题名

影響家暴防治社工身心安全之風險因素分析

并列篇名

Risk Factors That Impact the Well-being of Social Workers in the Area of Domestic Violence Prevention

DOI

10.6785/SPSW.201306_17(1).0005

作者

汪淑媛(Shu-Yuan Wang)

关键词

家庭暴力防治 ; 社工身心安全 ; 風險因素分析 ; domestic violence prevention ; social worker well-being ; risk factors analysis

期刊名称

社會政策與社會工作學刊

卷期/出版年月

17卷1期(2013 / 06 / 01)

页次

175 - 215

内容语文

繁體中文

中文摘要

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。

英文摘要

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.

主题分类 社會科學 > 社會學
参考文献
  1. 沈慶鴻(2009)。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。
    連結:
  2. 汪淑媛(2006)。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。
    連結:
  3. 汪淑媛(2008)。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。
    連結:
  4. 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(2),141-185。
    連結:
  5. 汪淑媛、蘇怡如(2010)。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。臺灣社會工作期刊,9,41-84。
    連結:
  6. 黃彥宜(2009)。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,6,81-118。
    連結:
  7. 黃彥宜(2007)。戲劇訓練與社會工作教學的省思。東吳社會工作學報,16,123-150。
    連結:
  8. 鄭瑞隆(2005)。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),129-164。
    連結:
  9. Anastasi, A.(1988).Psychological Testing (6th ed.).New York:Macmillan Publishing Company.
  10. Bailey, K. D.(1987).Methods of Social Research (3rd ed.).New York:The Free Press.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. Barbour, R. S.(ed.),Kitzinger, J.(ed.)(1999).Developing Focus Group Research: Politics, Theory, and Practice.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.
  14. Bell, H.(1999).Austin,University of Texas.
  15. Bell, H.,Kulkarni, L.,Dalton, S.(2003).Organization Prevention of Vicarious Trauma.Families in Society,84(4),463-470.
  16. Coffey, M.,Dugdill, L.,Tattersall, A.(2004).Stress in Social Service: Mental Well-Being, Constraints and Satisfaction.British Journal of Social Work,34(5),735-746.
  17. Creswell, W. J.,Clark, V. L. P.(2011).Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (2nd ed.).CA:Sage Publications.
  18. Cunningham, M.(2003).Impact of Trauma Work on Social Work Clinicians: Empirical Finding.Social Work,48(4),451-459.
  19. Cunningham, M.(2004).Teaching Social Workers about Trauma: Reducing the Risks of Vicarious Traumatization in the Classroom.Journal of Social Work Education,40(2),305-317.
  20. Fineman, S.(1986).Social Work Stress and Intervention.England:Gower Publishing Company.
  21. Franklin, B.,Parton, N.(1991).Social Work-The Media and Public Relation.NY:Routledge.
  22. Gillen, P.,Sinclair, M.,Kernohan, G.(2004).A Concept Analysis of Bullying in Midwifery.Evidence Based Midwifery,2(2),46-51.
  23. Greene, J. C.,Caracelli, J. V.,Graham, F. W.(1989).Toward A Conceptual Framework for Mixed-method Evaluation Designs.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,11(3),255-274.
  24. Hayes, D.(2005).Last Satisfaction in the League: Why do Social Worker Stay?.Community Care,1563,49.
  25. Healy, K.,Gabrielle, M.(2004).The Reprofessionalization of Social Work: Collaborative Approaches for Achieving Professional Recognition.British Journal of Social Work,34(2),243-260.
  26. Hesse, A. R.(2002).Secondary Trauma: How Working with Traurma Survivors Affects Therapists.Clinical Social Work Journal,30(3),293-309.
  27. Jones, F.,Fletcher, B.,Ibbetson, K.(1991).Stressors and Strains amongst Social Workers: Dermands, Supports, Constraints and Psychological Health.British Journal of Social Work,21(5),443-69.
  28. 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.
  29. Manoleas, P.,Organista, K.,Negron-Velasquez, G.,McCormick, K.(2000).Characteristics of Latino Mental Health Clinicians: A Preliminary Examination.Community Mental Health Journal,36(4),383-94.
  30. Martin, G.(ed.),Bonnie, F.(ed.),Bowie, V.(ed.)(2002).Violence at Work: Causes, Patterns and Prevention.Cullompton, Devon:Willan.
  31. Morgan, D. L.(1997).Focus Groups as Qualitative Research (2ed ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
  32. Morgan, David. L.(ed.)(1993).Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art.Newbury Park, CA:Sage Publications.
  33. Ringstad, R.(2005).Conflict in the Workplace: Social Workers as Victims and Perpetrators.Social Work,50(4),305-313.
  34. Sexton, L.(1999).Vicarious Traumatization of Counselors and Effects on Their Workplaces.British Journal of Guidance & Counseling,27(3),393-403.
  35. Singh, N. N.,Baker, W. J.,Alan, W. S.,Lewis, K. D.(2000).Semantic Equivalence of Assessment Instruments Across Cultures.Journal of Child and Family Studies,9(2),123-34.
  36. Thompson, N.,Stradling, S.,Murphy, M.,O''Neill, P.(1996).Stress and Organizational Culture.British Journal of Social Work,26(5),647-67.
  37. Ullman, M.(1996).Appreciating Dreams-A Group Approach.New Delhi, CA:SAGE Publications.
  38. 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。
  39. 王綉蘭(1998)。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。
  40. 余漢儀(2013)。社會工作教育反思:承諾抑或背叛?。聯合勸募論壇卷,2(1),1-18。
  41. 呂學榮(2007)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立臺灣大學社會工作學系。
  42. 李佩玲(2009)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。東海大學社會工作學系。
  43. 汪岑如(2011)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立暨南國際大學社會政策與社會工作學系。
  44. 汪淑媛(2010)。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。
  45. 周月清(2002)。臺灣社會工作發展的危機與轉機—社工教育與實務的省思。社區發展季刊,9,90-125。
  46. 周清玉、曾冠鈞(2011)。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),47-78。
  47. 邱琇琳(2005)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立臺灣大學社會工作學系。
  48. 康芸(2007)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。慈濟大學社會工作學系。
  49. 張秀鴛(2010)。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。
  50. 張涵婷(2008)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立臺灣大學新聞研究所。
  51. 許祖維(2007)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立暨南國際大學社會政策與社會工作學系。
  52. 郭俊明、葉玉如(2010)。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。
  53. 陳圭如譯、孫世維譯、Newhill, C. E.(2007)。案主暴力與社會工作實務。臺北:心理。
  54. 陳麗欣(2002)。朝陽科技大學委託研究計畫成果報告朝陽科技大學委託研究計畫成果報告,朝陽科技大學。
  55. 焦興鎧(2008)。行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告,行政院研究發展考核委員會。
  56. 黃嵋楨(2009)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立暨南國際大學社會政策與社會工作學系。
  57. 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:
  58. 鄭麗珍(2006)。家暴社工的處境與問題。性別平等教育月刊,37,12-18。
  59. 鄭麗珍、黃泓智(2010)。政府部門社工人力推估模式的初探。社區發展季刊,129,95-113。
  60. 薛承泰、鍾佩珍、張庭譽(2010)。我國社工人力初探—以日本為例。社區發展季刊,127,186-208。
  61. 瞿宗悌、鄔佩麗(2003)。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。
  62. 嚴祥鸞(2010)。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。
被引用次数
  1. 傅莉蓁(2015)。家庭暴力防治社工對危險評估之知能探討-以高雄市親密關係高危機案件為例。屏東科技大學社會工作系學位論文。2015。1-141。