學校和督導沒教的事--臺灣社會團體工作專業養成與發展_

:::

詳目顯示

第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆

/1頁

論文基本資料
摘要
外文摘要
參考文獻

題名：	學校和督導沒教的事--臺灣社會團體工作專業養成與發展
作者：	林佩瑾
作者(外文)：	Pei Chin Lin
校院名稱：	國立臺灣大學
系所名稱：	社會工作學研究所
指導教授：	古允文
學位類別：	博士
出版日期：	2017
主題關鍵詞：	社會團體工作；專業養成；默會知識；系統觀點；詮釋學；social group work；professional development；tacit knowledge；systems perspectives；hermeneutics
原始連結：	連回原系統網址
相關次數：	被引用次數:期刊(2) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0) 排除自我引用:0 共同引用:0 點閱:2

從歷史的觀點分析，臺灣社會團體工作在接受西方理論的移植及在地社會脈絡的醞釀過程裡，逐步架構出獨特的內涵與特質。臺灣的團體工作雖未如美國的經驗，經歷了是否要和社會工作專業合併的衝突，但卻共享了社會工作專業認同在與社會情境彼此磋商和建構專業自信的掙扎。臺灣社會團體工作專業發展的挫敗，讓我們不得不反思，屬於臺灣的社會團體工作究竟是什麼？臺灣的社會團體工作究竟要在何處紮根？本研究採取建構主義的觀點，以詮釋學為取徑，探索臺灣社會團體工作專業養成與發展的歷程與脈絡，從社會工作者之實務經驗、學習與整合之歷程、社會團體工作在實務的地位以及團體工作專業教育、訓練與實務之連結，以了解社會團體工作在社會工作專業中的位置，並透過與歷史連結而來的詮釋理解，構築出臺灣社會團體工作發展的圖像、經驗與特色。
首先，臺灣社會工作者學習團體工作的歷程，是從大學教育開始，但學校團體工作教育所奠下的基礎有限，主要的學習是發生在實務場域。在實務中學習的歷程中，自主學習是一種模式，也有是運用同儕督導方式，比較幸運的，則在師徒制之下展開有系統的訓練。而不論何種學習途徑，社會團體工作專業的養成需要漸進式的學習進程與師徒制的貼身式訓練，學習者則更容易達到專業成長。其次，社工實務領域長期以個案工作為主，社工缺乏自己帶團體的專業自信，且偏重團體技巧的學習，忽略團體動力與關係連結的重要性；加上實務環境不鼓勵社工帶團體，未提供足夠的支持與資源，於是團體工作外包給其他專業，導致社會團體工作邊緣化，甚至有諮商化的趨勢。此外，社會工作教育不重視團體工作與實務課程，教師無法兼顧建構知識與運作體驗團體兩種目標的學習，並缺乏本土化教材與實務性師資，使得社會團體工作的發展自高等教育開始就從未生根著地。另一方面，社工實務環境越來越聚焦於危機處遇與問題解決取向，過度的專業分工，導致個案工作、團體工作與社區工作難以連結，團體工作無法發揮中介的功能，更造成服務輸送的斷裂。
本研究透過歷史的觀點，找到了臺灣團體工作無法呈現自身的主體性的答案，這和社會工作專業的養成與教育長期忽略社會工作的藝術性與人的教育相關，而社會工作專業現存的困境與問題，也與團體工作的沒落以及社區工作的式微有著緊密的關聯，亦即社會工作逐漸失去原有的社會性與系統觀，社會團體工作的藝術性、人味、系統觀點是這門專業的主體性的重要內涵，當我們忽視與揚棄之時，也是主體性消失之時。社會工作團體的獨特性與主體性，來自社會團體工作的傳統，社會團體工作需要重新返回與認同社會工作的藝術性特質和系統性思維。因此提出本研究之建議：以系統觀點作為與其他專業區隔的獨特性，建構社會團體工作的專業認同；以人與生命的教育為專業養成教育的基礎；經由知識實踐與經驗學習過程，將團體工作價值與信念落實在行動之中；培養實務型博士與教授及發展師徒式與學習團隊模式延續團體工作專業之傳承。最後，期待盼能藉由本研究之結果，找到臺灣社會團體工作存在的意義與位置，讓社會工作者看見臺灣團體工作的主體性與發展方向，在這些獨有特質與價值基礎中，建構社會團體工作的專業知能與認同，共同推動臺灣團體工作本土化實務縱深的發展！

以文找文

Through a historical lens, the development and education of social work in Taiwan, including social group work, was deeply influenced by western social work theories and practice. Social work has historically recognized group work as a core practice methodology. However, the method appears to be losing its unique identity, power and confidence both in the United States and in Taiwan and this is as the “generocide of social group work”.
Social group workers in the United States struggled to achieve profession status and maintain identity by affiliating with social work, but in Taiwan, social group work is on a direct path of falling within social work as a method and was not well understood by social workers. The lack of understanding of social group work has not changed very much in Taiwan. Working with groups is a major component of social work practice but social workers rarely use this method and even have no group work experience in the field. What makes social group work disappear in Taiwan? What is the distinctness of social group in Taiwan? This research uses the constructivist world-view and adopts a hermeneutic approach. This study also provides a historical perspective to explore the roots in social group work in Taiwan and its uniqueness and characteristic by transplantation and indigenization. First, the research explores the development process and context of social group work, the connection between practice and education, the relationship of social group work to social work profession. Second, the study tries to provide a current depiction and in-depth account of the state of group work and identify the features of professional cultivation and development of social group work in Taiwan.
The findings of the research include the following. First, the processes of professional cultivation and development of social group work are beginning with higher education of social work, participating in a group, observing a group, as co-leadership and then as a leader to move from novices to expert practitioners. Avenues for continued learning include social work training programs, peer group supervision or consultation, the field instructor and coach. The most important is that supervision and mentorship must serve as a vehicle for expanding knowledge and for helping students or learners to apply the knowledge to practice. Second, because social workers were taught largely by persons whose expertise was in work with individuals and who had little or no social group work experience, social workers lack of confidence in working with groups. They prefer learning techniques and skills of group work rather than having a better understanding of group dynamics, building relationship and making real connection in the groups. Instead of supporting or encouraging social workers to work with groups, the social service organizations and agencies outsource group work to psychological profession. These problems result in weakening and psychologization of social group work. Moreover, the school of social work and the social work program seldom offer more than a foundation course in group work, and social group work’s prominence within the graduate curriculum has diminished over the years. There is neither local resource for teaching nor highly competent and experienced specialist professor and professor of practice. Besides that, social workers focus more on crisis intervention and problem-solving and too often work in highly specialized areas that lack of communication and coordination among the far-flung divisions and multi-agency setting. These result in that all services provided to clients and their family become fragmentary and discontinue. Therefore, social workers should think and act in a systematic approach, consider everything that happens in terms of the group context as well as the wider context in which it is embedded –social, political, organizational, and are able to make group work function to play the role of intermediary to integrate with case work, group work and community work.
The most important is that this study provides a comprehensive understanding of the vanished subjectivity of social group work in Taiwan. Why the subjectivity of social group work disappeared? It is because that social work education and training in Taiwan do not attach importance to systems perspectives and artistry. Social group work ideology is rooted in systems perspectives and artistry. The wonderful spirit imbedded in group work ideology determined that group work should survive through difficult times. History gives us a context for understanding and relating to the present, and guides us as we using a systematic lens and social character to move forward to the hoped-for professional identity. Besides that, the process of coaching and the learning experiences of the social group work practicum must become central to the intellectual discourse of the school. The practicum should become a place in which social work practitioners learn to reflect on their own tacit theories of the phenomena of group work practice, in the presence of representatives of those disciplines whose formal theories are comparable to the tacit theories of practitioners. The two kinds of theories should be made to engage each other and we should cultivate professional practitioners to be mentors, coaches, specialist professor and professor of practice to teach students, train novices.
This study not only concern with lost in transition, but also found in transition. Hopefully, it would serve as a foundation for future research and bolster commitment to social group work practice and education. Most of all, it would awaken spiritual heritage of social group work, construct professional identity, strengthen the place of social group work in social work and all efforts contribute to promote and deepen the development of social group work.

以文找文

中文部分
內政部社區發展雜誌社（2002）。社會工作教育與訓練【社論】。社區發展季刊，99，2-4。
王文基（2007）。樂生院拆遷爭議與STS【社論】。科技、醫療與社會，5，5-8。
王浩威（2013）。晚熟世代：王浩威醫師的家庭門診。臺北：心靈工坊。
余德慧（2001）。詮釋現象心理學。臺北市：心靈工坊文化。
李佩怡（2003）。助人者與癌症末期病人關係歷程之質性研究（未出版之博士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所，臺北市。
李憶微（1989）。助人專業者專業自我的發展與學習歷程之探討。臺北市：張老師出版社。
沈清松（1994）。現代哲學論衡。臺北市：黎明。
林安梧（2003）。人文學方法論：詮釋的存有學探源。臺北市：讀冊文化事業公司。
林瑞欽（1993）。學習團體理論與研究。高雄：復文。
林萬億、呂寶靜、鄭麗珍（1998）。社會工作與社會福利學科規劃研究報告。行
政院國家科學委員會專題計畫成果報告。
林萬億（2000）。我國社會工作與社會福利教育的發展。社會工作學刊，6，123-161。
林萬億（2005）。團體工作：理論與技巧。臺北市：五南。
林萬億（2006）。當代社會工作：理論與方法。臺北：五南。
林萬億（2010）我國社會工作教育的發展：後專業主義的課題。臺大社會工作學刊，12，153-196。
洪漢鼎（2002）。詮釋學史。臺北：桂冠圖書。
范幸玲（2006）。諮商師於諮商經驗中關鍵事件的研究－詮釋學的觀點（未出版之博士論文）。國立高雄師範大學，高雄市。
秦燕（1992）。醫療院所社會服務部門工作現況之探討。中華民國醫務社會工作學刊，2，25-39。
夏林清、麥麗蓉（譯）（1987）。團體治療與敏感度訓練：歷史、槪念與方法（原作者：Shaffer,, John B. P. & Galinsky, D.）。臺北市：張老師出版社。
高淑清（2001）。在美華人留學生太太的生活世界：詮釋與反思。本土心理學研究，16：225-285。
孫一信（2006）。臺灣的智障者人權現況與反省。取自：http://www.isu.edu.tw/upload/25/6/files/dept_6_lv_3_3931.doc
張恆豪（2007）。特殊教育與障礙社會學一個理論的反省。教育與社會研究，13，71-93。
張恆豪（2008）。從倡議到提供服務：臺灣身心障礙權利運動的轉型。行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫。
陳惠鏡（1992）。從縣市社工員的職業困境談社工建制。社會福利，98，43-44。
許展耀（2005）。臺灣社會工作專業教育發展：以1990-2003年碩博士論文分析為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立暨南大學，南投。
許榮富、黃芳裕（1995）。當今科學概念發展研究賦予科學學習的新意義。科學教育月刊，178，2-13。
陳向明（2010）。社會科學質的研究。臺北市：五南。
陳榮華（2000）。詮釋學循環：史萊瑪赫、海德格和高達美。臺大哲學論評，23，101-136。
畢恆達（1996）。詮釋學與質性研究。載於胡幼慧（主編），質性研究：理論、方法與本土女性研究實例（頁27-46）。臺北：巨流。
畢恆達（1995）。生活經驗研究的反省：詮釋學的觀點。本土心理學研究， 4，24-259。
陶蕃瀛、簡春安（1997）。社會工作專業發展之回顧與展望。社會工作學刊，4， 1-25。
莫藜藜（1995）。社會團體工作在臺灣。東吳社會工作學報，1:201-221。
莫藜藜（2007）。臺灣社會工作學科教育的發展與變革的需求。社區發展季刊，120，30-47。
黃光國（2001）。社會科學的理路。臺北市：心理出版社。
黃慧娟（2004）。是升級還是舊瓶新酒？--從社會工作碩士教育論臺灣社會工作專業教育之分階（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣大學，臺北市。
曾華源、白倩如、李仰慈（2010）。社會工作人力質量需求與專業人力資源養成制度之省思。社區發展季刊，129，83-87。
鄒川雄（2003）。生活世界與默會知識：詮釋學觀點的質性研究。載於齊力、林本炫（主編），質性研究方法與資料分析（頁19-54）。嘉義：南華社教所。
詹火生（2007）。臺灣社會工作專業發展與展望。社區發展季刊，120，21-29。
楊中芳（1993）。試論如何深化本土心理學研究：兼評現階段之研究成果。本土心理學研究，199306（1），122-183。臺北市：心理出版社。
楊玫瑩（1997）。臺灣社會工作專業化之研究－社會工作專業人員制度建立過程與評析（未出版之碩士論文）。私立東吳大學，臺北市。
楊明磊（2001）。資深諮商工作者的專業發展－詮釋學觀點（未出版之博士論文）。國立彰化師範大學，彰化。
楊國樞（2005）。華人社會取向的理論分析。載於楊國樞、黃光國與楊中芳（主編），華人本土心理學（頁173 - 213）。臺北市：遠流。
楊蓓（2007）。審閱序。載於何金針、謝金枝（譯），社會團體工作。（原作者：Zastrow, C. H.）。臺北市：心理。
楊蓓（2010）。由團體工作者的專業養成反思團體工作者的教育歷程。CHANGE─變遷社會下的社會工作教育與實務研討會發表之論文。臺北市中國文化大學延平分部大新館。
廖清碧（1991）。社會團體工作與親職教育。臺北市：五南。
蔡文瑜（2008）。家的意義建構:婚變女性的經驗詮釋（未出版之博士論文）。國立師範大學，臺北市。
蔡漢賢主編（2000）。社會工作辭典（第四版）。臺北市：內政部社區發展雜誌社。
潘慧玲（2003）。社會科學研究典範的流變。教育研究資訊，11（1），115-143。
劉淑芬（2005）。職場中個人隱性工作知識分享之前導研究。環球科技人文學刊，1，29-48。
蕭新煌、孫志慧（2000）。一九八○年代以來臺灣社會福利運動的發展：演變與傳承。載於蕭新煌、林國明（主編），臺灣的社會福利運動（頁33-70）。臺北：巨流。
嚴平（譯）（1992）。詮釋學（原作者：Palmer, R. E.）。臺北市：桂冠。

英文部分
Andrews, J. (2001). Group work’s place in social work: A historical analysis. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 28 (4), 45-65.
Balgopal, P. R., & Vassil, T. V. (1983). Groups in social work: An ecological perspective. New York: Macmillan.
Barker, R. L. (2003). The social work dictionary(5th ed). Washington, DC : NASW Press.
Birnbaum, M. L. (1988). Historical perspectives: Roots and new frontiers. In Leiderman, M., Birnbaum, M. L., & Dazzo, B. (eds.), Roots and new frontiers in social group work. New York : Haworth Press.
Birnbaum, M. L., & Auerbach, C. (1994). Group work in graduate social work education: The price of neglect. Journal of Social Work Education, 30(3),325–336.
Birnbaum, M. L., & Wayne, J. (2000). Group work in foundation generalist education: The necessity for curriculum change. Journal of Social Work Education, 36(2),
347–356.
Breton, M. (1990). Learning from social group work traditions. Social Work with Groups, 13 (3), 21-34.
Breton, M. (2005). Learning from social group work tradition. In Malekoff , A ., & Kurland, R. (Eds.), A quarter century of classics (1978-2004): Capturing the theory, practice and spirit of social work with groups(pp.107-119). The Haworth press: New York.
Bruno, F. J., & Towley, L. (1957). Trends in social work, 1874-1956: A history based on the proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work (2nd ed.). New York : Columbia University Press.
Cartney, P. (2011). Consolidating practice with children and families. In Cocker, C., Allain, L. (Eds), Advanced social work with children and families. Exeter: Learning Matters.
Cohen, M. B. & Mullender, A. (2005). The personal in the political: exploring the group work continuum from individual to social change goals. In Malekoff , A ., & Kurland, R. (Eds.), A quarter century of classics (1978-2004): Capturing the theory, practice and spirit of social work with groups (pp.187-204). The Haworth press: New York.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Firestone, W. (1987). Meaning in method: the rhetoric of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational Researcher, 16: 16-21.
Garvin, C. D. (1997). Contemporary group work (3rd ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gergen, K. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American psychologist, 40(3), 266-275.
Getzel G. S. (2009). The genealogy of group work : the missing factor in teaching skill today. In Cohen, C.S., Phillips, M., Hanson, M., Editors. (Eds.), Strength and diversity in social work with groups: think group. NY: Routledge.
Gladding, S . (1995). Group work : a counseling specialty. New York: Merrill.
Hammersley, M.(1995). The politics of social research. London: Sage.
Home, A. & Darveau-Fournier (1982). A study of social work practice with groups. Social work with groups, 5(3): 19-34.
Konopka, G. (1983). Social group work : a helping process. N.J. : Prentice-Hall.
Krysik, J., & Finn, J. (2007). Research for effective social work practice. New York: McGraw Hill.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kurland, R. & Malekoff, A. (2002). Stories celebrating group work : it''s not always easy to sit on your mouth. New York: Haworth Social Work Practice Press.
Kurland, R. & Malekoff, A. (2005). The personal in the political: exploring the group work continuum from individual to social change goals. In Malekoff, A., & Kurland, R. (Eds.), A quarter century of classics (1978-2004): Capturing the theory, practice and spirit of social work with groups (pp.187-204). The Haworth press: New York.
Leonard, V. W. (1994). A Heideggerian phenomenological perspective on the concept of person. In Benner, P. E. (Ed). Interpretive phenomenology: embodiment, caring, and ethics in health and illness (pp. 43-64). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985) . Naturalistic inquiry. London: Sage.
Maxwell, J.A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mishler, E. G. (1986). Research interviewing: context and narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mizrahi, T., & Davis L. E. (2008). Encyclopedia of social work(20th ed.). New York: National Association of Social Workers and Oxford University Press.
Edwards, R. L. & Hopps, J. G. (1995). Encyclopedia of social work(19th ed.). New York: National Association of Social Workers.
Minahan, A. et al. (Eds.), (1987). Encyclopedia of social work(18th ed.). New York: National Association of Social Workers.
Morris, R. et al. (Eds.), (1971). Encyclopedia of social work(16th ed.). New York: National Association of Social Workers.
Pâquet-Deehy, A., Hopmeyer, E., Home, A. & Kislowicz, L. (1985). A typology of social work practice with groups. Social work with groups, 8(1): 65-78.
Payne, M. (2005). Modern social work theories(3rd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Plager, K. A. (1994). Hermeneutic phenomenology. In Benner, P. E. (Eds.). Interpretive phenomenology: embodiment, caring, and ethics in health and illness (pp. 65-83). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Reid, K. E. (1981). From character building to social treatment : The history of the use of groups in social work. Westport, Conn. : Greenwood Press.
Reid K. E. (1996). Social work practice with groups: A clinical perspective (2nd ed) .
Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole
Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. New York: Oxford University Press.
Shaw, I. (2007). Is social work research distinctive? Social Work Education, 26 (7): 659-669.
Shlonsky, A. & Gibbs, L. (2004). Will the Real Evidence-Based Practice Please Stand Up? Teaching the Process of Evidence-Based Practice to the Helping Professions. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 4(2): 137-153.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York : Basic Books.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
Schwartz, W. (2005). The group work tradition and social work practice. In Malekoff , A ., & Kurland, R. (Eds.), A quarter century of classics (1978-2004): Capturing the theory, practice and spirit of social work with groups (pp.69-89). The Haworth press: New York.
Shulman, L. (1999). The skills of helping individuals, families, groups and communities(4th ed.). Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock.
Simon, R. S., & Kilbane, T. (2014) The current state of group work education in U.S. graduate schools of social work. Social Work With Groups, 37(3), 243-256.
Specht, H., & Courtney, M. E. (1994). Unfaithful angels : how social work has abandoned its mission. New York : Free Press.
Sweifach, Jay. (2014). Group work education today: a content analysis of MSW group work course syllabi. Social Work With Groups, 37(1), 8-22.
Toseland, R. W., & Rivas, R. F. (2012). An introduction to group work practice. Boston: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
Turner, J. B. et al. (Eds.), (1977). Encyclopedia of social work(17th ed). New York: National Association of Social Workers.
Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience : Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. New York: State University of New York Press
Webb, N.B., & Phillips, M.H. (1985). Teaching as a discovery process: Some core principles derived from William Schwartz. Social Work with Groups, 8(4), 83-94.
Zastrow, C. H. (2006). Social work with groups: A comprehensive workbook (6th ed). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

推文
推薦
引用網址
引用嵌入語法
轉寄

top

:::

相關期刊
相關論文
相關專書
相關著作
熱門點閱

1.	臺灣社會團體工作實務的困境與出路
2.	在經驗中學習、從行動中突破：臺灣社會團體工作專業養成的經驗與特色
3.	臺灣社會團體工作者專業知能之養成歷程

無相關博士論文

無相關書籍

無相關著作

無相關點閱

QR Code

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

詳目顯示

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫