English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 118204/149236 (79%)
Visitors : 74193953      Online Users : 80
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: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/157885


    Title: 從扮家家酒到象徵性民主:兒少代表制度的建制民族誌研究
    From Playing House to Symbolic Democracy: An Institutional Ethnography of the Child and Youth Representative System in Taiwan
    Authors: 林義翔
    Lin, Yi-Hsiang
    Contributors: 王增勇
    Wang, Zeng-Yong
    林義翔
    Lin, Yi-Hsiang
    Keywords: 兒童權利
    表意權
    兒少代表
    象徵性民主
    建制民族誌
    children’s rights
    right to be heard
    youth representatives
    symbolic democracy
    institutional ethnography
    Date: 2025
    Issue Date: 2025-07-01 15:50:46 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 本研究關注台灣在《兒童權利公約》(CRC)實施背景下,兒少代表制度如何作為「表意權」實踐的關鍵場域。兒少代表是一群經過地方或中央遴選的青少年,理應能在兒童權益委員會(兒權會)中發表意見、參與決策,成為政策制定過程中的青年夥伴。然而,實務上,這樣的制度參與經常流於形式,兒少的聲音被框限於會議規則、建制語言與成人期待之中,最終淪為象徵性的民主演出。兒權會如同一場扮家家酒的遊戲,兒少看似坐上政策會議的座位,卻往往無法真正參與、影響決策。

    本研究運用建制民族誌的方法,結合研究者作為曾經的學生代表與兒少培力專員的雙重角色經驗,長期參與某縣市的兒少代表制度,透過會議觀察、文件分析與深度訪談,描繪兒少如何在制度脈絡下發聲,如何被訓練與協助撰寫提案,並在制度引導下學習符合「政策語言」的表達方式。研究特別關注「提案單」這一主導性文本如何成為制度運作的起點,不僅預先設定了兒少能夠發聲的主題與方式,也規訓了發言的邏輯與風格。透過觀察培力例會和兒權會怎麼運作,本研究發現,制度並不是單純讓兒少「學會表達」,而是早就透過話語規則、格式要求,還有一套程序安排,把兒少一步步帶往一種「比較好管理的發聲方式」。「表意權」看起來是給兒少的權利,但實際上它更像是一場制度安排好的扮家家酒,讓兒少在特定的框架裡講出「該講的話」。為回應此一困境,研究提出兩項制度轉向建議:一是支持兒少自主組織,擺脫體制角色,強化草根倡議能力;二是參考國際經驗,發展具有議題設定、回應機制與選舉正當性的「兒少議會」,真正實踐由兒少主導、與成人共享決策的參與模式。

    結論指出,兒少不應只是政府政策中的象徵性角色,而應是能夠對政策產生實質影響的行動者與對話者。唯有在制度設計上重新定位兒少的角色,從「配合演出」轉向「主體發聲」,我們才能真正落實《兒童權利公約》的核心精神,讓兒少的聲音成為政策實踐、民主深化與世代共治的重要力量。
    This study explores how the Child and Youth Representatives system in Taiwan functions as a key site for practicing the “right to be heard” under the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). These representatives, selected by local or central governments, are expected to voice their opinions and participate in decision-making processes within the Children and Youth Rights and Welfare Committee (CYRWC), becoming youth partners in policy-making. However, in practice, such participation often becomes symbolic, as children’s voices are constrained by meeting protocols, institutional language, and adult expectations—ultimately resulting in a performative form of democracy. The CYRWC thus resembles a game of “playing house,” in which youth seemingly take part in policymaking but rarely exert real influence.

    Employing the methodology of institutional ethnography, this study draws upon the researcher’s dual positionality as both a former student representative and a youth empowerment officer, engaging in long-term fieldwork within a local government’s representative system. Through meeting observations, document analysis, and in-depth interviews, it examines how youth participants express themselves within institutional constraints, how they are trained and assisted in drafting proposals, and how they gradually learn to adopt the language of “policy discourse.” Special attention is given to the “proposal form” as a dominant text that initiates institutional action, predetermines what and how youth can speak, and regulates their logic and tone of expression. By analyzing the operations of empowerment meetings and the CYRWC, this research reveals how the institution does not simply teach children to express themselves, but systematically channels them toward “manageable forms of expression” through discursive rules, formatting requirements, and procedural arrangements. The “right to be heard,” while appearing to empower youth, functions more like a staged performance orchestrated by the institution, in which youth are prompted to say only what is expected within a predefined framework.

    To address this dilemma, the study proposes two institutional reforms: first, to support youth-led grassroots organizing that operates independently of institutional roles, thereby enhancing their advocacy capacity; and second, to develop “youth parliaments” based on international models, which incorporate issue-setting powers, response mechanisms, and electoral legitimacy, creating a genuine model of youth-led, intergenerational decision-making.

    The study concludes that youth should not serve merely as symbolic figures in government policymaking, but rather as active agents and interlocutors capable of shaping policy outcomes. Only by repositioning their roles—from passive performers to autonomous speakers—can the core spirit of the CRC be fulfilled, allowing youth voices to become a meaningful force in policy practice, democratic deepening, and generational co-governance.
    Reference: 參考文獻
    一、 中文文獻
    1. 書籍&期刊
    王增勇等譯(2012)。為弱勢者化權力地圖:建制民族誌入門。台北:群學。
    王增勇、梁莉芳等(2020)。為何建制民族誌如此強大?解碼日常生活的權力遊戲。台北:群學。
    王思淳、胡中宜(2022)。〈兒少表意權在安置機構的實踐與挑戰〉。《臺大社會工作學刊》 46:33–82。
    王思淳、胡中宜(2022)。〈兒少表意權在安置機構的實踐與挑戰〉。《臺大社會工作學刊》 46:33–82。
    宋麗玉(2008)。〈增強權能策略與方法:台灣本土經驗之探索〉。《社會政策與社會工作學刊》。12,2:123-194。
    林沛君(2016)。〈人權公約匯入國內法律體系所面臨之課題——以實踐兒童權利公約之國際經驗為借鏡〉。《中正大學法學集刊》52:161-219。
    林沛君(2017)(2017)。〈兒少「表意權」實質意涵的初探――以被安置兒少發聲的權利為中心〉。《台灣人權學刊》 4,1:73–96。
    林沛君(2022)〈「有意義」的兒少參與:以我國地方兒少代表制度為例〉。《臺大社會工作學刊》 45:1–44。
    林萬億(2020)。當代社會工作:理論與方法。台北:五南。
    胡中宜等(2021)。〈兒少被傾聽的權利在團體家庭之實踐與反思〉。《台灣人權學刊》 6,1:29–56。
    胡中宜(2017)。〈聯合國兒童權利公約對我國家外安置照顧之意涵:歐洲國家的經驗〉。《社區發展季刊》157:113-124。
    黃昌榮(2003)。充權的政治面向:青年工作為例。於趙雨龍、黃昌榮、趙薇生編著,充權—新社會工作視界。頁51-71。台北:五南。
    張弘潔(2022)。〈兒少「表意參與權」之分析:台灣少代在兒促會提案之觀點〉。《台灣人權學刊》。6,4:67-96。
    陳玫伶(2012)。〈青少年增權的意涵及其價值〉。《社區發展季刊》。139:206-215。
    葉大華(2018)。〈從兒童人權公約觀點談兒少參與國際審查會議的意義。〉《社區發展季刊》。162:15-23。
    曾仁杰(2013)。〈增強權能之助人關係的形成歷程與策略:以優勢觀點為基礎的處遇模式。〉《嘉南學報》。39:185-201。
    曾華源、黃俐婷(2006)。〈心理暨社會派、生態系統觀及增強權能觀對“人在情境中”全市之比較〉。《東吳社會工作學報》。14:63-89。
    廖珮如譯(2023)。建制民族誌:使人們發聲的社會學。台北:巨流。
    潘慧玲(2003)。〈社會科學研究典範的流變〉。《教育研究資訊》。11(1):115-143。
    趙善如(2003)。台灣婦女志工充權。於趙雨龍、黃昌榮、趙薇生編著,充權—新社會工作視界。頁87-103。台北:五南。
    鄭麗珍(2002)。增強權能理論與倡導,於宋麗玉、曾華源、施教裕、鄭麗珍編著,社會工作理論—處遇模式與案例分析。頁363-392。台北:洪葉。
    劉紀蕙(2000)。〈翻譯的政治與政治的翻譯〉。《文化研究》10:
    劉瓊芬(2021)。〈以兒少「表意權」檢視十二年國教「核心素養」之內涵〉。《台灣人權學刊》 6,1: 161–168。

    2. 碩博士論文
    王思淳(2020)。《安置機構實踐兒少表意權利之初探》。國立臺北大學社會工作學系碩士論文。
    林沛君(2012)。《機構安置之兒童及少年人權保障法制—以兒童國際人際公約及英國兒童法為借鏡》。國立政治大學法律科際整合研究所碩士論文。
    林偉傑(2019)。《兒童及少年代表社會參與行為之研究》。國立屏東科技大學社會工作學系。
    苗元紅(2022)。《兒少表意權的實踐:臺灣中央兒少代表觀點初探》。國立臺灣大學社會工作學系碩士論文。
    陳奕中(2019)。《製造「狀況穩定」的少女—性剝削安置機構「親子假」的建制民族誌研究》。國立政治大學社會工作研究所碩士論文。
    許可依(2017)。《家暴社工,我們為什麼要「演戲」?—家暴安全網的建制民族誌分析》。國立政治大學社會工作研究所碩士論文。
    劉亞晉(2014)。《青少年培力與公民參與行為關係之探討》。國立政治大學社會工作研究所碩士論文。
    鄭慧蘭(2000)。《高中生公民參與態度與行為之研究—以台北市公立高中為例》。國立臺灣師範大學公民訓育研究所碩士論文。

    3. 線上資料

    全國法規資料庫(2019)。〈兒童權利公約施行法〉。取自https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=D0050193
    全國法規資料庫(2021)。〈兒童及少年福利與權益保障法〉。取自https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=D0050001
    衛生福利部社會及家庭署(2014)。〈兒童權利公約〉。取自https://crc.sfaa.gov.tw/PublishCRC/CommonDetail?documentId=45733006-3802-4A3F-BBA1-91D23E1195AE
    衛生福利部社會及家庭署(2014)。〈聯合國兒童權利公約—第12號一般性意見書〉。取自https://crc.sfaa.gov.tw/Document/Detail?documentId=D5358065-C92B-4A10-8BEE-526A51025B30
    葉大華、吳政哲等(2018)。《第一次培力青少年參與政策機制就上手》。社團法人台灣少年權益與福利促進聯盟。取自https://speakerdeck.com/awu/di-ci-pei-li-qing-shao-nian-can-yu-zheng-ce-ji-zhi-jiu-shang-shou-gong-ju-shu
    黃靜盈(2020)。我的兒少代表經驗:以學習之名要求青少年表現「專業」,只是你們成人的傲慢。台灣公民對話協會-多多益善。取自https://rightplus.org/2020/12/17/crc/
    黃靜盈(2020)。我的兒少代表經驗 2:「說好了要開會,卻把我們關在學校考試」公假給半套,青少年公共參與的菁英化與自我審查。台灣公民對話協會-多多益善。取自https://rightplus.org/2020/12/22/crc-2/

    二、英文文獻

    Arnstein, S.R.(1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216-224.
    Campbell, M. L., & Gregor, F. (2002). Mapping social relations: A primer in doing institutional ethnography. Aurora, Ontario: Garamond Press.
    Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. (2)72-80.
    Hart, R. A.(2013).Children’s participation: The theory and practice of involving young citizen in community development and environment care. London, New York: Routledge.
    Lansdown, G. (2005). The Evolving Capacities of the Child. Florence, Italy: UNICEF Innocent Research Centre. Retrieved from https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/evolving-eng.pdf
    Lundy, L. (2007). ‘Voice’ Is Not Enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal, 33(6), 927-942.
    Lundy, L., Tobin, J., & Parkes, A. (2019). The Right to Respect for the Views of the Child. In J. Tobin (Ed.), The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: A Commentary (pp. 397-434). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    Lundy, L.(2018). In defence of tokenism? Implementing children’s right to participate in collective decision-making. SAGE journals, 25(3), 340-354.
    Dillon, S.(2003). Making Legal Regimes for Intercountry Adoption Reflect Human Rights Principles: Transforming the United Nations Conventional on the Rights of the Child with the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, 21 BOSTON UNIVERSITY INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL, 179,191.
    Sinclair, R. (2004). Participation in Practice: Making it Meaningful, Effective and Sustainable. Children & Society, 18(2), 106-118.
    Parker, L.M., &Franco, L.F(1999).Empowering youth to build community through service : Youths’ attitudes toward service and extend of their service attitudes. Social work in Education,21(3),163-175.
    Ryles, S.M. (1999). A Concept analysis of empowerment: its relationship to mental health nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29(3),600-607.
    Torre, D.(1985). Empowerment: structured conceptualization and instrument development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation., New York: Cornell University.
    Williams, M.&Winston, Jr.,R.B.(1985).Participation in organized student activities and work: differences in developmental task achievement of traditional aged college students. NASPA Journal, 23(3), 52-59.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    社會工作研究所
    110264008
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110264008
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[社會工作研究所] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    400801.pdf3100KbAdobe PDF24View/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 Copyright Announcement
    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。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    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。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback