest with the annual discussion themes, and most of the discussions they organize relate to topics they have been paying attention to for a long time. Youth groups that focus on specific issues can usually reach particular youth groups when organizing related activities. Conversely, during the participation process, a minority of youths often lead the discussion or cause conflicts, which can hinder the participation of other attendees. Regarding the participation or organization of discussions by indigenous youth, the study revealed that discussions organized by indigenous youth often fail to attract non-indigenous participants. This outcome does not align with the indigenous youth's expectations for deliberative activities, as they hope to provide creative solutions to discussion topics by integrating diverse perspectives from both indigenous and non-indigenous youth. The study also found that transportation costs, stemming from the locations where participants live, contribute to the low visibility of indigenous youth in discussion forums or the limited number of sessions organized by indigenous youth groups. Some indigenous youth groups explicitly mentioned that many activities that organizing teams are required to participate in are held in Taipei, which is a significant inconvenience for members living outside the northern region. Even when Talk sessions are held in tribal or rural areas, the number of indigenous youth remaining in their hometowns is minimal, as most have moved away for education or work, making it difficult to gather a substantial number of participants. Interviews revealed that indigenous youth teams feel that many relevant ministries should respond to indigenous affairs. However, in reality, other ministries tend to better understand and are more willing to address the issues and needs of non-indigenous teams. In contrast, indigenous teams perceive that other ministries seem to hold the attitude that indigenous affairs are adequately handled by the Council of Indigenous Peoples alone. Additionally, the study has revealed differences in perceptions between the government and youth regarding the execution of the Let's Talk program, particularly concerning the program's participation threshold, the ability of youth to supervise the government through the program, and differing views on the standards for issuing reward funds. Regarding the participation threshold, interviewees generally agreed that significant time and effort are required before or during participation, leading to a consensus among the youth that the participation threshold for Let's Talk is high. The government, however, believes that the participation threshold should not be measured by the time and effort spent. They argue that the lengthy discussion time is necessary to produce comprehensive, focused, and potentially policy-influencing conclusions. Compared to other civic deliberation activities, they do not consider the participation threshold to be high. Second, the interviewed youth largely agreed that their ability to supervise the government varies due to differences in their identities. The government, on the other hand, views the development of supervisory capabilities as a gradual process that evolves through continuous participation. Third, the differing views on the reward fund system between the youth and the government revolve around the standards followed for disbursement and the lack of explanation for varying reward amounts issued to different teams. Unlike previous youth participation studies, this paper aims to explore the heterogeneity within youth groups, identifying common participation issues among youth from different backgrounds, specific obstacles faced by Indigenous youth, and differences in perspectives between governments and youth on actual participation. This study suggests the importance of providing more detailed delineations of the backgrounds of future youth participants. Keywords: Equity, Social Equity, Civic Participation, Youth Participation, The Let’s Talk program