臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

過去台灣的審議式民主相關研究大多著重在與審議民主的理念對話、案例分析，或是審議籌劃者的互動關係等，但有關審議實作過程中的主持人(facilitators)一角卻鮮少被直接地討論。審議主持人作為審議民主實作程序中的實踐者，一舉一動都會影響著審議討論的結果，所以去理解主持人在審議過程中的互動關係、遭遇的困境和如何化解的策略與技巧就顯得十分重要。因此，本文透過深度訪談11位審議主持人與進入田野參與觀察，勾勒出主持人在審議過程中可能的互動關係、主持形象跟相應的策略與技巧，試圖完整審議主持人的圖像。本文運用 Goffman的「劇場理論(dramaturgy)」作為研究分析的框架，發展三種不同面向的研究發現:
1.理解個人與理想中的主持人形象的互動過程，並指出主持模式的三種理念型，分別為:注重審議結果的理性AI機器人型;注重審議體驗的博感情型;不在意主持時的態度，但兼顧審議目標跟審議體驗的中庸之道型。而主持人的「入戲」與「審議風格的換裝」是審議主持人常見的技巧，透過合適的風格去應對問題，展現主持人主持時的動態過程。
2.形塑出主持人與審議參與者的互動過程，運用兩軸線-知情程度與配合程度，形成了四象限的參與者類型分類。與不同參與者互動有相應的策略與技巧，像營造審議情境與製造行動者間的距離的策略，以及正面的表述、借力使力與壓制的溝通技巧，但也強調技巧的使用要恰當，以免過猶不及，沒解決問題反而還製造問題。
3.指出主持人與審議計畫的設計所造成之外部挑戰，像是審議程序的設計與參與者的招募等都是影響主持的因素。但對主持人而言，他們無法主動地改變，所以只能在討論過程中盡力去完成討論，讓主持人參與進議程設計可以有效地降低這種困境。
這三種不同的互動關係各有遭遇到的困境與挑戰，因此有不同的行動策略，且會互相影響。最後，本文也將審議主持人作了一個社會關係層次的討論，發現審議主持人在審議討論這層社會關係中，不只是Simmel「陌生人」的性質與功能，更是在審議討論中積極追求達成目標的「助產士」概念。更提醒審議主持人的特質與工作的特性造成情緒勞動問題與後台的失衡需要被重視，指出主持人成就感來自於參與者的正面回饋。

Deliberative democracy research in Taiwan has long focused on concept discourse, case analysis, or the interaction among different actors in the sphere of public discussion. The role of facilitators, on the other hand, is rarely discussed. As the practitioners in the practice of deliberative democracy, how facilitators act and speak affects the outcome of discussions. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the interactions of facilitators in the discussion process, what dilemmas they encounter and how they overcome them. Hence, this research is based on the in-depth interview of 11 facilitators and actual field observations, aiming at exploring the interactions of facilitators, hosting image, and strategies and skills, providing a whole picture of the positioning of facilitators. The research adopts the theory of Goffman’s dramaturgy and discovered three research findings as follows:
1. Understanding the interaction process between the facilitators’ self and ideal image and categorizing three types of facilitators: rational AI robot that focuses on the results and tasks of discussion; sentimental facilitators that focuses on the experience of deliberative democracy; facilitators with a moderation approach that do not focus on the attitude during facilitation but balance both the deliberation objectives and the deliberation experience. The facilitator's "immersive level" and "deliberation style change" are common skills during facilitation. The dynamic of facilitator is specifically highlighted when they adopt different style to deal with problems accordingly.
2. Shaping the interaction process between the facilitators and the participants- presented in two axes - the level of knowledge and the level of cooperation— forming a four-quadrant classification of participant types. Facilitators demonstrate corresponding strategies and techniques for interacting with diverse participants. For instance, some facilitators create a suitable atmosphere for discussion, or create distance among different participants. Others adopt a positive attitude in communication, or leverage and suppress certain discourse. It is especially noted that communication skills should be appropriately adopted. Otherwise, it creates problems rather than solving them.
3. Identifying external challenges posed by the design or administrative process of program, such as the design of facilitation and the recruitment of participants. These are two of the factors that significantly affect facilitation. However, facilitators usually stand in an awkward position that they cannot actively change the process. Therefore, they can only try their best to accomplish the discussion. The finding concludes that involving facilitators in the agenda design can effectively reduce this dilemma.
Facilitators with these three different interactions have their own difficulties and challenges, and result in the distinctive strategies that eventually affect each other. Finally, this research also discussed facilitators at the level of social interaction. I discovered that in the deliberative democracy discussion, facilitators play beyond the role of what Simmel’s theory portrayed as a "stranger". Rather, they are actively engaged during the facilitation process. They seek for the goal of being a "midwife" in discussions. This research also brought up the value of facilitators’ emotional labor and the imbalance “backstage” issue. It is concluded that the facilitators’ sense of achievement is derived from the positive feedback of the participants.

壹、前言:把審議主持帶回研究視野..............................................1
貳、文獻回顧..............................................................4
一、審議式民主模式.........................................................4
(一)審議式民主的出現與其特色................................................4
(二)對審議式民主的反思.....................................................6
(三)審議民主的程序與設計...................................................8
二、審議民主的主持人(facilitators).........................................9
(一)審議主持人的功能......................................................................9
(二)審議主持人的主持策略...................................................11
三、小結.................................................................15
參、研究案例與方法......................................................................17
一、研究案例與對象.........................................................17
二、質化研究方法...........................................................19
肆、審議中的互動:主持人的「我」、「你」、「他」.................................20
一 、審議式民主的討論過程....................................................20
二、審議主持人的自我表演與互動................................................25
(一)審議主持人的自我定位與自我實現............................................26
1.審議主持人的類型學........................................................29
(1)盤撋(puânn-nuá)、博感情型...............................................30
(2)穩扎穩打、中庸之道型 ....................................................32
(3)理性中立、AI機器人型.....................................................33
2.怎麼「入戲」?入戲了然後呢?.................................................36
(1)互動態度面-模式的轉變 ...................................................36
(2)互動行為面-儀式感的呈現 ..................................................40
3.不斷重構角色形象的過程:主持風格的換裝........................................43
(二)誰來審議?參與公民與主持人的互動二三事......................................47
1.審議參與者的類型學.......................................................................48
(1)不言而喻及相得益彰型 ....................................................48
(2)一意孤行及固執己見型 ....................................................51
(3)並肩作戰及相輔相成型 ....................................................54
(4)漠不關心及不置可否型 ....................................................56
2.審議主持人的主持策略與溝通技巧..............................................60
(1)主持策略 .........................................................................60
(i)對審議情境的氣氛營造.....................................................60
(ii)製造與其他行動者的距離..................................................63
(2)溝通技巧 .........................................................................67
(i)正面、清晰的表達方式.....................................................68
(ii)借力使力..............................................................70
(iii)壓制................................................................75
(三)審議討論舞台的外部設定帶來的挑戰..........................................78
1.審議程序的設計...........................................................79
2.參與者的招募:參與公民哪裡來?...............................................81
伍、審議主持人作為民主的助產士................................................84
一、主持人在審議討論中的社會關係..............................................84
(一)審議討論的「陌生人」....................................................84
(二)審議「是」民主的助產士...................................................88
二、審議主持人搖搖欲墜的後台..................................................90
(一)審議主持人的特質........................................................91
(二)審議主持人的情緒勞動:焦慮感、成就感與未來...................................91
陸、結論:審議主持作為一個複雜的社會過程.........................................94
柒、未來研究方向 ...........................................................97
附錄、訪談同意書與大綱 ......................................................98
參考文獻 ..................................................................100

(一)中文部分
參考文獻
杜文苓、陳致中(2007)。〈民眾參與公共決策的反思-以竹科宜蘭基地設置為例〉。《臺灣民主季刊》 4(3): 33-62。
何明修(2017)。《社會運動概論》。臺北:三民。 李宗義、許雅淑(譯)，Jon Elster.(原著)(2010)。《審議民主》。臺北:群學。
林尚平、楊妮菁、張淑慧(2000)。〈情緒規則，社會化歷程及相關情緒勞務管理議題之個案探討〉。《商管科技季刊》 1(1):67-86。
林尚平、陳怡安(2001)。〈遊樂區員工情緒勞務及社會化歷程之質性研究〉。
《商管科技季刊》2(3):319-343。
林祐聖(2007)。〈我們沒有台上台下之分:代理孕母公民共識會議中的專家與常民關係〉。《台灣民主季刊》 4(3): 1-32。
———(2010)。〈從歧見到共識:公共審議中的網絡平衡〉。《台灣民主季刊》7(2): 177-216。
林祐聖(譯)，Baiocchi, G., Heller, P., & Silva, M.(原著)(2016)。《如何自主啟動民主:巴西地方治理與公民社會的轉型》。新北:國家教育研究院。
林祐聖(2020)。〈參與式預算中的陌生人〉。Taiwanese Sociology, (39), 39-88.
林國明(2009)。〈公共領域、公民社會與審議民主〉。《思想》 11:181-195。
———(2013)。〈多元的公民審議如何可能?程序主義與公民社會觀點〉。《台灣民主季刊》10(4):137-83。 ———(2014)。〈審議的不平等:台灣公民會議的言說互動〉。Taiwanese Sociology,(27), 1-50。
林祐聖、葉欣怡(2020)。《審議民主實作手冊》。新北:文化部。
林國明、林祐聖、葉欣怡(2005)。《審議式民主公民會議操作手冊》。臺北: 行政院青年輔導委員會。
林國明、陳東升(2003)。〈公民會議與審議民主:全民健保的公民參與經驗〉。《台灣社會學》 6: 61-118。
徐江敏等(譯)，Goffman, E.(原著)(1992)。《日常生活中的自我表演》(The presentation of self in everyday life)。苗栗:桂冠。
陳東升(2006)。〈審議民主的限制:台灣公民會議的經驗〉。《台灣民主季刊》 3(1): 77-104。
葉欣怡、林祐聖(2017)。〈參與式預算的臺灣實踐經驗:以三峽區的身心障礙 者就業促進方案試辦計畫為例〉。《民主與治理》 4(1), 69-95。
廖錦桂、王興中等(2007)。《口中之光:審議民主的理論與實踐》。臺北:台灣智庫。
劉介修、陳逸玲(譯)，John Gastil, Peter Levine.(原著)(2012)。《審議式民主指南:廿一世紀公民參與的有效策略》。臺北:群學。
鄭麗君 編(2015)。《參與式預算:咱的預算咱來決定》。臺北:青平臺基金 會。
魏書娥(2004)。〈全球文化中的陌生人經驗‥以 Georg Simmel 陌生人概念為核心的社會學考察〉。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。
(二)英文部分
Adelmann, P. K. (1989). Emotional labor and employee well-being. University of Michigan.
Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1993). Emotional labor in service roles: The influence of identity. Academy of management review, 18(1), 88-115.
Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual review of sociology, 611-639.
Cohen, Joshua, 2009, Reflections on Deliberative Democracy. Pp. 247-263 in Contemporary Debates in Political Philosophy, edited by Thomas Christiano and John Christman. Blackwell Publishing,Crawford, M. (1995) Talking Difference. London: Sage.
Fearon , James D., 1998, “Deliberation as Discussion.” Pp.44-68 in Deliberative Democracy, edited by Jon Elster. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Fraser, Nancy, 1994, Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. Pp. 109-142 in Habermas and the Public Sphere,edited by C. Calhoun. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Gibson, David R.,2011, “Avoiding Catastrophe: The Interactional Production of Possibility during the Cuban Missile Crisis.” American Journal of Sociology 117(2): 361-419.
Goffman, E., 1974, Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press.
Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson, 2000, Democracy and Disagreement. MA: Harvard University Press.
Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson, 2004, Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hochschild, A. R. (1979). Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American journal of sociology, 85(3), 551-575.
Hochschild, A. R. (2015). The managed heart. In Working in America (pp. 47-54). Routledge.
Mansbridge, Jane M. , 1999, “On the Idea that Participation Make Better Citizen.” In Stephen L. Elkins and Edward Stolen (eds.), Citizen Competence and Democratic Institutions (pp. 291-325). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Simmel, G. (1971). On individuality and social forms (Vol. 1907). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Young, I. M. , 2002, Inclusion and democracy. Oxford University press on demand.