바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.52 No.1
Citation Share

A Study on Users’ Perception towards the Utility of Publication Formats between Printed Books and Electronic Books of Korean Classics Collations and Translations

Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science / Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, (P)1225-598X; (E)2982-6292
2018, v.52 no.1, pp.259-283
https://doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2018.52.1.259




& (2018). A Study on Users’ Perception towards the Utility of Publication Formats between Printed Books and Electronic Books of Korean Classics Collations and Translations. Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, 52(1), 259-283, https://doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2018.52.1.259
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

Abstract

This research aims at understanding the differences between expert and general users’ perceptions regarding publication preferences for Korean classics collations and translations in order to formulate future directions for these materials. For this purpose, an overview of changes in publishing in general as well as current status of collation/translation of Korean classics in particular are being identified. An online questionnaire was carried out in order to collect data regarding perceptions and preferences of expert users and general users of Korean classics. The results are based on the analyses of more than 1,000 responses. The analyses show that electronic books will not completely replace printed books and publishing both electronic and printed books in tandem for the time being is most preferable in order to satisfy varying user needs. Statistical analysis shows differences in terms of use value, value from possession, and readability of electronic and printed books in the two groups of users. However, as for the value of preservation by relevant institutions, there was a statistical difference between two groups towards printed books unlike their electronic equivalents. The research shows strong preference towards printed forms of classics collations and translations for the purpose of scholarly research and translation. Actual usage statistics reveal much heavy use of online database of classics translations compared to the use of available electronic books. For future publishing decisions for classics collations and translations will need to take into consideration of their special characteristics and symbolic nature. Proper representation of these materials into electronic format would require a standardized platform that enable various uses in different environments.

keywords
Korean Classics, Collations, Translations, Printed book (p-book), Electronic book (e-book), 고전적, 정리서, 번역서, 종이책, 전자책

Reference

1.

교육부. 2017. 『인문학 진흥 5개년 기본 계획(2017-2021)』. 세종: 교육부. [online] [cited 2017. 9. 28.]<https://www.moe.go.kr/boardCnts/view.do?boardID=294&boardSeq=70225&lev=0&sear chType=null&statusYN=W&page=1&s=moe&m=0503&opType=N>

2.

마크로밀엠브레인. 2016. 전자책 vs 종이책 이용경험 및 독서 관련 전반적 인식 조사. 리서치보고서, 2016-04: 228-266.

3.

문화체육관광부. 2017. 『인문정신문화 진흥 기본계획(2017-2021)』. 세종: 문화체육관광부. [online][cited 2017. 9. 28.]<https://www.moe.go.kr/boardCnts/view.do?boardID=294&boardSeq=70225&lev=0&sear chType=null&statusYN=W&page=1&s=moe&m=0503&opType=N>

4.

박수진. 2007. 『종이책과 전자책의 유형별 선호매체에 관한 연구』. 석사학위논문, 성균관대학교언론정보대학원.

5.

박영경, 이혜미, 이설희. 2015. 종이같은 E-ink 전자책의 감성연구. 감성과학, 18(4), 119-128.

6.

배경재. 2015. 교육·연구용 전자출판물 사용경험 정의 및 사용성 평가에 관한 연구. 한국문헌정보학회지, 49(2), 255-274.

7.

손용범, 김영학. 2012. 사용자의 이해력 관점에서 전자책 장치의 크기에 관한 실험적 평가. 한국콘텐츠학회논문지, 12(8), 167-177.

8.

신선. 2013. 종이책과 전자책의 독서 현황 분석. KISDI STAT Report, 13-10-01: 2-6. [online][cited 2017. 9. 28.] <http://www.kisdi.re.kr/kisdi/common/premium?file=1%7C13234>

9.

엄인영. 2016. 『오감을 통한 종이책의 파라텍스트(Para-texte)개념 확장에 관한 연구: 종이책과전자책의 비교를 통하여』. 석사학위논문, 건국대학교 예술대자인대학원 시각정보디자인전공.

10.

이나래, 이우훈. 2012. 이북리더의 읽기자세에 대한 연구. 『한국디자인학회 2012 봄 국제학술대회논문집』, 2012년 5월18일-5월19일, 인천: 연세대학교 송도캠퍼스: 2012(1): 146-147.

11.

이동용, 이태일. 2014. 페이지 전환 방식과 화면 크기가 디지털 리딩 경험에 미치는 영향. Journal of Integrated Design Research, 13(2), 41-50.

12.

이민호. 2012. 『아이트래커를 이용한 전자책과 종이책의 가독성 비교』. 석사학위논문, 한양대학교대학원 산업경영공학과.

13.

정명순. 2014. 디지털 시대에 전자책과 종이책의 상호 보완 역할. 독일언어문학, 63, 285-304.

14.

정미리, 김보연. 2013. 행위기반의 종이책과 전자책 사용자 분석 - iBooks 기능을 통해 살펴본7단계 사용자 행위 모델. 디지털디자인학연구, 13(1), 671-680.

15.

조정미, 공병훈. 2017. 종이책과 전자책 출판의 사용자 인터페이스 비교 연구. 『한국콘텐츠학회2017 춘계종합학술대회 논문집』, 2017년 5월 12일-13일, 대전: 국립한밭대학교: 345-346.

16.

한국고전번역원. 2016. 『2016 고전번역연감』. 서울: 한국고전번역원. [online] [cited 2017. 9. 28.] <http://ebook.itkc.or.kr/Viewer/OQGWBI3MD5WH>

17.

한국문화경제학회. 2011. 고전번역수요조사분석 및 성과측정 모델 개발 연구,. 서울: 한국고전번역원, ITKC-2010-PR01.

18.

한국출판문화산업진흥원. 2016. 『2016 출판산업 실태조사』. [online] [cited 2017. 9. 28.]<http://www.kpipa.or.kr/info/studyrepotView.do?board_id=51&article_id=66881&pageI nfo.page=&search_cond=&search_text=&list_no=51#>

19.

“Publishers Sales Down at the Start of 2016, eBooks Decline". 2016. AAP Newsroom. June 27. [online] [cited 2017. 9. 28.]<http://newsroom.publishers.org/publishers-sales-down-at-the-start-of-2016-ebooks-decline/>

20.

“ALA, BISG Announce Results of New Joint Study on PrintDigital Library Usage". 2015. ALAnews. December 03. [online] [cited 2017. 9. 28.]<http://www.ala.org/news/press-releases/2015/12/ala-bisg-announce-results-new-joint-study-print-digital-library-usage>

21.

Foasberg, N. M. 2014. “Student Reading Practices in Print and Electronic Media.” College & Research Libraries, 75(5): 705-723. [online] [cited 2017. 9. 28.]<http://crl.acrl.org/index.php/crl/article/view/16382>

22.

“E-Book Sales Down In UK." 2017. Forbes. April 27. [online] [cited 2017. 9. 28.]<https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenduffer/2017/04/27/e-book-sales-down-in-uk/#24160e9a3448>

23.

Millar, M., and Schrier, T. 2015. Digital or Printed Textbooks: Which Do Students Prefer and Why? Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 15(2), 166-185. [online] [cited 2017. 9. 28.]<http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15313220.2015.1026474?journalCode=wttt20>

24.

Myrberg, C. and Wiberg, N. 2015. “Screen vs. Paper: What Is the Difference for Reading and Learning?” Insights, 8(2): 49-54. [online] [cited 2017. 9. 28.]<http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.236>

25.

Pew Research Center. 2016. Book Reading. [online] [cited 2017. 9. 28.]<http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2016/08/PI_2016.09.01._Book -Reading_FINAL.pdf>

26.

Silverman, S. 2014. The Book vs. E-Book: E-Book Survey Report. South Carolina Libraries, 1(1), Article 11. [online] [cited 2017. 9. 28.]<http://scholarcommons.sc.edu/scl_journal/vol1/iss1/11>

27.

Waters, J. et al. 2014. “A Comparison of E-book and Print Book Discovery, Preferences, and Usage by Science and Engineering Faculty and Graduate Students at the University of Kansas.” Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 2014(winter). [online] [cited 2017. 9. 28.] <https://doi.org/10.5062/F48G8HN5>

28.

Zabukovec, V. and Vilar, P. 2015. “Paper or Electronic: Preferences of Slovenian Students."In European Conference on Information Literacy. 427-435 [online] [cited 2017. 9. 28.]<http://ecil2015.ilconf.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/11/ecil2015_abstracts.pdf#pa ge=121>

29.

Zhang, Y. and Kudva, S. 2013. “EBooks vs. Print books: Readers' Choices and Preferences across Contexts." In Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 50(1): 1-4. <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/meet.14505001106/full>

Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science

e-Submission OA Policy