「做個就業好公民」的身心障礙者就業促進論述－以建制民族誌觀點分析

Abstract

本文從作者工作的斷裂經驗為研究出發點，探討促進障礙者就業政策下，何以障礙者的就業處境沒有改善。藉由建制民族誌為研究途徑，以求職困難的障礙者為研究立足點，描述參與就業促進的行動者是如何執行就業服務及如何選擇，並分析何種力量影響各個行動者的決定，釐清促進障礙者就業的措施何以仍使障礙者深陷於低薪及低技術性的職場。 透過建制民族誌的分析，本研究具體的結論包括：（1）、政府、教育制度及專家體系，不斷推銷就業好公民的形象，說服家庭選擇符合社會價值的決定。（2）、由於福利服務資源不足或無法負擔，使家庭更努力的配合學校及專業人員的安排。（3）、專家與專業人員深受家庭信任與依賴，成為具公信力的說服者，影響家庭的決定，而專業組織受到政府合約的束縛，在有限的時間內，只能選擇低技術及低勞動條件的職場安置障礙者。最後，在這些行動者的協作下，強化了社會價值加諸於障礙者身上的期望，更續行了就業排除，使障礙者無法藉由就業真正融入社會。 本研究認為要回應障礙者社會參與的期待，應發展適足的資源，實務工作者應回到以人為本的核心概念下，思考障礙者需要的多元服務，才能打破建構障礙者就業的權力地圖，重構障礙者社會參與的路徑。

The purpose of this study, based on the author’s personal experiences of disjuncture in her professional career, is to explore reasons for the employment promotion measures’ failure to improve the career situation of persons with severe disabilities. Drawing upon institutional ethnography, the author portrayed the actors involved in the process, and analyzed factors influencing those actors’ decisions. The aim is to disclose why, even with so many employment promotion measures, persons with disabilities are still trapped in low-paid and low-skilled jobs. The author argued in her analysis that：(1) the government, the education and the professional system promote an image of hard-working citizens and they persuade families with children with disabilities to make decisions meeting this social expectation;(2) due to the lack of and/or the unaffordable social services, those families work hard to follow the arrangement by schools and professionals;(3) the experts and professionals influence families’ decisions because of the deep trust in them by the families plus the persuasiveness they demonstrate. However, the employment services providers have been constrained by outsourcing contracts, which produce only low-skilled jobs for the disabled jobseekers for limited working periods. The social expectation imposed on persons with disabilities were further intensified by these actors working closely with one another. The whole process hence continues to exclude people with disabilities from mainstream labor markets rather than to promote the inclusion and participation.