생몰정보
소속
직위
직업
활동분야
주기
서지
국회도서관 서비스 이용에 대한 안내를 해드립니다.
검색결과 (전체 1건)
원문 있는 자료 (1) 열기
원문 아이콘이 없는 경우 국회도서관 방문 시 책자로 이용 가능
목차보기더보기
표제지
목차
ABSTRACT 9
I. 서론 13
1. 문제제기 13
2. 연구목적 18
II. 문헌연구 19
1. 윤리적 민감성(ethical sensitivity) 19
1) 윤리적 민감성의 개념 19
2) 윤리적 민감성의 측정 22
2. 윤리적 민감성에 영향을 미치는 요인 25
1) 개인적 요인 25
2) 조직적 요인 32
III. 연구모형 및 연구가설 37
1. 연구모형 37
2. 연구가설 38
IV. 연구방법 40
1. 자료수집 과정 40
2. 조사 대상자 41
3. 변수 정의 및 측정도구 45
1) 윤리적 민감성 45
2) 개인적 요인 47
3) 조직적 요인 50
4. 자료분석 방법 52
V. 연구결과 53
1. 주요변수의 기술통계 53
2. 인구학적·윤리교육관련 특성에 따른 주요 변수의 차이 56
1) 인구학적·윤리교육관련 특성에 따른 윤리적 민감성의 차이 57
2) 인구학적·윤리교육관련 특성에 따른 개인적·조직적 요인의 차이 61
3. 각 변인 간 상관분석 64
4. 연구모형 검증 66
1) 개인적 요인이 윤리적 민감성에 미치는 영향 66
2) 조직적 요인이 윤리적 민감성에 미치는 영향 70
VI. 결론 및 제언 75
1. 연구결과 요약 75
2. 함의 78
3. 연구의 한계점 및 후속연구에 대한 제언 80
참고문헌 82
부록 1 : 설문지 89
〈표 1〉 윤리적 민감성에 대한 정의 20
〈표 2〉 윤리적 민감성 측정도구 23
〈표 3〉 조사대상자의 일반적 특성 42
〈표 4〉 기관유형에 따른 조사대상자의 일반적 특성 44
〈표 5〉 각 사례의 채점기준(사례 2) 46
〈표 6〉 채점자 간의 일치정도에 의한 척도의 신뢰도 47
〈표 7〉 주요변수의 기술통계 53
〈표 8〉 윤리적 민감성 각 사례 간 상관 55
〈표 9〉 인구학적·윤리교육관련 특성에 따른 윤리적 민감성의 차이 57
〈표 10〉 인구학적·교육관련 특성에 따른 개인적·조직적 요인간의 차이 62
〈표 11〉 주요 변인 간 상관 64
〈표 12〉 개인적 요인이 윤리적 민감성에 미치는 영향 66
〈표 13〉 윤리적 민감성에 대한 개인적 요인의 위계적 회귀분석 67
〈표 14〉 조직적 요인이 윤리적 민감성에 미치는 영향 70
〈표 15〉 윤리적 민감성에 대한 조직적 요인의 위계적 회귀분석 72
〈그림 1〉 연구모형 37
초록보기 더보기
Traditionally, ethical aspect has been stressed about social welfare professionals, who have provided social welfare services based on ethical standards. Especially ethical practice sets great store by ethical sensitivity in perceiving ethical question within the framework of decision-making. Here, ethical sensitivity is defined as 'the ability to perceive related issues during the process of ethical decision-making and consider them in practice'. Accordingly, the current study has analyzed individual and organizational factors that influence the ethical sensitivity of social workers.
The survey was conducted from October, 2012 to November, 2012. It covered 505 or so social workers serving at a total 90 institutions, which includes mental health agencies in Busan, Gyeongnam, Daegu, and Jeonnam, local community welfare centers, agencies for people with disabilities, agencies for children and youth, agencies for the elderly, agencies for women and family, and resident centers of city, county and ward offices. The average of the participants is 34.02 (±8.20), and men account for 21.0% while women for 79.0%.
And the results of the study can be summarized as follows.
First, ethical sensitivity was measured by presenting three cases treating ethical dilemmas, and the average of the variables for the total, Case 1, Case 2, and Case 3 of ethical sensitivity is respectively 1.20, 1.55, 1.03, and 0.96.
Second, the difference among major variables due to the demographic characteristics of the respondents and their traits related to ethical education have been examined. First of all, Case 1 and Case 2 showed significant difference between the sexes, with females displaying greater ethical sensitivity than males. In terms of age-related ethical sensitivity, all cases showed negative correlation, and with older age, ethical sensitivity appeared low. Certification showed significant difference for the total and all other cases of ethical sensitivity, and those groups with higher-grade certification showed significantly high ethical sensitivity. As for facilities type, Case 3 showed significant difference, while institutions for visitor's use showed higher ethical sensitivity than residential institutions. As for institution type, for the total, Case 1, and Case 3, mental health institutions and local community institutions showed higher ethical sensitivity than the other miscellaneous institutions. In ethical management and manager's ethical behavior, however, mental health institutions appeared low. For the total and Case 1, the group with supplementary education showed higher ethical sensitivity than the group without supplementary education. And for Case 1, the group with education in practical ethic showed higher ethical sensitivity than the group without education in practical ethic.
Third, the correlation among principal variables has been examined. The variables demonstrated significant correlation with each other, and the Machiavellianism as an individual factor showed negative correlation with ethical sensitivity, while peer's ethical behavior as an organizational factor showed positive correlation with ethical sensitivity.
Fourth, the hypothesis has been verified by analyzing the study model including individual factors, organizational factors, and ethical sensitivity. As a result of the analysis of the influence that a social worker's individual factors have on ethical sensitivity, external locus of control alone turned out to affect ethical sensitivity, and even if the demographic variables and educational factors are controlled, external locus of control alone turned out to affect ethical sensitivity. In other words, higher external locus of control showed decreased ethical sensitivity. And as for the influence that the social worker's organizational factors have on ethical sensitivity, the review of the model has showed that ethical management negatively affects ethical sensitivity whereas manager's ethical behavior positively affects peer's ethical behavior. Furthermore, even when the demographic variables and the educational variables were controled, all of the organizational factors proved to affect ethical sensitivity. Accordingly, higher ethical management showed lower ethical sensitivity, and increasing manager's ethical behavior and peer's ethical behavior showed decreasing ethical sensitivity.
The implications of the current study are as follows.
First, the comparison of individual factors and organizational factors in their influence on the social worker's ethical sensitivity show that organizational factors have greater explanatory power than individual factors. Therefore, methods should be explored to promote the individual ethical sensitivity of the social worker through peer supervision and discussion of ethical issues in a case conference in order to encourage each member's ethical practice.
Second, the study shows that stronger external locus of control brings lower ethical sensitivity. Therefore, institutions need to make efforts to create an environment for democratic decision-making and steady efforts are necessary to bring about perceptional changes toward respecting client rights and self-determination.
Third, this study shows that the professionalism-related variables such as academic credentials and credentials increase ethical sensitivity whereas the educational variables do not bring the same result to ethical sensitivity. Therefore, efforts for substantiating supplementary education should come first to strengthen the social worker's professionalism and ethical quality, while hands-on education would be necessary to help social workers feel and learn through case analysis and conference focusing on actual cases.
Fourth, the study shows that ethical management among organizational factors negatively affects ethical sensitivity. Therefore, it is believed that the operational field needs perceptional change that would naturally apply a social worker's ethical practice in all practices, more than excessive emphasis on and attention to ethic.
원문구축 및 2018년 이후 자료는 524호에서 직접 열람하십시요.
도서위치안내: / 서가번호:
우편복사 목록담기를 완료하였습니다.
* 표시는 필수사항 입니다.
* 주의: 국회도서관 이용자 모두에게 공유서재로 서비스 됩니다.
저장 되었습니다.
로그인을 하시려면 아이디와 비밀번호를 입력해주세요. 모바일 간편 열람증으로 입실한 경우 회원가입을 해야합니다.
공용 PC이므로 한번 더 로그인 해 주시기 바랍니다.
아이디 또는 비밀번호를 확인해주세요