本研究目的為探討修復式司法促進者的專業訓練，以及其專業發展與跨領域合作的經驗，以了解促進者的訓練經驗與發展以及跨領域合作經驗之內涵。本研究以兩位法律專業背景之促進者與兩位諮商心理專業背景之促進者為研究對象，並運用半結構式訪談進行1~2次、每次約1~1.5小時的訪談，並以質性研究的分析方式將個別訪談資料整理與呈現，最後進行綜合討論。本研究中四位研究參與者的研究結論呈現如下：
一、修復促進者訓練經驗及其發展歷程
1. 透過官方的訓練可初步了解修復式司法的理念，但對工作成效有各自的詮釋
2. 受訓除了基礎的初、進階教育外，自主學習、同儕討論與督導相形重要
3. 助人技巧是重要的學習項目
二、促進者於修復式司法的工作經驗
1. 促進者具有同理、賦能受害者之功能，並且協助受害者重新框架為倖存者
2. 促進者需具備基本法律知識，了解加害人身為被告之處境與法律攻防之意涵
3. 會前會的訪談初步承接當事人情緒，也是步入會議的關鍵
4. 政策不穩定導致促進者執行上遇到困難與限制
三、促進者於跨領域合作的經驗
1. 修復式司法本身即是跨領域的合作型態，促進者需具有法律知識與助人能力
2. 不同的工作模式影響合作互動的方式，雙促進者可能是較理想的工作模式
3. 專業之間彼此尊重，真正跨足多元領域合作與激盪，而非排斥非我族類
最後，本研究針對上述的研究結果提供未來的修復促進者與相關單位提出實務建議，以及提供未來的研究者相關議題的參考方向。
The purpose of this study was to investigate the professional training of restorative justice facilitators’ professional development and the interdisciplinary cooperation experience. This study was based on the promotion of two facilitators with legal professional and two facilitators with counseling psychology professional. A qualitative research analysis with semi-structured depth interviews for 1 or 2 times, and about 1 to 1.5 hours of interviews each time. Conclusively, the findings of the four study participants in this study were discussed.
The results of the study were as follows:
I. The facilitators’ training experience and its development process:1. Through the official training, facilitators could get a preliminary understanding of the concept of restorative justice, but had different interpretations of the effectiveness of the work. 2. Training was not only include the basic and advanced courses but also including independent study, peer discussion and supervision. 3. Helping skills were important learning projects.
II. The facilitators' working experience in the restoration of justice: 1. The facilitators had to empower victims and assist victims to reframing as survivors. 2. The facilitators needed to have basic legal knowledge to understand the meaning of the victim’s situation as defenced and the legal offense and defense. 3. The pre-conference interviews initially took over the emotions of the parties and were also the key to entering the meeting. 4. Policy instability leads to difficulties and restrictions in facilitator implementation.
III. The experience of facilitators in cross-domain cooperation: 1. Restorative justice was a cross-disciplinary type of cooperation. Facilitators needed to have legal knowledge and helping skills. 2. Different working modes affected the way of cooperative interaction. Double promoters may be the ideal working mode. 3. Respect each specializes ability and truly participated in multi-disciplinary cooperation and agitation, rather than reject other profession.
Finally, this study provides practical suggestions for future repair facilitators and related units for the above research results, as well as providing reference directions for future researchers' related topics.
