隨著資訊過於快速的傳遞，這樣的分工制度已無法滿足業界或社會的需求，「跨領域」合作的概念漸漸興起。然而，當來自不同領域的人進行合作時，容易因差異而產生阻礙，因此如何進行有效的溝通成為重要課題。本研究以國立成功大學之跨領域設計思考工作坊為觀察場域，期望了解跨領域溝通之障礙、其造成之因素及障礙與受測者身分之關係。
本研究研究方法與步驟如下：(1)捕捉跨領域溝通障礙與因素：透過半結構式訪談得到初步的成果，再經KJ法收斂後得到25個溝通障礙及24個造成因素，以得到的障礙及因素做基底製成問卷，並以質性分析障礙與學生身分別之關係。(2)跨領域溝通障礙與因素之對應分析：除了質性分析結果外，另以量化分析中的對應分析做輔助，了解到在設計思考工作坊中，各類之跨領域障礙是由哪些因素所造成的。
以Eisenberg(2010)提出之分類分析設計思考工作坊中的跨領域溝通障礙，得到四個結果，如下：(1)過程障礙：性別變因中，男性較勇於表達，但組織能力較弱；女性則較易受個人背景及價值觀影響，統整能力較弱；年級變因與學生身分有關，低年級較易遭遇此障礙。造成因素方面，參與者缺乏群體討論經驗或工作坊規劃過於緊湊，主題太過艱澀皆會引起。(2)物理障礙：本研究中所觀察之設計思考工作坊皆為面對面之執行方式，因此未有此障礙的發生。(3)語義障礙：此類障礙之發生與專業領域有關，受學生之年級影響較顯著。與其他類別之障礙不同，語義障礙僅受個人因素影響。(4)社會心理障礙：此障礙與參與者本身較相關，個人背景認知上的落差，態度不佳皆會引起此障礙發生。社會心理障礙之造成因素涵蓋較廣，過於堅持自己的專業思維或是工作坊規劃不佳皆可能引起。
最後也針對較可控制的「外部因素」提出建議，期望為未來相關跨領域工作坊之教師及助教在執行工作坊與處理學生們遇到跨領域溝通障礙情況之時帶來幫助。

With the rapid transmission of information, the concept of "interdisciplinary" cooperation has gradually emerged. However, when people from different fields cooperate, it is easy to cause difficulties. This research takes the National Cheng Kung University’s interdisciplinary design thinking workshop as the observation field, hoping to understand the barriers in interdisciplinary communication.
The research method steps of this study are as follows: (1) Select interviewees (2) Capture interdisciplinary communication barriers and factors (3) Make two questionnaires with communication barriers and factors (4) Analysis and discussion.
Based on the classification communication barriers Eisenberg (2010), four results were obtained, as follows: (1) Process barriers: Among gender variables, men have weaker organizational skills; women have weaker integration capabilities. Grade variables are related to student status, and lower grades are more likely to encounter this barrier. In terms of contributing factors, participants' lack of experience in group discussions, or too tight workshop planning and difficult topics can cause. (2) Physical barriers: The design thinking workshops observed in this research are all face-to-face, so this barrier does not occur. (3) Semantic barriers: The occurrence of such barriers is related to the professional field and is significantly affected by the grade of the student. Unlike other types of barriers, semantic barriers are only affected by personal factors. (4) Psychological barriers: This barrier is more related to the participants. The gap in personal background and poor attitudes can cause this barrier to occur. The causes of Psychological barriers cover a wide range of factors, which may be caused by one's professional thinking or poor workshop planning. Finally, this research also puts forward suggestions on "external factors", hoping to help teachers and teaching assistants in design thinking workshops and dealing with students encountering interdisciplinary communication barriers.

Antos, G. (2011). Handbook of interpersonal communication. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton De Gruyter.
Arnold, J. E. (1959). Creative Engineering Seminar, 1959.
Bechky, B. A. 2006. Talking about machines, thick description, and knowledge work. Organ. Stud. 27(12) 1757-17
Berg-Weger, M., & Schneider, F. D. (1998). Interdisciplinary collaboration in social work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 34, 97–107.
Bernard, H. R. (2000). Social Research Methods-Qualitativeand Quantitative Approaches. London, England: SAGE Publications.
Bradshaw D. Higher Education, personal qualities and employment: teamwork. Oxford Review of Education. Vol 15 No 1 1989, pp 55 - 71.
Bruner, C. (1991). Ten questions and answers to help policy makers improve children’s services. Washington, DC: Education and Human Services Consortium.
Button, K., & Rossera, F. (1990). Barriers to communication. The annals of regional science, 24(4), 337-357.
Clegg, C. W., T. D. Wall, K. Pepper, C. Stride, D. Woods, D. Morrison, J. Cordery et al. 2002. An international survey of the use and effectiveness of modern manufacturing practices. Human Factors Ergonomics Manufacturing 12(2) 171-191
Denton, H. G. (1990). The role of group work in the delivery of Design Technology in the National Curriculum. Design & Technology Teaching, 22(2).
Dikmans, C. (2011). Die Bedeutung vin erfahrungsbasiertem Lernen für den Erwerb von Schlüsselkompetenzen. Masterarbeit an der HUMBOLDTVIADRINA School of Governance.
Eisenberg, E.M. (2010). Organizational communication: Balancing creativity and constraint. New York, NY: Saint Martin’s.
Gerbner, G. (1967). Mass media and human communication theory. Human communication theory, 40-57.
Tett, G. (2015). The silo effect: The peril of expertise and the promise of breaking down barriers. Simon and Schuster.
Given, Lisa M. (2008). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications. ISBN 978-1-4129-4163-1.
Hardon A., Hodgkin C. & Fresle D. (2004) How to Investigate the
Use of Medicines by Consumers. World Health Organization
and University of Amsterdam. Retrieved from http://
apps.who.int/medicinedocs/en/d/Js6169e/on 30 September 2015
Hardon A., Hodgkin C. & Fresle D. (2004) How to Investigate theUse of Medicines by Consumers. World Health Organizationand University of Amsterdam. Retrieved from http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/en/d/Js6169e/on 30 September 2015.
Jeffrey, P. (2003). Smoothing the waters: Observations on the process of cross-disciplinary research collaboration. Social studies of science, 33(4), 539-562.
J. Kawakita, The KJ Method: Let Chaos Tell (in Japanese), Chuo- koron-sha, 1986, 581 pp.; The Original KJ Method (in English), Kawakita Research Institute, Tokyo, 1982, 44 pp.
Klein, J. T. (1990). Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, and practice. Wayne state university press.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lande (2010). Micah: Underpinnings for Learning Design Thinking: Mindsets and Processes for Becoming an Adaptive Design Thinker (forthcoming publication)
Lawler, E. E., S. Mohrman, G. Ledford. 1992. Employee Involvement and Total Quality Management: Practices and Results in For tune 1000 Companies. Jossey-Bass, San Franci
Lebart, L. (1994). Complementary use of correspondence analysis and cluster analysis. Correspondence analysis in the social sciences, 162-178.
Lunenburg, F. C. (2010). Communication: The process, barriers, and improving effectiveness. Schooling, 1(1), 1-10.
Mansilla, V. B., Feller, I., & Gardner, H. (2006). Quality assessment in interdisciplinary research and education. Research Evaluation, 15(1), 69-74.
McCloskey, G. (1967). EDUCATION AND PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING. EXPLORATION SERIES IN EDUCATION.
McQuail, D., & Windahl, S. (2015). Communication models for the study of mass communications. Routledge.
Nancarrow, S. A., Booth, A., Ariss, S., Smith, T., Enderby, P., & Roots, A. (2013). Ten principles of good interdisciplinary team work. Human resources for Health, 11(1), 19.
Rauth, I., Köppen, E., Jobst, B., & Meinel, C. (2010). Design thinking: an educational model towards creative confidence. In DS 66-2: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on design creativity (ICDC 2010).
Rittel, H.W. J.: On the Planning Crisis - Systems Analysis of the First and Second Generation, in: Bedriftsokonomen, 1972, Nr. 8, p. 390-396.
Scheer, A., Noweski, C., & Meinel, C. (2012). Transforming constructivist learning into action: Design thinking in education. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 17(3).
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. (Reprinted in 1995).
Spiro, R. J., Vispoel, W. L., Schmitz, J., Samarapungavan, A., & Boerger, A. (1987). Knowledge acquisition for application: Cognitive flexibility and transfer in complex content domains. In B. C. Britton & S. Glynn (Eds.), Executive control processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Taylor M.C. (2005) Interviewing. In Qualitative Research inHealth Care (Holloway I., ed.), McGraw-Hill Education,Maidenhead, England, pp. 39–55.
Theodorson, G. A., & Theodorson, A. G. (1969). A modern dictionary of sociology.
Wengraf T. (2001) Qualitative Research Interviewing: Biographic
Narrative and Semi-structured Methods. SAGE, London.
Wengraf T. (2001) Qualitative Research Interviewing: BiographicNarrative and Semi-structured Methods. SAGE, London.
Whittemore, R., Chase, S. K., & Mandle, C. L. (2001). Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative health research, 11(4), 522-537.
行政院經濟建設委員會(2005).重點人才整體培育與運用規畫報告
李亭儀、施欣妤、黃稚晏、黃菁媺 (2012) 史丹佛改造人生的創意課
吳芝儀, & 廖梅花. (2001). 質性研究入門: 紮根理論研究方法. 臺北: 濤石文化.
林佳玟(2010)。產品設計公司與委託客戶間溝通問題之探討
周毅剛, & 袁粵. (2006). 工作坊—實現公眾參與規劃設計的一種有效易行模式. 新建築, 6, 55-59.
教育部(2007).教育部補助大學校院辦理跨域學位學程及學分學程要點
黃昆輝, & 張德銳(2000) 組織效能. 載於教育大辭書 (十), 523-527.
黃政傑. (1996). 質化研究的原理與方法. 質的教育研究: 方法與實例, 1-48.
張楚鶯（2010）。基於工作坊的商務英語翻譯教學模式的應用與探析。湖北函授大學學報，23（3），113-114。
郭朝暉. (2015). 工作坊教學: 溯源, 特征分析應用. 教育導刊: 上半月, (5), 82-84.
楊淑蘭 (Ed.). (2015). 溝通與溝通障礙: 理論與實務. 心理.
萬淑娟. (2002). 幼兒園園長運用溝通媒介之個案研究. 未出版之碩士論文, 國立新竹師範學院, 新竹.
劉禹, & 王來福. (2009). 基於工作坊的高等教育實踐教學體系的研究. 東北財經大學學報, (1), 93-96.
謝文全(1991)。教育行政：理論與實務。台北：文景。