從「參與式學術」談政府委辦案的規劃與推動：計畫主持人影響力的多面向分析

Planning and Promoting Government-Commissioned Projects Through the Lens of the Scholarship of Engagement: A Multi-Faceted Analysis of Principal Investigators’ Influence

本研究以美國著名教育學者E. L. Boyer於1990年及1996年所提出之「參與式學術」（Scholarship of Engagement）作為理論框架，針對我國政府委辦計畫之規劃與推動，從「計畫主持人」的多重角色與影響力出發，建構涵蓋「研究—教學—服務」的整合性分析。本研究採取質性研究取向，結合理論論述、文件分析、次級資料與公開文本，聚焦研究者在「國際教育」、「雙語教育」與「原住民族教育」等政府委辦計畫的主持及參與經驗。研究問題包括：一、「參與式學術」如何重構政府委辦計畫之價值與實踐路徑？二、計畫主持人於政策協作、知識轉動、人才培力、公共參與及國際網絡等層面之具體展現為何？三、在現行大學教師評鑑制度下，如何將「服務」實質化並使其可被評量？本研究主要發現為政府委辦計畫之規劃與推動呈現六個相互支撐的向度，包括發現的學術、政策決定與倡議、知識轉動、人才培力與典範實踐、公共參與及社會影響力和國際合作與網絡鏈結，並據此提出「主持人影響力六環模型」與「參與式學術—計畫治理評估矩陣」，針對高等教育治理與教育政策提出改革建議。

Anchored in E. L. Boyer’s concept of the scholarship of engagement (1990, 1996), this study develops an integrative framework spanning research-teaching-service to examine the planning and implementation of government-commissioned projects in Taiwan from the vantage point of the principal investigator (PI) and their multi-role influence. Adopting a qualitative approach that combines theoretical argumentation, document analysis, secondary data, and public texts, the study focuses on the authors’ leadership and participation in commissioned projects related to international education, bilingual education, and Indigenous education. The research addresses three questions: (1) How does the scholarship of engagement reconstruct the value orientation and practical pathways of government-commissioned projects? (2) In what concrete ways do PIs enact influence in policy collaboration, knowledge mobilization, capacity building, public engagement, and international networking? (3) Under current faculty evaluation regimes in higher education, how can “service” be operationalized and assessed? Findings indicate that the planning and promotion of these projects manifest six mutually reinforcing dimensions: the scholarship of discovery, policy decision-making and advocacy, knowledge mobilization, talent development and exemplary practice, public engagement and societal impact, and international collaborative networks. Building on these insights, the article proposes a “Six-Ring Model of PI Influence” and a “Scholarship of Engagement–Project Governance Evaluation Matrix,” and offers reform recommendations for higher education governance and education policy. We argue that only by institutionalizing and making service assessable can a genuine balance among research, teaching, and service be achieved, thereby enabling higher education to truly serve the public good.