Village chiefs¡¦ role has been facing great impact and challenge ever since the transition of society, development of information, raise of education level and popularity of communitarianism. Therefore, how village chiefs¡¦ legal position should be set and integrate with village officers as well as community development have been brought into discussion in recent years. While gaps do exist between current academic study and practical operation, this study centers on village chiefs¡¦ position with the case of An-Shun Li of Kaohsiung City for further study. The exploration of literature is divided into three parts: role theory, village chiefs¡¦ position and village systems, and the relationship between village chiefs and community development. Literature review, in-depth interview, and participants¡¦ observation are adopted as research methods. With the concept of status, role expectation, role conflict and role performance in role theory, the study explores the interaction between village chiefs and other connecting village officers, analyzes the problems that chiefs¡¦ encounter under current legal system and then generalizes the role current chiefs should play. The research finds that the biggest difference between current and traditional chiefs is that the role they play as citizens¡¦ participation navigators and community development managers. While government is examining and adjusting village controlling area and government-assigned chief policy, it is advised that concrete solution to be proposed for individual cases which require specific environment. The regulation of village chiefs is wished to become better in the future. A new organization is looking forward to be setting up as a mediator between village chief and community development organization to deal with community affairs, thus to make the local system in line with modern society demands.

在電子化政府的架構下，民眾最重要的數位意見反映管道可謂是民意電子信箱，然而近年全球許多城市開始建制市民熱線系統，讓民眾得以透過電話向政府反映意見，使整個互動介面更為接近「行動政府」的概念，而在台灣的行政系絡下，「村里長」扮演政府機關與一般民眾互動的中介角色，本研究嘗試了解電子信箱與市民熱線這兩項原意用於促進「直接民主」的意見反應管道，對於村里長的工作產生何種影響，並探討村里長使用電子信箱與市民熱線的情況，以及影響他們對這兩項管道滿意認同的變數。 本研究以台北市里長及台北市市長信箱與1999市民熱線為主要標的，透過量化與質化方法的實證資料，主要發現結果包括：(1)台北市里長較常使用市民熱線，較少使用市長信箱；(2)資訊能力、對案件的時效性要求、問題難度與複雜性將影響村里長選擇市長信箱或市民熱線進行意見反映；(3)市長信箱與市民熱線對里長的正面影響包括解決村里民問題、減少工作負擔、提昇服務時效性、減少人情壓力、可有書面或電子資料備查，作為服務表現的基礎；負面影響則包括受申訴的機會增加、村里長工作有被管道取代的危機；(4)服務品質構面的「資訊可信度」、「問題解決程度」及「易用性」，有用性構面中的「解決里民問題」與「有助工作程度」五個變數對管道的滿意度有正向的影響。 本研究根據研究發現，提出三點實務建議：(1)重視「管道問題適用性」之宣傳；(2)促進村里長與意見反映管道結合的服務綜效；(3)思考管道如何對市民產生「有用性」，以提昇公共接觸效果。 / Under the framework of E-government, e-mail is the most important response channel for citizens to interact with governments. However, many cities around the world start to build citizen hotline systems, allowing people reflect their ideas and suggestions via phone. This fact reveals the opportunities of Mobile Government. In Taiwan, Li-chiefs simultaneously reflect residents’ opinions and help delivery public services. The author tries to figure out (1) how Taipei City Mayor’s E-mail Box and 1999 Citizen Hotline affect the daily works of Li-chiefs; (2) their usage of these two response channels, and (3) what variables might affect Li-chiefs’ satisfaction toward e-mail and citizen hotlines. The study uses Taipei City Mayor’s E-mail Box and Taipei 1999 Citizen Hotline as case examples, and collects both qualitative and quantitative empirical data. The author finds that: (1) The Li-chiefs in Taipei use Taipei 1999 Citizen Hotline more frequently than City Mayor’s E-mail. (2) Information literacy, timeliness and task complexity will affect Li-chiefs’ motives to reflect suggestions via e-mail or citizen hotline. (3) Li-chiefs can use these two channels to solve problems and enhance timeliness. On the other hand, the response channels allow citizens to complain to Li-chiefs more easily, and the positions of Li-chiefs might be replaced by the two channels; and (4) information reliability, problem solving ability, ease of use, the effect of solving citizens’ problems, and helping Li-chiefs’ jobs will positively affect the satisfaction of the channels. Based on the finding, the author suggests the government should: (1) emphasize the “appropriate or right questions” when prompting the channels; (2) teach Li-chiefs how to use response channels well to create synergy; and (3) rethink how response channels produce usefulness for citizens.