http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 발행기관 : 상명대학교 정치경영대학원 (검색결과 147 건)
-
-
-
-
기초자치단체장의 공공 리더십 연구 : 서울시 성북구청장의 사례를 중심으로
김순철 상명대학교 정치경영대학원 2008 국내석사
The purpose of this thesis is to inquire into the relationship between the success of local government policy and the public leadership of a local mayor. With the introduction of local self-governing system in 1995 in Korea, the environment surrounding a local chief has changed as follows. In the past he was appointed by a metropolitan governor and was subject to the superiors, but now gets to the position through the direct election of constituents. District voters are the most important customers to a local mayor. In addition, the supports from the regional congress, local government officers, some politicians and others is needed to the success of local mayorship. In relation to institutional change, many academic questions have been asked on why some local governments succeed in terms of policy or not. Despite a few researches have no satisfying answers been proposed. In this paper, a integrated leadership is seeked as the independent variable to explain the success of a local mayor's policy. For the inquiry of a integrated leadership of local mayor, Mr. Suh Chan Kyo, a Seongbuk-gu mayor, is chosen as the object of a case study. He inaugurated as the local mayor of Seongbuk-gu in Seoul in the year of 2002 and has been a successful figure as a local mayor. He analyzed the surrounding of Seongbuk-gu, which was inferior to other districts, and came up with policy vision, and executed a few solid policies successfully. As a result of Mr. Suh's leadership, both the living environment of and the satisfaction degree of Seongbuk-ku citizen has been improved according to some surveys. The framework of three leadership types and some characteristics of leadership have been applied to dissect the integrative leadership of Mr Suh. Three types of leadership are policy leadership, administrative leadership, and political leadership. Policy leadership is composed of factors like an environment analysis, setting of policy vision, and creation of policy. Administrative leadership requires factors like management capability, policy initiative, giving examples, and change management. Finally, political leadership needs following factors of participatory democracy, transparency, and communication skill. As the conclusion of analysis of Mr. Suh's leadership, successful local mayor needs an integrative leadership of policy leadership, administrative leadership, and political leadership. In addition, personal characteristics of Mr. Suh had much influence to his leadership style. Especially, his religion of Christianity and life style of diligence have an importance role in the formation and the success of his leadership. In the 21st century, self-governing local mayors are facing the new trend frame of globalization, localization, information technology, and democratization. The new leadership form of a local mayor should be established to meet the demand of the times. And the integrative leadership of policy, administrative, and political leadership is one of good alternatives.
-
-
-
-
-
평가인증제에 관한 보육시설종사자들의 인식 및 차이 : 경상남도 거제시를 중심으로
전미정 상명대학교 정치경영대학원 2008 국내석사
평가인증제도에 관한 보육시설 종사자들의 인식 및 차이 연구 본 연구의 목적은 보육시설 평가인증제도의 본격적 실시에 따른 보육시설 종사자들의 인식을 알아 봄으로써 보육시설 평가인증에 대한 올바른 정책대안을 제시하고 참여율을 높일 수 있는 방안을 모색하는데 기초자료를 제공하고자 한다. 이와 같은 연구 목적을 위하여 설정한 연구문제는 다음과 같다. 1. 보육시설 종사자들의 평가인증제도에 대한 인식 은 어떠하며, 이는 기관의 인증여부, 설립유형, 기관규모와 교사의 직급과 경력에 따라 차이가 있는가? 2. 보육시설 종사자들의 평가인증 운영체계에 대한 인식은 어떠하며, 이는 기관의 인증여부, 설립유형, 기관규모, 교사의 직급과 경력에 따라 차이가 있는가? 3. 보육시설 종사자들의 평가인증 지표에 대한 인식은 어떠하며, 이는 기관의 인증여부, 설립유형, 기관규모, 교사의 직급과 경력에 따라 차이가 있는가? 4. 보육시설 종사자들의 인증결과 활용에 대한 인식은 어떠하며, 이는 기관의 인증여부, 설립유형, 기관규모, 교사의 직급과 경력에 따라 차이가 있는가? 본 연구에 나타난 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 평가인증 제도에 대한 인식정도는 보통 수준인 것으로 나타나 전체적으로 높은 인식 수준을 보이지 않았다. 인증기관 종사자가 비인증 기관 종사자보다 인식이 높았고, 원장이 교사에 비해서 인식 정도가 높게 나타났다. 평가인증제도를 접하게 된 주요매체로는 평가인증 설명회라는 응답이 많았다. 둘째, 보육시설 종사자들의 평가인증 운영체계에 대한 인식은 다음과 같았다. 신청절차에 대해 2008년까지 전 보육시설이 인증을 받기 위해서는 현재와는 다른 신청 절차가 적용되어야 하는데, 인증시설은 ‘전 보육시설 의무사항’으로, 비인증시설은 ‘기한과 시기 모두 시설 자율선택’으로 하자는 의견이 높게 나타나 두 집단 간의 인식의 차이가 두드려졌다. 또한 보육시설 종사자들은 평가인증 신청을 유보하는 가장 큰 이유로 인증결과 인센티브가 따르지 않는 점과 현재 운영상태와 인증지표간의 격차 때문이라는 의견이 많은 것으로 나타났다. 현장관찰 평가의 문제점에 대해서는 1일간의 짧은 관찰로 평가결과에 너무 많은 비중을 차지한다고 나타나 ‘관찰 평가 시기와 비중에 대해 낮은 신뢰도를 나타냈다. 평가인증 4단계중 가장 어렵다고 생각하는 것으로 ’현장관찰‘과 ’자체점검‘을 들었는데, 특히 인증집단과 경력이 많은 집단에서 ’자체점검‘을 힘들게 생각하고 비인증 집단과 소규모집단에서 ’현장관찰‘을 부담스럽게 생각하는 비율이 높았다. 세째, 보육시설 종사자들의 평가인증 지표항목에 대한 인식은 다음과 같은 결과를 나타냈다. 보육시설 종사자들은 평가인증 지표 7개 영역중 보육의 질개선을 위해 가장 우선시 되는 항목으로 ‘보육환경’을 꼽았다. 또한 보육시설 종사자들은 평가인증의 긍정적 효과로 ‘물리적 환경의 질적 향상’을 가장 많이 선택하여 위의 우선시 되는 항목과 실제 개선 되었다고 생각하는 항목 간의 일치를 보였다. 넷째, 보육시설 종사자들의 평가인증 결과 활용에 대한 인식은 다음과 같은 결과를 나타냈다. 보육시설 종사자들은 평가인증 결과와 지원금 교부의 연계에 대하여 ‘차등보육료를 포함안 인건비, 기타운영비 전반에 적용’을 가장 많이 꼽았으며, 다음으로 기본 지원금과는 무관하게 인증시설에게만 별도의 인센티브 지원을 원하는 것으로 나타났다. 또한 보육시설 종자사들은 인증결과의 활용에 관한 질문에 대하여 전체적으로 인센티브의 활용에 높은 관심을 보였고, 특히 인증시설이 비인증시설에 비해 모든 항목에서 그 중요도를 높게 평가한 것으로 나타났다. The purpose of this study was to suggest an appropriate policy alternative for evaluative accreditation at childcare centers and offer basic data to figure out the methods of enhancing the participation rate, by investigating the recognition of childcare staff depending on the comprehensive implementation of the evaluative accreditation system at daycare centers. To this end, the following research questions were set up. 1. What recognition did childcare staff have on the evaluative accreditation system and how did it affect the presence of accreditation in organizations, their establishment types, their scope and the positions and professional careers of teachers and were there any differences in them? 2. What recognition did childcare staff have on the evaluative accreditation operation system and how did it affect the presence of accreditation in organizations, their establishment types, their scope and the positions and professional careers of teachers and were there any differences in them? 3. How did childcare staff recognize the index of evaluative accreditation and what differences were there in the presence of accreditation in organizations, their establishment types, their scope and the positions and professional careers of teachers? 4. How did childcare staff recognize the application of accreditation outcome and what differences were there in the presence of accreditation in organizations, their establishment types, their scope and the positions and professional careers of teachers? The results obtained from this study were as below. First, it has been found that the level of childcare staff's recognition on evaluative accreditation system was not very high as a whole. The staff of accredited organizations had higher recognitions than those of non-accredited organizations and the organizations' heads had higher recognitions than their teachers. Many respondents said that main media through which they were exposed to the evaluative accreditation system were from the presentation for evaluative accreditation. Second, childcare staff's recognition on evaluative accreditation operation system was as in the following. In order for the entire daycare centers to receive the accreditation regarding the application procedures by 2008, the application procedures different from the current ones needed to be applied. Meanwhile, there were some differences in the recognition between accredited and non-accredited organizations: the former wanted to use the application procedures as ‘the requirements for the entire daycare centers' while the latter wanted to use them as 'an option in terms of the limit and period.’ In addition, many of childcare staff claimed that they deferred applying for evaluative accreditation mostly because there would be no subsequent incentives as a result of the accreditation and there have been noticeable gaps between the conditions of operation and accreditation index. With regards to the problems with the evaluation of field observation, childcare staff showed the low credibility for 'the period of observation and evaluation and relative importance' due to the 1-day period of observation and its resultant evaluation. Regarding the four stages of evaluative accreditation, they considered 'field observation' and 'self-inspection' as the most difficult parts, especially, the groups with accreditation and a large amount of experiences found ’self-inspection‘ difficult while non-accredited groups and small-scale groups regarded ’field observation‘ as burdensome. Third, childcare staff's recognition on the index items for evaluative accreditation was as below. Childcare staff selected 'childcare environments' as the item that had to be most preferred for the improvement of daycare quality among seven areas of evaluative accreditation indices. Besides, they chose 'the qualitative improvement of physical environments' most as the positive effect of evaluative accreditation, which showed the agreement between the items that were considered preferred above and those that were thought to be actually improved. Fourth, after conducting the research on childcare staff's evaluation accreditation, their recognition on the application showed the following results. Concerning the outcome of evaluative accreditation and its correlation with the grant of aid funds, childcare staff selected ‘the application to labor cost including graded childcare fees and other overall operating fees’ mostly and they were followed by additional incentive support only for accredited organizations regardless of basic aid funds. Furthermore, for the question regarding the application of accreditation outcome, they showed a great interest in the incentive as a whole and it has been observed that especially the accredited organizations recognized its importance among all items more than non-accredited organizations.
-
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
