出版品 Publications

Selected Publications

This page presents selected journal articles, book chapters, research reports, and other scholarly publications. Complete bibliographic records and relevant links will be added progressively.

精選出版品

本頁收錄期刊論文、專書章節、研究報告及其他學術成果。完整書目資料與相關連結將陸續整理加入。

【標題】002—重新概念化人工智慧治理：公共行政理論視角下的二十五治理座標、四條治理鏈與人機協同治理架構 (2026)

摘要：人工智慧進入政府的服務交付、政策形成與內部行政後，公共行政研究已分別討論人工裁量、演算法問責、偏見、透明性及政策框定。問題在於，此類研究雖各有進展，卻仍缺少一套共同程序，以同時定位AI介入之位置、追蹤治理正當性，並辨識制度斷裂。是以，本文採取概念建構與問題化文獻回顧，提出由二十五治理座標、四條治理鏈及七項治理審計所組成的AI鑲嵌式壓力測試。

本文之分析程序分為四步。第一，以五分析層次×五分析單位定位案例；第二，沿情境建構、權威、理由與責任四鏈追蹤正當性；第三，以資料代表性、理由說明、責任歸屬、隱私與資安、裁量邊界、組織能力及民主課責七項審計檢查證據；最後，比較跨格移動、邊界消解與權威重構是否反覆出現。本文並以AFST、SyRI、Robodebt及我國行政院生成式AI使用指引，進行文件型的示範壓力測試。

本文主要的理論增補，在於把政策框定研究所處理的問題定義與資料選擇，置於問責程序之前端，稱為「情境建構鏈」，再與權威、理由及責任三鏈相互連結。分析顯示，AI可能在正式決定作成以前，即以技術方式框定問題，致使權威、理由與責任的位置彼此分離。

惟本文所完成者，是一套可供比較案例使用的概念程序，尚非實證驗證。其外部效度、審計判準及典範重構主張，仍須留待後續研究檢驗。

關鍵詞：公共行政理論、重新概念化、治理鏈、情境建構、人機協同治理

【檔案區塊】

---

【TIitle】002.e—Reconceptualizing AI Governance: Twenty-Five Governance Coordinates, Four Governance Chains, and a Human–AI Collaborative Governance Framework from the Perspective of Public Administration Theory

Abstract

After artificial intelligence—particularly generative AI—enters government service delivery, policy formation, and internal administration, existing public administration research has separately examined artificial discretion, algorithmic accountability, bias, transparency, and policy framing. What remains missing is a common analytical procedure that can simultaneously locate where AI intervenes, trace governance legitimacy, and identify institutional rupture. Using a conceptual construction approach and a critical, problematizing review of the literature, this article proposes an AI-embedded stress test composed of twenty-five governance coordinates, four governance chains, and seven governance audits.

The analytical procedure proceeds in four steps: locating a case using five analytical levels × five units of analysis; tracing legitimacy along four chains—context construction, authority, reasoning, and responsibility; examining evidence through seven audits—data representativeness, reason-giving, responsibility attribution, privacy and security, discretion boundaries, organizational capacity, and democratic accountability; and finally comparing whether cross-cell movement, boundary dissolution, and authority reconfiguration (including technology vendors and data professionals acquiring de facto influence) recur. The present analysis conducts a document-based demonstration stress test using three government automated-decision cases—AFST, SyRI, and Robodebt—together with Taiwan’s Executive Yuan guidelines on the use of generative AI.

The article’s main theoretical addition is converting the problem definition and data selection addressed by policy-framing research into a “context-construction chain” at the very front end of the accountability process, linking it to the three subsequent chains of authority, reasoning, and responsibility. The demonstration analysis shows that AI systems may allow problem definition to be technically framed before a formal decision is made, causing authority, reasoning, and responsibility to become separated.

This article’s contribution is to propose a conceptual procedure usable for comparing cases, not to claim that empirical validation has been completed. Its external validity, audit criteria, and claims about paradigm reconstruction still require testing by subsequent empirical research.

Keywords: public administration theory, reconceptualization, governance chains, context construction, human–AI collaborative governance

【File】

---

【標題】003–深偽何時成為國家治理事件？危害分級、暫時主責與治理稽核——一項公共行政事件壓力測試

摘要

公共深偽最難處理的時刻，不在真相已經查明之後，而在真偽尚未確定、危害卻可能先一步擴大之時。國家元首、政府機關或高階官員遭AI冒用，起初可能只是諷刺、冒名或詐欺；然而，一旦訊息引起公共恐慌、干擾制度運作，或帶有境外操弄與國家安全風險，原有的單一機關分工便未必足以接住事件。本文不依深偽技術本身指定主管機關，而依危害類型、證據可信度、制度穿透程度與預期後果分級。本文預設政府機關依其職掌，已有通報規範、應變計畫、作業手冊或內部指引；問題在於，這些制度能否在事件尚未定性時彼此銜接。為此，本文以公共深偽事件壓力測試AI治理下的母架構：二十五治理座標顯示事件如何跨格移動；四條治理鏈追問情境由誰界定、誰有權決定、介入理由是否充分，以及錯誤或延誤由誰承擔；七項治理稽核則保留事後可以查核的紀錄。全球文獻定位顯示，國際倫理與平台規範多集中於1×5至3×5，技術偵測及事件指引集中於5×3；較少被直接處理的是2×3，也就是政府組織之間的暫時主責、跨機關協調與升級條件。本文主要提供國安、調查、資安、國防及行政院體系中，負責情勢研判、政策分析與跨機關協調的研究員和中階行政官員使用。相同的壓力測試問題，日後亦可依不同法制與專業程序，調整後應用於國防、救災及緊急救護等高風險行政場域。

關鍵詞：公共深偽、AI冒名、危害分級、跨機關應變、二十五治理座標、治理鏈

---

【TIitle】003.e—When Does a Deepfake Become a State Governance Incident? Harm Classification, Temporary Lead Responsibility, and Governance Audits: A Public Administration Incident Stress Test

Abstract

The most critical friction point in a public deepfake incident occurs before authenticity and legal classification are established—a period during which potential real-world harm can rapidly escalate. The AI-enabled impersonation of a head of state, public agency, or senior official may represent harmless satire, personal identity abuse, or fraud; equally, it may trigger public panic, institutional disruption, foreign information operations, or severe national security threats.

This paper establishes a framework to classify incidents by harm type, evidentiary confidence, institutional penetration, and anticipated impact. Assuming that public agencies already maintain baseline notification protocols, contingency plans, and internal operational guidance, the core problem is structural: how do these siloed mechanisms interface when an incident has not yet been classified?

Using a 25-cell governance matrix, this study maps cross-grid incident movements, uses four “governance chains” to evaluate context, authority, reasoning, and accountability, and provides seven ex-post governance audits to ensure procedural transparency. Existing literature largely concentrates on international norms and platform regulation (1×5 to 3×5) or technical detection mechanisms (5×3). This leaves a critical gap at cell 2×3: temporary lead responsibility, interagency coordination, and escalation triggers within public administration. The primary audience for this framework includes policy analysts and mid-level decision-makers in national security, law enforcement, cybersecurity, defense, and central executive coordination.

Keywords: public deepfakes; AI-enabled impersonation; harm classification; interagency response; governance coordinates; governance chains

【標題】004—AI機器人治理的協商模式：從價值內建到多方共構

摘要

當AI機器人進入家庭與照護場域，問題不只在於如何把倫理價值寫進系統。人類制度還必須回答：誰界定風險、誰有權作成選擇、誰負責說明，又由誰承擔後果？本文延用二十五治理座標，將分析焦點下修至個人與組織，並以情境建構、權威、理由與責任四條治理鏈，比較廠商內建、政府命令、市場契約與多方協商四種治理路徑。本文不把四種路徑視為彼此隔離的制度選單；在實際治理中，它們會交會、偏移，並形成混合配置。治理可能性空間據此呈現尚未制度化、甚至尚未被命名的風險與選項。本文使用機器倫理與價值敏感設計文獻、臺灣法制與政策文件、作者對2002至2005年跨部會機器人政策討論的回溯性敘事，以及家用照護機器人的前瞻性思想實驗。問題是，協商若沒有期限、法定決定權與失敗後的回歸安排，參與也可能成為責任延宕的理由。本文因此提出僵局分級收斂與預設回歸點，並將分析架構轉化為政府研究單位可使用的六步驟工作流程。本文的貢獻不在證明協商必然優於其他路徑，而在提供一套能使問題框定、法定權威、決策理由與責任歸屬重新可見，並在協商或系統失敗時安全退場的政策工具。

關鍵詞： AI機器人治理、協商式治理、人工道德代理人、價值敏感設計、治理可能性空間、預設回歸點

---

【TIitle】004.e—Negotiated Governance of AI Robots: From Value Embedding to Multi-Stakeholder Co-Construction

Abstract

When artificial intelligence (AI) robots enter domestic and care settings, the fundamental governance challenge extends beyond how ethical values ought to be embedded into system architectures. Human institutions must also systematically resolve who possesses the authority to define risks, who is empowered to make decisions, who is required to provide justifications, and who ultimately bears the consequences. This article applies a 5 × 5 framework of twenty-five governance coordinates at the individual and organizational levels, employing four governance chains—context construction, authority, reason, and responsibility—to evaluate and compare four institutional pathways: vendor embedding, government command, market contracting, and multi-stakeholder negotiation. Rather than treating these pathways as isolated institutional alternatives, the analysis demonstrates how they intersect, shift, and form hybrid arrangements. The study synthesizes structured literature and legal analysis, a bounded retrospective account of the author’s participation in Taiwanese interagency robotics-policy discussions from 2002 to 2005, and prospective thought experiments regarding domestic care robots. It further establishes a graded deadlock resolution mechanism, a predefined reversion point, and an actionable six-step workflow tailored for government research units. Ultimately, this article offers a meso-level public-administration framework that seamlessly bridges ethics-by-design with institutional authority and administrative responsibility. Its core thesis is not that negotiation invariably outperforms command, contract, or technical embedding, but rather that legitimate governance must render problem framing, lawful authority, reasoned justification, and responsibility transparent—while providing a secure institutional fallback when consensus or system performance fails.

Keywords: AI robot governance, negotiated governance, artificial moral agents, value sensitive design, governance possibility space, reversion point

---

過去的期刊論文 (Past Journal Articles & Periodical Papers)

1. （2010），<公務倫理：整合公共治理的概念>，<<考試院文官制度季刊‧考試院八十周年慶特刊>>，第39-53頁。(2010). ”Administrative Ethics: A Concept of Integrated Public Governance,” Journal of Civil Service, Examination Yuan, Taiwan, Dec. 2009 Special Issue, pp. 39-53.
2. （2009），<公務人員的生涯發展與終身學習：個人與組織之間的平衡論點>，<<人事行政>>，第166期，第19-31頁。(2009).”Career Planning and Life-long Learning: The balancing viewpoint between civic servant and public organization,” Personnel Administration, Examination Yuan, Taiwan, Vol. 116, pp. 19-31.
3. （2007），<公共組織變革的成功路徑>，<<研習論壇>>，第79期，7月號（2007.7）。 (2007). ”Successful Paths for Organizational Change in Government,” Forum on Training and Development ,Regional Civil Service Development Institute, Central Personnel Administration, Taiwan, Vol. 79, No. 7, pp. 26-43.
4. （2006），<當前我國公務人員教考訓用配合制度可行性評估>，<<國家菁英季刊>>，第2卷，第4期，12月號（2006.12）。 (2006). “Assessment of Feasibility on Integrated Public Personnel Systems in Taiwan,” National Elite, the Examination Yuan, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 43-66.
5. （2005），<數位機會中心－縮短城鄉數字落差．增進國際數字機會>，<<臺灣經濟研究月刊>>，第28卷，9月號 （2005.9）。 (2005). “Digital Opportunity Center—How to Bridge Digital Divide & Enhance Digital Opportunity Internationally,” Taiwan Economic Research Monthly, Institute of Taiwan Economic Research, Vol. 28, No. 9, pp. 92-100.
6. （2005），<全球資訊社會與我國國家安全>，<<臺灣經濟研究月刊>>，第28 卷，5月號（2005.5）。 (2005). “Global Information Society & National Security in Taiwan,” Taiwan Economic Research Journal, Institute of Taiwan Economic Research, Vol. 28, No.5, pp.49-55.
7. （2005），<亞太數字機會中心（ADOC）>，<<APEC 2004 議題論叢>>，中華臺北亞太經濟合作研究中心出版，（2005.3）。 (2005). “The Beginning of APEC Digital Opportunity Center,” APEC 2004 Issues Report, APEC Study Center in Chinese Taipei.
8. （2004），<從聯合國全球資訊社會高峰會指導原則檢視當前資訊社會發展>，<<臺灣經濟研究月刊>>，第27卷，6月號（2004.6） ，與洪鳳儀共同發表。 (2004). “Reviewing the Development of Information Society in Taiwan with the Guideline from WSIS,” Taiwan Economic Research Monthly, Institute of Taiwan Economic Research, Vol. 27, No. 6, pp. 51-57, Co-authored with Hong Fong I.
9. （2003），<轉落差換機會‧創利基造福祉—以數字落差開創我國外交經貿之契機>，<<臺灣經濟研究月刊>>，第26卷，12月號（2003.12）。（2003）. ”Applying Digital Opportunity Concepts Toward Diplomacy and International Trade,” Taiwan Economic Research Monthly, Institute of Taiwan Economic Research, Vol. 26, No. 12, pp. 57-63.
10. （2003），<促進區域經濟整合的快速道路—電子商務>，<<臺灣經濟研究月刊>>，第26卷，5月號（2003.05)，與邱達生共同發表。(2003). ”E-Commerce—the Fastest Path for Regional Economic Integration,” Taiwan Economic Research Monthly, Institute of Taiwan Economic Research, Vol. 26, No. 5, pp. 59-62, Co-authored with Dason Chu.
11. （2002），<公務人員運用網路能力之研究─以金門縣為例>，<<研考雙月刊>>，第234 期 （2003.04），與李懷寧共同發表。(2002). “A Study of Network Ability of Civil Servants of Local Government：An Example of Kinmen County,” Bimonthly Journal for Research, Development and Evaluation ,the Research, Development and Evaluation Commission, Executive Yuan, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 87-100, Co-authored with Huai-ning Lee.
12. （2002），<APEC對電子化政府的期望與規範架構>，<<亞太經濟合作評論>>，第10 期（APEC Review） （2002.12）。(2002). ”E-government in APEC: Expectation and framework,” APEC Review, APEC Study Center in Chinese Taipei, No. 10, pp. 57-73.
13. （2002），<全球化與公共資訊系統的重建構>，<<國立空中大學行政學報>> (2002.6)，第12期。 (2002). “Globalization and Restructuring of Public Information Systems,” Open Public Administration Review, National Open University, No.12, pp. 37-69.
14. （1999），<策略管理：公共組織的變革與因應>，<<高雄市政府公教人力發展中心學術論文輯>>，(1999.3.)。 (1999). “Strategic Management—Change & reaction in public organizations,” Papers for Public Human Development Agency, Kaohsiung City Government.
15. （1999），<各國政府機構員額及類別比較研究>，<<人事管理>>，臺灣省政府，(1999.9.)，第36卷，第8期。(1999). “Comparative Study of Civil Servants,” Personnel Management, Taiwan Province Government, No.36, pp. 4-32.
16. （1998），<政府再造中公務人力資源規畫管理的檢討>，<<行政院研考會研考報導雙月刊>>，(1998.8.)，第18 卷，第3期。 (1998). “Revisiting Human Resource Planning in Reconstructing Government in Taiwan,“ Bimonthly Journal for Research, Development and Evaluation , the Research, Development and Evaluation Commission, Executive Yuan, Vol. 18, No. 23, pp. 37-52.
17. （1998），<公共資訊管理的特質與範圍>，<<高雄市政府公教資訊>>，(1997.12.)，第2卷，第1期。 (1998). “Features and Scopes of Public Information Management,” Public Information Periodical, Kaohsiung City Government, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 4-32.
18. （1997），< WWW上公共行政資訊之探索的研究>，<<國立空中大學行政學報>>，(1997.5)，第7 期。 (1997). “Public Administration in WWW,” Open Public Administration Review, National Open University, No.7.
19. （1996），<公共行政學的文獻回顧>，<<國立空中大學行政學報>>，(1996.5)，第5期。 (1997). “The Literature Review in Public Administration,” Open Public Administration Review, National Open University, No. 5.
20. （1996），<資訊社會:公共行政新議題>，<<台大政治科學論叢>>，(1996.6)，第7期。 (1996). “Information Society—the Newest Topics for Public Administration,” Political Science Review, National Taiwan University, No. 7.
21. （1995），<公共企業精神：公共企業家的角色與批判>，<<國立空中大學行政學報>>，(1995.11)，第4 期。 (1995). “Public Entrepreneurship—the role and critique of public entrepreneur,” Open Public Administration Review, National Open University, No. 4.
22. （1995），<公共企業精神：公共企業家的角色>，<<臺灣省政府研考報導>>，(1995.10.)，第33期。 (1995). “Public Entrepreneurship—the role of public entrepreneur,” Research Reports for Taiwan Province Government, No. 33.
23. （1994），<美國公共行政倫理理論的批判>，<<行政院研考會研考報導雙月刊>>，(1994.6.)第18 卷，第3期。 (1994). “Critique of Administrative Ethic Theory in United States” Bimonthly Journal for Research, Development and Evaluation, the Research, Development and Evaluation Commission, Executive Yuan, Vol. 18, No. 3.