본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

사회정책 평가에서 질적 평가의 의의와 정합성

Significance of Qualitative Evaluation and It’s Congruence in Evaluating Social Policy

오수길|곽병훈|이성우
한국사회정책학회 (Korean Association of Social Policy)|2015.09|한국사회정책 (Korea Social Policy Review)|제22권 제3호|pp. 165-196|DOI 10.17000/kspr.22.3.201509.165

0

조회

0

다운로드

15

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

정책평가질적 평가policy evaluationqualitative evaluation사회정책social policy사회프로그램social program

초록

이 글은 양적, 질적 평가의 상호 보완적 기능을 강조하는 상보성의 시각에서 사회정책에 대한 양적 평가를 보완할 수 있는 정책평가수단으로서 질적 평가의 의의와 그 적용을 모색하는데 목적이 있다. 사회정책은 사회적 실재의 맥락에서 이에 실제로 영향을 받는 이해당사자들의 시각을 반영할 때 가치 내재적인 사회정책과 사회프로그램의 실제적 기능과 효과를 정확히 평가할 수 있다. 이런 의미에서 개인적, 사회적, 구조적, 환경적 맥락을 아우르는 사회적 실재를 이해하고자 하는 질적 평가는 사회정책과 정합성을 갖고 있다. 그럼에도 그간의 사회정책 평가는 정형화된 지표와 인위적 맥락에 의한 ‘방법론적 획일화’ 경향을 보여 왔다. 이 글은해석주의를 근간으로 하는 과정 중심의 질적 평가를 통해 사회정책의 가치를 평가할 수 있어야 한다고 주장한다. 질적 평가를 위해서는 ‘자연스런 의사소통 과정’을 중심으로 하는 심층인터뷰, 포커스그룹 인터뷰, 참여관찰 등의 방법을 활용할 수 있다.

Abstract

This article gropes for the use of qualitative evaluation in social policy under consideration of its significance, which can complement quantitative evaluation. It maintains the viewpoint of complementarity. To evaluate social policy or social programs effectively, it requires for evaluators to reflect the points of view of the stakeholders in the context of social realities. Since social policy is value embedded field, qualitative evaluation has compatibility with social policy. Qualitative evaluation seeks to understand social realities including individual, social, structural, and environmental contexts. Nevertheless existing evaluations of social policy tend to show ‘methodological uniformity’ by standardized indicators and artificial contexts. This article argues to evaluate the value of social policy through qualitative evaluation focusing processes based on interpretation. For qualitative evaluation, we can use in-depth interview, focus group interview, or observation which orient ‘natural communicative process.’

참고문헌 (115)

  1. 김연옥, "우리나라 사회복지학 연구경향에 관한 연구: <한국사회복지학>에 실린 경험분석 연구를중심으로", 한국사회복지학, 35, pp.85~105 (1998)
  2. 김인, "사회서비스 바우처프로그램의 효과성 및 고객만족도 영향요인 : 산모신생아도우미서비스를 중심으로", 지방정부연구, 13(4), pp.127~151 (2010), 한국지방정부학회
  3. 김인숙, "한국 사회복지 질적 연구: 동향과 의미", 한국사회복지학, 59(1), pp.275~300 (2007), 한국사회복지학회
  4. 김은희, "사회복지서비스의 통합적 성과평가 : 광주광역시 종합사회복지관을 중심으로", 한국행정논집, 23(3), pp.801~827 (2011), 한국정부학회
  5. 남찬섭, "한국 사회복지서비스에서 바우처의 의미와 평가: 바우처 사업의 사회적 맥락을 중심으로", 상황과 복지, 26, pp.7~45 (2008)
  6. 문신용, "SERVQUAL기법을 활용한 가족복지서비스의 질적 수준 평가 : 건강가정지원센터를 중심으로", 지방정부연구, 13(4), pp.153~172 (2010), 한국지방정부학회
  7. 긴급복지지원제도의 사업성과 평가 및 제도개선 방안, "보건복지가족부", 보건복지가족부, ~ (2008)
  8. 송건섭, "사회복지관의 성과평가 모형구성과 적용에 관한 연구: SERVQUAL을 이용한 질적평가", 한국정책과학학회보, 10(1), pp.79~100 (2006), 한국정책과학학회
  9. 오윤정, "사회서비스 사업 평가에 관한 연구동향 분석", 비판사회정책, (37), pp.249~283 (2012), 비판과대안을위한사회복지학회[DOI]
  10. 오정수, "한국 사회복지학계 연구방법론에 대한 반성적 고찰", 상황과 복지, 13, pp.33~46 (2002)
  11. 이성우, "후기 실증주의와 질적 연구방법의 정책분석평가연구에의 적용가능성", 정책분석평가학회보, 18(4), pp.15~42 (2008), 한국정책분석평가학회
  12. 이환범, "노인일자리사업 개선을 위한 효과성 평가", 한국지방자치연구, 11(4), pp.81~100 (2010), 대한지방자치학회
  13. 정순둘, "사회복지사들의 조사연구활용에 관한 연구", 한국사회복지학, 58(2), pp.251~271 (2006), 한국사회복지학회
  14. 정선욱, "사회복지 프로그램 질적 평가 연구논문에 대한 질적 분석", 사회복지연구, 44(4), pp.321~349 (2013), 한국사회복지연구회
  15. 긴급복지지원제도 사업성과 평가 및 제도개편 방안 연구, "한국보건사회연구원", ~ (2014)
  16. 홍경준, "한국 사회복지학계 연구방법론의 동향", 상황과 복지, 13, pp.13~32 (2002)
  17. Alcock, P., "The influence of dynamic perspectives on poverty analysis and anti-poverty policy in the UK", Journal of Social Policy, 33(3), pp.395~416 (2004)
  18. Allio, L., "The political circumstances of instrument design : The case of privatization in Eastern Europe. In B. Peters & F. van Nispen(eds)", pp.20~149 (1998), Edward Elgar
  19. Andenaes, A., "From placement to a child on the move: Methodological strategies to give children a more central position in child welfare service", Qualitative Social Work, 11(5), pp.486~501 (2011)
  20. Andersson, K., "Methodological challenges in the implementation and evaluation of social welfare policies", International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 15(1), pp.69~80 (2012)
  21. Ascher, W., "Policy sciences and the economic approach in a ‘post-positivistic’ era", Policy Sciences, 20, pp.3~9 (1987)
  22. Begun, A., "Social policy evaluation: An example from drinking age legislation", Evaluation and Program Planning, 3, pp.165~170 (1980)
  23. Biggs, S., "Toward critical narrativity: Stories of aging in contemporary social policy", Journal of Aging Studies, 15, pp.303~316 (2001)
  24. Impact evaluation of social programs: A policy perspective, "Blomquist, J.", World Bank, ~, pp.Social Safety Nets Primer Notes. No.14 (2003)
  25. Brannen, J., "Work-family matters in the workplace: The use of focus groups in a study of a UK social services department", Qualitative Research, 5(4), pp.523~542 (2005)
  26. Bryson, J., "Handbook of practical program evaluation", pp.30~54 (2010), Jossey-Bass
  27. Butcher, T., "Delivering welfare" (2002), Open University Press
  28. Cameron, A., "Working across boundaries to improve health outcomes: A case study of a housing support an outreach service for homeless people living with HIV", Health & Social Care in the Community, 17(4), pp.388~395 (2009)
  29. Caudle, S., "Handbook of practical program evaluation", pp.69~95 (1994), Jossey-Bass
  30. Chambers, D., "Social policy and social programs: A method for the practical public policy analyst" (2000), Allyn & Bacon
  31. Chen, S., "Qualitative research and aging in context: Implications to social study in China", Qualitative Sociology Review, VI(1), pp.34~47 (2010)
  32. Christians, C., "Research methods in mass communication", pp.354~374 (1989), Prentice Hall
  33. Coffey, A., "Reconceptualizing social policy: Sociological perspectives on contemporary social policy" (2004), Open University Press
  34. Colebatch, H., "Organizational meanings of program evaluation", Policy Sciences, 28, pp.149~164 (1995)
  35. Cook, T., "Postpositivist critical multiplism. In R. Shotland & M. Mark(eds). Social science and social policy", pp.21~62 (1985), Sage Publications
  36. Davies, B., "Universality, selectivity and effectiveness in social policy" (1978), Heinemann Educational
  37. Davies, H., "What works?: Evidence-based policy and practice in public services", pp.1~11 (2000), The Policy Press
  38. Davies, H., "What works?: Evidence-based policy and practice in public services", pp.251~275 (2000), The Policy Press
  39. Davies, P., "What works?: Evidence-based policy and practice in public services", pp.291~316 (2000), The Policy Press
  40. Dean, D., "Handbook of practical program evaluation", pp.338~349 (1994), Jossey-Bass
  41. Dean, H., "The student's companion to social policy", pp.317~322 (1998), Blackwell Publishers
  42. Dellgran, P., "Mainstream is contextual: Swedish social work research dissertations and theses", Social Work Research, 25(4), pp.243~252 (2001)
  43. Doyle, M., "Lessons from a community-based participatory research project:Older people’s and researchers’ reflections", Research on Aging, 32(2), pp.244~263 (2010)
  44. Dryzek, J., "Policy analysis as a hermeneutic activity", Policy Sciences, 14, pp.309~329 (1982)
  45. Dryzek, J., "Public governance", pp.330~346 (2007), Sage Publications
  46. Evason, E., "Women and pensions: Time for a rethink", Social Policy &Administration, 37(3), pp.253~270 (2003)
  47. Gage, N. L., "The paradigm wars and their aftermath: A “historical” sketch of research on teaching since 1989", Educational Researcher, 18(7), pp.4~10 (1989)
  48. Quantitative and qualitative methods in impact evaluation and measuring results. Issues Paper, "Garbarino, S.", Governance and Social Development Resource Centre, ~ (2009)
  49. Intensive qualitative research: Challenges, best uses and opportunities, "Gardenhire, A.", Research Methodology, ~ (2003)
  50. "Managing for results: Measuring program results that are under limited federal control" (1998)[URL]
  51. Gilbert, N., "Dimensions of social welfare policy" (1974), Prentice-Hall
  52. Gilbert, N., "Dimensions of social welfare policy" (2002), Allyn &Bacon
  53. Goodin, R., "Reasons for welfare: The political theory of the welfare state" (1988), Princeton University Press
  54. Government Social Research Unit, "The magenta book: Guidance notes for policy evaluation and analysis, background paper 1: What is policy evaluation?" (2003), HM Treasury
  55. Government Social Research Unit, "The magenta book : Guidance notes for policy evaluation and analysis, background paper 8 : How do you know why(and how)something works? Qualitative methods of evaluation" (2004), HM Treasury
  56. Greener, I., "The routledge handbook of the welfare state", pp.419~430 (2013), Routledge
  57. Greener, I., "Introduction: Evidence and evaluation in social policy", Social Policy & Administration, 47(4), pp.355~358 (2013)
  58. Goldenkoff, R., "Handbook of practical program evaluation", pp.340~362 (2004), Jossey-Bass
  59. Greve, B., "The routledge handbook of the Welfare State", pp.3~9 (2013), Routledge
  60. Guba, E., "What have we learned about naturalistic evaluation?", Evaluation practice, 8(2), pp.23~43 (1987)
  61. Hartman, A., "Editorial: Many Ways of Knowing", Social Work, 35(1), pp.3~4 (1990)
  62. Hatry, H., "Handbook of practical program evaluation", pp.547~570 (2004), Jossey-Bass
  63. Healy, P., "Interpretive policy inquiry: A response to the limitations of the received view", Policy Sciences, 19, pp.381~396 (1986)
  64. House, E., "Qualitative evaluation and changing social policy", Unpublished paper, ~ (2003)
  65. Hutchinson, I., "Reading complexity in social policy contexts: The value of Q methodology", pp.2012
  66. Jessop, B., "The changing governance of welfare: Recent trends in its primary functions, scale and modes of coordination", Social Policy & Administration, 33(4), pp.348~359 (1999)
  67. Johansen, E., "Evaluation as social policy", Policy Studies Review, 6(1), pp.26~35 (1986)
  68. Klein, R., "Evaluation and social policy: Some reflections on ideas and institutions", Evaluation and Program Planning, 5, pp.133~140 (1982)
  69. Krueger, R., "Handbook of practical program evaluation", pp.404~423 (2010), Jossey-Bass
  70. Krueger, R., "Handbook of practical program evaluation", pp.378~403 (2010), Jossey-Bass
  71. Lasswell, H., "A Preview of policy sciences" (1971), American Elsevier
  72. Love, A., "Handbook of practical program evaluation", pp.63~97 (2004), Jossey-Bass
  73. Macdonald, G., "What works?: Evidence-based policy and practice in public services", pp.117~140 (2000), The Policy Press
  74. Martinson, K., "Handbook of practical program evaluation", pp.163~181 (2010), Jossey-Bass
  75. McLaughlin, M., "Social science and social policy", pp.96~120 (1985), Sage Publications
  76. Miller, M., "A conceptual and analytic framework for applied policy and evaluation research", Rural Sociology, 51(3), pp.278~288 (1986)
  77. Myrdal, A., "Nation and family: The swedish experiment in democratic family and population policy" (1968), MIT Press
  78. Newcomer, K., "Handbook of practical program evaluation", pp.xxxiii~xxxxvi (2004), Jossey-Bass
  79. Newcomer, K., "Handbook of practical program evaluation", pp.5~29 (2010), Jossey-Bass
  80. Newman, K., "Studies of welfare populations: Data collections and research issues", pp.55~383 (2001), Committee on National Statistics, National Research Council
  81. Nutley, S., "What works?: Evidence-based policy and practice in public services", pp.13~41 (2000), The Policy Press
  82. Österle, A., "Evaluating equity in social policy: A framework for comparative analysis", Evaluation, 8(1), pp.46~59 (2002)
  83. Patton, M., "Qualitative research & evaluative methods" (2002), Sage Publications
  84. Peck, E., "The meanings of culture in health and social care: A case study of the combined trust in Somerset", Journal of Interprofessional Care, 15(4), pp.319~327 (2001)
  85. Pierson, J., "The routledge handbook of the welfare state", pp.71~83 (2013), Routledge
  86. Pleschberger, S., "Interviews on end-of-life care with older people: Reflections on six European studies", Qualitative Health Research, 21(11), pp.1588~1600 (2011)
  87. Pollitt, C., "No hiding place: On the discomforts of researching the contemporary policy process", Journal of Social Policy, 19(2), pp.169~190 (1990)
  88. Popay, J., "Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research", Qualitative Health Research, 8(3), pp.341~351 (1998)
  90. Pressman, J., "Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland" (1974), University of California Press
  91. Rein, M., "Ethics, the social sciences and policy analysis", pp.83~111 (1983), Plenum Press
  92. Extending the reach of randomized social experiments: New directions in evaluations of american welfare-to-work and employment initiatives, "Riccio, J.", Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, ~ (2001)
  93. Rittel, H., "Dilemmas in a general theory of planning", Policy Sciences, 4, pp.155~169 (1973)
  94. Rogers, P., "Handbook of practical program evaluation", pp.429~453 (2010), Jossey-Bass
  95. Rossi, P., "Evaluation: A systematic approach" (2004), Sage Publications
  96. Sale, J., "Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: Implications for mixed-methods research", Quality & Quantity, 36, pp.43~53 (2002)
  97. Sanderson, I., "Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making", Public Administration, 80(1), pp.1~22 (2002)
  98. Saunders, P., "The routledge handbook of the welfare state", pp.59~70 (2013), Routledge
  99. Evaluation and research in social policy, "Saunders, P.", ~, pp.SPRC Discussion Paper. No.62 (1995)
  100. Schaffer, B., "Comparing administrations: Researching and reforming", Public Administration Bulletin, pp.2~24 (1976)
  101. Scheirer, M., "Handbook of practical program evaluation", pp.40~68 (1994), Jossey-Bass
  102. Schneider, A., "Policy theory and policy evaluation: Concepts, knowledge, causes and norms", pp.77~102 (1990), Greenwood Press
  103. Schwandt, T., "Evaluation as practical hermeneutics", Evaluation, 3(1), pp.69~83 (1997)
  104. Sechrest, L., "Social science and social policy", pp.63~95 (1985), Sage Publications
  105. Shaw, I., "Qualitative research and outcomes in health, social work and education", Qualitative Research, 3(1), pp.57~77 (2003)
  106. Shura, R, "Culture change in long-term care: Participatory action research and the role of the eesident", Gerontologist, 51(2), pp.212~225 (2011)
  107. Silva, Maria Ozanira da Silva e Silva., "Constructing a participatory approach for the evaluation of social policies and programmes", International Journal of Action Research, 7(1), pp.101~125 (2011)
  108. Simons, H., "Case study research in practice" (2009), Sage Publications
  109. Smith, N., "Toward the justification of claims in evaluation research", Evaluation and Program Planning, 10, pp.309~314 (1987)
  110. Stanley, L., "Doing ethnography, writing ethnography: A comment on hammersley", Sociology, 24(4), pp.617~627 (1990)
  111. Teater, B., "A qualitative evaluation of the section 8 housing choice voucher program: The recipients perspectives", Qualitative Social Work, 10(4), pp.503~519 (2010)
  112. Unrau, Y., "Expanding the role of program evaluation in social welfare policy analysis", Evaluation Review, 17(6), pp.653~662 (1993)
  113. Van de Walle, D., "Assessing the welfare impacts of public spending", World Development, 26(3), pp.365~379 (1998)
  114. Weiss, C., "The haphazard connection: Social science and public policy", International Journal of Educational Research, 23(2), pp.137~150 (1995)

관련 논문AI추천

질적 평가의 해외 사례 분석과 시사점곽병훈, 오수길한국비교정부학회 · 한국비교정부학보2013 · 제17권 제3호사회복지 프로그램 질적 평가 연구논문에 대한 질적 분석장연진, 정선욱한국사회복지연구회 · 사회복지연구2013 · 제44권 제4호정책평가의 합리성과 정치성: 사회복지 정책평가 사례의 검토주재현정부혁신연구소 · 정부행정2004 · 제5권 질적 연구 방법의 내용과 적용전략: 양적인 질적 연구와질적인 질적 연구임도빈정부학연구소 · 정부학연구2009 · 제15권 제1호사회복지실천 프로그램 질적 평가 연구 논문 경향 분석장연진, 정선욱한국사회복지연구회 · 사회복지연구2014 · 제45권 제4호빈곤연구의 방법론적 편향성과 질적연구의 활용에 대한 탐색적 연구: 다차원성과 역동성 연구 측면에서조준용한국사회정책학회 · 한국사회정책2012 · 제19권 제4호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (11건)

불평등과 한국 민주주의의 질: 2000년대 여론의 추이와 선거정치신진욱pp. 9-39가계의 금융부채가 소득불평등에 미치는 영향원승연pp. 41-72‘비판적 시민’과 정부신뢰: 2014년 한국 유권자 사례서복경, 황아란pp. 73-102다차원 빈곤지표로 측정한 한국의 아동빈곤: 새로운 지표의 적용가능성 탐색김은주pp. 105-137Making Local Welfare Administration Accountable and Responsible: An Analysis of the Daegu Metropolitan City Welfare Ombudsman김순양pp. 139-164
원문 보기