參考文獻 - 循證公共行政下的文官調查：台灣經驗的觀點、方法、與實務意義

李震洲（2008）。廢除分區定額錄取與取消列考三民主義的歷史省思－從轉型正義角度加以觀察。國家菁英季刊，4（2），53-70。

洪永泰（2003）。原始樣本、替代樣本、與追蹤樣本的比較：2001 年台灣選舉與民主化調查研究訪問失敗的問題的探討。選舉研究，10（2），37-58。

陳敦源、呂佳螢（2008 年 11 月）。2008 年台灣政府文官調查經驗：理論、方法、

與挑戰。2008 年台灣政治學會年會研討會，南投縣。

陳敦源、呂佳螢（2009 年 5 月）。政治與行政的二分與重整？台灣文官態度與行為的實證分析。2009 年台灣公共行政暨事務系所聯合會年會研討會，高雄市。

黃秀端（2006）。2005 年至 2008 年選舉與民主化調查四年期研究規劃（II）：

2006 年北高兩市選舉面訪案。國科會專題研究計畫（編號：NSC

95-2420-H-031-011），未出版。

黃東益、謝忠安（2008 年 11 月）。管道取得與信任建立：新興民主國家文官意見蒐集方法的探討。2008 年台灣政治學會年會研討會，南投縣。

黃東益、陳敦源、施佳良（2009 年 5 月）。公共行政規範性根基的探索－2008 年台灣公務人員民主價值的分析。2009 年台灣公共行政暨事務系所聯合會年會研討會，高雄市。

傅仰止、張晉芬（編）（2007）。台灣社會變遷基本調查第五期第二次計畫。台北：中央研究院社會學研究所。

張智凱、高培智、詹中原（2008 年 11 月）。文官調查的跨國比較：機會與挑戰。

2008 年台灣政治學會年會研討會，南投縣。

詹中原、張智凱、高培智、林子寧（2009 年 5 月）。台灣文官之國家角色認知與政策哲學態度－新管理主義下民營化政策角度的實證觀察。2009 年台灣公共行政暨事務系所聯合會年會研討會，高雄市。

蔡秀涓、王千文（2008 年 11 月）。研究架構、議題選取與問卷設計：民主治理系絡之台灣政府文官調查。2008 年台灣政治學會年會研討會，南投縣。

蔡秀涓、王千文（2009 年 5 月）。台灣民主治理重要基礎：公務人員公共服務倫理認知分析。2009 年台灣公共行政暨事務系所聯合會年會研討會，高雄

市。

蕭乃沂、黃東益、陳敦源、呂佳螢（2008 年 9 月）。台灣文官意見調查的挑戰與反思—以「2008 年台灣民主治理機制鞏固之研究」為例，第八屆調查研究方法與應用國際學術研討會，台北市。

蕭乃沂、陳敦源、蘇偉業（2008 年 11 月）。發展循證基礎的文官研究與實務：

「台灣文官調查資料庫」芻議。2008 年台灣政治學會年會研討會，南投縣。

Bozeman, B., & M. K. Feeney (2008). Public management mentoring: What affects out-comes? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(2), 427-52.

Bowman, J. S. (1990). Ethics in government: A national survey of public administration.

Public Administration Review, 50(3), 345-353.

Brunsson, N. (2006). Administrative reforms as routines. Scandinavian Journal of Man-agement, 22(5), 243-252.

Caiden, G. (1991). Administrative reform comes of age, New York: W. de Gruyter.

Cook, T. D., & D. T. Campbell (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis is-sues for field settings. MA.: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Dahl, R. (1947). The science of public administration: Three problems. Public Admini-stration Review, 7(1), 1-11.

David, H., S. Mutley, & P. Smith (Eds.). (2000). What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services. Bristol: Policy Press.

Don-yun Chen, Tong-yi Huang, & Chih-kai Chang. (2009, March) Delving into the mys-tery of neutrality ethic in a consolidating democracy: A preliminary explora-tion from the Taiwan bureaucrat survey (Tbs) in 2008. ASPA (American So-ciety for Public Administration) Annual Meeting, Miami.

Evans, B., J. Lum, & J. Shields (2007). Profiling of the public-service elite: A demo-graphic and career trajectory survey of deputy and assistant deputy ministers in Canada. Canadian Public Administration-Administration, 50(4), 609-634.

Evans, P. B., D. Rueschemeyer, & T. Skocpol (Eds.). (1985). Bringing the state back in.

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ferris, J., & E. Graddy. (1986). Contracting out: For what? With whom? Public Admini-stration Review, 46(6), 332-344.

Fukuyama, F. (2004). State-building: Governance and world order in the 21st century.

N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2004.

Fulton, L. (1970). The civil service (vol. i~vii). London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.

Gill, J., & K. Meier (2000). Public administration research and practice: A methodologi-cal manifesto. Journal of Public Administration: Research and Theory, 10(1), 157-199.

Hood, C., & G. Peters (2004). The middle aging of new public management: Into the age of paradox? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(3), 267-82.

Jan, Chung-yuang, Yan-Yi Chang, & Chun-Yuan Wang. (2009, March). The cognitions, attitudes, and responsive behaviors of bureaucrats and political appointees to privatization in Taiwan. ASPA (American Society for Public Administration) Annual Meeting, Miami.

Kaplan, R., & D. Norton (1996). The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into ac-tion. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Kaufmann, D., A. Kraay, & M. Mastruzzi (2009). Governance matters VIII: Aggregate and individual governance indicators, 1996-2008 (World Bank Policy Re-search Working Paper No. 4978). Washington D.C.: World Bank.

Kim, C. K. (2003). The effects of a president’s party on federal senior executive em-ployment- An empirical analysis on representative bureaucracy. Administration

& Society, 35(2), 160-183.

Kjaer, A. M. (2004). Governance (key concepts). MA: Polity Press.

Knill, C. (1999). Explaining cross-national variance in administrative reform: Autono-mous versus instrumental bureaucracies. Journal of Public Policy, 19(2), 113-139.

Learmonth, M., & N. Harding (2006). Evidence-based management: The very idea. Pub-lic Administration, 84(2), 245-266.

LeRous, K., & S. K. Pandey (2008, August). City managers, career incentives, and ser-vice delivery decisions: The effects of managerial ambition on interlocal co-operation choice. The Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Asso-ciation, Boston.

Levine, Charles H., B. G. Peters, & F. J. Thompson (1990). Public administration: Chal-lenges, choices, consequences, IL: Scott, Foresman/Little, Brown Higher Edu-cation.

Light, P. (2006). The tides of reform revisited: Patterns in making government work, 1945-2002. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 6-19.

Luton, L. S. (2007). Deconstructing public administration empiricism. Administration &

Society, 39(4), 527-544.

Luton, L. S. (2008). Beyond empiricists versus postmodernists. Administration & Soci-ety, 40(2), 211-219.

Lynn, L. E., C. J. Heinrich Jr., & C. J. Hill (2008). The empiricist goose has not been cooked! Administration & Society, 40(1), 104-109.

Meier, K., & L. J. O’Toole Jr. (2007). Deconstructing Larry Luton: Or what time is the next train to reality junction? Administration & Society, 39(6), 786-796.

Meier, K., & L. J. O’Toole, Jr. (2009). The proverbs of new public management: Lessons from an evidence-based research agenda. The American Review of Public Ad-ministration, 39(1), 4-22.

Mosher, F. C. (1982). Democracy and the public service (2^nd Ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

MSPB (Merit Systems Protection Board) (2007). Career advancement survey. Retrieved September 25, 2007, from http://www.mspb.gov

MSPB (Merit Systems Protection Board) (2008a). The federal government: A model em-ployer or a work in progress? Retrieved December 16, 2008, from http://www.mspb.gov

MSPB (2008b). The power of federal employee engagement. Retrieved November 17, 2008, from http://www.mspb.gov

MSPB (Merit Systems Protection Board) (2008c). Alternative discipline: Creative solu-tions for agencies to effectively address employee misconduct. Retrieved Octo-ber 15, 2008, from http://www.mspb.gov

MSPB (2008d). Federal appointment authorities: Cutting through the confusion. Re-trieved July 24, 2008, from http://www.mspb.gov

MSPB (2009). MSPB federal telework survey. Retrieved March 19, 2009, from http://www.mspb.gov

Muldrow, T. W., T. Buckley, & B. W. Schey (2002). Creating high-performance organi-zations in the public sector. Human Resource Management, 41(3), 341-354.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2002). Survey knowledge management practices for ministries/departments/agencies of cen-tral government. Retrieved January 23, 2002, from http://www.oecd.org

OECD (2003). The learning government: introduction and draft results of the survey on knowledge management in ministries/departments/agencies of central govern-ment in OECD countries. Retrieved September 09, 2004, from http://www.oecd.org

OECD (2004a). Trends in human resources management policies in oecd countries: an analysis of the results of the OECD survey on strategic human resources. Re-trieved August 26, 2004, from http://www.oecd.org

OECD (2004b). Measures for promoting integrity and preventing corruption in the public service: How to assess? Retrieved September 09, 2005, from http://www.oecd.org

OECD (2005). Budget practices and procedures survey questionnaire. Retrieved Decem-ber 30, 2005, from http://www.oecd.org

OECD (2007a). Budget practices and procedures survey questionnaire. Retrieved De-cember 19, 2006, from http://www.oecd.org

OECD (2007b). Political involvement in senior staffing and on the delineation of respon-sibilities between ministers and senior civil servants. Retrieved August 13, 2007, from http://www.oecd.org

Pawson, P. (2006). Evidence-based policy: A realist perspective. London: Sage Publica-tion.

Peters, B. G. (1993). Managing the hollow state. In K. A. Eliassen, & J. Kooiman (Eds.), Managing public organizations: lessons from contemporary European ex-perience (pp. 46-57). London: Sage Publications.

Peters, B G., & D. J. Savoie (1996). Managing incoherence: The coordination and em-powerment conundrum. Public Administration Review, 56(3), 281-290.

Pfeffer, J., & R. I. Sutton (2006). Hard facts: Dangerous half-truth & total nonsense.

Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.

Rainey, H. G., S. Pandey, & B. Bozeman (1995). Research note: Public and private man-agers’ perceptions of red tape. Public Administration Review, 55(6), 567-574.

Romzek, B., & M. J. Dubnick (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47(3), 227-238.

Sanderson, I. (2002). Evaluation, policy learning, and evidence-based policy making.

Public Administration, 80(1), 1-22.

Scott, P. G., & S. K. Pandey (2005). Red tape and public service motivation: Findings from a national survey of managers in state health and human services agencies.

Review of Public Personnel Administration, 25(2), 155-180.

Stewart, R. (2002). Evidence-based management: A practical guide for health profes-sionals. Abingdon: Radcliffe Medical Press.

Schay, B., M. E. Beach, J. Caldwell, & C. LaPolice (2002). Using standardized outcome measures in the federal government. Human Resource Management, 41(3),

355-368.

Taylor, J. C., & D. G. Bowers (Eds.). (1972). Survey of organizations: A machine-scored standardized questionnaire instrument. MI.: Center for Research on Utilization of Scientific Knowledge.

Tong-yi Huang, Naiyi Hsiao, Don-yun Chen, & Chia-ying Lu (2009, March). Laying groundwork for evidence-based public management: Methodological issues in surveying civil servants in a newly democratized country. ASPA (American Society for Public Administration) Annual Meeting, Miami.

Van de Ven, A. H., & D. L. Ferry (1980). Measuring and assessing organizations. New York: Wiley.

Vigoda-Gadot, E., S. Mizrahi, R. Miller-Mor, & E. Tevet (2008). The bureaucracy-democracy tango: A dual-source empirical revalidation by structural equation modeling in the Israeli public sector. Policy and Politics, 36(3), 431-448.

Waldo, D. (1990). A theory of public administration means in our time a theory of poli-tics also. In N. B. Lynn, & A. Wildavsky (Eds.), Public administration: The state of the discipline (pp. 73-83). NJ: Chatham.

Wildavsky, A. (1973). If planning is everything, maybe it‘s nothing. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 127-153.

Wilson, W. (1887). The study of public administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2(2), 197-222.

Wandersman, A., P. Imm, M. Chinman, & S. Kaftarian (2000). Getting to outcomes: A results-based approach to accountability. Evaluation and Program Planning, 23(3), 389-395.

Wright, B. E., & S. K. Pandey (2005, Sept.). Exploring the nomological map of the pub-lic service motivation concept. The 8^th Public Management Research Confer-ence, Los Angeles, CA.

Wynia, B. (1974). Federal bureaucrats’ attitudes toward a democratic ideology. Public Administrative Review, 34(2), 156-162.

在文檔中循證公共行政下的文官調查：台灣經驗的觀點、方法、與實務意義 (頁 31-37)