公益部門與社會性議題已然成為許多國家關注的項目，台灣的公益部門也
逐漸成熟，甚至在亞洲內成為最慈善國家之一，台灣能夠擁有如此成績，是透
過政府機關、非營利組織、企業、社會大眾間的互相協助與支持。但是串聯所
有人投入公益部門並關注社會性議題，是一項困難的挑戰，群眾與非營利組織
及弱勢群體之間的溝通語言有所不同，因而時常造成誤解與產生隔閡。因此，
許多非營利組織及公益工作者紛紛投入解決非營利組織及群眾間跨組織溝通
的問題，期望透過社會性媒體所建立的對話與資訊交流空間，讓彼此理解並一
起改善社會問題。
本研究以四個社會性媒體Right Plus 多多益善、NPOst 公益交流站、公益
責信協會及Vstory為個案研究對象，四家數位媒體運用組織的能力，帶來不
同的協助，期望解決非營利組織與群眾之間溝通的問題，並產生理解與包容。
本研究以資訊科技賦能跨組織溝通為驅動力，觀察社會性媒體所想要解決的問
題，透過組織靈巧能力解決資源的問題，並運用組織自身的能力產生不同層次
的賦權機制，協助破除非營利組織參與社會的障礙，使非營利組織與群眾之間
相互理解，達成社會包容。

Many countries have paid more attention on social sectors and social issues. Social sectors in Taiwan also have gradually matured and even become one of the most philanthropic countries in Asia. Taiwan can achieve such results through mutual assistance and support among government agencies, non-profit organizations, enterprises, and the masses. However, it is a difficult challenge to connect everyone to the social sector and pay attention to social issues. The communication language and culture between the masses and non-profit organizations and disadvantaged groups are different, which often causes misunderstandings and gaps. Therefore, many non-profit organizations and philanthropic workers have invested in solving the problem of intercultural communication between non-profit organizations and the masses. They hope that through the communication and information exchange space on social beneficial media, they can understand each other and improve social problems together.
This research uses four social beneficial medias Right Plus, NPOst, APA and Vstory as the case study objects. These four medias use organizational capabilities to bring different assistance. They hope to solve the problem of communication between non-profit organizations and the masses, and generate understanding and tolerance. This research uses IT-enabled intercultural communication as the driving force, and observes the problems that social beneficial medias want to solve. Also, explore how the social beneficial medias can solve resource problems through organizational ambidexterity, and use the organization's own capabilities to generate different levels of empowerment mechanisms to help break down barriers for non-profit organizations to participate in society, so that non-profit organizations and the masses can understand each other and achieve social inclusion.

中文部分
1. 黃秋霞（2016）。淺談量化與質性研究的反思。台灣教育評論月刊。5(9)，149-154。
2. 陳向明（2002）。社會科學值得研究。五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
3. 劉家妤（2015）。推動e化對原鄉部落之影響-以復興鄉為例。國立台灣科技大學，碩士。

英文部分
1. Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 634-665.
2. Andrade, A. D., & Doolin, B. (2016). Information and communication technology and the social inclusion of refugees. Mis Quarterly, 40(2), 405-416.
3. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
4. Beamer, L. (1992). Learning intercultural communication competence. Journal of Business Communication, 29, 285-303.
5. Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: Egovernment and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27(3), 264-271.
6. Chou, T., Wu, S., Chen, J., & Huang, C. (2020). Exploring dominant business logic transformation practices: a routine enactment perspective. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 1-14.
7. Christens, B. D. (2012). Toward relational empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50(1), 114 - 128.
8. Conger, J. A. & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471-482.
9. Duncan, R. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In R. H. Killman, L. R. Pondy, & D. Sleven (Eds.), The management of organization, 1: 167-188. New York: North Holland.
10. Ersing, R. L. (2003). Community Empowerment. In K. Christensen & D. Levinson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of community: From the village to the virtual world. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. Friedmann, J. (1992). Empowerment: The politics of alternative development. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
12. Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of management Journal, 47(2), 209-226.
13. Gutierrez, L. M. (1990). Working with women of color: An empowerment perspective. Social Work, 35(2), 149-153.
14. Hackler, D., & Saxton, G. D. (2007). The strategic use of information technology by nonprofit organizations: Increasing capacity and untapped potential. Public administration review, 67(3), 474-487.
15. Hardy, C., & Leiba-O'Sullivan, S. (1998). The power behind empowerment: Implications for research and practice. Human Relations, 51(4), 451-483.
16. Hedrick, R. P., MacConnell, E., & De Kinkelin, P. (1993). Proliferative kidney disease of salmonid fish. Annual review of Fish diseases, 3, 277-290.
17. Jacques, R. (1996). Manufacturing the employee: Management knowledge from the 9th to the 21st centuries. London: Sage.
18. Jansen, J. J., George, G., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2008). Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 45(5), 982-1007.
19. Kieffer, C. H. (1984). Citizen empowerment: A developmental perspective. Prevention in Human Services, 3(2-3), 9-36.
20. Kreisburg, S. (1992). Transforming power: Domination, empowerment, and education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
21. Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J. (1967). Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration. Boson: Harvard University.
22. Lee, M., & Koh, J. (2001). Is empowerment really a new concept? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(4), 684-695.
23. Leong, C. M. L., Pan, S. L., Ractham, P., & Kaewkitipong, L. (2015). ICT-enabled community empowerment in crisis response: Social media in Thailand flooding 2011. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 16(3), 1.
24. Levinthal, D., & March, J. 1993. Myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 95-112.
25. Lincoln, N. D., Travers, C., Ackers, P., & Wilkinson, A. (2002). The meaning of empowerment: The interdisciplinary etymology of a new management concept. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(3), 271–290.
26. Lovejoy, K., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Information, community, and action: How nonprofit organizations use social media. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 17(3), 337-353.
27. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2: 71-86.
28. Maidment, J. M., and Macfarlane, S. 2009. “Debating the Capacity of Information and Communication Technology to Promote Inclusion,” in Theorising Social Exclusion, A. Taket, B. R. Crisp, A. Nevill, G. Lamaro, M. Graham, and S. Barter-Godfrey (eds.), London, UK: Routledge, pp. 95-104.
29. Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. E. (1976). Learned helplessness: Theory and evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 105(1), 3-46.
30. McClelland, D. C. (1975). Power: The inner experience. New York: Irvington Press.
31. O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. 2004. The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82: 74-81.
32. Peterson, N. A., Lowe, J. B., Aquilino, M. L., & Schnider, J. E. (2005). Linking social cohesion and interactional empowerment: Support and new implications for theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 33(2), 233–244.
33. Phipps, L. (2000). New communications technologies-A conduit for social inclusion. Information, Communication & Society, 3(1), 39-68.
34. Pigg, K. E. (2002). Three faces of empowerment: Expanding the theory of empowerment in community development. Journal of the Community Development Society, 33(1), 107-123.
35. Ratcliffe, P. 2000. “Is the Assertion of Minority Identity Compatible with the Idea of a Socially Inclusive Society?,” in Social Inclusion: Possibilities and Tensions, P. Askonas and A. Stewart (eds.), Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan Press, pp. 169-185.
36. Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of management, 34(3), 375-409.
37. Schneider, J. A. (2003). Small, minority‐based nonprofits in the information age. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 13(4), 383-399.
38. Schramm, W. (1971). Notes on Case Studies of Instructional Media Projects.
39. Selwyn, N. 2002. “‘E-stablishing’ an Inclusive Society? Technology, Social Exclusion and UK Government Policy Making,” Journal of Social Policy (31:1), pp. 1-20.
40. Shumate, M., Atouba, Y., Cooper, K. R., & Pilny, A. (2017). Interorganizational communication. The international encyclopedia of organizational communication, 1-24.
41. Spreitzer, G. M., & Doneson, D. (2005). Musings on the past and future of employee empowerment. In T. G. Cummings (Ed.), Handbook of organizational development. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
42. Stewart, A. 2000. “Social Inclusion: An Introduction,” in Social Inclusion: Possibilities and Tensions, P. Askonas and A. Stewart (eds.), Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan Press, pp. 1-16.
43. Taket, A., Crisp, B. R., Nevill, A., Lamaro, G., Graham, M., and Barter-Godfrey, S. (eds.). 2009. Theorising Social Exclusion. London: Routledge.
44. Tascón, S. M. 2008. “Social Inclusion of Refugee Families and Children,” Migration Action (2), pp. 23-27.
45. Taylor, J. R., & Van Every, E. J. (2000). The emergent organization: Communication as its site and surface. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
46. Thomas, K., & Velthouse, B. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An interpretive model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 666–681.
47. Van den Eynde, J., & Veno, A. (1999). Coping with disastrous events: An empowerment model of community healing. In R. Gist & B. Lubin (Eds.), Response to disaster: Psychosocial, community, and ecological approaches (pp. 167–192). Philadelphia, PA: Bruner/Mazel.
48. W Lawrence, N. (2014). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.
49. Warschauer, M. 2003. Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
50. Wilding, R. 2009. “Refugee Youth, Social Inclusion, and ICTs: Can Good Intentions Go Bad?,” Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society (7:2/3), pp. 159-174.
51. Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage publications.
52. Zaidi, M. F. A., & Othman, S. N. (2015). Structural ambidexterity vs. contextual ambidexterity: Preliminary evidence from Malaysia. The Social Sciences, 10(6), 1200-1207.
53. Zorn, T. E., Flanagin, A. J., & Shoham, M. D. (2011). Institutional and noninstitutional influences on information and communication technology adoption and use among nonprofit organizations. Human communication research, 37(1), 1-33.

 
網站部分
1. Right Plus多多益善官方網站，https://rightplus.org/
2. NPOst公益交流站官方網站，https://npost.tw/
3. 公益責信協會官方網站，https://www.apa-tw.org/
4. 聰明公益資訊平台，https://www.smartdonor.tw/
5. flyingV官方網站，https://www.flyingv.cc/
6. Vstory頻道，https://vstory.flyingv.cc/
7. 亞洲公益事業研究中心，https://caps.org/
8. 亞洲公益事業研究中心 (2020)。2020年公益指數報告。https://caps.org/our-research/doing-good-index-2020/
9. NPOst公益交流站年會 (2020)。最後，都要變成好事 —— 疫情之下，臺灣的公益變遷。http://forum.npost.tw/