社會正義倡議為當代思潮，學校輔導教師宜善用其角色功能，為學生倡議，以營造適合學生學習的教育環境。本研究旨在探究學校輔導教師的倡議行動歷程，訪談15 位中學輔導教師（12 女3 男，平均年齡41 歲、平均工作年資14 年），採用紮根理論方法，研究結果顯示倡議歷程，依序為起心動念階段、衡量抉擇階段、審時度勢階段、實際行動階段，與結果影響階段，同時可「借助關 係推進倡議」，使倡議歷程順利。在起心動念階段的內涵，包含對壓迫的意識覺醒、改善不公與實踐正義；進入衡量抉擇階段，在於判斷系統不利學生的身心、拒絕息事寧人的體制結構、盤算個人職場地位與權力，以及平衡取捨專業效能與耗竭；在審時度勢階段，則是權衡自身處境安危、兼顧學生福祉、衡量學校因應倡議之彈性，以及辨別利益相關人與效益；前進到實際行動階段，可善用溝通、依法行事、連結資源、介入系統與學生倡議之方式；結果影響階段顯示倡議引發系統失衡、調整關係互動模式、反思倡議認同與作為，以及回歸個人信念力量。整體而言，若能借助關係，更能推進倡議，其中包含強化關係連結以順利倡議，和互惠信任以減輕倡議阻礙。最後根據上述研究結果進行討論，並針對實務與未來研究提出建議。

The American School Counselor Association recommended school counselors to actively participate in advocacy, leadership, cooperation, and systemic change (ASCA, 2019). Engaging in advocacy is one element of being an effective school counselor (Field & Baker, 2004; Haskins & Singh, 2016). A school counselor can make a difference by being a proactive and responsible advocate (Bemak & Chung, 2005). Counselors worked with and advocated for students with a sensitivity toward the ecological system the student is situated in, because such systems influence student psychological adaptation (Cigrand et al., 2015; Havlik et al., 2019; Williams & Greenleaf, 2012). This helps remove barriers related to injustice or oppression, promotes equal opportunities, and enhances learning and educational performance (Gibson et al., 2012; Lewis et al., 2003; Ratts et al., 2009). Guidance counselors work in a Chinese cultural context, which is considered to be collectivist. In Chinese culture, social justice is construed less as the protection of individual rights and more as social harmony that is upheld by right and proper action (Zhang, 2009). Thus, given this cultural difference with the West, this study used grounded theory to explore how advocacy is thought of and practiced in the Taiwanese context. The qualifications for recruiting participants are: (1) currently employed as a full-time guidance counselor in the secondary school; (2) had the concept of advocacy, which involved speaking out or taking action to change the system environment on behalf of the welfare of students (Bradley & Lewis, 2000); (3) had at least three advocacy experiences including actions at the individual student/client level (student empowerment and student advocacy), institutional/school/organizational level (community collaboration and systems advocacy), and public arena level (collective action and social/political advocacy) (Toporek & Daniels, 2018); (4) willing to participate in the interview for this study. We interviewed 15 guidance counselors (12 women and 3 men, with an average age of 41 years and an average working experience of 14 years). The results indicated that the process through which guidance counselors engage in advocacy comprised five stages: a contemplating, judging and making a decision, assessing the situation, taking action, and making influence stage. The counselors advocated through their social network to smoothen the process. In the contemplating stage, the counselors tried to be aware of experiences of oppression, respect the dignity of the student, remedy any injustice faced by the student, and integrate learning and supervision experience to ensure that social justice is met. Drawing on the concept of social justice, the counselors were well-equipped to effectively deal with the systemic factors contributing to the student’s problems. In the judging and making a decision stage, the counselors considered the four main principles that guided their advocacy efforts. First, the system was harmful to students’ physical and mental health. Second, the accomplice structure that meant resolving conflicts only by adopting a conciliatory method needed to be rejected. Third, guidance counselors’ personalworkplace status and individual power should be calculated. Fourth, professional effectiveness should not come at the expense of personal burnout. In the assessing the situation stage, the counselors took a bird’s eye view of the situation and weighed the pros and cons. They also took care not to place extra pressure on students. The school’s flexibility in responding to advocacy efforts was determined, and the interests of and opportunities to work with stakeholders were identified. Subsequently, the counselor surmised how the situation will develop and made a plan. In the taking action stage, the counselors adopted many strategies, such as communicating with stakeholders in the context of a harmonious relationship, making good use of regulations or the law to protect students’ rights, leveraging and pulling together resources, actively participating in system collaboration with stakeholders, and encouraging students to advocate for themselves. Such advocacy had systemic ripple effects. In the making influence stage, the counselor had to adjust how they related to and interacted with others to ameliorate these systemic disruptions . They reflected on their advocacy behavior and made adjustments to their approach if necessary. Finally, the advocacy was not always smooth, the belief of not giving up any student had to be still kept in mind. Overall, the advocacy was more effective if relationships were utilized well. Building reciprocal trust could reduce barriers to advocacy, and counselors are more willing to utilize these relationships if they feel confident in doing so. This practice of advocacy through a network of relationships smoothens the transition to the assessing the situation stage. In the taking action stage, the strategies of leveraging resources and intervening in the system were based on an idea of using relationships to maximize effectiveness in advocacy. This importance of relationship lies in collectivist tendencies in Chinese culture. This is consistent with previous findings that managing professional relationships is as important as managing interpersonal relationships during school counseling work (Chao & Chen, 2004). In particular, guidance counselors are more effective if they have good working relationships with administrative staff (Nelson, 2018). The advocacy process uncovered herin is similar to those in previous studies (Dahir & Stone, 2011; Hof et al., 2009; Trusty & Brown, 2005). However, the characteristics of the advocacy stages were related to relational thinking in Chinese collective culture. The likelihood of guidance counselors taking advocacy action depended on personal interpersonal relationship resources and effectiveness. The judgment criteria of stakeholders were based on the collaboration relationship experiences. The attitude of mutual understating and empathy was emphasized for achieving two-way harmonious communication. Although advocacy would increase tension in relationships, the state of extreme opposition was avoided. Moreover, our results indicated that advocacy was related to the assessment of students, systems, and guidance counselors. In addition to problem-focus, the influencing factors of understanding students’ situations needed to incorporate the effects on systems. The effect was also comprised of guidance counselors’ situations, thereby extending its influence to three parties. According to our findings, advocacy in Taiwan is pursued through relationships, rather than in spite of relationships; herein lies the biggest difference between advocacy in a relatively collectivist context as opposed to advocacy in a relatively individualist (i.e., Western) context. In conclusion, in the contemplating stage, guidance counselors are encouraged to be aware of the opinion of advocacy and related experiences. The values of social justice are also helpful to reflect on. In the judging and making a decision stage, counselors should adopt a systemic perspective in understanding the student’s problems and take stock of the resources at hand. In the assessing the situation stage, the counselor should understand the ecological context the student is in, accounting for the student’s interactions with their family or the culture of their school. In the taking action stage, counselors could adopt advocacy strategies with a sensitivity toward systemic realities. In the making influence stage, the counselor needed to pay attention to mending or adjusting any relationships that may have been frayed as a result of systemic disruptions from their advocacy efforts. The ways of advocacy action were reimagined, according to the principles of each advocacy stage. Finally, guidance counselors in Taiwan should advocate through their relationships. This use of relationships also makes the system more amenable to change. This research illuminates the different advocacy stages and practical advocacy strategies and encourages guidance counselors to advocate for students in need.

社會正義；倡議；倡議歷程；輔導教師

social justice; advocacy; advocacy process; guidance counselor