學校和督導沒教的事--臺灣社會團體工作專業養成與發展

Professional Cultivation and Development of Social Group Work in Taiwan

林佩瑾(Pei Chin Lin)

指導教授 ： 古允文

國立臺灣大學/社會科學院/社會工作學研究所/博士(2017年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201700082

摘要

從歷史的觀點分析，臺灣社會團體工作在接受西方理論的移植及在地社會脈絡的醞釀過程裡，逐步架構出獨特的內涵與特質。臺灣的團體工作雖未如美國的經驗，經歷了是否要和社會工作專業合併的衝突，但卻共享了社會工作專業認同在與社會情境彼此磋商和建構專業自信的掙扎。臺灣社會團體工作專業發展的挫敗，讓我們不得不反思，屬於臺灣的社會團體工作究竟是什麼？臺灣的社會團體工作究竟要在何處紮根？本研究採取建構主義的觀點，以詮釋學為取徑，探索臺灣社會團體工作專業養成與發展的歷程與脈絡，從社會工作者之實務經驗、學習與整合之歷程、社會團體工作在實務的地位以及團體工作專業教育、訓練與實務之連結，以了解社會團體工作在社會工作專業中的位置，並透過與歷史連結而來的詮釋理解，構築出臺灣社會團體工作發展的圖像、經驗與特色。
首先，臺灣社會工作者學習團體工作的歷程，是從大學教育開始，但學校團體工作教育所奠下的基礎有限，主要的學習是發生在實務場域。在實務中學習的歷程中，自主學習是一種模式，也有是運用同儕督導方式，比較幸運的，則在師徒制之下展開有系統的訓練。而不論何種學習途徑，社會團體工作專業的養成需要漸進式的學習進程與師徒制的貼身式訓練，學習者則更容易達到專業成長。其次，社工實務領域長期以個案工作為主，社工缺乏自己帶團體的專業自信，且偏重團體技巧的學習，忽略團體動力與關係連結的重要性；加上實務環境不鼓勵社工帶團體，未提供足夠的支持與資源，於是團體工作外包給其他專業，導致社會團體工作邊緣化，甚至有諮商化的趨勢。此外，社會工作教育不重視團體工作與實務課程，教師無法兼顧建構知識與運作體驗團體兩種目標的學習，並缺乏本土化教材與實務性師資，使得社會團體工作的發展自高等教育開始就從未生根著地。另一方面，社工實務環境越來越聚焦於危機處遇與問題解決取向，過度的專業分工，導致個案工作、團體工作與社區工作難以連結，團體工作無法發揮中介的功能，更造成服務輸送的斷裂。
本研究透過歷史的觀點，找到了臺灣團體工作無法呈現自身的主體性的答案，這和社會工作專業的養成與教育長期忽略社會工作的藝術性與人的教育相關，而社會工作專業現存的困境與問題，也與團體工作的沒落以及社區工作的式微有著緊密的關聯，亦即社會工作逐漸失去原有的社會性與系統觀，社會團體工作的藝術性、人味、系統觀點是這門專業的主體性的重要內涵，當我們忽視與揚棄之時，也是主體性消失之時。社會工作團體的獨特性與主體性，來自社會團體工作的傳統，社會團體工作需要重新返回與認同社會工作的藝術性特質和系統性思維。因此提出本研究之建議：以系統觀點作為與其他專業區隔的獨特性，建構社會團體工作的專業認同；以人與生命的教育為專業養成教育的基礎；經由知識實踐與經驗學習過程，將團體工作價值與信念落實在行動之中；培養實務型博士與教授及發展師徒式與學習團隊模式延續團體工作專業之傳承。最後，期待盼能藉由本研究之結果，找到臺灣社會團體工作存在的意義與位置，讓社會工作者看見臺灣團體工作的主體性與發展方向，在這些獨有特質與價值基礎中，建構社會團體工作的專業知能與認同，共同推動臺灣團體工作本土化實務縱深的發展！

關鍵字

社會團體工作 ； 專業養成 ； 默會知識 ； 系統觀點 ； 詮釋學

並列摘要

Through a historical lens, the development and education of social work in Taiwan, including social group work, was deeply influenced by western social work theories and practice. Social work has historically recognized group work as a core practice methodology. However, the method appears to be losing its unique identity, power and confidence both in the United States and in Taiwan and this is as the “generocide of social group work”.
Social group workers in the United States struggled to achieve profession status and maintain identity by affiliating with social work, but in Taiwan, social group work is on a direct path of falling within social work as a method and was not well understood by social workers. The lack of understanding of social group work has not changed very much in Taiwan. Working with groups is a major component of social work practice but social workers rarely use this method and even have no group work experience in the field. What makes social group work disappear in Taiwan? What is the distinctness of social group in Taiwan? This research uses the constructivist world-view and adopts a hermeneutic approach. This study also provides a historical perspective to explore the roots in social group work in Taiwan and its uniqueness and characteristic by transplantation and indigenization. First, the research explores the development process and context of social group work, the connection between practice and education, the relationship of social group work to social work profession. Second, the study tries to provide a current depiction and in-depth account of the state of group work and identify the features of professional cultivation and development of social group work in Taiwan.
The findings of the research include the following. First, the processes of professional cultivation and development of social group work are beginning with higher education of social work, participating in a group, observing a group, as co-leadership and then as a leader to move from novices to expert practitioners. Avenues for continued learning include social work training programs, peer group supervision or consultation, the field instructor and coach. The most important is that supervision and mentorship must serve as a vehicle for expanding knowledge and for helping students or learners to apply the knowledge to practice. Second, because social workers were taught largely by persons whose expertise was in work with individuals and who had little or no social group work experience, social workers lack of confidence in working with groups. They prefer learning techniques and skills of group work rather than having a better understanding of group dynamics, building relationship and making real connection in the groups. Instead of supporting or encouraging social workers to work with groups, the social service organizations and agencies outsource group work to psychological profession. These problems result in weakening and psychologization of social group work. Moreover, the school of social work and the social work program seldom offer more than a foundation course in group work, and social group work’s prominence within the graduate curriculum has diminished over the years. There is neither local resource for teaching nor highly competent and experienced specialist professor and professor of practice. Besides that, social workers focus more on crisis intervention and problem-solving and too often work in highly specialized areas that lack of communication and coordination among the far-flung divisions and multi-agency setting. These result in that all services provided to clients and their family become fragmentary and discontinue. Therefore, social workers should think and act in a systematic approach, consider everything that happens in terms of the group context as well as the wider context in which it is embedded –social, political, organizational, and are able to make group work function to play the role of intermediary to integrate with case work, group work and community work.
The most important is that this study provides a comprehensive understanding of the vanished subjectivity of social group work in Taiwan. Why the subjectivity of social group work disappeared? It is because that social work education and training in Taiwan do not attach importance to systems perspectives and artistry. Social group work ideology is rooted in systems perspectives and artistry. The wonderful spirit imbedded in group work ideology determined that group work should survive through difficult times. History gives us a context for understanding and relating to the present, and guides us as we using a systematic lens and social character to move forward to the hoped-for professional identity. Besides that, the process of coaching and the learning experiences of the social group work practicum must become central to the intellectual discourse of the school. The practicum should become a place in which social work practitioners learn to reflect on their own tacit theories of the phenomena of group work practice, in the presence of representatives of those disciplines whose formal theories are comparable to the tacit theories of practitioners. The two kinds of theories should be made to engage each other and we should cultivate professional practitioners to be mentors, coaches, specialist professor and professor of practice to teach students, train novices.
This study not only concern with lost in transition, but also found in transition. Hopefully, it would serve as a foundation for future research and bolster commitment to social group work practice and education. Most of all, it would awaken spiritual heritage of social group work, construct professional identity, strengthen the place of social group work in social work and all efforts contribute to promote and deepen the development of social group work.

並列關鍵字

social group work ； professional development ； tacit knowledge ； systems perspectives ； hermeneutics

參考文獻

王文基（2007）。樂生院拆遷爭議與STS【社論】。科技、醫療與社會，5，5-8。

林安梧（2003）。人文學方法論：詮釋的存有學探源。臺北市：讀冊文化事業公司。

林萬億（2010）我國社會工作教育的發展：後專業主義的課題。臺大社會工作學刊，12，153-196。

高淑清（2001）。在美華人留學生太太的生活世界：詮釋與反思。本土心理學研究，16：225-285。

張恆豪（2007）。特殊教育與障礙社會學一個理論的反省。教育與社會研究，13，71-93。