數位典藏作為文化累積與延續的手段已被廣泛使用。近年來在科技快速發展之下，公眾參與文化活動大幅提升。各國文化保存機構與相關組織也積極建立地方關係，透過科技應用推動公眾參與，強化館藏之餘民眾的近用性與連結性，達成博物館公共史學以及文化平權等目標的實踐。此以「公眾」為主體的當代典藏行動不只落實人民參與文化知識建構的權利，也在過程中為參與者強化與文化間、地方間、人之間的認同與連結。
隨著文化資產數位化的推廣與社群意識抬頭風氣，民間自發型數位典藏計畫開始普及。公眾參與文化知識建構不再侷限於傳統機構式的行動策略，其「由下而上」的典藏策略有效觸發群體關係與認同感的建立外，更拓展集體文化行動的永續可能。而台灣數位典藏已有數十年的發展歷史，典藏處理技術成熟，為本土學術資源整理與文化資產保存貢獻良多。然而台灣數位典藏仍著重學術領域發展，既有的認知門檻導致典藏與大眾間的高度被動的交互模式。此外，公眾參與受限於學習成本、使用者傾向以及典藏設計。經費與人力不足問題更持續影響館方以及地方的典藏執行。
本研究旨在回應當前典藏參與的限制，透過案例分析、專家訪談、地方深度訪談以及焦點團體進行循環式的參與式行動研究，深度剖析台灣數位典藏的公眾參與狀況，以協助地方文史團隊推動社區典藏行動。綜合現階段台灣數位典藏的發展與應用方法分析，研究者與地方團隊「海波浪seabelongings」合作，在測試工作坊中共同探索居民直接投入社區典藏的執行可能，並總結以下四大發展面向：（1）共筆指引（2）動機觸發（3）多元收存（4）社區主體性，以因應典藏在地方脈絡下的實際應用。其中，與民眾生活具關聯性的操作內容與參與度成高度正相關。透過實體活動所觸發的深度交流與互動不只促進參與者之間的連結，更協助建構集體共識，推進持續性的保存動能。針對地方行動者的實際執行，典藏系統對多元敘事的包容與應變能力不只展現數位載體與典藏樣貌的連動關係，也凸顯行動者作為驅動行動的關鍵定位。
在「地方」作為當代典藏流程中的核心知識提供者的情況下，強化社群在流程中的主體性與能動性成為推進台灣典藏發展的重要課題。故本研究透過了解台灣現行典藏計畫的公眾參與策略，針對地方直接操作知識蒐集、紀錄、保存等數位典藏的可能路徑與挑戰，提供一策略性的行動指標，協助拓展當代數位典藏的服務範疇，進一步促進台灣公眾的文化保存意識與地方文化永續經營之行動。

Digital archives are widely acknowledged as a tool for cultural preservation and accumulation. Public engagement in cultural activities has substantially increased over the years due to the rapid advancement of technology. Memory institutes and organizations internationally continued to enhance accessibility, responsiveness, and inclusiveness between archival materials and their communities, reaching the goals of public history and cultural equity. The concept of public participation in contemporary archival initiatives not only ensures knowledge co-production but also strengthens participants’ connection with the culture, the place and the community.
With the rise of social movements nowadays, public-initiated projects have become more prevalent than ever. Knowledge production is now beyond institutes and the academic sector. The use of bottom-up archival approaches contributes to cultural identity construction and social cohesion. Furthermore, opens up new possibilities for cultural sustainable development. Although Taiwan has made progress in developing digital archiving and mature data archiving technologies, this progress has been mainly limited to the academic field. Participant engagement remains predominantly passive in the current archival production process. Beyond the identified knowledge gap between the terminology and public understanding, key constraints regarding existing learning thresholds, user tendency, and archive design have hindered the development. Resource limitation also continues to challenge both institutional and local initiators throughout archival implementation.
In response to the identified issues, this research aims to establish a strategic foundation for facilitating and sustaining local participation in cultural preservation via archival practices. Drawing on actionable insights from participatory action research methodology, key development aspects were identified to support strategy implementation in the local context, including instructional design and clarity, participant motivation, preservation flexibility and responsiveness, and archival engagement and autonomy. Collaborative iteration through transparent discussion and conversation stands essential for sustaining participation. Emphasis on project responsiveness and inclusiveness also suggests tool affordance as a critical factor in actual implementation, while highlighting close participant-initiator partnerships development in fulfilling local expectations and needs.
Given the pivotal role local communities and initiators play in current archival production workflow, exploring the potential for their direct engagement shows fundamental in supporting sustainable archival development in the larger context. By outlining strategic action guidelines for local engagement in collecting, recording, and preserving cultural heritage, this research seeks to further Taiwan's public participation in local cultural development.

文化部（2020）. 詮釋資料描述欄位撰寫原則與工作方法說明手冊 V2.0. 取自https://wwwstorage.taitung.gov.tw/Download.ashx?u=LzAwMS9VcGxvYWQvT2xkRmlsZS9VcGxvYWQvUmVsRmlsZS85NDgvMjIyNjAxL2ZlZDZhY2VmLWNjZTQtNDdiNS1hNzRjLTA1M2FhZTIyNWRmYy5wZGY%3D&n=5ZyL5a625paH5YyW6KiY5oa25bqrLTEt6Kmu6YeL6LOH5paZKG1ldGFkYXRhKeaPj%2Bi%2FsOashOS9jeaSsOWvq%2BWOn%2BWJh%2BiIh%2BW3peS9nOaWueazleiqquaYjuaJi%2BWGii5wZGY%3D
文化部（2020）. 國家文化記憶庫. 取自 https://memory.culture.tw/
文化部（n.d.）. 國家文化記憶庫 網站簡介. 取自 https://memory.culture.tw/Home/About
中央研究院（2008）. 數位典藏國家型科技計畫─計畫網站. 取自 https://www.ndap.org.tw/index.html
王柏偉、蔡淳任（2022）. 臺灣數位與科技藝術相關政策梳理－從「科技藝術」到「文化科技」. 表演藝術年鑑，308-324。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=P20110711002-202209-202210210006-202210210006-308-324
地方DNA資料庫 開放文件 – HackMD （2025）. HackMD. 取自https://hackmd.io/@hXKLaORSQGe1TC4XyC7zbQ/Bk3P43vA1l
行政院（2020）. 國家文化記憶庫計畫執行情形. 取自https://www.ey.gov.tw/Page/448DE008087A1971/b30de55d-4560-4096-b5fc-05553979a5af
行政院（2021）. 國家文化記憶庫. 取自https://www.ey.gov.tw/Page/5B2FC62D288F4DB7/512eba6b-633d-4f18-b891-f9b9598e5df7
行政院（2021）. 國家文化記憶庫—全民的文化銀行. 取自https://www.ey.gov.tw/Page/5A8A0CB5B41DA11E/122e0cad-b31b-40c0-ab4e-155d4f117968
李錦旭、李馨慈、郭東雄、張月環、余昭玟、林秀蓉…潘怡靜（2018）. 屏東學概論: 無論歸人、過客, 地方是每個人的起點和歸宿……. 台北市：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
施登騰（2021）. 從缺陷到對話到創作－論博物館科技的「共享權威」與「數位策展」實踐. 清華藝術學報，(3)，129-154。https://doi.org/10.6922/THJAR.202112_(3).0007
袁子賢（2021）. 在地知識的轉譯與運用. 取自https://community.culture.taichung.gov.tw/df_ufiles/a/%E5%9C%A8%E5%9C%B0%E7%9F%A5%E8%AD%98%E7%9A%84%E8%BD%89%E8%AD%AF%E8%88%87%E6%87%89%E7%94%A8(%E5%8F%B0%E4%B8%AD%E7%A4%BE%E9%80%A0110417)-%E5%B7%B2%E5%A3%93%E7%B8%AE(1).pdf
陳安（2025）. 在流動記憶中，再現龜山島故事： 海波浪 seabelongings的文化實踐之路. 取自 https://museums.moc.gov.tw/InternationalNew/Detail/a797111f-e307-4b35-ac02-8d2a1f5a9f5f
國立臺灣歷史博物館（2022）. 時空旅行社|國家文化記憶庫2.0線上策展平臺. 取自 https://curation.culture.tw/
國立臺灣歷史博物館（n.d.）. 國立臺灣歷史博物館典藏網 捐贈流程. 取自https://collections.nmth.gov.tw/Article.aspx?a=204
國立臺灣歷史博物館（n.d.）. 國立臺灣歷史博物館典藏網 典藏概況. 取自https://collections.nmth.gov.tw/StatisticsData.aspx?a=296
國立臺灣歷史博物館（2022）. 國家文化記憶庫2.0. 取自 https://tcmb.culture.tw/zh-tw
國家文化記憶庫專輔中心（n.d.）. 國家文化記憶庫專輔中心雲端共學平台 - 詮釋資料 FAQ. 取自 https://hackmd.io/@MCBank/SJB2xt764
國家發展委員會（2017）. 前瞻基礎建設－數位建設：國家文化記憶庫及數位加值應用計畫. 取自https://ws.ndc.gov.tw/Download.ashx?u=LzAwMS9hZG1pbmlzdHJhdG9yLzEwL3JlbGZpbGUvMC8xMjU0OS81YzM2MDIzZS1iZDZkLTRmODMtODIwYi0zYWVlNDRkM2ZhOTYucGRm&n=5paH5YyW6YOo44CM5ZyL5a625paH5YyW6KiY5oa25bqr5Y%2BK5pW45L2N5Yqg5YC85oeJ55So6KiI55Wr44CNLnBkZg%3D%3D&icon=..pdf
黃有卿、陳宜伶、曾昶尊（2021）. 尋回故鄉的根-龜山島漁村文化館. 取自https://www.lym.gov.tw/ch/collection/epaper/epaper-detail/2c9c117d-3ac0-11ec-9634-2760f1289ae7/
數位典藏與數位學習國家型科技計畫（n.d.）. 計劃緣起. 取自 https://teldap.tw/Introduction/introduction.html
蔡順慈、林昱伍 （2006）. 數位典藏工作流程與作業規範之探討. 中華傳播學刊，（10），267-306。http://www.tjctaiwan.org/word/421612162013.pdf
謝清俊（2002）. 『數位典藏國家型計畫』簡介. 取自https://www.lac.org.tw/sites/default/files/upload/page/HCC0179.pdf
顧力仁 （2000）. 國家典藏數位化計畫. 中華民國圖書館年鑑，69-72。https://nclfile.ncl.edu.tw/files/201803/356928b5-12d0-4e52-b51c-32af6f65cb68.pdf
About CDA - UNC-Chapel Hill Libraries. (n.d.). UNC-Chapel Hill Libraries. https://library.unc.edu/wilson/shc/community-driven-archives/about/
Amelia, A. (2018). A Death in the Timeline: Memory and Metadata in Social Platforms. Information/Control - Control in the Age of Post-Truth, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.24242/jclis.v2i2.66
Amelia, A., & Flamm, L. (2021). COVID-19 Community Archives and the Platformization of Digital Cultural Memory. Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 2544-2554. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/70926
Ayton, D. (2023). Chapter 15: Participant observation. Qualitative Research – a practical guide for health and social care researchers and practitioners. https://oercollective.caul.edu.au/qualitative-research/chapter/15/
Barraza, D., García, A., & Zipperer, R. (2018). Community archives as community building tools. Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3174430
Becerra-Licha, S. (2017). Participatory and Post-Custodial Archives as Community Practice. Educause Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2017/10/participatory-and-post-custodial-archives-as-community-practice
Caswell, M., Gabiola, J., Zavala, J., Brilmyer, G., & Cifor, M. (2018). Imagining transformative spaces: the personal–political sites of community archives. Archival Science, 18(1), 73–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-018-9286-7
Chen, H. H. (2006). Digital Library Projects in Taiwan. TCDL Bulletin, 3(1). https://bulletin.jcdl.org/Bulletin/v3n1/chen/chen.html
Chevalier, J. M., & Buckles, D. J. (2013). Participatory Action Research: Theory and methods for engaged inquiry. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351033268
Cornish, F., Breton, N., Moreno-Tabarez, U. et al. (2023). Participatory action research. Nat Rev Methods Primers. 3, 34. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-023-00214-1
Crowe, S., Cresswell, K., Robertson, A. et al. (2011). The case study approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 11, 100 https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-100
Duo, P. W., Lee, K. Y., & Din, H. (2022). A Discussion on the Development of Museum Collection Websites that Meet the Needs of Users. Museology Quarterly, 36(1), 89-105. https://doi.org/10.6686/MuseQ.202201_36(1).0005
Döringer, S. (2021). ‘The problem-centred expert interview’. Combining qualitative interviewing approaches for investigating implicit expert knowledge, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 24:3, 265-278, DOI: 10.1080/13645579.2020.1766777
Flinn, A., Stevens, M., & Shepherd, E. (2009). Whose memories, whose archives? Independent community archives, autonomy and the mainstream. Archival Science, 9(1/2), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-009-9105-2
Gilliland, A., & Flinn, A. (2013). Community Archives: what are we really talking about? CIRN Prato Community Informatics Conference 2013. https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/920626/gilliland_flinn_keynote.pdf
Hu, A. (2024). 7. The workshop as a research methodology: Lessons learned from workshops utilized as a participatory research method. In Universitetsforlaget eBooks (pp. 120–133). https://doi.org/10.18261/9788215064697-24-07
Karabinos, M. (2011). Review of Community Archives: The Shaping of Memory. Principles and Practice in Records Management and Archives series, by J. A. Bastian & B. Alexander. Archival Issues, 33(2), 152–154. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23100495
Kolb, B. (2008). In-depth, intercept and expert interviews. In Marketing Research. SAGE Publications Ltd. 141-157. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857028013
Kamberelis, G., & Dimitriadis, G. (2013). Focus Groups: From structured interviews to collective conversations (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203590447
Kitzinger J. (1995). Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 311(7000), 299-302. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299
Li, J., Krishnamurthy, S., Pereira Roders, A., & van Wesemael, P. (2020). State-of-the-practice: Assessing community participation within Chinese Cultural World Heritage properties. Habitat International, 96, 102107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2019.102107
Liao, T., & Chang, M. (2022). Development of Digital Archives in Taiwan: A Case Study of Journal Article Content from 2011 to 2021. Technology Museum Review, 26(4), 198-200. https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=16841220-N202301030008-00009
Liew, C. L., Goulding.A., & Nichol, M. (2022). From Shoeboxes to Shared Spaces: Participatory Cultural Heritage via Digital Platforms. Information, Communication & Society, 25(9), 1293-1310. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1851391
Liamputtong, P. (2011). Focus group methodology: introduction and history. In Focus Group Methodology: Principles and Practice. SAGE Publications Ltd, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473957657
Loach, K., & Rowley, J. (2022). Cultural sustainability: A perspective from independent libraries in the United Kingdom and the United States. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 54(1), 80-94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000621992824
McIntyre, A. (2008). Participatory action research. In Participatory action research. SAGE Publications, Inc., 1-14. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483385679.n1
Mahler, C. (2023). Taiwanese Archives and Historical Research on Modern China: A Guide. The PRC History Review, 8(2), 1-11. http://prchistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Mahler-Taiwan.pdf
Mutibwa, D. H., Hess, A., & Jackson, T. (2020). Strokes of serendipity: Community co-curation and engagement with digital heritage. Convergence, 26(1), 157-177. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856518772030
Müller, K. (2021). Introduction. In Digital Archives and Collections: Creating Online Access to Cultural Heritage. Berghahn Books. 11, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv29sfzfx.5
Müller, K. (2021). Conclusion.: Cultural Production in the Present with Reference to the Past and Directed at the Future. In Digital Archives and Collections: Creating Online Access to Cultural Heritage. Berghahn Books. 11, 227–236. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv29sfzfx.13
Müller, K. (2021). Theorizing Digital Archives: Power, Access and New Order. In Digital Archives and Collections: Creating Online Access to Cultural Heritage. Berghahn Books. 11, 25-55. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv29sfzfx.7
Open Archival Information System. (n.d.). Archaeology Data Service. https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/help-guidance/guides-to-good-practice/digital-archiving/open-archival-information-system-oais/
Roued-Cunliffe, H., & Copeland, A. (2017). Participatory Heritage. Facet Publishing.
Rutledge, P.B. and Hogg, J.L.C. (2020). In-Depth Interviews. The International Encyclopedia of Media Psychology, J. Bulck (Ed.). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119011071.iemp0019
SAA Dictionary: postcustodial. (n.d.). https://dictionary.archivists.org/entry/postcustodial.html
Salmons, J. (2023). Participant Observation. Sage Research Methods Community. https://researchmethodscommunity.sagepub.com/blog/131647
Schwartz, J. M., & Cook, T. (2002). Archives, records, and power: The making of modern memory. Archival Science, 2(1-2), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02435628
Sheridan, J. (2018, April 19). Digital archiving: “Context is everything” - The National Archives blog. The National Archives Blog. https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/digital-archiving-context-everything/
Suárez, A. (2021). Diversifying the Archives. The Side of Metadata: Princeton University Library Special Collections Technical Services. https://blogs.princeton.edu/techsvs/tag/post-custodial-models/
Soini, K., Birkeland, I. (2014). Exploring the scientific discourse on cultural sustainability. Geoforum, 51, 213-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.12.001
Stevens, M., Flinn, A., & Shepherd, E. (2010). New frameworks for community engagement in the archive sector: from handing over to handing on. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 16(1-2), 59-76. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527250903441770
Collaborative Practice. (2019). The Inclusive Historian’s Handbook. https://inclusivehistorian.com/collaborative-practice/
Tibbo, H. R. (2003). On the nature and importance of archiving in the digital age. Advances in Computers, 57, 1-67
Welland, S. (2015). The role, impact and development of community archives in New Zealand: A research paper. Retrieved from https://repository.openpolytechnic.ac.nz/
Yin, R. K. (2009). How to do better case studies: (with illustrations from 20 exemplary case studies). The SAGE Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods. 254-282. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483348858
Zavala J., Migoni A. A., Caswell M., Geraci N., & Cifor M. (2017). ‘A process where we’re all at the table’: community archives challenging dominant modes of archival practice. Archives & Manuscripts, 45(3), 202-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/01576895.2017.1377088