跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.211.116.163) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/03/29 23:01
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:張凱傑
研究生(外文):Kai-Jie Chang
論文名稱:視覺化資訊檢索介面評估—以EBSCOhost 2.0為例
論文名稱(外文):Evaluation of Visualization-based Information Retrieval Interface- A Case Of EBSCOhost 2.0
指導教授:唐牧群唐牧群引用關係
指導教授(外文):Muh-Chyun, Tang
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:圖書資訊學研究所
學門:傳播學門
學類:圖書資訊檔案學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2010
畢業學年度:98
語文別:中文
論文頁數:165
中文關鍵詞:資訊視覺化視覺化資訊檢索好用性評估視覺化資訊檢索介面
外文關鍵詞:information visualizationvisualization information retrievalvisualization
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:7
  • 點閱點閱:1300
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:6
現今越來越多視覺化檢索工具應用於跨系統整合查詢。本研究為了要探索使用者如何和視覺化檢索工具進行互動,採用實證研究的方式,測試使用者在真實需求情境之下,如何使用EBSCOhost視覺化檢索介面(Column、Block介面)。

本研究的研究結果分成兩個部份:一部份是找出哪些好用性問題會影響使用者的使用經驗;另外一部份是了解使用圖形化搜尋是否會改變使用者的認知狀態以及查詢詞彙,其使用的方法包括:問卷調查法、深度訪談、回溯性放聲思考法、以及比較使用者在檢索前和檢索後的檢索詞彙。

本研究總共測試12位圖書資訊學領域的研究生,參與本研究的受試者必須事先準備一題檢索問題,當作本研究的檢索任務,之後會重複在視覺化檢索介面所提供的兩種介面(Column、Block介面),搜尋同樣的檢索問題。研究結果如下:(1)觀察使用者的檢索畫面以及分析訪談記錄,總共找出九項好用性問題,並且依照對於使用者任務的衝擊程度區分;(2)介面的確會影響使用者的查詢詞彙以及認知狀態,(3)根據使用者的意見,認為當使用者不熟悉新的研究領域之情境下,視覺化工具對於使用者幫助較大。



Nowadays, more and more visualization-based retrieval tools are applied to cross-system integrated search. To investigate how users might interact with visualization tools, an empirical study was conducted in which real users with real search request were asked to search alternately with “Column” and “Block” versions of EBSCOhost’s visualization-based information retrieval interface.

There were two parts of inqueries, one is to identify possible usability issues; there other is to see how the use of the interfaces might impact users’ cognitive states and queries. The Multiple methods were applied to acquire rich data to address those questions, including questionnaire, in-depth interview, retrospective think-aloud, and comparisons of users’ pre- and post- search queries.
A total of 12 Master’s students in Library and Information Science participated in the study, each searched for their own task alternately on the two versions of the visualization tool, resulting in 24 search sessions. Nine usuability issues, with different degrees of severity, were identified. The interfaces were found to impact on users’ queries and cognitive states. Based on the participants’ comments, it was found that the visualization was more beneficial for search for new areas the users were not familiar with.


中文摘要 i
英文摘要 ii
目次 iii
表目次 v
圖目次 vi
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 問題陳述 1
第二節 研究目的與問題 5
第三節 研究範圍與限制 7
第四節 系統介面個案 8
第五節 名詞解釋 12
第二章 文獻分析 15
第一節 分類架構概念之探討 15
第二節 資訊視覺化技術應用於資訊檢索系統21
第三節 資訊視覺化介面評估方法26
第三章 研究設計與實施 51
第一節 研究方法與設計 51
第二節 研究工具與對象 57
第三節 研究變數與假設 60
第四節 研究與實驗流程 61
第四章 研究結果與分析 67
第一節 好用性問題之探討 69
第二節 視覺化檢索介面效用 80
第三節 綜合討論 121
第五章 結論與建議 125
第一節 結論 125
第二節 對於EBSCOhost建議 133
第三節 建議 135
第四節 後續研究建議 139
參考文獻 143
附錄一 實驗研究同意書 155
附錄二 基本資料問卷 157
附錄三 前測問卷(column)158
附錄四 後測問卷(column)159
附錄五 前測問卷(block) 161
附錄六 後測問卷(block) 162
附錄七 訪談大綱 164
附錄八 知識概念圖的範例 165


卜小蝶、陳思穎(民96)。網路自動分群引擎之使用者評估研究。圖書
資訊學研究, 2(1): 55-80。
么新英(民92)。傳統資訊檢索與視覺化資訊檢索之比較。科技情報開
發與經濟,13(3),1-2。
毛恆祥(民95)。分類架構與呈現之應用研究-以農委會農業知識管理
加值系統農業產業知識樹為例。未出版之碩士論文,私立世新大學
資訊傳播學系研究所,台北市。
官欣螢(民97)。Wiki資訊架構之可用性評估:以台灣棒球維基百科為
例。未出版之碩士論文,私立淡江大學資訊與圖書館學系研究所,
台北市。
許銀雄、何祖鳳、詹榮昌(民92)。網路人機介面可用性評估方法之比
較。銘傳學刊,13, 25-42。
吳美美,林珊如,黃慕萱(1999)。數位圖書館/博物館評鑑指標建構
探討。圖書資訊學學刊 ,14, 49-70。
陳向明(民91)。社會科學質的研究。台北市:五南。
陳思穎(民96)。自動分群搜尋引擎使用者評估研究。未出版之碩士
論文,國立師範大學圖書資訊研究所,台北市。
唐納.諾曼。(民94)。情感設計:我們為何喜歡(或討厭)日常用品。
台北市 : 田園城市文化。
蔡景祥(民94)。網路搜尋結果自動組織之研究。未出版之碩士論文,
國立台灣大學資訊管理學研究所,台北市。
蔡維君(民95)。大學圖書館好用性評估-以台大圖書館為例。未出版
之碩士論文,國立台灣大學圖書資訊學系研究所,台北市。
鍾雪珍(民97)。新版EBSCOhost 2.0資訊視覺化檢索介紹。國家圖
書館館訊,97:3,19-23。

Allan, J., Leuski, A. , Swan, R., & Byrd, D. (2001).
Evaluating combination of ranked lists and visualization
of inter-document similarity. Information Processing and
Management , 37, 435–458.
Amento,B., Terveen, L. & Hill,W. (2000). Does “Authority”
Mean Quality? Predicting Expert Quality Ratings of Web
Documents. Paper presented at the Annual ACM Conference
on Research and Development.
Ashby, F.G., Isen, A.M., & Turken, A.U. (1999). A
neuropsychologicaltheory of positive effect and its
influence on cognition. Psychological Review, 106, 529–
550.
Barnum, C.M. (2002).Usability testing and research.
Barkhuus, L. & Rode, J. A. (2007). From Mice to Men: 24
Years.of Evaluation at CHI. Alt.Chi.
Jansen, B. J., & Spink, A. (2005). How are we searching the
World Wide Web? A comparison of nine large search engine
transaction logs. Information Processing and Management,
42(1), 248-263.
Belkin, N. J., Brooks, H. M. & Daniels, P. J. (1987).
Knowledge elicitation using discourse analysis.
International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 27, 127-144.
Bevan, N. (1995). Measuring usability as quality of use.
Journal of Software Quality, 4, 115-130 .o
Borlund, P., & Ingwersen, P. (1997). The development of a
method for the evaluation of interactive information
retrieval systems. Journal of Documentation, 53, 225–
250.
Card, S., Mackinlay, J. D., & Shneiderman, B. (1999).
Readings in information
visualization: Using vision to think .San Francisco: Morgan.
Catherine, Plaisant. (2004). The challenge of information visualization. Proceedings of the working conference on
Advanced visual interfaces, 109 – 116.
Chang, S.-H. (1999). The current state of web search
engines. OCLC Systems and Services, 15, 148–149.
Chen, C. & Czerwinski, M. (2000). Empirical studies of
information visualization: a meta-analysis. Journal of
Human–Computer Studies, 53(5), 851–866.
Chen, C. & Yu, Y. (2000) Empirical studies of information
visualization: a meta-analysis. International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, 53, 851-866.
Chen, H. C., Houston, A. L., Sewell, R. R., & Schatz, B. R.
(1998). Internet browsing and searching: Use revaluations
of category map and concept space techniques. Journal of
the American Society for Information Science, 49(7), 582-
603.
Chung, W., Chen, H., & Nunamaker, J.F. Jr. (2005). A visual
framework for knowledge discovery on the Web: an
empirical study of business intelligence exploration.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 21(4), 57–84.
Cole, J. I., Suman, M., Schramm, P., Lunn, R., & Aquino, J.
S. (2003).The internet report survey the digital future t
hree years. Retrieved October 8, 2009, from
http://www.ccp.ucla.edu/pdf/ucla-internet-report-year-
three.pdf.
Conati, C., & Maclaren, H. (2008). Exploring the role of
individual differences information visualization. To
appear in Proceeding of AVI 2008, International Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces, ACM Press.
Delphi Group(2002). Taxonomy and Content Classification.
Retrieved October 2 , 2009,from
http://www.delphigroup.com/research/whitepaper_request_download.htm
Denning, S., Hoiem, D., Simpson, M., & Sullivan, K. (1990).
The value hinking-aloud protocols in Industry: a case
study at microsoft corporation. In Proceedings of the
Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting.
Dumais, S., Cutrell, E., & Chen, H. (2004). Optimizing
search by showing results in context. Paper Presented at
the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,,
United States,
Ericsson, K. & Simon, H. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal
reports as data (Rev. ed.), Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.
Faisal.S, Carft.B, Caims,Pm., & Blanford, A. (2008).Internationlization , qualitative method and evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2008 conference on Beyond time and errors: novel evaluation methods for Infor3mation Visualization.
Gabbard, J.L., Hix, D., & Swan II, J.E. (1999). User-
centered design and evaluation of virtual environments,
IEEE Computer Graphics & Applications, 51-59.
Genuis, S. K. (2004).Web site usability testing: A critical
tool for libraries. Feliciter, 50(4), 161-164
Harter, S. (1992). Psychological relevance and information
science. Journal of the American Society for information
science , 43(9).
Harter, S., & Hert, C. (1997). Evaluation of information
retrieval system; approaches
issues and methods. Annual Review of Information Science
and technology, 32, 1-94.
Heo, M., & Hirtle, S. (2001). An empirical comparison of
visualization tools to assist information retrieval on
the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology, 52(8), 666–675.
Hearst, M. (1999). The use of categories and clusters for
organizing retrieval results. Natural language
information retrieval, 333-374.
Hearst, M.(2006). Clustering versus faceted categories for
information
exploration.Commun. ACM, 49 (4). 59-61.
Hsieh-Yee, I. (2001). Research on web behavior. Library&
Information science research, 23, 167-189.
Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L, & Jackson, G. B. (1982). Meta-
analysis: cumulating research findings across studies.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications
Ingwersen, P. (2007). Cognitive perspectives of information
retrieval interaction:
elements of a cognitive IR theory. Journal of
Documentation ,52(1), 3-50.
Jain, K., Murty, M.N., & Flynn, P.J. (1999). Data
clustering: a review. ACM
Computing Surveys, 31(3).
Jeffries, R., Miller, J.R., Wharton, C., &Uyeda, K.M.
(1991). User interface evaluation in the real world :
A comparison of four techniques. Proceedings ACM CHI''91
Conference, 119-124
Jeng .J. (2005). Usability assessment of academic digital
libraries: effectivenss, efficiency,satisfaction, and
learnability. Libri: International Journal of Libraries
andInformation Services, 55(2/3), 96–121.
Julien, C.-A. , Leide, J. E., & Bouthillier, F.(2008).
Controlled User Evaluations of Information Visualization
Interfaces for Text Retrieval: Literature Review and Meta-
Analysis. JASIST, 59(6), 1012-1024.
Kagolovsky, Y., & Moehr, J. (2003). Current status of the
evaluation of Information retrieval. Journal of medical
systems, 27(5), 409-424.
Kaplan, B., & Maxwell, J. (1994). Qualitative research
methods for evaluating computer information systems.
Evaluating health care information systems: Methods and
applications, 45-68.
Kelly, D., & Cool, C. (2002). The effects of topic
familiarity on information search behavior. In
Proceedings of the 2nd ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on
Digital libraries, 74-75.
Koch, T., & Day, M. (1997). The role of classification
schemes in internet resource description anddiscovery.
Retrieved March 2, 2009, from:
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/desire/classification/classification.pdf.

Korfhage, R. (1991). To see or not to see—Is that the
query? 14th Annual International ACM/SIGIR Conference,
(pp. 131-141). Chicago: ACM Press.
Kosara, R., Healey, C. G., Interrante, V., Laidlaw, D. H.,
& Ware, C. (2003). User studies: Why, how, and when? IEEE
Computer Graphics and Applications. 272, 03.
Koshman, S. (2004). Comparing usability between a
visualization and text-based system for information
retrieval. Journal of Documentation , 60(5), 565-580.
Koshman, S. (2005). Testing user interaction with a
prototype visualization-based information retrieval
system. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology, 56(8), 824–833.
Koshman, S. (2006). Visualization-based information
retrieval on the Web. Library and Information Science
Research, 28(2), 192-207.
Kowalski, G. J., & Maybury, M. T. (2003). Information
Storage and Retrieval Systems(ch8). Boston, MA: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Krishnapuram, R., & Kummamuru, K. (2003). Automatic
taxonomy generation: issues and possibilities. Lecture
Notes in Computer Science, 2715, 52-63.
Kules, B., Shneiderman, B.:(2005).Categorized graphical
overviews for Web search results:An exploratory study
using us. government agencies as a meaningful and
stable structure. In: Proc. of the 3rd annual workshop on
HCI Research in MIS.
Kwasnik, B. H. (1992). The role of classification
structures in reflecting and building theory. In R. Fidel, B. H. Kwasnik, & P. J. Smith (Eds.), Advances in
classification research, vol. 3(Proceedings of the 3rd
ASIS SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop) (pp. 63-
81). Medford, NJ: Learned Information, for the American
Society for Information Science.
Lee, H.-L. & Olson, H. A. (2005). Hierarchical Navigation:
An Exploration of Yahoo! Directories. Knowledge
Organization, 32(1), 10-24.
Lin, X. (1997). Map displays for information retrieval.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science,
48, 40–54.
Luff, P., Hindmarsh, J., & Heath, C.(2000). Workplace
Studies: Recovering Work Practice and Informing Design;
Cambridge University Press.Mai, Jens-Erik. (2004).
Classification of the Web: challenges and inquiries.
Knowledge Organization, 31(2), 92-97.
Marcus, A., Comorski, D., & Sergeyev, A. (2005).
Supporting the evolution of a software visualization
ool through usability studies.
In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Program
Comprehension , 307–316.
Mazza, R. & Berre, A. (2007). Focus group methodology for
evaluating information visualization techniques and
tools.Proceedings of the 11th International Conference
Information Visualization.
Morse, E., Lewis, M., & Olsen, K. (2002). Testing visual
information retrieval methodologies case study:
comparative analysis of textual, icon, graphical and “spring” displays. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 53(1), 28–40.
Nielsen, J. (1990). The art of navigating through
hypertext. Communications of the ACM, 33(3), 297-310.
Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. Boston: Academic
Press.
Nielsen Media. (1997). Search engines most popular method
of surfing the web [Website]. Commerce Net/Nielsen Media.
Retrieved 10.8.2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.commerce.net/news/press/0416.html.
Nielsen, J. (2003). User empowerment and the fun factor. In
M.A. Blythe,
Nielsen, J. (2005).Mental models for search are getting
firmer. Alertbox. Retrieved December 11, 2009 from
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20050509.html
Norman, D.A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love(or hate)
everyday things. New York: Basic Books.Osdin.
Nowell, L.T., France, R.K., Hix, D., Heath, L.S., & Fox,
E.A. (1996). Visualizing search results: Some alternatives
to query-document similarity. In Proceedings of the 19th
Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and
Development in Information Retrieval(pp. 67–75). New
York: ACM Press.
NPD New Media Services. (2000). NPD search and portal site
study. Retrieved October 15, 2009 from: http://searchenginewatch.com/reports/npd.html.
Overbeeke, k., Monk, A.E., & Wright, P.C.(Eds.), Funology:
From usability to enjoyment (pp. 103–105). Dordrecht,
The Netherlands: Kluwer..
Rivadeneira, W., & Bederson, B. (2003). A study of search
result clustering interfaces: Comparing textual and
zoomable user interfaces. Retrieved December 9, 2009,
from ftp://ftp.cs.umd.edu/pub/hcil/Reports-Abstracts-
Bibliography/2003-36html/2003-36.htm.
Rester, M., Pohl, M., Wiltner, S., Hinum, K., Miksch, S., Popow, C., & Ohmann, S. (2007). Mixing Evaluation Methods for Assessing the Utility of an Interactive InfoVis Technique. In J. Jacko (Ed.): Human-Computer Interaction, 604–613.
Robins, D. (2000). Interactive information retrieval: context and basic notions. Information Science, 3(2), 57-62.
Rubin, J. (1994). Handbook of usability testing: How to plan, design, and conduct tests. New Work:Wiley.
Samler, S., & Lewellen, K.(2004). Good taxonomy is key to successful searching.
EContent, 27(7/8), S20.
Saracevic, T. (1997). The stratified model of information retrieval interaction:Extension and application. Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, 34, 313-327.
Sebrechts, M. M., Vasilakis, J., Miller, M. S., Cugini, J. V., & Laskowski, S. (1999). Visualization of search
results: A comparative evaluation of text, 2D, and 3D
interfaces. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual
International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and
Development in Information Retrieval, Berkeley, CA (pp.
3–10). New York7 ACM Press.
Shiaw, H.-Y., Jacob, R., & Crane, G. R. (2004). The 3D vase
museum: a new approach to context in a digital library.
In Proceedings of the 2004 Joint ACM/IEEE Conference on
Digital Libraries (JCDL''04), June 7-11, Tucson, Ariz, 125-
134.
Shneiderman , B.(1992). Designing the User interface.
Reading MA: Addison Wesley.
Shneiderman, B. (1994). Dynamic Queries for Visual
information Seeking; IEEE Software ,11(6), 70-77.
Spink, A. (1997). Study of interactive feedback during
mediated information retrieval. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science, 48(5), 382-394.
Song, M. (2000). Visualization in information retrieval: a
three-level analysis. Journal of Information Science, 26
(1), 3.
Su, L. (1992). Evaluation measures for interactive
information retrieval. Information Processing and Management: an International Journal, 28(4), 503-516.
Sutcliffe, A. G., Ennis, M. & Hu, J. (2000). Evaluating the
effectiveness of visual user interfaces for information
retrieval. International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies, 53(5) , 741-763.
Swan, R. C. & Allan, J. (1998). Aspect windows, 3-D
visualizations, and indirect comparisons of information
retrieval systems. Paper presented at the SIGIR ’98,
Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Melbourne, Australia (pp. 171–181). New York7 :ACM Press.
Park, Albert. (2006). Intended Use Evaluation Approach for
Information Visualization. Unpublished master
dissertation. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University,Virginia.
Pirolli, Peter, Schank, Patricia, Hearst, Marti, & Diehl, Christine, (1996) Scatter/gather bromunicates the topic
structure of a very largewsing com text collection, Proc.
of ACM CHI96 Conference , ACM, 213-220
Tague-Sutcliffe,J.(1996). Some perspectives on the
evaluation of information retrieval systems. Journal of
the American Society for information science, 47(1), 1-3.
Tague-Sutcliffe,J.(1996). Some perspectives on the
evaluation of information retrieval systems. Journal of
the American Society for information science, 47(1), 1-3.
Tang, M.-C. (2007). Browsing and searching in a facted
information space: A naturalistic study of PubMed user''s
Interaction with a display tool. Journal of American
society for information science and technology, 58(13),
1998-2006
Tang,M.C., Wu,W.C., & Hung., B.W. (2009). Evaluating a
Metadata-based Term Suggestion Interface for PubMed with
Real Users with Real Requests. Proceedings of the Annual
Meeting of the American Society for Information Science &
Technology
Tory, M. & Moller, T.(2005). Evaluating visualizations: do
expert reviews work?. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 25(5), 8-11.
Tullis, Tom & Albert, Bill. (2008). Measuring the user
experience.
Turketen,O.,& Sharda., R.(2005).Clustering-Based Visual
Interfaces for Presentation of Web Search Results: An
Empirical Investigation. Information
Systems Frontiers, 7(3), 273-297.
V. González & A. Kobsa. (2003). A workplace study of the
adoption of information
visualization systems. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Knowledge Management, 92–102.
Vakkari, P. & Hakala, N. (2000). Change in relevance
criteria and problem stages in task performance. Journal
of Documentation, 56(5), 540–562.
Vakkari, P., Pennanen, M. & Serola, S. (2003). Changes of
search terms and tactics while writing a research
proposal: a longitudinal case study. Information
Processing & Management, 39(3), 445–463.
Veerasamy, A., & Heikes, R. (1997). Effectiveness of a
graphical display of retrieval results. In Proceedings of
SIGIR’97, Philadelphia, 236-245
Veerasamy, A.& Belkin, N.J. (1996). Evaluation of a Tool
for Visualization of Information Retrieval Results. In Frei, H.P. et al., (Eds.) Proceedings of the 19th Annual
International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and
Development in Information Retrieval, 85-92
Ware, C. (2004). Information visualization: Perception for
design(2nd ed.). San Francisco7 Morgan-Kaufmann.
Wiley, D. L. (1998). Beyond information retrieval: Ways to
provide content in context. Database, 21, 18–22.
Retrieved Novemeber 1, 2009, from http://www.onlineinc.com/database/DB1998/wiley8.html.
Wu, M., Fuller, M. & Wilkinson, R. (2001). Using
clustering and classification approaches in interactive
retrieval. Information Processing and Management, 37, 459-
484.
Wu, Mei-Mei & Sonnenwald, Diane(1999). Reflection on
Information Retrieval Evaluation. In Proceedings of 1999
EBTI, ECAI, SEER, & PNC Joint Meeting, Taipei, Academia
Sinica, 63-81.

Zeki, S. (1992). The visual image in mind and brain.
Scientific American, 267(3),
69-76.
Zhang, J. (2008). Visualization for Information
Retrieval.Springer, New York, NY.
Zhang, Y. (2008). The influence of mental models on
undergraduate students'' searching behavior on the Web.
Information Processing & Management, 44(3), 1330-134




























QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 胡耀祖 (2008)。環境治理與永續發展,研習論壇,87,1-7。
2. 洪順慶 (2006)。永續經營最佳策略,打造企業之根:品牌,永續產業發展雙月刊,30,22-29。
3. 杜瑞澤、張孟哲 (2004)。綠色產品成功商品化設計之研究,藝術學報,75,87-104。
4. 杜瑞澤、徐傳瑛、張峻哲 (2009年5月)。永續發展觀點探討企業綠色產品研發績效評估之決策模式,環球科技人文學刊,9,85-101。
5. 高明瑞、黃義俊、張乃仁 (2008)。綠色創新能力對組織環境績效之影響,遠東學報,25(2),190-202。
6. 唐韶璞 (2009)。地球暖化與生態綠色環保,品質月刊,45(1),44-50。
7. 曾倫崇、張永富、林佳姿 (2008)。綠色產業發展中綠色消費與產品行銷關係之探討,遠東學報,25(2),343-360.
8. 黃正忠 (2008)。從企業觀點淺談環境治理與永續發展,研習論壇,87,21-30。
9. 劉阿榮、謝登旺 (2009年6月)。台灣永續發展之環境與社會經濟的辯證,國家與社會,6,1-50。
10. 單德興:〈理論之旅行/翻譯:以中文再現Edward W. Said──以Orientalism的四種中譯為例〉〉《中外文學》第29卷,第5期,2000年10月。
11. 李有成:〈理論旅行與文學史〉,《中外文學》,第25卷,第三期,1996年。
12. 鄭毓瑜:〈文學典律與文化論述-中古文論中的兩種「原道」觀〉,《漢學研究》第十八卷,第十二期,2000年12月,頁189-222。
13. 簡錦松:〈胡應麟詩藪的變體論〉,《古典文學》第一集,台灣;學生書局,1979年12月,頁333-342。
14. 蔡瑜:〈從典律之辨論明代詩學的分歧〉,《臺大中文學報》第十七期,2002年12月。