自殺防治之社會創新－以某生命線協會為例

Social Innovation in Suicide Prevention: A Case Study of Taiwan Lifeline International

林姝伶(SHU-LING LIN)；黃浩然(HAW-RAN WONG)

社會創新 ； 自殺防治 ； 生命線 ； 服務 ； Social innovation ； Suicide prevention ； Lifeline ； Service

輔仁管理評論

25卷1期（2018 / 01 / 01）

1 - 22

繁體中文

全球每年約有80萬人自殺，每40秒鐘就有一人自殺身亡，自殺是心理問題也是一個全球性的社會問題，自殺防治熱線對於降低自殺率確有貢獻，面對年輕族群幾乎不以電話溝通及老年人口逐年成長，本研究透過整理文獻了解自殺發生的原因及社會創新概念，為自殺防治熱線服務工作開拓更多元且永續的服務，並討論自殺防治熱線服務創新的條件。研究採用質性研究方法，藉由訪談者從事自殺防治多年相關經驗及對自殺防治服務熱線創新服務的看法，得以蒐集自殺防治創新及深化或多元服務的相關資料，從流程面、服務面、資源面三方面探討自殺防治之社會創新，研究也從服務主導邏輯探討自殺防治之社會創新。研究分析發現：以人為本的自殺防治熱線，應用科技重新設計流程可以提供更有效率且立即的服務；以「服務」為核心的自殺防治熱線由被動服務到主動訪視關懷個案，並開發社區整合服務方案可以降低自殺意念；管理階層穩定、分權分工，增進志工專業能力，整合各地生命線服務經驗及當地相關資源，資源共享、相互合作，自殺防治將發揮更好的功效；開發多元經費管道，創造商業利益以支持機構的永續經營，社會企業為可行方法。

Every year around 80 million people worldwide has committed to suicide, which means one person suicide every 40 seconds. Suicide is a psychological problem as well as a global social issue. Taiwan Lifeline International, one of the most important suicide prevention NPO in Taiwan, has made a contribution in reducing the local suicide rate. Facing the challenges that young people rarely make phone calls to communicate while the elderly population grows year by year, this study covers the causes of suicide and concepts of social innovation by literature review. In terms of the feasibility of service innovation, a discussion on the conditions of Taiwan Lifeline International was furtherly carried out in order to provide more diverse and sustainable service. Qualitative research methods were adapted in this study. The interviewer’s years of experience in suicide prevention work and observation on innovative service are the factors that contribute to the collection of in-depth information with diversity and the innovative concepts of service. The collected materials were reviewed in aspects of working process, service, and resource, and Service-dominant logic was also adapted in the discussion to explore the possibility of social innovation on suicide prevention. Research analysis concluded four findings: 1) Taiwan Lifeline International's people-oriented approach has the capability to provide more efficient and prompt service by redesigning process with the incorporation of technology; 2) The service model of suicide prevention hotline shell shift from passive to active, and the development of a community integration program is needed to reduce the suicidal Ideation; 3) The effectiveness of suicide prevention could be enhanced by increasing the stability the human resource in managerial level with decentralization and clear assignment of responsibility, empowering the professional ability of volunteers, integrating local resources and service experience to achieve higher efficiency of prevention work by resource sharing and mutual support; 4) Furthermore, development of multiple funding resource to create financial profit is required in order to support the sustainability of the organization, therefore social enterprises provide a viable approach to achieve this goal.

1. 廖士程,李明濱,龍佛衛,張家銘,吳佳儀(2015)。台灣自殺防治十年回顧檢討與展望。台灣公共衛生雜誌，34(3)，227-239。
   連結：
2. Anheier, H.K.(ed.),Seibel, W.(ed.)(1990).The Third Sector: Compative Studies of Nonprofit Organizations.New York:Walter De Gruyter.
3. Austin, J. E.,Stevenson, H .H.,Wei-Skillern, J.(2006).Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, Different, or Both?.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,30(1),1-22.
4. Bertolote, J. M.(2004).Suicide prevention: At what level does it work?.World Psychiatry,3(3),147-151.
5. Cho, Albert Hyunbae(2006).Politics, Values and Social Entrepreneurship: A Critical Appraisal.Social entrepreneurship
6. Dees, J. G.(1998).Enterprising nonprofits.Harvard Business Review,76,55-67.
7. Dees, J. G.,Jed, Emerson,Peter, Economy(2001).Enterprising Nonprofit : A Toolkit for Social Entrepreneurs.John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
8. Fairweather, G. W.,Davidson, W.S.(1986).Community experimentation.NY:McGraw-Hill Press.
9. Henley, M.(2008).Success in social innovation in South Australia-what has happened? what has worked?.The History & Future of Social Innovation Conference,South Australia:
10. Lohmann, Roger A.(1989).And Lettuce Is Nonanimal: Toward a Positive Economics of Voluntary Action.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,18(4),367-383.
11. McLennan, J.,Culkin, K.,Courtney, P.(1994).Telephone counselors’ conceptualising abilities and counseling skills.British Journal of Guidance and Counseling,22(2),183-195.
12. Moulaert, F.(2002).Globalisation and integrated area development in European cities.Oxford University Press.
13. Mulgan, G.,Tucker, S.,Ali, R.,Sanders, B.(2006).Social innovation.Oxford University Press.
14. OCED(2003).The non-profit sector in a changing economy.OECD.
15. Schumpter, J.A. (1934).The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, interest, and the business cycle. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
16. Vargo, S. L.,Lusch, R. F.(2008).Why “service”?.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,36,25-38.
17. Vargo, S. L.,Lusch, R. F.(2004).Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing.Journal of Marketing,68,1-17.
18. Vargo, S. L.,Lusch, R. F.(2004).The four services marketing myths: Remnants from a manufacturing model.Journal of Service Research,6,324-335.
19. Vargo, S. L.,Lusch, R. F.(2008).Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,36,1-10.
20. WHO(2014).Preventing Suicide: A Global Imperative.Geneva, Switzerlan:WHO.
21. Yeung, M.(2007).Ingredients for learning research paperIngredients for learning research paper,未出版
22. 李明濱,戴傳文,廖士程,江弘基(2006)。自殺防治策略推動現況與展望。護理雜誌，53(6)，5-13。
23. 卓秀足,胡哲生(2011)。社會導向策略轉型與社會價值創造的企業重生─日月老茶廠案例。創業管理研究，6(1)，1-28。
24. 胡哲生,李禮孟,黃浩然(2015).社會企業經營.台灣社會企業創新創業學會.
25. 胡哲生,張子揚(2009)。社會企業創造議題：社會創新與管理融入。創業管理研究，4(4)，85-105。
26. 胡哲生,張子揚,黃浩然(2012)。社會創業模式與社會企業資源整合的關連性。創業管理研究，7(1)，1-25。
27. 涂爾幹,馮韻文（譯）(2015).自殺論：社會學研究.五南圖書出版社.
28. 黃浩然(2014)。社會企業：服務主導邏輯觀點。輔仁管理評論，23(1)，55-72。