Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/106952
題名: 家暴社工,我們為什麼要「演戲」? ──家暴安全網的建制民族誌分析
“Social Workers - Why are we Acting?” : An Institutional Ethnographic Analysis of Domestic Violence Safety Network
作者: 許可依
Hsu, Ko-Yi
貢獻者: 王增勇
Wang, Tseng-Yung
許可依
Hsu, Ko-Yi
關鍵詞: 家暴安全網
家暴社工
家庭暴力
危險評估
風險管理
建制民族誌
日期: 2017
上傳時間: 1-Mar-2017
摘要: 本論文研究的起點,始自我實習時聽到一位家暴社工抱怨參加「安全網」的網絡會議就像是去「演一場戲」。由於大學時代所學到的「家暴安全網」,是一個將家暴高危機案件篩選出來,藉由網絡會議進行工作交流與服務整合的方案。理想上,「家暴安全網」是將有限資源提供在需要密集服務的案件上,不解為何這樣提升服務效能的美意,卻淪為社工實務場上的「演戲」。於是,為了探究「社工為什麼要演戲」,我決定採用建制民族誌作為研究方法,並站在一線家暴社工的立足點上,解構這個「演戲」經驗如何在建制中被形塑。\r\n\r\n當我實際投身成為一名家暴社工,與婦女工作的經驗,揭露了當前國家是如何治理「家庭暴力」,並以一種「安全至上」的意識形態,支配著整個網絡人員的工作。當各種建制的文本啟動,定義著婦女的「安全」,婦女的多元經驗便在「安全」的單一視框中被排除,以致「安全網」時常聽不懂婦女的需要,而網絡的資源也難以「投其所好」。\r\n\r\n然而,一線的家暴社工,一面鑲嵌在「安全至上」的流程中,受到各種表單、指標與會議的規訓,一面又要與婦女的自主性並肩前行,在「建制最佳利益」與「案主自決」的角力下,「演戲」便成為社工在這場拔河下的生存方式。只要社工按照安全網所期待的安全劇本演出,婦女就有機會從安全網中「解除列管」。屆時社工就得以從各式的流程、指標中解放,讓工作回歸到相對低度建制的狀態,找回與婦女工作的彈性並減輕行政工作的負擔。\r\n\r\n研究結果讓家暴社工看見自己在日常工作中,如何因著建制的流程為自己戴上了一副「安全」的眼鏡,產生了一連串權力關係所建構的知識,藉此看清楚社工所處的權力位置,進而長出抵抗的可能。
The inspiration for my thesis came from a domestic violence social worker who complained that attending “Safety Network” conference is like acting in a show. From my understanding of “Domestic Violence Safety Networks” in college, these are programs for “high-risk” domestic abuse victims who are subsequently referred to the network conference. At this conference, the domestic violence network work together to explore possible safety options and coordinate resources for the victims. Ideally, the “Domestic Violence Safety Network” uses limited resources effectively. However, when it comes to a social work field, it becomes a “show act”. Based on this disjuncture, I decided to examine these conferences from a social worker’s perspective, using Institutional Ethnography as the analytical approach, to clarify the issue of why social workers are acting in the Safety Network.\r\n\r\nI started my fieldwork as a social worker. Through my working experience, I found that nation`s adhering to the ideology of, “Safety is the top priority” with regard to domestic violence, tended to control how network members nanny battered women. When texts are activated in the institution, high-risk classification typically centers on a battered women`s “safety” need to the exclusion of all others. Eventually, these “safety networks” fail to understand the multifaceted needs of abused women, and this, in turn, makes network resources more difficult to access.\r\n\r\nAs a domestic violence social worker, safety and autonomy for abused women must be balanced. As a tool to mitigate the struggle between the “client’s best institutional interest” and the “client’s self-determination”, “acting with the safety script” appears to be a solution for social workers. In this way, battered women were able to remove their high-risk label while social workers were liberated from various processes and regulations. Hence, “acting” is the way by which social workers overcome this contradiction, bringing social work back to a less rigid set of working conditions, and increasing their overall flexibility in dealing with clients.\r\n\r\n The research maps the social relations of the “Safety Network,” determining where social workers stand with respect to this framework institution, how their “safety lens” are activated, and what aspects of it dominate their work. Once social workers understand how this framework functions, it may increase their potential for constructively opposing it.
參考文獻: 一、中文文獻\r\n\r\n王珮玲(2009)。家暴安全網方案簡介與危險評估。家庭暴力防治安全網觀摩研討\r\n  會,3-29。\r\n\r\n王珮玲、沈慶鴻、黃志中(2015)。「親密關係暴力高危機案件解除列管之評估指\r\n  引」工作手冊(試辦版)。衛福部委託研究計劃。\r\n\r\n王珮玲、范國勇(2009)。98年度桃園縣家庭暴力防治安全網計畫研究。桃園縣:\r\n  桃園縣家庭暴力暨性侵害防治中心委託研究。\r\n\r\n王榮璋、黃琢嵩、高珮瑾(2014)。我國社會福利補助經費設算制度及社會福利\r\n  施政績效考核修正芻議。社區發展季刊,145,266-286。\r\n\r\n王增勇(2012a)。Dorothy Smith:為弱勢者發聲的女性主義社會學者。新批判,\r\n  1,77-86。嘉義:南華大學。\r\n\r\n王增勇(2012b)。建制民族誌:為弱勢者發聲的研究取徑。社會及行為科學研究\r\n  法(二):質性研究法,313-343。台北:東華。\r\n\r\n王增勇、陳淑芬(2013)。你聽不懂我的恐懼:不被看見的高壓權控暴力。本文\r\n  發表於台灣社會研究學會年會。台北:世新大學/台灣社會研究學會主辦。\r\n\r\n王增勇等譯(2012)。為弱勢者畫權力地圖:建制民族誌入門。台北:群學。\r\n\r\n吳素霞(2001)。家庭暴力防治網絡個別體系功能整合之探討,社區發展季刊,94,32-42。\r\n\r\n吳素霞、張錦麗(2011)。十年磨一劍:我國家庭暴力防治工作之回顧與展望。社\r\n  區發展季刊,133,328-345。\r\n\r\n吳啟安(2009)。雲林縣「家庭暴力事件高危險個案跨機構網絡評估方案」執行\r\n  成效初探。亞洲家庭暴力與性侵害期刊,5(2),91-198。\r\n\r\n吳淑美(2011)。家庭暴力安全防護網推動成效之探討:以台南市為例。國立中正\r\n  大學社會福利研究所。\r\n\r\n李昂(1983)。殺夫。台北:聯經出版社。\r\n\r\n汪浩譯(2003)。風險社會:通往另一個現代的路上。\r\n\r\n汪淑媛(2011)。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\r\n  (2):141-185。\r\n\r\n林明傑、蔡宗晃(2009)。家庭暴力危險分級管理試辦方案成效之實證研究:兼論\r\n  改革方案之趨勢。社區發展季刊,124,163-179。\r\n\r\n林昱瑄(2011)。建制民族誌作為揭露統治關係的途徑:以大學教師評鑑制度為\r\n  例。本文發表於台灣社會研究學會年會。台北:世新大學/台灣社會研究學\r\n  會主辦。\r\n\r\n胡正光(2003)。風險社會中的正義問題:對「風險」與「風險社會」之批判,\r\n  哲學與文化。30(11):147-164。\r\n\r\n張志清(2010)。家庭暴力防治安全網絡執行的成效與困境:以宜蘭縣為例。宜\r\n  蘭:佛光大學。\r\n\r\n張錦麗(2013)。以CEDAW內涵與防治困境建構家暴與性侵害網絡檢視指標。社\r\n  區發展季刊,142,13-24。\r\n\r\n張錦麗、王珮玲、姚淑文、王秋嵐(2007)。宜蘭縣家庭暴力防治安全網計畫研\r\n  究。宜蘭:宜蘭縣政府委託研究計畫。\r\n\r\n現代婦女基金會(2010)。防治網絡手牽手-親密伴侶暴力防治安全網方案教戰手\r\n  冊。台北:財團法人現代婦女基金會。\r\n\r\n許雅惠(2001)。家庭暴力防治:性別化的政策分析。社區發展季刊,94, 277-288。\r\n\r\n郭姵妤(2014)。阿珠上班去:建制論述中消失的「人」。社會分析,9,155-176。\r\n  台北:東吳、輔仁、世新。\r\n\r\n郭婉盈(2007)。在生活世界中實踐專業的慢性療養院社工。國立陽明大學衛生\r\n  福利研究所碩士論文。\r\n\r\n陳宛彤(2014)。由戰而和:一個目睹兒從事家暴工作的自我修練之路。台北大\r\n  學碩士論文。\r\n\r\n游美貴(2011)。內政部「全國家庭暴力及性侵害個案管理服務模式評估」計畫。\r\n  內政部委託研究報告。\r\n\r\n葉玉如(2010)。建構家暴事件安全防護網:談高雄市運作經驗。中央警察大學\r\n  警察政策研究所碩士論文。\r\n\r\n趙國妤(2012)。親密關係暴力高危險案件實務介入與處遇之探討。臺灣師範大學\r\n  社會工作學研究所學位論文。\r\n\r\n劉淑瓊、王珮玲(2011)。家庭暴力安全防護網成效評估計畫。內政部委託研究。\r\n\r\n潘淑滿(2007)。親密暴力:多重身分與權力流動。台北:心理出版社。\r\n\r\n蔡正道、吳素霞(2001)。我國家庭暴力防治工作之規劃與展望。社區發展季刊,\r\n  94,5-18。\r\n\r\n蔡昇倍(2015)。在惡靈與國家之間,找一條照顧的路:蘭嶼居家服務經驗之建\r\n  制民族誌分析。國立政治大學社會工作研究所碩士論文。\r\n\r\n二、英文文獻\r\n\r\nBrewster, M. P. (2003). Power and Control Dynamics in Prestalking and Stalking Situations. Journal of Family Violence, 18(4): 207-217.\r\n\r\nCampbell, M. (2008). (Dis)continuity of care: Explicating the ruling relations of home support. In M. L. DeVault (Ed.), People at work: Life, power and social inclusion in the new economy (pp. 266-288). New York: New York University Press.\r\n\r\nDeVault, M.L. & McCoy, L.(2002).Institutional Ethnography: Using Interviews to Investigate Ruling Relations, Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Method.Sage.\r\n\r\nElliott, A. (2002). Beck`s Sociology of Risk:A Critical Assessment. Sociology,36(2),293-315.\r\n\r\nGillingham, P. (2006). Risk Assessment in Child Protection : Problem Rather Than Solution? Australian Social Work, 59(1), 86-98.\r\n\r\nKernsmith, P (2005). Exerting Power or Striking Back: A Gendered Comparison of Motivations for Domestic Violence Perpetration. Violence and Victims, 20(2): 173-185.\r\n\r\nRobinson A.L. (2004). Domestic Violence MARACs (Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conferences) for Very High-Risk Victims in Cardiff, Wales: A Process and Outcome Evaluation. School of Social Sciences : Cardiff Universtiy.\r\n\r\nStalker, K. (2003). Managing Risk and Uncertainty in Social Work: A Literature Review. Journal of Social Work, 3(2), 211-233.\r\n\r\nStanford, S.N. (2010). ‘Speaking Back’ to Fear: Responding to The Moral Dilemmas of Risk in Social Work Practice. British Journal of Social Work, 40(4), 1065-1080.\r\n\r\nWalker, L. E. (1979). The battered woman. New York: Harper and Row.
描述: 碩士
國立政治大學
社會工作研究所
101264002
資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1012640022
資料類型: thesis
Appears in Collections:學位論文

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat
002201a.pdf3.44 MBAdobe PDF2View/Open
Show full item record

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.