媒體是傳遞訊息的重要管道，面對全球危機－新冠疫情時，發揮重要的作用。本研究試圖就疫情下的大眾媒體所使用的框架，來比較受眾之間對於疫情的社會解讀及看法。本文援引認知觀點，藉由媒體對新冠疫情的詮釋框架，探討台灣社會結構存在的認知差異。在方法上，我們採用主題模型結合質性歸納方法，以台灣作為個案研究對象，分別從報紙新聞以及Dcard新冠疫情專版文章上，擷取文本內容，做主題建模分析，以探索台灣社會對疫情演變所產生的動態認知。本研究預期之貢獻不僅可以在理論上提出框架如何反應社會群體的認知差異，更能夠在實務上暸解媒體之間如何詮釋危機，以提供後續政府及媒體能夠對不同受眾採取相應之框架。

The media is an important channel for transmitting information and plays an important role in the face of the global crisis – COVID-19. This study attempts to compare how audiences interpret the epidemic among audiences based on the frames used by mass media. We draw on the perspectives of cognitive to explore the cognitive differences in Taiwan's social structure through the media frames. Using data collection from newspaper and Dcard, our study used topic modeling combined with qualitative procedures to analysis dynamic cognition arising from the evolution of the epidemic. The expected contribution of this study can not only theoretically propose how frames reflect the cognitive differences, but also provide a practical understanding of how the media interprets crises, so as to provide subsequent frames that the government and media can adopt for different audiences.

摘要 I
ABSTRACT II
誌謝 III
目錄 IV
圖目錄 VI
第一章 緒論 1
第二章 文獻回顧 3
第一節 新冠疫情 3
第二節 大眾媒體 4
第三節 社會認知及框架 5
第三章 研究方法 7
第一節 主題建模 7
第二節 研究對象 8
第三節 資料蒐集 9
第四節 資料分析 13
第四章 研究結果 17
第一節 新聞的主題框架 17
第二節 DCARD的主題框架 25
第三節 新聞與DCARD主題框架比較 31
第五章 討論與結論 36
第一節 理論意涵 36
第二節 實務意涵 36
第三節 研究限制與未來研究 37
參考文獻 39

洪世章、張淑珍、黃亭云，2022。面對它，接受它，處理它，放下它：台灣社會如何回應新冠疫情？管理評論，41(4)：43-65。
Bail, C. A. 2014. The cultural environment: Measuring culture with big data. Theory and Society, 43: 465-482.
Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. 2003. Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of machine Learning research, 3: 993-1022.
Chen, K., Molder, A. L., Duan, Z., Boulianne, S., Eckart, C., Mallari, P., & Yang, D. 2023. How climate movement actors and news media frame climate change and strike: Evidence from analyzing twitter and news media discourse from 2018 to 2021. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 28(2): 384-413.
Chiang, W. Y., & Duann, R. F. 2007. Conceptual metaphors for SARS: 'War' between whom? Discourse & society, 18(5): 579-602.
Chiesa, V., Antony, G., Wismar, M., & Rechel, B. 2021. COVID-19 pandemic: Health impact of staying at home, social distancing and ‘lockdown’ measures-a systematic review of systematic reviews. Journal of public health, 43(3): 462-481.
Choi, J., Menon, A., & Tabakovic, H. 2021. Using machine learning to revisit the diversification–performance relationship. Strategic Management Journal, 42(9): 1632-1661.
Christianson, M. K., & Barton, M. A. 2021. Sensemaking in the time of COVID‐19. Journal of Management Studies, 58(2): 572.
Clark-Gordon, C. V., Bowman, N. D., Goodboy, A. K., & Wright, A. 2019. Anonymity and online self-disclosure: A meta-analysis. Communication Reports, 32(2): 98-111.
Cornelissen, J. P., & Werner, M. D. 2014. Putting framing in perspective: A review of framing and frame analysis across the management and organizational literature. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1): 181-235.
Davidson, E. J. 2002. Technology frames and framing: A socio-cognitive investigation of requirements determination. MIS quarterly, 329-358.
DiMaggio, P., Nag, M., & Blei, D. 2013. Exploiting affinities between topic modeling and the sociological perspective on culture: Application to newspaper coverage of US government arts funding. Poetics, 41(6): 570-606.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review, 14(4): 532-550.
Eggers, J. P., & Kaplan, S. 2013. Cognition and capabilities: A multi-level perspective. The Academy of management annals, 7(1): 295-340.
Fiss, P. C., & Hirsch, P. M. 2005. The discourse of globalization: Framing and sensemaking of an emerging concept. American sociological review, 70(1): 29-52.
George, J. F., Carlson, J. R., & Valacich, J. S. 2013. Media selection as a strategic component of communication. MIS Quarterly, 1233-1251.
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. 2013. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational research methods, 16(1): 15-31.
Giorgi, S. 2017. The mind and heart of resonance: The role of cognition and emotions in frame effectiveness. Journal of Management Studies, 54(5): 711-738.
Goffman, E. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hagger, M. S., & Hamilton, K. 2022. Social cognition theories and behavior change in COVID-19: A conceptual review. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 154: 104095.
Hannigan, T. R., Haans, R. F., Vakili, K., Tchalian, H., Glaser, V. L., Wang, M. S., Kaplan, S., & Jennings, P. D. 2019. Topic modeling in management research: Rendering new theory from textual data. Academy of Management Annals, 13(2): 586-632.
He, H., & Harris, L. 2020. The impact of Covid-19 pandemic on corporate social responsibility and marketing philosophy. Journal of business research, 116: 176-182.
Huang, I. Y. F. 2020. Fighting COVID‐19 through government initiatives and collaborative governance: The Taiwan experience. Public Administration Review, 80(4): 665-670.
Hung, S. C., & Chang, S. C. 2023. Framing the virus: The political, economic, biomedical and social understandings of the COVID-19 in Taiwan. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 188: 122276.
Jin, Y., Liu, B. F., & Austin, L. L. 2014. Examining the role of social media in effective crisis management: The effects of crisis origin, information form, and source on publics’ crisis responses. Communication research, 41(1): 74-94.
Kim, H. J., & Cameron, G. T. 2011. Emotions matter in crisis: The role of anger and sadness in the publics’ response to crisis news framing and corporate crisis response. Communication Research, 38(6): 826-855.
Lee, M., Ramus, T., & Vaccaro, A. 2018. From protest to product: Strategic frame brokerage in a commercial social movement organization. Academy of Management Journal, 61(6): 2130-2158.
Matthes, J., & Schemer, C. 2012. Diachronic framing effects in competitive opinion environments. Political Communication, 29(3): 319-339.
Mejias, U. A. 2013. Off the network: Disrupting the digital world. University of Minnesota Press.
Meyer, R. E., & Höllerer, M. A. 2010. Meaning structures in a contested issue field: A topographic map of shareholder value in Austria. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6): 1241-1262.
Mohr, J. W., & Bogdanov, P. 2013. Introduction—Topic models: What they are and why they matter. Poetics, 41(6): 545-569.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Gash, D. C. 1994. Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Transactions on Information System, 12(2): 174-207.
Pettigrew, A. M. 1990. Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organization science, 1(3): 267-292.
Price, V., Tewksbury, D., & Powers, E. 1997. Switching trains of thought: The impact of news frames on readers' cognitive responses. Communication research, 24(5): 481-506.
Raffaelli, R., Glynn, M. A., & Tushman, M. 2019. Frame flexibility: The role of cognitive and emotional framing in innovation adoption by incumbent firms. Strategic Management Journal, 40(7): 1013-1039.
Ramage, D., Rosen, E., Chuang, J., Manning, C. D., & McFarland, D. A. 2009. Topic modeling for the social sciences. NIPS 2009 workshop on applications for topic models: text and beyond, 5(27): 1-4.
Scheufele, D. A. 1999. Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of communication, 49(1): 103-122.
Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. 2007. Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of communication, 57(1): 9-20.
Schneiberg, M., & Clemens, E. S. 2006. The typical tools for the job: Research strategies in institutional analysis. Sociological Theory, 24(3): 195-227.
Schmiedel, T., Müller, O., & Vom Brocke, J. 2019. Topic modeling as a strategy of inquiry in organizational research: A tutorial with an application example on organizational culture. Organizational Research Methods, 22(4): 941-968.
Stauffacher, M., Muggli, N., Scolobig, A., & Moser, C. 2015. Framing deep geothermal energy in mass media: The case of Switzerland. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 98: 60-70.
Tuchman, G. 1978. Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York: Free Press.
Walsh, J. P. 1995. Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from a trip down memory lane. Organization science, 6(3): 280-321.
Weber, K., & Glynn, M. A. 2006. Making sense with institutions: Context, thought and action in Karl Weick’s theory. Organization studies, 27(11): 1639-1660.
Weber, L., & Mayer, K. J. 2011. Designing effective contracts: Exploring the influence of framing and expectations. Academy of Management Review, 36(1): 53-75.
Werner, M. D., & Cornelissen, J. P. 2014. Framing the change: Switching and blending frames and their role in instigating institutional change. Organization Studies, 35(10): 1449-1472.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. 1989. Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of management Review, 14(3): 361-384.
Xie, R., Chu, S. K. W., Chiu, D. K. W., & Wang, Y. 2021. Exploring public response to COVID-19 on Weibo with LDA topic modeling and sentiment analysis. Data and Information Management, 5(1): 86-99.
Yin, R. K. 1984. Case study research: Design and methods. Sage, London, UK.