本研究以教育部就所管教育事務進行之委託研究為研究對象，旨在探討委託研究與政策決策之關聯性為何，以了解教育政策研究應用情形，並歸納研究應用之模式與影響研究應用的因素，據以提出促進研究應用之建議。
　　本研究為質性研究，以多元個案研究為取徑，主要以文件分析及半結構式訪談法進行資料蒐集。本研究所蒐集之實徵資料源自教育部所委託之六案教育政策研究案，共計訪談六名教育部行政人員及五名學術研究人員。經研究分析後發現，教育部委託研究之目的主要以解決內部需求和回應外部壓力為主。在研究應用情形上，委託研究案對於政策規劃層面之影響方式可分為直接影響、間接影響、潛影響/無影響等三種類型，尚有超出教育部原先設定研究目的或研究成效外之非預期影響。在研究的應用模式上，本研究所擇選之教育部委託研究個案，其應用模式以「過程模式」為大宗，惟解釋研究應用具複雜性，尚需多元探討及型塑新興理論模式來幫助理解及詮釋。在研究應用模式的理論形塑上，也有必要將「時間性」置入理論模型中，進一步探究研究應用的轉折與複雜性。再者，影響教育部研究應用之因素趨向「綜合模式」，影響因素包含：大環境成熟度、社會輿論與潮流、研究社群的因素、教育部機關組織的因素、連結因素，以及研究品質因素；其中，以研究品質為主要關鍵。最後，本研究根據研究結果與討論，提出促進教育政策研究應用之結論及建議，供政策當局與研究單位參酌。

This study aims to examine how the evidence of commissioned research is used or not used in educational policy-making in the Ministry of Education in Taiwan. Various models and influential factors of research utilization are also explored in the Taiwanese contexts.
This is a multiple-case study, which is qualitatively driven. The case study data was mainly collected via semi-structure interviews and a documentary review. The six commissioned research projects by the Ministry of Education in Taiwan were analyzed as study cases. The interviewees consisted of six central civil officials from the Ministry of Education and five academic scholars from various research institutions. Ultimately, this study finds that the evidence of commissioned research enables to shape the result of the central education policy-making in indirect ways. This finding confirms the existing literatures. The purposes of the commissioned research projects are mainly for solving the internal needs of the central government and responding to pressures from the external as well. As for research impact on policy-making, direct impact, indirect impact, potential impact and unexpected impact are found in the study cases. It also finds that processual modem which synthesises the enlightenment model and evolutionary model has better explanation of the complexity and nuance of the research utilization. The further models of research utilization will be needed to enrich the analysis due to the complexity of research utilization. As for the building of theoretical models, it is necessary to include the notion of ‘time’ into the conceptualizing of research utilization. Furthermore, the comprehensive model, including broad environment, social context, research community, organization community, linkage and research quality factors, seems to have better explanatory power for influential factors of research utilization. Finally, the recommendations are proposed on the basis of research findings and discussion for their reference by government aouthorities and research institutions.

王麗雲（2004）。教育研究中的菁英訪談。教育研究資訊，12（2），95-126。
王麗雲（2006）。教育研究應用：教育研究、政策與實務的銜接。臺北市：心理出版社。
朱景鵬、林嘉琪（2011）。政府機關研究發展之現況與展望。研考雙月刊，35（5），9-25。
行政院研考會（2007）。行政院所屬各機關95年度研究發展成果年報，臺北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
行政院研考會（2008a）。行政院所屬各機關96年度研究發展成果年報，臺北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
行政院研考會（2008b）。行政院所屬各機關委託研究計畫管理要點。臺北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
行政院研考會（2009）。行政院所屬各機關97年度研究發展成果年報，臺北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
行政院研考會（2010）。行政院所屬各機關98年度研究發展成果年報，臺北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
行政院研考會（2011）。行政院所屬各機關99年度研究發展成果年報，臺北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
行政院研考會（2012）。行政院所屬各機關100年度研究發展成果年報，臺北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
何美慧（2002）。教育部委託研究案應用之研究。國立中正大學教育學研究所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義縣。
吳定（2006）。行政機關政策規劃研究機制。臺北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
吳政達（2002）。教育政策分析：概念、方法與應用。臺北市：高等教育。
吳清基（1999）。教育與行政。臺北市：師大書苑。
承立平（2009）。行政院所屬各機關行政及政策類委託研究效益評估機制之研究。臺北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
翁福元（1999）。教育研究與教育政策的對話：一個概念性的討論。載於中華民國比較教育學會（主編），教育研究與政策之國際比較（頁1-22）。臺北市：揚智文化。
高淑清（2008）。質性研究的18堂課：首航初探之旅。高雄市：麗文文化事業。
黃乃熒（2001）。教育決策權力的正當性：決策倫理及其典範的討論。師大學報：教育類，46（1），1-19。
張芳全（1999）。教育政策分析與策略。臺北市：師大書苑。
張善楠（1999）。教育政策與教育研究—臺灣地區教育研究與教育決策不連結性之分析。教育行政論壇，4，228-239。
教育部（2012a）。第七次中華民國教育年鑑－第貳篇教育行政。臺北市：教育部。
教育部（2012b）。教育部業務採行政協助辦理原則。臺北市：教育部。
教育部（2013a）。教育部委託研究計畫作業要點。臺北市：教育部。
教育部（2013b）。教育部補助及委辦經費核撥結報作業要點。臺北市：教育部。
陳伯璋（2000）。質性研究方法的理論基礎。載於中正大學教育學研究所主編，質的研究方法（頁25-49）。高雄市：麗文文化事業。
莊漢昌（2008年4月1日）。才能班 立委協助解套。NOWnews今日新聞。2013年11月10日，取自http://legacy.nownews.com/2008/04/01/11478-2253824.htm#ixzz2qMq7kylQ。
楊深坑（1999）。教育學學門成就評估報告。全國人文社會科學會議會前會：社會科學組織會議手冊。臺北市：行政院國家科學委員會。
潘慧玲（1999）。教育研究在教育決策中的定位與展望。理論與政策，12（2），1-15。
鄭昭明（1993）。認知心理學：理論與實踐。新北市：桂冠圖書。
謝文全（2007）。教育行政學（第三版）。臺北市：高等教育。
謝文豪等（譯）（2003）。W. K. Hoy & C. G. Miskel著。教育行政學：理論、研究與實際（Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice）（頁395-445）。高雄市：麗文文化事業。
謝美慧（2000）。教育研究與教育決策之關係。教育政策論壇，3（1），137-155。
謝進昌（2010）。國內教育學門系統性文獻評閱策略及後設分析發展現況與建議。教育研究學報，44（2），133-156。
Ball, S. J. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach. London: Open University Press Buckingham.
Ball, S. J. (1998). Big policies/small world: An introduction to international perspectives in education policy. Comparative Education, 34(2), 119-130.
Bates, J., Lewis, S., & Pickard, A. (2011). Education policy, practice and the professional. London: Continuum.
Biesta, G. (2007). Why “what works” won't work: Evidence-based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational Theory, 57(1), 1-22.
Bridges, D., Smeyers, P., & Smith, R. (2009). Evidence-based education policy: What evidence what basis whose policy (Vol. 6). New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.
Brown, C. (2012). The 'policy-preferences model': A new perspective on how researchers can facilitate the take-up of evidence by educational policy makers. The Policy Press, 8(4), 455-472.
Burgess, R. G. (1994). Scholarship and sponsored research: contradiction, continuum or complementary activity? In D. Halpin & B. Troyka (Eds.), Researching education policy: Ethical and methodological issues (pp. 55-72). London: The Falmer Press.
Byrne, D., & Ozga, J. (2008). BERA review 2006: Education research and policy. Research Papers in Education, 23(4), 377-405.
Carden, F. (2004). Issues in assessing the policy influence of research. International Social Science Journal, 56(179), 135-151.
Cherney, A., Povey, J., Head, B., Boreham, P., & Ferguson, M. (2012). What influences the utilisation of educational research by policy-makers and practitioners?: The perspectives of academic educational researchers. International Journal of Educational Research, 2012.11.3, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.1008.1001.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). Oxon: Routledge.
Coleman, M. (2012). Interviews. In A. R. J. Briggs, M. Coleman & M. Morrison (Eds.), Research methods in educational leadership and management (pp. 250-265). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. London: Sage Publications, Inc.
Davies, H. T. O., & Nutley, S. (2008). Learning more about how research-based knowledge gets used. New York: William T. Grant Foundation.
Elliott, H., & Popay, J. (2000). How are policy makers using evidence? Models of research utilisation and local NHS policy making. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 54(6), 461-468.
Ginsburg, M. B., & Gorostiaga, J. M. (2003a). Limitations and possibilities of dialogue among researchers, policy makers, and practitioners: international perspectives on the field of education (Vol. 9). London: Routledge.
Gough, D. (2007). The evidence for policy and practice information and co-ordinating (EPPI) Centre, United Kindom. In C. f. E. R. a. Innovation (Ed.), Evidence in education: Linking research and policy (pp. 63-70). Paris: OECD.
Hammersley, M. (2002). Educational research, policymaking and practice. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Hird, J. A. (2009). The study and use of policy research in State Legislatures. International Regional Science Review, 32(4), 523-535.
Johnson, B. L. (1999). The politics of research-information use in the education policy arena. Educational Policy, 13(1), 23-36.
Kingdon, J. W. (2003). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd). New Jersey: Longman Pearson.
Monaghan, M. (2010). The complexity of evidence: Reflections on research utilisation in a heavily politicised policy area. Social Policy and Society, 9(01), 1-12.
Nilsson, J. (2007). Research-based policy-making: the need for a long-term perspective. In C. f. E. R. a. Innovation (Ed.), Evidence in education: Linking research and policy (pp.145-150). Paris: OECD.
Nutley, S. (2003). Bridging the policy/research divide: Reflections and lessons from the UK. Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration, 108, 19-28.
O'Donoghue, T. A. (2007). Planning your qualitative research project: An introduction to interpretivist research in education. London: Taylor & Francis.
OECD. (2007). Evidence in education: Linking research and policy. Paris: OECD.
OECD-Secretariat. (1994). Introduction: Themes and questions for an OECD study on educational research and development. In T. M. Tomlinson & A. C. Tuijnman (Eds.), Education research and reform: An international perspective. Washington, D. C.: ERIC.
Osterling, K. L., & Austin, M. J. (2008). The dissemination and utilization of research for promoting evidence-based practice. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 5(1-2), 295-319.
Ozga, J. (1999). Policy research in educational settings. Recherche, 67, 102.
Porter, C. (2010). What shapes the influence evidence has on policy? The role of politics in research utilisation. Oxford: Young Lives: Department of International Development. Oxford : University of Oxford.
Robson, C. (2011). Real world research: A resource for users of social research methods in applied settings (3rd.). West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Stevens, A. (2007). Survival of the ideas that fit: An evolutionary analogy for the use of evidence in policy. Social Policy and Society, 6(1), 25.
Trowler, P. (2003). Education policy. New York: Routledge.
van der Hoeven, M. J. A. (2007). Evidence-based policy: Yes, but evidence-based practice as well. In C. f. E. R. a. Innovation (Ed.), Evidence in education: Linking research and policy (pp.151-155). Paris: OECD.
Walford, G. (1994). Researching the powerful. London: University College of London Press.
Weaver-Hightower, M. B. (2008). An ecology metaphor for educational policy analysis: A call to complexity. Educational researcher, 37(3), 153-167.
Weiss, C. H. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public administration review, 39(5), 426-431.
Weiss, C. H. (1982). Policy research in the context of diffuse decision making. The Journal of Higher Education, 619-639.
Weiss, C. H. (1991). The many meanings of research utilization. In D. S. Anderson & B. J. Biddle (Eds.), Knowledge for policy: Improving education through research (pp.173-182). London: The Falmer Press.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th.). London: Sage Publications, Inc.
Young, K., Ashby, D., Boaz, A., & Grayson, L. (2002). Social science and the evidence-based policy movement. Social Policy and Society, 1(3), 215-224.