台灣的社會運動組織在什麼狀態下會彼此結盟，它們的結盟性質有什麼特徵？在什麼樣的條件之下能夠達成「團結」？外在政治局勢的動盪下，是否會導致分歧的危險？2012年至2018年這七年的時間經歷了許多重大抗爭事件及政治局勢的變動。本研究透過新聞稿及報導等來源，收集前六年半各抗爭事件的社運組織參與名單，以社會網絡分析方法描繪整體社運社群內部的變化。並以太陽花佔領行動（2014.3.18）以及民進黨二次執政（2016.5.20）作為重要的轉折點，將總體時間段切分為三個時期做觀察與分析。結果發現太陽花佔領行動後的第二期是整體運動較為「跨群」結盟的時期，第三期跨群連結效應則明顯下降。其中不同議題的子群體也呈現出不同樣貌。接著透過社運組織幹部的深度訪談、焦點訪談及相關文本，探討太陽花運動的歷史時刻「社運團結」的意義與具體運作機制。透過質化資料來豐富行動者認知及社群文化層面，發現「社運團結」是讓跨運動結盟「顯性化」的關鍵。後期經歷社運參政、體制內互動以及公投法下修的等社群重要事件，社運社群又轉為「局部化」的跨運動結盟型態。本文認為「社運團結」建立在跨運動結盟的合作基礎上，它不是一種僵固的狀態，而是在特定歷史時刻中，社運組織之間在共同的運動構框之下，型塑了超越單一組織或運動的社群集體認同，並帶有情感凝聚成分（而不僅是理性的資源邏輯）在運動的實踐過程當中。透過歷時性的量化網絡資料及質化田野訪談資料相互補充，本文將解釋這七年來台灣社運組織結盟、團結與分歧的樣態。

Under what circumstances will Taiwan’s social movement organizations(SMOs) form alliances with each other, and what are the characteristics of their alliance? Under what conditions can "Solidarity-in-movement" be achieved? Will the changes in the external political situation lead to cleavage? During the seven years from 2012 to 2018, there have been many major protests and changes in the political situation. Through research sources such as press releases and reports, this study collects the list of SMOs participating in the first six and a half years of the protests, and uses social network analysis methods to describe changes within the overall community. Taking the Sun Flower Movement (2014.3.18) and the Democratic Progressive Party's second administration (2016.5.20) as an important turning point, the overall time period was divided into three periods for observation and analysis. It was found that the second phase after the Sun Flower Movement was a period in which the overall movement was more "cross-group", and the third-phase “cross-group” connection effect was significantly reduced. The sub-groups of different topics also show different appearances. Then, through the in-depth interviews, focus interviews and related texts of the members of SMOs , we will explore the significance and specific operational mechanism of the “Solidarity-in-movement” in the historical moment of the Sun Flower Movement. Through qualitative information to enrich the actor's perception and community culture, it is found that "Solidarity-in-movement" is the key to making the cross-movements alliance "Significant". In the later period, the community has turned into a "limited" cross-movements alliance. This paper considers that " Solidarity-in-movement" is based on the cooperation of cross-movements alliances. It is not a rigid state, but in a specific historical moment, SMOs are shaped by a master frame of movement. A social cluster that transcends a single organization or movement, with emotional cohesion (not just rational resource logic) in the process. Through the diachronic quantitative network data and qualitative field interview data complement each other, this article will explain the pattern of coalition, solidarity and cleavage of Taiwan social movement organizations in the past seven years.

第一章 問題意識及研究議題 4
第二章 文獻回顧 9
第一節 台灣社會運動組織與社會網絡分析 9
第二節 社運結盟與社運團結 11
第三章 分析架構及研究方法 15
第一節 社會網絡分析方法 16
第二節 深度訪談及文本分析方法 21
第四章 社運組織網絡的變遷軌跡（2012-2018） 24
第一節 社運組織抗爭參與的趨勢變化 24
第二節 例行性事件所構成的社群生態 30
第三節 社群凝聚與局部分群 42
第四節 次群體與跨群體的合作 48
第五節 小結 54
第五章 「我們NGO」：社運團結的內涵 57
第一節 「我們NGO」的集體認同 59
第二節 結盟過程的文化規範形塑 65
第三節 太陽花佔領前的行動基礎 67
第四節 構框與社運組織結盟擴大 70
第五節 團結延續：後太陽花的高度凝聚 74
第六節 「團結外」的社群動態 78
第七節 「相忍為運動」：團結的多層次意義 81
第六章 「後團結」局勢的挑戰 87
第一節 太陽花運動：社運結盟的顯性化 89
第二節 「社運參政」：後太陽花的政黨化嘗試 93
第三節 「體制互動」：民進黨執政後的互動策略 96
第四節 「公投元年」新戰場的策略摸索 101
第五節 社運組織的資源困境及封閉特性 105
第六節 小結：「社運分歧」的風險？ 110
第七章 結論與討論 112
附錄一 抗爭事件與屬性表 117
附錄二 受訪者列表 123

陳婉琪、黃樹仁(2015) 立法院外的春吶：太陽花運動靜坐者之人口及參與圖象。 台灣社會學 30:141–179.
陳婉琪、張恆豪、黃樹仁(2016) 網絡社會運動時代的來臨？太陽花運動參與者的人際連帶與社群媒體因素初探。 人文及社會科學集刊 28(4): 467-501
彭仁郁，(2016) 反叛中建構的主體：三一八公民運動中所彰顯的象徵秩序傳承，見林秀幸、吳叡人主編，照破：太陽花運動的振幅、縱深和視域。台北：左岸。
林秀幸、吳叡人主編，(2016) 照破：太陽花運動的振幅、縱深和視域 。台北：左岸。
林傳凱 (2016) 2014年323政院抗爭事發過程陳述 （https://goo.gl/9unwJo，取用日期：2018年1月25日）
王甫昌 (2003) 當代台灣社會的族群想像。 臺北：群學出版社。
范雲，2003，〈政治轉型過程中的婦女運動: 以運動者及其生命傳記背景為核心的分析取向〉。《台灣社會學》。5：133-193。
李丁讚、林文源，2003，〈社會力的轉化：臺灣環保抗爭的組織技術〉。《臺灣社會研究季刊》(52): 57-119。
馬財專、余珮瑩。2009。〈社會運動的網絡分析與思考〉。《國家與社會》。6：201-235。
何明修。2016。《支離破碎的團結》。台北：左岸出版社。
杜文苓、彭渰雯。2008。〈社運團體的體制內參與及影響〉。《台灣民主季刊》。5(1)：119-148。
鄭陸霖、林鶴玲。2001。〈社運在網際網路上的展現: 台灣社會運動網站的聯網分析〉。《台灣社會學》。2：55-96。
黃淑玲、伍維婷。2016。〈當婦運衝撞國家: 婦權會推動性別主流化的合縱連橫策略〉。《台灣社會學》。32：1-55。
何明修、林秀幸編，2011，《社會運動的年代: 晚近二十年來的台灣行動主義》。台北：群學出版社。
蕭新煌，2004，〈臺灣的非政府組織, 民主轉型與民主治理〉。《臺灣民主季刊》1(1): 65-84。
顧忠華，1999，〈公民結社的結構變遷－以台灣非營利組織的發展為例〉。《台灣社會研究季刊》。36：123-145。
顧忠華，2003，〈社會運動的「機構化」:兼論非營利組織在公民社會中的角色〉。頁1-28，收錄於張茂桂、鄭永年編，《兩岸社會運動分析》。台北：月旦出版社。
Bearman, Peter S. and Kevin D. Everett. 1993. “The Structure of Social Protest, 1961–1983.” Social Networks 15(2):171–200.
Blondel, Vincent D., Jean-Loup Guillaume, Renaud Lambiotte, and Etienne Lefebvre. 2008. “Fast Unfolding of Communities in Large Networks.” Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2008(10):P10008.
Borrett, Stuart R., James Moody, and Achim Edelmann. 2014. “The Rise of Network Ecology: Maps of the Topic Diversity and Scientific Collaboration.” Ecological Modelling 293:111–27.
Diani, Mario and Doug McAdam, eds. 2003. Social Movements and Networks: Relational Approaches to Collective Action. Repr. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Foster, Jacob G., Andrey Rzhetsky, and James A. Evans. 2015. “Tradition and Innovation in Scientists’ Research Strategies.” American Sociological Review 80(5):875–908.
Gamson, William A. 1961. “A Theory of Coalition Formation.” American Sociological Review 26(3):373.
Gamson, William. 1991, “Commitment and agency in social movements.” Sociological Forum” 6(1): 27-50.
Granovetter, Mark S. 1977. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” Pp. 347–367 in Social networks. Elsevier.
Granovetter, Mark. 1978. “Threshold Models of Collective Behavior.” American Journal of Sociology 83(6):1420–43.
Harpham, Trudy, Emma Grant, and Elizabeth Thomas. 2002. “Measuring Social Capital within Health Surveys: Key Issues.” Health Policy and Planning 17(1):106–111.
Hirschman, A. O. 1982. Shifting involvements: Private interest and public action. Princeton University Press.
Ho, M. S. 2018. From mobilization to improvisation: the lessons from Taiwan’s 2014 sunflower movement. Social Movement Studies, 17(2), 189-202.
Ho, Ming-sho. 2015. "Occupy congress in Taiwan: Political opportunity, threat, and the sunflower movement." Journal of East Asian Studies 15(01):69–97.
Hsu, Szu-chien. 2017. “The China Factor and Taiwan’s civil society organizations in the Sunflower Movement: The Case of the Democratic Front Against the Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement”, pp.134-153 in Dafydd Fell ed., Taiwan’s Social Movements under Ma Ying-jeou: From the Wild Strawberries to the Sunflowers. New York: Routledge.
Hunt, Scott. , & Benford, Robert.. 2004, ” Collective identity, solidarity, and commitment.” Pp. 433-457 in The Blackwell Companion to Social movements, edited by Snow, David A., Sarah A. Soule, and Hanspeter Kriesi. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Iversen, Tor. 2008. “An Exploratory Study of Associations between Social Capital and Self-Assessed Health in Norway.” Health Economics, Policy and Law 3(04).
Jasper, J. M. 2011. Emotions and social movements: Twenty years of theory and research. Annual review of sociology, 37, 285-303.
Kossinets, G. 2006. “Empirical Analysis of an Evolving Social Network.” Science 311(5757):88–90.
Kossinets, Gueorgi and Duncan J. Watts. 2009. “Origins of Homophily in an Evolving Social Network.” American Journal of Sociology 115(2):405–50.
Levi, M., & Murphy, G. H. 2006. Coalitions of contention: The case of the WTO protests in Seattle. Political Studies, 54(4), 651-670.
Levi, Margaret and Gillian H. Murphy. 2006. “Coalitions of Contention: The Case of the WTO Protests in Seattle.” Political Studies 54(4):651–70.
Mayer, B. 2009. Cross‐Movement Coalition Formation: Bridging the Labor‐Environment Divide. Sociological Inquiry, 79(2), 219-239.
Mayer, Brian. 2009. “Cross-Movement Coalition Formation: Bridging the Labor-Environment Divide*.” Sociological Inquiry 79(2):219–39.
McCammon, H., & Campbell, K. 2002. Allies on the road to victory: Coalition formation between the suffragists and the Woman's Christian Temperance Union. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 7(3), 231-251.
McCammon, Holly and Karen Campbell. 2002. “Allies on the Road to Victory: Coalition Formation between the Suffragists and the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union.” Mobilization: An International Quarterly 7(3):231–251.
Melucci, Alberto. 1989, Nomads of the present: Social movements and individual needs in contemporary society. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Moody, James and Douglas R. White. 2003a. “Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness: A Hierarchical Concept of Social Groups.” American Sociological Review 103–127.
Moody, James and Douglas R. White. 2003b. “Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness: A Hierarchical Concept of Social Groups.” American Sociological Review 103–127.
Moody, James. 2004. “The Structure of a Social Science Collaboration Network: Disciplinary Cohesion from 1963 to 1999.” American Sociological Review 69(2):213–38.
Opsahl, Tore. 2013. “Triadic Closure in Two-Mode Networks: Redefining the Global and Local Clustering Coefficients.” Social Networks 35(2):159–67.
Osa, Maryjane. 2003, Solidarity and contention: networks of Polish oppositions .Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Polletta, Francesca. 1998. “It was like a fever…” narrative and identity in social protest.” Social Problems, 45(2), 137-159.
Robins, Garry and Malcolm Alexander. 2004. “Small Worlds among Interlocking Directors: Network Structure and Distance in Bipartite Graphs.” Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory 10(1):69–94.
Snow, David.. 2004. “Framing processes, ideology, and discursive fields.” Pp. 380-412 in The Blackwell Companion to Social movements, edited by Snow, David A., Sarah A. Soule, and Hanspeter Kriesi. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Staggenborg, S. 1986. Coalition work in the pro-choice movement: Organizational and environmental opportunities and obstacles. Social problems, 33(5), 374-390.
Staggenborg, Suzanne. 1986. “Coalition Work in the Pro-Choice Movement: Organizational and Environmental Opportunities and Obstacles.” Social Problems 33(5):374–90.
Tarrow, Sidney. 2011, Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, Verta., Whittier, Nancy.,1992, ”Collective identity in social movement communities: Lesbian feminist mobilization.” Pp. 104-129 in Frontiers in social Movement Theory , edited by Aldon, Morris & Carol, Mueller. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Torrents, Jordi and Fabrizio Ferraro. 2015. “Structural Cohesion: Visualization and Heuristics for Fast Computation.” ArXiv:1503.04476 [Physics].
Van Dyke, Nella and Holly J. McCammon. 2010. Strategic Alliances: Coalition Building and Social Movements. U of Minnesota Press.
Van Dyke, Nella. 2003. “Crossing Movement Boundaries: Factors That Facilitate Coalition Protest by American College Students, 1930–1990.” Social Problems 50(2):226–50.
Van Dyke, Nella. 2003. Crossing Movement Boundaries: Factors that Facilitate Coalition Protest by American College Students, 1930-1990. Social Problems. 50(2): 226-250.
Wang, Dan J. and Sarah A. Soule. 2012. “Social Movement Organizational Collaboration: Networks of Learning and the Diffusion of Protest Tactics, 1960–1995.” American Journal of Sociology 117(6):1674–1722.
Watts, Duncan J. 1999. “Networks, Dynamics, and the Small-World Phenomenon.” American Journal of Sociology 105(2):493–527.
Watts, Duncan J. and Steven H. Strogatz. 1998. “Collective Dynamics of ‘Small-World’Networks.” Nature 393(6684):440.
Weldon, S. L. 2006. Inclusion, solidarity, and social movements: The global movement against gender violence. Perspectives on Politics, 4(1), 55-74.
Yang, Chia-Ling, 2017, "The political is the personal: women’s participation in Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement." Social Movement Studies 1-12.