近來第三部門蓬勃發展，各類非營利組織(NPO)應運而生，其中公益性的NPO有著獨特的組織文化、願景與使命，致力於提供弱勢團體直接或間接的服務。多數NPO是為服務單一對象而設立，組織成員並非皆對服務對象之專業領域充分掌握，因此NPO本身在能力方面便會有所限制。
現今在公益領域中，開始有一群致力於扶持NPO的團體出現，他們多能運用ICT（Information and Communication Technology，資訊與通訊科技）建構知識平台，提供NPO成員免費的專業學習管道，成為其知識充電站，更為其挹注新知識與豐富資源，促進了公益圈的良性循環。然而，知識是權力的象徵，由於將賦權理論用於解決社會性問題之研究較少被提出，因此，本研究是以賦權理論為核心，將知識視為資源，分析公益組織如何賦權非營利組織，提升其參與經濟或從事社會活動之機會，以及公益組織如何透過知識平台賦能社會包容。
本研究採個案研究之方法，選擇擁有知識分享平台的公益交流站NPOst、Right Plus多多益善、公益責信協會與度度客等四個公益組織作為研究對象，探討其如何在資源有限的情況下，充分運用資源槓桿或資源拼湊等手段，提升組織內部能力，有效賦權NPO，促使NPO運用資源和諧，達成組織真正目的與願景，並分析各個案組織之相似與相異之處，最終歸納出「知識平台賦能社會包容之架構圖」，期能提供企業、政府、組織及個人實現社會包容之參考。

With the booming of the third sector, various non-profit organizations (NPOs) grow rapidly. Committing to providing direct or indirect services to underprivileged groups, these NPOs have their unique organizational culture, vision, and mission. Most NPOs are set up to serve a specific kind of clients; however, not all members of the organization have a full grasp of the professional field related to their clients. Therefore, the ability of those NPOs was limited.
Nowadays, there are numbers of groups specializing in supporting NPOs establish in the social beneficial field. They use ICT (Information and Communication Technology) to construct a knowledge platform as free professional learning channels and knowledge charging stations for NPO members. These platforms enrich NPOs with new knowledge and abundant resources, and promote a virtuous circle in the social beneficial field. By focusing on the empowerment theory, regarding knowledge as a resource. The study analyzes how social beneficial groups empower NPOs, enhance their opportunities to participate in economic or social activities; how social beneficial groups enabled Social Inclusion through knowledge platform.
The method to carry out this study is using case study, which includes four social beneficial groups (NPOst, Right Plus, Association of Philanthropic Accountability, Dodoker) that have their own knowledge platform as subjects. The study explores how subjects make full use of resource leverage, resource bricolage, and other means to enhance the internal abilities, effectively empower NPOs, encourage NPOs to use resources harmoniously, and in the end, achieve their purpose and vision. Moreover, the study analyzes the similarities and differences between each case, and finally concludes by constructing " The framework of knowledge platform enabling social inclusion", hoping to provide a reference basis for enterprises, governments, organizations, and individuals to achieve social inclusion.

中文部分
1. 朱文儀、林亭佑(2016)，群眾募資專案成效之影響因素—臺灣flyingV群眾募資平台之實證研究，臺灣管理學刊，16(2)，53-73。
2. 吳峻安(2003)，從三個傳播要素檢視網路溝通的初步形成，資訊社會研究，(5)，305-326。
3. 胡幼慧、姚美華(1996)，一些質性方法上的思考，質性研究：理論、方法及本土女性研究實例，141-158。
4. 施文玲(2006)，質性取向研究理論派典之探析，網路社會學通訊期刊。
5. 郭良文、林素甘(2001)，質化與量化研究方法之比較分析，資訊傳播與圖書館學(7)，4。
6. 陳向明(2002)，社会科學質的硏究，五南圖書出版股份有限公司。

英文部分
1. Andersén, J., & Ljungkvist, T. (2021). Resource orchestration for team‐based innovation: a case study of the interplay between teams, customers, and top management. R&D Management, 51(1), 147-160.
2. Ardichvili, A. (2008). Learning and knowledge sharing in virtual communities of practice: Motivators, barriers, and enablers. Advances in developing human resources, 10(4), 541-554.
3. Augustyn, M. M. (2013). Coping with resource scarcity: the experience of UK tourism SMEs. In Small firms in tourism. Routledge. Abingdon, United Kingdom.
4. Baert, C., Meuleman, M., Debruyne, M., & Wright, M. (2016). Portfolio entrepreneurship and resource orchestration. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 10(4), 346-370.
5. Bellani, L., & Fusco, A. (2018). Social exclusion: theoretical approaches. In Handbook of Research on Economic and Social Well-Being. Edward Elgar Publishing.
6. Chou, T. C., Wu, S. H., Chen, J. R., & Huang, C. H. (2020). Exploring dominant business logic transformation practices: a routine enactment perspective. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 32(10), 1142-1155.
7. De Greef, M., Verté, D., & Segers, M. (2015). Differential outcomes of adult education on adult learners' increase in social inclusion. Studies in Continuing Education, 37(1), 62-78.
8. Deng, X., Joshi, K. D., & Galliers, R. D. (2016). The duality of empowerment and marginalization in microtask crowdsourcing: Giving voice to the less powerful through value sensitive design. MIS Quarterly, 40(2), 279-302.
9. Du, W., & Pan, S. L. (2012). Boundary spanning by design: toward aligning boundary-spanning capacity and strategy in it outsourcing. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 60(1), 59-76.
10. Edwards, R., Armstrong, P., & Miller, N. (2001). Include me out: critical readings of social exclusion, social inclusion and lifelong learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 20(5), 417-428.
11. Frymier, A. B., Shulman, G. M., & Houser, M. (1996). The development of a learner empowerment measure. Communication Education, 45(3), 181-199.
12. García, J. M. R. (2001). Scientia Potestas Est–Knowledge is Power: Francis Bacon to Michel Foucault. Neohelicon, 28(1), 109–22.
13. Gurteen, D. (1999). Creating a knowledge sharing culture. Knowledge Management Magazine, 2(5), 1-4.
14. Gustafsson, J. (2017). Single case studies vs. multiple case studies: A comparative study. Halmstad, Sweden: Halmstad University.
15. Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1993). Strategy as stretch and leverage. Harvard business review, 71(2), 75-84.
16. Henard, D. H., & McFadyen, M. A. (2006). R&D knowledge is power. Research-Technology Management, 49(3), 41-47.
17. Hendriks, P. (1999). Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge sharing. Knowledge and process management, 6(2), 91-100.
18. Jääskeläinen, M. (2009). Network resources of venture capitalists: The effects of resource leverage and status on partner exploration of venture capital firms. Helsinki University of Technology Institute of Strategy and International Business.
19. Kang, Y. J., Lee, J. Y., & Kim, H. W. (2017). A psychological empowerment approach to online knowledge sharing. Computers in Human Behavior, 74, 175-187.
20. Kenyon, S. (2003, June). Understanding social exclusion and social inclusion. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Municipal Engineer, 156(2), 97-104.
21. Kiepal, L. C., Carrington, P. J., & Dawson, M. (2012). Missing persons and social exclusion. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 37(2), 137-168.
22. KIET, I., & HSIP, J. (2006). Technology, Adaptation, and Exports: How Some Developing Countries Got it Right. Washington, DC: World Bank.
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. Liu, Z., Xiao, Y., Jiang, S., & Hu, S. (2020). Social entrepreneurs' personal network, resource bricolage and relation strength. Management Decision.
25. Mathews, J. A. (2002). A resource-based view of Schumpeterian economic dynamics. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12(1), 29-54.
26. Misra, D. C., Hariharan, R., & Khaneja, M. (2003). E-knowledge management framework for government organizations. Information systems management, 20(2), 38-48.
27. Oh, M. J., & Jung, J. C. (2018). Does Social Exclusion Cause People to Make More Donations?. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 5(2), 129-137.
28. Peace, R. (2001). Social exclusion: A concept in need of definition?. Social policy journal of New Zealand, 16, 17-36.
29. Pethig, F., & Kroenung, J. (2019). Specialized information systems for the digitally disadvantaged. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 20(10), 5.
30. Place, K., & Hodge, S. R. (2001). Social inclusion of students with physical disabilities in general physical education: A behavioral analysis. Adapted physical activity quarterly, 18(4), 389-404.
31. Quintas, P., Lefrere, P., & Jones, G. (1997). Knowledge management: a strategic agenda. Long range planning, 30(3), 385-391.
32. Rathi, D., Given, L. M., & Forcier, E. (2016). Knowledge needs in the non-profit sector: an evidence-based model of organizational practices. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(1), 23-48.
33. Ramachandran, V. (2011). Strategic corporate social responsibility: a ‘dynamic capabilities’ perspective. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18(5), 285-293.
34. Rawal, N. (2008). Social inclusion and exclusion: A review. Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology, 2, 161-180.
35. Rosen, B., Furst, S., & Blackburn, R. (2007). Overcoming barriers to knowledge sharing in virtual teams. Organizational dynamics, 36(3), 259-273.
36. Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Gilbert, B. A. (2011). Resource orchestration to create competitive advantage: Breadth, depth, and life cycle effects. Journal of management, 37(5), 1390-1412.
37. Tellis, W. (1997). Introduction to case study. The Qualitative Report. Urban Land Institute.
38. Walsh, K., Scharf, T., & Keating, N. (2017). Social exclusion of older persons: A scoping review and conceptual framework. European Journal of Ageing, 14(1), 81-98.
39. Walter, M. (2016). Social exclusion/inclusion for urban Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Social Inclusion, 4(1), 68-76.
40. Wethington, E., & McDarby, M. L. (2015). Interview methods (structured, semistructured, unstructured). The encyclopedia of adulthood and aging, 1-5.
41. Yin, R. K. (1999). Enhancing the quality of case studies in health services research. Health services research, 34(5 Pt 2), 1209.
42. Yin, R. K. (2017). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. SAGE Publications.

網路部分
1. Airfunding blog：5種常見的臺灣募資平台介紹(2019年8月4日)，https://reurl.cc/L70o4X
2. Airfunding blog：4種常見的臺灣捐獻型募資平台(2020年2月20日)，https://reurl.cc/1ogW3Y
3. NPOs的臺灣群眾募資平臺總整理(2016年3月24日)，https://npost.tw/archives/23899
4. Right Plus多多益善官網，https://rightplus.org/
5. 公益責信協會官網：https://www.apa-tw.org/
6. 公益交流站NPOst官網：https://npost.tw/
7. 臺灣第三部門就業：2005年調查研究資料分析(2007年12月24日)，https://reurl.cc/52oNO7
8. 非營利組織介紹，https://reurl.cc/yena6q
9. 度度客官網，https://www.dodoker.com/
10. 透透抽×公益好好玩官網，https://squid.dodoker.com/
11. 痞客邦：非營利組織第三部門(2008年2月27日)，https://ss741115ken.pixnet.net/blog/post/167392008
12. 獨立評論@天下–徹底的透明，完全的信任(2014年12月3日)，https://opinion.cw.com.tw/blog/profile/60/article/2148
13. 聰明公益資訊平台官網，https://www.smartdonor.tw/
14. Peopo公民新聞：多多益善，照亮社會角落的(2020年8月3日)，https://www.peopo.org/news/474345