台灣醫療發展為世界上數一數二的，也讓國人的健康照護需求因為完善的健康保險制度得以獲得充分的保障。醫療體系是一個分工細膩的體系，由許多不同的專業科部組合而成，也因為是牽涉到人們健康，所以必須要有許多的制度加以規範其中各方行動者如醫師、護士與醫療機構的行為。所以在這複雜的行動者與體系之間，必定會產生制度與醫療體系實際發生情況不一致甚至在醫療行為上越矩的情況產生。
因此本研究運用制度理論中的多重制度邏輯，探討在多制度邏輯規範之下的行動者「醫療機構」與「醫師」要在複雜情境之行動，且延續制度理論的研究發展，更進一步探討混合型組織在經營上所面對的兩難。本研究採用質性研究的個案研究法，透過深度訪談取得第一手資料，並從多方蒐集次級資料進行三角驗證，並釐清醫療制度與醫療體系中之關係是否出現相互矛盾或有待解決之問題。
經過研究之資料蒐集以及與理論對話之結果，本研究之研究發現為：在既有制度規範下的行為者即便規範近乎相似，也會因其所處的組織產生背離制度規範的行為，而在多重制度邏輯情境下組織會影響行動者的抉擇，能夠透過減低行動者對於改變制度的能動性以及合法性來降低組織中行動者對於制度的衝突感。最後本研究對於實務醫療場域提出建議與未來研究方向，並期待本研究能應用於其他產業。

Taiwan's medical care is one of the best in the world, and the health care needs of the people have been fully guaranteed due to the perfect health insurance system. Because it is related to people's health and life, there must be many systems to regulate the behaviors of various actors, such as doctors, nurses, and medical institutions. Therefore, there is bound to be inconsistency or even contradiction between the actual situation and the medical regulation.
Therefore, this study adopts the view of multiple institutional logic in institutional theory to explore the actions of actors under the multiple institutional logic in this complex situation and continues the research of institutional theory to further explore the dilemma faced by hybrid organizations. This study adopts the case study method of qualitative research, obtains first-hand data through in-depth interviews, and collects secondary data from multiple sources for triangulation, and clarifies whether there are contradictions or problems to be solved in the relationship between the health care system and the medical institutions.
The conclusion of the research is that even in a similar context and regulated by the same rules. The behavior of the actors will be affected by the organizations which they belong to. And in order to reduce the misbehave, the rules maker could reduce the agency and legitimacy to lower the conflict level between actors and institutions.

中文文獻:
王朝全, & 李仁方. (2006). 混合组织的研究进展. [A Review on the Hybrid Organization Researches]. 預測, 25(2), 37-43.
李慶芳. (2009). 我對質性研究的反思: 兩個三角形與兩個問題. 組織與管理, 2(2), 21-27.
林慧淳（民 109 年 2 月）。自費就醫指南 康健雜誌，259。
涂敏芬. (2012). 對抗制度的創新: 策略行動者的能動性實踐. 臺大管理論叢, 22(2), 87-118.
涂敏芬. (2019). 制度工作可行嗎？去制度化前緣的能動性解析. [Are Institutional Works Workable? The Anatomy of Agency in the Context of Pre-deinstitutionalization]. 中山管理評論, 27(1), 101-138. doi:10.6160/sysmr.201903_27(1).0003
涂敏芬, & 洪世章. (2016). 建構服務創新的制度工作. 臺大管理論叢, 27(1), 129-154.
蕭瑞麟. (2007). 不用數字的研究: 鍛鍊深度思考力的質性研究: 臺灣培生教育出版.

英文文獻:
Abdelnour, S., Hasselbladh, H., & Kallinikos, J. (2017). Agency and institutions in organization studies. Organization studies, 38(12), 1775-1792.
Alford, R. R., & Friedland, R. (1985). Powers of theory: Capitalism, the state, and democracy: Cambridge University Press.
Arnold, M. L. (1997). Natural hybridization and evolution: Oxford University Press on Demand.
Battilana, J., & D’aunno, T. (2009). Institutional work and the paradox of embedded agency. Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations, 31, 58.
Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419-1440.
Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). 2 how actors change institutions: towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. Academy of Management annals, 3(1), 65-107.
Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of management review, 39(3), 364-381.
Borys, B., & Jemison, D. B. (1989). Hybrid arrangements as strategic alliances: Theoretical issues in organizational combinations. Academy of management review, 14(2), 234-249.
Brandsen, T., Van de Donk, W., & Putters, K. (2005). Griffins or chameleons? Hybridity as a permanent and inevitable characteristic of the third sector. Intl Journal of Public Administration, 28(9-10), 749-765.
Creed, W. D., DeJordy, R., & Lok, J. (2010). Being the change: Resolving institutional contradiction through identity work. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1336-1364.
Dacin, M. T., Dacin, P. A., & Tracey, P. (2011). Social entrepreneurship: A critique and future directions. Organization science, 22(5), 1203-1213.
DiMaggio, & Powell. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American sociological review, 147-160.
DiMaggio, P. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. Institutional patterns and organizations culture and environment, 3-21.
Dunn, M. B., & Jones, C. (2010). Institutional logics and institutional pluralism: The contestation of care and science logics in medical education, 1967–2005. Administrative science quarterly, 55(1), 114-149.
Edvardsson, B., Skålén, P., & Tronvoll, B. (2012). Service systems as a foundation for resource integration and value co-creation. Review of Marketing Research, 9(2), 79-126.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review, 14(4), 532-550.
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American journal of sociology, 103(4), 962-1023.
Friedland, R. (2012). The Institutional logics Perspective: A new approach to culture, Structure, and Process. M@ n@ gement, 15(5), 583-595.
Friedland, R., Alford, R. R., Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. The new institutionalism in organizational analysis, 232-263.
Furubotn, E. G., & Richter, R. (2008). The new institutional economics–a different approach to economic analysis. Economic Affairs, 28(3), 15-23.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration: Univ of California Press.
Greenwood, R., Díaz, A. M., Li, S. X., & Lorente, J. C. (2010). The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses. Organization science, 21(2), 521-539.
Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management annals, 5(1), 317-371.
Heimer, C. A. (1999). Competing institutions: Law, medicine, and family in neonatal intensive care. Law and Society Review, 17-66.
Heinze, K. L., & Lu, D. (2017). Shifting responses to institutional change: The National Football League and player concussions. Journal of Sport Management, 31(5), 497-513.
Hoepfl, M. C. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology education researchers. Volume 9 Issue 1 (fall 1997).
Hoffman, A. J., & Ocasio, W. (2001). Not all events are attended equally: Toward a middle-range theory of industry attention to external events. Organization science, 12(4), 414-434.
Jarzabkowski, P., Sillince, J. A., & Shaw, D. (2010). Strategic ambiguity as a rhetorical resource for enabling multiple interests. Human relations, 63(2), 219-248.
Jepperson, R. (1991). 1991 ‘Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalism’in The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. WW Powell and PJ DiMaggio (eds), 143–163. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1974). Organization and management: A systems approach: McGraw-Hill.
Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). 1.6 institutions and institutional work. The Sage handbook of organization studies, 215-254.
Leca, B., Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2009). Introduction: Theorizing and studying institutional work. TB Lawrence, R. suddaby & B. Leca (eds.), Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations, 1-27.
Litrico, J.-B., & Besharov, M. L. (2019). Unpacking variation in hybrid organizational forms: Changing models of social enterprise among nonprofits, 2000–2013. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(2), 343-360.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American journal of sociology, 83(2), 340-363.
Moe, R. C. (2001). The emerging federal quasi government: Issues of management and accountability. Public Administration Review, 61(3), 290-312.
Murray, F. (2010). The oncomouse that roared: Hybrid exchange strategies as a source of distinction at the boundary of overlapping institutions. American journal of sociology, 116(2), 341-388.
Myers, M. D. (2013). Qualitative research in business and management: Sage.
North, D. C. (1991). Institutions, ideology, and economic performance. Cato J., 11, 477.
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of management review, 16(1), 145-179.
Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. (2010). When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of management review, 35(3), 455-476.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Learning in the Field: An Introduction to Qualitative Research, edited by Gretchen B. Rossman and Sharon F. Rallis. Sage, Beverley Hills, 1998. In: No longer published by Elsevier.
Raynard, M., & Greenwood, R. (2014). Deconstructing complexity: How organizations cope with multiple institutional logics. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Proceedings.
Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2005). The recomposition of an organizational field: Health care in Alberta. Organization studies, 26(3), 351-384.
Scott, W. G. (1988). The management governance theories of justice and liberty. Journal of Management, 14(2), 277-298.
Scott, W. R. (1994). Institutions and organizations: Toward a theoretical synthesis. Institutional environments and organizations: Structural complexity and individualism, 55-80.
Smets, M., Morris, T., & Greenwood, R. (2012). From practice to field: A multilevel model of practice-driven institutional change. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 877-904.
Smith, S. R. (2010). Hybridization and nonprofit organizations: The governance challenge. Policy and Society, 29(3), 219-229.
Straub, D., Boudreau, M.-C., & Gefen, D. (2004). Validation guidelines for IS positivist research. Communications of the Association for Information systems, 13(1), 24.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of management review, 20(3), 571-610.
Thornton, P. H. (2004). Markets from culture: Institutional logics and organizational decisions in higher education publishing: Stanford University Press.
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism, 840, 99-128.
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2015). The institutional logics perspective. Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences: An interdisciplinary, searchable, and linkable resource, 1-22.
Van den Broek, J., Boselie, P., & Paauwe, J. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in health care:‘productive ward: releasing time to care’. Public Management Review, 16(1), 1-20.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of marketing Science, 44(1), 5-23.
Voronov, M., De Clercq, D., & Hinings, C. (2013). Institutional complexity and logic engagement: An investigation of Ontario fine wine. Human relations, 66(12), 1563-1596.
Yanow, D., & Tsoukas, H. (2009). What is reflection‐in‐action? A phenomenological account. Journal of management studies, 46(8), 1339-1364.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: design and methods (ed.). Thousand Oaks.
Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods: Sage publications.