English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 91913/122132 (75%)
Visitors : 25778181      Online Users : 144
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/111824


    Title: 家庭暴力互為相對人案件之處遇模式研究
    A study on intervention model for couples with mutual violence
    Authors: 史惠姍
    Shih, Hui Shan
    Contributors: 宋麗玉
    Song, Li Yu
    史惠姍
    Shih, Hui Shan
    Keywords: 家庭暴力
    親密關係暴力
    互為相對人
    處遇模式
    Family violence
    Intimate violence
    Mutual violence
    Intervention model
    Date: 2017
    Issue Date: 2017-08-10 10:07:49 (UTC+8)
    Abstract:   以家庭暴力或親密關係暴力為主題的相關文獻相當豐富,但關於互為相對人案件的探究仍屬少數,因此,本研究以互為相對人案件的處遇模式為題,希望能更加瞭解互為相對人案件的情況,以及整理出社會工作者在提供服務的過程中會運用到哪些資源,以及透過哪些服務方式滿足互為相對人個案的需求。本研究採半結構式訪談,訪談了八位分別在被害人服務單位以及相對人方案任職的社會工作者。研究結果如下:

    社會工作者在提供互為相對人案件服務時所面臨的價值議題包含:
    1.互為相對人案件的樣貌差異:社會工作者必須面對互為相對人案件中的兩造,在權力彼此抗衡下所呈現出的樣貌,包含「被害人不再弱勢;相對人不再強權」以及許多「工具性的通報進案」。
    2.相對人社工角色的衝突:受訪的相對人方案社工在以被害人為服務主體的家暴體制之下,在提供互為相對人案件服務時必須面對的便是與被害人體制的衝撞,以及「要以誰為案主」的價值選擇議題。

    在提供互為相對人案件服務時所運用的處遇觀點則包含
    1.選擇能夠接受的處遇觀點:受訪社工在提供互為相對人案件服務的過程中,最常以女性主義觀點、優勢觀點以及系統觀點等三個處遇觀點作為提供服務的依歸。
    2.服務方向:整理出社會工作者在提供互為相對人案件的服務過程中包含了六個面向,包含釐清哪方為相對人、保持中立超然立場、評估的面向依對象而異、促進兩造達成共識、轉介相對人服務以及夫妻協談,每一個面向都是受訪者在提供互為相對人案件服務時所會運用到的。

    最後,研究者結合上述研究結果以及受訪社會工作者的建議,在最後提出本研究的限制與建議,提供實務工作者、政策制定者以及未來研究者參考。
    Since past till today, there has a great number of family violence or intimate violence literature and analyses, but mutual violence. Consequently, this research is studying with the intervention model for couples with mutual violence, in order to much more understood the situation of mutual violence cases, and sort out how social workers use resources or service model to meet service user’s need. This research interviewed 8 social workers via semi-structured interview, who were worked in victim service organizations or batterer programs. The results are as follows:

    The issue about personal value will be met when social workers provide mutual violence cases services include:
    1.The different pattern between mutual violence cases: social workers need to face the both side of mutual cases, and have to figure out the pattern of power contention. These conditions includes ” victim no more weakness and batterer no more powerful” and a lot of “ instrumental purpose report”.
    2.The conflict of batterer social worker’s role: under the family violence system, the batterer program social workers need to fight with the victim system, and deal with the issue of “who should be the service user?”

    The intervention perspective including:
    1.Choose an intervention perspective can be accepted: Feminist perspective, Strength perspective and System perspective are the most often used in mutual violence service process.
    2.The service orientations: clarify who should be the batterer, maintain neutrality, different service user with different evaluation, promote the consensus between both side of service users, referral to batterer program services and couple counceling. These six orientations were applied in social workers provide mutual violence cases services process.

    At last, this research lists out the limitations of the study, and provide some suggestions which are according to all of the results and social workers’ advises to social workers, policy maker and researcher in the future.
    Reference: 王行(2007)。文化與政治下的權利與暴力:輔導被認定的施虐者之思辨敘事。應用心理研究,34,229-252。
    王茲繐(2007)。婚姻暴力加害人處遇方案對於加害人家庭系統影響之探討。國立臺灣大學社會工作研究所碩士論文。
    王詩涵(2011)。社會工作者服務男性相對人之處遇經驗初探。國立臺灣師範大學社會工作學研究所碩士論文。
    王麗容(2012)。我國性別暴力現況調查之研究期末報告。內政部家庭暴力及性侵害防治委員會委託之專題研究成果報告(編號:PG10007-0094)。台北市:內政部。
    伊慶春(2001)。華人家庭夫妻權力的比較研究。載於喬健、李沛良、馬戎(主編),二十一世紀的中國社會學與人類學(頁225-256)。高雄市:麗文書局。
    余漢儀(1998)。社會研究的倫理。顏祥鸞編。危險與秘密:研究倫理。台北:三民。
    吳柳嬌(2005)。婚姻暴力的成因與處遇之研究。國立中山大學中山學術研究所博士論文。
    李靜華、蔡宗晃(2007)。婚姻暴力聲請保護令異常動機個案原因之探索性研究。亞洲家庭暴力與性侵害期刊,3(2),1-34。
    宋麗玉(2013)。婚姻暴力受暴婦女之處遇模式與成效。臺北市:洪葉。
    周詩寧(譯)(2004)。預防家庭暴力(原作者:Browne, K., & Herbert, M.)。臺北市: 五南。
    社會及行為科學研究法(二)質性研究法(2013)。瞿海源、畢恆達、劉長萱、楊國樞編。北京: 社會科學文獻出版社。
    林冠惟(2015)。男性家暴相對人在父權體制下的性別角色國立暨南國際大學社會政策與社會工作學系碩士論文。
    柯麗評、王珮玲、張錦麗(2005)。家庭暴力:理論政策與實務。臺北市:巨流。家庭暴力防治法(2005年2月4日)。
    高淑清(2008)。質性研究的18堂課:首航初探之旅。高雄:麗文文化。
    許明慧(2002)。家庭暴力女性施暴者人格特質與施暴行為之探討。國立中正大學犯罪防治研究所碩士論文。
    陳怡青、楊美惠(2007)。家庭暴力加害人個人成長史暨對施暴歷程之初探研究,亞洲家庭暴力與性侵害期刊, 3(1),1-25。
    莊佩芬(2014)。伴侶暴力關係之新觀點,台灣性學學刊,20(1),55-82。
    游美貴(2010)。家庭暴力及性侵害被害人垂直整合服務方案評估研究。內政部家庭暴力及性侵害防治委員會委託研究報告。
    黃昱文(譯)(2004)。錯的是我們不是我:家暴的動力關係(原作者:Mills, L.)。台北:商周(原著出版年:2003)。
    黃雅羚(2011)。婚姻暴力中的互為相對人─社會工作者的觀點。國立師範大學社會工作所碩士論文。
    黃煜文(譯)(2004)。錯的是我們不是我:家暴的動力關係(原作者Mills, L. G.)。台北:商周(原著出版年:2003)。
    葉肅科,2001.06,家庭暴力理論觀點與防治策略,社區發展季刊,94,頁 289-305。
    葉碧翠(2004)。家庭內女性殺人犯罪之研究。國立台北大學犯罪學研究所碩士論文。
    潘淑滿(2003)。婚姻暴力的發展路徑與模式:臺灣與美國的比較。社區發展季刊,101,276-295。
    潘淑滿(2003)。質性研究:理論與應用。臺北市:心理出版社。
    潘淑滿(2007)。親密暴力─多重身分與權力流動。台北:心理。
    潘淑滿(2012)。親密關係暴力問題之研究。內政部委託之專題研究成果報告(編號:PG10005-0292)。台北市:內政部。
    衛生福利部統計處(2013)。家庭暴力事件通報案件統計。資料檢索日期:104年10月9日。網址:http://www.mohw.gov.tw/cht/DOS/Statistic.aspx?f_list_no=312&fod_list_no=4188。
    衛生福利部統計處(2013)。家庭暴力事件通報被害及加害人概況。資料檢索日期:104年10月9日。網址:http://www.mohw.gov.tw/cht/DOS/Statistic.aspx?f_list_no=312&fod_list_no=4188。
    鄭瑞隆(2004)。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。
    簡春安、鄒平儀(2004)。社會工作研究法。台北市:巨流。
    Aymer, S. R. (2008). Beyond power and control: Clinical interventions with men engaged in partner abuse. Journal of Clinical Social Work, 36, 323-332.
    Babcock, J. C., Green, C. E., & Robie, C. (2004). Does batters' treatment work? A meta-analytic review of domestic violence treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1023-1053.
    Black, C. J. (2003). Translating Principles Into Practice: Implementing the Feminist and Strengths Perspectives in Work With Battered Women. Affilia: Journal of Women & Social Work, 18(3), 332-349.
    Blood, R. O., & Wolfe, D. M. (1960). Husbands and wives: The dynamics of married living. New York: Free press.
    Boeije, H. R. (2010). Analysis in Qualitative Research. Thousand oaks, CA: SAGE.
    Bruce, H., Dorothy, S., & David, d. V. (1999). Domestic violence in Australia: Are women and men equally violent? Australian Social Monitor, 2(3), 57-62.
    Brun, C. & Rapp, R. C.(2001). Strengths-based case management: Individuals’ perspectives on strengths and the case manager relationships. Social Work, 46(3), 278-288.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2006). Understanding intimate partner violence: Fact sheet. Washington, DC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved August 2, 2016, from http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/ipv_factsheet.pdf
    Chibucos, T. R., & Leite, R. W. (2005). Feminist theory. In T. R. Chibucos & R. W. Leite (Eds.), Reading in family theory (pp. 209-211). Thousand oaks, CA: Sage.
    Cook, D., & Cook, A. (1984). A systemic treatment approach to wife battering. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 10, 83-93.
    Cook, P. W. (2009). Abused men: The hidden side of domestic violence (2 ed.). Westport: Praeger.
    Coser, L. A. (1967). Continuities in the study of social conflict. New York: The Free Press.
    Cowger, C. D. (1994). Assessing client strengths: Clinical assessment for client empowerment. Social Work, 39(3), 262-268.
    Cowger, C. D., & Snively, C.A. (2002). Assessing client strengths: Individual, family, and community empowerment. In D. Saleebey(ed), The strengths perspective in social work practice.(3th ed.)(p106-123). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
    Critical issues in qualitative research methods. (1994). (J. M. Morse Ed.). London: Sage.
    Current controversies on family violence. (2005). (D. R. Loseke, R. J. Gelles, & M. M. Cavanaugh Eds. 2 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Dasgupta, S. D. (1999). Just like men? A critical view of violence by women. In M. E. Shepard & E. L. Pence (Eds.), Coordinating community response to domestic violence: Lessons from Duluth and beyond (pp. 195-222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1992). The myth of sexual symmetry in marital violence. Social Problems, 39, 71-91.
    Dutton, D. G. (1994). Patriarchy and wife assault: The ecological fallacy. Violence and Victims, 9(2), 17=67-182.
    Dutton, D. G. (2006). Rethinking domestic violence. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.
    Dutton, D. G. (2008). Reflections on thirty years of domestic violence research. Trauma Violence Abuse, 9(3). doi:10.1177/1524838008319146.
    Ezzy (2002). Qualitative analysis: Practice and innovation. New York: Routledge.
    Family violence: Prevention and treatment. (1999). (L. Robert & Hampton Eds. 2 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Felson, R. (2002). Violence and gender reexamined. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
    Field, C. A., & Caetano, R. (2005). Intimate partner violence in the U.S. general population – progress and future directions. Journal of Interpersonal violence, 20(4), 463-469.
    Gelles, R. J. & Cornell, C. P. (1985). Intimate violence in families. Berverly Hills, CA: Sage.
    Gelles, R. J. & Straus, M. A. (1988). Intimate Violence: The Causes and Consequences of Abuse in the American Family. New York: Simon & Schuster .
    Gelles, R. J. (1987). Family Violence. Beverly Hills: Sage.
    Gelles, R. J., & Cornell, C. P. (1985). Intimate violence in families. Berverly Hills, CA: Sage.
    Giles-Sims. (1983). Wife-beating: A systems theory approach. New York: Guilford Press.
    Gosselin. (2010). Heavy Hands: An introduction to the crimes of family violence (4 ed.). Boston: Prentice.
    Grauwiler, P., & Mills, L. G. (2004). Moving beyond the criminal justice paradigm: A radical restorative justice approach to intimate abuse. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 31(1), 55.
    Hagan, J., Gillis, A. R., & Simpson, J. (1990). Clarifying and extending power-control theory. American Journal of Sociology, 95(4), 1024-1037.
    Hall, R. E. (2012). The Feminization of Social Welfare: Implications of Cultural Tradition vis-à-vis Male Victims of Domestic Violence. The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare,39(3), 7-27.
    Hamel, J., & Nicholls, T. L. (2007). Domestic violence: A gender-inclusive conception. In J. Hamel & T. L. Nicholls (Eds.), Family interventions in domestic violence. New York: Springer.

    Hamberger, L. K. (2005). Men’s and women’s use of intimate partner violence in clinical samples: Toward a Gender-Sensitive analysis. Violence and victims, 20(2), 131-151.
    Handbook of family violence. (1987). (V. Van Hasselt, R. L. Morrison, A. S. Bellack, & M. Hersen Eds.). New York: Plenum.
    Handbook of family violence. (1987). (V. Van Hasselt, R. L. Morrison, A. S. Bellack, & M. Hersen Eds.). New York: Plenum.
    Jacobson, N. S., & Christensen, A. (2004). 婚姻治療法 (鄧閔鴻、黎士鳴, 譯). 台北: 鴻智(原著出版年:1996).
    Johnson, M. P. (2008). A typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
    Kurz, D. (1995). For richer, for poorer: Mothers confront divorce. New York: Routledege.
    Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
    Male Victims of Domestic Violence. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, XXXIX(3): 7-27.
    McClennen, J. C. (2010). Social work and family violence: Theories, assessment, and intervention. New York: Springer Publishing.
    McKeel, A., & Sporakowski, M. (1993). How shelter counselors' view about responsibility for wife abuse relate to services they provide to battered women. Journal of Family Violence, 8(101-112).
    McLeoda, M. (1984). Women against men: An examination of domestic violence based on an analysis of official data and national victimization data. Justice Quarterly, 1(2). doi:10.1080/07418828400088101
    McNeely, R., & Robinson-Simpson, G. (1987). The truth about domestic violence: A falsely framed issue. Social Work, 32, 485-490.
    Neidig, P., Friedman, D., & Collins, B. (1986). Attitudinal characteristics of males who have engaged in spouse abuse. Journal of Family Violence, 1(3), 223-233.
    Nettler, G. (1978). Explaining crime (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
    Neuman, W. L. (1997). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
    Padgett, D. K. (2008). Qualitative methods in social work research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
    Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. London: Sage.
    Rapp, C. A. (1998). The Strengths Model: Case Management with People Suffering from Severe Mental Illness. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Reese-Dukes, J., & Reese-Dukes, C. (1983). Pairs for pairs: A theoretical base for co-therapy as a nonsexist process in couples counseling. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 62(99-101).
    Ristock, J. L.(2002). No More Secrets. England: Routledge.
    Roberts, A. (1996a). Battered women who kill: A comparative study of incarcerated participants with a community sample of battered women. Journal of Family Violence, 11, 291-304.
    Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Saleebey, D. (1996). The strengths perspective in social work practice: Extensions and cautions. Social Work, 41(3), 296-305.
    Straus, M. A. (1980). Victims and aggressors in marital violence. American Behavioral Scientist, 23(681-704).
    Straus, M. A. (1993). Physical assault by wives, a major social problem. In R. Gelles & D. Loseke (Eds), Current Controversies on Family Violence (pp. 67-87). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
    Straus, M. A. (2005). Women's violence toward men is a serious social problem. In D. R. Loseke, R. J. Gelles, & M. M. Cavanaugh (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence. Newbury Park, NJ: Sage.
    Straus, M. A., and Gelles, R. J. (1992b). Social change and change in family violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys. In Straus, M. A., and Gelles, R. J. (eds.), Physical Violence in American Families, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick.
    Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. (2007). Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. (3rd ed.) Tousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Sugarman, D., & Frankel, S. (1996). Patriarchal ideology and wife-assault: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Violence, 11(1), 13-39.
    The strengths perspective in social work practice. (1997). (D. Saleebey Ed. 2 ed.). New York: Longman.
    Vold, G. B., & Bernard, T. J. (1985). Theoretical criminology (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
    Walker, L. E. A. (2009). The battered woman syndrome (3rd ed.). New York: Springer Publishing.
    Wiehe, V. R. (1988). Understanding family violence: Treating and preventing partner, child, sibling, and elder abuse. California: Sage.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    社會工作研究所
    102264013
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0102264013
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[社會工作研究所 ] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    401301.pdf2493KbAdobe PDF266View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback