| 摘要: | 在台灣，多數的原住民社區發展工作是由非政府組織 (NGO) 所推動，從協助居民找出社區需要被解決的議題、引入外部資源，到訂立策略、具體實施。在這樣的過程中，社區工作者可能會面臨許多問題，包含與社區溝通、贊助單位經費申請、公部門協商、個人生活…等。本篇的研究是希望透過質性訪談的方式，瞭解非政府組織社區工作人員在原住民部落中，所進行的社區工作方式、遇到的問題與如何處理。
本研究深度訪談全台灣二十四個非政府組織的三十一位社區工作者，訪談進行時間，第一次是在2005年七月到九月，經初步分析後於2006年八月到九月選部份的受訪者進行第二次的訪談，每次訪談時間約一到三小時。資料分析是採用類屬分析中的質性描述法 (Qualitative Descriptive Method )。
研究發現，社區工作者會透過合適的社區守門人進入到社區，並長期在地與民眾建立感情；運作良好的社區工作方案設計，大多符合社區生活習慣與原住民文化，透過社區的自主力量來推動，並成立社區組織永續經營。而社區工作上的問題會遇到社區內部派系的紛爭、在地的人情壓力、經費來源的困窘、評鑑制度的遺憾、人力資源的不足與政府立場上的矛盾情形。社區工作者在處理問題上會站在中立的立場、建立起工作的標準、靈活地運用計畫經費與結合外部的資源來面對。
本研究指出，非政府組織的社區工作方法比起公部門更是以社區為主導；但同時也因為缺乏公部門的行政權，許多社區工作問題會讓工作者無法處理。未來的政策上建議政府公部門可以與非政府組織合作，提供社區工作者在經費與公權力上的支持，才可以讓社區發展工作充分發揮和永續經營。
Most community development projects in aboriginal tribes in Taiwan were conducted by non-governmental organizations (NGOs). From selecting issues, linking outside resources, to planning and implementing programs, NGO community workers may confront various kinds of barriers, such as the difficulties in communication among community groups, applying funding, cooperating with local governments, and balancing personal life. This study is to understand the community organizing strategies used by NGO community workers and related problems in aboriginal tribes.
The study sample included 24 NGOs and 31 community workers. The first interviews were conducted from July to September, 2005. A number of interviewees were selected to have the second interview, which was conducted from August to September, 2006. Interviews ranged from one to three hours. Qualitative Descriptive Method was adapted as the analysis method.
This study found that community workers entered into the communities though connecting the right “gate keepers” and informants. Most community workers lived in the communities and maintained good relationships with residents. Most community projects were led by communities and designed according to local customs and cultures. The development of local community organizations ensured sustainability of project results. The main problems or dilemmas that community workers had to face included the politics among various religious groups and political parties, the pressure of asking favors from relatives and friends, lack of funding, lack of objective evaluations, lack of volunteers, and conflict goals among local government, NGOs, and communities. Community workers confronted these dilemmas by being neutral, keeping working ethics, and being flexible in the available resources.
Regarding policy implication, this study suggested that although NGOs may be more likely to understand community needs and work more closely with communities than the government. Many socioeconomic problems, however, may not be solved without legal power. The cooperation among local government, NGOs, and communities is a must in future successful community organizing projects. |
