跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(35.175.191.36) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/08/01 00:54
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:莊文芳
研究生(外文):Chuang, Wen-Fang
論文名稱:權益保障的建構與實踐:安置少年與工作人員之觀點
論文名稱(外文):The construction and implementation on youth rights: the viewpoints of cared youth and worker in residential institution
指導教授:曾華源曾華源引用關係
指導教授(外文):Tseng, Hua-Yuan
口試委員:顧美俐陳毓文王篤強胡慧嫈
口試委員(外文):Ku, May-LeeChen, Yu-WenWang, Tu-ChiangHu, Hui-Ying
口試日期:2012-06-26
學位類別:博士
校院名稱:東海大學
系所名稱:社會工作學系
學門:社會服務學門
學類:社會工作學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2012
畢業學年度:100
語文別:中文
論文頁數:281
中文關鍵詞:安置機構權益保障參與少年
外文關鍵詞:residential institutionrights protectionparticipationyouth
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:10
  • 點閱點閱:983
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:128
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:1
本研究旨在探索少年安置機構中,「權益保障」的概念是如何被建構與實踐的,了解安置少年在機構生活中權益受保障的實況。以解答「安置少年和工作人員對權益概念或議題的看法為何?工作人員與少年如何去協商互動,來滿足案主的權益保障?以及不同照顧角色,如何影響案主的權益保障?」之研究提問。
本研究以詮釋主義(interpretivism)之研究取向,以半結構式的深度訪談,選擇兩家安置機構,訪談機構中的九名工作人員與七名安置少年/少女。研究結果發現:安置機構中對於少年的權益保障是有所侷限的,工作人員與少年對權益的認識也是模糊的。由於安置機構肩負保護少年安全的沉重責任,使得機構在權益保障上,以安全保護為至上,而容易排擠到少年自由參與的需求。故在權益保障的實踐上,工作人員著重滿足保護權益(protection rights)與供給權益(provision rights)的,而少年只能享有部分的參與權益(participation rights)。
權益保障的限縮反映出安置機構資源匱乏的困境,以及工作人員握有權力優勢的事實:少年進入安置系統中,經過全控機構(total institution)式的緊急短期安置機構洗禮,讓少年體會到權益受剝奪的無力感,使他們相對能滿意中長期安置機構所給予的權益保障;由於少年無從評斷何謂適當或不當管教,以至面臨權益受限制的情形,容易順應接受,而放棄爭取權益補償的主張。
安置機構資源的匱乏,導致工作人員無法充分地供給、滿足個案需求;匱乏的供給強化了工作人員的權威,以及少年對工作人員的依賴,迫使缺乏資源的少年順從工作人員的規範,表現出機構期望的良好表現,以獲得照顧的滿足。機構人員運用權力限制個案的權益,目的在於規範管教、抑制少年的偏差行為,以保障少年未來的利益;但缺乏清楚的權力規範,反可能影響少年應享有的權益、導致非預期的反效果。少年權衡立即性的利益與未來的利益滿足,選擇違反規範、擺爛的做法,反而較能立即滿足個案的需求,獲得立即性的利益。
本研究將機構在實踐對少年的權益保障上的偏好,整理為四型:穩定型、管控型、彈性協商型和自由型。其關鍵在於工作團隊是否能形成共識,以及其權威度的高低。機構的權威度,除了因工作人員的理念及機構的價值設定外,機構外力的影響亦是相關因素,包括主管機關、主責社工、少年的家長、學校等。當機構愈趨封閉,外在角色難以影響機構運作,則機構內愈容易產生對個案權益的限縮。主管機關的支持不足,以及對機構穩定不出事的期望,迫使安置機構只能在有限的條件下,勉強維持對少年權益的基本保障,並且安全保護至上、優先於其他的權益。因此在實踐上面臨許多限制:安全與自由的衝突排擠;無法兼顧個體與群體權益的保障;過程與結果的兩難。
針對上述研究發現,本研究提出對現有安置機構評鑑制度、以及服務輸送規劃執行的反思和建議。

關鍵詞:安置機構、權益保障、參與、少年

The aim of this study is to examine how the concept of “rights protection” is constructed and implemented at the adolescent residential institution in order to explore the ways in which youth rights are protected at the residential institution. Three questions will be explored: how do the staff and the youth at residential institutions view the concept of rights protection? How do they negotiate a settlement where youth rights are protected? In which ways do different agents involved (such as government authority, child-protection social workers, parents and school teachers) affect youth rights protection?
This study adopted ideals of Interpretivism and conducted semi-structured interviews amongst nine staff and seven youths from two different adolescent residential institutions in Taiwan. The findings indicate that the rights of young people at the residential institution are protected in a limited way. The findings also suggest that both the staff and the youth at the residential institution understand little about the concept of rights protection. In fact, because the residential institution is responsible for the safety of these youths, the staff put more emphasis on their protection rights and provision rights instead of participation rights. In other words, the youth at the residential institution enjoy less freedom to participate in activities than they should have.
These findings indicate that the residential institution lacks resources to provide the youth with full rights protection and that the staff has the sole power to determine the ways that the youth are treated. Therefore, the youth rights are exploited under “total institution”. Also, being placed at the long-term residential institution, the youth gradually become used to conditions with limited rights protection, lose the ability to judge whether the way they are treated is fair and appropriate, and finally give up pursuing their rights.
Lack of resources threatens the welfare of the youth at the residential institution and enhances the legitimacy of current measures of discipline that the staff employs. In order to receive care at the residential institution, the youth learn to accept the status quo and behave in the way that the staff expects them to. The staff claims that they limit youth rights for reasons of preventing deviant behavior of the youth and benefitting youth development. However, this study demonstrates that, if the staff misuses their power and authority, the youth rather choose to violate the rules to ensure their freedom or emotional and psychological interests.
This study classifies adolescent residential institutions into four types in terms of their measures of discipline and implement of youth rights protection: high control approaches, medium control approaches, medium control approaches through negotiation and discussion, and low control approaches which grants autonomy to the youth. The classification is base on the following factors: whether the staff can reach a consensus on measures of youth discipline, degrees of disciplinary authority and control approaches, and the roles of the government authority, child-protection social workers, parents and school teachers involved. For example, youth rights protection tends to be limited when internal conflicts of the residential institution are not disclosed or difficult to intervene in. Also, protection rights and provision rights tend to be considered prior to participation rights when managers of the residential institution avoid any risk of losing business. Therefore, choices between safety and freedom, between individual rights and collective rights, and between measures and results become the main obstacles to full youth rights protection.
This study concludes with suggestions for ways to enhance evaluation criteria for residential institution as well as practices of youth rights protection.

Keywords: residential institution, rights protection, participation, youth

第一章 緒論
第一節 緣起與動機 1
第二節 問題意識 6
第三節 研究目的與研究問題 9

第二章 文獻探討
第一節 權益及其相關理論 10
第二節 兒少權益與保障 19
第三節 兒少權益相關研究之取向與發現 26

第三章 研究設計
第一節 研究方法的考量與選取 36
第二節 研究資料蒐集之設計 38
第三節 資料分析與檢核 50
第四節 研究嚴謹度的掌握 54
第五節 研究倫理的保障 57

第四章 當移植少年/少女遇上代理父母
第一節 被移植的少年/少女 61
第二節 諒你也逃不出手掌心 72
第三節 代理父母的「權益」觀 85

第五章 白鴿家園中的權益保障圖像
第一節 一路走來,穩定營運的白鴿家園 93
第二節 家庭公約下的權益保障實踐 99
第三節 權益恰恰:權益保障實踐的拉扯 120
第四節 不同角色對少年權益保障的影響 147

第六章 珍珠學園中的權益保障圖像
第一節 從矯正到自發:珍珠家園的轉變歷程 157
第二節 珍珠家園的規範現況 180
第三節 考驗期:實踐權益保障的限制 200
第四節 專業合作與家長介入對少女權益保障的影響 220

第七章 研究發現與討論
第一節 家園脈絡下的權益建構與實踐 234
第二節 討論與反思 259
第三節 研究限制與對後續研究的建議 266







內政部兒童局(2007)。九十五年度兒童及少年安置教養機構聯合評鑑─評鑑總報告。
內政部兒童局(2010)。九十八年度兒童及少年安置及教養機構聯合評鑑─評鑑總報告。
石承旻(2009)。非行少年司法轉向安置生活教養經驗之研究。東海大學社會工作學系碩士論文,未出版,台中。
白倩如(2012)。少女從事與離退性交易歷程之研究─巢穴中的愛與生存。暨南大學社會政策與社會工作學系博士論文,未出版,南投。
法務部(1999)。犯罪被害人保護手冊(救濟與訴訟篇)。台北:法務部。
林婉婷(2010)。校園人權實踐現況之研究─以台北縣一所國民中學為例。國立政治大學教育研究所。
邱靜怡(2006)。台灣社會脈絡下教師對人權概念之看法。台北市立教育大學國民教育研究所。
李思儀(2011)。從歷經安置服務少年觀點解讀「獨立生活」之起步─以「獨立生活地一桶金儲蓄計畫」為例。師範大學社會工作學研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北。
張芯芸(2003)。接受緊急短期安置機構處遇之不幸少女其生活壓力、因應行為與生活適應的研究。國立臺灣師範大學碩士論文,未出版,台北。
張紉(2000)。青少年安置服務福利屬性之探討。台大社工學刊,2,191-215。
許殷宏(1998)。高夫曼「偏差行為社會學」的教育蘊義。教育資訊研究,6(4),84-99。
陳毓文(2008)。國內安置少年自殘行為之探究:自殘方式、理由與解釋因素。社會政策與社會工作學刊,12(1),145-188。
彭淑華(2006)。保護為名,權控為實?-少年安置機構工作人員的觀點分析。東吳社會工作學報,15,頁1-36。
彭淑華(2007a)。機構安置:保護他(她)、傷害他(她)?兒童少年保護工作人員眼中之機構虐待圖像。東吳社會工作學報,16,1-36。
彭淑華(2007b)。兒童及少年安置機構評鑑指標研訂之研究。兒童局補助研究。
曾華源(2004)。少年安置及教養機構服務類型與需求整體規劃研究。內政部兒童局補助。
曾華源、胡慧嫈、李仰慈、郭世豐(2011)。社會工作專業價值與倫理概論(二版)。台北:洪葉。
黃貞容(2002)。育幼機構安置服務院童權益維護指標之研究。暨南國際大學社會政策與社會工作學系碩士論文,未出版,南投。
黃源協(2005)。民主觀點社會服務品質的內涵與管理措施之探討。台大社工學刊,11,45-88。
潘淑滿(2003)。質性研究:理論與應用。台北:心理出版社。
鄭怡世(2006)。台灣戰後社會工作發展的歷史分析─1959-1982。暨南國際大學社會政策與社會工作學系博士論文,未出版,南投。
鄭貴華(2001) 。身體受虐兒童對「家庭重聚」接受意願之探討─以內政部中區兒童之家為例。東海大學社會工作學系碩士論文。
嚴祥鸞(1996)。參與觀察法。質性研究:理論、方法及本土女性研究實例,胡幼慧主編。195-221。
Andreae, D. (1996). Systems Theory and Social Work Treatment. In F. J. Tuner(Ed.), Social Work Treatment: Interlocking Theoretical Approaches. NY: The Free Press.
Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (2007). Social Psychology(7th Ed). NJ: Pearson.
Babbie, E. (2007). The Practice of Social Research (11th ed). Belmont, CA: Thomson.
Berg, B. L. (2007). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences (6th ed). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Barnes, V. (2007). Young People’s Views of Children’s Rights and Advocacy Services: A Case for ‘Caring’ Advocacy? Child Abuse Review, 16, 140-152.
Bell, N. M. (2008). Young People at Residential School: Rights, Communications and 'Complaints'. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Glasgow.
Bessell, S., & Gal, T. (2009). Forming Partnerships: The Human Rights of Children in Need of Care and Protection. International Journal of Children's Rights, 17,283-298.
Baistow, K. (1994). ‘Liberation and regulation? Some Paradoxes of Empowerment’, Critical Social Policy, winter, 34-46.
Boylan, J., & Ing, P. (2005). 'Seen but not heard'-young people's experience of advocacy. International journal of social Welfare, 14, 2-12.
Brennan, S. (2002). Children and Rights. In D. Archard, and C. M. Macleod (Ed.), The Moral and Political Status of Children, 54-69. NY: Oxford University Press.
Brighouse, H. (2002). What Rights (if any) do Children Have? In D. Archard, and C. M. Macleod (Ed.), The Moral and Political Status of Children, 31-52. NY: Oxford University Press.
Bruyere, E. B. (2010). Child Participation and Positive Youth Development. Child Welfare, 89 (5), 205-220.
Campbell, T. (2006). Rights: A Critical Introduction, London: Routledge.
Cantwell, N. (2011). Are Children’s rights still human? In A. Invernizzi & J. Williams (Ed.), The Human rights of children: from visions to implementation (pp. 37-59). Surrey: Ashgate.
Casas, F., Saporiti, A., Gonzalez, M., Figuer, C., Rostan, C., Sadurni, M., Alsinet, C., Guso, M., Grignoli, D., Mancini, A., Ferrucci, F., & Rago, M. (2006). Children’s Rights From the Point of View of Children, their Parents and their Teachers: A Comparative Study between Catalonia (Spain) and II Molise (Italy). The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 14, 1-75.
Clough, R. (1982). Residential Work. London and Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Committee on the rights of the child. (2005, September 12 - 30). Day of general discussion: children without parental care. Retrieved from http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/discussion2012.htm
Connolly M., & Ward, T. (2008). Navigating human rights across the life course. Child and Family Social Work, 13, 348-356.
Crabtree, B., & Miller, W. L. (1999). Clinical Research: A Multimethod Typology and Qualitative Roadmap. In B. Crabtree & W. L. Miller (Ed.), Doing Qualitative Research (pp. 3-32). CA: Sage.
Davis, J. B. (2007, September). Justifying Human Rights: Economics and the individual. Paper presented at the America, Human Rights and the World Conference, Marquette University.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of Qualitative Research (2ed ED).CA: Sage.
Dershowitz, A. (2004). Rights From Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights. 中譯本:你的權利從哪裡來?(黃煜文譯)
Dominelli, L. (2002). Anti-oppressive Social Work Theory and Practice. New York: Palgrave.
Drower, S. J. (1996). Social Work Value, Professional Unity, and the South African Context. Social Work, 41(2), 138-146.
Dudley, J. R. (2010). Research Methods for Social Work: Being Producers and Consumers of Research. Boston: Pearson.
Eichsteller, G., & Bird V. (2011). The relevance of Social pedagogy in working with young people in residential child care. Good enough caring. Retrieved from
http://www.goodenoughcaring.com/Journal/Article155.htm
Eichsteller, G. & Holthoff, S. (2009, October). Towards a pedagogic conceptualisation of risk . Children webmag. Retrieved from
http://www.childrenwebmag.com/articles/social-pedagogy/towards-a-pedagogic-conceptualisation-of-risk
Emond, R. (2003). Putting the Care into Residential Care: The Role of Young People. Journal of Social Work, 3(3), 321-337.
Fontana & Frey (2000). The interview: from structured questions to negotiated text. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.). Handbook of qualitative research(2nd) (pp.645-672). CA: Sage.
Frankel, R. M. (1999). Standards of Qualitative Research. In B. Crabtree & W. L. Miller (Ed.), Doing Qualitative Research (pp. 333-346). CA: Sage.
Freeden, M. (1991). Rights. MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Freeman, M. (2007). Why It Remains Important to Take Children’s Rights Seriously. International Journal of Children’s Rights, 15, 5-23.
Griffin, J. (2000). Welfare Rights. The Journal of Ethics, 4, 17-43.
Griffin, J. (2002). Do Children Have Rights? In D. Archard & C. M. Macleod (Ed.), The Moral and Political Status of Children, 19-30. NY: Oxford University Press.
Guba, E. G., & Y. S. Lincoln(1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage.
Hanlon, N. (2007). An Equality Perspective on Residential Child Care. Scottish Journal of Residential Child Care, 6(1), 22-31.
Hohfeld, W. N. (1911). Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions As Applied in Judicial Reasoning. The Yale Law Journal, 23(1), 16-59.
Holland, S. (2010). Looked After Children and the Ethic of Care. British Journal of Social Work, 40, 1664-1680.
Ife, J. (2008). Human Rights and Social Work: Towards Rights-Based Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jones, P. (1994). Rights. NY: St. Martin's Press.
Kuzel, A. J. (1999). Sampling in Qualitative Inquiry. In B. Crabtree & W. L. Miller (Ed.), Doing Qualitative Research (pp. 33-46). CA: Sage.
Leeson, C. (2010). The Emotional Labour if Caring About Looked-After Children. Child and Family Social Work, 15,483-491.
Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. (1998). Designing qualitative research. London: Sage.
McManus, K. (2007). Young People's Participation in the Recruitment and Selection Process for Secure Care Staff. Scootish Journal of Residential Child Care, 37-44.
Mason, J. (2008). A Children’s Standpoint: Needs in Out-of-Home Care. Children & Society, 22, 358-369.
Melton, G. B. (1980). Children's Concepts of Their Rights. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, fall, 186-190.
McLeod, A. (2007). Whose agenda? Issues of power and relationship when listening to looked-after young people. Child and Family Social Work, 12, 278-286.
Miller, W. L., & Crabtree, B. F. (1999). In B. Crabtree & W. L. Miller (Ed.), Doing Qualitative Research.(pp. 3-30). CA: Sage.
Moosa-Mitha, M. (2005). A difference-centred alternative to Theorization of Children’s Citizenship Rights. Citizenship Studies, 9(4), 369-388.
Morine, S. L.(2000).Children's and Parents' Attitudes Towards Children's Rights and Perceptions of Family Relationships. Master Thesis...
Munro, E. (2001). Empowering Looked-after Children. Child and Family Social Work, 6, 129-137.
Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Neuman, W. L., & Kreuger, L. W. (2003). Social work research methods: Qualitative and quantitative applications. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Peterson-Badali, M., Morine, S. L., Ruck, M. D., & Slonim, N. (2004). Predictors of Maternal and Early Adolescent Attitudes Toward Children’s Nurturance and Self-Determination Rights. Journal of Early Adolescence, 24(2), 159-179.
Peterson-Badali, M., Ruck, M. D., & Bone, J. (2008). Rights Conceptions of Maltreated Children Living in State Care. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 16, 99-119.
Podsakoff P. M. & Schriesheim, C. A. (1985). Field Studies of French and Raven's Bases of Power: Critique, Reanalysis, and Suggestions for Future Research. Psychological Bulletin, 97(3), 387-411.
Roose R. & De Bie, M. (2008). Children's rights: a challenge for social work. International social work, 51(1),37-46.
Shier, H. (2001). ‘Pathways to Participation: openings, Opportunities and Obligations’, Children and society, 15(2): 107-117.
Smith, C. (1997). Children's Rights: Have Carers Abandoned Values? Children & Society Volume, 11,3-15.
Smith, M. (2009). Rethinking residential child care : positive perspective. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Stenner, P. (2010). Subjective dimensions of human rights: what do ordinary people understand by ‘human rights’? . The International Journal of Human rights, 1-19.
Stevens, I. (2006). Consulting Young People about Residential Care Environments in Scotland. Children, Youth and Environmrnts, 16(2), 51-74.
Sund, L. (2006). The Rights of the Child as Legally Protected Interests. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 14, 327-337.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2003). Student’s Companion to Social Policy.中譯本:解讀社會政策。
Thomas, N. (2007). Towards a Theory of Children’s Participation. The International Journal of Children’s Right, 15, 199-218.
Vidich. A. J., & Lyman, S. M. (2000). Qualitative methods: Their history in sociology and anthropology. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp.37-84.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wenar, Leif, "Rights", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/rights/>.
Winter, K. (2006). Widening our knowledge concerning young looked after children: the case for research using sociological models of childhood. Child and Family Social Work, 11, 55-64.
Wong, C. K., & Wong, K. Y. (2004). Universal ideals and particular constraints of social citizenship: the Chinese experience of unifying rights and responsibilities. International journal of social welfare, 13, 103-111.

連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top