在二十一世紀，跨領域以及多個專業的學習模式已經蔚為潮流，人們期許透過具備不同領域的知識以及技能來達到溝通、合作、以及解決複雜問題的目標。然而，在規劃生涯、尋求資訊的過程中，學生必須在有動機探索他們不熟悉的科目的狀況中，付出額外的努力探索以及挖掘相關的資源以及知識網絡。在過去的研究中，人們雖關注了如何協助學生跨領域學習，但仍然缺乏透過優化資訊系統來引導學生探索系所的研究領域，以及系所領域間連結性的討論。
此論文的目的是以國立清華大學學生為資訊服務系統的目標使用者，研究他們的探索需求以及此過程中發生的問題，並且發展出一個探索系統的原型作為位小可行產品，來測試校園中符合這個情境的市場。此研究採用設計科學的研究架構，透過不同環節的活動協助我們設計資訊系統達成目標、滿足人們的需求。另外，研究人員也試圖創造機構典藏儲存的外顯知識的價值，使用清大圖書館管理的文獻後設資料，以文字探勘技術、運用隱含狄利克雷分布的主題模型分析出跨系所、跨研究領域的連結性，進一步實現系統，此系統為「研究領域探索系統」Research Area Exploration System (RAES)。
最後，我們邀請兩組學生使用探索系統 (RAES)，以及擁有同樣資料來源的清大博碩士論文全文系統 (eTDS)，完成任務、填寫問卷，以量化（統計分析）以及質化（訪談）方法來評估系統表現。分析結果顯示探索系統在協助學生接觸、發現陌生系所、研究領域，以及他們的連結性等面向上有較突出的表現。

Cross field learning and multi-professions have become a trend in 21th century. People are gradually expected to possess knowledge and skills across different fields in order to communicate, cooperate, and solve complex problems. In universities, institutes provide learning resources, such as study programs and courses. However, during the process of making career plan and information seeking, the resources and knowledge networks need students who have motivations to explore disciplines beyond their current disciplines with additional efforts to explore and discover. In the past, though people payed attention on how to assist cross-field learning for students, it lacked the discussion about how to utilize information systems to facilitate this task in students' scenarios.
This study aims to investigate the needs and the problems of students as target users of the service system, and develop an exploration prototype system as a minimum viable product to test the market. We also intend to make the value out of data from the institutional repository storing explicit knowledge. To achieve the goals and fulfil the needs of people, we take the framework of design science in the research. The exploration system, called Research Area Exploration System (RAES) applied Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) to make connections across institutes and research areas. At the end, we evaluate the performance with quantitative and qualitative methods by comparing RAES with the Electronic Thesis and Dissertation System (eTDS) used by the library. The results show that RAES uniquely benefits users in different aspects from the existing eTDS, which indicates that RAES marginally contributes to facilitating students to cross disciplines in their studies.

Table of Content
List of Figures 5
List of Tables 6
Chapter 1 Introduction 7
1.1 Research Background 7
1.2 Research Motivation 8
1.3 Research Objectives 10
Chapter 2 Literature Review 11
2.1 Application Domains 11
2.1.1 Cross-Field Learning and Information Seeking 11
2.1.2 Institutional Repositories 14
2.1.3 Design Science and Minimum Viable Products 15
2.2 Latent Dirichlet Allocation 17
Chapter 3 Research Method 19
3.1 Problem Identification 19
3.2 Objective of Solutions Definition 20
3.3 System Architecture Design and Development 20
3.4 Demonstration and Evaluation 21
Chapter 4 System Architecture and Implementation 24
4.1 Objective of Solutions 24
4.2 System Architecture 28
4.2.1 Data Pre-processing 29
4.2.2 LDA and Topics Recommendation 30
4.3 System Implementation 30
4.3.1 Abbreviation Replacement 30
4.3.2 Words Segmentation 31
4.3.3 LDA and Topics Visualization 32
Chapter 5 System Outputs and Evaluation Results 36
5.1 RAES Outputs 36
5.2 Evaluation Results 37
5.2.1 Quantitative Results 39
5.2.2 Qualitative Results 51
Chapter 6 Discussion and Future Work 60
6.1 Discussion 60
6.2 Future Work 62
Chapter 7 Conclusion 64
References 66
Appendix 71

References
American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (1996). Interdisciplinary education and practice. Journal of Professional Nursing, 12(2), 119-123.
Angelini, D. J. (2011). Interdisciplinary and interprofessional education: What are the key issues and considerations for the future?. The Journal of perinatal & neonatal nursing, 25(2), 175-179.
Barr H. Interprofessional Education: 1997-2000, A Review. London, England: United Kingdom Central Council of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting; 2000.
Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of machine Learning research, 3(Jan), 993-1022.
Bronstein, L. R. (2003). A model for interdisciplinary collaboration. Social work, 48(3), 297-306.
Crow, R. (2002). The case for institutional repositories: a SPARC position paper.
Downy P. J., McGaughty R., & Roach D. (2011). Attitudes and influences toward choosing a business major: The case of information systems. Journal of Information Technology Education, 10, 231-251.
Fuller, R. B. (1957). A comprehensive anticipatory design science. his book No More Secondhand God and Other Writings (Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press/London and Amsterdam: Feffer & Simons, 1963), 84-117.
Gibbons, S. (2009). Benefits of an institutional repository. Library Technology Reports, 40(4), 11-16.
Goodman, E., Kuniavsky, M., & Moed, A. (2013). Observing the User Experience: A Practitioner's Guide to User Research. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 56(3), 260-261.
Gregory, S. A. (1966). "The Design Method". Butterworths.
Gregory, S. A. (2013). The design method. Springer.
Guest, D. (1991). The hunt is on for the Renaissance Man of computing. The Independent (London), 17.
Harnad, S. (2005). The implementation of the berlin declaration on open access. D-lib Magazine, 11(3).
Hofmann, T. (1999, July). Probabilistic latent semantic analysis. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth conference on Uncertainty in artificial intelligence (pp. 289-296). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc..
Horsburgh, M., Lamdin, R., & Williamson, E. (2001). Multiprofessional learning: the attitudes of medical, nursing and pharmacy students to shared learning. Medical education, 35(9), 876-883.
Klein, J. T. (1990). Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, and practice. Wayne state university press.
Lagoze, C., & Van de Sompel, H. (2001, January). The Open Archives Initiative: Building a low-barrier interoperability framework. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries (pp. 54-62). ACM.
Lynch, C. A. (2003). Institutional repositories: essential infrastructure for scholarship in the digital age. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 3(2), 327-336.
Lynch, C. A., & Lippincott, J. K. (2005). Institutional repository deployment in the United States as of early 2005. D-lib Magazine, 11(9), 1-11.
Margolin, V. (1998). Design for a sustainable world. Design Issues, 14(2), 83-92
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2014). Designing qualitative research. Sage publications.
McCroskey J, Robertson P. Challenges and benefits of interprofessional education: evaluation of the interprofessional initiative at the University of Southern California. Teacher Educ Q. 1999:69-87.
NISO (National Information Standards Organization). (2004). Understanding metadata. Bethesda, MD: NISO Press.
Panitch, J. M., & Michalak, S. (2005). The serials crisis: a white paper for the UNC-Chapel Hill Scholarly Communications Convocation. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina. Retrieved, 3(17), 2006.
Papadimitriou, C. H., Raghavan, P., Tamaki, H., & Vempala, S. (2000). Latent semantic indexing: A probabilistic analysis. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 61(2), 217-235.
Papanek, V., & Fuller, R. B. (1972). Design for the real world (p. 22). London: Thames and Hudson.
Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of management information systems, 24(3), 45-77.
Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: How today's entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. Crown Books.
Robinson, F. (2016). Minimum Viable Product. A Proven Methodology to Maximize Return on Risk. SyncDev, nd Web, 19.
Sompel, H. V. D., & Lagoze, C. (2000). The Santa Fe convention of the open archives initiative. D-Lib Magazine; 2000 (6) 2.
Tansley, R., & Harnad, S. (2000). Eprints. org software for creating institutional and individual open archives. D-Lib Magazine, 6(10).
Von Alan, R. H., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS quarterly, 28(1), 75-105.
Wilson, T. D. (2000). Human information behavior. Informing science, 3(2), 49-56.

參考文獻
大前研一. (2002). 工作雞湯
中華民國教育部. 大學法施行細則. (2006)
侯孟君, & 黃坤錦. (2006). 我國大學跨領域學程之研究 (Doctoral dissertation).
袁大鈺, & 唐牧群. (2010). 跨領域學術社群之智識網絡結構初探: 以臺灣科技與社會研究為例. 圖書資訊學刊, 8(2), 125-163.
國立清華大學註冊組. 跨院系學分學程統計表 (2017)
黃德祥. (1994). 青少年發展與輔導. 台灣五南圖書出版股份有限公司.
黃慕萱. (1994). 情境模式在解釋資訊尋求行為之適用性探討. 圖書館學刊,(9), 49-70.
羅婉綺. (2007). 臺灣地區大學生選擇校系因素之分析. 暨南大學教育政策與行政學系學位論文, 1-122.