국내학자들의 문헌인용행태에 대한 연구

Abstract

Analysis of the cited works, in which only references themselves were analized, has been the typical type of the method of citation study. However, as the references were studied wholly independently of the perception and/or attitude held by citer when referencing those references, there exists some limitations in certain aspects such as the reliability and/or validity of the result from analysis of the cited works. A citation behavior analysis, which is another type of the method of citation study, can supplement these problems of analysis of the cited works. In a citation behavior analysis, a researcher tries to find out what kind of attitude or ideas the citers had when they were studying and referencing those references. However, the information that the researcher of this type of study needs is too subjective to be gathered easily. Further, gathered informations can not necessarily have high reliability. Consequently, in a citation behavior analysis, it is highly needed that there must be some efforts to retain a high reliability of the informations gathered from the research subjects. Citation behavior analysis was not performed quite often, but serveral scholars such as Soper (1976), Oppenheim and Renn (1978), Boyce, Banning and Sue (19791, Prabha (1983), Brooks (1985, 1988), have done studies in various ways, whose studies were reviewed in Chap. 2. In this study, I have done an empirical study on citation behavior of the scholars with the questionaire method. I limited the subjects of my research to the professors who are majoring in business administration (social science) and mechanical engineering (natural science). In the questionaire, in addition to several questions regarding personnel information, I asked following questions to the subjects. 1 . What was the style of the consultation on each reference? 2. How much were drawn from each reference? 3. Which were the critical references? 4. How many times each reference was cited in a paper? 5. What were the motivations for referencing each reference? 6. Where was each reference located when it was referenced? In the research, I mailed out 60 questionaires to the professors of business administration, and another 60 questionaires to the professors of mechanical engineering. 40 questionaires returned from business administration area and 43 have been returned from mechanical engineering. Because a few returned too late and several showed critical omissions to the question, only 29 from business administration and 33 from mechanical engineering have been used in the analysis. These subjects of both area showed some differences in view of personnel informations. Although it was never any barrier to this study, some considerations on this aspects were needed in interpreting the results of the analysis. Here are the findings from the analysis. 1. Writers read most of the references: 92.82% in business administration and 94.5% in mechanical engineering but only 72.65% of the references were consulted during the studying period by the writers of business administration and 65.93% were consulted by the writers of mechanical engineering. 2. There was a phenomena that in mechanical engineering the ratio of heavy consultation from each reference was higher (33.83%) than that in business administration. (28.72%). 3. The ratio of critical references to the total references were 24.27% in business administration and 25.68% in mechanical engineering Most of the critical references were actually consulted during the studying period by the writers: 92.95% in business administration and 91.35% in mechanical engineering. Furthermore, the degree of consultation was much higher than that from the whole reference: the ratio of heavy consultation was 64.08% in business administration and 68.27% in mechanical engineering. 4. In business administration 10.43% of the references were cited more than 6 times in the citing papers and the ratio was 8.29% in mechanical engineering. This result might seem contradictory to the result shown in item 2 above. But in depth analysis showed that in business administration, some important references were being cited many times in the paper. Furthermore, in business administration 29.6% of the critical references were cited more than 6 times but in mechanical enginering only 11.53% of the critical references were cited more than 6 times. 5. The priority of motivation for citing or referencing the references showed difference between two areas. In business administration, the priority was as follows; ①operational information (31.97%) ②social consensus (21.37%) ③positive credit (21.37%) ④persuasiveness (19.66%) ⑤reader alert (15.90%) ⑥negative credit (10.60%) ⑦currency scale (8.38%). In mechanical engineering, the priority was as follows; ①persuasiveness (28.89%) ②operational information (25.68%) ③social consensus (15.80%) ④positive credit (15.31%) ⑤currency scale (15.06%) ⑥reader alert (10.86%) ⑦negative credit (4.94%) However, the motivation for critical references showed different priority. In business administration, persuasiveness (36.62%) got the first priority and positive credit (25.50%) got the second. In mechanical engineering, persuasiveness (41.35%) got the first priority and currency scale (27.85%) got the second. By the way, operational information and social consensus showed the highest co-occurrence as the complex motivations in both areas. 6. In both areas, more than half of the references were reported to be located as a personal collection when being referenced 57.95% in business administration and 52.35% in mechanical engineering. This result weakly shows that the accessibility has an effect on citation behavior. 7. There were several types of errors found in references and the ratio were rather higher than was expected. Error of omission was ranked first in business administration and the mistakes on the title was the first ranked type error in mechanical engineering. In all, business administration (38.36% of error rate in journal and 39.71% in monograph, showed higher error rate than mechanical engineering (33.33% in journal and 25% in monograph). As I mentioned at the beginning there were some limitations in this study. Sampling procedure to select the research subjects was not random, and only 2 specific scholastic areas were studied. For further study on this type of citation study, I must say that inclusion of broader scholastic area and random sampling not to mention a refined checking system to improve the reliability of the gathered information are needed.;학자들의 학문연구에 기초가 되는 참고문헌에 대하여 종래에는 인용문헌분석의 형태로 연구가 이루어져 왔다. 그러나 인용문헌분석이 단지 인용계수만을 가지고 행하여 진다고 볼 때, 그 결과의 적용가능성에 한계를 갖게 된다. 따라서 이러한 인용문헌분석의 문제점을 보완하기 위하여 학자들의 인용동기, 인용태도, 인용관점 등을 조사하는 인용행태분석이 함께 수행되어야 하는데, 이같은 연구가 주관적 자료를 요구하는 등 과정상에 많은 어려움이 수반되므로 그다지 활발하게 이루어지지 못하였다. 본 연구에서는 국내 학자들의 참고문헌 인용행태에 대한 조사를 목적으로 현직 대학교수들을 대상으로 질문지법을 이용하여 자료를 수집 · 분석하였다. 질문지 응답상의 복잡성과 델리케이트한 대답의 요구라는 제약때문에 필자 개인적으로 질문지 회수가 용이한 사회과학분야의 경영학과, 자연과학분야의 기계공학으로 대상을 한정시켰다. 질문지에 포함된 내용은 아래와 같다. ① 각 참고문헌의 참조유형( Consultation Style ) ② 각 참고문헌의 참조정도 ③ 주된 참고문헌 ④ 각 참고문헌의 인용횟수 ⑤ 각 참고문헌의 인용 또는 참조동기 ⑥ 각 참고문헌의 소장처 각 분야에 60부씩의 질문지를 우송하여 경영학분야에서 40부, 기계공학분야에서 43부가 회수되었으나 최종적으로 실제 분석에 사용된 것은 경영학 29부, 기계공학 33부로 총 62부였다. 이 질문지들을 분석한 결과를 요약하면 다음과 같다. 1. 양 분야의 학자들이 그들이 열거한 대부분의 참고문헌을 실제로 읽어본 것으로 나타났으나, 특별히 눈문작성 당시에 읽어본 문헌은 경영학의 경우 72.65 %, 기계공학의 경우 65.93 %에 지나지 않았다. 2. 기계공학의 경우 내용을 많이 참조한 참고문헌의 비율이 경영학에서 보다 높게 나타났다. 3. 전체 참고문헌 가운데 주된 참고문헌의 비율은 양분야 모두 25% 정도로 비슷하게 나타났는데, 그들 주된 참고문헌의 경우 논문작성시 실제로 읽어본 비율과 참조 정도가 전체 참고문헌의 경우에서 보다 훨씬 높게 나타났다. 4. 참고문헌의 인용횟수에 대한 조사에서는 1번~2번 인용된 경우가 가장 많은 것으로 나타났고, 6회 이상의 인용이 이루어진 비율은 경영학이 기계공학 보다 높게 나타났다. 5. 학자들의 참고문헌인용 또는 참조동기의 우선순위는 두 분야가 다르게 나타났다. 경영학의 경우는 '개념이나 이론을 도입하기 위하여'가, 자연과학의 경우는 '자신의 연구방법이나 결과를 타인에게 확신시키기 위하여'가 가장 높은 순위의 인용동기로 나타났다. 6. 참고문헌들의 소장처는 기계공학과 경영학에 큰 차이가 없는 것으로 나타났는데, 소장처들 중 개인장서가 차지하는 비율이 두 분야 모두 50 % 이상으로 가장 높았다. 7. 참고문헌을 논문에서 열거할 때 기재상의 오기(誤記)는 전체적으로 30 % 정도로 나타나 오기율이 비교적 높은 편이었는데 경영학이 기계공학 보다 오기가 많았으며 단행본보다 잡지의 오기율이 더 높았다. 이상 국내 학자들의 문헌인용행태에 대하여 분석하였으나, 이상의 분석결과를 가지고 해당 학문분야의 일반적 현상을 추론하기는 어렵다고 생각한다. 그 이유는 질문응답자의 수도 적었고, 연구대상이 되었던 학문분야도 극히 한정되어 있었기 때문이다. 그러나 도서관정책과 서비스개선에 참고가 될 수 있을 것이며 앞으로 인문과학분야를 포함한 전체학문분야에 대하여 보다 포괄적이고 광범위한 분석이 이루어질 수 있는 토대가 될 수 있다고 본다.