近年來，透過國家考試取得證照已經成為台灣助人專業爭先恐後走的歷程，彷彿取得證照。在這一波證照化熱潮中，1997年社工師法常是被其他專業參考的例子。但被社工師法加持的社工專業真的經驗到證照化所承諾的專業自主嗎？這是作者從社工人的位置，嘗試在本文回答的問題。文章分成三部分。第一部份回顧社工專業在台灣發展的歷程，從歷史的脈絡中理解社工師法的通過，其實是政府部門的社工員爭取勞動條件所啟動的過程。第二部分整理社工師法通過之後所引起的連鎖反應：在社會體制面，國家管理機制與執照制度相和連，更行強化證照制度的合法性；在社工社群內部，社工師考試激化學術與實務間的矛盾，終至引爆醫院社工室集體拒收學校實習生的抗爭事件；以及社工師法通過後大量社工學系的設立導致社工學界內部爭議。第三部分，作者試圖提出個人觀察與省思：一、考試制度的實施導致作者所謂的社工專業「集體弱智化」現象，追尋標準答案式的單一與集中化方向發展，專業同儕知識的對話與累積空間被嚴重擠壓。二、專業教育空間的生態與多樣的可能性都受到影響，「命題委員」成為另一種知識權威的象徵與指標，學分班與補習班成為學術生涯發展的另一種捷径。最後，作者質疑證照化的過程其實是專業失去自主的過程；如果證照化的目的是在於改善勞動條件，「建制化專業」顯然阻礙了專業者有效以勞動者身份集結成立工會的可能。以排除他人做為專業壟斷的證照化途徑，導致工作與個人生活實踐的脫節與矛盾，工作應有的樂趣進而被剝奪。 It is not until recent years that licentiation through national examination has become the trend for all helping professions in Taiwan. Getting a nationally accredited license seems to become synonymous to a higher level of social status, a guarantee for better financial reward, as well as more respect for professional autonomy. In this wave of licentiation, the Act of Social Workers (ASW) has set up an important example for other helping professions. However, it is yet to decide whether the autonomy for professional social workers has been improved after the implementation of ASW. This is the question that the authors of the paper try to answer. This paper is composed of three parts: The first part reviews the history of the profession of social workers and the historical context for the passage of ASW. The second part examines the dialectic relationships between social work practitioners, the academia, and the national examination system. The relatively low rate for passing the examination leads to direct confrontation between social work practitioners and scholars as the system weakens the independent-thinking capacity of the front-line workers. The long-term effect is that licentiation will transform social work education into a commodity. Still worse, the small number of scholars, who are involved with the work of examination, can control or even monopolize the development .in the related academic fields. The authors conclude by suggesting that the process of licentiation is actually a process for losing professional autonomy. Instead of licentiation, the authors suggest that establishment of unions should be a better option for the various groups of practitioners in the helping profession.