臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

企業經理人的投資決策會受到其所接觸的大眾媒體內容所影響。因此本研究透過質化分析的方式，探討雜誌媒體如何解讀中國的形象，藉此探究有意投資中國的經理人獲得有關中國的資訊來源。本研究以鄭筱陵(2006)「經濟學人眼中的中國」為基礎，並和該研究相比較。資料來源為美國新聞週刊1980、1990、1995、2000、2005年一至十二月中有關中國的報導，並且同樣採用內容分析法分析，觀察中國自改革開放後之變化。本研究將資料分類為經濟、政治、環境、軍事、社會、休閒、科技、宗教、健康、教育和人權，共十一個類別。研究結果如下：

經濟方面，中國由最初的改革與開放市場起頭，逐漸改善，最後有明顯的經濟成長，但也因此產生社會問題。政治方面，境內不斷有抗議活動，並與其他國家有很微妙的關係。環境方面， 2005年時，環境受到污染，官員對於污染環境的處理採取不誠實的態度。軍事方面，過去的軍事設備較為落後，之後向其他國家獲取軍事設備，因而現今有較現代化的軍事設備，並發展其軍事力量。社會方面，中國社會長期存在盜版的問題，政府也有取締的行動，不過似乎成效不大。休閒方面，從封閉發展至較為開放。科技方面，2005年有驚人的成長。宗教方面，2005年，中國開始接受西藏的文化。健康方面，保健制度不完善、設備差、政府漠視等因素，使得傳染病的疫情在中國境內蔓延。教育方面，文章數目不足，無法給予明確形象。人權方面，不重視人權。

與鄭筱陵（2006）的「經濟學人眼中的中國」比較的結果：經濟方面，同樣皆得出中國的經濟成長情況，且發現中國對於全世界具有一定的影響力。但本研究另外還得到中國的經濟和社會問題，但英國經濟學人中卻未提及。政治方面，兩篇研究大致相同，但美國新聞週刊著重於中國與他國的政治關係。在環境、休閒、科技、宗教與人權方面，兩篇研究大致上得到相同的研究結果。但教育方面則由於篇數不足，產生不同的結果。除此之外，中國的軍事、社會、健康議題也是經濟學人雜誌所未提及的部分。因此，可以發現兩篇研究的研究結果大致上相同，但仍有所差異，這是由於兩週刊發行國家一為英國一為美國，兩國文化之不同，導致有不同的報導，再加上兩週刊的風格差異，因而產生不同的研究結果。

Businesspeople glean ideas about a country through the news, and they can make investment decisions based on that information. Therefore, this study employs qualitative analysis to discuss how magazine sees China. This research is based on “The Image of China through the Eyes of The Economist” (鄭筱陵, 2006), and we compare our results with that study. The data source is the articles related to China printed in the years 1980, 1990, 1995, 2000 and 2005 (January to December) in Newsweek. We conduct content analysis and use eleven dimensions: “Economic, Political, Environmental, Military, Society, Leisure, Technology, Religion, Health, Education and Humanitarian” to probe the change of China over the past twenty-five years. Our outcomes are as follows:

As for economic aspect, since China’s reformation in 1978, its economic situation has improved as it opened its market and welcomed foreign firms, and growth surged in 2005. Economic growth has also generated social problems. As for political aspect, there were protests in China and that China has tricky relationships with other countries. As for environmental aspect, in 2005, China’s environment is polluted and that officials are not honest in handling the situation. As for military aspect, China’s military force was laggard, but now it has modernized and expanded its military force by buying equipment from other countries. As for society aspect, piracy lasts for a long time in China, and government crackdowns on it achieve little. As for leisure aspect, China was a closed society, but it has reformed to become an open society. As for technology aspect, China has a great technological growth in 2005. As for religion aspect, China starts to accept Tibet in 2005. As for health aspect, poor medical systems, bad equipment and government ignorance led to the spread of epidemic. The lack of articles in the category of education is unable to provide distinct trend. As for humanitarian aspect, China does not respect human rights.

There are some differences in the images of China presented in The Economist and Newsweek. China has had substantial economic growth and rising influence in the world economy in the past twenty-five years. Newsweek noted problems in China’s economy and
frequently mentioned social problems in China. The Economist did not mention these problems. As for political aspects, the results of the two studies are much the same. Newsweek pays more attention to the diplomatic relationship between China and other countries than The Economist does. In the environmental, leisure, technology, religion and humanitarian categories, the two studies have identical results. There is a difference, however, in the education category. One possible cause is that the number of articles related to education is not sufficient to have a concrete effect on trends in education. Additionally, military, society and health categories are not subjects covered by The Economist. We therefore conclude that the results of these two studies are nearly identical, but there are some differences between the two studies. It is because that the two magazines are published by different countries; The Economist is a British publication and Newsweek is an American one, cultural differences between the UK and US may lead to different reports. Besides, the different characters of the two magazines also cause the differences between the two studies.

Table of Contents
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Research Motives and Objectives 1
1.2 Research Background 2
1.2.1 Mass Media--Magazines 2
1.2.2 Introduction to Newsweek 3
2. Literature Review 7
2.1 The Definition and Functions of Mass Communication 7
2.2 Lasswell’s Model of Communication 9
2.3 Frame Theory 11
2.4 Communication and Culture 12
2.5 Cultural Differences between U.K. and U.S. 16
2.5.1 Cultural Dimensions 17
2.5.2 British Culture 27
2.5.3 American Culture 28
2.5.4 British and American Communication Styles 29
2.6 Differences between The Economist and Newsweek 32
3. Methodology 34
3.1 Introduction to Content Analysis 34
3.2 Steps for Conducting Content Analysis 35
3.2.1 Identify the Question 36
3.2.2 Choose Samples for Analysis 36
3.2.3 Reduce the Texts into Categories and Code for Words or Patterns. 36
3.2.4 Explore the Relationships between Concepts (meaning and direction) 38
3.2.5 Connect the Relationships 39
3.3 An Example of how Content Analysis is Conducted in This Study 40
3.4 The Content Dimensions and Topics Attended 41
4. Data Analysis and Explanation 43
4.1 The Data Analysis of Content Dimensions 43
4.2 Data Explanation 43
4.2.1 Explanation of the Economic Trends from 1980 to 2005 55
4.2.2 Explanation of the Political Trends from 1980 to 2005 59
4.2.3 Explanation on the Environmental Trends from 1980 to 2005 63
4.2.4 Explanation on the Military Trends from 1980 to 2005 64
4.2.5 Explanation of the Society Trends from 1980 to 2005 66
4.2.6 Explanation of the Leisure Trends from 1980 to 2005 68
4.2.7 Explanation of the Technology Trends from 1980 to 2005 70
4.2.8 Explanation of the Religion Trends from 1980 to 2005 71
4.2.9 Explanation of the Health Trends from 1980 to 2005 72
4.2.10 Explanation of the Education Trends 74
4.2.11 Explanation of the Humanitarian Trends from 1980 to 2005 75
4.2.12 The Complete Image of China Presented in Each Year 76
4.3 Results with Frame Theory 77
5. Comparing This Study with “The Image of China through the Eyes of The Economist” 79
5.1 Data Explanation in “The Image of China through the Eyes of The Economist” 85
5.1.1 Explanation of the Economical Trends from 1980 to 2005 85
5.1.2 Explanation of the Political Trends from 1980 to 2005 86
5.1.3 Explanation of the Religion Trends from 1980 to 2005 87
5.1.4 Explanation of the Technology Trends from 1980 to 2005 87
5.1.5 Explanation of the Leisure Trends from 1980 to 2005 88
5.1.6 Explanation of the Environmental Trends from 1980 to 2005 88
5.1.7 Explanation of the Humanitarian Trends from 1980 to 2005 88
5.1.8 Explanation of the Education Trends from 1980 to 2005 89
6. Conclusions and Suggestions 95
6.1 The Image of China with Respect to Categories 95
6.2 The Image of China with Respect to Each Year 98
6.3 Compare This Study with “The Image of China through the Eyes of The Economist” 101
6.4 Managerial Implication 102
6.5 Limitations and Suggestions 102
6.5.1 The Coder’s Bias 103
6.5.2 Omission of Articles 103
6.5.3 Lack of Articles 103
6.5.4 Lack of Frequency of Concepts 103
6.5.5 Same Phenomena 104
6.5.6 Suggestions for Future Research: More Coders to Analyze 104
6.5.7 Suggestions for Future Research: More Magazine Analysis 104
Reference 105
Appendix 1 109
Appendix 2 165

List of Figures
[Figure 1-1] Structure of This Study 6
[Figure 2-1] Lasswell’s Model of Communication 9
[Figure 2-2] Model of the Speaking Process in Same Culture 14
[Figure 2-3] Model of the Speaking Process in Different Cultures 15
[Figure 2-4] Model of the Speaking Process of Two Communicators from Different Cultures 16
[Figure 3-1] A Map Representing Relationships among Concepts 38
[Figure 3-2] Map Representing the Relationship between the Categories and its Corresponding Concepts from Newsweek (December, 2005) 39
[Figure 4-1] Representation of the Economic, Political, Environmental and Military trends of China in 1980 by means of a concept map 45
[Figure 4-2] Representation of the Society, Technology, Religion, Health, Education, and Humanitarian trends of China in 1980 by means of a concept map 46
[Figure 4-3] Representation of the Economic, Political, Environmental and Military trends of China in 1990 by means of a concept map 47
[Figure 4-4] Representation of the Society, Technology, Religion, Health, Education, and Humanitarian trends of China in 1990 by means of a concept map 48
[Figure 4-5] Representation of the Economic, Political, Environmental and Military trends of China in 1995 by means of a concept map 49
[Figure 4-6] Representation of the Society, Technology, Religion, Health, Education, and Humanitarian trends of China in 1995 by means of a concept map 50
[Figure 4-7] Representation of the Economic, Political, Environmental and Military trends of China in 2000 by means of a concept map 51
[Figure 4-8] Representation of the Society, Technology, Religion, Health, Education, and Humanitarian trends of China in 2000 by means of a concept map 52
[Figure 4-9] Representation of the Economic, Political, Environmental and Military trends of China in 2005 by means of a concept map 53
[Figure 4-10] Representation of the Society, Technology, Religion, Health, Education, and Humanitarian trends of China in 2005 by means of a concept map 54
[Figure 5-1] Concept Maps in 1980 from “The Image of China through the Eyes of The Economist” 80
[Figure 5-2] Concept Maps in 1990 from “The Image of China through the Eyes of The Economist” 81
[Figure 5-3] Concept Maps in 1995 from “The Image of China through the Eyes of The Economist” 82
[Figure5-4] Concept Maps in 2000 from “The Image of China through the Eyes of The Economist” 83
[Figure 5-5] Concept Maps in 2005 from “The Image of China through the Eyes of The Economist” 84

List of Tables
[Table 2-1] Scores on Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions 20
[Table 2-2] Scores on House’s Cultural Dimensions 24
[Table 2-3] British and American Cultures and Communication Styles 31
[Table 4-1] Category-year Distribution Table 43
[Table 4-2] Economic concept-year distribution table 55
[Table 4-3] Political concept-year distribution table 60
[Table 4-4] Environmental concept-year distribution table 63
[Table 4-5] Military concept-year distribution table 65
[Table 4-6] Society concept-year distribution table 66
[Table 4-7] Leisure concept-year distribution table 69
[Table 4-8] Technology concept-year distribution table 70
[Table 4-9] Religion concept-year distribution table 72
[Table 4-10] Health concept-year distribution table 73
[Table 4-11] Education concept-year distribution table 74
[Table 4-12] Humanitarian concept-year distribution table 75
[Table 4-13] China’s situation in the past and nowadays 78
[Table 5-1] Category-year distribution table in “The Image of China through the Eyes of The Economist” 79
[Table 5-2] Comparison between “The image of China through the Eyes of Newsweek” and that of The Economist 89
[Appendix 1] Article-decoding summaries 109
[Appendix 2] Connotation table 165

1.Denis McQuail, 潘邦順譯 (2000)，《大眾傳播理論》，台北：風雲論壇。
2.Rubin Allen & Babbie Earl 著，趙碧華、朱美珍譯 (1995)，Research Methods For Social Work，台北：雙葉書廊。
3.王文科 (1995)，《教育研究法》，台北：五南。
4.王玉民 (1994)，《社會科學研究方法原理》，台北 : 洪葉文化
5.王石番 (1996)，《傳播內容分析法─理論與實證》，台北：幼獅文化。
6.林東泰 (2002)，《大眾傳播理論》。台北：師大書苑。
7.理查德. D. 劉易斯著，關世杰主譯 (2002)，《文化的衝突與共融》，北京：新華出版社。
8.彭懷恩 (2002)，《大眾傳播與社會Q&A》，台北：風雲論壇。
9.楊國樞等 (1978)，《社會及行為科學研究法》，台北：東華書局。
10.鄭貞銘 (1995)，《新聞原理》，台北：五南。
11.鄭筱陵 (2006)，《經濟學人眼中的中國》，國立暨南國際大學國際企業研究所碩士論文。
12.鄭瑞城 (1988)，《認識大眾媒體》，台北：天下文化。
13.臧國仁 (1998)，「消息來源組織與媒介真實之建構—組織文化與組織框架的觀點」，《廣告學研究》，第十一期。
14.臧國仁、鍾蔚文等 (1993)，《新聞的框架效果》，台北：一九九三年中文傳播暨傳播教育研討會。
15.臧國仁、鍾蔚文 (1997)，「框架概念與公共關係策略─有關運用媒介框架的探析」，《廣告學研究》，第九期。
16.韓頓透拿、特羅潘納著，徐聯恩譯 (1995)，《國家競爭力-創造財富的價值體系》，台北：智庫出版。
17.羅文輝 (1996)，《精確新聞報導》，台北：正中書局。


Adler, N. J. (1997), International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, (3rd), South-Western College Publishing

Albig, W. (1939), Public Opinion, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.

Annan, L. (1977), Report of the Committee on the Future of Broadcasting (Command 6753), London: HMSO.

Berelson, B. (1952), Content Analysis in Communication Research, New York: Free Press.

Fisherman, J. (1980), Manufacturing News, Austin, TX: University of Texas.

Francesco, A.M. and B. A. Gold (1998), International Organizational Behavior, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Gamson, W. A. and Modigliani, A. (1989), “Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A construction approach,” American Journal of Sociology, 95: 1-37.

Gannon, M. J. (1994), Understanding Global Cultures, Sage publications.

Gaultung , J. & Ruge, M. H. (1965), “The Structure of Foreign News,” Journal of Peace.

Gitlin, T. (1980), The whole world is watching, Berkeley, CA: The University of California Press.

Goffman, E. (1974), Frame Analysis, Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Hofstede, G. (1980b), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, London: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1983a), "National Cultures in Four Dimensions: A Research-Based Theory of Cultural Differences among Nations," International Studies of Management & Organization, 13(1-2), 46-75.

Hofstede, G. (l993), "Cultural Constraints in Management Theories," Academy of Management Executive (AEX), 7(1), pp.81-94﹒

Hofstede, G. and Bond, M. H. (1988), "The Confucius Connection: From Cultural Roots to Economic Growth," Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 4-22.

House, R. J. (1993), "The Global Leadership and Organizational Effectiveness research programs." 引自張介貞 (1995)，多國性領導行為與管理實務：台灣地區研究計畫(一)，國科會專題研究成果報告書。

House et al. (2004), Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 Societies, Sage publications.

Kerlinger, F.N. (1973), Foundation of Behavioral Research, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc.

Klopf, D.W. and Park, M.S. (1982), Cross-Cultural Communication: An Introduction to the Fundamentals, Korea: Han Shin Publishing Co.

Krippendorf, K. (1980), Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology, Beverly Hills,CA: Sage publications.

Lasswell, H. (1948), “The structure and function of Communication in Society”, in L.Bryson(ed), The Communication of Ideas, pp. 32-51. New York: Harper.

Lippmann, W. (1922), Public Opinion, New York: Harcourt Brace.

Manheim, J. B. and Albritton, R. B. (1984), Changing National Image: International Public Relations and Media Agenda Setting, American Political Science Revies 78.

McQuail, D. and Windahl, S. (1994), Communication Models, 2nd Edition, London: Longman.

Melischek et al. (1984), Cultural Indicators Vienna: Austrian Academy of Science.

Newman, W. L. (2000), Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (4th ed.), Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.


Ronen, S. and Shenkar, O. (1985), “Clustering Countries on Attitudinal Dimensions: A Review and Synthesis,” Academy of Management Journal, September, pp. 435-454.

Rosch, M. (1987), “Communications: Focal Point of Culture,” Management International Review, vol. 27, no.4.

Rosengren (1981), ”Mass Media and Social Communication：Some Current Approach,” Mass Media and Social Changes.

Semetko et al. (1991), The Formation of Campaign Agendas: A Comparative Analysis of Party and Media Roles in Recent American and British Elections, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Tankard, J. W. and Jr. et al. (1991), “Media frames: Approaches to conceptualization and measurement,” Paper presented to the AEJMC convention, Boston, August.

Trompenarrs, F. (1944), Riding the Waves of Culture, New York: Irwin, p. 10.

Trompenaars, F. and Charles Hampden-Turner (1998), Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Diversity in Global Business, 2nd ed, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Tuchman, G. (1978), Making News: A study in the Construction of Reality, New York: Free Press.

Walizer, M. H. and Wienir, P. L. (1978), Research Methods and Analysis: Searching for Relationships, NY:Harper & Row.


History of Newsweek http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4925990/site/newsweek/

The Palmquist, Carley and Dale Study, Colorado State University,” Conducting Content Analysis ,http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/research/content/palmq1.cfm, 2003

Introduction of The Economist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist