본 연구는 청소년이 가출생활을 전환하는데 영향을 미친 요인을 탐색하고 유형화하여, 청소년의 재 가출을 예방하고 안정적으로 가출생활을 전환하도록 지원하기 위한 기초 자료를 마련하는데 목적이 있다. 이러한 연구 목적을 위해 가출생활을 성공적으로 전환한 청소년 30명을 대상으로 조사․분석하여 다음과 같은 결론을 얻었다. 첫째, 청소년 가출생활 전환요인의 유형은 가족지지형, 독립지향형, 자아성찰 형, 위기경험 형으로 구분하였다. 둘째, 가족지지형은 가족자원, 또래자원 등 다차원적인 요소가 강조되었고, 독립지향형은 새로운 기회를 활용하고 자신이 가지고 있는 강점을 통해 새로운 생활을 추구하는 점이 강조되었다. 자아성찰 형은 주로 자기 자신에 관한 새로운 발견과 내적 변화를 강조하였고, 위기경험 형은 가출 이후 경험하게 된 내․외적 위험과 고통으로 가출생활 전환한 것으로 강조하였다. 셋째, 가출동기를 보면, 가족지지형과 자아성찰 형은 대부분 탈출로 나타났고, 독립지향형과 위기경험 형은 탈출과 추구가 혼합적으로 나타났다. 그리고 독립지향형과 자아성찰 형은 쉼터 이용 경험자가 많았으나, 가족지지형과 위기경험 형은 쉼터이용 경험자가 적었다. 넷째, 각 유형의 독특성을 나타나는 핵심개념을 보면, 가족지지형은 가족지지, 가족변화, 형제(자매)지지, 생태체계, 보호요인, 개인변화, 친구지지이며, 독립지향형은 교육 및 취업의 ...
본 연구는 청소년이 가출생활을 전환하는데 영향을 미친 요인을 탐색하고 유형화하여, 청소년의 재 가출을 예방하고 안정적으로 가출생활을 전환하도록 지원하기 위한 기초 자료를 마련하는데 목적이 있다. 이러한 연구 목적을 위해 가출생활을 성공적으로 전환한 청소년 30명을 대상으로 조사․분석하여 다음과 같은 결론을 얻었다. 첫째, 청소년 가출생활 전환요인의 유형은 가족지지형, 독립지향형, 자아성찰 형, 위기경험 형으로 구분하였다. 둘째, 가족지지형은 가족자원, 또래자원 등 다차원적인 요소가 강조되었고, 독립지향형은 새로운 기회를 활용하고 자신이 가지고 있는 강점을 통해 새로운 생활을 추구하는 점이 강조되었다. 자아성찰 형은 주로 자기 자신에 관한 새로운 발견과 내적 변화를 강조하였고, 위기경험 형은 가출 이후 경험하게 된 내․외적 위험과 고통으로 가출생활 전환한 것으로 강조하였다. 셋째, 가출동기를 보면, 가족지지형과 자아성찰 형은 대부분 탈출로 나타났고, 독립지향형과 위기경험 형은 탈출과 추구가 혼합적으로 나타났다. 그리고 독립지향형과 자아성찰 형은 쉼터 이용 경험자가 많았으나, 가족지지형과 위기경험 형은 쉼터이용 경험자가 적었다. 넷째, 각 유형의 독특성을 나타나는 핵심개념을 보면, 가족지지형은 가족지지, 가족변화, 형제(자매)지지, 생태체계, 보호요인, 개인변화, 친구지지이며, 독립지향형은 교육 및 취업의 기회 활용, 자기결정, 독립적 생활, 미래지향, 탄력성이다. 자아성찰 형은 내적 변화, 자아발견, 성숙, 존재감, 자기 가치, 종교적 지지이고, 위기경험 형은 위험인식, 외로움, 육체적 고통, 경제적 어려움, 탄력성, 현실타협이다. 다섯째, 각 유형의 공통성은 자신의 내면적 변화, 자신의 존재가치의 발견, 종교적 지지는 긍 적 적인데 비하여, 쉼터 또래의 지지와 주변인의 지지는 부정적으로 나타났다. 그리고 지역사회자원의 효과성은 독립지향형과 자아성찰 형에서는 긍정적으로, 가족지지형과 위기경험 형에서는 부정적으로 나타났다. 앞으로, 청소년의 가출생활 전환에 관한 개별적 욕구 파악과 이를 위한 사정도구의 개발, 다양한 강점과 보호요인의 활용, 가족관계의 강화, 자립생활을 위한 진로탐색과 경제적 지원 등의 연구가 필요하다. 또한 가출청소년의 자아성장과 탄력성을 지지하는 개입과 지역사회자원의 접근 성을 높일 수 있는 연구가 이루어져야 할 것이다.
본 연구는 청소년이 가출생활을 전환하는데 영향을 미친 요인을 탐색하고 유형화하여, 청소년의 재 가출을 예방하고 안정적으로 가출생활을 전환하도록 지원하기 위한 기초 자료를 마련하는데 목적이 있다. 이러한 연구 목적을 위해 가출생활을 성공적으로 전환한 청소년 30명을 대상으로 조사․분석하여 다음과 같은 결론을 얻었다. 첫째, 청소년 가출생활 전환요인의 유형은 가족지지형, 독립지향형, 자아성찰 형, 위기경험 형으로 구분하였다. 둘째, 가족지지형은 가족자원, 또래자원 등 다차원적인 요소가 강조되었고, 독립지향형은 새로운 기회를 활용하고 자신이 가지고 있는 강점을 통해 새로운 생활을 추구하는 점이 강조되었다. 자아성찰 형은 주로 자기 자신에 관한 새로운 발견과 내적 변화를 강조하였고, 위기경험 형은 가출 이후 경험하게 된 내․외적 위험과 고통으로 가출생활 전환한 것으로 강조하였다. 셋째, 가출동기를 보면, 가족지지형과 자아성찰 형은 대부분 탈출로 나타났고, 독립지향형과 위기경험 형은 탈출과 추구가 혼합적으로 나타났다. 그리고 독립지향형과 자아성찰 형은 쉼터 이용 경험자가 많았으나, 가족지지형과 위기경험 형은 쉼터이용 경험자가 적었다. 넷째, 각 유형의 독특성을 나타나는 핵심개념을 보면, 가족지지형은 가족지지, 가족변화, 형제(자매)지지, 생태체계, 보호요인, 개인변화, 친구지지이며, 독립지향형은 교육 및 취업의 기회 활용, 자기결정, 독립적 생활, 미래지향, 탄력성이다. 자아성찰 형은 내적 변화, 자아발견, 성숙, 존재감, 자기 가치, 종교적 지지이고, 위기경험 형은 위험인식, 외로움, 육체적 고통, 경제적 어려움, 탄력성, 현실타협이다. 다섯째, 각 유형의 공통성은 자신의 내면적 변화, 자신의 존재가치의 발견, 종교적 지지는 긍 적 적인데 비하여, 쉼터 또래의 지지와 주변인의 지지는 부정적으로 나타났다. 그리고 지역사회자원의 효과성은 독립지향형과 자아성찰 형에서는 긍정적으로, 가족지지형과 위기경험 형에서는 부정적으로 나타났다. 앞으로, 청소년의 가출생활 전환에 관한 개별적 욕구 파악과 이를 위한 사정도구의 개발, 다양한 강점과 보호요인의 활용, 가족관계의 강화, 자립생활을 위한 진로탐색과 경제적 지원 등의 연구가 필요하다. 또한 가출청소년의 자아성장과 탄력성을 지지하는 개입과 지역사회자원의 접근 성을 높일 수 있는 연구가 이루어져야 할 것이다.
This study put its purpose that makes the types of the effective factors on runaway youth's life transition to prevent youth from re-runaway and make basic research to support effective leaving from runaway life. For this, it has been analyzed 30 cases that have successfully switched from runaway, a...
This study put its purpose that makes the types of the effective factors on runaway youth's life transition to prevent youth from re-runaway and make basic research to support effective leaving from runaway life. For this, it has been analyzed 30 cases that have successfully switched from runaway, and have got the result as follows. First, it's been classified the types of the effective factors on runaway youth's life transition into four, namely Family Support Type(FST), Independence Orientation Type(IOT), Self Reflection Type(SRT) and Crisis Experience Type(CET). These terms were first suggested for this study. Second, In the FST, family support, peer support, personal inner change, and multidimensional element including family resources were primary factors. But in this type, the non-agreed statement is about an item of crisis experience after runaway and about of social welfare resource. In the IOT, personal inner change, future orientation, and peer support were primary factors, and specially emphasized on the use of new chance and pursuit for the new life with strong point having themselves. But family support or regret to runaway were not consented. In the SRT, primary factors were personal inner change, future orientation, and it was emphasized on the self by consenting the statement of the new discovery to one's very self, inner change. The statement that was not agreed in this type was mainly about outward danger. In the CET, outward danger was the primary factor, that youth in this type, because of inward or outward danger and pain, seemed to have decided runaway life transition. The statements of the personal inner change and the support of social welfare agency were not agreed. Third, if we see why youth run away from home in general characteristics of them, 'escape' was the reason in FST and SRT, and was 'escape and pursuit' in IOT and CET. And youth of IOT and CET more used youth shelter than the youth of FST and CET did. Forth, follows are about the primary concepts that identify each type. In FST, family support, family change, brother(sister) support, eco-systems, protective factors, personal change, peer support were the primary concepts. In IOT, those were use of the chance of education and obtaining job, self decision, independent life, future orientation and resilience, and in SRT, inner change, self discovery, maturity, the feeling of substance, self value, and religious support. Finally in CET, self recognition, loneliness, physical suffering, financial problem, resilience and a compromising attitude to reality were the primary concepts. Fifth, every type was optimistic to the statements of personal inner change, discovery of self value of substance, religious support, but was negative to the statements of peer support met in youth shelter and support of the people around. Moreover, the statement of the effectiveness of community was optimistic in IOT and SRT, but was negative in FST and CET. Practical implication of this study is as follows. We need to find out the personal need of runaway youth to intervene in runaway factors and a range of runaway transition. For this, we can consider to develop assessment tool as Q-Block. Moreover, we can intervene in runaway youth by using the strong points and protective factors of them. To do this, we can take an active hand to change in family communication and to reinforce family relationship. And we can support youth to regard themselves very valuable so that they may be motivated in self development and display resilience. Except these, we can systematically help runaway youth easily approach to community resources to be prepared to help them, and make network to well information to community resources, increase of youth drop-in center and reinforcement of outreach service. Finally, Q-method is a method to classify the people who have took part in the study so that individuality of them can provide significant information to the result of the study. Therefore we can develop this study by subdividing types of the individuality of the objects, analyzing them and finding out how the types could be related to runaway life transition. And we also can develop the significant factors proved through this study to be more reliable factors by practical study. Macro studies to improve approachment of youth and to construct more community resources, therefore, must be continued to study.
This study put its purpose that makes the types of the effective factors on runaway youth's life transition to prevent youth from re-runaway and make basic research to support effective leaving from runaway life. For this, it has been analyzed 30 cases that have successfully switched from runaway, and have got the result as follows. First, it's been classified the types of the effective factors on runaway youth's life transition into four, namely Family Support Type(FST), Independence Orientation Type(IOT), Self Reflection Type(SRT) and Crisis Experience Type(CET). These terms were first suggested for this study. Second, In the FST, family support, peer support, personal inner change, and multidimensional element including family resources were primary factors. But in this type, the non-agreed statement is about an item of crisis experience after runaway and about of social welfare resource. In the IOT, personal inner change, future orientation, and peer support were primary factors, and specially emphasized on the use of new chance and pursuit for the new life with strong point having themselves. But family support or regret to runaway were not consented. In the SRT, primary factors were personal inner change, future orientation, and it was emphasized on the self by consenting the statement of the new discovery to one's very self, inner change. The statement that was not agreed in this type was mainly about outward danger. In the CET, outward danger was the primary factor, that youth in this type, because of inward or outward danger and pain, seemed to have decided runaway life transition. The statements of the personal inner change and the support of social welfare agency were not agreed. Third, if we see why youth run away from home in general characteristics of them, 'escape' was the reason in FST and SRT, and was 'escape and pursuit' in IOT and CET. And youth of IOT and CET more used youth shelter than the youth of FST and CET did. Forth, follows are about the primary concepts that identify each type. In FST, family support, family change, brother(sister) support, eco-systems, protective factors, personal change, peer support were the primary concepts. In IOT, those were use of the chance of education and obtaining job, self decision, independent life, future orientation and resilience, and in SRT, inner change, self discovery, maturity, the feeling of substance, self value, and religious support. Finally in CET, self recognition, loneliness, physical suffering, financial problem, resilience and a compromising attitude to reality were the primary concepts. Fifth, every type was optimistic to the statements of personal inner change, discovery of self value of substance, religious support, but was negative to the statements of peer support met in youth shelter and support of the people around. Moreover, the statement of the effectiveness of community was optimistic in IOT and SRT, but was negative in FST and CET. Practical implication of this study is as follows. We need to find out the personal need of runaway youth to intervene in runaway factors and a range of runaway transition. For this, we can consider to develop assessment tool as Q-Block. Moreover, we can intervene in runaway youth by using the strong points and protective factors of them. To do this, we can take an active hand to change in family communication and to reinforce family relationship. And we can support youth to regard themselves very valuable so that they may be motivated in self development and display resilience. Except these, we can systematically help runaway youth easily approach to community resources to be prepared to help them, and make network to well information to community resources, increase of youth drop-in center and reinforcement of outreach service. Finally, Q-method is a method to classify the people who have took part in the study so that individuality of them can provide significant information to the result of the study. Therefore we can develop this study by subdividing types of the individuality of the objects, analyzing them and finding out how the types could be related to runaway life transition. And we also can develop the significant factors proved through this study to be more reliable factors by practical study. Macro studies to improve approachment of youth and to construct more community resources, therefore, must be continued to study.
AI-Helper
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.