在審議式民主逐漸由實驗性操作邁入政策實務落實之際，政府部門人員和審議式公民參與活動研究團隊間的互動關係，乃成為影響審議式民主在政府政策實務落實的關鍵要素。本文以「中港河廊通學步道願景工作坊」為例，併採深度訪談法、參與觀察法及次級資料分析法，從官僚的工具理性與審議式民主的溝通理性之捍格切入，探究委託機關人員和研究團隊的互動對審議式民主在地方政府政策規劃過程落實之影響。研究結果顯示，政府部門人員對審議式民主的認知偏向實務、工具及結果面向，而研究團隊則是著重溝通理性和審議式民主精神的體現，二者間的衝突將可能為審議式民主於政策實務的落實帶來困境；另於過程中亦發現，審議式公民參與活動之進行可能因各種突發狀況的產生，導致活動進行無法完全實踐審議式民主精神，更顯現出活動進行和理論論述間確實存在著落差。基於研究發現，本文建議可加強政府部門人員教育與培訓，使其熟習審議式民主之意涵；另也需因應討論議題與在地系絡彈性運用公共討論模式，以有助公民參與討論的進行。此外，也建議學界未來可著力於審議式公民參與活動評估機制的建構，或從政府機關首長、內部結構及過程等角度切入深究，以對審議式民主在政府政策實務上之推行有所裨益。 / As deliberative democracy theory has gradually changed from academic experiments into practical application in policy arena, the interaction between the administrators and the research team in conducting deliberative civic engagement activities has become the critical factor that influences whether the deliberative mechanism can be adopted in policy arena. The article uses the trails for the Chung Kang Drainage to walk to and from school scenario workshop as the empirical setting. From the perspective of incomparability between instrumental rationality and communicative rationality, this article explores how the interaction between the administrators and the research team influences the practice of deliberative democracy in local governmental policy planning through in-depth interviews, participant observation and secondary data analysis. The research discovers that the administrators tend to regard deliberative democracy as practical, instrumental, and result-oriented. In contrast, the research team puts more emphasis on communicative rationality and the materialization of deliberative democracy. Such conflict may cause problems in the practice of deliberative democracy in policy arena. Besides, this article also finds that deliberative democracy is difficult to practice because of some unexpected incidents in the process of the deliberative civic engagement activities. This situation also does reveal the gap between the practice and the theory. Based on the findings, this thesis suggests that the government should reinforce the education and training of the administrators to understand the core values of deliberative democracy. Besides, due to the difference of the issue and the context, we should adopt different public discourse modes with flexibility to facilitate the process of civic engagement. In addition, in order to promote the application of deliberative democracy in the policy arena, this article also suggests scholars devote themselves to designing criteria for assessing deliberative civic engagement and to examine other factors, such as the chief executive of the agency, internal structure, and the process within public agencies.