參考文獻

性的分析與探討，希冀

王嵩 2004 年立法委員選

行政報

行政主化》，行政院

林瓊治知識：1992~2000 年的變動〉，《選舉

洪新 〈科技接受模式之彙總研究〉，《資訊

其次，在理論觀點方面，雖然近年來電子化政府的相關研究正逐漸轉向民主參與的重視。但新近許多研究調查顯示，當前政府網站的經營模式與互動行為仍多半是基於管理導向的觀點，亦即重視公共務效率與品質的提升（Chadwick & May, 2003）；此外，Nisbet 與 Scheufele（2004: 881）亦指出部分民眾使用政府網站是基於學術研究與資料蒐集之所需。因此，建議未來對政府網站運用的相關研究亦可朝此這些方向發展，並比較其與尋求民主目的之使用行為的差異。

最後，就研究調查對象而言，本研究樣本雖已在有限資源的限制下盡力以隨機方式去符合我國網路民眾的結構與代表性，惟在國內網路調查機構的樣本規模仍普遍有限之情況下，仍不免侷限了相關研究概推的能力，在意識到此限制下，實務策略與理論意涵的詮釋上則必須更加的謹慎。另一方面，隨著網路技術與運用的日益普及、以及數位落差議題的浮現，非網路使用者與相關利害關係人的調查將是勢在必行的。是以，若資源與行政管理上可行，建議未來可嘗試建立與電子化政府政策相關且具代表性的追蹤調查樣本（panel），包括：網路民眾、一般民眾、私企業人士與公務同仁，以長期進行各項政策議題的研究與調查追蹤。綜上，本文僅作為一探索

未來能有更多相關研究彌補本研究之缺漏。

音（2006）〈網路使用與選舉參與之研究－以舉為例〉，《台灣民主季刊》3(4): 71-102。

院研究發展考核委員會（2006）《九十五年數位落差調查分析告》，行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告，未出版。

院研究發展考核委員會（2007）《政府網站功能民研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告，未出版。

珠（2005）〈台灣民眾的政研究》12(1): 147-171。

原、梁定澎、張嘉銘（2005）

楊明

Blasi easures of

le Barb

Brow Bove

onstitutional Control.

管理學報》12(4): 211-234。

璧、詹淑文（2005）〈電子化政府服務服務品質及民眾滿意程度評估調查〉，《東吳政治學報》26(1): 143-198。

worth, S., Hardy, C., & Harley, B. (2005).Online Consultation:

E-Democracy and E-Resistance in the Case of the Development Gateway. Management Communication Quarterly 19, 120-145.

us J., & Thiessen V. (2001) Methodological Artifacts in M Political Efficacy and Trust. An Application of Multip Correspondence Analysis. Political Analysis 9, 1-20.

er, B. (1997), The New Telecommunications Technology: Endless Frontier or the End of Democracy. Constellations 4(2), 208-228.

n, D. (2005). Electronic government and public administration.

International Review of Administrative Sciences 71(2), 241-254.

ns, M., & Zouridis, S. (2002). From Street-Level to System-Level Bureaucracies: How Information and Communication Technology is Transforming Administrative Discretion and C

Public Administration Review 62(2), 174-84.

Carte nt tance factors.

Chad e for

?” Conference proceeding , Political Studies /cps/2003/Andrew%20Chadwick.pdf>,

Chad ens

. Cibo

e at a Distance? Information Dimi

on and Services. Social Science Computer Edm

Gold e

85.

Graber, D. (2003). The media and democracy: Beyond myths and

Heek naging eGovernment: An

Hille electronic

seCoopers Endowment for the Business of

Huan ation

dings. Journal of Computer Information r, L., & Bélanger, F. (2005). The utilization of e-governme services: citizen trust, innovation and accep

Information Systems Journal 15 (1), 5-25.

wick, A. (2003). “E-Government and E-Democracy: A Cas Convergence

Association,

<http://www.psa.ac.uk accessed 2004/11/15.

wick, A., & May, C. (2003). Interaction between states and citiz in the age of the Internet: ‘e-government’ in the United States, Britain and the European Union. Governance 16(2), 271-300 rra, C. (2005) Interpreting e-Government and Development

Efficiency, Transparency or Governanc Technology & People 18(3), 260-279.

trova, D. V., & Chen, Y.-C. (2006).Profiling the Adopters of E-Government Informati

Review 24(2), 172-188.

iston, K. D. (2003). State and local e-government: Prospects and challenges. American Review of Public Administration 33(1), 20-45.

ing, P. (1996). World Wide Wedge: Division and Contradiction in th Global Information Infrastructure. Monthly Review 48(3),

70-stereotypes.

Annual Review of Political Science, 6, 139-160.

s, R. (2006). Implementing and Ma International Text. London: Sage.

r, J., & Belanger, F. (2001 ). Privacy strategies for government. EGovernment Series. Arlington, VA:

Pricewaterhou Government.

g, W., Ambra, J. D. & Bhalla, V. (2002). An empirical investig of the adoption of eGovernment in Australian citizens: Some unexpected research fin

Systems, 43(1), 15-22.

John f ong lism and Mass

Kam

mate E-Dream. Social Science Computer Review 21(4), Kaka

ing Agenda for Debate. Public Administration Review 63(1), Niem

ection Study. American Nisb

hip. Journalism & Mass

Nels rnational

Norr

Nie, N., & Erbring, L. (2002). Internet and Society: A Preliminary Report.

Norr

ots:Tortoise or Hare? Public Administration Review 65(1),

OEC of E-Democracy: Challenges of

Ren,

cutives. Reference and

Scott nt

c Involvement? Public Administration son, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (2000). Using is Believing: the Influence o

Reliance on the Credibility of Online Political Information Am Politically Interested Internet Users. Journa

Communication Quarterly 77(4), 865-879.

pen, J., & Snijkers, K. (2003). E-Democracy: A Critical Evaluation of the Ulti

491-496.

badse, A., Kakabadse, N. K., & Kouzmin, A. (2003). Reinventing the Democratic Governance Project through Information Technology?

A Grow 44-60

i, R. G.,Craig, S. C., & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring Internal Political Efficacy in. the 1988 National El

Political Science Review 85, 1407-1413.

et, M., & Scheufele, D. A. (2004). Internet use and participation:

Political talk as a catalyst for online citizens Communication Quarterly 81(4), 877-896.

on, M. (1997). Building trust in cyberspace. Inte Information and Library Review 29, 153–157.

is, P. (2001). Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. New York: Cambridge University Press.

IT and Society 1(1), 275-83.

is, D., & Moon M. J. (2005).Advancing E-Government at the Grassro

64-75.

D (2003). Promise and Problems Online Citizen Engagement, Paris.

W. H. (1999). Self-efficacy and the search for government information: a study of small-business exe

User Services Quarterly 38(3), 283-291.

, James K. (2006) "E" the People: Do U.S. Municipal Governme Web Sites Support Publi

Review 66(3), 341-353.

Thom

s and Tolb

ence in Government. Public Administration Review

Tsag ality.

opean Journal of Communication

Wall

486.

Web d

ospects for Electronic

/confer as, J. C., & Streib, G.. (2005). E-democracy, e-commerce, and e-research: Examining the electronic ties between citizen

governments. Administration & Society 37(3), 259-280.

ert, C. J., & Mossberger, K. (2006). Effects of E-Government on Trust and Confid

66(3), 356-369.

arousianou, R. (1999). Electronic democracy: Rhetoric and re Communications: The Eur

Research 24(2), 189-208.

is, J. (2005). The web, accessibility, and inclusion: networked democracy in the United Kingdom. Library Review 54(8), 479-er, L. M. (2002). A Survey of the Literature on the Internet an

Democracy. Paper presented at the Pr Democracy Conference, Sept.20-21,

<http://insites.heinz.cmu.edu:8080/insites/events/past_events ences/democracy/program.html/paper/weber.pdf>, accessed Web

e Mass Public. Social Welc

nal

West

and Citizen Attitudes. Public Administration Review 64(1), Won

ness and Government Accountability. Governance 17(2), 275-297.

2004/11/23.

er, L.M.. & Bergman, J. (2003). Who Participates and Why? An Analysis of Citizens on the Internet and th

Science Computer Review 21 (1), 26-42.

h, E. W., Hinnant, C. C., & Moon, M. J. (2005). Linking Citizen Satisfaction with E-Government and Trust in Government. Jour of Public Administration Research and Theory 15(3), 371-391.

, D. M. (2004). E-government and the Transformation of Service Delivery

15-27.

g, W. & Welch, E. (2004). Does E-Government Promote Accountability? A Comparative Analysis of Website Open

在文檔中電子化參與的效益與風險：民眾對政府網站的認知與使用行為之初探 (頁 23-28)