Journal of Digital Convergence (디지털융복합연구)

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

DOI QR Code

Analysis of Compromise of Career of University Students

융복합 시대에 대학생의 진로타협 요인에 대한 연구

  • Received : 2019.01.22
  • Accepted : 2019.03.20
  • Published : 2019.03.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study analyzed by what factors university students were impacted in the compromise of career. 213 students who enrolled in 4-year universities were divided by demographic variables and psychological variables. The results showed followings. Firstly, the interests are the first factor and then social status and sex types followed regardless of variables. Secondly, at the based on the difference of groups science major student took the sex types as the first meanwhile, humanities and art & sports major students took the interests as the first. Lastly, there were statistical differences among groups at the sex types and social status with role orientation. This study can provide differentiated and individualized career development strategies regarding group types of career role orientation.

본 연구는 대학생들이 어떤 요인에 의해 자신의 진로를 타협하는지를 분석하고자 하였다. 이를 위해 서울과 경기도 4년제 대학에 재학하고 있는 대학생 213명(남 60, 여 153)을 대상으로 개인적 배경변수(성별, 학년, 전공)와 심리적 변수(성역할정체감, 역할지향성) 등에 따라 집단을 구분하고 각 집단별로 진로타협의 요인을 분석하였다. 분석 결과, 첫째, 성별, 학년, 전공에 상관없이 진로타협하기 어려운 요인으로 흥미가 가장 높았으며, 사회적 지위, 성유형이 그 다음 순으로 나타났다. 둘째, 집단간 차이에서는 자연계열 학생들은 성유형을, 인문 및 예체능계열의 학생들은 흥미를 중시하였다. 셋째, 성역할정체감과 역할지향성에 따른 타협요인을 분석한 결과 역할지향성 유형 중 성유형과 사회적 지위에서 통계적으로 유의미한 차이가 나타났다. 본 연구 결과는 경력개발 및 진로교육에서 진로역할지향성의 집단 유형에 따른 차별화되고 개별화된 경력개발 전략을 모색하는데 기초자료로 활용될 수 있다는데 의의가 있다.

Keywords

Table 1. Analysis of participants

DJTJBT_2019_v17n3_35_t0001.png 이미지

Table 2. Compromise of career items

DJTJBT_2019_v17n3_35_t0002.png 이미지

Table 3. Composition of sex-role survey items

DJTJBT_2019_v17n3_35_t0003.png 이미지

Table 4. Classification of groups based on median

DJTJBT_2019_v17n3_35_t0004.png 이미지

Table 5. Frequency of sex-role identity

DJTJBT_2019_v17n3_35_t0005.png 이미지

Table 6. Compositions of role orientation survey items

DJTJBT_2019_v17n3_35_t0006.png 이미지

Table 7. Frequency of groups’ role orientation

DJTJBT_2019_v17n3_35_t0007.png 이미지

Table 8. Mean and standard deviation of compromise

DJTJBT_2019_v17n3_35_t0008.png 이미지

Table 9. Frequency of compromise based on gender

DJTJBT_2019_v17n3_35_t0009.png 이미지

Table 10. Analysis of compromise based on grade

DJTJBT_2019_v17n3_35_t0010.png 이미지

Table 11. Analysis of compromise based on majors

DJTJBT_2019_v17n3_35_t0011.png 이미지

Table 12. Analysis of compromise based on the types of sex-role identity

DJTJBT_2019_v17n3_35_t0012.png 이미지

Table 13. Analysis of compromise based on the role orientation

DJTJBT_2019_v17n3_35_t0013.png 이미지

References

  1. Ministry of Education & Korean Educational Development Institute. (2018). 2017 Employment Statistics for Graduates of Higher Education Institutions, https://www.gov.kr/portal/ntnadmNews/1723270
  2. C. K. Chae. (2016). Analysis of Statistics on College Graduates Finding Major-related Jobs. KRIVET Issue Brief, 91, 1-4.
  3. Korean Educational Development Institute (2015). Higher education.employment statistics.
  4. S. H. Kim. (2006). Role Orientation and Compromising Situations in Women's Career Choice: Effects on the Preference for Compromising Factors. Graduate School of Ajou University.
  5. L. S. Gottfredson. (1981). Circumscription and Compromise: A Developmental Theory of Occupational Aspirations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28(6), 545-579. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.28.6.545
  6. S. A. Leun & B. S. Plake. (1990). A Choice Dilemma Approach for Examining the Relative Importance of Sex Type and Prestige Preferences in the Process of Career Choice Compromise. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37(4), 399-406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.37.4.399
  7. L. S. Gottfredson. (2002). Gottfredson's Theory of Circumscription, Compromise, and Self-Creation. Career Choice and Development, 4, 85-148.
  8. L. S. Gottfredson. (1996). Gottfredson's Theory of Circumscription and Compromise In Brown. D., Brooks, L. & Associates (eds.) Career Choice and Development. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
  9. M. Y. Kim & H. J. Bang. (2005). Gender and Birth Order Differences in the Preference Level of Career Compromise. Korean Journal of Woman Psychology, 10(2), 173-188.
  10. K. H. Lee & M. R. Cho. (2003). Gender Differences in the Preference Level of Career Compromise of High School Students. Korean Journal of Woman Psychology, 8(3), 1-12.
  11. P. A. Holt. (1989). Differential Effect of Status and Interest in the Process of Compromise, Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36(1), 42-47. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.36.1.42
  12. S. A. Leung. (1993). Circumscription and Compromise: A Replication Study with Asian Americans. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40(2), 188-193. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.40.2.188
  13. B. Hesketh, S. Elmslie & W. Kaldor. (1990). Career Compromise: An Alternative Account to Gottfredson's Theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37(1), 49-56. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.37.1.49
  14. C. A. Blanchard & J. W. Lichtenberg. (2003). Compromise in Career Decision Making: A Test of Gottfredson's Theory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62(2), 250-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00026-X
  15. N. B. Taylor & R. G. Pryor. (1985). Exploring the Process of Compromise in Career Decision Making. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 27(2), 171-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(85)90031-4
  16. M. H. Hwang. (2002). The Compromise Process in Decision Making of Postsecondary Education in Korea. Doctoral Dissortation, Graduate school of Seoul National University.
  17. D. E. Sandberg. A. A. Ehrhardt, S. E. Ince & H. F. Meyer-Bahlburg. (1991). Gender Differences in Children's and Adolescents' Career Aspirations: A Follow-up Study. Journal of Adolescent Research, 6(3), 371-386. https://doi.org/10.1177/074355489163007
  18. J. H. Kim. (2009), The Difference of Compromise Process According to Various Situations in Making Career Decision. Ph. D Dissertations, Seoul University.
  19. S. A. Leung & L. W. Harmon. (1990). Individual and Sex Differences in the Zone of Acceptable Alternatives. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37(2), 153-159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.37.2.153
  20. C. Gilligan. (1982). In a Different Voice. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard.
  21. S. D. Crozier. (1999). Women's Career Development in a "Relational Context". International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 21(3), 231-247 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005489823722
  22. L. Forrest & N. Mikolaitis. (1986). The Relational Component of Identity: An Expansion of Career Development Theory. The Career Development Quarterly, 35(2), 76-88. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.1986.tb00768.x
  23. J. Corder & C. W. Stephan. (1984). Females' Combination of Work and Family Roles: Adolescents' Aspirations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46(2), 391-402. https://doi.org/10.2307/352471
  24. D. E. Sandberg, A. A. Ehrhardt, S. E. Ince, & H. F. Meyer-Bahlburg. (1991). Gender Differences in Children's and Adolescents' Career Aspirations: A Follow-up study. Journal of Adolescent Research, 6(3), 371-386. https://doi.org/10.1177/074355489163007
  25. E. H. Kim & B. W. Kim. (2010). A Study on the Recognition of Career Barriers and Compromise Process by Career Role Orientation, Korea Journal of Counseling, 11(4), 1451-1468. https://doi.org/10.15703/kjc.11.4.201012.1451
  26. J. R. Joeng & K. H. Lee. (2007). The Differences of Preference in the Career Compromise Processes Depending on Gender and Sex-role Stereotype. Korean Journal of Woman Psychology, 12(2), 161-174.
  27. K. S. Park. (2008). Korean Male College Students' Gender Roles and Career Compromise. Ph.D Dissertation,, Department of Education The Graduate School of Dankook University.
  28. D. E. Super. (1957). The Psychology of Careers; An Introduction to Vocational Development, New York : Harper & Brothers. (Vol. 195).
  29. S. Y. Lee. (2004). Career Awareness of Highly Educationed Women at the Stage of Job Implementation Phases. The Korean Sociological Association 2004. 6, 571-573.
  30. S. L. Bem & S. A. Lewis. (1975). Sex Role Adaptability: One Consequence of Psychological Androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(4), 634-643. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077098
  31. J. K. Chung. (1990). Korean Sex Role Inventory (KSRI). The Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 5(1), 82-92.
  32. K. I. Khoe, S. H. Hong & W. S. Sul. (2018). Study on improvement policy through diagnosis and analysis of success cases of industry-academy internships. Journal of Convergence for Information Technology, 8(5), 205-210. https://doi.org/10.22156/CS4SMB.2018.8.5.205
  33. J. H. Ahn & S. H. Park. (2016). A Study on the Difference of Career Barriers, Career Attitude Maturity, and Career Competencies based on Gender, Grade, and Fields of Major of Undergraduate students in the age of Convergence. The Journal of Digital Policy & Management, 14(8), 69-80.
  34. W. J. Jang. (2018). The Relationship between the Perceived Career Barriers on the Career Compromise : Focused on the Moderate Effect on the Self-Efficacy. Journal of Convergence Society, 9(11), 325-331.