閱讀治療在華語學界近三十年發展回顧

A Review of the Development of Bibliotherapy in Chinese Academia

閱讀治療自1986年出現在華語學界，至今已有36年的歷史。本文旨在回顧閱讀治療自抵達華語學界開始至今的近三十多年發展。本文先由閱讀治療簡史入手，然後再連結閱讀治療在華語地區的發展史。在回顧華語地區的發展史同時，筆者嘗試整理出兩岸三地一些顯著的差異和相同之處。在發現兩岸三地的閱讀治療研究在研究數量、研究主題、研究方法以及論說特徵有明顯的異同之後，筆者就嘗試對這些異同的背後原因做出分析，以便在展望未來時能夠提出針對性的建議。總的來說，研究數量上的差異或基於地方幅員上之不同；研究主題上的相似之處來自大眾有共同所需，相異之處卻因社會狀況不一；研究方法上的差異乃源出政治社會發展背景之不同；而論說特徵上的差異則受國際間地位所影響。建基於上述的分析結果，本文的建議有三：(1)促進不同地方學界之間的合作與交流；(2)在未來加強對讀者反應的研究；及(3)學者們應更多考慮採用質性研究方法。

Bibliotherapy is the systematic use of books to assist individuals in dealing with mental, physical, emotional, developmental, or social problems. Chinese academics began publishing research on this topic 36 years ago. Although a few studies have reviewed the historical development of bibliotherapy research in Chinese societies, the scope of review in those studies has been quite limited (e.g., some reviewed only studies from China, some reviewed only research in the field of library studies, and some reviewed only the methodologies used). We provide a comprehensive review of the development of bibliotherapy studies in Chinese societies. The scope of our review includes (1) research conducted in China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, (2) the methodologies commonly used, and (3) the discourse in those studies. We also discuss the reasons for the discrepancies among these three places.
The main focus of bibliotherapy research differs across these three societies. Researchers from China have paid most attention to developing bibliotherapy as a kind of library service (64.2% of journal publications are in the field of library studies). Bibliotherapy research topics are more diverse in Taiwan. They include not only library studies, but also psychology, psychotherapy, and education. None of these fields dominates (e.g., 37% are library studies, 27.9% are education related). Only a few studies have been conducted in Hong Kong, where the Hong Kong government and NGOs have pioneered the use of bibliotherapy with talented students and their service users to facilitate personal growth and development.
When bibliotherapy was first introduced in China, academics often adopted quantitative methods, but this is no longer the dominant approach. Instead, most now use theoretical inference or speculative discussion. Taiwan and Hong Kong academics have always applied a variety of research methods (e.g., quasi-experimental design, survey, interviews, or theoretical inference). Some even adopt a mixed methods strategy.
Researchers in China often assert that China has a long history of bibliotherapy, even longer than in the West. They cite literature from the Chinese Classics that supports the benefits of reading. They neglect the fact that the term bibliotherapy was not created until 1916 by Crothers, who introduced the term in an article published in“The Atlantic Monthly”. Comparatively speaking, this view is not common in Taiwan or Hong Kong.
There are several reasons for the divergence among these three Chinese societies in research topics, methodologies, and understanding of the origins of bibliotherapy. First, library studies may dominate bibliotherapy studies in China due to the tremendous rise in costs for treating mental disorders. Bibliotherapy can be a kind of therapeutic intervention, and it can also be a preventive measure for mental problems. If bibliotherapy becomes a common library service in China, it may help to relieve the burden of citizens’mental health problems.
Second, the difference in research methodologies can be explained by historical and political influences. In the past, researchers from China mainly applied the Russian model in their studies. The Russian model remained aligned with the reductive quantitative approach, which dominated early bibliotherapy research in China. But, in the 1960s-1970s American researchers began challenging Popper’s hypothetico-deductivism for failing to acknowledge the role of historical, social, and cultural factors in knowledge formation. Taiwan and Hong Kong have a greater acceptance of the Americanized paradigm and methodologies as compared to China.
Third, the discourse that China has a longer history of bibliotherapy than the West may be an attempt of the researchers to regain recognition and esteem. Such discourse is not seen in publications from Taiwan and Hong Kong. With reference to Georgette Wang’s analysis about the crisis in the development of indigenous movement, it is possible that the appearance of such discourse is a self-inflicted attempt by researchers in China to regain recognition and esteem. China has great advancements in many aspects (e.g., economic, political, international relationships), so it is likely that researchers in China feel pressure when comparing their research with that from Western academia.
We conclude the article with three constructive suggestions for the continued development of bibliotherapy research in Chinese academia. The 1980 indigenous psychology academic conference is regarded as a milestone for development of the field. (1) We propose facilitation of collaboration and communication among researchers from China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong for the continued development of bibliotherapy studies. Quantitative approaches dominate the study of bibliotherapy, and much attention has been applied to study the effectiveness of different bibliotherapy program designs. Thus, we propose (2) putting more focus on the study of reader response, which is a fundamental topic in bibliotherapy studies, and (3) increasing reliance on qualitative strategies so that we can have a more comprehensive understanding of bibliotherapy.