大學社區實踐在臺灣的實作初探：以Wulai地區的相關計畫為例

University-Community Engagement in Taiwan: A Case Study of the University-Community Engagement Projects Implemented on the Wulai Area

我們處於一個強調實踐大學社會責任的時代，這股風潮已沛然成勢，近年來包含主管國家科學研究與高等教育的科技部與教育部在內等政府部門紛紛以大型計畫補助大學教師成立團隊，進入社區或部落與在地組織協作，「產學合作」被認為是大學參與社會實踐與承擔社會責任重要的一環，並具備將傳統產學合作加以社會化的可能性。然而在上述的規範性關懷與期待下，具體實作究竟呈現何種面貌？其「產」與「學」的具體內涵是什麼？產學合作的樣態是什麼？產生什麼樣的社會效應？本文透過檢視在Wulai地區執行的相關計畫，指出當代計畫執行仍以市場化、創造產值的目標為優先、傾向去政治的技術性操作與不具備轉型性議程，既缺乏深入的在地研究亦忽視在地人群的異質性，並在計畫報告書寫上，學術研究團隊與在地社群呈現不對等的權力關係。同時也發現兩個變化中的趨勢：其一，大學試圖以與在地社群協作之名爭取與掌控更多公私部門經費來源，甚至嘗試在地方上扮演資源分配者的角色；其二，著重社群分享與互惠的另類經濟想像與實作空間似乎有所擴張。

Members in academia are now working in an age of university social responsibility. In recent years, both Taiwan's highest administrative institutions of education and scientific research provide luxurious funding to promote university-community engagement projects. Among various goals of these projects, achieving ''industry-academia cooperation/collaboration'' is deemed as an important mission. Moreover, this ''industry-academia cooperation/ collaboration'' is expected to socialize, in a different way, the traditional collaboration between university and industry. Despite this normative notion and expectation, however, the actual practices of university-community engagement projects are rarely examined. Questions such as what are the essentials of ''industry'' and ''academia'' of university-community engagement projects and what are their characteristic features and social impacts on local communities have not been explored. This paper aims to provide an analysis of these questions by dint of the investigation of the university-community engagement projects implemented on the Wulai area. The research findings show that current university-community engagement projects still prioritize the goal of expanding market and increasing output value. These projects tend to operate in a de-politicalized way without transformative agenda. They do not devolve themselves on conducting local research, and ignore the heterogeneity within local communities. Moreover, the written form of the project report displays the uneven power relations between academic research teams and their local partners. Meanwhile, this study also finds two emerging trends concerning current university-community engagement projects. First, universities strive to apply for more public and private funding sources in the name of their collaboration with local communities and are eager to play the role of resource distributor within local communities. Second, it seems that the space for alternative economic imagination and practices emphasizing on sharing and reciprocity have been expanded within current university-community engagement projects.