122 /274
千營共一呼：策略研討會中議題設定的實踐分析
122
workers, broadly defined to include those involved in policy making, framing and marketing
activities. It follows that, in today’s world, characterized by a more open and democratic
society, politicians remain an important group but become less elitist and authoritarian. In
addressing an uncertain future and allocating limited resources for the country, politicians
serve on the front line as professional managers or strategists who need not just analytical
skills but also process skills for mobilizing and motivating stakeholder audiences.
Addressing the use of process skills and public strategies by political agents and
professionals is important for strategy, for both practical and theoretical reasons. In terms of
practical relevance, it has the potential to provide a range of toolkits for professional
planners and executors. Theoretically, such an analysis contributes to the micro-foundations
of strategic management.
Our empirical setting is Taiwan, which has shifted from an authoritarian and
autonomous system to one greatly concerned with pressure groups and policy consensus.
This shift emphasizes the significance of promoting the understanding and practices of
political activities. Furthermore, we chose to study Taiwan because it is a small and tightly
coordinated country, which has continually faced military threats from China. To some
extent, therefore, the country shares certain common characteristics with a large corporation
in terms of function, competition, and purpose. Policy-making activities differ widely, and in
this paper we focus on the 9th National Science and Technology Conference held by the
Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan in 2012. The conference is nationwide,
regularly organized, and with an open design, highlighting the importance of setting the
agendas skillfully to build consensus and guide action. Using a qualitative research process,
we examine how Taiwanese political bodies or policy workers developed a variety of
discursive processes to develop and justify the agenda-setting activities.
The basic methodology used for this research is that of action research, which is
generally defined as qualitative research on the conditions and effects of various forms of
social action and research leading to social action. When applied to practice studies, this
research approach can be seen as a reflective process of progressive problem solving, led by
individuals working with others as part of a community of practice to improve the way they
address issues and solve problems. As policy works become designers and stakeholders,
researchers, as part of the community, can work with others to propose a new course of
action to help their community improve its work practices. The use of qualitatively based
action research is thus appropriate because a primary focus of this study is to elaborate
micro-practices of strategic agenda setting, a viewpoint consistent with the strategy-as-