因應高等教育大眾化與知識經濟全球競爭時代，各國政策強化高等教育與產學連結，知識生產模式也隨之轉變，傳統哲學博士學位的培訓方式受到挑戰，1980年代後期以來，在美國、英國、澳洲等國家，專業博士學位有大幅擴增的趨勢，而我國博士教育近年面臨招生困難、學用落差、人才斷層等三方困境，政府亦推動課程及學位分流相關政策，實有必要了解我國大學辦理專業博士之現況。本研究旨在以教育博士EdD和管理博士DBA為研究範圍，探究我國大學專業博士學位辦理現況，包括：辦理模式、設立緣由、價值與效益、問題與挑戰等四部分，在研究方法上採取文件分析及訪談法，就相關博士班之校系網頁、招生簡章課程及修業規定等資料進行文件分析，並訪談相關系所教授及博士生計28名所得相關資料進行比較分析。研究結論如下：(一)辦理模式：(1)我國大學對於學位名稱重視不足，專業博士學位的中文名稱未與哲學博士學位區隔，且學位中英文名稱資訊公開不佳；(2)我國教育類博士班EdD學位與PhD學位辦理模式並無明顯差異，亦與國外知名大學的EdD學程辦理模式不同；(3)我國DBA辦理模式與國外大學相仿，惟仍將學術論文期刊發表列為畢業門檻。(二)設立緣由：(1)教育領域相關系所對EdD的概念尚待釐清，學位名稱的訂定與教育目標及課程之間較無嚴謹的規劃和連結；(2)管理領域對管理專業博學位DBA的認知較清楚，對於DBA的設立緣由亦能明確說明；(3)政府推動課程分流及產學合作政策，為影響國內專業博士班設立的因素之一。(三)價值與效益：(1)符合國際高教發展趨勢，強化產學合作連結；(2)配合社會需求，推動博士人才培育的分流分軌，為國家社會培養不同的人才，提供在職人士進修機會；(3)有助大學經營，建立業界校友的網絡，引進資源協助學校，另可培養大學的實務教學師資，提升學生就業力；(4)嘉惠學生，理論與實務可整合運用，也有助創新轉型。(四)問題與挑戰：(1)社會對於專業博士學位的觀念和認知尚待釐清；(2)我國尚未建立專業博士學位的基本規範及品質管控機制；(3)我國博士教育市場仍以國內為主，難以分軌培育，另哲學博士學位也在轉型，不一定有需求；(4)實際執行時，具實務經驗的師資不足，課程、教學和研究訓練待調整。最後，依據研究發現及結論提出具體建議，分別提供教育主管機關、大學校院及後續研究之參考，對於我國未來專業博士教育之發展諒有貢獻。

In response to the era of mass higher education and the global competition of the knowledge economy, many countries had strengthened the connection between higher education and industry, and the mode of knowledge production was also changed. The traditional PhD training model has been challenged. Since the late 1980s, there has been a trend for professional doctoral degrees to increase significantly in US, UK, and Australia. In recent years, our doctoral education has faced trilateral difficulties such as enrollment difficulties, education and employment mismatch, and talent gaps. The government has also promoted curriculum and degree tracking policies. It is necessary to understand the current status of professional doctorates in Taiwan’s universities. The purpose of this study is to explore the current status of professional doctorates in Taiwan’s universities, focusing on the Doctor of Education ( EdD) and the Doctor of Business Administration (DBA). It is based on a review of the literature about the professional doctorates of USA, UK, and Australia, document analysis of the professional doctorate programs, and interviews with 28 professors and students. Based on the research purpose and findings, the conclusions of the study are as follows:
1.The educational model of the Professional doctorates: (1) Taiwan’s universities pay insufficient attention to the titles of the degree. The Chinese titles of the professional doctoral degrees are not differentiated from the academic PhD, and the information on the Chinese and English titles of the degrees are not clearly disclosed. (2) It’s hard to find significant differences between EdD and PhD programs. They are different from the EdD programs of the well-known foreign universities. Therefore, there is no genuine EdD program in Taiwan. (3) The DBA programs in Taiwan’s universities are similar to the DBA programs of the universities listed in the literature review. However, publishing of academic papers on SSCI journals is required for graduation of the domestic DBA programs.
2. The reason for establishment of professional doctorates: (1) The conception of EdD degree is not clearly known in the field of Education. The title of the degree is not well planned and linked with the educational goals and the curriculum of the doctoral program. (2) The professional degree DBA gains a good understanding in the field of management. The reasons for the establishment of the DBA programs can also be clearly stated. (3) The government's policy to promote the curriculum tracking and industry-university cooperation is one of the factors affecting the establishment of domestic professional doctoral programs.
3.The value and benefits of professional doctorates: (1) It helps to connect to the international trend of higher education and strengthen the industry-university cooperation. (2) It contributes the diversification of doctoral education and cultivating different talents for the society; and it can also meet the current situation of domestic doctoral programs enrollment, providing opportunities for in-service professionals to pursue further education. (3) It meets the need of the target students, helps the doctoral program enrollment, and establishes a network and exchange platform of alumni from industries, introducing resources to support universities. Moreover, it can also cultivate professors of practice to enhance students’ employability. (4) The PD program combines both theories and practices, to meet the learning needs of the in-service students, and through the integration of practices and theories, it also helps students to innovate and transform in their professional life.
4. The problems and challenges for developing professional doctorates in Taiwan: (1) The academic supremacy in the universities and the social values and perceptions of diplomas would be a big challenge. (2) Ministry of Education has not established a basic regulation and quality assurance mechanism for professional doctorates in Taiwan. (3) The market of doctoral education is still limited in the domestic area, therefore, it’s difficult to develop the professional doctorates. (4) Professors with practical experiences are insufficient, and the curriculum, teaching and research training are to be adjusted.
Based on the research findings and conclusions, some specific suggestions for the development of professional doctoral education in Taiwan are provided for the education authority, universities and future studies. These could contribute to the future development of professional doctoral education in Taiwan.

一、中文部分
王麗雲（2000）。研究所教育的回顧與前瞻。載於中正大學教育學院（主編），新世紀教育的理論與實踐（頁601-627）。高雄市：麗文。
王秀槐（2012）。學術導向與專業導向學位之分化：世界五國主要大學學位授予研究。教育政策論壇，15（2），93-127。
行政院通過學位授予法修正案 學位授予及學制更彈性多元 （2018，4月26日）。行政院新聞與公告。取自https://www.ey.gov.tw/Page/9277F759E41
CCD91/6b325686-cb36-430c-bad7-b8e1b013b73a
朱俊彰（2013）。政策論述¬¬-課程學位分流。高教技職簡訊，81，8-11。
李云鵬（2014）。美國專業博士學位的幾個關鍵問題論析。學位與研究生教育，2014（1），65-69。
李信興（2010）。暴雨來襲，小心高教土石流－我國高等教育擴張政策之評析與省思。學校行政，70，190-206。
李政翰（2014，9月）。教育部推動產學合作培育研發菁英計畫提升博士就業競爭力。教育部新聞稿。取自https://depart.moe.edu.tw/ED2200/News_Content.aspx?
n=90774906111B0527&sms=F0EAFEB716DE7FFA&s=1F6A0BC4CFFFF5FE
李家同（2017，7月）。博士生減少 嚴重危機。中國時報。取自http://www.chinatimes.
com/newspapers/20170728001476-260109
吳芝儀、李奉儒 （譯）（2008）。M. Q. Patton著。質的評鑑與研究 （Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods）。臺北市：濤石。
林玉体（2002）。哈佛大學史。臺北市：高等教育。
林天祐（2003）。認識研究倫理。載於台北市立師範學院學生輔導中心（主編），研究論文與報告撰寫手冊，頁77-84。臺北市：編者。
林志成（2017，11月）。矯枉過正 教部「砍到無法呼吸」！最多招1人 107博士班恐裁撤。中時電子報。取自http://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/2017
1113000292-260114
林良齊（2018，4月）。學位授予法今過院會 增加學位授予彈性。聯合新聞網。取自https://udn.com/news/story/7266/3109083
范正祥（2018，11月）。傑出成就可取代論文 學位授予法修正三讀。中央社。取自https://www.cna.com.tw/news/ahel/201811090182.aspx
胡幼慧（2008）。質性研究—理論、方法及本土女性研究實例。臺北市：巨流。
徐超聖（1991）。我國高等教育學位制度研究。載於劉興漢（主編），高等教育專題研究，頁501-523。臺北市：臺灣書店。
高琇芬（2006，3月）。7商管專業學院招210人。蘋果日報。取自https://tw.appledaily.com/forum/daily/20060328/22498215
許士軍（2005，11月）。欣聞教育部推動「專業學院制度」。遠見雜誌。取自https://www.gvm.com.tw/article.html?id=10560
教育部（2005）。大學各系所(組)授予學位中、英文名稱參考手冊。取自http://210.70.94.83/upload/76/document/b3zz4076_20090408160035.pdf
教育部（2013）。教育部人才培育白皮書。取自https://www.naer.edu.tw/ezfiles/0/1000/attach/5/pta_2189_2524507_39227.pdf
教育部（2017）。台灣管理教育白皮書。臺北市：社團法人管理科學學會。
教育部（2018）。106學年度各級學校概況。臺北市：教育部統計處。
教育部（2019）。大學各系、所、學位學程及專班授予學位中文、英文名稱參考手冊。取自 https://ws.moe.edu.tw/001/Upload/4/relfile/7830/68773/c27acc8e-4e6d-4a88-9418-176226b6efb8.pdf
教育部高等教育司（2013，10月）。教育部補助大學校院推動課程分流，提升學生跨領域及專業實務能力。教育部高等教育司即時新聞。取自https://depart.
moe.edu.tw/ed2200/News_Content.aspx?n=90774906111B0527&sms=F0EAFEB716DE7FFA&s=0F81EC2368198651
陳德華（2007）。臺灣高等教育過去20年數量的擴充與結構的轉變。高等教育，2(2)，67-96。
陳洪捷、沈文欽等（譯）（2011）。M. Gibbons, C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, M. Trow 著。知識生產的新模式：當代社會科學與研究的動力學（The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies）。北京市：北京大學出版社。
張民杰（2002）。美國教育學門哲學與教育博士學位授予的啟示。教育研究資訊，10（2），199-216。
張秀峰、高益民（2014）。美國教育博士培養”學術化”問題的改革和探索—以范德堡大學教育學院為例。比較教育研究，2014 （3），18-24。
張朝欽（2004）。評介Michael Gibbons 等人的科學與技術研究著作《新的知識生產方式》。東吳社會學報，17，155-178。
曾盈瑜（2018，11月）。立院三讀　放寬學位授予條件打破系所藩籬。中央社。取自https://tw.news.appledaily.com/politics/realtime/20181109/1463317/
趙炬明（2002）。學科、課程、學位：美國關於高等教育專業研究生培養的爭論及其啟示。高等教育研究，23（4），13-22。
劉蔚之（2016，11月）。社會效率與民主理想的拉扯與平衡?—20世紀早期美國社會效率派的教育主張與實踐。論文發表於國立台灣師範大學教育學系主辦之「民主與教育」學術研討會，臺北市。
潘淑滿（2013）。質性研究：理論與應用。臺北市：心理。
鄭光平（2004）。國外專業博士學位的歷史發展及啟示。比較教育研究，173，27-31。
鄧濤、孔凡琴 （2009）。美國教育博士(Ed.D.)專業學位教育的問題與改革論爭。比較教育研究，2009 （4），28-32。
蕭夙眉、朱俊彥、鄭敏玲（2013，3月）。棄教授夢 博士改賣雞排。蘋果日報。取自https://tw.appledaily.com/headline/daily/20130310/34878500/
顧荃（2018，4月）。行政院擬放寬學位授予 奧運奪牌可獲博士。中央社。取自http://www.cna.com.tw/news/firstnews/201804260173-1.aspx
駐澳大利亞代表處教育組 （2015，3月）。澳洲推動工作結合學習策略 以提升大學生就業前景。教育部電子報，657。取自https://epaper.edu.tw/windows.aspx?windows_sn=13847
二、英文部分
AACSB. (2003). Sustaining scholarship in business schools: Report of the faculty commission to AACSB International’s board of directors. St Louis, MO: AACSB International.
Archbald, D. (2011). The Emergence of the Nontraditional Doctorate: A Historical Overview. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 129, 7-19. DOI: 10.1002/ace.396.
Association of Commonwealth Universities. (1988). What can we do for our countries? The contribution of universities to national development. Report of proceedings for the fourteenth congress of the universities of the Commonwealth. London, UK: Association of Commonwealth Universities.
Banerjee, S., & Morley, C. (2013). Professional Doctorates in Management: Toward a Practice-Based Approach to Doctoral Education. Academy of Management & Education, 12 (2), 173-193.
Becher, T., Henkel, M., & Kogan, M. (1994). Graduate education in Britain. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley.
Berg, B. L. & Lune, H. (2012). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Bollag, B. (2007). Credential Creep. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(42), A10-12.
National Board of Employment, Education and Training. (1989). Higher education courses and graduate studies report. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Printing Service.
Bourner, T., Bowden, R., & Laing, S. (2001) Professional Doctorates in England. Studies in Higher Education, 26 (1), 65-83.
Buchanan, A., & Hérubel J. (1995). The doctor of philosophy degree: A selective, annotated bibliography. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Burgess, T. F. (2007). The Changing Landscape of UK Doctoral Education. In P. B. Richards (Ed.), Global Issues in Higher Education (pp.127-147). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (2009). Retrieved from http://cped.inti-ative.org
Gavin, C. (2009). Building, Sustaining, and Expanding the Education Doctorate at Peabody College: An Administrative View. Journal of Education, 2009(84),44-47.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Council of Australian Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies. (1999). Guidelines on professional doctorates. Australia:The University of New South Wales. Retrieved from http://www.secretariat.unsw.edu.au/acboard/approved_policy/professional_doctorates_guidelines_1999.pdf.
Cowen, R. (1997). Comparative Perspectives on the British PhD. In N. Graves, & V. Varmav (Ed.), Working for a Doctorate: A Guide for the Humanities and Social Sciences, 184–99. London, UK: Routledge.
Dawkins, J.S. (1988). Higher education: A policy statement. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Printing Service.
European University Association. (2005). Doctoral Programmes in Europe’s Universities: Achievements and Challenges.Report Prepared for European Universities and Ministers of Higher Education, Brussels, Belgium. Retrieved from https://www.dcu.ie/sites/default/files/graduate_research/pdfs/doctoral_programmes_in_europe_s_universities.pdf
Gallagher, M. (2000). The emergence of the entrepreneurial public universities in Australia. Paper presented at the IMHE General Conference of OECD Paris, France.
Gibbons, M., Limoges C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamic of science and research in contemporary societies. London, UK: Sage.
Ginder, S.A., Kelly-Reid, J.E., & Mann, F.B. (2018). Postsecondary Institutions and Cost of Attendance in 2017– 18; Degrees and Other Awards Conferred, 2016–17; and 12-Month Enrollment, 2016–17: First Look (Provisional Data) (NCES 2018-060rev). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.
Golde, C.M., & Dore, T.M. (2001). At cross purposes: What the experiences of doctoral students reveal about doctoral education. A report prepared for The Pew Charitable Trusts, Philadelphia, PA. Retrieved from : www.phd-survey.org.
Green, B., Maxwell, T. W., & Shanahan, P. (2001). Doctoral education and professional practice: The next generation? Armidale, Australia: Kardoorair Press.
Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. (2006). Report of the Task Force on the Professional Doctorate. Chicago, IL: North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. http://www.ncacihe.org/download/
Irwin, A. (1996). Doctoring the degree. Times Higher Education Supplement. Times Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/
doctoring-the-degree/93762.article?storyCode=93762§ioncode=26
Jones, M. (2018). Contemporary trends in professional doctorates. Studies in Higher Education, 43(5), 814-825, DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2018.1438095
Kehm, B.M. (2004) Developing doctoral degrees in Europe: good practice and issues of concern – a comparative analysis.In J. Sadlak (ed.), Doctoral Studies and Qualifi-cations in Europe and the United States: Status and Prospects (pp. 279-298). Bucharest, Romania: CEPES-UNESCO: ISBN 9789290691792
Kot F. C., & Dendel D. D.(2012). Emergence and growth of professional doctorates in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia: a comparative analysis. Studies in Higher Education,37(3), 354-364. DOI:10.1080/03075079.2010.516356
La Belle, T. J. (2004). Credential inflation and the professional doctorate in California higher education. Berkely, CA: Center for Studies in Higher Education, Research & Occasional Paper Series (CSHE.1.04).
Lee, A., Green, B., & Brennan, M. (2000) Organisational knowledge, professional practice and the professional doctorate at work. In I. Garrick & C. Rhodes (Eds) Research and Knowledge at Work: perspectives, case studies and innovative strategies (pp.117-136). London, UK: Routledge.
Maxwell, T., & Shanahan, P. (1997). Toward a reconceptualisation of the doctorate: Issues arising from a comparative data relating to the EdD degree in Australia. Studies in Higher Education,22(2), 133–52.
Maxwell, T., & Shanahan, P. (2001). Professional doctoral education in Australia and New Zealand: Reviewing the scene. In B. Green, T.W. Maxwell, and P. Shanahan (Eds.), Doctoral education and professional practice: The next generation (pp. 17–30). Armidale, Australia: Kardoorair Press.
Maxwell, T. (2003). From First to Second Generation Professional Doctorate. Studies in Higher Education, 28(3), 279-291, DOI: 10.1080/03075070309292
Maxwell, T. (2011). Australian Professional Doctorates: Mapping, distinctiveness, stress and prospects. Workbased learning e-Journal, 2, 24-43.
McCarty, L. P., & Ortloff, D. H. (2004). Reforming the Doctorate in Education: Three Conceptions. Educational Perspectives, 37(2), 10-19.
McLaughlin, J.M., & Moor, C.E. (1991, March). Catch the “D” train. Paper presented at annual meeting of American Association of School Administrators, New Orleans, LA.
McWilliam, E., Taylor, P.G., Thomson, P., Green B., Maxwell, T., Windy, H., & Simons, D. (2002). Research training in doctoral programs: What can be learned from professional doctorates? Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training.
Mellors-Bourne, R., Robinson, C., & Metcalfe, J. (2016). Provision of Professional Doctorates in English HE Institutions. Higher Education Funding Council for England. Cambridge, UK: Careers Research and Advisory Centre.
Miller, P. (2012). Introduction. In P. Miller, A. Selvanathan, & G. Meredith (Eds.), Transnational Doctoral Education: An Asian Focus, (pp.1–8). Lismore, Australia: Southern Cross University Press.
National Association of Graduate and Professional Students (NAGPS). (2001) The 2000 National Doctoral Program Survey. Retrieved from http://survey.nagps.org.
Nerad, M., & Cerny, J. (2002). Postdoctoral appointments and employment patterns of science and engineering doctoral recipients ten-plus years after PhD. completion. Communicator VXXXV (7), 1–6.
Nerad, M. (2004). The PhD in the US: Criticisms, Facts, and Remedies. Higher Education Policy,17(2), 183–99.
Neumann, R. (2005). Doctoral differences: Professional doctorates and PhDs compared. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27(2),173–88.
Noble, K. A. (1994). Changing doctoral degrees: an international perspective. Buckingham, UK; Bristol, PA: Society for Research into Higher Education: Open University Press, 1994.
Park, C. (2007). Redefining the Doctorate:Discussion Paper. New York, NY: The Higher Education Academy.
Perry, J.A.(Ed.)(2014).Special Issue: Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate The Education Doctorate -- A Degree for Our Times. Planning and Changing: An Educational Leadership and Policy Journal, 44 (3/4), 113-126.
Peseta, T. (2012). Professional doctorate research in Australia: commentary and case studies from business, education and Indigenous studies. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 44(2), 174-176, DOI: 10.1080/00220620.2012.659948
Powell, S., & E. Long (2005). Professional doctorate awards in the UK. Lichfield, UK: UK Council for Graduate Education.
Robinson, C. (2018). The landscape of professional doctorate provision in English higher education institutions: Inconsistencies, tensions and Unsustainability, London Review, 16(1), 91-103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18546/LRE.16.1.09
Sarros, J.C., Willis, R.J., & Hardie, T.T. (2004). The DBA in Australia and the Asia Pacific. Opportunities and challenges. International Journal of Organizational Behavior, 7, 440–455.
Seddon, T. (1999). Research, recommendations and realpolitik: consolidating the EdD, Australian University Researcher, 26, 1–14.
Seddon, T. (2000, September). What is doctoral in doctoral education? Paper presented at the 3rd International Professional Doctorates Conference, ‘Doctoral Education and Professional Practice: the next generation?’, Armidale, Australia.
Scott, D., Brown, A., & Lunt, I. & Thorne, L. (2004). Professional doctorates: Integrating academic and professional knowledge. Berkshire, UK: McGraw-Hill Education.
Servage, L. (2009). Alternative and professional doctoral programs: what is driving the demand? Studies in Higher Education, 34(7), 765-779, DOI:10.1080/0307507090
2818761
Shulman, L., Golde, C., Bueschel, A. & Garabedian, K. (2006). Reclaiming education’s doctorates: A critique and a proposal. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 25-32. 10.3102/0013189X035003025.
Stewart, R. & Chen, L. (2009). Developing a Framework for Work Integrated Research Higher Degree Studies in an Australian Engineering Context. European Journal of Engineering Education , 34(2), 155-169.
Taylor, N., & Maxwell, T. (2004). Enhancing the Relevance of a Professional Doctorate: The Case of the Doctor of Education Degree at the University of New England. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 2004, 5(1), 60-69.
Taylor, S. (2018). The UCL EdD: An apprenticeship for the future educational professional? London Review of Education, 16(1), 104-120. DOI:https://doi.org/10.
18546/LRE.16.1.10
Graf, T. (2014). DBA Survey 2014 Report. Retrieved from https://www.dbacompass.
com/site/assets/files/10126/global_dba_survey_2014_report.pdf
Graf, T. (2017). DBA Summary Report Oct 2017. Retrieved from https://www.dba-compass.com/news/dba-summary-report-2017/
Trow, M. (1973). Problems in the transition from elite to mass higher education. Berkeley, CA: Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.
UK Council for Graduate Education. (2002). Professional doctorates. Dudley, UK: UKCGE.
Usher, R. (2002). A diversity of doctorates: Fitness for the knowledge economy? Higher Education Research and Development, 21(2),143–53.
Zusman, A. (2013). Degrees of Change: How New Kinds of Professional Doctorates Are Changing Higher Education Institutions. Berkeley, CA: Center for Studies in Higher Education, Research & Occasional Paper Series (CSHE.8.13).