為什麼在台灣原住民族運動已形成三十餘年、《原住民族基本法》已公布滿十年的今天，全台各地仍有眾多原運草根抗爭產生？本研究運用政治機會結構與動員結構的理論觀點，試圖勾勒原運經歷的軌跡變遷並提出解釋。 首先，本研究發現原運面臨的政治機會結構（政府政策宣示、政治管道、政黨關係與國會結構）先是在1983年起緩慢而被動地開啟，繼而在2000年民進黨執政後加速開放，卻又自2008年國民黨再度執政起趨向緊縮。其次，透過抗爭事件分析法的操作，則可以看見體制外的原運抗爭自2000年起明顯由都市回歸部落、從特定團體主導轉向草根組織遍地開花，並在最近數年間持續升溫。 藉由分析「泛原住民族運動」政治路線與國家的互動過程、疏理「部落主義」路線下持續茁壯的部落營造脈絡，以及比較溪洲部落反拆遷抗爭、賽德克族與梅峰農場土地爭議、蘭嶼反核廢料抗爭等三個在地抗爭個案的起源與後果，本研究進一步指出原運的「泛原住民族運動」與「部落主義」兩條路徑並非全然對立或斷裂，而是在制度化與草根化中共同交織出運動整體軌跡變遷：前者打開體制參與空間、取得政府宣示保障原住民族權利的「新夥伴關係」承諾和《原住民族基本法》立法成果，卻未能扭轉權利法制化困境，無從徹底解決土地、自治與平埔正名等關鍵爭議；後者運用政府資源投入文化復振與草根組織工作，從而擴散原運組織網絡且深化了社群認同，讓族人們能為受侵害的集體權利挺身抗爭。正是在緊縮的政治機會與增強的動員結構下，當前以土地議題為主的原運草根抗爭持續發展出跨部落、跨族別、跨地域的串連，將個案的不滿升高為要求國家落實《原住民族基本法》權利保障的泛原住民族集體怒火。
While Taiwan indigenous movement has been for three decades and the Indigenous Peoples Basic Law has been decreed for ten years, there are still many grassroots indigenous protests around Taiwan. The present study attempts to outline the trajectory of indigenous movement in Taiwan using political opportunity structure and mobilizing structure theory. First, political opportunities of indigenous movement, which included policy statement, political channel, relationships between parties, and structure of Congress, had been slowly opened since 1983 and then rapidly progressed after Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) held power in 2000, but the trend was reversed when Kuomintang (KMT) returned to power in 2008. Second, protest event analysis showed that indigenous protests had shifted from cities to tribes, and that grassroots organizations flourished and took the place from the previous dominant groups since 2000, and the situation is increasingly heated in the last few years. By analyzing the interaction between the “Pan-indigenous Movement” and the state, reviewing the tribal building under “Tribalism”, and comparing the emergence and consequence of three cases, this study further noted that these two paths, which are “Pan-indigenous Movement” and “Tribalism,” are not opposing or broken, but shaped the trajectory of Taiwan indigenous movement together. The “Pan-indigenous Movement” has opened the channel for political participation, and resulted in the agreement of the “New Partnership” and the Indigenous Peoples Basic Law. Nevertheless, it failed to reverse the dilemma of the legalization of indigenous rights, and it unable to completely settle the key disputes of land, self-governance and recognition of Pingpu. The “Tribalism” has revitalized indigenous culture and developed grassroots organizations by utilizing government resources and thereby extended the movement organization networks and strengthened the community identity. Therefore, it enabled the indigenous peoples to have the courage to fight for their collective rights. Under the tight political opportunity structure and a strengthened mobilizing structure, grassroots activists establish connections between tribes, clans and regions, and turn the individual’s complaint into the issues of the indigenous peoples and draw more attention.