研究目的：隨著家庭結構與國人觀念轉變，老人住宅、養生村、共生宅等居住型態逐漸成為老後安排之選項。相較於自費式安養住宅多以住宿、膳食與保健服務為主要內容，附服務住宅更強調以住宅作為生活場域，並附加生活支持與照顧資源銜接，形成介於一般住宅與機構照顧之間的居住樣態。本研究旨在探討附服務住宅住戶之自主權實踐經驗，並分析其如何在集體生活中維持生活選擇。

研究方法：本研究採質性研究，立意取樣10 位住戶，於2023 年6 月至9月進行半結構式訪談，並以主題分析法歸納與詮釋。

研究結果：（一）住戶之自主實踐呈現由「消極接受」至「積極主導」之行動光譜；（二）家庭及配偶關係對自主權兼具支持與牽動作用；（三）經濟條件、生命經驗與識字能力等因素，形塑自主權實踐條件。

研究結論：住戶自主權並非單純取決於個人意願，而是在制度安排、家庭關係、生命經驗與資源條件交織下持續調整。社會工作者在促進住戶自主時，需同時理解其行動選擇、關係牽動與資源限制。

Research Purpose With contemporary changes in family structures and social attitudes toward later-life living arrangements, diverse residential options such as senior housing, retirement communities, and co-living residences have become viable alternatives for older adults. One option, known as service-attached housing, is a residential model situated between ordinary housing and institutional care. Compared with self-paid residential care facilities, which often focus solely on accommodations, meals, and basic health-related services, service-attached housing emphasises housing as a living environment while also offering life-support and care-resource coordination. This study aims to explore residents’ experiences of practising autonomy in service-attached housing and analyse how they maintain everyday choices within the context of collective living.

Method To effectively capture the subjective nature of the residents’ lived experiences, this study adopted a qualitative research design. Purposive sampling was used to recruit 10 older adult residents currently living in service-attached housing facilities. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted between June and September 2023, generating rich data and enabling participants to freely articulate their personal narratives and daily negotiations over control. The data were rigorously analysed using thematic analysis that involved a systematic process of coding, categorising, and interpreting textual patterns to identify the core themes underlying the residents’ daily autonomy practices.

Results The findings reveal that (1) residents’ autonomy practices formed a spectrum of action ranging from “passive acceptance” to “active agency,” reflecting ongoing negotiations between personal preferences and contextual conditions encountered in collective living; (2) family and spousal relationships exerted both supportive and constraining effects on residents’ autonomy, simultaneously enabling and shaping their everyday choices; (3) economic conditions, life experiences, and literacy collectively shaped the conditions under which residents practised autonomy. Taken together, these findings suggest that autonomy is not a fixed individual attribute, but a process continuously adjusted through the interplay of institutional arrangements, family relationships, life experiences, and resource conditions.

Conclusion Residents’ autonomy in service-attached housing is not solely determined by individual will. Instead, it is continuously negotiated through the intersection of institutional arrangements, family relationships, life experiences, and resource conditions. In social work practice, promoting residents’ autonomy requires understanding their daily action choices, relational dynamics, and resource constraints simultaneously. Rather than viewing autonomy and dependence as opposing concepts, the findings underscore the importance of recognising agency within relational and situated contexts, thereby supporting residents’ sense of dignity and participation in everyday living.