Journal of Digital Convergence (디지털융복합연구)

The Society of Digital Policy and Management (한국디지털정책학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on the University Restructuring Policy in Convergence Society: from the Perspective of Habermas's Communicative Action

융복합 사회에서 대학구조개혁정책에 관한 연구: 하버마스의 의사소통행위이론 관점으로

  • Received : 2015.06.03
  • Accepted : 2015.08.20
  • Published : 2015.08.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to discuss policy for university restructuring from the viewpoint of Habermas' theory of communicative action in Covergence Society, and to provide implications for university restructuring policy in Korea. This study was conducted as a literature review, it discussed the university restructuring policy in Korea, the meaning of Habermas' theory of communicative action, and its implications for university restructuring policy. The main concept of Habermas' theory of communicative action is mutual understanding, and the theory perceives society as systems and lifeworld. Lifeworld pursues communicative rationality. University restructuring in Korea should be promoted through communication between the government and university members rather than through the forced distribution of money by state power.

본 연구의 목적은 융복합 사회에서 대학구조개혁정책을 Habermas의 의사소통행위이론 관점에서 논의하고, 한국대학구조개혁정책에 시사점 제공이다. 본 연구는 문헌연구이고 한국대학구조개혁정책과 Habermas의 의사소통행위이론을 분석하여 Habermas의 의사소통행위이론 관점에서 한국대학구조개혁정책에 주는 시사점을 분석하였다. 한국대학구조개혁은 대학의 재구조화와 대학교육의 질적인 향상을 위하여 추진되었으나, 국가통제의 성격이 강하다. Habermas의 의사소통행위이론의 주요개념은 상호이해이며, 사회를 체계와 생활세계로 파악한다. 생활세계는 의사소통적 합리성을 추구하며 이해지향적이다. 체계는 합리성을 추구하며 화폐와 권력을 매체로 하여 성공(목적)지향적이다. 한국 대학구조개혁정책은 국가권력에 의하여 화폐(지원금 등)를 강제적으로 배분하는 것이 아니라, 생활세계의 영역에서 국가와 대학구성원 간의 상호이해와 의사소통을 통하여 추진해 나가야 한다.

Keywords

References

  1. Bu-Ja Kim, Jun-Whai Kim, A Study on a Convergence Education System to Improve University Students' Life Competencies, Journal of Digital Convergence, Vol. 12, No. 12, pp.173-180, 2014. https://doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2014.12.12.173
  2. Myung-Gi Jung, Exploring an alternative direction of university dance curriculum in convergence education, Ph. D, SejougUniversity, 2011.
  3. Sang-Yeon Lee, A Study on Structural Reform in Korea: Its Process and Reactions, Ph. D. Kyonggi University, 2012.
  4. Ministry of Education, University Restructuring Policy Plan for Increase Competitive Power, 2004.12.
  5. Gun NamGung, Gi-Chang Song, Young-Gi Whang, Young-Ho Kim, Jung-Yun Choi, Jong-Tye kim, 2008year University Restructuring Policy Assessment, Ministry of Education, 2009.
  6. Hyun-Seok Shin, A Politial Analysis on Policies to Support Structural Reforms of Private Universities, The Journal of Politics of Education, Vol.16, No.3, pp.149-190, 2009.
  7. Hyun-Seok Shin, Issue Analysis and Tasks of University Restructuring Policy, Educational Research, Vol.42, pp.1-40. 2012.
  8. Sun Mi, Park, A Model of Policy Making of Local Education Authorities from the Perspective of Habermas's Critical Theory, Chonnam University, Ph.D., 2011.
  9. Hyun-Suk Yun, Mee-Ran Kim, Jeong-mee Lee, Jung_Yun Choi, A Syudy on University Restructuring Plan for Higher Education Competitive Power Increase, Korea Educational Development Institute, OR 2009-01, 2009.
  10. Gi-Sung Ryu, University Renovation and Competitive Power, Samsung Economic Research Institute, 2006.
  11. Mee-Ran Kim, Jeong-mee Lee, Jeong-min Kim, Young-In Seo, Woo-Jeong Shim, An analysis of University Evaluation Practices for Establishing Korean Higher Education Reform Measures, Korea Educational Development Institute, OR 2014-07, 2014.
  12. Cheon-Gie Kim, Applying Habermas's Communicative Action Framework to the Teacher Evaluation. Sociology of Education. Vol.20, No.2, pp.77-100, 2010.
  13. Gi-Chul Han, Habermas and Education. Seoul: Hakgisa, 2008.
  14. Jum-Su Kwon, Dialectic of reason and dialogues, Graduate school Chung Ang university master degree, 2002.
  15. Habermas J., Communicative Action 2: (Theories des kommunikativen Handelns), (Chun-Ik Jang, Translation). Seoul: Nanam, 2006b(The Original work 1987).
  16. Pyung-Joung Yun, Over the Foucault and Habermas, Seoul: Kyobobook, 2006.
  17. Ministry of Education, 2015year University Restructuring Policy of Basic Plan, 2014.
  18. Harvey, L. and Knight, Transforming higher education, London: Society for Research in Higher Education and the Open University Press, 1996
  19. Hoecht, A, Quality assurance in UK higher education: Issues of trust, control, professional autonomy and accountability, Higher Education, 51, pp.541-563, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-2533-2
  20. Huisman, J. & Curri, J. Accountability in Higher Education: Bridge over troubled water? Higher Education, 48, pp.529-551, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:HIGH.0000046725.16936.4c
  21. King, R, Governance and Accountability in Higher Education regulatory state, Higher Education, 53, pp.411-430, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-005-3128-2
  22. Cheon-Gie Kim, A critical study on hegemonic discourse of the educational policy of Lee Muyng-bak's government: the discourse of the low educability of the public schools, Sociology of Education, Vol.19, No.1, pp.81-102, 2009.
  23. Jeong-Gil Woo, The communicative intersubjectivity by J. Habermas - possibility and Limit for the science of education according to the approach by J. Masschelein, The Korean Journal of Philosophy of Education, 39, pp. 115-140, 2007.
  24. Habermas J., Communicative Action 1, (Theories des kommunikativen Handelns), (Chun-Ik Jang, Translation), Seoul: Nanam, 2006a(The Original work 1987).