校所名稱：國立台灣師範大學
論文題目：公共審議團體成員互動行為之研究:以「新竹科學園區宜蘭基地」公民會議為例
畢業時間：2006年（九十四學年第一學期）
研究生姓名：傅凱若 指導教授：黃東益 博士
論文摘要：
審議民主理論的發展與實踐近年來已在先進國家成為一股趨勢，其認為代議政治下強調公民的積極參與，重視理性的公共對話，不僅能夠提升政府的決策品性，更重要的在於提升公民參與的能力。在實際的操作應用上已有相當多元的審議民主公共參與模式，而在台灣，以公民會議的模式受到最廣泛的重視，一方面是由於政府的大力提倡下而使全國爭議的話題受到矚目，另一方面是由於地方的社區大學主導的區域性議題，讓民眾參與地方公共性事務。本研究基於對審議民主的評論，需要實證經驗的回應，並且將研究主軸回歸公共參與主體—公民本身，以團體動力的角度去探究公民會議的成員互動情形。
由宜蘭社區大學舉辦的「新竹科學園區宜蘭基地」公民會議，相較於全國性公民會議而言最大的不同，主要是由民間發起的審議民主模式公共參與，因此本研究以此為個案觀察，依據審議民主核心理念和Tuckman五階段的團體發展階段為理論基礎，運用Bales的「SYMLOG」方式分析公民會議團體成員互動行為，藉以了解公民成員討論的動態過程，成員的互動關係？團體極化情形？討論是否理性？以及團體成員的溝通能力是否提升？進一步探討公民會議的團體發展的軌跡，成員的互動行為在各階段的特徵為何？如何展現審議民主「互惠」理念？以及主持人的角色如何落實審議民主精神？
本研究藉由實證經驗回應審議民主的評論，並提供審議民主的公共參與模式不同的研究角度。研究結果發現公民會議是理性且具任務導向的討論，討論過程中成員從衝突到妥協，展現尊重與同理，服膺審議民主的互惠原則，在能力上，在教育程度上仍有審議不平等的現象出現。以及在團體發展過程中歸納公民會議主持人具備的功能與任務。

National Taiwan Normal University Graduate Institute of Political Science
Title of Thesis: The Research on the Group Member’s Interaction in Public Deliberation：The case of Yilan Science Industrial Park Citizen Conference
Student: Kai-Ro Fu Advisor：Tong-Yi Huang, Ph. D
Abstract：
The concepts and practice principles of deliberative democracy has accepted widely in advanced country. It emphasizes that people can take positive participation and reasoning communication in public affairs. Not only improve the quality of government policy but also enhance the ability of the citizen participation. In order to implement the idea, there are plural models in public participation to practice the spirit of deliberative democracy in many countries. And citizen conference in Taiwan, have received the extensive attention recently .On one hand because the government promote citizen conference energetically and make the topic of the national dispute attract attention , and on the other hand because the community university leads regional topic and let more people participate to discuss the public affairs. This study concerns that the response to empirical investigation of deliberative democracy and focus on the main issue what is participator, the citizen himself. On the basis of this, the study will discuss the participators interaction in citizen conference by group dynamics.
The study observed the case of Yilan Science Industrial Park Citizen Conference which was held by the Yilan community university. Relatively to the national citizen conference, the case was mainly initiated by the non-government organization. According to the key principles of deliberative democracy and Tuckman five stages of group development, the research used SYMLOG of Bales to analyze the group members’ interaction in citizen conference. Hence, the study argues first to understand the dynamic process of citizen members discussion：What is the relation of the members' interaction? How does the group polarize? Is the discussion rational? And does the member’s communication ability improve? Further to find out the stage of group development ：What is the characteristics of member’s interaction in every stage? How to achieve the idea of reciprocity? And how does the facilitator’s role implement the spirit of deliberative democracy ?
This research response the comment of deliberative democracy with empirical on investigation, and offer different perspective to the method of public deliberative participation. The result of study finds that the discussion in citizen conference is rational and task-oriented . And during the discussion , members’ interaction show from conflict to compromise and respect to each other gradually. The progress represents the principle of reciprocity. However, there is still inequalities deliberation on ability, especially in education. Moreover in the progress of group development, we conclude the function and task of the facilitator possess.

參考書目

中文部分

王佑中（2004），《團隊虛擬化程度、團隊內互動與團隊效能之關係研究》，國立中興大學企業管理學系研究所，未出版。
王石番（1992），《傳播內容分析法─理論與實證》，台北；幼獅文化。
王麗斐（1985），《任務團體中決策行為之溝通過程研究》，國立彰化師範大學輔導研究所碩士論文，未出版。
中正大學教育研究所主編（2000），《質的研究方法》，高雄：麗文文化。
行政院衛生署編著（2004），《公民參與：審議民主的實踐與全民健康保險政策》。
江宜樺（2001），《自由民主的理路》，台北：聯經。
朱柔若譯 （2000），Neuman, W. Lawrence著（1997），《社會研究方法—質化與量化取向》（Social research methods：qualitative and quantitative approaches,3 th ed.），台北：揚智。
伊恩‧夏比洛著，（Ian Shapiro）（2003），陳毓麟譯（2005）《民主理論的現況》（The State of Democracy Theory），台北：商周。
杜文苓（2005），〈民間團體籌設公民會議初探：以竹科宜蘭基地公民會議為例〉，發表於2005年台灣政治學會年會暨台灣民主的挑戰與前景，台北：政治大學政治學系、台灣政治學會。
李郁文（2002），《團體動力學—群體動力的理論、實務與研究》，台北：桂冠。
李青芬、李雅婷、趙慕芬編譯（2002），Robbins, Stephen P.著（2001），《組織行為學》（Organization Behavior 9 th），台北：華泰。
呂婉瑜（2000），《功能性角色對虛擬團隊效能之影響》，國立中山大學資訊管理研究所，未出版。
林振春、王秋絨（1995），《團體輔導工作》，台北：師大書苑。
林萬億（1998），《團體工作：理論與技術》，台北：五南。
林國明、陳東升（2003），〈公民會議與審議民主：全民健保的參與經驗〉，《台灣社會學》，第6期，頁61-118。
林義男主譯、陳淳文譯（1989），Robert P.Weber著，《內容分析導論》（Basic Content Analysis），台北：巨流。
林子倫（2004），〈書評：Deliberative Democracy：Liberals, Critics, Contestations（審議式民主其超越），by John S, Dryzek（約翰卓瑞克）〉，《台灣民主季刊》，第一卷第四期，頁181-184。
吳麗雲（1997），〈團體歷程分析方法—觀察團體多重層次系統（SYMLOG）簡介〉，《諮商與輔導》第141期，頁26-30。
尚榮安譯（2001），Yin, K.Robert著，《個案研究》（Case Study Research），台北：弘智文化。
胡龍騰（2005），〈民主審議中專家的角色：以公民會議在台灣之經驗觀察〉，發表於2005年台灣政治學會年會暨台灣民主的挑戰與前景，台北：政治大學政治學系、台灣政治學會。
華萊斯（Patricia Wallace）（2001）， 陳美靜譯，《網路心理講義》，台北：天下遠見。
許國賢（2000），〈商議式民主與民主想像〉，《政治科學論叢》，第13期，頁61-92。
郭秋永（1999），〈強勢民主：新時代的政治參與〉，《問題與研究》，第38卷第6期，頁63-93。
---------（2001），《當代三大民主理論》，台北：聯經。
陳東升編審（2005），《審議式民主公民會議操作手冊》，行政院青輔會。
陳俊宏（1998），〈永續發展與民主：審議式民主理論初探〉，《東吳政治學報》，第9期，頁85-122。
陳碧玲〈1990〉，《團體互動行為模式之分析》，國立彰化師範大學輔導研究碩士論文，未出版。
黃東益（2003），《民主商議與政策參與》，台北：韋伯。
---------（2005），〈公共審議、政策知識與政策偏好—隨機與非隨機樣本的分析〉，發表於『我國實證政治學經驗研究的現況與展望學術研討會』，中研院人文及社會科學中心 12.23。
黃東益、陳敦源（2004），〈電子化政府與商議式民主之實踐〉，《台灣民主季刊》，第1卷，第4期，頁1-34。
黃浩榮（2005），《公共新聞學：審議民主的觀點》，台北：巨流。
張翊祥（2004），《團隊成員人格特質組合對團隊效能影響之研究 — 以團隊互動過程
為中介變項》，中原大學企業管理研究所，未出版。
楊玉琪〈2001〉，《成員互動行為對虛擬團隊合作績效影響之研究》，國立中山大學資訊管理研究所，未出版。
潘正德編著（1995），《團體動力學》，台北：心理出版社。
鄧宗業、吳嘉苓（2004），〈法人論壇—新興民主國家的公民參與〉，《台灣民主季刊》，第1卷，第4期，頁35-56。
謝麗紅（1995〉，《成長團體過程與團體效果之分析研究》，國立彰化師範大學輔導研究所博士論文，未出版。
謝宗學、鄭惠文譯（2006），Gutmann, A. & Thompson, D.著（2004），《商議民主》（Why Deliberative Democracy?），台北：智勝。

英文部分

Abelson, J., P. G.. Forest, J. Eyles, P. Smith, E. Martin, F. P. Gauvin, (2003), “Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes.” Social Science ＆ Medicine57：239-251.
Aldred, Jonathan (2002), “It’s Good to Talk: Deliberative Institutions for Environmental Policy.” Philosophy ＆ Geography, Vol.5, No.2: 133-152.
Andersen, I. E. and B. Jger, (1999), “Danish participatory models- Scenario workshops and consensus conferences: towards more democratic decision-making.” Science and Public policy, Vol26, No 5：331-340.
Argyle, M. (1988), “Five kinds of small social groups.” In Small group communication: a reader. Edited by Cathcart, R. S. & Samovar, L. A. W. C. Brown Co. pp18-25.
Applbaum, R. L. (1988), “Structure in group decision making.” In Small group communication: a reader. Edited by Cathcart, R. S. & Samovar, L. A. ： 137-157.
Becker-Beck, U., M. Wintermantel, and A. Borg, (2005), ”Principle of Regulating Interaction in Teams Practicing Face-to-Face Communication Versus Teams Practicing Computer-Mediated Communication.” Small Group Research, Vol. 36 Issue 4：499-536.
Bales, R. F. (1970), Personality and Interpersonal Behavior, New York :Holt, Rinehart&Winstin.
-------------------. (1980), SYMLOG : case study kit with instructions for a group self study, New York : Free Press.
-------------------. (2002), Social interaction systems: theory and measurement New Brunswick, NJ :Transaction Publishers.Bales, R. F. and S. P. Cohen, (1979), SYMLOG: A System for the Multiple Level Observation of Group,. New York : Free Press.
Barber, Benjamin (1984), Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Barker, L. L. , K. J. Kathy, and K. W. Kittie, (1995), Groups in process : an introduction to small group communication, 5 th ed. Boston : Allyn and Bacon.
Baron, R. S. and N. L. Kerr, (2003), Group process, group decision, group action , Buckingham; Philadelphia : Open University Press.
Brilhart, J. , G.. Galanes, and K. Adam, (2004), Effective group discussion : theory and practice. 11th ed. Maidenhead : McGraw-Hill Education.
Bohman, James (1996), Public deliberation, Cambridge：MA：MIT Press.
Cashman, S. B. , P. Reidy, K. Cody, and C. A. Lemay, (2004), “Developing and measuring progress toward collaborative, integrated, interdisciplinary health care teams.” Journal of Interprofessional Care, Vol. 18 Issue 2：183-196.
Cathcart, R. S. and L. A. Samovar, (1992), Small group communication :a reader. 6 th ed. Dubuque, Iowa : W. C. Brown Publishing: 39-52.
Chaitin, J. (2000), ” Facing the Holocaust in Generations of Families of Survivors: The Case of Partial Relevance and Interpersonal Values.” Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, Vol. 22 Issue 3：289-312.
Cragan, J. F. and D. W. Wright, (1999), Communication in small groups : theory, process, skills. 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub.
Chen, Dung-Sheng (2005), The Limitations of Deliberative Democracy : The Case of Citizen Conference in Taiwan, Paper presented at the International Conference on Deliberative Democracy, Howard International House Taipei, August29-30.
Dryzek, J. S. (2000), Deliberative Democracy and Beyond：Liberal, Critics,Contestations. , New York：Oxford University Press.
Einsiedel, E. F. and D. L.Eastlick, (2000), Consensus Conferences as Deliberative Democracy: A Communications Perspective, Science Communication, Vol. 21, No. 4: 323-343.
Elkin, Stephen L., and E. Soltan, eds. (1999), Citizen Competence and
Democratic Institutions. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Elster, Jon (1999), “The Market and the Form: Three Varieties of Political Theory.”in Bohman, J and Rehg, W. (Ed). Deliberative Democracy：essay on reason and politics, 3-33.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
------------.(1998), ”Introduction” in Elster, J. (Ed). Deliberative democracy, Cambridge, 1-18.U.K. : Cambridge University Press.
Fearon, J. D. (1998),“Deliberation as Discussion”in Elster,J. (Ed).Deliberative democracy, 44-68.Cambridge, U.K.; Cambridge University Press.
Fisher, B. A. (1974), Small group decision: communication and the group process, New York :McGraw Hill.
Forsyth, D. R. (1990), Group Dynamics, Brooks: Pacific Grove, Califonia.
-----------------.(1999), Group Dynamics, Brooks: Pacific Grove, Califonia.
Fraser, Nancy (1994), ”Rethinking the Public Sphere：A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy.” Habermas and the Public Sphere, In Calhoun ed.,109-142. Cambrige：MIT Press.
Freeman, S. (2000), “Deliberative democracy: A Sympathetic Comment.” Philosophy and Public Affairs. Vol. 29, 4, 371-418.
Fuhriman, A. and S. H Barlow, (1994), Interaction analysis: instrumentation and issues. In Handbook of group psychotherapy : an empirical and clinical synthesis, edited by Fuhriman, A. & G. M. Burlingame, New York : Wiley：191-222.
Gladstein, D. L. (1984), Groups in context: a model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 499-517.
Guston, D. H. (1999), ” Evaluating the First U.S. Consensus Conference: The Impact of the Citizens’ Panel on Telecommunications and the Future of Democracy.” Science, Technolog, ＆ Human Values, Vol 24, No.4, Autumn：451-482.
Gutmann, A & D. Thompson, (2004), Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton, NJ :Princeton University Press.
Hare, A. P. (1976), Handbook of small group research. 2nd ed. New York : Free Press.
Hartley, Peter (1997), Group communication, London ; New York : Routledge.
Harris, T. E. and J.C. Sherblom, (2002), Small group and team communication. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Hudspith, Rober (2001), “Using Consensus Conference to Learn about Public Participation in Policymaking in Areas of Technical Controversy.” Political Science and Politics,Vol.34,No2：313-317.
Hung, Tong-Yi (2005), “Managing Political Cleavages through Deliberative Democracy in Taiwan.”, Paper presented at the International Conference on Deliberative Democracy, Howard International House Taipei, August 29-30.
Johnon, J. (1998),“Arguing for Deliberation：Some Skeptical Consideration.”in Elster,J. (Ed).Deliberative democracy, 161-184.Cambridge, U.K.; Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, D. W. and F. P. Johnson, (2003), Joining together : group theory and group skills. 8 th ed, Boston : Allyn and Bacon.
Kelly, L. and R. L. Duran, (1992), Small group communication : a reader, Dubuque, Iowa: W.C. Brown Publishing, pp39-52.
Kim, Myung-Sik (2002), Cloning And deliberation：Korean Consensus Conference. Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Kobayashi, Tadashi (2005), Techno-Democracy and Public Participation: Japanese Experience since 1990, Paper presented at the International Conference on Deliberative Democracy, Howard International House Taipei, August29-30.
Lars Klver (2005), Deliberative Democracy in Demark, Paper presented at the International Conference on Deliberative Democracy, Howard International House Taipei, August 29-30.
Lee, Jong-Min (2005), “Out of Conflicts, Basesd on Expectation, Came a Consenseus Conference：The Consensus Conference on Student ID Card Policy in SNU.” Paper presented at the International Conference on Deliberative Democracy, Howard International House Taipei, August 29-30.
Leet, Martin (2003), “Democracy and the Individual：Deliberative and existential negociations.” Philosophy & Social Criticism, Vol29, No6：681-702.
Lin, Kuo-Ming (2005), “Deliberative Inequalities: Experience from Three Consensus Conferences in Taiwan.” Paper presented at the International Conference on Deliberative Democracy, Howard International House Taipei, August 29-30.
Lin, Tze-Luen (2005), “The Environment Promise of Deliberative Democracy: Theoretical Challenges and Practical Dilemmas”, Paper presented at the International Conference on Deliberative Democracy, Howard International House Taipei, August 29-30.
Lio, Mon-Chi (2005), “Youth Nation Affairs Conference:Impacts of Deliberative Democracy on Youth of Taiwan.” Paper presented at the International Conference on Deliberative Democracy, Howard International House Taipei, August29-30.
Mackenzie, K. R. (1994), “Group development.” In Handbook of group psychotherapy : an empirical and clinical synthesis, edited by Fuhriman, A. & Burlingame, G. M. New York : Wiley：223-268.
Mansbridge, J. (2000), “What does a representative do? Descriptive representation in communicative settings of distrust, uncrystallized interests, and historically denigrated status.” Citizenship in diverse societies, Edited by Will Kymlicka and Wayne Norman, New York : Oxford University Press：99-123.
Mabry, E. A. and R. E. Barnes, (1980), The dynamics of small group communication , Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-Hall.
Marris, C. and P. B. Joly, (1999), ”Between Consensus and Citizens：Public Participation in Technology Assessment in France.” Science Study,Vol12,No2：3-32.
Parkinson, J. (2003), “Why deliberation? The use of deliberation by new managers.” Presented at Political Studies Association Conference. University of Leicester, April15-17.
Rehg, William (2005), “Comment Remarks on Managing Political Cleavages through Deliberative Democracy in Taiwan.” Paper presented at the International Conference on Deliberative Democracy, Howard International House Taipei, August29-30.
Rowe, G. and L. J. Frewer, (2000), “Public Participation Methods: A framework for Evaluation.” Science, Technology ＆ Human Values, Vol.25, No.1:3-29.
Sanders, L. M. (1997), ”Against Deliberation.”Political Theory,Vol25,No3：347-376.
Schneider, J., F. M. Schneider-Dker, and U. Becker-Beck, (2000), “Sex Roles and Social Behavior: On the Relation Between the Bem Sex Role Inventory and the SYMLOG Behavior Rating Scales.” Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 129 ,Issue 4:471-479.
Shaw, M. E. ( 1981), Group dynamics : the psychology of small group behavior, New York : McGraw-Hill.
Sunstein, C. R. (2003),”The Law of Group Polarization.” Debating Deliberative Democra, Malden, Mass: Blackwell：80-101.
Stamatis, C. (2001), “The idea of deliberative democracy: a critical appraisal.” Ratio Juris 14(4): 390-405.
Thompson, S. & P. Hoggett, (2001), The emotional dynamics of deliberative democracy. Policy & Politics, vol. 29(3)： 351-364(14).
Tuckman, B. W. & M. A. C. Jensen, (1977), Stages of Small Group Development, Group & Organization Studies：419-427.
Weithman, P. (2005), Deliberative character. The journal of political philosophy, 13(3): 263-283.
Wheelan, S. A. (1994), Group Process：a development perspective, Boston : Allyn and Bacon.
Williams, M. S. (2000), The uneasy alliance of group representation and deliberative democracy. Citizenship in diverse societies. Edited by Will Kymlicka and Wayne Norman(pp124-152). New York : Oxford University Press.
Wilson, G.. L. (2002), Group In Context：Leadership And Participation In Small Groups, New York :McGraw-Hills.
Willson, R. W. , W. Payne, and E. Smith, (2003),”Does Discussion Enhance Rationality?:A Report from Transportation Planning Pratice.” Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol69,No4.
Yang, Chih-Bin (2005), “The Peculiarity of Community-based Consensus Conference.” Paper presented at the International Conference on Deliberative Democracy, Howard International House Taipei, August 29-30.
Yin, R. K. (1989), Case Study Research Design and Methods, Newbury Park, California.
Young, I. M. (1999), ”Justice, Inclusion, and Deliberative Democracy.” in Deliberative Politics, 151-158.New York：Oxford University Press.
-----------------. (2000), Inclusion and Democracy, Oxford,UK,Oxford University Press.
-----------------.(2003), ”Activist Challenges to Deliberative Democracy.” Debating Deliberative Democracy, Malden, Mass: Blackwell：102-120.

網站資源

Danish Board of Technology （http://www.tekno.dk/subpage.php3?page=forside.php3）
The Loka Institute （http://www.loka.org/pages/worldpanels.htm）
TSD科技民主與社會（http://tsd.social.ntu.edu.tw/）
宜蘭公民會議網站（http://icul.ilc.edu.tw/consensu/）