知識經濟的時代中，知識創新在維持組織生存與競爭力上扮演著舉足輕重的角色。在知識經濟的背景下，文化創意產業必須專注於知識創新的發展以維持產業優勢。基於知識創新是一種社會連結與互動過程的假設，近年來許多研究對於網絡運作與知識創新之間的關聯性投入了相當多的關注。因此，本研究以舞蹈生態系創意團隊的知識創新過程為個案，探討舞蹈生態系行動者之間的互動關係，並分析不同網絡型態對知識創新的影響，進而獲得以下四項主要研究發現：
　　第一，為了創造出足以影響環境的新知識，知識創新的過程必須同時著重於供給面與需求面的創新。此外，在創新知識形成的過程中，無論在供給面或需求面的創新上，網絡的運作都具有關鍵性的作用。
　　第二，資源多項、多樣、異質性與部分重疊性皆為舞蹈生態系網絡運作的資源特性，且此四項特性皆為影響知識創新結果的重要因素。
　　第三，在創新的過程中，網絡行動者之間的互動狀態，以及網絡結構，會隨著不同階段的創新發展需求而產生變化。
　　第四，各階段所形成的網絡型態，其網絡運作的特性也有所不同，並在知識創新的過程中呈現出不同的功能性，以利知識創新的進行。

In the knowledge economy, knowledge innovation plays an essential role in sustaining organizational viability and competitiveness.  Being closely related to the rise of knowledge economy, the cultural and creative industry has to pay more attention to knowledge innovation to maintain its competitive advantage.  Based on the assumption that knowledge innovation is the process of social connections and interactions, recent research has put greater weight on the interrelationships of network operation and knowledge innovation in recent years.  In a similar vein, this research conducts a case study of the knowledge innovation process of Dancecology. By examining the interactions among the actors of Dancecology, the effects of different types of networks on knowledge innovation are analyzed.  Four research findings are summarized below:
　　First, in order to create new knowledge to affect the environment, knowledge innovation has to include both demand-side and supply-side considerations.  Moreover, networks are found to be critical in the process of generating creative ideas regarding both demand-side and supply-side knowledge innovation.
　　Second, the size, diversity, heterogeneity, and partial overlap of network actors are the four features of network resource in Dancecology’s networks.  The features of network resource tend to produce significant effects on the outcomes of knowledge innovation.
　　Third, the status of interactions and network structures were found to be changing overtime in correspondence with the requirements of different stages in the innovation process.
　　Fourth, different types of networks tend to have different natures all of which are found to have performed indispensable functions for making knowledge innovation successful and effective.

第一章 緒論………………………………………………….…………………….1
第一節 研究背景與動機……………………………………………………….2
第二節 研究目的與問題……………………………………………………….5
第三節 研究範圍與研究標的………………………………………………….7
第四節 研究方法……………………………………………………………….8
第二章 文獻探討………………………………………………………………...11
第一節 知識創新與網絡……………………………………………………...12
第二節 網絡類型與知識創新的關聯…………………………………...……15
第三節 創新型網絡的形成……………………………………………...……21
第三章 知識創新與網絡特性………………………………………………....29
第一節 舞蹈生態系的知識創新…………………………………………...…29
第二節 舞蹈生態系知識創新資源應用………………………………...……33
第三節 舞蹈生態系知識創新網絡特性分析…………………………...……40
第四章 知識創新與網絡運作…………………………………………………45
第一節 舞蹈生態系知識供給創新網絡………………………………...……45
第二節 舞蹈生態系知識需求創新網絡…………………………………...…54
第三節 舞蹈生態系知識創新網絡運作分析…………………………...……58
第五章 結論………………………………………………………………………65
第一節 主要研究發現……………………………………………...…………65
第二節 研究限制與未來研究建議…………………………………...………68
參考文獻…………………………………………………………………….……..71
附錄   訪談大綱……………………...…………………………………………81 

表 次
表1-1 傳統與現代創新理論比較表…………...……………………………………4
表1-2 深度訪談受訪者資料…………...………………………………………...…10
表2-1 網絡類型比較表…………...……………………………………………...…20
表3-1 舞蹈生態系網絡資源特性分類與知識創新之關聯……………………..…44
表4-1 舞蹈生態系知識創新網絡發展結構比較表……………………………..…60
表4-2 舞蹈生態系知識創新網絡運作特性比較表……………………………..…62
表4-3 舞蹈生態系知識創新網絡發展模式………………………………...…...…63

圖 次
圖2-1 密集型網絡與稀疏型網絡示意圖………………………………………..…17
圖2-2 網絡類型示意圖…………………………………………………………..…22
圖2-3 創新網絡應用階段圖……………………………………………………..…26
圖2-4 研究架構…………………………………………………………………..…27
圖3-1 舞蹈生態系知識創新系統示意圖………………………………………..…33
圖3-2 舞蹈生態系創意團隊組織架構示意圖…………………………………..…37
圖3-3 舞蹈生態系跨界創新關係圖……………………………………………..…40
圖4-1 舞蹈生態系知識創新萌芽期網絡結構示意圖…………………………..…47
圖4-2 舞蹈生態系知識創新萌芽期網絡互動狀態示意圖……………………..…48
圖4-3 舞蹈生態系知識創新茁壯期網絡結構與互動狀態示意圖之一………..…50
圖4-4 舞蹈生態系知識創新茁壯期網絡互動狀態示意圖之二………………..…51
圖4-5 舞蹈生態系知識創新結果期網絡結構與互動狀態示意圖……………..…53
圖4-6 舞蹈生態系多面向藝術推廣示意圖……………………………………..…56
圖4-7 舞蹈生態系跨界域創作外溢效果示意圖…………………………………..57
圖4-8 創新網絡應用對照圖…………………………………………………….….64

壹、中文書目
丁錫鏞 (2004)。台灣文化創意產業發展政策。台北市：嵐德。
方宗廉 (2003, 9月)。輕推一把就可以揚名立萬－文化創意產業的困境與機會。卓越雜誌，229，44-47。
文化建設委員會 (2008)。台灣文化創意產業發展年報。台北市：行政院文建會。
林炎旦 (2009)。文化創意產業策略研究。台北市：師大書苑。
吳密察 (2003, 8月)。文化創意產業之規劃與推動。研考雙月刊，236，56-65。
邱泯科、陳佳穎、蔡毓智、姜馨彥 (譯) (2010)。研究方法：基礎理論與技巧。台北市：雙葉。(Babbie, E., 2002)
洪德生 (2004, 11月)。台灣文化創意產業的季節。卓越雜誌，243，12。
徐宗國 (譯) (1997)。質性研究概論。台北市：巨流。(Strauss, A., & Corbin, J., 1990)
陳欽春 (2008)。文化創意產業及其政策思維：台灣與韓國的比較。載於徐斯勒、陳德昇 (主編)，文化創意產業、品牌與行銷策略─跨國比較與大陸市場發展　(頁27-52)。台北市：印刻文學生活雜誌出版社。
黃惠穗 (2006)。促進我國文化創意產業發展之研究：夥伴關係理論之應用。載於台北大學公共行政暨政策學系主編，2006年文化創意產業與地方發展策略研究生學術論文研討會論文集。台北：台北大學公共行政暨政策學系。
劉真如 (譯) (2002)。下一個社會。台北市：商周。(Drucker, P. F., 2002)
貳、英文書目
Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425-455. 
Aranda, D. A., & Molina-Fernandez, L. M. (2002). Determinants of innovation through a knowledge-based theory lens. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 102(5), 289-296.
Arora, A., & Gambardella, A. (1990). Complementarity and external linkages: The strategies of the large firms in biotechnology. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 38(4), 361-379. 
Bian, Y. (1997). Bringing strong ties back in: Indirect ties, network bridges, and job searches in China. American Sociological Review, 62(3), 366-385. 
Blau, P. (1955). The dynamics of bureaucracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bouty, I. (2000). Interpersonal and interaction influences on informal resource exchanges between R&D researches across organizational boundaries. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 50-65. 
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burt, R. S. (2001). Structural holes versus network closure as social capital. In N. Lin, K. S. Cook, & R. S. Burt, (Eds.), Social capital: Theory and research (pp. 31-56). New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good Ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349-399. 
Chapman, R. L., & Magnusson, M. G. (2006). Continuous innovation, performance and knowledge management: An introduction. Knowledge and Process Management, 13(3), 129-131. 
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120. 
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cowan, R., & Jonard, N. (2007). Structural holes, innovation and the distribution of ideas. Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, 2(2), 93-110. 
Cross, R., & Sproull, L. (2004). More than an answer: Information relationships for actionable knowledge. Organization Science, 15(4), 446-462. 
Daft, R. L., & Lewin, A. Y. (1993). Where are the theories for the "new" organizational forms? An editorial essay. Organization Science, 4(4), i-vi. 
Davenport, T. H. & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Dhanarag, C., & Parkhe, A. (2006). Orchestrating innovation networks. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 659-669. 
Emirbayer, M., & Goodwin, J. (1994). Network analysis, culture and the problem of agency. American Journal of Sociology, 99(6), 1411-1454. 
Firestone, J. M. & McElroy, M. W. (2003). Key issues in the new knowledge management. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Fleming, L., Mingo, S., & Chen, D. (2007). Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative success. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(3), 443-475. 
Fritsch, M., & Kauffeld-Monz, M. (2010). The impact of network structure on knowledge transfer: An application of social network analysis in the context of regional innovation networks. Annals of Regional Science, 44(1), 21-38. 
Gargiulo, M. (1993). Two-step leverage: Managing constraint in organizational politics. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(1), 1-19. 
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380. 
Granovetter, M. S. (1982). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. In P. V. Marsden & N. Lin (Eds.), Social structure and network analysis (pp. 105-130). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Granovetter, M. S. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481-510.
Granovetter, M. S. (2005). The impact of social structure on economic outcomes.  Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(1), 33-50. 
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, S109-S122. 
Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82-111. 
Haythornthwaite, C. (2002). Strong, weak, and latent ties and the impact of new media. The Information Society, 18(5), 385-401.
Kotter, J. (1982). The general managers. New York, NY: Free Press. 

Krackhardt, D., (1992). The strength of strong ties: The importance of Philos in organizations. In N. Nohria & R. G. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations: structure, form, and action (pp. 216-239). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Levin, D. Z., & Cross, R. (2004). The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science, 50(11), 1477-1490. 
Lundvall, B. (1992). National innovation systems: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London, United Kingdom: Pinter.
Mariotti, F., & Delbridge, R. (2012). Overcoming network overload and redundancy in interorganizational networks: The roles of potential and latent ties. Organization Science, 23(2), 511-528. 
Marsden, P. V., & Campbell, K. E. (1984). Measuring tie strength. Social Forces, 63(2), 482-501. 
McElroy, M. W. (1999). The second generation of KM. Knowledge Management, 2(10), 86-88.
McFadyen, M. A., Semadeni, M., & Cannella, A. A. (2009). Value of strong ties to disconnected others: Examining knowledge creation in biomedicine. Organization Science, 20(3), 552-564. 
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge- creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 
Nooy, W. D., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2005). Exploratory social network analysis with pajek. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 
Obstfeld, D. (2005). Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 100-130. 
Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Porter, M. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York, NY: Free Press.
Potts, J., Cunningham, S., Hartley, J., & Ormerod, P. (2008). Social network markets: A new definition of the creative industries. Journal of Cultural Economics, 32(3), 167-185. 
Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116-145. 
Ritala, P., Armila, L., & Blomqvist, K. (2009). Innovation orchestration capability - defining the organizational and individual level determinants. International Journal of Innovation Management, 13(4), 569-592. 
Rodan, S., & Galunic, C. (2004). More than network structure: How knowledge heterogeneity influences managerial performance and innovativeness. Strategic Management Journal, 25(6), 541-541. 
Rowley, T., Behrens, D. & Krackhardt, D. (2000). Redundant governance structures: An analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 369-386.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 219-237. 
Simon, H. A. (1985). What we know about the creative process. In R. L. Kuhn (Ed.), Frontiers in creative and innovative manage (pp. 3-22). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. 
Simon, H. A. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), S125-S134.
Sosa, M. E. (2011). Where do creative interactions come from? The role of tie content and social networks. Organization Science, 22(1), 1-21. 
Spender, J. C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, S45-S62. 
Stacey, R. (2000). The emergence of knowledge in organization. Emergence, 2(4), 23-39. 
Teece, D., & Pisano, G. (1994). The dynamic capabilities of firms: An introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(3), 537-556.
Teece, D. J. (1998). Capturing value from knowledge assets: The new economy, markets for know-how, and intangible assets. California Management Review, 40(3), 55-79. 
Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464-476. 
Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35-67.
 Uzzi, B., & Spiro, J. (2005). Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. American Journal of Sociology, 111(2), 447-504. 
Vergragt, P. J., Groenewegen, P., & Mulder, K. F. (1992). Industrial technological innovation: Interrelationships between technological, economic and sociological analysis. In R. Coombs, A. Richards, P. Saviotti, & V. Walsh, (Eds.), Technological change and company strategies: Economic and sociological perspectives (pp. 226-247). San Diego, California: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Vorakulpipat, C., & Rezgui, Y. (2008). Value creation: The future of knowledge management. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 23(3), 283-294. 
Walker, G., Kogut, B., & Shan, W. (1997). Social capital, structural holes and the formation of an industry network. Organization Science, 8(2), 109-125.