國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
第二節 理論貢獻、研究限制與後續研究建議
一、理論貢獻
本研究透過分析文創產業裡社會創新行中介組織的演化歷程，並經 由社會資本、社會網絡和創新擴散與組織核心能耐的雙重視角進行個案 研究。在研究發現裡有兩個可以作為論證和延伸討論理論視角的重點。
首先，在社會網絡理論裡強調社會關係和結構鑲嵌會影響行動者的資源 條件和決策。本研究則發現，如何把隱藏在社會網絡和文化慣習裡的內 隱知識，透過「文化轉譯」的過程轉化成外顯知識，是促成創新的重要 關鍵行動。亦即本研究把內隱知識外顯化的跨域溝通過程，藉由「文化 轉譯」的概念，導入到社會網絡理論的論述中。
其次，本研究發現，中介組織的創新擴散歷程是持續互動反饋的過 程，不僅止於單向接受創新概念、產生個人連結和應用，並向下擴散的 過程，在這個歷程裡，中介組織除了把創新思維透過營運模式的建構向 外擴散之外，在和參與者互動反饋的成果也會融合到組織的核心能耐當 中。也就是參與者在獲得創新概念時會根據領域知識和參與動機，回過 頭來影響甚至重塑創新概念的內容，最終也會對創新擴散的標的和創新 成果的價值產生關鍵性的影響，而這些關鍵性的影響對於中介組織累積 核心能耐並且發動創新行動也會產生極大的影響力。
第三，中介組織在創新演化歷程中，因為重新定義產業範疇，或跨 越到新的產業領域裡，會使得其在社會網絡裡的位置和角色產生位移。
在不同階段可能位處產業邊緣，也可能也處於兩個產業範疇的交界之 處。當新的產業範疇被定義出來時，也可能處於社會網絡的核心，尤其 是這個產業範疇是由中介組織所定義出來，並且運用其原本的社會資本 和社會網絡關係拆解重組而成。當中介組織位移到不同的位置，其在策 略選擇上，以及核心能耐的運用上，也會表現出不同的投入和使用方 式。從外界來看，中介組織似乎會隨著時間推移不斷變化，但其變化的 軸線仍然可以扣回到原本的核心能耐與社會資本的脈絡中。如同Nonaka
（1995）描述的知識螺旋理論，中介組織的創新演化歷程也呈現一種螺旋 向上的循環演進的歷程。
此外，跨領域中介組織的創新有可能因為連結和重組了不同領域的 產業知識、語言和制度設計，創造出新的產業領域，在這個新的產業領 域裡，中介組織仍會扮演關鍵中介和驅動創新的角色。這個概念也印證 了破壞性創新理論裡關於「創造市場的創新」的討論。不過，中介組織
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
多在產業裡以B to B的商業模式存在，因此中介組織驅動的創新歷程也可 以描述為「創造產業的創新」。
二、研究限制
本研究所探討的範疇為台灣文化創意產業裡的中介組織，且以社會 創新型中介組織為分析對象。產業範疇則含括在文創產裡的工藝產業、
設計產業和創意生活產業。個案所處的領域或跨到文創產裡的領域多以 原創和文化為核心，所以在個案範疇的研究條件限制上，即侷限在此一 範圍內。
此外，本研究所限定的時間範疇在台灣政府和民間推動文化創意產 業期間（2002年至2020年），雖然已經涵蓋文化創意產業在台灣發展的時 間範圍，但個案主要發展的時間間隔多在2010年後至2020年的十年間。若 將時間條件放寬，也許可以梳理出更豐富的研究資料。
最後，本研究所選擇的個案多為跨地域的個案，但有研究田野裡，
有更多和地方網絡緊密的區域型社會創新型中介組織尚未進入研究範疇 裡。因此，在本研究中，個案對象本身的條件限制，也限縮在以跨地域 的中介組織為主。
三、後續研究建議
本研究嘗試透過觀察文化創意產業中介組織的創新歷程，指出文創 產業裡，社會創新型中介組織在創新歷程裡的演化過程及其作用。與科 技創新中介最大的差異在於文化轉譯和辨識創新機會的能力。文創中介 組織擅長運用既有資源，透過設計資源共享的機制，創造新的合作模 式，並且在多方參與的協作下，使價值共創體系裡的所有參與者都能獲 得所需的資源，並且為體系創造價值。在許多案例中，文創中介組織更 是運用消費導向和體驗服務導向的經濟邏輯，解構既有的產業要素觸發 創新，創造跨界合作和跨領域資源整合，促成創新商業模式和滿足新市 場需求創新的行動者。
在本研究中主要以文創產業領域裡跨界的中介組織為研究標的。然 而，在文化創意產業領域內，十五項產業類別經常進行程度不一的跨界 合作，期間都有各種中介的樣態在其中萌生。例如，傳統五金產業和設 計產業、建築產業和創意手作、創意生活產業和新農業等。有更多的研 究田野落在體驗經濟的議題上。如何透過中介組織來「轉譯」跨領域的 內容文本，並且設計適當的介面。例如體驗活動、深度學習課程、空間
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
裝置和線上互動來引導消費者進入體驗情境等，也是亟待進行後續研究 的議題。其次，本研究針對創新擴散理論的延伸和論證，指出中介組織 在創新擴散的過程中，所產生雙向互動的擴散與反擴散的現象。研究者 也可以從創新理論和社會網絡理論之中進行後續研究。
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
Allen, T. J. (1977). Managing in the flow of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Allen, James., James , Andrew D., Gamlen, Phil. (2007). Formal versus informal knowledge networks in R&D: a case study using social network analysis. R&D management, Volume37, Issue3 Pages 179-196.
Agogué, M., Berthet, E., Fredberg, T., Le Masson, P., Segrestin, B., Stoetzel, M., Wiener, M., and Yström, A. (2017). Explicating the role of innovation intermediaries in the “unknown”: a contingency approach. Journal of Strategy and Management, 10, (1), pp. 19-39.
Amsden, A. H. (1989). Asia’s next giant: South Korea and late industrialization, New York: Oxford University Press.
Andrew Y. (2006). Korea boost, Wallpaper. 92, 350–360.
Barney, J. (1991) Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
Beigel, F. & Christou, P. (2006). Paju Book and Media City, near Seoul, Korea, landscape as infrastructure for new cities. Topos, 57, 38–44, ISBN13:
978-3-7667-1713-9.
Bessant, John., Rush, Howard. (1995). Building bridges for innovation; the role of consultants in technology transfer. Research Policy, Volume 24, Issue 1, Pages 97-114.
Birley, Sue. (1985). The role of networks in the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, Volume 1, Issue 1, Pages 107-117.
Bolino, Mark C., Turnley, William H., Bloodgood, James M. (2002). Citizenship Behavior and The Creation of Social Capital in Organizations. Academy of Management ReviewVol. 27, No. 4.
Bourdieu, Pierre. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1992). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Bowman, Edward H. & Hurry, Dileep. (1993). Strategy through the Option Lens:
An Integrated View of Resource Investments and the Incremental-Choice Process.
Academy of Management ReviewVol. 18, No. 4.
Brown, John Seely., Collins, Allan., and Duguid, Paul. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher, v18 n1, 32-42.
Burns,Lawton R., Wholey, Douglas R., Abeln, Marty O. (1993). Hospital Utilization and Mortality Levels for Patients in the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System. Inquiry, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Summer 1993), 142-156.
Burt, Ronald S. (1987). Social contagion and innovation, cohesion versus structural equivalence. American Journal of Sociology 92: 1287-1335.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Caloffi, Annalisa., Rossi, Federica. and Russo, Margherita. (2015). The emergence of intermediary organizations: a network-based approach to the design of innovation policies. Handbook on Complexity and Public Policy, 314–331.
‧
‧
Carlsson, B. (2005). Internationalization of innovation system: A survey of the literature. Research Policy, 35, 56–67.
Chang, S. J. (1996). An evolutionary perspective on diversification and corporate restructuring: Entry, exit, and economic performance during 1981-89. Strategic Management Journal, 17(8), 587-611
Chaudhry, A. & Garner, P. (2007). Do governments suppress growth? Institutions, rent-seeking, and innovation blocking in a model of Schumpeterian growth.
Economics & Politics, 19, 35–52.
Chen, S. (1997). A new paradigm for knowledge-based competition: building an industry through knowledge sharing. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 9, 4.
Chen, S. R-L. (2006). The role of government in the industrial development of Taiwan. National Elite, 2, 3, 17–37 (in Chinese).
Chen, W-Z. (2000). The miracle of law and economic reform in Taiwan. Angle Publishing, Taipei (in Chinese).
Chesbrough, H. (2005). Open Innovation: A new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation. Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, Oxford University Press.
Chesbrough, H. & Crowther, A. K. (2006). Beyond high tech: Early adopters of open innovation in other industries. R&D Management, 36, 3, 229–236.
Clarysse, B. & Bruneel, J. (2007). Nurturing and growing innovative start-ups: The role of policy as integrator. R&D Management, 37, 2.
Coase, R. H. (1937). The Nature of the Firm. economica 4 (16), 386-405.
Coleman, James S. (1988). ìSocial Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.ì American Journal of Sociology 94:S95-S120.
Coleman, James S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Considine, M. & Lewis, J. M. (2004). Innovation and innovators inside government:
from institutions to networks. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 20, 4, 581–607.
Cooke, Phil. (2005). Regionally asymmetric knowledge capabilities and open innovation exploring “Globalisation”—a new model of industry organization.
Research Policy, 34, 1128–1149.
Cooper, J. E. (1996). Intermediaries and invention: business agents and the Edison electric pen and duplicating press. Business and Economic History, 25, 1, Fall.
Cross, R. and Parker, A. (2004). The hidden power of social networks, Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Christensen, Clayton M.(1997). The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Christensen, Clayton M., Ojomo, Efosa., & Dillon, Karen (2019). The Prosperity Paradox: How Innovation Can Lift Nations out of Poverty, New York, New York, USA: HarperBusiness, ISBN 9780062851826.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity : Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention, New York: Harper Perennial.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of A Systems Perspective for the Study of Creativity in Sternberg, R. J. (ed.). The Handbook of Creativity, First Edition, New York: Cambridge University Press, 313-335.
‧
‧
Dakhli, Mourad. and De Clercq, Dirk. (2007). Human capital, social capital, and innovation: a multi-country study. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development An International Journal, Volume 16, Issue 2.
Davidson, P. & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal
of Business Venturing, 18(3), 301–331.
DiMaggio, Paul. 1992. Nadel’s Paradox Revisited: Relational and Cultural Aspects of Organizational Structure. In N. Nohria and R. G. Eccles (eds.), Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action: 118-142. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
DiMaggio, P.,H. Louch(1998). Socially embedded consumer transactions: For what kinds of purchases do people most often use networks?. American Sociological Review,63,619-637.
Dodgson, M., Gann, D. & Salter, A. (2006). The role of technology in the shift towards open innovation: the case of Procter & Gamble. R&D Management, 36, 3, 333–346.
Drake, Graham. (2003). This place gives me space: place and creativity in the creative industries. Geoforum, 34(2003) 511-524.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
Ellis, Paul D. (2000). Social Ties and Foreign Market Entry. Journal of International Business Studies, 31(3): 443-469.
Ethiraj, S. K., Kale, P., Krishnan, M. S., & Singh, J. V. (2005). Where do capabilities come from and how do they matter? A study in the software services industry.
Strategic Management Journal, 26, 25-45.
Fleming, L. & Waguespack, D. M. (2007). Brokerage, boundary spanning and leadership in open innovation communities. Organization Science, 18, 2, .165–180.
Florian B., Philip C. (2003). Designing the rug and not the picnic: Paju landscape script, Paju Book City, Seoul, Korea. 1999–Present, Landscape Urbanism, 76–81, ISBN 1-902902-30-0.
Florida, Richard. (2008). Who’s your City: How the creative economy is making where you live the most important decision of your life, SUSAN SCHULMAN LITERARY AGENCY, INC.
Freeman, C. (1995). The ‘National System of Innovation’ in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19, 5–24.
Gassmann, Oliver. (2006). Opening up the innovation process: towards an agenda.
R&D management, Volume36, Issue3, 223-228.
Goto, A. (2000). Japan’s National Innovation System: Current status and problems, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 16, 2, 103–113.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The Strength Of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology 78, 1360-80.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Social Embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology,91(3),481-510.
Granovetter, M. & Swedberg, Richard. （eds.）(1992). The Sociology of Economic Life, Westview Press.
Gulati, R. & Gargiulo, M. (1999). Where do interorganizational networks come from? American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1439–1493.
‧
‧
Hacklin, F., Lopperi, K., Bergman, J.-P. & Marxt, C. (2004). Toward an integrated knowledge management cycle in cumulative open innovation networks.
Proceedings of the R&D Management Conference (RADMA), 7–9 July, Sesimbra, Portugal.
Hamel, Gary & C. K. Prahalad. (1996). Competing for the Future, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Hansen, M.T.(1999). The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge Across Organizational Subunits.Administrative Science Quarterly,44,82-111.
Hargadon, A. and Sutton, R.I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 718–749.
Hargadon, A. (1998). Firms as knowledge brokers: lessons in pursu- ing continuous innovation. California Management Review 40, 209–227.
Heydebreck, P., Klofsten, M. & Maier, J. (2000). Innovation support for new technology-based firms: the Swedish teknopol approach. R&D Management, 30, 1, 89–100.
Hikimo, T., & Amsden, A. H. (1994). Staying behind, stumbling back, sneaking up, soaring ahead: late industrialization in historical perspective. in W. J. Baumol, R. R.
Nelson, & E. N. Wolff (Eds.), Convergence of Productivity: Cross-national studies and historical evidence. 285–315. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hossain, Mokter. ( 2012 ). Performance and Potential of Open Innovation Intermediaries. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 58, 754 – 764.
Howells, J. (1996). Tacit knowledge, innovation and technology transfer.
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 8, 2.
Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation.
Research Policy, 35. 715–728.
Howards, J. (2005). Knowledge exchange networks in Australia’s innovation system: overview and strategic analysis. Report of a Study Commissioned by the Department of Education, Science, and Training.
Hsueh, L-M., Hsu, C-K., & Perkins, D. H. (2004). Industrialization and the state: the changing role of the Taiwan Government in the economy, 1945–1998. Harvard University Press.
Jacob, Merle., Lundqvist, Mats., Hellsmark, Hans. (2003). Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish University system: the case of Chalmers University of Technology. Research Policy, Volume 32, Issue 9, October 2003, Pages 1555-1568.
Jamali, Dima, Mary Yianni, and Hanin Abdallah. (2011). Strategic Partnerships, Social Capital and Innovation: Accounting for Social Alliance Innovation. Business Ethics: A European Review 20 (4): 375-391.
Jenkins, G. P., Kuo, C-Y. & Sun K-N. (2003). Taxation and economic development in Taiwan, Harvard University Press.
Johanson, Jan & Vahlne, Jan-Erik. (1990). The Mechanism of Internationalization.
International Marketing Review, 7(4): 11-24.
John de la M. (2002). Policy networks in adaptive innovation systems. in J. de la
John de la M. (2002). Policy networks in adaptive innovation systems. in J. de la