현대 자본주의사회의 탈기술화와 과잉교육의 역설적 관계에 대한 탐구

오욱환 한국교육사회학회 2004 한국교육사회학회 학술대회 발표 자료 Vol.2004 No.-

자본주의 체제는 자본이 점차 소수에게 집중되는 독점화 과정을 밟고 있다. 자본의 독 점화가 상당히 진행된 현대 자본주의사회에서 자본가들은 노동자들을 적은 임금으로 그 리고 효율적으로 통제하기 위해서 생산과정에서 수행하는 이들의 역할을 하찮은 것으로 만들기 위해서 분업화하고 탈기술화해 왔다. 한편, 국가는 시민들의 교육욕구를 수용함으 로써 권력의 정통성을 확보하고 인적자본을 확대시킴으로써 국제경쟁력을 높이기 위해서 교육기회를 끊임없이 확대하였다. 결과적으

교육사회학에서 사회적 불평등을 의미하는 변인의 선택과 설명체제

오욱환 한국교육개발원 1989 한국교육 Vol.16 No.1

미국과 영국의 교육사회학에서의 여성연구 : 1980∼1986

오욱환 이화여대 한국여성연구소 1987 여성학논집 Vol.4 No.-

The main theme in sociology of education has been the educational inequality and its effect on the inequality of life chance. Sexual inequaility is pervasive in education and society. Among structural inequalities, the sexual inequality has been accepted to be the most natural. The sexual discrimination is the outcome of the systematic combination of social structure, ideology, and culture. It looks impossible to solve the sexual inequality in this society. To equalize the sexual inequality, various ways of approaches are needed. One of the most important ways is to study the sexual inequality, which is called 'women's studies.' 'Women's studies' have not been focused in the sociology of education in Korea of the as well as in other countries. the researcher argues that the topics of the sexual inequality should be included in the sociology of education because the inequality is also prominent in korean society. The theme of 'sex and education' can be found in the syllabus by the researcher for undergraduate and graduate schools. The theme can be found in the related courses as well. Yet, the researcher feels it is not well organized because of limited references from educational journals or other sources. This study of reviewing the articles about women's studies in the field of the sociology of education has two purposes : one is to compare the articles in women's studies published in American society with those of British society, and the other is to academically invite the female college students, particularly graduate students, to the women's studies. Most female college students in Korea are not conscious of their disadvantaged situation. Even though a very few female students are conscious of their situation, they are unnecessarily militant toward the sexual discrimination only on the basis of their own personal experience. Their arguments have not been supported by academic knowledge and empirical data. For studying the sexual inequality it is necessary and inevitable to read the articles of the academically advanced societies. In this study, the researcher selects two journals : one is Sociology of Education, which has been published by the American Sociological Association since 1961, and the other is British journal of sociology of Education, which has been managed by British sociologists and sociologists of education since 1980. this study analyzes the articles of women's studies in Sociology of Education and BJSE from 1980 to 1986. During this period, Sociology of Education published 137 articles and BJSE 107 articles. among these articles, the researcher selected the articles focused on women's studies on the basis of having the sex/gender-related word, such as gender, sex, femininity, patriarchy, and musculine in the research title. among the above articles, 19 articles in Sociology of Education and 14 articles in BJSE were selected to analyze according to the study interest. The ratio to the total of each journal is 13.87% (19/137) and 13.73% (14/107), respectively. The sociologists of knowledge have asserted that knowledge is the historical and socio-cultural product. The research is the practical process for making knowledge. Therefore, it is more actually affected by the social situation. Women's studies have been conducted to remove the socially-produced structural and ideological barriers by which women are oppressed, dominated, and limited to life chance. The social situations of the nations are different and, the definitions of the situation are also different, The differently-defined situation makes the researchers to keep diverse perspectives. One's perspective determines his/her research topics. The topics in Sociology of Education are significantly different from those of BJSE. The American researchers are more concerned to know how much serious the sexual discrimination/difference is. The British sociologists of education have many deep-rooted questions about the sexual inequality. They have tried to reveal the unjustifiable structural and ideological mechanism to function against women. Topic determines the way to approach. The difference in the topics between the two nations causes the difference in research methods. The american researcher prefer to the empirical study using high-level statistics. On the contrary, the researchers in BJSE are inclined to approaching theoretically and/or to doing ethnography. Theory is more decisive than empirical data. Therefore, it is better to evoke action. Though ethnography is a kind of case study, it is very persuasive because it describes the reality by the eyes of the tribes, not by the intentions of researchers. The differences in the topics and the research methods cause the variations in the alternatives to solve the present problems. Almost articles in BJSE argue the change of social structure and ideology, and particularly the school knowledge which is used to reproduce the capitalist and patriarchal social relations. The alternatives are relatively radical and some of them are based on the Marxist sociology. Some American researchers suggest the gradual progress to the sexual equality. The others do not suggest any alternatives. In women's studies included in the sociology of education. the topics, the methods and the alternatives are significantly different between American and British societies. This can be interpreted in terms of the differences of the historical and socio-cultural background. This fact implies that we can not expect the research findings of foreign countries to be directly applicable to our social problems, including the sexual inequality.

미국 교육사회학의 정체성 확립과정 탐색

오욱환 한국교육사회학회 1999 교육사회학연구 Vol.9 No.2

한국 교육학 도서에서의 문화실조이론에 관한 설명 형태

오욱환 한국교육학회 1989 敎育學硏究 Vol.27 No.1

교육과정학과 교육사회학의 접목가능성과 필연성

오욱환 이화여자대학교 한국문화연구원 1992 韓國文化硏究院 論叢 Vol.60 No.3

There are various definitions of education. However, traditional definitions have critical limitations to realization of the power of education, since these definitions already assume instrumental and subordinate role of education in society. According to the definitions, education should functionally adapt to the needs of the society and cannot have any autonomy to change social structure and even its own system. The one and only aim of education is to function effectively and efficiently for the society. By conservative educational theorists, educational activities have shrunken to instrumentally adapt to the present social needs. Because they have dominated the academic society until now, their functional perspective on education affects all sub-are-as of education as a discipline. Education is not a passive activity. Education aims to change mans attributes for himself as well as for his society. Education is integrated activity and positive. Therefore, to reconceptualize education is a very necessary task in order to overcome the passivity containde in the traditonal theories about education. The first step toward reconceptualizastion of education is to critically analyze present theories about and around education. Education as a discipline has been divided into various sub-areas, such as philosophy of education, sociology of education, curriculum studies, and educational administration. The subdivision segments edtcational descipline as separated parts and, as a result, incapacitates the power of education. Consequently, the subdivided areas are subordinated to other disciplines, such as philosophy, sociology, and administration. Although the nature of education is multi-disciplinary, education cannot be segmented into sub-parts,. In order to empower education, we should stop dividing education as a disciline into sub-areas under the name of specialization. Unfortunately, education as a discipline has already been separated into many areas, and the scholars in educational discipline have identified themselves as sug-area specialists: philosopher of education, slociologist of education, etc. However, the sub-divided areas should be combinde in order to rehabilitate the real charater of education. Because sub-areas of educational discipline are critically segmented, different means to interconnect the sub-areas should be tried step by step and one by one: One example is to combine sociolgy of education with curriculum studies. One of the main questions in educational field is why some students are good at their studies and others are not, Many theorists have studies and made principles to answer this question. Traditionally, sociologists of education did not show any interest in this topic, for they assumed this topic to be micro-approach and educational psychologists concern. However, since the early 1970s, a group of British sociologists, called new sociologists of education, have argued that this topic should be included in the sociology of education. Their argument is based on the assumption that education has a relative autonomy from society, and, using this autonomy, education changes itself and, further more. the society. The rewearch papers of new sociologists of education, prepared theoretically and empirically to support their own argument, criticize the black box logic of the old sociology of eduction. According to their critique, the old sociologists of education do not look into school and classrooms where teaching and learning as real process of education are ordenarily performde. The new sociologists of education strongly posit with evidence that educational and classroom knowledge, and classroom interaction between teacher and students are not universally and equally meaningful to every students, Classroom knowledge is not given but man-made, and usually guves significant advantage to students of ruling-class, And teacher-student interaction is not performed by some universal rule: the pattern of interaction givew some advantage to ruling class students. During the late 70s in Aereica, a group of curriculum theorists started to critically rethink about universality of curriculum, They could not agree to traditonalists and conceptual-cmpiricists assumption that curriculum is selected from common culture and, Therefore, is equally meaningful to every student. Since the ideology of ruling-class infiltuaties into culture and knowledge which are the sources of curriculum, the curriculum cannot be universal, inevitablu giving significant advantage to students of ruling-class and, at the same time, causing lower-class students to fail in school performance. The vew sociologists focus their attention on the micro aspect of sociology educatio. On the contrary, the critical theorists of curriculum expanjd from how to weach to what to teach. Here, new sociology of education meets with curtical curriculum theory (sociology of curriculum). Tjis meeting is very natural and inevitable because education is not a seperable activity. Furthermore sociology of education should meet with philosophy of education - which in turn should meet with curriculum studies, which should now meet with educational administration, and so forth - to empower education and to establish the real nature of education. Through this task, education can have autonomy and initiate social change.

사회주의 국가에서 교육 불평등과 사회경제적 불평등의 정치경제학적 관계 -고르바쵸프 시대 이전의 소련을 중심으로-

오욱환 한국교육사회학회 1992 교육사회학연구 Vol.2 No.1

구조론적 마르크스주의 교육사회학의 딜레마

오욱환 한국교육학회 1990 敎育學硏究 Vol.28 No.3

한국 자본주의 경제구조와 교육비 구성의 상응관계

오욱환 한국교육사회학회 1994 교육사회학연구 Vol.4 No.1

미국 고등학교 경쟁력의 배경

오욱환 한국비교교육학회 1999 比較敎育硏究 Vol.9 No.2