Lawrence 와 Hardy - Study of Thomas Hardy 를 중심으로

고미영 한국로렌스학회 1999 D.H. 로렌스 연구 Vol.7 No.-

면세점 쇼핑 관광객의 중요도-만족도(IPA)에 관한 연구

고미영,양필수,고계성 대한관광경영학회 2011 觀光硏究 Vol.26 No.2

본 연구에서는 제주를 방문한 중국인 관광객들의 면세점 쇼핑 중요도-만족도 분석을 통해 면세점 쇼핑관광객들의 만족도를 제고하고 향후 면세점 운영의 활성화를 위한 시사점을 도출하고자 하였다. 면세점 쇼핑속성에 대한 IPA 분석결과, 첫째, 중요도와 만족도가 모두 높아 지속적으로 유지시켜야 할 1사분면의 속성들로 상품의 다양성, 상품가격의 적절, 상품의 품질, 포장상태, 상품의 브랜드, 면세점 청결, 면세점 명성, 판매원 상품지식, 판매원의 친절 9개의 속성들이 제시되었다. 둘째, 3사분면에 포함된 5개의 속성들로 판매원의 언어능력, 외국어 설명문, 환율표기, 선물증정/쿠폰, 할인제도가 도출되었다. 이러한 속성들은 중국인 관광객들이 중요하게 고려하지도 않고 만족하지도 않은 면세점 운영에서 우선순위가 낮은 것으로 파악할 수 있다. 셋째, 4사분면에는 상품의 진열, 구매의 편리성, 면세점 위치, 면세점 분위기, 면세점 인테리어의 5개 속성들이 위치하고 있었다. 이러한 연구결과들을 토대로 제주를 방문한 중국인 관광객들의 면세점 쇼핑을 활성화하기 위한 방안과 연구의 한계점 및 향후 연구방향을 제시하였다. This study examined the importance and performance of duty free shopping of Chinese tourists in Jeju and suggested practical implications for the effective management strategy on duty free shop. IPA(Importance-performance analysis) was applied to compare the importance attributes with the satisfaction attributes of Chinese tourists’ duty free shopping. Through IPA analysis on 20 duty free shopping attributes, 9 were identified in the 1st quadrant, which need to be sustained, showing higher importance and satisfaction. These were “diversity of product”, “resonable price of product”, “quality of product”, “packaging of goods”, “brand”, “cleanliness of duty free shop”, “reputation of the store”, “knowledge of salesperson” and “kindness of employees”. 5 attributes loaded in the 3rd quadrant were “linguistic ability of salesperson”, “foreign language sign”, “current exchange rate sign”, “coupon/gift” and “discount”. Finally, in the possible overkill quadrants, 5 attributes such as display of product, convenience of purchase, location of the shop, atmosphere of the store and the interior design of the shop were distributed. Based on the study results, this study suggested measures, limitations and future research direction on facilitating duty free shopping by chinese tourists visited Jeju.

아동과 청소년의 공격성에 대한 연구

고미영 한국 정신보건 사회사업학회 1998 정신보건과 사회사업 Vol.6 No.-

아동과 청소년기에 나타나는 공격성은 매우 흔하면서도 이 시기를 대표하는 행동문제로 간주된다. 요즈음 우리 사회는 청소년의 학교 폭력이나 집단 폭력 행위에 대하여 심한 우려와 관심을 나타내고 있다. 본 논문은 청소년 폭력에 대한 사회적 해결 방향을 어떻게 취할 것인가를 제시하기 위하여 청소년 폭력의 원인이 되는 아동과 청소년기의 공격성에 대한 이론과 개입 모델을 소개하고 있다. 먼저 아동과 청소년기에 나타나는 공격성의 정의와 유형을 알아보고 각 이론이 제시하는 공격성의 원인에 대한 고찰을 시도했다. 또한 아동기의 공격성이 그 후에 나타나는 청소년기의 공격성과 어떤 연관을 맺고 발달, 유지되어 나아가나에 관한 연구들을 소개하였으며 이제까지 실행되었던 공격성에 대한 개입 모델들을 살펴보았다. 결론적으로 공격성은 단순한 문제가 아니며 공격자 본인을 비롯하여 가족, 또래, 학교 및 지역 사회적 차원에서의 관심과 노력이 요구되는 복합적 문제임을 제시하였다. Aggression is a common behavioral problem in childhood and adolescence which has been researched over the years. Recently, our society has viewed aggression as a major problem in relation to school violence. The present paper introduces several definitions and types of childhood and adolescent adolescent aggression. Two types of aggressive behavior are given attention: reactive aggression and proactive aggression. Reactive aggression is defined as a defensive reaction to a perceived threatening stimulus, whereas proactive aggression is viewed as a learned instrumental behavior which is controlled by reinforcement. It also reviews current theories of aggression in childhood and adolescence. In that review, three different views on the etiology of aggression are noted. Psychoanalytic theory suggests that man possesses an aggressive drive comes from within the eprson. Social learning theory emphasizes that the individual can learn aggressive behavior through observation of a model who is highly regarded as being successful in the performance of aggression. It also views modeling and reinforcement as operating jointly in the learning of aggressive behavior. Meanwhile, cognitive theory believes that thinking patterns such as reflection-impulsivity, fragmentation, failure to empathize with others, a lack of perspective of time, and irresponsible decision making are related to aggressive behavior. The question has been addressed whether there is individual continuity of aggressive behavior or whether there are changes with development. Individual continuity of aggressive behavior has been well documented by many researchers. It has been argued that early intervention with an aggressive youngster may reduce aggressive behavior problems in later years. Finall, two models of intervention on aggression in childhood and adolescence are introduced. Use of a broad repertoire of interventions is recommended for the solution of aggression in childhood and adolescence.

정신건강센터에서 제공하는 청소년 분노 조절 소집단에 관한 연구

고미영 한국 정신보건 사회사업학회 1999 정신보건과 사회사업 Vol.8 No.-

Nine sessions of biweekly anger control group has been delivered in the community mental health center during summer. Four aggressive and disruptive adolescents completed the group. The intervention was based on the stress inoculation of the cognitive-behavioral model which addresses the cognitive preparation, skill acquisition and skill application. The study was designed to measure the effectiveness of the anger control group. Three dependent variables were the scores of Child Behavior Checklist by Achenbach, self-rating scale, and behavior observation rating. This intervention study suggests a promising treatment effect on the lowering the incident of angry outburst in the adolescents who participated in the group.

이야기치료의 한국적 적용에 관한 연구

고미영 한국가족치료학회 2000 가족과 가족치료 Vol.8 No.2

한국에서는 가족치료 자체가 일반인들에게 잘 알려져 있지 않고 있으며 더군다나 이야기치료는 이제 막 소개되기 시작하는 단계에 있어서 아직까지 매우 생소한 치료다. 또한 이야기치료를 수용하는 데에는 과감한 개념적인 전환과 포스트모더니즘이 제시하는 세계관에 대한 동의를 필요로 하기 때문에 쉽게 받아들이기 어려운 점들이 있다. 포스트모더니즘을 수용하는 데에는 한편으로는 친근한 근대적 개념들로부터의 분리와 다른 한편으로는 새로운 패러다임에 적응해야 하는 모험이 필요하다. 포스트모더니즘에서 거론하는 많은 논제들은 이제까지 우리에게 익숙해져 있는 가정들과 원리들에 대하여 큰 도전을 불러일으킨다. 이러한 관점에서 보면 이야기치료가 얼마나 한국적인 상황과 문화에 정착할 수 있을 지는 아직까지 의문이다. 그러나 본고에서는 이야기치료가 문화적 장벽의 구애를 받지 않고 각 문화의 특성과 언어에서 자라난 이야기를 도구로 삼아 쉽게 뿌리를 내릴 수 있다는 가능성을 이론적으로 제시하였다. 또한 저자의 개인적인 치료 사례를 통해 이야기 치료의 한국 문화 안에서의 적응 가능성을 서술하고자 한다.

비평가로서의 로렌스 : 그의 교훈주의를 중심으로

고미영 慶熙大學校 大學院 1998 高凰論集 Vol.22 No.-

Lawrence is already well known in Korea as a writer through Sons and Lovers, Lady Chatterey's Lovers, Rainbow etc. While he has been well studied as a novelist or an artist, he has not been studied enough as a literary critic. Except for two books, most of his critical views appear in his prefaces to other author's books, letters to intimate friends, and essays on the value of the novel. Though his views are sometimes irrelevant, they only show his different perspectives as a writer, reader, and critic. They in no way reduce his insights into literature and criticism. His views on literature could be explained with some basic concepts such as text, morality, and sincere trust, but all of his critical writings can be seen in the light of didacticism. The most important point he offers is the insight that the text is an autonomous being with the potential for multifarious meanings. When we restore the text to the context in which Lawrence formulated it, we find an invitation to engage in a form of rivalry between reader and author, similar to that sketched by Barthes. In this rivalry, the critic is a reader, and the reader also a critic. Lawrence's comments on literary criticism are not only aesthetic judgments but also are closely related to the morals of our real world. In other words, Lawrence thought all the valuable literature should show some kind of truth that could develope our senses of right and wrong. The role of the critic should be to advise the reader on how to arrive at the didactic message that is the morality of the text. Therefore, for Lawrence, the crictic should be a man of whole character and he should necessarily have an ability to feel from the deep inner senses and to explain the critical process for reader. We, the reader, should accept a text as a being and listen to its voice through our inner senses. That's exactly what Lawrence or the text demands of us, because our reading is the activity of constructing the meaning, or truth, which is never different from the author's writing. Lawrence's critical writings are so find that they are a kind of literary works by themselves. Some critics insist Lawrence is eccentric and his literary comments are irrelevant. The reason why one would misunderstand him like this is that he didn't pay attention to the critical terms. And another reason is his literary writings consist of metaphors and symbols. Lawrence who thought that the important function of literary text should be the representation of morality, creates some difficulties by destroying the border line between aesthetic and moral judgment. He has his own psychology of human mind. Therefore, his literary and critical works need to be studied comparatively in the light of Freud, Lacan, and others. Although his writings are sometimes of uneven quality, his insights into the essence of literature and criticism show that he was a forerunner as a modern critic. As for Lawrence, the proper function of a critic is to save the tale from the artist who created it, because the morality of the art work was rarely to be found in the morality of the author. The most important point he offers is the insight that the text is an autonomous being with the potential for multifarious meanings. When we restore the text to the context in which Lawrence formulated it, we find an invitation to engage in a form of rivalry between reader and author, similar to that sketched by Barthes. Lawrence's comments on literary criticism are not only aesthetic judgment but also it is closely related with moral of real world. In other words, Lawrence thought all the valuable should show some kind of truth that could develope our senses of right and wrong. Therefore, the morality in text is the same didactic message that critic should advise how to arrive at it. We, the reader, should accept a text as a being and listen to its voice through our inner senses. That's exactly what Lawrence or text demands of us, because our reading is the activity of constructing the meaning, or truth, which is never different from the author's writing.

이야기치료의 이론과 기법

고미영 경기대학교한국사회복지연구소 1997 韓國社會福祉論叢 Vol.5 No.-

비평가로서의 로렌스 : 작품중심주의에 관하여 On Textuality

고미영 동아대학교 인문과학대학 영어영문학과 1997 동아영어영문학 Vol.13 No.-

Lawrence's critical writings are so fine that they are a kind of literary works by themselves Some critics insist Lawrence is eccentric and his literary comments are irrelevant. The reason why one would misunderstand him like this is that he didn't pay attention to the critical terms. And another reason is his literary writings consist of metaphors and symbols. Lawrence who thought that the important function of literary text should be the representation of morality, creates some difficulties by destroying the border line between aesthetic and moral judgements. He has his own psychology of human mind. Therefore, his literary and critical works need to be studied comparatively in light of Freud, Lacan, and others. Although his writings are sometimes of uneven quality, his insights into the seence of literature and criticism show that he was a forerunner as a modern critic As for Lawrence, the proper function of a critic is to save the tale from the artist who created it, bacause the morality of the art work was rarely to be found in the morality of the author. Lawrence's critical comments anticipate contemporary literary theories of text, structure, and the reader as critic. His basic concepts are very similar to those of modern critics like Richards, Barthes, and even Derrida. His ability as a critic is well asserted in Studies in Classic American Literature. He demonstrated the curtural psyche of American people by exploring their unconscious through literature. The most important point he offers is the insight that the text is an autonomous being with the potential for multifarious meanings. When we restore the text to the context in which Lawrence formulated it, we find an invitation to engage in a form of rivalry between reader and author, similar to that sketched by Barthes. We, the reader, should accept a text as a being and listen to its voice through our inner senses. That's exactly what Lawrence or text demands of us, because our reading is the activity of constructing the meaning, or truth, which is never different from the author's writing.

Lawrence 와 Hardy: Study of Thomas Hardy를 중심으로

고미영 한국로렌스학회 1999 D.H. 로렌스 연구 Vol.7 No.-

구성주의적 사회복지 실천에서의 이해와 질문

고미영 서울신학대학교출판부 2003 교수논총 = (A)collection of treatises Vol.14 No.-

전통적인 사회복지실천에서는 사회복지사들이 많은 시간과 노력을 들여서 내담자가 처해있는 상황에 대한 확실한 이해를 하고자한다. 특별히 질문은 정보를 찾아내고 올바른 현실 이해를 하기 위한 수단으로 사용되고 있다. 그러나 구성주의적인 실천 관점에서 질문은 단순한 이해를 넘어서서 개입의 한 실제적인 도구로 사용될 수 있다. 특히 이 관점에서는 현실적인 정보를 얻는 수단으로서의 질문에 의문을 제기하고 있다. 그것은 질문이 현실을 파악하는 기존의 틀을 벗어나, 현실을 구성하는데 촉진제 역할을 할 수 있다고 보기 때문이다. 이 논문에서는 Tomm이 제안한 4가지 영역의 질문을 소개하면서, 전통적인 질문과 구성주의적 관점에서 만들어진 질문의 차이점을 보여주고 있다. 특히 구성주의적 질문은 내담자가 그 대화의 주역이 되도록 만들면서, 내담자의 사고영역을 확장시키고 새로운 현실적 대안을 내담자 스스로 찾아낼 수 있도록 돕는데 매우 유용한 방식이 될 수 있음을 보여주고 있다.