《台灣社會學》

本文以制度企業家（institutional entrepreneurship）概念結合女性主義制度論（feminist institutionalism）內涵，提出「性別平等制度企業家」一詞，解釋台灣中央層級性別平等政策機制制度化的關鍵歷程。經由分析深入訪談與次級資料發現，婦女平權行動者在政治機會結構變化的歷史機遇中成為婦權會民間委員，在新興場域秩序模糊的脈絡中，以性平制度企業家角色，運用各種策略實作創制婦權會的實質機制。她們在集體行動過程建構出組織身分認同，轉譯國際規範—性別主流化為組織目標，再以倡議、教育等理論化實作，塑造政策機制的專業化地位。同時也因在行政場域與文官溝通協商的持續過程，使婦權會與行政體系日趨嵌合而制度化。本文再現組織變革的複雜情境並梳理鑲嵌的能動性（embedded agency）樣態，性平制度企業家引導創制改革，雖然因位處場域規則繁多的行政部門而使策略多有侷限，然而，各種實作所觸發的連結正是組織制度化的重要過程，是以改革成果不能僅視明文規章變更與否，其實作過程同樣對組織與制度變革有重要影響。

This research integrates the concept of feminist institutionalism with the institutional entrepreneurship framework to introduce the term "gender equality institutional entrepreneur," explaining the critical processes by which gender equality policy mechanism became institutionalized at the central level in Taiwan. The study finds that women's rights activists, amidst changes in the political opportunity structure, became civil members of the Committee of Women's Rights Promotion (CWRP), a task force under the Executive Yuan. These gender equality institutional entrepreneurs navigated the ambiguous order of emerging fi elds, employing strategic practices to establish the substantive mechanisms of the CWRP. Through collective actions, they constructed an organizational identity, incorporated the international norm of gender mainstreaming into the organization's goals. They further solidified the professional status of the policy mechanism through various practices such as advocacy, education, theorization and more. Additionally, negotiations with civil servants in the administrative field led to the institutionalization of the CWRP within the administrative system. By reconstructing the context of organizational change and exploring the forms of embedded agency, this study indicates that while gender equality institutional entrepreneurs spearheaded reforms, their strategies were often constrained by their position within the administrative sector of the policy fi eld. Nevertheless, the connections activated through their practices played a critical role in the institutionalization process. Thus, the success of reform should not be measured solely by changes in formal regulations; the practical processes themselves also have signifi cant impacts on organizational and institutional change.