線上「理想言談情境」有多理想？蘇花國道論壇的分析

Degree of Deliberation for Online Discussion-Examination of the Su-Hua Highway Forum

10.29865/PAP.201012.0004

羅晉(Jin Lo)

公共審議 ； 審議民主 ； 線上公共論壇 ； 電子化民主 ； 公共政策 ； 國道蘇花高 ； public deliberation ； deliberative democracy ； online public forum ； electronic democracy ； public policy ； Su-Hua Highway

行政暨政策學報

51期（2010 / 12 / 01）

125 - 170

繁體中文

隨著資訊科技的發展，線上論壇逐漸被視爲解決爭議性政策議題的有效公共審議途徑；然而，另一派觀點，則認爲線上參與過程仍將充斥著新舊優勢者的宰制。面對前述爭議，既有文獻並未能根本且有效的實際檢證線上「言談情境」的理想程度究竟如何，以釐清理論與實務上的差距。基此，本文以審議民主理論的角度，探討近年來備受各方爭議之國道蘇花高興建政策的線上議論過程，主要以花蓮縣政府架設的「蘇花國道論壇」爲研究對象。研究方法上，除了歸納既有文獻的指標，並透過定質性量化分析軟體(Nvivo)的開放式紮根編碼分析途徑來分析論壇中的議題與言論，藉以建構並檢視不同參與者與其言論在線上議論中的角色、特性、優劣勢地位與其關聯性。 研究發現，線上「蘇花國道論壇」具相當程度的參與規模與討論量，其議論亦能展現出線上論壇非同期性對話與言論長期保留之優勢。其次，線上論壇與各系列議論中的言論數量、參與者數、參與者參與程度、以及言論的持續性效果有正向的關連性。再者，在論壇中以理想或有效審議的方式進行討論是有助於強化對話參與、擴大包含性以吸引多元化參與，並提升參與者持續參與的程度與意願。但另一方面，部分成果亦顯示線上論壇仍潛藏著政府權力對參與自主性的威脅；其次，論壇中大多數的議論中仍充斥著普通對話、甚至無效的言論；此外，一次發言效果亦普遍存在，而導致線上對話的持續性效果不佳。上述成果可部分釐清資訊科技運用對於審議式民主影響之爭議，並彌補文獻對實際線上論述過程探討之不足，亦可作爲政府未來管理線上政策論壇，甚至進一步運用線上審議成果之參考。

Taking advantage of advanced information and communication technologies, Internet forums are gradually considered as effective facilitation to resolve disputed public policy issues. There are contradictory arguments asserting that online public forums remain dominated by the already superior. Nevertheless, the previous studies provide insufficient investigation to assess the contradiction empirically. The current research draws upon the perspectives of deliberative democracy to explore the Internet forum on Su-Hua highway maintained by Hau-Lien County Government. A set of proper indicators is developed and qualitative analysis software Nvivo adopted to code the content of the online forum. The coding results are also cross-examined with the characteristics of the participants. The findings reveal that the online forum has reached the substantial discussion and heated debate. The arguments presented online, accumulated across a long period of time, also show their diversity to cover the full spectrum of the debated issue. The diverse arguments on the public forum do contribute to sustained participation from the online citizens in terms of the indicators based on deliberative democracy. Despite the positive observation above, there is also evidence indicating the threat towards voluntary participation in the policy issue from the government itself. Some online dialogue, meanwhile, is found non-constructive, exclusive and even irrelevant, which significantly endangers the quality of the online debate. The results collected in the current study help clarify the controversial expectation and process of the Internet forum dedicated to public policy deliberation. The mixed evidences, for governmental agencies, also suggest management and application of the online public forum.

1. 黃東益、陳敦源(2004)。電子化政府與商議式民主之實踐。臺灣民主季刊，1(4)，1-34。
   連結：
2. 黃啟龍(2002)。網路上的公共領域實踐：以弱勢社群網站為例。資訊社會研究，3，85-111。
   連結：
3. 謝宗學(2003)。網際民主與審議民主之實踐：資訊化社會的桃花源村。資訊社會研究，4，87-139。
   連結：
4. 羅晉(2008)。實踐審議式民主參與之理想：資訊科技、網路公共論壇的應用與發展。中國行政，79，75-96。
   連結：
5. 行政院研究發展考核委員會，2007，《九十六年數位落差調查統計報告》，行政院研究發展考核委員會：台北
6. Ainsworth, 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.
7. Balla, S. J.,Daniels, B. M.(2007).Information technology and public commenting on agency regulations.Regulation & Governance,1(1),46-67.
8. Barber, B. R.(1984).Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a new Age.Berkley:University of California Press.
9. Beierle, Thomas C.(2002).RFF ReportRFF Report,Washington:.
10. Brewer, J.,Hunter, A.(1989).Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles.Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
11. Chambers, S.(1996).Reasonable Democracy.Ithaca, N.Y.:Cornell University Press.
12. Chambers, S.(2003).Deliberative democratic theory.Annual Review of Political Science,6,307-326.
13. Coffey, A.,Atkinson, P.(1996).Making sense of qualitative data: complementary research.Thousand Oaks CA:Sage.
14. Coleman, S.,Hall, N.,Howell, M.(2002).Hearing voices. The experience of online public consultation and discussion in UK governance.UK:Hansard Society.
15. Connolly, W.(1983).The Terms of Political Discourse.Princeton, N. J.:Princeton University Press.
16. Dahl, R. A.(1989).Democracy and Its Critics.New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.
17. Dahlberg, L.(2001).Computer-mediated communication and the public sphere: A critical analysis.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,7(1)
18. Dahlberg, L.(2002).Net-Public Sphere Research: Beyond the 'First Phase'. Euricom Colloquium: Electronic Networks and Democracy.Euricom Colloquium: Electronic Networks and Democracy,Nijmegen, The Netherlands:
19. Delli Carpini, M. X.,Cook, F. L.,Jacobs, L. R.(2004).Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature.Annual Review of Political Science,7,315-344.
20. Dryzek, J. S.(1990).Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy, and Political Science.Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
21. Dryzek, J. S.(2000).Deliberative Democracy and Beyound: Liberals, Critics, Contestations.New York:Oxford University Press.
22. Dunne, K.(2009).Cross Cutting Discussion: A form of online discussion discovered within local political online forums.Information Polity,14,219-232.
23. Fishkin, J. S.(1992).The Dialogue of Justice.New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.
24. Fishkin, J. S.(1995).The Voice of the People.New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.
25. Fung, A.(ed.),Wright, E. O.(ed.)(2003).Deepening Democracy Institutional Innovations in Empower Participatory Governance.London:Verso.
26. Goodin, R. E.(2005).Sequencing deliberative moments.Acta Politica,4(2),182-196.
27. Graham, T. S.(2002).The Public Sphere Needs You. Deliberating in online forums: New hope for the public sphere?.Amsterdam:The Amsterdam School of Communications Research. Amsterdam, Universiteit van Amsterdam.
28. Habermas, J.(1987).The Theory of Communicative Action Lifeworld & system: A critique of functionalist reasoning.Boston:Beacon Press.
29. Habermas, J.(1988).The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere.Cambridge, M.A.:MIT Press.
30. Iyengar, S.,Luskin, R.,Fishkin, J.(2003).Facilitating informed public opinion: evidence from face-to-face and on-line deliberative polls.Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association,Philadelphia:
31. Jankowski, N. W.,van Os, R.(2002).Internet-based Political Discourse: A Case Study of Electronic Democracy in the City of Hoogeveen.conference Prospects for Electronic Democracy,Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania:
32. Janssen, D.,Kies, R.(2005).Online Forums and Deliberative Democracy.Acta Politica,40(3),317-335.
33. Janssen, D.,Kies, R.(2004).Online Forums and Deliberative Democracy: Hypotheses, Variables and Methodologies.Conference on Empirical. Approaches to Deliberative Politics,Florence:
34. Jensen, J. L.(2003).Public Spheres on the Internet: Anarchic or Government-sponsored-A Comparison.Scandinavian Political Studies,26,349-374.
35. Jewell, C.,Bero, L.(2007).Public Participation and Claimsmaking: Evidence Utilization and Divergent Policy Frames in California's Ergonomics Rulemaking.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,17(4),625-650.
36. Kozinets, R. V.(2002).The Field Behind the Screen: Using Netnography for Marketing Research in Online Communities.Journal of Marketing Research,39,61-72.
37. Lincoln, Y.,Guba, E.(1985).Naturalistic Inquiry.New York:Sage.
38. Liu, X.,Lindquist, E.,Vedlitz, A.,Vincent, K.(2010).Understanding Local Policy Making: Policy Elites' Perceptions of Local Agenda Setting and Alternative Policy Selection.Policy Studies Journal,38(1),69-91.
39. Lofland, J.,Lofland, L. H.(1995).Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis.Belmont, CA:Wadsworth Publishing.
40. Luskin, R. C.,Fishkin, J. S.(2002).Deliberation and civic engagement.Workshop on Deliberative Democracy in Theory and Practice, ECPR Joint Sessions,Turin:
41. Mansbridge, J. J.(1983).Beyond Adversary Democracy.Chicago:University Chicago Press.
42. Mouffe, C.(2000).The Democratic Paradox.London:Verso.
43. Nanza, P.,Steffek, J.(2005).Assessing the Democratic Quality of Deliberation-Criteria and Research Strategies.Acta Politica,40(3),368-383.
44. Neuman, W. L.(1997).Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches.Boston:Allyn and Bacon.
45. Page, B. I.(1996).Who Deliberates?.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
46. Patton, M. Q.(2002).Qualitative research & evaluation methods.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
47. Price, V.,Cappella, J. N.(2002).Online deliberation and its influence: The Electronic Dialogue Project in campaign 2002.IT and Society,1,303-328.
48. Sanders L. M.(1997).Against Deliberation.Political Theory,25(3),347-376.
49. Schneider, S. M.(1997).Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
50. Schultz, T.(2000).Mass Media and the concept of interactivity: an exploratory study of online and reader email.Media Culture and Society,22,205-221.
51. Shulman, Stuart W.,Schlosberg, David,Zavestoski, Steve,Courard-Hauri, David(2003).Electronic. Rulemaking: A Public Participation Research Agenda for the Social Science.Social Science Computer Review,21(2),162-178.
52. Stanley, J. W.,Weare, C.(2004).The Effects of Internet Use on. Political Participation: Evidence from an Agency Online Discussion Forum.Administration & Society,36(5),503-527.
53. Steenbergena, M. R.,Bächtigerb, A.,Spörndlib, M.,Steinera, J.(2003).Measuring Political Deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index.Comparative European Politics,1,21-48.
54. Strandberg, K.(2008).Public deliberation goes on-line? An analysis of citizens' political discussions on the Internet prior to the Finnish parliamentary elections in 2007.Javnost-the Public,15(1),71-90.
55. Trechsel, A. H.,Kies, R.,Mendez, F.,Schmitter, P.(2004).Evaluation of the Use of New Technologies in Order to Facilitate Democracy in Europe: E-democratizing the Parliaments and Parties in Europe.European Parliament Directorate-General for Research
56. Walthier, J. B.,D''Addario, K. P.(2001).The impacts of emoticons on message interpretation in computer-mediated communication.Social Science Computer Review,19(3),324-347.
57. Wilhelm, A. G.(1999).Virtual sounding boards: How deliberative is online political discussion.Digital democracy: Discourse and decision making in the information age,London:
58. Zavestoski, S.,Shulman, S.,Schlosberg, D.(2006).Democracy and the Environment on the Internet: Electronic Citizen Participation in Regulatory Rulemaking.Science, Technology & Human Values,31,383-408.
59. 丘昌泰(1996)。當代公共政策中量化與質化分析：方法論的檢討與重建。國立中興大學法商學報，32，17-50。
60. 李允傑、丘昌泰(2003)。政策執行與評估。台北:元照。
61. 陳敦源、黃東益、蕭乃沂(2004)。電子化參與：公共政策過程中的網路民眾參與。研考雙月刊，28(4)，36-51。
62. 項靖(2002)。理想與現實：民主行政之實踐與地方政府網路公共論壇。行政管理論文選輯，14，151-183。
63. 項靖、翁芳怡(2000)。我國地方政府網路民意論壇版面使用者滿意度之實證研究。公共行政學報，4，259-287。
64. 劉世閔、吳璟(2002)。NVivo：新世紀的質性研究電腦輔助軟體。慈濟大學人文社會科學學刊，1(1)，135-152。
65. 蕭瑞麟(2007)。不用數字的研究。台北:台灣培生教育。
66. 簡名君(2006)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。政治大學公共行政學系。
67. 羅晉(2004)。網際審議式民主之實現與現實：以我國地方政府網際公共論壇為例。行政暨政策學報，39，105-142。
68. 蘇偉業(2007)。政策行銷：理論重構與實踐。中國行政評論，16(1)，1-34。

1. Huang, Tong-yi,Hsieh, Chung-an(2013).Practicing Deliberative Democracy in Taiwan Processes, Impacts, and Challenges.Taiwan Journal of Democracy,9(2),79-104.
2. 林宇玲(2014)。網路與公共領域：從審議模式轉向多元公眾模式。新聞學研究，118，55-85。