:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:影響家暴防治社工身心安全之風險因素分析
書刊名:社會政策與社會工作學刊
作者:汪淑媛 引用關係
作者(外文):Wang, Shu-yuan
出版日期:2013
卷期:17:1
頁次:頁175-215
主題關鍵詞:家庭暴力防治社工身心安全風險因素分析Domestic violence preventionSocial worker well-beingRisk factors analysis
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(10) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:10
  • 共同引用共同引用:150
  • 點閱點閱:321
臺灣社工專業社群積極參與家庭暴力防治工作將近二十年,然而第一線社會工作者的身心安全仍未得到足夠的重視。本研究運用焦點團體以及參考文獻發現影響家暴社會工作者身心安全之潛在因子共21項,編制Likert問卷量表,邀請所有臺灣公部門家暴防治中心以及有參與家暴防治工作非營利機構之社工員協助填答,共寄出509份問卷,回收301份有效問卷,回收率達59% 。因素分析結果產出六因素,依平均數高低順序排列為:1.低劣勞動條件;2.學術界對實務工作的介入與權力;3.社工專業地位低;4.服務對家與工作內容繁雜;5.機構主管/督導與組織氛圍;以及6.社工個人因素。低劣勞動條件位居首要因素與之前研究結果一致,然而,讓人驚訝的是學術界對實務工作的參與以及權控竟然排列第二。提醒學術工作者對於家暴實務工作者應給予更多的支持,以合作的關係取代權威的態度。另一個有意義的發現是社工的年資越久,越不受社工專業地位低的影響力,表示長期的工作歷練能讓社工員由衷欣賞認同自身的工作,比較不需要外界的認可。此外,擁有社工碩士學位的家暴社工比大學華業者更有專業自信,也比較不受「個人議題」的負面影響,顯示臺灣社會工作高等教育的價值與貢獻。
During the past two decades, as social workers in Taiwan involved themselves increasingly in preventing domestic violence, the well-being of front line social workers in this area has not received sufficient attention. In this study, a survey of the literature combined with new data from focus groups yields 21 factors that negatively impact their well being. The 21 were designed into a Likert scale questionnaire. 509 of these were sent to employees in public domestic violence prevention centers and NPOs involved in domestic violence prevention. 301 valid questionnaires were returned. A statistical analysis collapsed the 21 items into these 6 factors, in decreasing order of importance: (1) Poor working conditions and low pay, (2) The power academics wield in this area, (3) A general lack of respect for social workers as professionals, (4) The c1ients they are called upon to deal with and the complexity of the situations they face, (5) Organizational and supervisor issues, and (6) Personal issues. That poor working condition and low pay rank highest is consistent with previous studies. However, what stands out as surprising in this study is that the involvement of academic social work professionals should be viewed so negatively by workers in the domestic violence field. Obviously, it is incumbent upon academics in this area to set aside their stance of superior authority, adapt a more collaborative attitude, and take a more supportive stance towards workers in this field. Also surprising is the finding that the longer professionals have worked in the domestic violence field, the less importance they give to the factor ”lack of respect as professionals.” Experience evidently gives them an intrinsic appreciation of the good that they do, which outweighs the need for extrinsic approval. The data also showed that workers with an MSW degree display more confidence in their profession and are less negatively impacted by ”personal issues” than mere college graduates-which shouldn't be surprising.
期刊論文
1.Balloch, S.、Pahl, J.、MacLean, J.(1998)。Working in the Social Services: Job Satisfaction, Stress and Violence。British Journal of Social Work,28(3),329-350。  new window
2.Thompson, N.、Stradling, S.、Murphy, M.、O’Neill, P.(1996)。Stress and Organizational Culture。British Journal of Social Work,26(5),647-667。  new window
3.汪淑媛(20111200)。社會工作紀錄問題檢視與反思。社會政策與社會工作學刊,15(2),141-185。new window  延伸查詢new window
4.汪淑媛(20100900)。讓社會創傷轉化為正向的反思與實踐力量--從曹母攜女自殺事件談起。社區發展季刊,131,371-384。new window  延伸查詢new window
5.鄭瑞隆(20041200)。家庭暴力社工員專業服務困境與改進措施之研究。犯罪學期刊,7(2),129-163。new window  延伸查詢new window
6.鄭麗珍(20061000)。家暴社工的處境與問題。性別平等教育季刊,37,12-18。  延伸查詢new window
7.余漢儀(20130200)。社會工作教育反思:承諾抑或背叛?。聯合勸募論壇,2(1),1-18。  延伸查詢new window
8.汪淑媛、蘇怡如(20100700)。社工督導功能期待與實踐落差研究--比較督導與被督者之觀點:以公部門家暴防治社工為例。臺灣社會工作學刊,9,41+43-84。new window  延伸查詢new window
9.張秀鴛(20100300)。臺灣家庭暴力社會工作人力規劃與展望。社區發展季刊,129,128-139。new window  延伸查詢new window
10.郭俊明、葉玉如(20100300)。論兒少保護社工人力之困境與因應--以高雄市為例。社區發展季刊,129,186-199。new window  延伸查詢new window
11.黃彥宜(20070600)。戲劇訓練與社會工作教學的省思:以一個戲劇工作坊為例。東吳社會工作學報,16,123-150。new window  延伸查詢new window
12.薛承泰、鍾佩珍、張庭譽(20090900)。我國社工人力初探--以日本為例。社區發展季刊,127,186-208。new window  延伸查詢new window
13.Barbarin, O. A.(1994)。Risk and Resilience in Adjustment to Sickle Cell Disease: Integrating Focus Groups, Case Reviews, and Quantitative Methods。Journal of Health and Social Policy,5(3),97-121。  new window
14.Coffey, M.、L. Dugdill、A. Tattersall(2004)。Stress in Social Service: Mental Well-Being, Constraints and Satisfaction。British Journal of Social Work,34(5),735-746。  new window
15.Gillen, P.、M. Sinclair、G. Kernohan(2004)。A Concept Analysis of Bullying in Midwifery。Evidence Based Midwifery,2(2),46-51。  new window
16.Hayes, D.(200503)。Last Satisfaction in the League: Why do Social Worker Stay?。Community Care,1563,49。  new window
17.Healy, K.、Meagher, Gabrielle(2004)。The Reprofessionalization of Social Work: Collaborative Approaches for Achieving Professional Recognition。British Journal of Social Work,34(2),243-260。  new window
18.Hesse, A. R.(2002)。Secondary Trauma: How Working with Traurna Survivors Affects Therapists。Clinical Social Work Journal,30(3),293-309。  new window
19.Jones, F.、B. Fletcher、K. Ibbetson(1991)。€˜Stressors and Strains amongst Social Workers: Demands, Supports, Constraints and Psychological Health。British Journal of Social Work,21(5),443-469。  new window
20.Linhors, M. D.(2002)。A Review of the Use and Potential of Focus Groups in Social Work Research。Qualitative Social Work,1(2),208-228。  new window
21.Manoleas, P.、K. Organista、G. Negron-Velasquez、K. McCormick(2000)。Characteristics of Latino Mental Health Clinicians: A Preliminary Examination。Community Mental Health Journal,36(4),383-394。  new window
22.Sexton, L.(1999)。Vicarious Traumatization of Counselors and Effects on Their Workplaces。British Journal of Guidance & Counseling,27(3),393-403。  new window
23.Singh, N. N.、W. I. Baker、W. S. Alan、K. D. Lewis(2000)。€˜Semantic Equivalence of Assessment Instruments Across Cultures。Journal of Child and family Studies,9(2),123-134。  new window
24.翟宗悌、鄔佩麗(20030600)。諮商心理師支援臺灣家庭暴力暨性侵害防治中心之現況與困境分析。社區發展季刊,102,261-276。new window  延伸查詢new window
25.黃彥宜(20090100)。保護性業務一線社會工作者職場暴力之初探:權力的觀點。臺灣社會工作學刊,6,79+81-118。new window  延伸查詢new window
26.王綉蘭(19981200)。臺灣地區社工「督導」員專業認同、工作滿足與留職意願之研究。社會福利,139,55-66。  延伸查詢new window
27.嚴祥鸞(20100300)。保護性業務社工人力與合理之工作條件。社區發展季刊,129,153-165。new window  延伸查詢new window
28.王秀燕(2010)。現實與使命的掙扎--臺灣社工人力的配置。社區發展季刊,129,114-127。new window  延伸查詢new window
29.周清玉、曾冠鈞(20110700)。保護性社工人力與工作條件之研究。亞洲家庭暴力與性侵害期刊,7(1),47-77。new window  延伸查詢new window
30.Cunningham, M.(2003)。Impact of Trauma Work on Social Work Clinicians: Empirical Finding。Social Work,48(4),451-459。  new window
31.Ringstad, R.(2005)。Conflict in the Workplace: Social Workers as Victims and Perpetrators。Social Work,50(4),305-313。  new window
32.Bell, H.、Kulkarni, S.、Dalton, L.(2003)。Organization prevention of vicarious trauma。Families in Society,84(4),463-470。  new window
33.Cunningham, Maddy(2004)。Teaching Social Workers about Trauma: Reducing the Risks of Vicarious Traumatization in the Classroom。Journal of Social Work Education,40(2),305-317。  new window
34.周月清(20020900)。臺灣社會工作專業發展的危機與轉機--社工教育與實務的省思。社區發展季刊,99,90-125。new window  延伸查詢new window
35.沈慶鴻(20091200)。弱勢社工服務弱勢案主?!婚暴防治社會工作者實務困境之研究。社會政策與社會工作學刊,13(2),87-142。new window  延伸查詢new window
36.Greene, Jennifer C.、Caracelli, Valerie J.、Graham, Wendy F.(1989)。Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs。Educational evaluation and policy analysis,11(3),255-274。  new window
37.汪淑媛(20080600)。論臺灣社工教育對社會工作職業風險之忽視。臺大社會工作學刊,17,1-42。new window  延伸查詢new window
38.鄭麗珍、黃泓智(20100300)。政府部門社工人力推估模式的初探。社區發展季刊,129,95-113。new window  延伸查詢new window
39.汪淑媛(20060600)。家暴婦女庇護中心工作者情緒張力與因應策略。社會政策與社會工作學刊,10(1),189-226。new window  延伸查詢new window
會議論文
1.鄭麗珍(2007)。社會工作人員的人身安全議題關注與因應提議。高風險家庭處遇之社會工作者人身安全建構研討會。臺中:亞洲大學。  延伸查詢new window
研究報告
1.焦興鎧、趙永茂、陳淳文(2008)。家庭暴力及性侵害防治體系之政府職能分析 (計畫編號:RDEC-TPG-097-002)。  延伸查詢new window
2.陳麗欣(2002)。臺灣地區民眾犯罪被害與被害恐懼感之研究--以社會工作員爲例。  延伸查詢new window
學位論文
1.呂學榮(2007)。臺灣公部門社工知覺之督導功能、充權感受、與工作滿足感相關研究(碩士論文)。國立臺灣大學,臺北市。  延伸查詢new window
2.張涵婷(2008)。當社工遇上媒體--論社工與媒體之互動關係(碩士論文)。臺灣大學。  延伸查詢new window
3.黃嵋楨(2009)。社工員之薪酬制度、勞動條件與工作滿足對組織承諾影響之研究--以臺中縣市為例(碩士論文)。國立暨南國際大學。  延伸查詢new window
4.Bell, H.(1999)。The Impact of Counseling Battered Woman on the Mental Health of Counselors(博士論文)。University of Texas at Austin。  new window
5.邱琇琳(2005)。專業助人者之替代性受傷與因應策略:以公部門家防社工為例(碩士論文)。國立臺灣大學,台北。  延伸查詢new window
6.汪芩如(2011)。婚姻暴力防治社會工作者工作壓力之研究--以各縣市家暴中心為例(碩士論文)。國立暨南國際大學,南投縣。  延伸查詢new window
7.康芸(2007)。社工人員對於自身勞動權益的覺知與因應策略之探討--以臺北市公設民營之社會福利機構為例(碩士論文)。慈濟大學,花蓮縣。  延伸查詢new window
8.許祖維(2007)。解構「專業」:社工系大學畢業生離開社會工作的歷程(碩士論文)。國立暨南國際大學,南投縣埔里。  延伸查詢new window
9.李佩玲(2009)。兒少保社工員的自我效能、角色壓力與專業承諾間相關性之研究(碩士論文)。東海大學。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.Fineman, S.(1986)。Social Work Stress and Intervention。England:Gower Publishing Company。  new window
2.Bowie, V(2002)。Defining Violence at Work: A New Typology。Violence at Work: Causes, Patterns and Prevention。Cullompton, Devon:Willan。  new window
3.Creswell, John W.、Plano Clark, Vicki L.(2011)。Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research。Sage Publications。  new window
4.Farquhar, C、R. Das(1999)。€˜Are Focus Groups Suitable for "Sensitive" Topics。Developing Focus Group Research: Politics, Theory, and Practice。Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications。  new window
5.Franklin B.、N. Parton(1991)。Social Work-The Media and Public Relation。NY:Routledge。  new window
6.Zeller, R. E.(1993)。Focus Group Research on Sensitive Topics: Setting the Agenda Without Setting the Agenda。Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art。Newbury Park, CA:Sage。  new window
7.Newhill, Christina E.、陳圭如、孫世維(2007)。案主暴力與社會工作實務。臺北市:心理出版社。  延伸查詢new window
8.Ullman, Montague(1996)。Appreciating Dreams: A Group Approach。New Delhi, CA。  new window
9.Bailey, K. D.(1987)。Methods of social research。New York:The Free Press。  new window
10.Anastasi, Anne(1988)。Psychological testing。Macmillan。  new window
11.Morgan, David L.(1997)。Focus Groups as Qualitative Research。Sage。  new window
圖書論文
1.Morgan, D. L.、Krueger, R. A.(1993)。When to Use Focus Groups and Why。Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the state of the art。Newbury Park, CA:Sage。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE