發現「高關懷學生」：文本治理與文本敘事型態的演變

Discovering Intensive-Concern Students: Textual Governance and the Evolution of Narrative Modes of Texts

10.3966/156092512017120067004

王詩雲(Shih-Yun Wang)

文本治理 ； 高關懷學生 ； 憂鬱自殺（傷）防治 ； 建制民族誌 ； intensive-concern students ； suicide/self-harm prevention ； depression ； textual governance ； institutional ethnography

應用心理研究

67期（2017 / 12 / 01）

81 - 117

繁體中文

近年教育部推動「校園學生憂鬱與自我傷害三級預防工作計畫」，其中「篩檢高關懷群學生」為實施重點。篩檢文本成為用來辨識學生「憂鬱情緒」的認知地圖，啟動校園內外專業人員進行跨界合作。本研究主要透過篩檢人力培訓現場及校園實作現場，進行連續三年的田野觀察、記錄，並以訪談為輔，經由工作流程的探索，來了解校園心理健康監管機制如何運作。重要發現四點如下：篩檢工具為校園心理衛生管理「效力」、「生活經驗的主述敘事」與「量表的意識型態敘事」的斷裂、篩檢工具歸回主述敘事的「在地化」傾向、篩檢文本做為啟動治理關係的中介。針對研究結果，作者提出四點討論－待被質疑的憂鬱自傷防治的社會結構性需要與價值認知、不當的模仿與同形機制促成跨界傳播與合作、校園輔導工作做為「精神醫學意識型態機器」的反思、校園輔導工作者的能動空間與在地知識發聲，以期進一步對此制度、實作與所隱含的意識型態進行更深入的批判與反思。

In Taiwan, the Ministry of Education's ＂Tertiary Prevention of Depression and Self-harm in Students＂ considers ＂discovering intensive- concern students＂ a key task. Text screening is a cognitive map used by teachers to discover students' depression, and allows experts to carry out interdisciplinary collaboration with schools, thus forming ＂professional-case＂ power relationships with students. As such, the co-regulatory mechanism can be implemented to monitoring students' mental health both on and off campus. This study conducted field investigations, recordings, and interviews over consecutive three years in workshops and training programs, as well as directly on campuses. By seeking to understand the work procedures, this study examines the details and problems within the operations of student mental-health monitoring.

1. 呂美慧(2008)。M. Foucault與DE Smith論述分析之比較及其對教育研究之啟示。臺北市立教育大學學報，39(2)，71-104。
   連結：
2. 曾凡慈(2008)。發現「遲緩兒」：科學認知、權力技術與社會秩序。台灣社會學，15，162-215。
   連結：
3. 楊正誠(2005)。析論組織俗民誌的意義、概念、方法與實例。女學學誌：婦女與性別研究，20，223-253。
   連結：
4. Abram, D.(Ed.),Christian, J.(Ed.),Gordon, D.(Ed.)(2007).Multidisciplinary hand book of social exclusion research.California, CA:John Wiley & Sons, Ltd..
5. Campbell, M. L.,Gregor, F.(2004).Mapping social relations: A primer in doing institutional ethnography.Walnut Creek, CA:AltaMira Press.
6. Campbell, M.(Ed.),Manicom, A.(Ed.)(2015).Knowledge, experience, and ruling: Studies in the social organization of knowledge.Toronto, CA:University of Toronto Press.
7. Cleeton, E. R.(2003)."Are you beginning to see a pattern here?" Family and medical discourses shape the story of black infant mortality.Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare,30,41-63.
8. Delpit, L. D.(1988).The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people's children.Harvard Educational Review,58(3),280-298.
9. Greenwood(2002).Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields.Academy of Management Journal,45(1),58-80.
10. Griffiths, M.(2003).Action for social justice in education.Philadelphia, PA:Open University Press.
11. Holstein, J. A.(Ed.),Gubrium, J. F.(Ed.)(2003).Inside Interviewing: New Lenses, New Concerns.California, CA:Sage.
12. Jakubec, S. L.,Campbell, M.(2003).Mental Health Research and Cultural Dominance: The Social Construction of Knowledge for International Development.Canadian Journal of Nursing Research,35(2),74-89.
13. Lubienski, S. T.(2003).Celebrating diversity and denying disparities: a critical assessment.Educational Research,32(8),30-38.
14. McLaren, P.(1998).Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education.New York, NY:Longman.
15. Scott, W. R.(1995).Institutions and organizations.California, CA:Sage.
16. Smith, D. E.(1990).The conceptual practices of power: A feminist sociology of knowledge.Boston, MA:Northeastern University Press.
17. Smith, D. E.(1990).Texts, facts and femininity: Exploring the relations of ruling.New York, NY:Roultedge.
18. Smith, D. E.(2005).Institutional ethnography: A sociology for people.New York:AltaMira Press.
19. Smith, D. E.(Ed.)(2006).Institutional ethnography as practice.California, CA:Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
20. 呂佳青(2011)。Tainan City, Taiwan，國立成功大學公共衛生研究所=National Chen Kung University。
21. 陳秉華(2005)。邁向專業—台灣輔導界發展的回顧與前瞻。亞洲輔導學報，6(2)，21-48。
22. 曾凡慈(2011)。治理體制作為研究對象與行動。臺灣社會學會通訊，73，69-70。
23. 楊國樞編、瞿海源編、畢恆達編(2011)。社會及行為科學研究法。台北=Taipei City, Taiwan:東華=Dong-Hua。