초록 ▼

본 연구는 우리나라 대학이 당면한 다양한 위기들을 극복하고 대학의 집단 경쟁력을 제고 할 수 있는 대안적 발전 방향으로서 대학들이 함께 상생･발전하는 공유성장의 의의를 탐색하고, 대학 간 유･무형의 자원공유 및 연계･협력을 강화하는 대학체제 개편 방안을 모색하고자 하였다. 이러한 목적을 달성하기 위하여 선행연구 및 공유 이론 분석을 통한 연구 모형 설계, 대학체제의 대내외 현황과 과제 분석, 국내외 공유성장형 대학체제 구축 정책 및 사례 분석, 대학의 실태와 인식 및 요구 분석을 실시하였고, 이와 같은 분석을 토대로 우리나라 대학의

본 연구는 우리나라 대학이 당면한 다양한 위기들을 극복하고 대학의 집단 경쟁력을 제고 할 수 있는 대안적 발전 방향으로서 대학들이 함께 상생･발전하는 공유성장의 의의를 탐색하고, 대학 간 유･무형의 자원공유 및 연계･협력을 강화하는 대학체제 개편 방안을 모색하고자 하였다. 이러한 목적을 달성하기 위하여 선행연구 및 공유 이론 분석을 통한 연구 모형 설계, 대학체제의 대내외 현황과 과제 분석, 국내외 공유성장형 대학체제 구축 정책 및 사례 분석, 대학의 실태와 인식 및 요구 분석을 실시하였고, 이와 같은 분석을 토대로 우리나라 대학의 공유성장을 위한 대학체제 개편 방안을 도출하였다. 연구의 주제에 대한 다각적인 검토 및 대학 현장 적합도가 높은 정책 방안 수립을 위해 주요연구 방법으로 문헌 분석, 연구의 방향과 관점을 정교화하기 위한 전문가 의견조사, 대학의 실태와 인식･요구를 파악하기 위한 대학 실태조사, 대학 현장 전문가 인식･요구 조사, 학생 면담(Focus Group Interview) 조사, 개편 방안 탐색을 위한 델파이 조사(Delphi Survey) 등을 실시하였다. 본 연구의 주요 연구 결과는 다음과 같다.

□ 공유성장과 대학체제 개편의 의미
대학의 공유성장을 위한 대학체제 개편 방안을 모색하는 이 연구에서의 공유성장은 대학 간 유･무형의 자원 공유 및 연계･협력을 통해 대학 공동체의 공유된 가치기반 속에서 함께 지속가능한 상생과 발전을 이루는 것을 의미한다. 그리고 대학체제 개편은 대학의 공유성장이라는 목적을 달성하기 위한 수단 및 방법으로서 대학체제의 패러다임 전환을 통해 개별 대학 중심의 경쟁 체제를 공유성장을 촉진하는 체제로 변경하는 것을 뜻한다. 이에 소유(ownership)보다는 공동활용, 공동이용의 가치를 추구하는 공유를 대학의 공유성장을 위한 핵심 전략으로 규정하였다.

(출처 : 연구요약 6p)

Abstract ▼

This study explored the significance of shared growth wherein universities co-exist and grow together, as an alternative development direction that can enhance their collective competitiveness. It searched for measures to reform theuniversity system that can share tangible and intangible resources a

This study explored the significance of shared growth wherein universities co-exist and grow together, as an alternative development direction that can enhance their collective competitiveness. It searched for measures to reform theuniversity system that can share tangible and intangible resources and strengthen their connections and cooperation. To achieve these goals, research models were designed through the analysis of previous studies and sharing theory, currentintramural and extramural status and tasks of university system, and domestic and overseas policies to establish shared growth university system and casestudies were analyzed, along with the real condition, recognition, and demandsof universities. Based on the results of these analyses, plans to reform theuniversity system for the shared growth of South Korean universities were derived. As the main research method for multilateral reviews and theestablishment of policies that is highly appropriate for universities, literatureanalysis, survey of expert opinions for the elaboration of the direction and perspective of the study, survey of universities for the identification of the current status, recognition, and demands of universities, survey of the recognitionand demands of experts in universities, student interviews (Focus Group Interview), and Delphi Survey to explore reformation measures were conducted.

University system reformation measures for the shared growth of South Korean universities, derived from the present study, were composed of ① core values, ② reformation strategies, ③ proposed types of shared growth university system, and④ policy measures. First, core values are closely related to the direction and goals of the university system of South Korea, and the present study selected four values, including educational growth, diversity, sustainability, and publicness. Educational growth refers to the educational growth of students and the innovation of universities. Diversity includes openness and acceptance, and itbenefits present and future generations as the source of exchange, innovation,and originality creation. Sustainability includes fairness (generation, class, andregion) and communality. It considers connection and balance to be important and attaches great importance to present and future, communal, and nationwideperspectives. The key factors of publicness are the public values of higher education (state responsibility) and the social responsibility of universities.

Four reformation strategies of specialization, consumer-centeredness, integrity, and balanced development were set up as a principle or doctrine that must be followed when the university system is reformed into one that is aimed at such values. Characterization is inclusive of the diversification, functional differentiation, select and concentration of the areas of comparative advantage. Consumer-centerednessrefers to the responsibility of universities toward the demands of students andsociety. Integrity includes the efficiency of university management, eradication ofcorruption, and establishment of good governance. Balanced development includes that of regions, knowledge domain, and governance.

Within the shared growth university system, a new classification was attempted based on the level (density) of sharing and strategic focus and the previouslymentioned direction of shared growth university system (key values, reformation strategies). First, sharing level (density) is categorized into linking, union, and combination types. Each type can be further divided according to the scope ofsharing and a joint management organization. In linking type, multipleuniversities cooperate based on partial partnership or agreement according totheir requirements, without having a separate joint management or operation organization. In union type, multiple universities link or cooperate in certain areas by separately operating a joint management organization, based on the premise of independence and autonomy of each university. In combination type, multiple universities unify and operate the main system for the overall operation of the university, wherein the operation is institutionally and convergently combined. Second, strategic focus is categorized into regional and functional types. In regional type, the shared growth among universities within the region, focusing on geographical proximity, regional characteristics, and the importanceof the development. Functional type is the shared growth among universities withthe mission, role, and function considered beyond the limitation of geographicalproximity. It is characterized by sophisticated and specialized function, role, andmission of the university, and it can be considered a nationwide functional sharing among universities. There were six types of shared growth university system derived by combining the level of sharing (density) and strategic focus including community linking, function linking, regional union, functional union,regional combination, and functional combination types. These werecomparatively analyzed based on effectiveness, reciprocality, and acceptabilityand the results showed that, in terms of effectiveness, combination type (regional type>functional type) was the highest, followed by union type (regionaltype>functional type), and linking type (regional type>functional type). In terms ofreciprocality, union type was the highest followed by combination type, and linking type. In terms of acceptability, linking type (regional type>functional type) was found to be the highest, followed by union type (regional type>functionaltype), and combination type (regional type>functional type).

All universities can participate in one or more types in terms of the scope of participating universities’ types according to their sharing level (density), when a shared growth university system is being established throughout the nation. It isnecessary to consider that all universities participate in linking type, most universities participate in union type, and some universities need to consider participating in combination type. As the type of shared growth university that needs strategic promotion at the national policy level, regional union, regional combination, functional union, and functional combination types appear to beappropriate. For gradual and phased promotion, changing from union type tocombination type in terms of sharing level (density), and regional pilot implementation that fully utilizes geographic proximity in the early stages ofestablishing shared growth university system based on the strategic focus ofsharing appears to be effective. However, in terms of individual university or sharing body, the functional type may be appropriate depending on universitycharacteristics. As the representative measure of strategic promotion type, casesof regional university unions (combination) of regional union (combination), and base national university unions (combination) of functional union (combination) were presented.

Finally, reformation measures and policy measures to promote shared growth of universities and proposed types of shared growth university systems,respectively, were derived for 19 specific tasks in five areas. Five policy measureswere legal and institutional, financial, human and material based, planning and designing, and university innovation areas. Specific policy measures was classified based on areas. They were as follows. First, in the legal and institutional areas, law improvement for the shared growth of universities, support for higher education innovations and relaxation of regulations to activate sharing among universities, and improvements in university assessment are required. Second, in the financial area, strengthening financial support for the publicness of higher education, introduction of financial support programs to promote the shared growth of universities, and support for the operation of joint degrees between two universities are required. Third, human and material based area require thefollowing: The establishment of multi-layered governance system for decision-making, management, and operation; formation of a social consensus to secure the driving force of the reformation; strengthening the shared competence of policy makers and university members; and establishment of shared platform to activate university sharing. Fourth, planning and designing area require the following: The establishment of a long-term national policy roadmap; multilateral designs and phased implementations of shared growth university system; improvement of a win-win system between sharing universities; expansion in the scope of sharing; standardization for the activation of sharing; and establishment of sharing management system. Fifth, in university innovation area, reestablishmentof university functions for the alleviation of university competition and ranking system, promotion of the diversity, characterization, and specialization, andcreation the shared values of universities are required.

The present study proposed a shared growth university system as a breakthrough to address the immediate concern areas for the universities and their existence in such a situation wherein the importance of sharing and cooperation among universities and various institutions surrounding them is emphasized. This depends on the internal and external environments of higher education andchanges in the government’s higher education policy trends. Various instances of exchanges and cooperation between universities have been pursued at theuniversity and policy levels thus far. However, theories and policies for actualcooperation and sharing between universities, and the concepts, procedures, and plans for shared growth have not been established. Thus, the significance of the present study lies in the derivation of a shared growth university system planfrom a unique perspective that is differentiated from previous reformationmeasures, by identifying the current status of universities and the recognition anddemands of the concerned parties to define the concepts of the sharing of universities and shared growth and to improve the suitability of the universities’ policies.

(출처 : Abstract 378p)

목차 Contents

• 표지 ... 1
• 머리말 ... 4
• 연구요약 ... 6
• 목차 ... 18
• 표목차 ... 20
• 그림목차 ... 24
• Ⅰ. 서 론 ... 28
• 1. 연구의 필요성 및 목적 ... 30
• 2. 연구 내용 ... 35
• 3. 연구 방법 ... 36
• Ⅱ. 이론적 기초 ... 42
• 1. 선행연구 분석 ... 44
• 2. 공유 이론 분석 ... 54
• 3. 주요 용어의 의미 ... 60
• 4. 연구의 분석틀(framework) ... 63
• Ⅲ. 대학체제의 대내외 현황과 과제 ... 66
• 1. 대학교육의 외부 환경(STEP) 분석 ... 68
• 2. 대학체제의 내부 실태 분석 ... 78
• 3. 대학체제의 과제 ... 87
• Ⅳ. 국내 공유성장형 대학체제 구축 정책 및 사례 ... 90
• 1. 주요 정책 분석: 대학 간 공유 정책 현황 ... 92
• 2. 주요 사례 분석: 대학 간 공유 사례 현황 ... 105
• 3. 선행 개편안 분석 ... 111
• 4. 소결 ... 126
• Ⅴ. 국외 공유성장형 대학체제 구축 정책 및 사례 ... 134
• 1. 미국 대학의 컨소시엄, 얼라이언스, 주립대학체제 재구조화 사례 ... 136
• 2. 유럽 고등교육체제 통합 정책과 프랑스의 협력 및 군집화 정책 ... 161
• 3. 일본 대학의 연계·연합 사례 및 통합 정책 동향 ... 184
• 4. 소결 ... 200
• Ⅵ. 공유성장형 대학체제 관련 대학의 실태와 인식 및 요구 ... 208
• 1. 언론 분석: 여론 동향 및 주요 이슈 ... 210
• 2. 대학의 공유 실태(Survey) 분석 ... 220
• 3. 대학 현장 전문가 인식(Survey) 분석 ... 233
• 4. 대학생 인식(FGI) 분석 ... 257
• 5. 소결 ... 280
• Ⅶ. 우리나라 대학의 공유성장형 대학체제 개편 방안 ... 288
• 1. 전문가 의견(Delphi Survey) 분석 ... 290
• 2. 대학의 공유성장을 위한 개편 방향 ... 303
• 3. 공유성장형 대학체제 유형안 ... 316
• 4. 공유성장형 대학체제 구축을 위한 정책 과제 ... 336
• 참고문헌 ... 354
• Abstract ... 378
• 부록 ... 384
• 부록1. 주요 용어 개념 및 연구 분석 모형(안) 검토 전문가 의견조사지 ... 386
• 부록2. 업무 담당자용 대학의 공유 실태조사지(안) ... 399
• 부록3. 대학구성원(기획처장) 인식 및 요구 조사 설문조사지(안) ... 403
• 부록4. 델파이 조사지(1차) ... 410
• 부록5. 델파이 조사지(2차) ... 416
• 끝페이지 ... 428