평생교육학 연구의 주제어 연결망 분석과 지식구조 탐색

국문 초록 (Abstract)

평생교육학의 지식구조가 어떠한 실체로 구성되어 있는가를 파악하는 것은 학문적 성격과 특성을 이해하는 기준이 되며, 평생교육학의 정체성을 확립하는 데에 도움이 될 수 있다. 평생교육학의 지식구조를 분석하기 위한 연구는 2000년대 이후를 기점으로 다수 있어왔으나 대부분 일차원적 기술분석 중심의 시도였다.
이에 본 연구는 데이터에 근거를 두고 지식구조를 형성하는 기본단위인 주제어를 기반으로 주제어 연결망 분석을 통해 평생교육학의 연구동향을 파악하고 지식구조를 구명하는 데에 목적이 있었다.이러한 연구 목적을 달성하기 위하여 평생교육학 지식구조와 관련된 문헌 및 선행연구 고찰을 통해 이를 탐색하고 개념화하였으며, 평생교육학 관련 논문 데이터를 수집하여 논문의 제목, 주제어, 초록을 바탕으로 주제어 추출 및 정제, 주제어 선별, 분석 데이터 구성 단계를 거쳐 주제어 연결망 분석에 적합한 형태로 구성하였다. 자료 분석은 Microsoft Excel 프로그램과 IBM SPSS(version 25.0) 통계프
로그램, 연결망 분석 프로그램인 Netminer(version 4.0)를 활용하여 기술통계분석, 교차분석, 주제어 연결망 분석을 실시하였다.
본 연구를 통해 밝혀진 주요한 연구결과는 다음과 같았다.
첫째, 평생교육학 연구논문의 특성을 분석한 결과 게재연도별 논문의 빈도는 증가하고 있는 추세였으며, 평생교육 관련 학술지 외에도 329종의 학술지에서 평생교육 관련 연구가 이루어졌다. 또한, 평생교육학 연구논문의 연구형태는 단독 연구 형태가 공동 연구 형태보다 많은 것으로 나타났으나, 2009년을 기점으로 공동 연구 형태가 우세한 현상을 보이고 있음을 알 수 있었다.
둘째, 연결망 기초분석을 통해 추출된 평생교육학의 주제어는 총 514개이었으며, 연결망 활성화 정도를 파악할 수 있는 밀도는 연결망에 대한 상대적 수치로 비교하기에는 한계가 있으나 타 학문의 선행연구 대비 높은 수준임을 알 수 있었다. 또한, 평생교육학 연결망에서 한 주제어에 직접 연결되어 있는 주제어의 수는 평균 26개이었으며, 평균적으로 약 2단계의 거리 안에서 모든 주제어들이 연결될 수 있음을 알 수 있었다.
셋째, 평생교육학의 핵심주제어를 중심성(연결정도·근접·매개) 분석과 출현빈도, 등장 논문빈도를 바탕으로 도출한 결과, 통시적 평생교육학의 핵심주제어는 ‘평생교육’, ‘프로그램’, ‘평생학습’, ‘성인학습자’, ‘근로자’로 나타났다.
넷째, 평생교육학의 지식지도를 도출하여 평생교육학의 주제어 연결 구조를 확인할 수 있었다. 지식지도의 가장 중심에 위치한 주제어는 ‘평생교육’이었으며, 이를 중심으로 ‘평생학습’, ‘평생교육활성화’, ‘평생교육프로그램’, ‘평생교육기관’, ‘연구방법’, ‘시민’, ‘평생교육사’, ‘평생교육학’, ‘평생교육법’, ‘평생학습자’, ‘평생교육관점’, ‘지식사회’, ‘장애인’ 총 13개의 주제어가 1차적연결망을 형성하고 있었다.
다섯째, 평생교육학의 중점연구 영역을 분석한 결과 총 24개로 도출되었으며, 시기별 평생교육학 중점연구 영역은 1990년대 이전 13개, 1990년대 12개, 2000년대 16개, 2010년대는 18개로 도출되었다.
여섯째, 평생교육학 중점연구 영역을 인지지도에 위치시킨 결과 그 특성에 따라 평생교육학의 주류 연구 분야, 독립적 성장 연구 분야, 개별 연구중심 분야 및 차세대연구 분야, 연계 연구중심 및 유행연구 분야로 분류할 수있었다.
이상의 내용을 토대로 본 연구가 가지는 의의는 다음과 같았다.
첫째, 기존에 축척되어 있는 평생교육학 연구논문의 문헌데이터를 바탕으로 주제어 간의 연결성 및 연계성, 유사성을 근거로 평생교육학의 지식구조를 밝혀내었다는 점에서 학술적 의의가 있다.
둘째, 연구범위를 평생교육 관련 전문학술지와 인접학문 분야의 평생교육관련 연구까지로 확대하여 통합적 평생교육학의 지식구조를 구명하였다는 점에서 학술적 의의가 있다.
셋째, 평생교육학의 맥락성, 중심성, 정체성, 확장성을 주제어 연결망 분석결과를 바탕으로 해석하고 논의하였다는 점에서 학술적 의의가 있다.본 연구는 학술적 차원에서 가치를 내포하고 있으나, 다음과 같은 제한점을 가지므로 향후 보다 나은 연구 수행을 위해 제언하고자 한다.
첫째, 본 연구의 분석 대상은 연구가 집약되어 표현되는 전문학술지로 범위를 한정 하였다. 따라서 전문학술지 뿐 아니라, 평생교육학의 학위논문이나 학회 발표논문 등으로까지 연구범위를 확대하여 평생교육학의 지식구조를 분석하는 후속연구가 요구된다.
둘째, 본 연구는 평생교육학의 주제어 추출과정에 있어 주제어의 의미를 해치지 않는 수준에 한하여 정제 작업을 수행하였으며, 평생교육학에 등장하는 주제어 전반을 다루고자 하여 유사한 주제어지만 미묘한 차이에 의해 동의어로 처리하지 않은 주제어 또한 존재하였다. 따라서 평생교육학의 지식구조가 보다 명확히 드러나기 위해서는 평생교육학 용어를 표준화하는 연구가 선행될 필요가 있을 것이다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Identifying what composes the formative knowledge structure of lifelong education science is a basis of understanding the academic characteristics and attributes of it. Moreover, it can help to establish the identity of lifelong education science. Many studies have analyzed the formative knowledge structure of lifelong education science, but most of them have focused on one-dimensional technical analyses.
The objectives of this study were to identify the research trend of lifelong education science and to determine the formative knowledge structure by utilizing the keyword network analysis based on the relationship between keywords, which is the basic unit forming formative knowledge structure based on data.
In order to accomplish these objectives, this study explored and conceptualized the formative knowledge structure of lifelong education science by reviewing previous literature and studies. Moreover, this study collected peer-reviewed publications on lifelong education science, reconstructed them through keyword extraction and refinement, keyword selection, and analysis data construction steps based on the topics, keywords, and abstracts.
Descriptive statistical analysis, cross-analysis, and keyword network analysis were conducted by using Microsoft Excel, IBM SPSS (ver. 25.0), and Netminer (ver. 4.0), which is a program for keyword network analysis.
Major findings of this study are as follows.
First, the analysis results of lifelong education science scholarly articles showed that the frequency of publications increased by a year. Studies on lifelong education science were published in 329 types of academic journals including lifelong education science specialized journals. Additionally, single-author studies were most common prior to 2009, but collaborative studies have dominated.
Secondly, total 514 keywords were extracted from studies on lifelong education science using network basic analysis. Although the density indicates the degree of network activation, it has limitations to be used as a relative value for evaluating networks. However, the density value implied that it was higher than the previous studies of other fields. Additionally, in the lifelong education science network, the number of keywords directly connected to a keyword was 26 on average. The analysis results revealed that all keywords were connected within approximately two levels of distance on average.
Thirdly, the core keywords of lifelong education science were derived by using central (degree of connection, proximity, and mediation) analysis, the frequency of appearance, and the frequency of publication using the word. The results of these analyses revealed that the core keywords of diachronic lifelong education science were ‘lifelong education’, ‘program’, ‘lifelong learning’, ‘adult learner’, and ‘workers’.
Fourthly, it was possible to confirm the network structure of lifelong education science’s keywords by deriving the knowledge map of lifelong education science. The keyword located at the most center of the knowledge map was ‘lifelong education’. Total 13 keywords formed the primary network, centered by this word: ‘lifelong learning’, ‘lifelong education activation’, ‘lifelong education programs’, ‘lifelong education institutes’, ‘methodology’, ‘citizens’, ‘lifelong educators’, ‘lifelong education science’, ‘lifelong education method’, ‘lifelong learners’, ‘lifelong education viewpoint’, ‘knowledge society’, and ‘the disabled’.
Fifthly, the main research area of lifelong education science was analyzed. The results showed that there were 24 areas. The number of main research area was 13 before the 1990s, 12 during the 1990s, 16 during the 2000s, and 18 during the2010s.
Sixthly, the main research area of lifelong education science was placed on the cognitive map. The results showed that, according to the characteristics, it was possible to classify it into a mainstream research field, an independent growth research field, an individual research-oriented field, a next-generation research field, and a connection research-oriented and trend research field.
The significance of this study based on these results is as follows.
First, the academic importance of this study is that this study discovered the formative knowledge structure of lifelong education science using the connectivity, linkage, and similarity between keywords based on literature data.
Second, this study is academically meaningful in terms of expanding the scope of the study to the professional journals related to lifelong education and the lifelong education studies of related fields to find the formative knowledge structure of integrated lifelong education science.
contextual, central, identity, and extensibility of lifelong education science based on the results of keyword network analysis.
Although this study has valuable academic findings, it has the following limitations as well. Therefore, several suggestions are made to carry out betterstudies in the future.
First, the analysis subjects of this study were limited to the professional journals, which present specialized and integrated studies. Therefore, it is necessary to expand the scope of the study to thesis and conference presentations on lifelong education and analyze the formative knowledge structure of lifelong education science.
Second, this study conducted a refining process at the level that does not impair the meaning of keywords in the process of extracting lifelong education science keywords. Since this study aimed to discuss overall keywords emerging in lifelong education science, there were keywords there were not treated as synonyms even though possessing a similar meaning. Therefore, it would be necessary to standardize the terminologies used in lifelong education science in order to reveal the formative knowledge structure of it more clearly.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 목 차
• Ⅰ. 서론 ···············································································1
• 1. 연구의 필요성 ····················································································1
• 2. 연구의 목적 ························································································4
• 3. 용어의 정의 ························································································5
• 4. 연구의 제한점 ····················································································6
• Ⅱ. 이론적 배경 ·································································7
• 1. 학문의 지식구조 개념 탐구 ····························································7
• 2. 평생교육학의 학문적 성격 탐색 ··················································13
• 3. 평생교육학의 지식구조 탐색 ························································25
• 4. 주제어 연결망 분석의 원리와 방법 ··········································35
• 5. 선행연구 고찰 ················································································45
• Ⅲ. 연구방법 ·····································································55
• 1. 분석 대상 ··························································································55
• 2. 분석 절차 ··························································································59
• 3. 자료 처리 방법 ················································································60
• 4. 자료 분석 ··························································································70
• Ⅳ. 연구결과 ·····································································72
• 1. 평생교육학 연구의 통합적 동향분석 ··········································72
• 2. 평생교육학 연구의 주제어 연결망 기초 분석 ··························82
• 3. 평생교육학 핵심주제어 도출 ························································85
• 4. 평생교육학 지식지도 분석 ··························································128
• 5. 평생교육학 중점연구 영역 분석 ················································138
• 6. 평생교육학 주제어 연결망 인지지도 분석 ······························203
• Ⅴ. 요약, 결론 및 제언 ················································221
• 1. 요약 ··································································································221
• 2. 논의 및 결론 ··················································································224
• 3. 제언 ··································································································230
• 참고문헌 ·························································································232
• Abstract ··························································································243