研究生: |
楊子慧 Yang, Tzu-Hui |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
產業界參與我國高等技職教育政策形成歷程之探究-以技職教育再造計畫為例 Industry Participation in Policy-Making Process of Higher Technical and Vocational Education in Taiwan: Using the Program for Rebuilding Technical and Vocational Education as an Example |
指導教授: |
王麗雲
Wang, Li-Yun |
學位類別: |
博士 Doctor |
系所名稱: |
教育學系 Department of Education |
論文出版年: | 2020 |
畢業學年度: | 108 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 203 |
中文關鍵詞: | 壓力團體 、教育政策形成 、技職教育再造計畫 、產業界 、高等技職教育 |
英文關鍵詞: | pressure group, policy-making process, Program for Rebuilding Technical and Vocational Education, industry, higher technical and vocational education |
DOI URL: | http://doi.org/10.6345/NTNU202000120 |
論文種類: | 學術論文 |
相關次數: | 點閱:389 下載:0 |
分享至: |
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
本研究以技職教育再造計畫為例,探討產業界參與我國高等技職教育政策形成歷程之角色及運作策略,並綜整教育主管機關之因應及評價。以文件分析、訪談等方式蒐集資料,探究產業界如何影響政府的議程設定、讓偏好的議程及替選方案進入首要位置,以及政府如何擇定替選方案。研究結果發現:(1)產業界參與我國高等技職教育政策形成歷程之態度,從被動轉向主動促進者角色。產業公協會蒐集產業現況及實際需求等相關資訊,並在過程中扮演多元角色,包含整合者、建言者、中介者、諮詢者、監督者,影響政府政策形成與決策;(2)產業界運用多元策略參與政策形成歷程,如把握發聲的機會、研提產業的政策主張、製造接近政府的機會、借助媒體力量等策略。產業以理性互惠的策略影響政府決策,而不採取激烈、衝撞體制之方式進行。產業在不同政策形成階段所運用之策略並不相同,政策企業家、政府關鍵決策者及時間點為影響策略成效之關鍵;(3)教育主管機關研擬高等技職教育政策係接收總統府、行政院指示,並本於職權依法行政,參採多元意見後制定政策。教育主管機關會參考產業所提訴求,並據以調整政策方向與內容,產業界亦會追蹤其訴求受政府採納的情形;(4)教育主管機關認為產業界參與政策形成過程,能增進產業對於我國高等技職教育的認識,並從中發現技職教育經費不足、學用落差的問題。產業界呼籲政府應正視技職教育、學用落差之問題,並給予技職體系更多的經費挹注;(5)產業界向政府提出訴求與建言,內容涵蓋教育部、經濟部、勞動部等部會的權責,促使政府建立跨部會平臺,增進部會間的橫向聯繫及資源整合,以縮短產官學之間的落差;(6)產業參與政府政策形成歷程亦有負面限制,其主要原因係基於產業追求獲利,期待高等技職教育政策能與產業需求相符應,卻忽略人才培育的宗旨,進而可能動搖教育的核心價值;(7)我國產業作為壓力團體在多元主義的運作下,產業意見呈現多元且分歧的樣態,可能使得政府行政能量耗弱,而降低政府效能。依據研究結論,對中央主管機關、產業界及後續研究者提出具體建議。
Using the Program for Rebuilding Technical and Vocational Education as the case for analysis, the study aims to investigate three research questions: the role that industry plays in policy-making process of higher technical and vocational education in Taiwan, the strategies that industry manipulates to influence higher technical and vocational education policy, and how the Ministry of Education reacts to the policy pressure from industry. Qualitative research methods such as document analysis and interview were employed for addressing the research questions. The major findings are as follows: (a) Industry shifts from the passive to an active facilitator. Industry plays multiple roles in the policy-making process, such as integrators, advocates, moderators, consultants, and monitors. (b) Industry uses multiple strategies to participate in the policy-making process, such as talking to government officials when possible, proposing the industrial appeals, taking the chance to approach the government officials, speaking in the media. Industry influences the government's decision-making by the rational and reciprocal strategies instead of violent ones. Policy entrepreneurs, key government decision makers and perfect policy window are the critical factors affecting the effectiveness of the strategies industry uses. Policy entrepreneurs, the main government decision makers and perfect policy window are the crucial factors to affect the effectiveness of the strategies industry applies. (c) The Ministry of Education follows the orders of the Office of the President and the Executive Yuan while making policies. Moreover, the Ministry of Education collects the opinions from the industry upon shaping education policies. Industry also tracks the status of government acceptance for its appeals. (d) The Ministry of Education considers the participation of industry in policy making a plus because it allows the industry to deeply understand higher technical and vocational education system, and comprehend the difficulties of higher technical and vocational education, such as insufficient funding for higher technical and vocational education and mismatch between education and employment market. The Ministry of Education takes the industrial appeals very seriously. (e) Government establishes a cross-ministerial platform and increases the links among government departments to respond to industrial appeals and shorten the gap between industry and government. (f) There are some limitations for industry participation in policy-making process. Industry cares most about profiting. Industry expects higher technical and vocational education policy to meet its needs. However, the core value of education is often neglected. (g) Industry as a pressure group under pluralism might affect the operation of the Ministry of Education and reduce government effectiveness. Based on the conclusions of this study, concrete suggestions are proposed for the Ministry of Education, industry, and future researchers.
中文部分
弭平學用落差 台企業出資6600萬(2013,1月)。大紀元。取自:http://www.epochtimes.com/b5/13/1/23/n3784062.htm。
關於《工商時報》(2018)。工商時報網。取自:http://ctee.com.tw/Subscribe/intro.aspx。
中時電子報。台大調查:適合大學生專業工作僅4成 學用落差大(2014,5月)。中時電子報。取自:https://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20140525000304-260114?chdtv。
學用落差要怪誰 業界:是社會現象(2017,1月)。中時電子報。取自:http://www.chinatimes.com/realtimenews/20170114002362-260405。
方庭諧(1986)。利益團體與政治參與。公共行政學報,3(2),363-419。
王定士(2001)俄羅斯金融寡頭在民主化與經濟改革的角色:1992-1999。俄羅斯學報,1,11-60。
王禮福(2006)。師資培育政策轉變過程之研究-從「流浪教師現象」談起(碩士論文)。取自臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。
王彩鸝(2012,8月24日)。德式〝三明治教學〞 最快明年度試辦。聯合晚報,A8版。
王茂臻、黃郁文(2012,8月25日)。鄭崇華:重塑技職教育 當務之急。聯合報,A12版。
王如哲、楊正誠、劉秀曦(2017)。「第二期技職教育再造計畫效益評估」結案報告。取自:https://ws.ndc.gov.tw/001/administrator/10/relfile/0/10730/bb942c7a-7b33-4863-9ca7-6c7196c5516d.pdf。
中華民國全國工業總會(2012)。2012全國工業總會白皮書。取自:http://www.cnfi.org.tw/front/bin/ptlist.phtml?Category=100003。
中華民國全國工業總會(2018a)。2018全國工業總會白皮書。取自:https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7Srh1VrhBDIYkZBZFFiSUk5WVRJM0VMdUlTUUlEbWNNTlYw/view。
中華民國全國工業總會(2018b)。「2018年全國工業總會白皮書」議題辦理情形。取自:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fJScLBjyQKtWvmgav4i1OMHPG5a1u3DB/view。
立法院(2017a)。立法院第9屆第3會期教育及文化委員會第9次全體委員會議紀錄。取自:https://lis.ly.gov.tw/lylgqrc/displgqr?DN10603801:LCIDC01_1063801_00003。
立法院(2017b)。技職教育學用落差問題研析。取自:https://www.ly.gov.tw/Pages/Detail.aspx?nodeid=6590&pid=85498。
丘昌泰(2008)。公共政策:基礎篇。臺北市:巨流。
個案計畫管制(2019)。國家發展委員會。取自:https://www.ndc.gov.tw/Content_List.aspx?n=74228D11C418AACD。
行政院(2012)。縮短學訓考用落差方案。取自:https://ws.ndc.gov.tw/Download.ashx?u=LzAwMS9hZG1pbmlzdHJhdG9yLzEwL3JlbGZpbGUvNjM4NS8yMzExOS8wMDE3MjE0LnBkZg%3d%3d&n=57iu55%2bt5a246KiT6ICD55So6JC95beu5pa55qGIKOaguOWumuacrCkucGRm&icon=..pdf。
行政院經濟建設委員會(2012)「2012年全國工業總會白皮書」議題辦理情形。取自:http://www.cnfi.org.tw/front/bin/ptlist.phtml?Category=100003。
行政院(2016)。日本食品輸臺說明。取自:https://www.ey.gov.tw/Page/5A8A0CB5B41DA11E/32832bac-22f2-45fa-8ec2-59db11fc03fa。
吳定(1991)。公共行政論叢。臺北市:順達。
吳定(2000)。公共政策(全)。 臺北市:中華電視股份有限公司。
吳定(2013)。公共政策辭典(全)。臺北市:五南圖書出版公司。
吳政達(2003)。教育政策分析 : 概念、方法與應用。臺北市:高等教育。
吳明振、林雅幸、陳培基(2013)。技職教育再造的挑戰與展望。中等教育,65(2),6-20。
吳芝儀、李奉儒(譯)(2008)。M. Q. Patton著。質性研究與評鑑(Qualitative Evaluation and Research)。嘉義市:濤石文化。
吳淑玲、莊宗勳(2010,7月25日)。工具機「黑手」難找 總統聽到了。聯合報,B1版。
吳清山、簡惠閔(2016)。臺灣高等技職教育改革:1996-2007年。載於高教出版(主編),技職教育初探(頁24)。臺北市:高等教育。
呂雪彗(2012,7月13日)。教育部次長林聰明:文憑沒有太大價值 證照法制化 讓藍領出頭天。工商時報,A2版。
何明修(2006)。重構國家與教師的關係:朝向統合主義的利益組織中介。研究台灣,5-57。
何學庸、梁桂峰(2005)。空運政策與利益團體之探討。中華技術學院學報,33,83-95。
李士崇(1990)。利益團體與多元社會。國立成功大學社會科學學報,3,1-21。
李建興(2009,6月)。技職教育再造方案評析。財團法人國家政策研究基金會。取自http://www.npf.org.tw/post/3/5944。
李建興(2012,12月)。技職教育與產業接軌。財團法人國家政策研究基金會。取自https://www.npf.org.tw/3/11788。
李文政(譯)(2015)。S. Best著。社會科學研究法:資料蒐集與分析(Understanding and Doing Successful Rearch : Data Collection and Analysis for the Social Sciences)。臺北市:心理。
宋健生(2012,8月22日)。半數應徵學生 不合格。經濟日報,A2版。
林奇蓉(2004)。政治遊說與策略性貿易政策。經濟論文叢刊,32(3),347-367。
林世華、陳柏熹、黃寶園、傅瓊儀、趙如錦(譯)(2005)。K. F. Punch著。社會科學研究法:量化與質化取向(Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches)。臺北市:心理。
林水波、張世賢(2006)。公共政策。臺北市:五南圖書出版公司。
林桂帆(2012)。大學系所評鑑政策形成之研究:多元潮流模式的觀點(碩士論文)。取自臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。
林欣儀(2016,5月10日)。勤益工具機學院動土。中國時報。取自:http://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20160510000620-260107。
周伶娟(2009)。台灣教科書之市場失靈─教科書共同供應制度之檢討與建議(碩士論文)。取自臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。
周韶華(2010,1月26日)。高應大輔導河見電機 導入SAP系統。工商時報,E2版。
邱瓊玉(2017,4月)。澳洲企業家「遊說」政府合法同婚 總理拒絕:由公投解決。風向新聞。取自https://kairos.news/66952。
洪士灝、陳亭亘、黃培潔(2015)。台灣高等教育與人才培育─學界業界與政府應負的責任期末報告。取自: http://www.cppl.ntu.edu.tw/research/2014research/2014final/10307final.pdf。
馬信行(1988)。國家發展指標之探索-以教育與經濟發展指標為主。政大學報,58,229-271。
徐佳青、黃文鴻(2006)。RU486合法化過程意識型態論述分析。臺灣公共衛生雜誌, 25(1),11-25。
桂宏誠(2002)。制定「遊說法」之背景分析─以美國「聯邦遊說管理法」及「遊說公開法」為例』〉。國家政策論壇,2(4),106-115。
張世熒(2000)。利益團體影響政府決策之研究。中國行政評論,9(3),23-52。
張芳全、余民寧(2002)。國家發展指標之指標建構研究。教育與社會研究,4,71-110。
張芳全(2004)。教育政策分析。臺北市:心理。
張可婷(譯)(2010)。U. Flick著。質性研究的設計(Designing Qualitative Research)。臺北市:韋伯文化。
張英磊(2011)。比較法視角下我國環評司法審查之發展:一個回應我國民主轉型脈絡之詮釋。臺大法學論叢,40(3),955-1027。doi:10.6199/NTULJ.2011.40.03.02。
張世賢(2014)。政策企業家之探討。中國行政評論,20,1-18。doi:10.6635/cpar.2014.20(S).01。
曹佳榮(2012,10月30日)。技職教育 產業轉型升級優勢關鍵。經濟日報,C12版。
梁貽婷(2013,11月2日)。大學教育沒有根。中時電子報。取自:http://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20131102000568-260110。
陳靜嬋(2007)。壓力團體與教育決策之探析。學校行政雙月刊,47,151-183。
陳恆鈞(2004)。資訊運用與政策制定。國家政策季刊,3(1),81-97。
陳向明(2002)。社會科學質的研究。臺北市:五南。
莊富安(2012,3月23日)。新任機器公會北區副理事長黃火煌:全力完成二林精密園區開發。工商時報。A24版。
莊富安(2012,10月22日)。技職教育再造 機械業好未來 中部將設工具機學院,落實機械系學生畢業前需到企業實習工具機設計、製造與檢測流程,期消弭產學間嚴重落差。工商時報,專1版。
莊富安(2015,10月22日)。機械公會 領衝工業4.0。中時電子報。取自:https://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20151022000185-260210?chdtv。
連弘宜(2016)。俄羅斯利益團體的形成與演進。政治科學論叢,68,77-102。
郭俊偉(2010)。站在政治獻金背後「說話」的利益團體-省思美國多元化社會的自由與平等,臺灣民主季刊,7(2),77-123。
郭玫君(2012,6月26日)。台灣經濟快轉 首要之務停止內耗。聯合晚報,A4版。
郭琇真(2017)。【營養午餐四章一Q系列專訪】新北市教育局長林奕華:溝通、溝通、再溝通。農傳媒。取自:https://www.harvest.org.tw/theme_data.php?theme=article&sub_theme=article&id=759。
陳朝平(1984)。利益團體之類型與活動途徑。中國論壇,16(2),8-10。
盛杏湲(2001)。立法委員正式與非正式立法參與之研究:以第三屆立法院為例。問題與研究,40(5),81-104。
教育部(2010)。第一期技職教育再造計畫。取自:www.fsvs.ks.edu.tw/ezfiles/1/1001/img/11/44346828.doc。
教育部(2013a)。第二期技職教育再造計畫。取自:https://www.ey.gov.tw/Upload/RelFile/27/702399/ceba3428-e2c6-4507-b505-7ade307963e9.pdf。
教育部(2013b,9月)「第二期技職教育再造計畫」業奉行政院核定 102年至106年落實推動。教育部技術及職業教育司即時新聞。取自:https://depart.moe.edu.tw/ED2300/News_Content.aspx?n=5D06F8190A65710E&sms=0DB78B5F69DB38E4&s=017DEA1AAFE8DA9D。
教育部(2013c,12月)教育部發布「人才培育白皮書」,擘劃未來十年人才培育藍圖。教育部綜合規劃司即時新聞。取自:https://depart.moe.edu.tw/ed2100/News_Content.aspx?n=1BC1E5C3DD8E7C26&sms=5EDCB810B9A5DA84&s=4EBDBE69C3C8C001。
教育部第二期技職教育再造技專校院設備更新實施要點(2014,10)。教育部電子報。取自:https://epaper.edu.tw/topical.aspx?period_num=636&topical_sn=810&page=1。
教育部(2015)。技術及職業教育法。取自:http://edu.law.moe.gov.tw/LawContent.aspx?id=GL001405。
教育部(2016)。中華民國技術及職業教育簡介。取自: https://depart.moe.edu.tw/ED2300/News_Content.aspx?n=B87ABDBEA90DBADA&sms=BF6506CCD840CE97&s=3D581E1C7C048131。
教育部(2017,2月)。技職教育務實再造 產學合作緊密連結。教育部全球資訊網。取自:https://www.edu.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=9E7AC85F1954DDA8&s=31D5E8AAE632E4E8。
教育部統計處(2018)。各級學校學生人數-公私立別分。取自:https://depart.moe.edu.tw/eD4500/cp.aspx?n=1B58E0B736635285&s=D04C74553DB60CAD。
產業學院計畫Q&A(2017)。教育部產學合作資訊網。取自:https://www.iaci.nkfust.edu.tw/Industry/CP.aspx?s=283&n=282。
產業學院計畫Q&A(2018a)。教育部產學合作資訊網。取自:https://www.iaci.nkfust.edu.tw/Industry/CP.aspx?s=283&n=282#。
106年度「產業學院」申請通過名單(2018b)。教育部產學合作資訊網。取自:https://www.iaci.nkfust.edu.tw/industrycollege/News_Detail.aspx?s=2445。
總統府(2013,4月)。總統訪視機電公司。總統府新聞與活動。取自:https://www.president.gov.tw/NEWS/17622。
企業簡介(2018,4月)。聯合報官網。取自:http://www.udngroup.com/about_us/introduction。
紐文英 (2012)。質性論文方法與論文寫作。臺北市:雙葉。
黃子庭(2007)。新加坡社會福利政策:國家統合主義下的國家與社會團體互動分析。全球政治評論,20,111-149。doi:10.29899/JRM.200710.0004。
黃淑婷(2010)。教師性侵害懲處修法過程及影響之研究(碩士論文)。取自臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。
黃培真、林俊彥(2013)。第二期技職教育再造方案意涵探究。致理學報,33,161-192。
黃達夫(2017,10月)。鬆綁醫藥產業 誰來保護病人?。聯合報新聞網。取自:https://udn.com/news/story/7266/2464529。
曾春榮(2004)。一個教育壓力團體的組織史生命研究(碩士論文)。取自臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。
彭懷恩(1996)。比較政治-當代各國政體導讀。臺北市:風雲論壇。
游振鵬、王逸慧 (2008)。教育利益團體之意識型態及其在九年一貫課程政策制訂過程的權力運作。教育理論與實踐學刊,18,123-143。
楊振昇、蔡進雄、林念臻(2013)。國內外人才培育相關政策之比較分析研究。取自:https://www.naer.edu.tw/ezfiles/0/1000/img/49/126936124.pdf。
楊泰順(1992)。利益團體理論。中山社會科學,7(4),1-14。
楊思偉(2007)。比較教育。臺北市:心理。
葉永文(2006)。台灣醫療社會的文明化歷程:一種“醫政關係”的統合主義分析。台灣醫學人文學刊,7(1&2),113-131。doi:10.30097/FJMH.200606.0009。
葉東舜(2008)。我國利益團體遊說活動初探(1988 年至2000 年)。育達學院學報,17,162-193。
葉乃靜(2012,10月)。訪談法。國家教育研究院雙語詞彙、學術名詞暨辭書資料網。取自:http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1678709/。
詹惠珠(2012,8月5日)。工總250項建言 力拚經濟。經濟日報,A11版。
補人才缺口 公、民合辦職訓(2010,5月23日)。聯合報,A13版。
靳菱菱(2003)。「公共」利益?「誰」的利益:利益團體相關理論探討。台東師院學報,14(上),327-346。
產學合作,縮短學用落差(2016,9月)。遠見雜誌。取自:https://www.gvm.com.tw/article.html?id=22176。
臧聲遠(2007,8月)。縮小學用落差 別走火入魔。臧聲遠部落格。取自:http://blog.career.com.tw/managing/default_content.aspx?na_id=930&na_toolid=405。
監察院(2016,6月)。教育部編列鉅額預算 仍未能有效改善技職教育困境 監察院函請行政院及教育部確實檢討改進。監察院新聞稿。取自: https://www.cy.gov.tw/sp.asp?xdUrl=./di/message/message_1.asp&ctNode=903&msg_id=5590。
蔡毓智(譯)(2013)。E. R. Babbie著。研究方法:基礎理論與技巧(The Basics of Social Research 7/E)。臺北市:新加坡商聖智學習。
蔡韻竹、蔡憶文(2015)。我國菸害防制政策制定的政治分析。臺灣公共衛生雜誌, 34(5),447-462。
劉鳳珍(1996)。企業關係對立委問政態度之影響:三個財經法案的內容分析。東吳政治學報,5,77-102。
劉秀曦(2001)。我國大學公共關係之探討。學校行政,11,14-24。
劉兆漢(2013)。教育部人才培育白皮書專案計畫。取自:http://www.ieet.org.tw/text/meeting_download/(102)%E6%9C%83%E5%93%A1%E5%A4%A7%E6%9C%83/1020704_%E5%8A%89%E5%85%86%E6%BC%A2%E7%B0%A1%E5%A0%B1_%E6%95%99%E8%82%B2%E9%83%A8%E4%BA%BA%E6%89%8D%E5%9F%B9%E8%82%B2%E7%99%BD%E7%9A%AE%E6%9B%B8%E5%B0%88%E6%A1%88%E8%A8%88%E7%95%AB.pdf。
蔣念祖(2006)。利益團體遊說策略模式-台灣經驗研究(碩士論文)。取自臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。
賴育邦(2006)。污染許可交易與利益團體。經濟論文叢刊,34(3),261-284。doi:10.6277/ter.2006.343.1。
戴辰(2012,8月30日)。教育部攜手機械業 重建人才第一哩路。經濟日報,A24版。
羅清俊(2015)。公共政策-現象觀察與實務操作。新北市:揚智文化事業股份有限公司。
台大校長李嗣涔:學用落差是必然的(2013,6月)。蘋果日報。取自:https://tw.news.appledaily.com/life/realtime/20130615/211297。
譚光鼎、張德銳、黃昆輝(2000,12月)。壓力團體。國家教育研究院雙語詞彙、學術名詞暨辭書資料網。取自:http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1314840/。
西文部分
Adams, P (2002) Corporatism and comparative politics: Is there a new century of corporatism? In: H. I. Wiarda (Ed.), New Directions in Comparative Politics. (pp.17-44) Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Afdal, H. (2013). Policy making processes with respect to teacher education in Finland and Norway. Higher Education, 65(2), 167-180. doi:10.1007/s10734-012-9527-2
Alexander, R., Mazza, S. W., & Scholz, S. (2009). Measuring Rates of Return on Lobbying Expenditures: An Empirical Case Study of Tax Breaks for Multinational Corporations. Journal of Law & Politics, 25(4), 401-457.
Almond, G. A. & Powell, G. B. (1978). Comparative Politics: System, Process, and Policy (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company (INC.).
Almond, G. A. & Powell, G. B. (1996). Comparative Politics Today: A World View (6th ed.). New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Anderson, J. E. (1975). Public Policy-making. New York, NY: Holt. Praeger.
Babu, S. C. (2013). Policy Process and Food Price Crisis: a Framework for Analysis and Lessons from Country Studies. Helsinki, Finland: UNU-WIDER.
Ball, S. J. (1990). Politics and policy making in education: Explorations in policy sociology. London, UK: Routledge.
Ball, S. J. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post structural approach. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Baumgartner, F. R., & Leech, B. L. (2001). Interest Niches and Policy Bandwagons: Patterns of Interest Group Involvement in National Politics. Journal of Politics, 63(4), 1191.
Bell, L., & Stevenson, H. (2006). Educational policy: Process, themes and impact. London, UK: Routledge.
Berry, J. M., & Wilcox, C. (2018). The Interest Group Society (6th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Bernhagen, P., & Bräuninger, T. (2005). Structural Power and Public Policy: A Signaling Model of Business Lobbying in Democratic Capitalism. Political Studies, 53(1), 43-64. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2005.00516.x.
Bentley, A. F. (1908). The Process of Government: A Study of Social Pressures. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Bernhagen, P. (2012). Who Gets What in British Politics - and How?. An Analysis of Media Reports on Lobbying around Government Policies, 2001-7. Political Studies, 60(3), 557-577. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2011.00916.x
Bernhagen, P. (2013). When do politicians listen to lobbyists (and who benefits when they do)? European Journal of Political Research, 52(1), 20-43. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.2012.02062.x
Bernhagen, P., & Bräuninger, T. (2005). Structural Power and Public Policy: A Signaling Model of Business Lobbying in Democratic Capitalism. Political Studies, 53(1), 43-64. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2005.00516.x
Birkland, T. A. (2011). An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts, and models of public policy making. New York, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Birnbaum, J. H., & Newell, R. (2001). FAT & HAPPY in D.C. Fortune, 143(11), 94-100.
Bowe, R., Ball, S., & Gold, A. (1992). Reforming education and changing schools: Case studies in policy sociology. London, UK: Routledge.
Browne, W. P. (2001). Rural Failure: The Linkage Between Policy and Lobbies. Policy Studies Journal, 29(1), 108-117.
Cairney, P., & Jones, M. D. (2016). Kingdon's Multiple Streams Approach: What Is the Empirical Impact of this Universal Theory? Policy Studies Journal, 44(1), 37-58. doi:10.1111/psj.12111
Cawson, A. (1986). Corporatism and Political Theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Chand, D. E., & Schreckhise, W. D. (2013). Keeping score on congress: explaining variations in interest group ratings of US senators. Business & Politics, 15(3), 401-433. doi:10.1515/bap-2012-0005
Cobb, R. W. & Elder, C. D. (1976). Issue Creation and Agenda-Building. In J. E. Anderson (Ed.), Cases in Public Policy-Making (pp. 10-21). New York, NY: Praeger Publichers.
Cochran, C. E., Mayer, L. C., Carr, T. R., Cayer, N. J., Mckenzie, M. J. & Peck, L. R. (2006). American public policy: an introduction (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage.
Cochran, C. E., Mayer, L. C., Carr, T. R., Cayer, N. J., Mckenzie, M. J., & Peck, L. R. (2012). American public policy: an introduction (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage.
Cochran, C. E., Mayer, L. C., Carr, T. R., Cayer, N. J., Mckenzie, M. J., & Peck, L. R. (2016). American public policy: an introduction (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage.
Cochran, C. L., & Malone, E. F. (1995). Public policy: Perspectives and choices. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1-25.
Coleman, W. D. (1990). State Traditions and Comprehensive Business Associations: A Comparative Structural Analysis. Political Studies, 38(2), 231-252.
Collier, R. B., & Collier, D. (1979). Inducements versus Constraints: Disaggregating 'Corporatism'. American Political Science Review, 73(4), 967-986. doi: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayBackIssues?jid=PSR
Constantelos, J. (2007). Interest group strategies in multi-level Europe. Journal of Public Affairs, 7(1), 37-53. doi:10.1002/pa.243
Cook, F.L., Tyler, T.R., Goetz, E.G., Gordon, M.T., Protess, D., Leff, D.R., Molotch, H.L. (1983). Media and agenda setting: Effects on the public, interest group leaders, policy makers, and policy. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 16–35.
Cornelius, W. A., & Weldon, J. A. (2012). Politics in Mexico. In G. B. Powell, R. J. Dalton, & I. K. Strom (Eds.), Comparative Politics Today: A World View (pp. 426-469). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Dalton, R. J. (2012). Politics in Germany. In Powell, G. B., Dalton, R. J. & Strom, I. K. (Eds.), Comparative Politics Today: A World View (pp. 244-293). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
David, M. (1996). Making university- industry co-operation work for education and training. Industrial & Commercial Training, 28(2), 22.
Davies, S. (1999). From Moral Duty to Cultural Rights: A Case Study of Political Framing in Education. Sociology of Education, 72(1), 1-21.
Davies, S., & Guppy, N. (1997). Globalization and educational reforms in Anglo-American democracies. Comparative Education Review, 41(4), 435.
Dearing, J. W., & Rogers, E. M. (1996). Agenda-Setting. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dunn, W. N. (1981). Public policy analysis: An introduction (1st ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Dunn, W. N. (1994). Public policy analysis: An introduction (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Dunn, W. N. (2008). Public policy analysis: An introduction (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Dür, A., & Mateo, G. (2013). Gaining access or going public? Interest group strategies in five European countries. European Journal of Political Research, 52(5), 660-686. doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12012
Dussault, G., & Dubois, C.-A. (2003). Human resources for health policies: a critical component in health policies. Human Resources for Health, 1, 1-16.
Dye, T. (1972). Understanding public policy. New York, NY:Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Dye, T. (2013). Understanding public policy (14th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Gornitzka, A °, Kogan, M., & Amaral, A. (2005). Reform and change in higher education. Analysing policy implementation. Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer.
Govorun, A., Marques Ii, I., & Pyle, W. (2016). The political roots of intermediated lobbying: evidence from Russian enterprises and business associations. Business & Politics, 18(4), 395-433. doi:10.1515/bap-2015-0032
GrÜning, T., StrÜnck, C., & Gilmore, A. B. (2008). Puffing Away? Explaining the Politics of Tobacco Control in Germany. German Politics, 17(2), 140-164. doi:10.1080/09644000802075708
Halachmi, A. (1978). From Descriptive, Explanatory and Prescriptive Views of Policy Analysis to a Spiral Perspective. Indian Journal of Public Administration, 24(4), 957-972.
Haskins, R. (2005). The School Lunch Lobby: A Charmed Federal Food Program that No Longer Just Feeds the Hungry. Education Next, 5(3), 10-17.
Henig, J. R. (2009). Mayors, Governors, and Presidents: The New Education Executives and the End of Educational Exceptionalism. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(3), 283-299. doi:10.1080/01619560902973449
Hilsman, R., Gaughran, L., & Weitsman, P. A. (1993). The Politics of Policy-making in Defense and Foreign Affairs (3rd ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Perl, A. (2003). Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems (2nd ed). Toronto, Canada: Oxford University Press.
Hula, K. W. (1999). Lobbying Together: Interest Group Coalitions in Legislative Politics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Hussler, C., & Ronde, P. (2005). What kind of individual education for which type of regional innovative competence? An exploration of data on French industries. Regional Studies, 39(7), 873-889. doi:10.1080/00343400500289846
Huntington, S. P. (1981). American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
John, P. (2003). Is There Life After Policy Streams, Advocacy Coalitions, and Punctuations: Using Evolutionary Theory to Explain Policy Change? Policy Studies Journal, 31(4), 481. doi:10.1111/1541-0072.00039
Jorgensen, P. D. (2013). Pharmaceuticals, political money, and public policy: a theoretical and empirical agenda. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics: A Journal of The American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 41(3), 561-570. doi:10.1111/jlme.12065
Jones, M. D., Peterson, H. L., Pierce, J. J., Herweg, N., Bernal, A., Lamberta Raney, H., & Zahariadis, N. (2016). A River Runs Through It: A Multiple Streams Meta-Review. Policy Studies Journal, 44(1), 13-36. doi:10.1111/psj.12115
Kariel, H. S. (1961). The decline of American pluralism. Stanford, CA: Stanford University press.
Kapitzke, C., & Hay, S. (2011). School Education as Social and Economic Governance: Responsibilising Communities through Industry-School Engagement. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(10), 1103-1118.
Keskitalo, E. C. H., Westerhoff, L., & Juhola, S. (2012). Agenda-setting on the environment: the development of climate change adaptation as an issue in European states. Environmental Policy & Governance, 22(6), 381-394. doi:10.1002/eet.1579
Kingdon, J. W. (1976). Dynamics of Agenda Formation in Congress. In J. E. Anderson (Ed.), Cases in Public Policy-Making (pp. 35-49). New York, NY: Praeger Publichers
Kingdon, J. W. (2013). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policy (2nd ed). New York, NY: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers Inc.
Knoepfel, P., Larrue, C., Varone, & Hill, M. (2007). Public Policy Analysis. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
Knill, C., & Tosun, J. (2012). Public Policy: A New Introduction. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan Education.
Kousser, T. & Ranney, A. (2012). Politics In the United States. In G. B. Powell, R. J. Dalton, & I. K. Strom (Eds.), Comparative Politics Today: A World View (pp. 664-711). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lasswell, H. D. (1951). The Policy Orientation. In D. Lerner & H. Lasswell (Eds.), The policy sciences: recent developments in scope and method (pp. 3-15) Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Lasswell, H. D. (1971). A Preview of Policy Sciences. New York, NY: Elsevier.
Lindblom, C.E. & Woodhouse, E. J. (1993). The Policy-Making Process (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Liu, X., Lindquist, E., Vedlitz, A., & Vincent, K. (2010). Understanding Local Policymaking: Policy Elites' Perceptions of Local Agenda Setting and Alternative Policy Selection. Policy Studies Journal, 38(1), 69-91. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2009.00345.x
McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9 (2), 171-178.
Rhodes, R.A.W. (1990). Policy Networks: A British Perspective. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2 (3), 293-317.
Rodwin, M. A. (2013). Five Un-Easy Pieces of Pharmaceutical Policy Reform. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 41(3), 581-589.
Rozbicka, P., & Spohr, F. (2016). Interest groups in multiple streams: specifying their involvement in the framework. Policy Sciences, 49(1), 55-69. doi:10.1007/s11077-015-9227-8
Schain, M. A. (2012). Politics in France. In G. B. Powell, R. J. Dalton, & I. K. Strom (Eds.), Comparative Politics Today: A World View (pp. 196-243). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Schlager, E. & Blomquist, W. (1996). A Comparison of Three Emerging Theories of the Policy Process. Political Research Quarterly, 49, 651-672.
Schlozman, K., & Tierney, J. (1983). More of the Same: Washington Pressure Group Activity in a Decade of Change. The Journal of Politics, 45(2), 351-377.
Schmitter. P. C. (1974). Still the Century of Corporatism? The Review of Politics, 36(1), 85-131.
Simon, Herbert A. (1976). Administrative Behavior (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Sin, C. (2014). The policy object: a different perspective on policy enactment in higher education. Higher Education, 68(3), 435-448. doi:10.1007/s10734-014-9721-5
Starling, G. (1988). Strategies for Policy Making. Chicago, IL: Dorsey.
Tandberg, D. (2010). Politics, Interest Groups and State Funding of Public Higher Education. Research in Higher Education, 51(5), 416-450. doi:10.1007/s11162-010-9164-5
Travis, R., & Zahariadis, N. (2002). A Multiple Streams Model of U.S. Foreign Aid Policy. Policy Studies Journal, 30(4), 495.
Trowler, P., Saunders, M., & Knight, P. (2003, January). Change thinking, change practices. 取自:https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/id262_Change_Thinking_Change_Practices.pdf。
Truman, D. B. (1971). The governmental process: political interests and public opinion. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
May, J. & Wildavsky, A. (1978). The Policy Cycle. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Mawhinney, H. B. (2001). Theoretical Approaches to Understanding Interest Groups. Educational Policy, 15(1), 187-214.
Molnar, A. (1989). Business Involvement in Schools: Separating Wheat from Chaff. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 68.
Omar, M. A., Green, A. T., Bird, P. K., Mirzoev, T., Flisher, A. J., Kigozi, F., & Ofori-Atta, A. L. (2010). Mental health policy process: a comparative study of Ghana, South Africa, Uganda and Zambia. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 4, 24-33. doi:10.1186/1752-4458-4-24
Owuraku, K. A., Church, J., Conteh, C., & Heinmiller, B. T. (2015). Resistance and Change: A Multiple Streams Approach to Understanding Health Policy Making in Ghana. Journal of Health Politics, Policy & Law, 40(1), 195-219. doi:10.1215/03616878-2854711
Ozga, J. (2000). Policy research in educational settings: Contested terrain. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Parsons, W. (1995). Public policy: An introduction to the theory and practice of policy analysis. Aldershot, UK: Edward Elgar.
Powell, G. B., Dalton, R. J. & Strom, I. K. (2012). Comparative Politics Today: A World View (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Longman.
Quade, E. S. (1982). Analysis for public decisions. New York, NY: Elsevier Science.
Quade, E. S. (1989). Analysis for public decisions (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Elsevier Science.
Rasmussen, A., & Lindeboom, G.-J. (2013). Interest group-party linkage in the twenty-first century: Evidence from Denmark, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. European Journal of Political Research, 52(2), 264-289. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.2012.02069.x
Remington, T. F. (2012). Politics In Russia. In G. B. Powell, R. J. Dalton, & I. K. Strom (Eds.), Comparative Politics Today: A World View (pp. 334-379). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Rose, R. (2012). Politics in Britain. In G. B. Powell, R. J. Dalton, & I. K. Strom (Eds.), Comparative Politics Today: A World View (pp.150-195). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Rosenbloom, B. (1978). Retail Trade Associations as a Resource for Retailing Education. Journal of Retailing, 54(3), 53.
Vogel, D. (1989). Fluctuating fortunes: The political power of business in America. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Walters, A. K. (2005). Business Groups Warn of Gap in Science and Math. Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(48), A21-A21.
Wedekind, V., & Mutereko, S. (2016). Higher education responsiveness through partnerships with industry: The case of a university of technology programme. Development Southern Africa, 33(3), 376-389. doi:10.1080/0376835X.2016.1156516
Weible C.M. & Sabatier, P.A. (2007) A Guide to the Advocacy Framework in Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics and Methods, In F. F. Fischer, G.J. Miller, & M. Sidney. Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods. (pp.123-136). New York, NY: CRC Press.
Wilson, G. K. (1990). Interest groups. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Witko, C., & Newmark, A. J. (2005). Business Mobilization and Public Policy in the U.S. States. Social Science Quarterly, 86(2), 356-367. doi:10.1111/j.0038-4941200500307.x
Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. New York, NY: The Guilford.