Session Information
32 SES 06 B, Human Resource Development by Higher Education Mergers and Town Meetings
Paper Session
Contribution
The purpose of this study is to develop a deliberative town meeting process that enables more effective and efficient deliberation in order to solve the complex challenges of human resource development in Korea local society, such as social integration and future human resources development.
Korea achieved rapid economic growth and democratization due to growth-oriented policies and standardized education in the last 20th century. However, these growth engines are causing a dual crisis in the 21st century when diversity and creativity are emphasized in most areas of society including education. The first crisis is the division due to a social conflict between different members of society such as different generations and employer and employees. The second one is the relatively low achievement and satisfaction of academic and occupational status. In addition, the 4th industrial revolution era demands the transformation of the fundamental paradigm of human resource development by the need for convergent and creative human resources, human resources capable of social cooperation, and community capacity to solve problems by exercising collective intelligence.
In other words, challenges for human resources development in Korea are to cultivate human capital such as creativity, fusion, communication and to form social capital such as collaboration, trust, and social integration. However, most of the existing human capital development projects are focused on segmental and functional vocational ability development and training. And social capital formation projects usually are human capital development-driven projects targeting at the socioeconomically disadvantaged.
This study regards deliberation as an activity that can enhance human capital and social capital at the same time. "Deliberation" is a process in which people with different views make balanced decisions through mutual communication and reflection. The deliberation process of consultation and agreement on local issues through mutual understanding and communication is a key mechanism for the future development of human capital and social capital. And deliberation is a suitable method for local problem solving and capacity building because of the direct participation of local community members
Therefore, this study is a prescriptive study that develops a systematic deliberative town meeting process that realizes the core values of the elderly as a new direction of regional human resources development using deliberation.
The research subjects are as follows: First, we derive the core values of the deliberative town meeting by analyzing the concept and characteristics of deliberation. Second, we design drafting process of deliberative town meeting that realizes derived core value. Third, we modify the deliberative town meeting process through expert evaluation.
It is expected that the research result will be used to solve complicated and difficult local and organizational problems cooperatively, and the skills of the individual and the district will be developed through the process.
Method
This research follows Richey & Klein (2007) 's development methodology for exploring design principles and developing performance processes based on the results. The detailed study procedure and method are as follows. First, in order to deduce the core values of deliberation, we conducted a comprehensive literature review about 50 articles on deliberation theory and practices. In the academic DB site of Pusan National University and Google Scholars, the keywords 'Local Human Resource Development', 'Social Capital', 'Deliberation', and 'Town Meeting' were entered individually or in combination to collect the first paper. Additional literature was collected with reference to the references in the primary collection. Content analysis was used for literary analysis. Second, we conducted a case study to find the key process and design implications of the elderly town meeting. In the case study, we used a document - based method that the researcher could not manipulate because the data already exists. The types of cases were selected evenly in the category of domestic and overseas, public and private cases. In order to secure the objectivity of the data, cases which were referenced in two more papers were selected. Third, we designed the drafting process of deliberative town meeting from the perspective of the systematic process, reflecting the results of previous literature and case analysis. A systematic process is a process in which a series of processes called input-transformation-output can amplify the output value as feedback and feedforward occur dynamically (Hammer & Champy, 1993). Fourth, we conducted an expert FGI on the draft and revised the draft to reflect the evaluation results. FGI participating experts consisted of one subject expert, one field expert, and three human performance technology design experts.
Expected Outcomes
As a result of the study, we derive eight core values of deliberative town meeting as 'Common Good', 'Formation of Public Opinion', 'Horizontal Dialogue', 'Representative Diversity', 'Rationality', 'Balance', 'Voluntary Sincerity' and 'Dynamic Openness'. And each core value is structured in a multi-layered and systematic manner based on four categories of vision and goal, fairness, validity, and reflection, and internal and external levels. The process of 'Deliberative Town Meeting' reflects the core value of deliberation and the process of Town Meeting is defined as [Pre-stage] Determination of agenda and issues ⇨ [Main-stage] Selection of participants ⇨ Individual deliberation ⇨ Open mind ⇨ Small group deliberation ⇨ Whole deliberation ⇨ Public opinion decision ⇨ [Post-stage] evaluation and result proposal. Particularly, the whole process stage is repeatedly composed of 'individual deliberation', 'small group deliberation', 'whole deliberation' and the deliberation of each level goes through a common sub-process called [mutual understanding] → [in-depth evaluation] → [decision making]. From a systematic process perspective, the process of input–transformation–output is dynamically feedforward and feedback, and the value is increased by gradually deeper deliberation, increasingly clear decision–making, and increasing public opinion formation. The process was described in the center of the participants' activities as much detail as possible so that they could be executed by anyone.
References
[Korean : in Korean Alphabetical order] Sook Do Kwon.(2016). Possibility of the development of deliberative democracy through the `National Debate`.Journal of Social Science,42(3), 355-377. Hak Lin Kim. (2015). Conflict Prevention and Deliberative Public Consultation: Focusing on the Comparison of Commission National du Debat Public, Almedalen Political Week, 21st Century Town Hall Meeting and 2014 Korean National Public Debate.Dispute resolution studies review,13(1), 5-32. Gon Namkung. (2004). A Case Study of American Participatory Democracy with a Focus on the New England Londonderry Town Meeting. Journal of American Studies,36, 127-149. Ju Han Lee. (1998). Democracy and Communication in Dewey's Social Philosophy. The journal of Studies Education, 15, 183-205 Hong Kyu Lee. (2009). Politically-Tipping Phenomena and Deliberation Capacity. Journal of Buddhist Professors in Korea, 15(2), 7-41. Hee Kyoon Lee. (2004). The Work-Out Case in General Electric.Korea Business Review,7(2), 117-147. Dae Yeon Cho, Jae Hyun Kim. (2007). Development of National Level of Competency through social capital: Focusing on NHRD.The Korean Journal of Human Resource Development,9(2), 105-122. [Foreign] Bohm, D. (1996). On dialogue. London: Routledge. Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical orientation to sociological methods. New York: McGraw-Hill. Dewey, J. (1916).Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan. Dryzek, J. S. (2000).Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford University Press on Demand. Dryzek, J. S. (2009). Democratization as deliberative capacity building.ᅠComparative political studies,ᅠ42(11), 1379-1402. Fishkin, J. S. (2011).ᅠWhen the people speak: Deliberative democracy and public consultation. Oxford University Press. Habermas, J. (1984).The theory of communicative action. Vol 1: Reason and the rationalization of society. Hammer, M., &Champy, J. (1993).Reengineering the Corporation: Manifesto for Business Revolution. Lincoln, Y. S., &Guba, E. G. (1985).Naturalistic inquiry(Vol. 75). Sage. Lukensmeyer, C. J., &Brigham, S. (2002). Taking Democracy to Scale: Creating a Town Hall Meeting for the Twenty‐First Century.National Civic Review,91(4), 351-366. OECD. (2000). Human and social capital and sustained growth and development, reconciling new economies and societies: The role of human and social capital. Paris: OECD Putnam, R. D. (1995). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America.Political science &politics,28(4), 664-683. Richey, R. C. & Klein, J. D. (2007). Design and Development Research Methods, Strategies, and.Issues. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Senge, P. M. (2014).The fifth discipline field book: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York: Bantam Books.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.