臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

近年來，原住民族知識組織架構愈來愈受各界的關注與重視，然而由於過去原住民知識大多皆以口傳為主，顯少有文字記載，故原住民族知識組織架構建構之不完整性是可想而知的。
為因應此劃時代之趨勢與需求，本研究旨在提出一套建構「臺灣原住民族知識組織架構」之方法與步驟，以供原住民族相關單位與學者專家在未來建構時之參考，並特以臺灣原住民族傳統知識領域中之一個面向（阿美族物質文化）為測試對象，期盼經由實證研究，進一步確認本研究所設計之「臺灣原住民族知識組織架構之建構方法」之可行性。
故本研究所採行的方向重點為：透過對各種「知識組織系統」類型特色與呈現方式的分析，來得知哪些類型適用於呈現原住民族領域知識；再藉由「領域分析」方法的探討，以整合出臺灣原住民族領域知識分析之整體流程；並根據現有之原住民族知識組織架構及其建構之相關研究報告與八位受訪者之問卷調查及深入訪談結果，歸納出建構原住民族知識組織架構時不可忽略的特性；最後檢測分析整合後所形成的「知識組織架構之建構方法與步驟」，以及模擬建置的「阿美族物質文化知識組織架構」，以了解其適用性與可行性，並發現其癥結所在，尋求可突破之策略。
結果發現：(一)「分類架構」應是目前較適用於呈現臺灣原住民族領域知識的知識組織架構類型。(二)臺灣原住民族領域知識分析之整體流程應分成三個階段進行：第一階段旨在確認臺灣原住民族知識組織架構的範圍；第二階段為實際進行臺灣原住民族知識組織架構的建構；第三階段則是架構的測試。(三)建構原住民族知識組織架構時不可忽略的原住民知識特性包括：原住民知識內容的流變性與差異性、原住民知識組織上層架構的共通性及知識分類依據的多元性、原住民擁有知識的片段性及原住民掌握知識的有限性，以及與原住民知識相關之文獻的限制性。(四)「知識組織架構之建構方法與步驟」以及「阿美族物質文化知識組織架構」之測試結果，凸顯出bottom-up與top-down兩種方法同時進行、互相搭配的重要性。
最後建議：(一)在建構臺灣原住民族知識組織架構之前，應先確定建構架構之目的與用途。(二)在建構臺灣原住民族知識組織架構之前，應先確立架構所欲包含之內容範圍，並界定整體所要採取之時間及空間向度。(三)在建構臺灣原住民族知識組織架構之過程中，應由原住民學者專家、非原住民學者專家，以及圖書資訊學專家，三方面整合互動式地參與執行。(四)在最後「架構確認」的流程裡，應納入焦點團體法，以便擬定一個能被原住民學者專家所共認之最終臺灣原住民族知識組織架構。

In the past several years, the aboriginal knowledge organization structure has received a respectable amount of attention. However, aboriginal knowledge is commonly spread by oral tradition and rarely by inscriptions. With regards to such behavior, it’s understandable that the aboriginal knowledge organization structure is incomplete.
The sole purpose of this research is to attempt to introduce a series of construction methods and procedures towards Taiwan’s aboriginal knowledge organization structure in response to the current demands of our society. It can also be served as a resource and reference for scholars and related aboriginal units in the future. In addition, this research constructs knowledge organization structure on Ami tribe’s material culture to further confirm the feasibility of the construction methods on Taiwan’s aboriginal organization structure.
This research emphasizes the following points:
1.Analyze various types, characteristics, and representation forms of the knowledge organization system to determine feasible ways of presenting the aboriginal domain knowledge.
2.Study different methods of domain analysis to conclude a complete process of Taiwan’s aboriginal domain knowledge analysis.
3.Organize the essential characteristics that are vital to the development of the aboriginal knowledge organization structure based on available research papers developed on the aboriginal knowledge organization structure, further questionnaires and in-depth interviews conducted.
4.Test the applicability and feasibility of “construction methods and procedures of the knowledge organization structure” and “knowledge organization structure on Ami tribe’s material culture,” then try to discover potential problems and come up with suitable strategies.
Results Identified:
1.Classification scheme is currently the most suitable type of knowledge organization structure to present the domain knowledge of Taiwan’s aborigines.
2.The whole process of Taiwan’s aboriginal domain knowledge analysis should be carried out in three stages:
-1st stage: Confirm the scope of Taiwan’s aboriginal knowledge organization structure.
-2nd stage: Construct Taiwan’s aboriginal knowledge organization structure.
-3rd stage: Conduct structure testing.
3.Essential characteristics of aboriginal knowledge that is critical to the construction of aboriginal knowledge organization structure include:
-The content of aboriginal knowledge is changeable and capable of being different.
-The upper-level of the aboriginal knowledge organization structure have common view points while the basis used to classify aboriginal knowledge is diverse.
-The knowledge possessed by aboriginals is fragmented and limited.
-The literature that is related to aboriginal knowledge is restricted.
4.The analyzed result of “constructing methods and procedures of knowledge organization structure” and “knowledge organization structure on Ami tribe’s material culture” highlights the importance for bottom-up and top-down methods to coexist, cooperate, and execute concurrently.
Suggestions:
1.Prior to the construction of Taiwan’s aboriginal knowledge organization structure, the objective and purpose of constructing the structure should be identified first.
2.Prior to the construction of Taiwan’s aboriginal knowledge organization structure, the content that the structure expects to cover should be confirmed and, the time and space dimensions that will be adopted should also be determined.
3.During the construction of Taiwan’s aboriginal knowledge organization structure, aboriginal scholars, non-aboriginal scholars, and library and information specialists should participate and administer cooperatively.
4.Lastly, the focus group method should be brought into the structure confirmation process in order to draft a Taiwan’s aboriginal knowledge organization structure that is approved by all aboriginal scholars.

中文摘要 i
英文摘要 iii
目 次 v
表 目 次 vii
圖 目 次 viii

第一章 緒 論 1
第一節 研究動機 1
第二節 研究目的 2
第三節 研究問題 2
第四節 研究範圍與限制 3
第五節 名詞解釋 5

第二章 文獻分析 7
第一節 知識組織系統類型 7
第二節 國內外現有之原住民族知識組織架構 12
第三節 國內外主題分析詞彙工具 23
第四節 領域分析 35
第五節 國內外原住民族知識組織架構之建構相關研究 48
第六節 小結 54

第三章 研究方法與步驟 55
第一節 研究對象與測試議題 55
第二節 研究方法 57
第三節 研究步驟 58

第四章 研究結果 70
第一節 臺灣原住民族知識組織架構之建構整體流程 70
第二節 臺灣原住民族知識分類架構之建構具體步驟 77
第三節 阿美族物質文化知識組織架構問卷調查結果分析 91
第四節 阿美族物質文化領域專家訪談結果分析 126

第五章 結論與建議 148
第一節 研究結論 148
第二節 建議 158
第三節 後續研究建議 161

參考文獻 163
附錄一 初步建構之阿美族物質文化知識組織架構 169
附錄二 前測後之阿美族物質文化知識組織架構 181
附錄三 問卷 193
附錄四 訪談大綱 223
附錄五 受訪者修改後之「阿美族物質文化知識組織架構」 224

一、中文文獻
行政院原住民族委員會 (民95)。臺灣原住民族資訊資源網。上網日期：2008年11月25日。網址http://www.tipp.org.tw/formosan/index.jspx。

吳小穗 (1999)。關鍵詞的擇詞原則與標引方法研究。現代情報，6，26-27。

李亦園、阮昌銳、徐誠垺、丘其謙、溫遂瑩、凌曼立等 (民51)。馬太安阿美族的物質文化。﹝臺北﹞南港：中央硏究院民族學硏究所。

李瑛 （民91）。原住民知識體系之建構─以卑南族為例的探討（國科會專題研究計畫成果報告，NSC 89-2413-H-003-096）臺北市：國立臺灣師範大學社會教育學系。

汪明輝演講（民96）。原住民族知識論的建構及其意涵─臺灣大學圖書館專題演講。臺北市：國立臺灣大學。

阮昌銳 (1969)。大港口的阿美族 (上) (下)。南港：中研院民族所。

阮明淑（民96）。知識產業與知識管理─公部門農產業之研究。臺北市：文華圖書館管理。

阮昌銳 (1994)。台東麻老漏阿美族的社會與文化。臺北市：臺灣省立博物館。

林國強、陳麥麟屏 (民90)。美國國會圖書館與主題編目。臺北市：三民。

孫大川主編（2006）。臺灣原住民族歷史語言文化大辭典網路版。上網日期：2008年10月28日。網址http://134.208.27.115/index.asp。

浦忠成（民94，5月）。從部落出發：原住民族發展的根本做法。在南華大學非營利事業管理研究所、中華非營利組織管理學會主辦，非營利組織與社區總體營造。第六屆非營利組織管理研討會，嘉義縣。

國立中央圖書館編目組編訂（民84）。中文圖書標題表。修訂版。臺北市：國立中央圖書館。

國家圖書館編目組 (民95)。中文主題詞表。上網日期：2008年10月28日。網址http://catweb.ncl.edu.tw/sect-2.htm。

國家圖書館編目組 (民96)。中文圖書分類法：2007年版。臺北市：國家圖書館。

張培倫主持（民97）。建構台灣原住民族知識體系之規劃研究企劃書（行政院原住民族委員會委託研究計畫）。

莊芳榮主持，陳昭珍、葉建華共同主持 (民94)。知識分類架構研究計畫。臺北市：行政院。

許功明主持 (民87)。阿美族的物質文化─變遷與持續之研究 (行政院原住民委員會專題委託研究 台灣原住民物質文化)。﹝臺中市﹞：自然科學博物館。

陳枝烈主持 (民96)。原住民族教育體系之規劃委託研究計畫期末報告書。屏東市：國立屏東教育大學。

陳奕璇（2006）。領域分析方法之建構與實證研究─以有機農業為例。世新大學資訊傳播學系碩士論文，未出版，台北市。

陳國強主編（2002）。文化人類學辭典。臺北市：恩楷。

黃宣衛 (1991)。東部海岸風景特定區阿美族社會文化之調查研究。台東：交通部觀光局東部海岸風景特定區管理處。

黃應貴主編（2004）。物與物質文化。台北：中央研究院民族學研究所。

農業科學資料服務中心 (1994)。索引典理論與實務。臺北市：美國資訊科學學會臺北分會。

臺灣總督府臨時臺灣舊慣調查會 (民89)。番族慣習調查報告書﹝第二卷﹞阿美族•卑南族。臺北市：中研院民族所。

劉斌雄等 (1965)。秀姑巒阿美族的社會組織。南港：中研院民族所。

鄭惠美 (1997)。花蓮南勢阿美族服飾研究。未出版之碩士論文，輔仁大學織品服裝研究所，台北縣。


二、西文文獻
Alexander, P.A., & Judy, J.E. (1988). The interaction of domain-specific and strategic knowledge in academic performance. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 375-404, as cited in Alexander, P.A. (1992). Domain knowledge: Evolving themes and emerging concerns. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 33-51.

Alexander, P.A. (1992). Domain knowledge: Evolving themes and emerging concerns. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 33-51.

Beghtol, C. (1995). “Facets”as interdisciplinary undiscovered public knowledge: S.R. Ranganathan in India and L. Guttman in Israel. Journal of Documentation, 51, 194-224.

Barnhardt, R., & Kawagley, A.O. (2005). Indigenous knowledge systems and Alaska native ways of knowing. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 36(1), 8-23.

Centre for Indigenous Knowledge Systems [CEFIKS]. (n.d.). Akan (Fantse) - English Dictionary Project. Retrieved October 9, 2008, from http://www.cfiks.org/fantse_dictionary.htm.

Centre for Indigenous Knowledge Systems [CEFIKS]. (n.d.). Centre for Indigenous Knowledge Systems, CEFIKS. Retrieved October 9, 2008, from http://www.cfiks.org/.

Emeagwali, G.T. (1997, December 20). African Indigenous Science and Knowledge Systems. Retrieved November 19, 2008, from http://www.africahistory.net/

Foley, D. (2003). Indigenous epistemology and indigenous standpoint theory. Social Alternatives, 22(1), 44-52.

Grenier, L. (1998). Working with Indigenous Knowledge. Retrieved October 9, 2008, from http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-9310-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html.

Haykin, D.J. (1951). Subject Headings: A Practical Guide. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Hodge, G. (2000). System of knowledge organization for digital libraries: Beyond traditional authority files. Retrieved October 9, 2008, from http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub91/contents.html.

Hjørland, B., & Albrechtsen, H. (1995). Toward a new horizon in information science: Domain-Analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(6), 400-425.

Hjørland, B. (2002). Domain analysis in information science: Eleven approaches – traditional as well as innovative. Journal of Documentation, 58(4), 422-462.

Iseke-Barnes, J. (2003). Living and writing indigenous spiritual resistance. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 24(3), 211-238.

Jagerman, E.J. (2006). Creating, Maintaining And Applying Quality Taxonomies. Zoetermeer: E.J. Jagerman.

Kang, K.C., Cohen, S.G., Hess, J.A., Novak, W.E., & Spencer Peterson, A.S. (1990). Featured- Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) feasibility study (CMU/SEI-90-TR-21 ESD-90-TR-222). Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.

Library of Congress. (2008, August 22). Library of Congress Classification Outline. Retrieved October 28, 2008, from http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/lcco/.

Library of Congress. (2009, July 7) Subject Headings. Retrieved July 9, 2009, from http://www.loc.gov/aba/cataloging/subject/.

Nielsen, M.L. (2000). Domain analysis, an important part of thesaurus construction. Methodologies and approaches. In D. Soergel, P. Srinivasan, & B. Kwasnik, (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th ASIS&T SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop. Maryland: American Society for Information Science and Technology.

Palmer, C.L. (1999). Aligning studies of information seeking and use with domain analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(12), 1139-1140.

Rigney, L.I. (1999). The first perspective: Culturally safe research practices on or with Indigenous peoples. In 1999 Chacmool Conference Proceedings. University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Rigney, L.I. (2000). A first perspective of Indigenous Australian participation in science: Framing Indigenous research towards Indigenous Australian intellectual sovereignty. A keynote address, Second National Indigenous Researches Forum; Adelaide: Aboriginal Research Institute University of South Australia.

Semali, M (1999). What is Indigenous Knowledge? : Voices from the Academy. New York: Falmer Press.

Shahjahan, R.A. (2005). Mapping the field of anti-colonial discourse to understand issues of indigenous knowledges: Decolonizing praxis. McGill Journal of Education, 40(2), 213-240.

Shiva, V. (1995). Monocultures of the mind. London: Zed Books.

Simpson, L.R. (2004). Anticolonial strategies for the recovery and maintenance of Indigenous Knowledge. American Indian Quarterly, 28(3/4), 373-384.

Smith, L. (1999). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous People. London: Zed Books.

Thiongo, N.W. (1986). Decolonising the mind: The politics of language in African literature. London: James Currey.

Tudhope,D., Koch,T., & Heery, R. (2006). Terminology services and technologies JISC state of the art review. Retrieved October 9, 2008, from http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/terminology/JISC-review2006.html.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO]. (2003). Local and Indigenous Knowledge System, LINKS. Retrieved October 9, 2008, from http://portal.unesco.org/science/en/ev.php-URL_ID=1945&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.

Vickery, B.C. (1960). Faceted Classification. A Guide to the Construction and Use of Special Schemes. London: ASLIB.

White, H.D., & McCain, K.W. (1998). Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972-1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49, 327-355.

White, H.D., & McCain, K.W. (1997). Visualization of literatures. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 32, 99-168.

Zins, C., & Guttmann, D. (2000). Structuring web bibliographic resources: An exemplary subject classification scheme. Knowledge Organization, 27(3), 143-159.

Zins, C., & Guttmann, D. (2003). Domain analysis of social work: An exemplary of an integrated methodological approach. Knowledge Organization, 30(3/4), 196-212.

Zins, C. (2007a). Conceptions of information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(3), 335-350.

Zins, C. (2007b). Conceptual approaches for defining data, information, and knowledge. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(4), 479-493.

Zins, C. (2007c). Knowledge map of information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(4), 526-535.

Zins, C. (2007d). Classification schemes of information science: Twenty-eight scholars map the field. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(5), 645-672.