第五章 結論與建議
第三節 研究限制與後續研究建議
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
93
第三節 研究限制與後續研究建議
本研究參考過去學者應用社會資本解釋組織現象的方式，以社會資本呈現的 社群網絡關係來探討虛擬社群成員相關的參與行為債向，而研究探討的過程仍有 一些限制，茲將相關限制和未來研究建議列舉如下：
1. 虛擬社群的選擇
本研究雖然選取了比較有代表性的虛擬社群，但是現在網路上虛擬社群的型 態和性質相當多，例如微網誌型態的噗浪、部落客等，各種虛擬社群的型態 與性質略有不同，故研究結果與討論可能會有部份的侷限性，無法將結果推 論到所有虛擬社群的情境中。建議未來研究可納入更多種類虛擬社群，讓此 議題的研究結果能更準確。
2. 樣本蒐集的限制
本研究因為 Mobile01 官方禁止在社群內張貼問卷，無法直接在 Mobile01 帄 台上接觸到樣本，雖然透過其他管道邀請有使用 Mobile01 的網友填寫問卷，
但有可能使樣本蒐集上有些誤差。未來研究者可選擇規則較為彈性的虛擬社 群，或與社群官方合作發放問卷，使研究結果更能精確代表該社群的現象。
3. 研究方法
本研究以問卷調查法的方式，探索社會資本型態對於虛擬社群成員參與行為 的影響，後續研究可以抓取特定一個社會資本構面所代表的概念，以實驗設 計法探究社會資本對於成員行為的影響，以獲得更精確的研究結果。
‧
169-202。
林南（2001），林佑聖、葉欣怡譯，社會資本，台北：弘智文化。 評論，7(2)，63-76.
陳靖旻（2008），影響虛擬社群成員知識分享因素之探討－社會資本理論觀點，
碩士論文，國立中央大學資訊管理研究所。
英文部份
Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S.-W. (2002). Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept. The Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17-40.
Adler, R. P., & Christopher, A. J. (1998). Internet community primer overview and business opportunities. Internet Community Primer.
Arndt, J. (1967). Role of product-related conversations in the diffusion of a new product. Journal of Marketing Research, 4(3), 291-295.
Bergami, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Self categorization, affective commitment and group self esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 39(4), 555-577.
Berlo, D. K., Lemert, J. B., & Mertz, R. J. (1969). Dimensions for evaluating the acceptability of message sources. Public Opinion Quarterly, 33(4), 563.
Birnbaum, M. H., & Stegner, S. E. (1979). Source credibility in social judgment: Bias,
‧
expertise, and the judge's point of view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(1), 48.
Blanchard, A., & Horan, T. (1998). Virtual communities and social capital. Social Science Computer Review, 16(3), 293.
Blau, P. M. (1986). Exchange and power in social life: Transaction Publishers.
Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., & Lee, J. N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. Mis Quarterly, 29(1), 87-111.
Bourdieu, P., & Richardson, J. G. (1986). Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education.
Brown, J., Broderick, A. J., & Lee, N. (2007). Word of mouth communication within online communities: Conceptualizing the online social network. Journal of interactive marketing, 21(3), 2-20.
Brown, J. J., & Reingen, P. H. (1987). Social Ties and Word-of-Mouth Referral Behavior. The Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 350-362.
Buda, R., & Zhang, Y. (2000). Consumer product evaluation: the interactive effect of message framing, presentation order, and source credibility. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 9(4), 229-242.
Burt, R. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chaudhury, A., Mallick, D., & Rao, H. R. (2001). Web channels in e-commerce.
Communications of the ACM, 44(1), 99-104.
Cheung, C. M. K., & Lee, M. K. O. (2009). Understanding the sustainability of a virtual community: model development and empirical test. Journal of Information Science, 35(3), 279.
Chiu, C. M., Hsu, M. H., & Wang, E. T. G. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: an integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1872-1888.
Coleman, J. S. (1961). The adolescent society: the social life of the teenager and its impact on education.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory: Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press
Craig, D. L., & Zimring, C. (2000). Supporting collaborative design groups as design
‧
communities. Design Studies, 21(2), 187-204.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.
Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.
Daniel, B., McCalla, G., & Schwier, R. (2002). A process model for building social capital in virtual learning communities.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (2000). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know: Harvard Business Press.
Douglas, K. M., & McGarty, C. (2001). Identifiability and self presentation:
Computer mediated communication and intergroup interaction. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(3), 399-416.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J. W. (1999). Self categorisation,
commitment to the group and group self esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29(2 3), 371-389.
Fountain, J. (1997). Social capital: A Key Enabler of Innovation in Science and Technology. IN LM Branscomb & J. Keller (Eds.) Investing in Innovation:
Toward A consensus strategy for Federal Technology Policy: Cambridge, The MIT Press.
Freestone, O., & Mitchell, V. (2004). Generation Y attitudes towards e-ethics and internet-related misbehaviours. Journal of Business Ethics, 54(2), 121-128.
Fukuyama, F. (1999). Social Capital and Civil Society. . Paper presented at the The Institute of Public Policy.
Gabarro, J. J. (1978). The development of trust, influence, and expectations.
Interpersonal behavior: Communication and understanding in relationships, 290, 303.
Geddes, D., & Konrad, A. M. (2003). Demographic differences and reactions to performance feedback. Human Relations, 56(12), 1485.
Gerard, H. B., Wilhelmy, R. A., & Conolley, E. S. (1968). Conformity and group size.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(1p1), 79.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161-178.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness.
Granovetter, M. (1992). Problems of explanation in economic sociology. Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action, 25, 56.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.
‧
Grootaert, C., & Van Bastelaer, T. (2002). The role of social capital in development:
an empirical assessment: Cambridge Univ Pr.
Hagel, J., & Armstrong, A. (1997). Net gain: expanding markets through virtual communities: Harvard Business School Press.
Hamman, R. (1997). Introduction to Virtual Communities Research and Cybersociology Magazine Issue Two. Cybersociology Magazine.
Jacobs, J. (1992). The death and life of great American cities: Vintage.
Kavanaugh, A. L., & Patterson, S. J. (2001). The impact of community computer networks on social capital and community involvement. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 496.
Keefe, D., & Daniel, J. (1992). Persuasion. Theory and Research: Sage Publications, Newbury-Park-London-New Delhi.
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American psychologist, 39(10), 1123.
Kozinets, R. V. (1999). E-tribalized marketing?: The strategic implications of virtual communities of consumption. European Management Journal, 17(3),
252-264.
Krackhardt, D. (1992). The strength of strong ties: The importance of philos in organizations. Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action, 216, 239.
Larson, A. (1992). Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: A study of the
governance of exchange relationships. Administrative science quarterly, 37(1).
Lee, F. S. L., Vogel, D., & Limayem, M. (2003). Virtual community informatics: A review and research agenda. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA), 5(1), 5.
Marsden, P. V., & Campbell, K. E. (1984). Measuring tie strength. Soc. F., 63, 482.
Mathwick, C., & Klebba, J. (2003). The Nature and Value of Virtual Community Participation.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
McLure Wasko, M., & Faraj, S. (2000). "It is what one does": why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice. Journal of strategic information systems, 9(2-3), 155-173.
McPherson, J. M., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1987). Homophily in voluntary organizations:
Status distance and the composition of face-to-face groups. American Sociological Review, 52(3), 370-379.
McWilliam, G. (2000). Building stronger brands through online communities. Sloan Management Review, 41(3), 43-54.
‧
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of vocational behavior, 61(1), 20-52.
Misztal, B. A. (1996). Trust in modern societies: The search for the bases of social order: Polity Press.
Muniz Jr, A. M., & O'Guinn, T. C. (2001). Brand community. Journal of consumer research, 412-432.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266.
Nelson, R. E. (1989). The strength of strong ties: Social networks and intergroup conflict in organizations. The Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 377-401.
Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers' perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 39-52.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK.
Perloff, R. M., & NetLibrary, I. (1993). The dynamics of persuasion: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Portes, A. (1995). Economic sociology and the sociology of immigration: a conceptual overview: Nueva York, Russell Sage Foundation Publications.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or Building Social Boundaries?
Communication research, 25(6), 689.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., Sakhel, K., & De Groot, D. (2001). Social influence in computer-mediated communication: The effects of anonymity on group behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(10), 1243.
Rheingold, H. (2000). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier: The MIT Press.
Ridings, C. M., Gefen, D., & Arinze, B. (2002). Some antecedents and effects of trust in virtual communities. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3-4), 271-295.
Rieh, S. Y., & Belkin, N. J. (1998). Understanding judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the WWW.
Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1994). Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. The Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 90-118.
‧
Rioux, K. (2000). Sharing Information Found for Others on the World Wide Web: A Preliminary Examination.
Rioux, K. (2005). Information acquiring-and-sharing in Internet-based environments:
An exploratory study of individual user behaviors. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN.
Ruane, J. M. (2004). Essentials of research methods: a guide to social research:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Ruef, M., Aldrich, H. E., & Carter, N. M. (2003). The structure of founding teams:
Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among US entrepreneurs. American Sociological Review, 68(2), 195-222.
Schacter, S. (1959). Thepsychology of affiliation: Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Schiffman, L. G., & Kanuk, L. L. (2010). Consumer Behavior (10 ed.): Prentice Hall.
Shore, C. (Ed.). (1994). Community. Massachusett: Basil Blawell.
Silverman, G. (1997). How to harness the awesome power of word of mouth.
DIRECT MARKETING-GARDEN CITY-, 60, 32-37.
Sitkin, S. B., & Roth, N. L. (1993). Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic"
remedies" for trust/distrust. Organization Science, 4(3), 367-392.
Stafford, T. F., & Gonier, D. (2004). What Americans like about being online.
Communications of the ACM, 47(11), 107-112.
Subramani, M., & Peddibhotla, N. (2004). Determinants of helping behaviors in online groups: A conceptual model.
Talja, S. (2002). Information sharing in academic communities: types and levels of collaboration in information seeking and use. New Review of Information Behavior Research, 3, 143-160.
Teo, H. H., Chan, H. C., Wei, K. K., & Zhang, Z. (2003). Evaluating information accessibility and community adaptivity features for sustaining virtual learning communities. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(5), 671-697.
Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social Capital and Value Creation: The Role of Intrafirm Networks. The Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464-476.
Walther, J. B. (1997). Group and Interpersonal Effects in International Computer Mediated Collaboration. Human Communication Research, 23(3), 342-369.
Wang, Y., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2004). Towards understanding members' general participation in and active contribution to an online travel community. Tourism Management, 25(6), 709-722.
Wasko, M. M. L., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. Mis Quarterly,
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
100
29(1), 35-57.
Wellman, B., & Berkowitz, S. D. (1988). Social structures: A network approach (Vol.
2): Cambridge Univ Press.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
101
親愛的虛擬社群使用者 您好：
這是一份有關「虛擬社群成員的資訊使用與互動行為」的研究問卷，旨在瞭解 您在參與虛擬社群時，與其他成員間的互動狀況、資訊使用行為，答案沒有對錯，
請依據您自己的想法與實際情況回答即可。本問卷傴供學術研究之用，您所提供的 資料與意見保證不對外公開。您的協助將是本研究成功的關鍵，傴此致上由衷的謝 忱！
填寫本問卷傴需花費您不到 20 分鐘的時間，還可參加為填答者所舉辦的抽獎活動。
本研究單位將從填答完整的「有效問卷」中抽出 16～20 位左右的受測者（視最後問 卷量而定，中獎率一定維持在 10%），贈送一張面額 200 元的 7-11 商品現金卡作為 獎品，務必請各位受訪者照真實情況填答。後續抽獎事宜，將會採取公開、公正的 方式進行抽獎，過程亦有公正的第三方監督，敬請放心填答。
敬祝 健康順心！
國立政治大學國際經營與貿易研究所 指導教授：邱志聖 博士 研究生：吳銘峻 敬上 附錄：正式問卷
Facebook 版本問卷之說明
這份問卷主要針對「帄常有在使用 Facebook」並且「會在 Facebook 上發表和討 論」的網友們。並請您針對自己「在 Facebook 的朋友圈」中的經驗與使用情況，
來回答本份問卷的問題。
Mobile01 版本問卷之說明
這份問卷主要針對「帄常有在使用 Mobile01」並且「會在 Mobile01 上發表和討 論」的網友們。Mobile01 論壇的主題類型留言板相當多，請您針對自己「最常 活動或留言的討論版」中的經驗與使用情況，來回答本份問卷的問題。
‧
‧
‧
‧
‧
‧
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
108
5. 請問您的職業？
□礦業 □製造業 □水電燃氣業 □農林漁牧業 □金融保險業
□商業 □營造業 □住宿餐飲業 □運輸倉儲業 □醫療保健業
□服務業 □通信業 □社會服務業 □不動產及租賃業
□學生 □軍公教 □其他 6. 請問您每個月可支配所得？
□10,000 元以下 □10,001 元～30,000 元 □30,001 元～50,000 元
□50,001 元～70,000 元 □70,001 元以上 7. 抽獎聯絡資料
本研究為問卷填答者舉辦抽獎活動。以下聯絡資料純為中獎聯絡所用，保證 不會使用在其他用途。
E-mail：
非常感謝您的填答，請務必再次確認您的問卷已經填答完整以及電子郵件地址 正確無誤，以確保您的抽獎資格。若電子郵件地址有誤而使屆時無法聯絡，將 使您喪失中獎資格，敬請見諒。後續抽獎事宜，將會採取公開、公正的方式進 行抽獎，過程亦有公正的第三方監督。得獎名單會以電子郵件通知，請務必留 意信箱內郵件。
再次感謝您的參與，祝您順心！