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

Surveying Bureaucrats under Evidence-based Public Administration: Perspective, Methodology and Practicality from a Taiwanese Experience

10.30409/JPA.200906_(31).0005

陳敦源(Don-Yun Chen)；呂佳螢(Chia-Ying Lu)

文官調查 ； 實證調查 ； 循證基礎的公共行政 ； 公共行政研究 ； 人事制度 ； bureaucratic survey ； empirical ； evidence-based ； public administrative research ； personnel system

公共行政學報

31期（2009 / 06 / 01）

187 - 225

繁體中文

文官調查是一種對統治精英集體經驗的探索，過去統治精英的研究過度集中於政治人物，但是，一國治理績效的關鍵無法忽略文官系統的影響，公共行政學界理應開發探索文官體系的經驗研究技術，以期更多地了解治理的「績效秘密」(performance secret)；更重要的，文官體制是中國文明重要的社會發明，但是，學界過去對這具有數千年傳統的體制，最多只能從規範性或是個案性的角度進行探索，缺乏系統性的了解；更甚者，在台灣這古老體制目前正與西方民主政治進行磨合，其過程與結果的探究是台灣公共行政學界對國際學界責無旁貸的任務。 本文先從台灣公共行政理論發展的角度，討論「循證基礎的公共行政」(evidence-based pubic administration)下文官調查的意涵，尋找台灣學界建構文官調查能力的正當性與時代意義；再者，本文將從方法應用的角度，藉由過去半世紀政治學門發展出來的民意調查技術，對台灣文官系統進行系統性抽樣普查；最後，本文植基於二○○八年所進行的台灣文官調查經驗，從抽樣、調查、以及資料分析等三個角度，討論傳統民意調查方法在文官調查中的應用予限制，並且從中尋找未來建構文官調查的知識管理基礎。 從人事制度改革與學術結合的角度，本文提出未來台灣公共行政研究以常態性文官調查為基本內容的可行性與限制，本文展望未來有三點機會與挑戰值得注意：其一，研究的持續需要與實務界建立共識，取得穩定的經費與母體清冊的來源；其二，在資源有限的前提下，理論焦點研究與全國性普查要做適當的切割；其三，往後執行過程中的監控應該加強，以建立方法論改革的循證資料，持續改進文官調查技術。

Bureaucrat Survey is a method to explore the collective experience of the ruling elites in civil service system. Students of public administration should develop the tool to understand the ”performance secret” of governance Also, bureaucratic system is a social product of Chinese society. Scholars in Taiwan have a rare occasion to observe the reconciliation between Western democracy and the century-old bureaucracy. A systematic way of researching the Taiwanese bureaucracy will bring fruitful contribution to the world academia. In this research note, authors first argue for justifications of doing bureaucrat survey in nowadays Taiwan. Then, based on the experience of 2008 Taiwan Bureaucrat Survey, authors describe and reflect on sampling, surveying and data analyzing experiences. Finally, authors discuss the limitations and opportunities of the Taiwan Bureaucrat Survey in the future.

1. 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。
   連結：
2. Bowman, J. S.(1990).Ethics in government: A national survey of public administration.Public Administration Review,50(3),345-353.
3. Bozeman, B.,M. K. Feeney(2008).Public management mentoring: What affects outcomes?.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,19(2),427-452.
4. Brunsson, N.(2006).Administrative reforms as routines.Scandinavian Journal of Management,22(5),243-252.
5. Caiden, G.(1991).Administrative reform comes of age.New York:W. de Gruyter.
6. Cook, T. D.,D. T. Campbell(1979).Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings.MA.:Houghton Mifflin Co.
7. Dahl, R.(1947).The science of public administration: Three problems.Public Administration Review,7(1),1-11.
8. David, H. (Eds.),S. Mutley (Eds.),P. Smith (Eds.)(2000).What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services.Bristol:Policy Press.
9. Don-yun Chen,Tong-yi Huang,Chih-kai Chang(2009).Delving into the mystery of neutrality ethic in a consolidating democracy: A preliminary exploration from the Taiwan bureaucrat survey (Tbs) in 2008.ASPA (American Society for Public Administration) Annual Meeting,Miami:
10. Evans, B.,J. Lum,J. Shields(2007).Profiling of the public-service elite: A demographic and career trajectory survey of deputy and assistant deputy ministers in Canada.Canadian Public Administration-Administration,50(4),609-634.
11. Evans, P. B. (Eds.),D. Rueschemeyer (Eds.),T. Skocpol (Eds.)(1985).Bringing the state back in.New York:Cambridge University Press.
12. Ferris, J.,E. Graddy.(1986).Contracting out: For what? With whom?.Public Administration Review,46(6),332-344.
13. Fukuyama, F.(2004).State-building: Governance and world order in the 21st century.N.Y.:Cornell University Press.
14. Fulton, L.(1970).The civil service.London:Her Majesty's Stationary Office.
15. Fulton, L.(1970).The civil service.London:Her Majesty's Stationary Office.
16. Fulton, L.(1970).The civil service.London:Her Majesty's Stationary Office.
17. Fulton, L.(1970).The civil service.London:Her Majesty's Stationary Office.
18. Fulton, L.(1970).The civil service.London:Her Majesty's Stationary Office.
19. Fulton, L.(1970).The civil service.London:Her Majesty's Stationary Office.
20. Fulton, L.(1970).The civil service.London:Her Majesty's Stationary Office.
21. Gill, J.,K. Meier(2000).Public administration research and practice: A methodological manifesto.Journal of Public Administration: Research and Theory,10(1),157-199.
22. 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),267-282.
23. Jan, Chung-yuang,Yan-Yi Chang,Chun-Yuan Wang(2009).The cognitions, attitudes, and responsive behaviors of bureaucrats and political appointees to privatization in Taiwan.ASPA (American Society for Public Administration) Annual Meeting,Miami:
24. Kaplan, R.,D. Norton(1996).The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action.Boston:Harvard Business School Press.
25. Kaufmann, D.,A. Kraay,M. Mastruzzi(2009).World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4978World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4978,Washington D.C.:World Bank.
26. Kim, C. K.(2003).The effects of a president's party on federal senior executive employment-An empirical analysis on representative bureaucracy.Administration & Society,35(2),160-183.
27. Kjaer, A. M.(2004).Governance (key concepts).MA:Polity Press.
28. Knill, C.(1999).Explaining cross-national variance in administrative reform: Autonomous versus instrumental bureaucracies.Journal of Public Policy,19(2),113-139.
29. Learmonth, M.,N. Harding(2006).Evidence-based management: The very idea.Public Administration,84(2),245-266.
30. LeRous, K.,S. K. Pandey(2008).City managers, career incentives, and service delivery decisions: The effects of managerial ambition on interlocal cooperation choice.The Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association,Boston:
31. Levine, Charles H.,B. G. Peters,F. J. Thompson(1990).Public administration: Challenges, choices, consequences.IL:Scott, Foresman/Little, Brown Higher Education.
32. Light, P.(2007).The tides of reform revisited: Patterns in making government work, 1945-2002.Public Administration Review,66(1),6-19.
33. Luton, L. S.(2007).Deconstructing public administration empiricism.Administration & Society,39(4),527-544.
34. Luton, L. S.(2008).Beyond empiricists versus postmodernists.Administration & Society,40(2),211-219.
35. Lynn, L. E.,C. J. Heinrich,C. J. Hill(2008).The empiricist goose has not been cooked!.Administration & Society,40(1),104-109.
36. Meier, K.,L. J. O''Toole(2009).The proverbs of new public management: Lessons from an evidence-based research agenda.The American Review of Public Administration,39(1),4-22.
37. Meier, K.,L. J. O''Toole(2007).Deconstructing Larry Luton: Or what time is the next train to reality junction?.Administration & Society,39(6),786-796.
38. Alternative discipline: Creative solutions for agencies to effectively address employee misconduct
39. Career advancement survey
40. The federal government: A model employer or a work in progress?
41. Mosher, F. C.(1982).Democracy and the public service.New York:Oxford University Press.
42. MSPB federal telework survey
43. Federal appointment authorities: Cutting through the confusion
44. The power of federal employee engagement
45. Muldrow, T. W.,T. Buckley,B. W. Schey(2002).Creating high-performance organizations in the public sector.Human Resource Management,41(3),341-354.
46. Measures for promoting integrity and preventing corruption in the public service: How to assess?
47. Political involvement in senior staffing and on the delineation of responsibilities between ministers and senior civil servants
48. Trends in human resources management policies in oecd countries: an analysis of the results of the OECD survey on strategic human resources
49. Budget practices and procedures survey questionnaire
50. The learning government: introduction and draft results of the survey on knowledge management in ministries/departments/agencies of central government in OECD countries
51. Budget practices and procedures survey questionnaire
52. Survey knowledge management practices for ministries/departments/agencies of central government
53. Pawson, P.(2006).Evidence-based policy: A realist perspective.London:Sage.
54. Peters, B G.,D. J. Savoie(1996).Managing incoherence: The coordination and empowerment conundrum.Public Administration Review,56(3),281-290.
55. Peters, B. G.,K. A. Eliassen (Eds.),J. Kooiman (Eds.)(1993).Managing public organizations: lessons from contemporary European experience.London:Sage.
56. Pfeffer, J.,R. I. Sutton(2006).Hard facts: Dangerous half-truth & total nonsense.Mass.:Harvard Business School Press.
57. Rainey, H. G.,S. Pandey,B. Bozeman(1995).Research note: Public and private managers' perceptions of red tape.Public Administration Review,55(6),567-574.
58. Romzek, B.,M. J. Dubnick(1987).Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the challenger tragedy.Public Administration Review,47(3),227-238.
59. Sanderson, I.(2002).Evaluation, policy learning, and evidence-based policy making.Public Administration,80(1),1-22.
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. Stewart, R.(2002).Evidence-based management: A practical guide for health professionals.Abingdon:Radcliffe Medical Press.
63. Taylor, J. C. (Eds.),D. G. Bowers (Eds.)(1972).Survey of organizations: A machinescored standardized questionnaire instrument.MI.:Center for Research on Utilization of Scientific Knowledge.
64. Tong-yi Huang,Naiyi Hsiao,Don-yun Chen,Chia-ying Lu(2009).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:
65. Van de Ven, A. H.,D. L. Ferry(1980).Measuring and assessing organizations.New York:Wiley.
66. Vigoda-Gadot, E.,S. Mizrahi,R. Miller-Mor,E. Tevet(2008).The bureaucracydemocracy tango: A dual-source empirical revalidation by structural equation modeling in the Israeli public sector.Policy and Politics,36(3),431-448.
67. Waldo, D.,N. B. Lynn (Eds.),A. Wildavsky (Eds.)(1990).Public administration: The state of the discipline.NJ:Chatham.
68. 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.
69. Wildavsky, A.(1973).If planning is everything, maybe it's nothing.Policy Sciences,4(2),127-153.
70. Wilson, W.(1887).The study of public administration.Political Science Quarterly,2(2),197-222.
71. Wright, B. E.,S. K. Pandey(2005).Exploring the nomological map of the public service motivation concept.The 8th Public Management Research Conference,Los Angeles, CA:
72. Wynia, B.(1974).Federal bureaucrats' attitudes toward a democratic ideology.Public Administrative Review,34(2),156-162.
73. 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。
74. 張智凱、高培智、詹中原(2008)。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:
75. 陳敦源、呂佳螢(2008)。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:
76. 陳敦源、呂佳螢(2009)。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:
77. 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。
78. 黃秀端(2006)。國科會專題研究計畫（編號：NSC 95-2420-H-031-011）國科會專題研究計畫（編號：NSC 95-2420-H-031-011）,未出版
79. 黃東益、謝忠安(2008)。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:
80. 黃東益、陳敦源、施佳良(2009)。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:
81. 詹中原、張智凱、高培智、林子寧(2009)。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:
82. 蔡秀涓、王千文(2009)。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:
83. 蔡秀涓、王千文(2008)。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:
84. 蕭乃沂、陳敦源、蘇偉業(2008)。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:
85. 蕭乃沂、黃東益、陳敦源、呂佳螢(2008)。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:

1. 陳敦源,陳序廷,許弘毅,李翠萍,史美強(2019)。個案教學是公共管理專業訓練的未來嗎？一個來自實驗研究的循證論述。文官制度季刊，11(4)，21-71。
2. 黃煥榮(2021)。員工幸福感的意涵與影響因素之探討。文官制度季刊，13(1)，67-103。
3. 黃建勲(2016)。一樣的身分、不一樣的角色： 以2008年臺灣政府文官調查庫 探索文官回應與類型。文官制度季刊，8(3)，81-112。
4. 黃建勲、陳敦源(2018)。政務事務互動關係：台灣文官對政治的容忍之研究。東吳政治學報，36(2)，1-64。
5. 蘇孔志、陳敦源(2017)。我國政府民意調查委外辦理的現狀與未來：一個簡要的回顧式探索。中國行政評論，23(2)，106-133。
6. 王光旭(2012)。文官政治認知是否與行政中立行為衝突？─2008年台灣政府文官調查的初探性分析。政治科學論叢，52，117-170。
7. (2017)。考績等第決定的非正式制度：甲等比例限縮政策影響之分析。空大行政學報，31，1-36。
8. (2024)。地方政府政務職位與專業行政之整合。中國地方自治，77(1)，24-53。