Theory borrowing 개념에 근거한 한국 교육재정경제학의 연구 동향 분석

문찬주(Moon, Chanju),김옥결(Kim, Okkyol),최선(Choi, Sun),엄문영(Eom, Moonyoung),오순영(Oh, Soonyoung) 한국교육재정경제학회 2020 敎育財政 經濟硏究 Vol.29 No.3

본 연구는 한국 교육재정경제학 연구의 이론 활용 정도 및 이론 차용 양상을 분석하여 학술논의에서 이론 활용에 관한 관심을 환기하고 발전적 논의를 위한 시사점을 도출하는 데 목적이 있다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 Zahra와 Newey(2009)가 정의한 ‘이론 차용(theory borrowing)’의 개념을 활용하여 「교육재정경제연구」제1권 1호부터 제28권 4호의 학술지 653편의 이론 차용 양상을 분석하였다. 주요 분석결과로는 첫째, 분석대상인 1992년도 이후부터 2019년에 이르기까지 지난 28년 간 총 653편의 논문 중에서, 이론에 근거한 논의를 펼친 연구의 비율은 41.04%로 전체의 2/5를 상회하는 수준이었다. 둘째, 창간 이후 이론에 근거한 연구의 비율이 점진적으로 증가하는 추세를 보였으나, 2000년대 중반 이후 감소 추세를 보였고, 최근 들어 그 비율이 다시 증가하였음을 확인하였다. 셋째, 이론 활용 양상을 분석한 결과에 따르면 이론 응용(theory application) 연구가 이론에 근거한 논문 중에서 약 78.14%에 이를 정도로 다수를 이루고 있었다. 넷째, 이론 차용 양상을 분석한 결과, 모 학문으로부터의 차용 양상 비중이 타 학문으로부터의 전이에 비해 높게 나타났다. 다섯째, 이론에 근거한 논문 중 토착화 단계에 이른 논문은 부재한 것으로 나타났다. 분석 결과를 바탕으로 다음을 제언하였다. 첫째, 교육재정경제학 학문 분야에서 이론이 요구되는 연구의 성격에 대한 논의가 필요하다. 둘째, 이론 활용 및 학문의 토착화와 관련하여, 이론의 활용과 차용 측면에서의 수용성(acceptability)과 앞으로의 방향성(directivity)을 중심으로 한국교육재정경제학 학문 공동체 구성원 간의 활발한 논의가 필요하다. 마지막으로, 본 연구의 분석에 활용한 이론적 모형의 보완에 대한 추가적인 논의가 요구된다. The purpose of this research is to analyze the degree of theory utilization and pattern of theory borrowing in the study of educational finance economics in Korea and to derive implications for academic development. Therefore, the concept of theory borrowing defined by Zahra and Newey (2009) was used in this study to analyze aspects of theoretical borrowing in the 653 articles of ‘The Journal of Economics and Finance of Education from Volume 1, Issue 1 to Volume 28, issue 4. The main results of the analysis were as follows: First, out of a total of 653 papers published since 1992 and 2019, the proportion of studies conducted on the basis of theory was 41.04%, which was more than 2/5 of the total. Second, although the proportion of theoretical studies has tended to increase gradually since the publication of the journal, it had been on the decline since the mid-2000s and has recently confirmed that the proportion has increased again. Third, according to the analysis of the pattern of theory utilization among them, the number of theoretical application studies was about 78.14% of the research based on the theory. Fourth, the analysis of theoretical borrowing patterns showed that the proportion of borrowing patterns from the parent study was higher than that from other studies. Fifth, among the papers based on theory, the paper that reached the stage of indigenousization was found to be absent. Based on the analysis results of this study, the following suggestions were made: First, discussions are needed on the nature of research requiring theory in the field of Korean education finance and education economics. Second, with regard to the indigenousization of learning, active discussions among members of the academic community on the acceptability and directivity of theory borrowing and utilization are needed. Finally, further discussion of supplementing the theoretical model used in the analysis of this study is required.

공정경제에서 상생의 전제로서 회사의 헌법상 권리에 대한 비판적 재검토 - 미국의 회사 본질에 관한 논의를 중심으로 -

강일신,손창완 한국상사법학회 2020 商事法硏究 Vol.39 No.2

Theories of corporations were developed centering around the discussion on corporate personality. The first theory of corporation in U.S. was the concession theory which had been prevalent by the early twentieth century. Also the aggregate theory appeared in the mid 19th century when the general corporate establishment laws began to be established. In the early twentieth century the real entity theory, affected by the german legal theories, was presented and became dominant before the nexus of contract theory, which took the economic principles into the legal theory in 1980s, replaced it. The essential issues of the theories on corporations in U.S. were ① whether the company was created artificially or formed naturally, and ② whether the company is a real entity or a legal fiction. By the early twentieth century the issue of the corporate personality was treated as a practical and significant matter because it could affect the direction of the regulation, but had not played any role in the debates surrounding principal economic policies. However with the advent of the nexus of contract theory, the theories of corporations received attention again, and the theories on corporate personality began to be re-discussed, with regard to the constitutional rights of the company, since the Citizens United v. FEC and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc, which were understood as being affected by the nexus of contract theory. In Korea, the economic democracy has been an important contemporary agenda, which led the amendment of the Distribution Industry Development Act to oblige the big markets to close temporarily. In turn the constitutionality of this amendment was tried in the Supreme Court and in the Consitutional Court. The decisions of the two courts focused on the infringement of the constitutional right of occupation, which is basically a matter of whether a company is given consitutional rights and to what extent. Korean Constitutions do not provide articles on the constitutional right of a corporation. However the Constitutional Court held that a corporation is entitled to consitutional rights that an judicial person may have, irrespective of the nature of each company. However in order to implement the coexisting relationship among economic players and to realize the fair economic system, the business of individual economic players, especially big companies with large-scale human and capital resources, needs to be regulated, which might generate the controversy surrounding the restriction of the constitutional rights of the corporation. The theories of corporation might have implications on understanding of constitutional rights of a company and resolving the disputes thereof. On this ground this paper will overview the discussion on the theories of corporation in U.S. and will review and criticize Korean legal theories on the constitutional rights of a company. 법학에서 회사 본질론은 회사의 법인격과 관련된 논의를 중심으로 발전하였다. 미국에서 회사의 본질에 관한 최초의 이론은 ʻ인가이론ʼ으로 20세기 초반까지 회사의 본질에 관한 지배적인 이론이었고, 19세기 중반 이후 일반회사설립법이 제정되기 시작하면서는 ʻ집합이론ʼ이 등장하였다. 20세기 초반에는 독일의 법이론에 영향을 받아 ʻ실체이론ʼ이 주장되었고, 실체이론은 1970년까지 회사의 법적 본질에 관한 지배적인 이론이었다. 1980년대에는 경제학 이론을 법학으로 수용한 ʻ계약의 결합체ʼ 이론이 주장되어 실체이론을 대신하여 지배적인 회사이론이 되었다. 미국의 회사이론은 ① 회사가 인위적으로 창조된 것인지 아니면 자연적으로 형성된 것인지, ② 회사가 실체인지, 법적 의제에 불과한 것인지 여부가 핵심적인 쟁점이었다. 회사의 법인격 문제는 회사이론에 따라 회사에 대한 규제의 태도가 달라질 수 있기 때문에 20세기 초반까지 매우 실제적이며 중요한 문제로 인식되었으나, 1930년 이후부터 최근까지 주요한 경제 정책에 관한 논쟁에서 아무런 역할을 하지 못했다. 그러나 ʻ계약의 결합체ʼ 이론의 등장으로 회사이론이 다시 주목을 받기 시작하였고, 계약의 결합체 이론의 영향을 받은 것으로 평가되는 Citizens United v. FEC 사건 및 Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. 사건을 계기로 회사의 법인격과 관련된 회사이론이 회사의 헌법상 권리와 관련하여 다시 논의되기 시작하였다. 우리나라는 2010년 초반부터 경제민주주의가 시대적 화두로 제시되었고, 이러한 시대적 조류를 반영하여 「유통산업발전법」에 ʻ의무휴업명령제도ʼ가 도입되었고, 헌법재판소 및 법원에서 위 제도의 위헌성이 문제가 되었다. ʻ의무휴업명령제도ʼ에 대한 헌법재판소 결정 및 대법원 판결은 헌법상 직업수행의 자유 침해 여부에 관한 것이었고, 이는 결국 회사의 헌법상 권리를 어디까지 인정할 것인가에 관한 문제였다. 우리나라는 헌법이 법인의 기본권능력을 인정하는 명문의 규정을 두고 있지 않음에도, 헌법재판소는 성질상 법인이 누릴 수 있는 기본권은 당연히 법인에게도 적용하여야 한다는 입장을 취하고 있고, 법인의 기본권주체성과 관련하여 회사의 본질에 대한 고려는 하지 않고 있다. 그러나 경제주체 사이의 상생 관계를 구축하여 공정한 경제제도를 실현하려면 의무휴업명령제도와 같이 개별 경제주체, 특히 대규모의 인적·물적 자본을 가진 회사의 영업을 제한할 필요가 있고, 이러한 영업 제한은 필연적으로 회사의 헌법상 권리 제한의 논란을 발생시킨다. 회사의 본질에 관한 논의는 이러한 회사의 기본권에 대한 헌법적 판단에 있어 새로운 시사점을 줄 수 있다. 특히 회사에게 자연인과 동일한 정도로 기본권을 보호하는 것이 회사의 제한없는 영리행위의 추구가 가져올 부작용을 제한할 수 있다는 점에서 의미가 있다. 미국의 회사의 헌법상 권리와 관련된 회사 본질에 관한 논의는 위와 같은 문제를 이해하고 해결하는데 시사점을 줄 수 있다. 본 논문은 이러한 문제의식을 가지고 미국의 회사의 본질에 관한 논의를 개관하고, 이를 바탕으로 우리나라에서 회사의 헌법상 권리에 대한 법리를 비판적으로 재검토한다.

Developing a Theory in Academic Research: A Review of Experts’ Advice

Dankasa, Jacob Korea Institute of Science and Technology Informat 2015 Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice Vol.3 No.3

Despite the number of developed theories, it still remains a difficult task for some established and emerging scholars in various academic fields to clearly articulate new theories from research studies. This paper reviews and collates the views of scholars on what a theory is and how a good theory can be developed. It explains the concept of a theory, and the different components that make up a theory. The paper discusses the different processes of theory development by emphasizing what theory is and what theory is not. This review found that scholars differ in their definition of a theory, which leads to using terms such as model, paradigm, framework, and theory interchangeably. It found the lack of theoretical constructs in a study to be one of the factors which explains why articles are rejected for publication. This paper may be of benefit to established researchers who may be struggling with theory development, and especially younger academics who are the future of scholarship in various academic fields, particularly in information science.

‘포스트’이론과 문학교육

여홍상 한국영미문학교육학회 2012 영미문학교육 Vol.16 No.3

This study aims at investigating a dialogic relationship between literary theory and literary education in the age of so-called “post”-theories in the ambiguous and controversial sense of the prefix ‘post’ both as after-theory and beyond-theory. The premise of this paper is that even though we are witnessing the proliferation and dominance of ‘theory’ in the current milieu of literary studies, it would be neither appropriate nor advisable simply to try to apply the extrinsic schema of theory to the interpretation of literary texts in the actual situation of the class. Instead, this paper argues that students’ “critical” competence in the sense of Paolo Freire’s “critical pedagogy” may be more naturally produced in the immanent process of closely reading the literary texts on the students’ own part rather than from a mechanical and reductive application of extrinsic ‘theories’ to the reading of the text. To illustrate this point, several examples of literary works across various literary genres are discussed and analyzed closely, along with some suggestions of practical pedagogic strategies involved in reading and teaching the specific texts. In particular, Susan Glaspell’s The Trifles for drama, E. B. Browning’s “The Cry of the Children” for poetry, and Joseph Conrad’s The Heart of Darkness for the novel are discussed in detail, as representative works of each genre. However, in our attempt to recuperate the ‘critical’ position suggested in the literary text, we should be cautious not to naively reproduce the “authorial ideology” in the text but to read “against the grain” of the text when necessary. In connection to the ‘critical’ reading of literary texts, even in the courses focusing on ‘theory,’ the teacher should not forget that the ultimate goal of studying a theory lies in providing a ‘critical’ perspective necessary for the actual reading of a literary text, not in learning theory for theory’s own sake. In this respect, many theory textbooks do their best to give rich examples of how to read actual literary texts in a critical perspective of a certain theory. It is often the case that many ‘theoretical’ works in fact rely on practical reading of particular literary texts or apply various kinds of literary strategies for their own theoretical or philosophical discourses. Beyond the literariness of theoretical discourses, some literary works may involve a self-reflective ‘theory’ concerning the aesthetic nature of literary texts, and the teacher may organize a literature course around the self-reflective mode of selective texts to explore the theoretical ramifications embedded in the literary work itself. The conclusion suggests that ‘critical’ competence of the students in literature classes may be enhanced not by a simple reductive application of the theory to the text but by a close and immanent reading of the literary work itself which presumably embodies a certain critical perspective to “make you see” the world in a different way. These essential ‘critical’ strategies in reading literary texts may extend to the broadened area of “cultural studies” in what we might call the age of post-literature, which is characterized by the proliferation of various kinds of non-literary cultual texts.

Amartya Sen의 정의론의 방법과 구조

김대근 한국법철학회 2011 법철학연구 Vol.14 No.1

In this Article, Amartya Sen’s theory of justice is introduced as a alternative theory of justice. Sen has criticized Rawls’ theory of justice as a, transcendental institutionalism in that it is based on social contract and it has an arrangement-focused conception which emphasizes on constructing just institution. Instead, Sen stressed on realization-focused understanding as a approach to justice. In that way, Sen criticizes Rawls’ the two principles of justice and difference principle, which is founded on hypothetic conception such as original position and veil of ignorance. In contrast with Rawls, Sen has developed his justice theory on the assumption that human is diverse. The premise of human diversity enables us to consider that person’s capabilities play more important role in achieving individual well-being than distributing of primary goods, because distribution of primary goods depends on person’s own condition and capability. And adapting Adam Smith’s conception of “impartial spectator” which is any other fair and impartial spectator, Sen suggests open impartiality instead of 'justice as fairness’ as closed impartiality. Sen also notes that equality is important in dealing with justice. Especially, he moves questions of equality from ‘why equality’ to ‘equality of what’. It means that actually every theory of justice treats and highlights equality in different space. The fact equality and inequality coexists in different spaces implicates human diversity. Therefore what is important is not to distribute primary goods, but to convert them to person’s capabilities to achieve actual freedom. As freedom has both opportunity perspective and process perspective, it is important to have capability as achievement of freedom and it can be called development as actual freedom. Of course, Sen’s theory of justice has some limits like other political theories. However, it not only functions as an alternative theory of justice, but also suggests useful way to understand the nature of justice in this world. In this Article, Amartya Sen’s theory of justice is introduced as a alternative theory of justice. Sen has criticized Rawls’ theory of justice as a, transcendental institutionalism in that it is based on social contract and it has an arrangement-focused conception which emphasizes on constructing just institution. Instead, Sen stressed on realization-focused understanding as a approach to justice. In that way, Sen criticizes Rawls’ the two principles of justice and difference principle, which is founded on hypothetic conception such as original position and veil of ignorance. In contrast with Rawls, Sen has developed his justice theory on the assumption that human is diverse. The premise of human diversity enables us to consider that person’s capabilities play more important role in achieving individual well-being than distributing of primary goods, because distribution of primary goods depends on person’s own condition and capability. And adapting Adam Smith’s conception of “impartial spectator” which is any other fair and impartial spectator, Sen suggests open impartiality instead of 'justice as fairness’ as closed impartiality. Sen also notes that equality is important in dealing with justice. Especially, he moves questions of equality from ‘why equality’ to ‘equality of what’. It means that actually every theory of justice treats and highlights equality in different space. The fact equality and inequality coexists in different spaces implicates human diversity. Therefore what is important is not to distribute primary goods, but to convert them to person’s capabilities to achieve actual freedom. As freedom has both opportunity perspective and process perspective, it is important to have capability as achievement of freedom and it can be called development as actual freedom. Of course, Sen’s theory of justice has some limits like other political theories. However, it not only functions as an alternative theory of justice, but also suggests useful way to understand the nature of justice in this world.

이론-이론과 조합성 문제

조영아(Jo, Young-Ah) 새한철학회 2016 哲學論叢 Vol.85 No.3

본 논문의 목적은 개념의 구조에 관한 이론-이론의 입장이 ‘애완’-개념과 ‘물고기’-개념을 조합하는 문제에 적절한 해법이 될 수 없음을 보이는 것이다. 이론-이론은 개념화와 과학의 이론화, 개념과 과학의 이론 용어가 유사하다는 입장이다. 그에 따르면, 개념은 그것에 관한 이론 내의 다른 개념과 연관됨으로써 이론적인 구조를 갖는다. 개념이 이론적인 구조를 갖는다는 것은 개념이 그에 관한 이론에 의해서 의미가 결정된다는 것을 의미한다. 이 경우, 개념은 그것에 관한 이론 내의 다른 개념들과 연결되고, 다른 개념은 관련 이론 내에서 그 의미가 결정됨으로써 또 다른 개념과 관련될 것이며, 이는 개념 체계 전체에 있는 개념에로 퍼져간다. 이 점에서 이론-이론은 개념 전체론을 전제한다. 그런데 개념 전체론은 개념의 제한적 연결만을 허용하는 개념의 조합적 성격과 양립할 수 없다. 개념의 조합성에 따르면, ‘애완 물고기’-개념의 의미는 ‘애완’-개념의 의미와 ‘물고기’-개념의 의미에 의해서 결정되어야 한다. 하지만 개념 전체론의 방식으로 의미를 결정할 경우, ‘애완 물고기’-개념의 의미는 ‘애완’-개념의 의미와 ‘물고기’-개념의 의미에 의해서 결정되지 않는, 이를 테면, ‘화려한 색깔을 지님, 어항에 서식함’ 과 같은 의미를 포함할 수 있다. 이러한 ‘애완’-개념과 ‘물고기’-개념을 조합하는 문제에 관해 이론-이론은 그것이 참조하는 이론의 성격을 분명히 함으로써, 또는 구성요소 개념의 의미 유사성에 호소함으로써 해법을 제시할 수 있다. 하지만 그러한 전략은 개념의 의미를 결정하는 이론의 범위를 확정할 수 없어서, 그리고 애완 물고기끼리 서로 유사한 점은 애완동물끼리 유사한 점과 물고기끼리 유사한 점의 총합을 통해 도출할 수 없어서 성공적이지 않다. This paper aims to argue that the theory-theory in conceptual structure theories is not an alternative for the pet fish problem about the compositionality of concepts. The theory-theory is a view that conceptualization is similar to theorization of science and also concept is similar to theoretical term in science.According to the view, a concept has a theoretical structure by being related to other concepts in the theory. The theory-theory used to supported by the psychological essentialism that we judge categories of concept sorting to things, from not only its superficial features but also essential features triggering it. That a concept has the theoretical structure means that the meaning of concept is determined by the relevant theory. In that case, a concept is related to other concept in the theory, and the other concept is related to another concept in the relevant theory by determining its meaning in the theory, this meaning determining manner spread to whole conceptual system. In this behalf, theory-theory presupposes a conceptual holism. However, conceptual holism can’t be compatible with compositional feature of concept. According to the compositionality, for example, the meaning of PET FISH have to be determined by the meaning of PET and the meaning of FISH. But, in case of meaning of concept is determined in the manner of conceptual holism, the meaning of PET FISH can include such meaning as being colorful, living in a fishbowl that would not be determined by the meaning of PET and the meaning of FISH As regards the pet fish problem, theory-theory tries to suggest the solutions by clarifying the nature of theory or by appealing the method by which the meaning of constituent concept is composed similarly but not identically. But that strategies is not successful either.

애착이론과 임상사회사업

이삼연 한국 정신보건 사회사업학회 2000 정신보건과 사회사업 Vol.9 No.-

유아와 아동의 연구에서 발달되었지만 오늘날 애착이론은 아동 뿐 아니라 사춘기 청소년 및 성인의 적응영역에까지 확장되어 임상사회사업계의 주요 관심분야에서 연구를 촉진하고, 그 연구결과가 임상사회사업 개입과정에 적용되면서 연구와 실천을 위한 통합적 이론 틀로서 자리잡고 있다. 그러나 대부분 사회사업가들은 애착이론에 대해 그다지 친숙하지 않고, 현재 애착이론이 임상사회사업분야에서 어떻게 활용될 수 있는가에 대해 잘 알지 못하고 있다. 본 논문은 애착이론을 소개하고, 임상사회사업분야에서 조사와 실천을 위한 통합적인 틀로서 애착이론의 유용성을 점검 해 볼 뿐 아니라, 애착이론의 활용을 통해 임상사회사업개입의 효과를 더욱 향상시키기 위한 방안을 제시해 보는 데에 그 목적을 두었다. 이를 위해 먼저 애착이론의 발달, 주요 개념 및 가정 등을 살펴보고, 세 개의 주요 사회사업실천 이론(심리사회적 접근법, 자아이론, 인지적 접근법)과의 비교분석을 통해 애착이론의 사회사업실천이론으로서의 특성을 살펴보았다. 그리고 전통적으로 그리고 근래 임상사회사업계의 주요 관심분야인 아동복지, 사춘기청소년자살, 섭식장애, 가족갈등 등의 분야에서 애착이론의 활용상황을 점검해 보았다. 끝으로 애착이론의 효과적인 사회사업실천이론으로서의 성공 가능성과 개선방향에 대해 논의하였다. Although originating form the study of infant and child developemnt, attachment theory has recently been extended into domains of adolescent and adult adjustment, and this emergent literature unders ores the theory's promise as an integrative framework for research and practice in clinical social work. It is noteworthy however, that attachment theoryt has not historically held a prominent position in clinical social work theory, or practice. Quite likely, because of its orignis in the stuudy of infant and child development many clinical social workers have not been exposed to the conceptual and empirical foundations supporting this theory and may not be aware of how contemporary theoretical extensions and applications now speak to important concerns and problems within clinical social work discipline. The purpose of this paper is to introduce attachment theory, expolore the place of attachment theory in current social work practice and to propose ways in which it may further enhance clinical social work. The initial section of this article briefly reviews the theory's conceptual foundations and key assumptions and constructs And then its characteristics as a clinical practice model is esamined. Three appraches (psychosocial, self-psychology, and cognitive approach) to clinical social work are discussed in comparision to attachment theory. Then how attachment theory is utilized as a integrative feramework for research and practce in clinical social work is explored. In particular, applications of attachment theory to selected themes in child welfare particular, applications of attachment theory to selected themes in child welfare as well as adolescent and adult adjustment that have been both traditional and comtemporary concerns of clinical social workers are explored. Finally, in conclusion, attachment theory's promise, and the way in which it my be further enhanced as clinical social work model are discussed.

딜레마 이론: 체계적 평가와 고찰

김태은 ( Taeeun Kim ) 고려대학교 정부학연구소 2021 정부학연구 Vol.27 No.1

본 연구는 딜레마 이론을 체계적으로 고찰 및 평가하였다. 구체적으로 4가지 연구 질문에 대한 해답을 구하기 위해 이론 분석평가틀을 새롭게 설계 및 적용하고 세부 항목에 부합되는 연구방법을 활용하였다. 분석결과, 딜레마 이론은 첫째, 새로운 의사결정이론으로 새로운 발견과 설명을 하였고 설명력을 지니고 있다는 점에서 ‘이론적 가치’를, 둘째, 객관적 관찰과 난제 극복을 통한 이론화, 개념의 공고화 및 차별화, 이론 발전과 정교화가 체계적으로 나타나고 있다는 점에서 ‘이론 개발모델로서 가치’를, 셋째, 공공성 확보, 전략적 활용 차원에서 ‘행정 및 정책적 가치’를 발견할 수 있었다. 넷째, 이론적 가치에도 불구하고 이론 고유의 문제와 이론 적용의 문제와 같은 ‘이론적 한계’를 지니고 있었다. 동 분석결과는 딜레마 이론의 가치와 한계를 체계적으로 이해할 수 있게 하여 주며, 동시에 행정 및 정책적 관점에서 딜레마 이론의 유용성을 새롭게 살펴볼 수 있는 기회를 제공한다. This paper aims to provide a systematic literature review on policy dilemma-related research. This was achieved by using a theory analysis framework to address four research questions on (1) the value of theory, (2) the value of a theory-building model or theorization, (3) the value of administrative and policy practice, and (4) the limitations of theory. Firstly, regarding its theoretical contributions, the dilemma theory works as an alternative to decision-making theory, effectively advancing new findings and explanations on policy decision-making under dilemmatic situations. Thirdly, the policy dilemma theory offers a variety of policy implications in terms of ensuring publicness and the strategic use of dilemmatic situations. Fourthly, despite its theoretical contributions, the theory has limitations, such as its inability to adequately define what a policy dilemma is and the limited in applying the theory to inform research and evidence to practice. These meta-review findings echo the wider literature on public administration, which points to the values and limitations of dilemma theory and evaluates its applicability from the administrative and policy perspectives.

이론비평'을 통한 비평이론 교육

강우성(Woosung Kang) 한국영미문학교육학회 2013 영미문학교육 Vol.17 No.3

This paper purports to present practical teaching models and curriculum of literary theory at a graduate level in Korea by examining the theoretical and pedagogical implications of what might be termed "Theory Criticism" in several academic journals in Anglophone culture for the past 10 years. Critically analysing the recent trends of theory studies, especially during the period after the so-called "the Death of Theory," I argue that journals devoted to theory demonstrated the significant change in doing theory in terms of thinking possibilities of political potentiality and cultural diversification of theory itself. Among various journals, Diacritics, Critical Inquiry, and Parallax are chosen for their consistent commitment to the theoretical discussion in the field of literary studies. Theoretical concerns of these journals after 2005 can best be classified under three categories: increasing political interest, continued devotion to cultural or aesthetic phenomena, and the renewed reflection on what makes a theory a theory. Current shifts in theory studies mark a crucial challenge to our literary theory education in Korea, where classroom situation now suffers a dire lack of the discipline in critical thinking amidst relative proliferation of critical discourse outside the academia. One way to overcome such an indigence of theoretical education in Korea may come from the lesson of recent political turn of theory in Anglophone studies. It is urgent as well as necessary to positively adopt the pedagogy of theory criticism while maintaining the text-based close reading in dealing with theoretical texts. For this task, I present three teaching models practically applicable in literary theory education in Korea: seminar on theory criticism, theoretical encounter with literary texts, and thematic approach to theory. As the case of actual teaching experience based on the thematic approach indicates, literary theory education via "theory criticism" proved not only viable but practicable as well. The aim of teaching literary theory should be geared to enhance none other than the faculty of critical thinking itself.

민요를 보는 시각과 쟁점

김혜정 한국민요학회 2014 한국민요학 Vol.42 No.-

Folksong theory can be discussed at different levels. Fundamentally, the perspective and attitude of researchers to approach folksongs are based on certain theory. This paper organized and reflectively examined folksong theories that have been the foundation of folksong research. Perspectives on folksongs are field theory, structuralism, transmissionism, and application theory, with inter-disciplinary research as another main research perspective. The following are the results. Firstly, field theory focuses on the transmission field and performance field itself while structuralism thoroughly studies the object and reveal the structure. Structuralism recognizes folksongs as a fixed entity and approaches it, driving a contrast with the field theory. However, when field theory perspective is connected with structuralism and used to study various aspects of folksongs, it will help reveal the universal structure of folksongs, which are very flexibile. That is why structuralism is complementary to field theory. Secondly, in terms of transmissionism, there have been two competing arguments, namely, the archetype and constructivism. The archetype contends that there is the object of tradition and legitimacy, and one must strive to protect and transmit it while constructivism argues that culture is undergoes changes constantly and can be changed. However, there are armchair arguments. Any researcher who has been on the field will understand the pros and cons of the both positions. Folksongs are understood as a living culture and they do not possess a fixed archetype and they are formed with grammar which contain the national identity. It's because that's the virtue that can obtained on the field. Thirdly, application theory is discussed in three parts:educational application, industrial application, and national movement application. Under today's circumstances, researchers are rarely allowed to focus only on folksongs. There must be a debate on what to transmit and what to preserve. There is a need for transmissionism and application theory that fit today's reality. Fourthly, inter-disciplinary research is the revelation of will to look at comprehensive and various aspects of folksongs. Theory is theory. Theory can operate positively and negatively depending on how it is used and applied. Therefore, it is first to understand the existence and identity of folksongs. Then, we can think about how folksongs can survive under the current circumstances and cultural flow. Lastly, these positions should be examined against the existing theories to help establish new theories. 민요 이론이란 다양한 층위에서 논의 가능하지만 근본적으로는 민요를 어떻게 바라보고 접근하며, 연구하는 지의 시각과 자세도 일정한 이론에 바탕을 두고 있다고 할 수 있다. 이 글에서는 민요연구의 바탕으로 작용되어 왔던 민요 이론들에 어떤 것들이 있는지 정리해 보고 반성적으로 검토해 보았다. 민요를 보는 시각으로 현장론과 구조주의, 전승론과 활용론을 들 수 있고, 이외에 주요한 연구 관점으로 간학문적(間學問的) 연구를 살펴볼 수 있다. 연구 결과를 정리하면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 현장론은 전승 현장과 연행 현장 자체를 주목하는 것이며, 구조주의는 대상을 면밀하게 분석하여 그 구조를 드러내는 작업을 말한다. 구조주의는 민요를 고정된 대상으로 인식하고 접근한다는 점에서 현장론과 상반되는 측면이 있다고 볼 수 있다. 그러나 현장론적 시각을 구조주의에 접목하여 민요의 다양한 각편을 대상으로 연구하면 유동성이 강한 민요의 보편적 구조를 드러낼 수 있다는 점에서 현장론과 상보적인 방법론이라 할 수 있다. 둘째, 전승론에 있어서는 원형주의와 구성주의라는 두 가지 상반된 입장에 대한 논쟁이 있어 왔다. 원형주의는 전통성과 정통성이 있는, ‘원형’이라고 부를 만한 대상이 있다고 상정하고 이를 지켜서 전승해야 한다고 보는 입장이며, 구성주의는 문화란 그때그때 구성되는 것이므로, 항상 변화되고 있고, 변화될 수 있다고 보는 입장이다. 그러나 이는 책상 위의 토론일 뿐이다. 실제로 민요의 현장을 돌아다니면서 민요를 연구해온 학자들이라면 이 두 가지의 장점과 단점, 또는 적용 가능치를 알고 있을 것이다. 민요는 살아있는 문화이므로 하나의 원형만을 갖고 있지 않다는 점도 알고 있을 것이며, 민족적 정체성을 담은 어법으로 구성되는 대상이라는 점도 파악되어 있을 것이다. 그것이 현장에서 얻을 수 있는 미덕이기 때문이다. 셋째, 활용론은 크게 세 가지 정도의 논의가 있어 왔다. 교육적 활용, 산업적 활용, 민요운동론적 활용이 그것이다. 연구자가 민요 자체만 연구할 수 없는 것이 작금의 현실이다. 무엇을 전승하고 살려 나가야 할 것인지에 대한 논쟁이 필요하다. 그래서 보다 시대성에 맞는 전승론과 활용론을 세워 나가야 할 것이다. 넷째, 간학문적 접근의 연구는 민요의 종합적이고 다양한 측면을 살펴보고자 하는 의지의 발현이다. 자신이 속한 학문을 제대로 해내는 것도 중요하지만, 민요라는 대상을 있는 그대로 이해하기 위해서 다른 접근 방식과 새로운 시각을 접목해 보는 시도도 많아져야 한다고 본다. 이론은 이론일 뿐이다. 이론은 어떻게 적용되고 활용되는지에 따라 긍정적으로, 또는 부정적으로 작용할 수 있다. 따라서 민요의 실체와 존재 특성을 제대로 이해하는 것이 먼저이고, 시대적 상황과 문화적 큰 흐름에서 민요가 어떻게 살아남아야 할 것인가에 대한 고민들을 하는 것이 다음이며, 이러한 입장들이 기존의 이론과 어떻게 일치하고 위배되는지를 따져 새로운 이론을 세워 나가야 하는 것이 종국에 우리가 해야 할 일이다.