The Cultural Zoo: How Summer Korean Studies Programs Reduce Korean Culture to Academic Spectacle
An examination of how the Korean Wave's funding bonanza exposed fundamental tensions between serious scholarship and cultural consumption
The most famous Koreans of 1960s-1990s Korean textbooks, Younghee and Chulsoo, sample the best of Korea’s cultural wares.
The Field's Transformation and Its Discontents
Korean studies just experienced what scholars call "the most dramatic paradigm shift in any area studies field in recent memory." Between 2009 and 2016, Korean language enrollment in U.S. universities shot up 78%, hitting 15,000 students nationally (NPR, 2022). The Korean proficiency test exploded from 2,200 candidates in 1997 to 265,000 in 2018 (PubMed Central, 2023). Universities scrambled like hungry wolves to capture this unprecedented interest, creating a $7.2 billion global Korean language learning market by 2024 (Global Market Insights, 2024).
Here's what's embarrassing: this transformation exposed how intellectually bankrupt most Korean studies programming actually is.
Andre Schmid at the University of Toronto put it bluntly: "in the unequal global cultural arena where English still dominates, the direction of Korean Studies in the United States disproportionately shapes international representations of Korean culture" (Schmid, 2017). Translation: American universities are defining what counts as legitimate knowledge about Korea, and they're doing a spectacularly bad job of it.
The question became: what kind of Korean studies would emerge from this Hallyu gold rush? The answer reveals how academic institutions defaulted to the intellectual equivalent of fast food—quick, appealing, and nutritionally worthless.
John Lie at UC Berkeley doesn't mince words about his colleagues' failures: "senior Koreanists seem rather content with their progress, telling their followers bizarre tales from the field and seeking to reproduce the archaic and mistaken Harvard East Asia paradigm" (Lie, 2012). Lie advocates for methodological innovation that treats popular culture as serious analytical inquiry rather than academic entertainment.
Most universities ignored him completely.
The Funding Dilemma: Academia "Kicking and Screaming"
Here's the dirty secret: Korean studies was, as multiple sources document, dragged into popular culture studies by sudden K-Pop funding opportunities, despite significant academic resistance (MSU Denver, 2023). Universities found themselves caught between grabbing cash and maintaining their precious academic dignity—so they chose both, badly.
Traditional scholars panicked about whether popular culture constituted "real" Korean studies research. Faculty worried about "instrumentalizing culture" and whether analyzing BTS met their rigorous standards compared to, say, another dissertation on Joseon-era pottery glazes (Stanford FSI, 2024). Some hand-wrung about government cultural promotion compromising scholarly objectivity, as if Korean studies had ever been politically neutral.
Meanwhile, they were completely missing the intellectual possibilities. Korean popular culture represents one of the most fascinating examples of state-directed cultural policy, transnational capital flows, and global media systems in contemporary history. But instead of developing analytical frameworks to investigate these processes, most programs defaulted to cultural appreciation.
The Historical Irony These Programs Completely Miss
In a culture that taught “Proper Lifestyles” in elementary schools from the 1950s to the 1990s with many non-mainstream lifestyles and cultural products censored and suppressed, shouldn’t we be a little skeptical of the sudden, governmental embrace of the very cultural fields it used to have in a chokehold?
What makes current programming particularly embarrassing is how it ignores the most intellectually fascinating aspects of Korean cultural development. Korean cultural exports represent a complete historical reversal from authoritarian censorship to systematic state promotion—and most summer programs treat this like a feel-good democratization story instead of the complex institutional transformation it actually represents.
During military rule, the state apparatus that now promotes K-pop globally was systematically destroying Korean popular culture. Park Chung-hee banned foreign music, mandated patriotic programming, and censored everything from rock music to folk songs (Wilson Center, 2023). Poet Kim Ji-ha faced a death sentence for writing satirical poetry (Wikipedia, 2024). Officials literally mandated patriotic songs as final tracks on albums regardless of musical genre.
Cambridge scholars document this complete reversal "from censorship to active support," showing how democratization transformed these same cultural industries into "key drivers of economic growth, innovation and employment" (Lee, 2017). The censorship apparatus inadvertently strengthened underground networks while import restrictions fostered domestic industry development.
This represents one of the most fascinating examples of unintended state policy consequences in modern history. Authoritarian cultural control created the institutional infrastructure that later enabled systematic cultural export success (Wilson Center, 2023).
And how do current Korean studies programs handle this intellectually rich complexity? Based on their course descriptions and institutional positioning, they appear to prioritize cultural experience over historical analysis. Students typically encounter K-pop appreciation rather than investigation of state-cultural relations. They experience Korean cinema rather than examining how film production networks emerged from censorship resistance.
The missed opportunity here isn't that these programs are necessarily bad, but that they seem structured around cultural consumption rather than academic investigation.
The Persistence of Essentialist Garbage
Despite growing acceptance of popular culture research, academic programs continue deploying what serious scholars recognize as essentialist, reductionist approaches that treat Korean culture like a museum exhibit.
Stanford's Gi-Wook Shin didn't pull punches: blood-based ethnic national identity has become "a totalitarian force in politics, culture, and society" (Shin, 2006). Andre Schmid systematically demolishes "hermit kingdom" narratives and Cold War categorical thinking (Schmid, 2002). Yet summer programs often organize Korean culture around precisely these essentialist categories—traditional vs. modern, North vs. South, historical vs. contemporary—without explicitly engaging with scholarly critiques of these frameworks.
The structural problem becomes evident when examining actual course syllabi and program descriptions. George Mason University's "Korean Popular Culture in a Global World" explicitly promises students will "listen to many K-Pop songs, watch a couple of Korean films, excerpts from K-Drama, Korean documentaries, and more. It means that this course will be fun and even entertaining sometimes!" The University of Oslo's Korean popular culture course assesses students through "a digital multiple-choice test in Canvas" consisting of "5 multiple-choice questions." The University of British Columbia's summer Korean Popular Music course requires students to attend K-pop concerts and write "creative and reflexive" reviews rather than analytical papers.
Even Korea University's own International Summer Campus offers courses titled "Media & Popular Culture in Korea" with 60-student enrollment caps—suggesting mass cultural consumption rather than intensive academic investigation. CIEE's Seoul program promises students will "explore traditional Korean music" while trying "traditional kimchi, dumplings, bibimbap and some of the best barbeque in the world!"
These approaches risk reproducing what John Lie calls the "archaic Harvard East Asia paradigm"—treating Korea as a bounded cultural unit to be understood through immersion rather than as a complex society requiring sophisticated analytical frameworks (Lie, 2014).
Korean Scholars Sound the Alarm
Korean academics themselves have identified these problems. Lim Hyung-Jae at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies argues in his research on approaches to overseas Korean studies that the rapid pace of internationalization has led to insufficient analysis of overseas Korean studies phenomena. Korean institutions, he notes, have focused on "internationalization and globalization" without proper consideration of methodological rigor—exactly the problem we see in summer programming.
Korean scholars analyzing cultural education methodology have examined 419 research papers and identified systematic problems in how Korean culture is taught and researched. Meanwhile, Korean academic sources identify "development of new methodology" (새로운 방법론 개발) as the most urgent task for Korean studies research, noting fundamental problems with current research approaches.
The Academy of Korean Studies, Korea's premier Korean studies institution, publishes The Review of Korean Studies specifically welcoming research on "premodern Korean Studies which have been less discussed"—implicitly critiquing the overseas focus on contemporary popular culture. Their journal Korea Journal, published since 1961 "with the goal of promoting Korean Studies around the world," establishes institutional standards for serious scholarship that most summer programs fail to meet.
The Hiring Problem: Ethnic Surnames as Academic Qualifications
The emphasis on cultural consumption over analytical rigor reflects deeper institutional problems with how universities approach Korean studies staffing. Korean studies professors regularly report a troubling pattern: when universities want to offer courses on K-pop or Korean popular culture, they often hire anyone with a Korean surname regardless of their actual expertise in Korean studies methodology or cultural analysis.
This practice reduces complex academic fields to ethnic authenticity rather than scholarly competence. A professor with Korean heritage who specializes in, say, biochemistry or mechanical engineering gets assigned to teach Korean popular culture simply because administrators assume ethnic background equals academic qualification. Meanwhile, non-Korean scholars who have spent decades developing expertise in Korean studies methodology, cultural theory, or media analysis get overlooked.
The consequences extend beyond individual hiring decisions to shape entire program emphases. When course staffing prioritizes cultural background over analytical training, programs naturally drift toward cultural appreciation and experiential tourism rather than rigorous investigation. Faculty hired for their surnames rather than their scholarly expertise can't be expected to provide the methodological sophistication Korean studies actually requires.
This institutional practice reveals how universities conceptualize Korean studies itself—as cultural knowledge that can be transmitted through ethnic proximity rather than as analytical methodology requiring specialized training. It's exactly this type of institutional thinking that produces summer programs treating Korea as a cultural theme park rather than a complex society worthy of serious academic investigation.
What Serious Methodology Actually Looks Like
How we get down…on the ground. Dr. Hurt practicing “photosartorial elicitation” in Hanoi of what the Vietnamese models imagined Korean style to be — which is “grounded theory” in motion.
Contemporary Korean studies scholars who aren't coasting on institutional inertia advocate methodological approaches that would make current summer programming look like academic day-care.
The USC Korean Studies Institute promotes research spanning "global Korean history, language and literature, politics, media and performance arts, technoscience, urban studies, and environmental humanities" (USC Dornsife, 2024). The Journal of Korean Studies actively encourages "novel transnational and interdisciplinary approaches" that explode traditional area studies frameworks (Duke University Press, 2024).
Here's what methodologically serious Korean studies programming would actually involve:
Ethnographic methods examining how ordinary Koreans navigate and create meaning through digital subcultures and spatial practices
Structural analysis investigating K-Pop as complex labor systems, state policy mechanisms, and capital flow networks rather than catchy entertainment (ResearchGate, 2014)
Historical analysis examining censorship-to-export transformation as institutional process rather than feel-good democratization narrative
Transnational frameworks positioning Korean cultural production within global power hierarchies rather than treating it as isolated national phenomenon
Programs using these approaches would produce students capable of asking serious research questions, applying theoretical frameworks, and generating original knowledge instead of writing reflection papers about their authentic cultural experiences.
Embodied Scholarship as Methodological Alternative
The methodological innovations Korean studies desperately needs already exist — they're just being systematically ignored by institutions designing summer programs. Dr. Jocelyn C. Clark at Pai Chai University demonstrates exactly the kind of practitioner-scholar integration that could transform Korean studies from cultural tourism into rigorous academic inquiry.
Dr. Clark holding her own in the field at a group gayageum performance in 2023.
Clark represents what serious Korean studies methodology actually requires: deep cultural competence combined with analytical sophistication. As the first foreigner without Korean heritage to achieve official recognition in Korea's National Heritage system—designated under both provincial and national Intangible Cultural Properties for gayageum sanjo and byeongchang—she possesses cultural access and embodied knowledge that traditional academic approaches cannot replicate.
Dr. Clark’s fingers moving in intricate precision while performing at a professional level defines a different kind of embodied scholarship.
This isn't cultural appreciation masquerading as scholarship. This is methodological innovation that challenges fundamental assumptions about how Korean culture should be studied. Clark's three decades of intensive training with master musicians like Ji Seongja provide research insights unavailable through conventional academic observation. Her performance competence enables analysis of Korean aesthetic concepts, transmission methods, and cultural authenticity debates that remain invisible to outside observers.
Clark's concept of "habitat collapse" offers exactly the kind of analytical framework summer programs should be teaching. Rather than celebrating Korean traditional music as static cultural heritage, Clark analyzes how traditional cultural ecosystems supporting musical practices are disappearing globally—including within Korea itself. Her research reveals the paradox that many Korean students have never seen traditional Korean instruments in person, despite Korea's international prominence through K-pop and K-dramas.
This analysis exposes the superficiality of current summer programming approaches. While programs take students to palaces and traditional performances as cultural experiences, Clark's research shows how these activities function as "stay-at-home diaspora"—traditional culture becoming exotic within its own homeland. Students experiencing Korean traditional music as tourists are participating in precisely the cultural displacement Clark's scholarship analyzes.
The contrast reveals everything wrong with current institutional priorities. Clark brings live traditional music performers into university classrooms and emphasizes physical engagement with instruments over digital-only experiences. Her pedagogical approach assumes cultural complexity rather than providing cultural orientation, teaching students to analyze transmission methods, aesthetic philosophies, and cultural authenticity debates rather than simply appreciating Korean traditional music as beautiful cultural content.
Clark's methodology demonstrates what "Level 2" Korean studies programming could actually accomplish. Instead of introducing students to Korean traditional music through appreciation courses, programs could teach analytical frameworks for understanding cultural transmission, state cultural policy impacts, and traditional-modern tensions within Korean society. Students would learn to examine how Korea's National Heritage system functions as cultural preservation mechanism, how traditional music adapts to contemporary contexts, and how cultural authenticity gets constructed and contested.
The KARSI approach explicitly builds on methodological innovations like Clark's practitioner-scholar integration. Rather than treating Korean traditional music as cultural content for consumption, KARSI programming would teach students to analyze traditional music as complex cultural system requiring theoretical sophistication. Students would examine questions like: How do traditional aesthetic concepts inform contemporary Korean cultural production? What does Korea's cultural heritage preservation system reveal about state-culture relations? How do traditional transmission methods contrast with modern educational approaches?
Clark's work also addresses the employment crisis facing Korean studies graduates. Her integration of performance practice with academic research creates career pathways unavailable through conventional academic training alone. Her position on preservation society boards, media commentary work, and international performance career demonstrate how deep cultural competence combined with analytical sophistication generates professional opportunities that cultural appreciation courses cannot provide.
The methodological implications extend far beyond traditional music. Clark's practitioner-scholar approach offers frameworks applicable across Korean studies: What would K-pop analysis look like if researchers possessed insider knowledge of Korean entertainment industry training methods? How would Korean cinema studies change if scholars understood Korean aesthetic traditions from embodied practice rather than theoretical observation? What insights about Korean social media culture require cultural competence unavailable through external analysis?
These questions reveal the vast analytical possibilities current summer programs systematically ignore. Instead of teaching students to appreciate Korean culture as outsiders, serious Korean studies programming would develop cultural competence enabling insider analytical perspectives. This doesn't mean every student needs to achieve Clark's level of traditional music mastery—it means programs should teach analytical methodologies that respect cultural complexity rather than reducing Korea to consumable experiences.
Clark's scholarship proves that methodological sophistication and cultural engagement are not contradictory—they're mutually reinforcing when properly integrated. Her example demonstrates exactly what Korean studies programming could accomplish if institutions prioritized analytical innovation over cultural tourism.
The Definitional Crisis at the Heart of Korean Studies
The problems with Korean studies summer programming reflect a deeper institutional crisis that even Korean studies professors struggle to articulate: the field cannot define what "Korea" actually means as an object of study.
Cedarbough T. Saeji's experience founding the first undergraduate Korean Studies program in Korea itself reveals how this definitional confusion undermines serious academic work. As the inaugural professor at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies (HUFS), Saeji encountered students who assumed Korean Studies meant Republic of Korea Studies, completely ignoring North Korea and the Korean diaspora. When her students wanted to wave the ROK flag to represent their Korean Studies department, Saeji had to explain: "We're not the Department of Republic of Korea Studies. We're the Department of Korean Studies" (Saeji, 2018, p. 444).
This seemingly simple correction exposes the conceptual poverty haunting the entire field. Korean studies operates with what Saeji calls "nation-state boundaries implied in the habitual terminology"—treating Korea as if it were a single, bounded cultural unit rather than a complex set of societies, diasporic populations, and divided political entities (Saeji, 2018, p. 443). Within Korea itself, the ROK goes "unmarked" in everyday conversation while North Korea becomes "Pukhan" (North + Korea), and diasporic populations remain "peripheral or absent" from Korean studies curricula (Saeji, 2018, p. 446).
This definitional confusion explains why summer programs default to cultural tourism approaches. If Korean studies cannot clearly articulate what "Korea" means beyond cultural appreciation and national symbols, how can it develop sophisticated analytical frameworks? Programs end up treating Korean culture as a collection of consumable experiences precisely because the field lacks conceptual clarity about its object of study.
The employment crisis facing Korean studies graduates stems directly from this definitional failure. As Saeji observes, Korean studies programs cannot answer students' "legitimate demands to define the field and its future employment opportunities" (Saeji, 2018, p. 444). A graduate from a Korean Studies program should be able to "represent Korean history and culture without exploiting differences, (self-)orientalizing, over-simplifying, or being limited by disciplinary boundaries" (Saeji, 2018, p. 453). Instead, current programs produce students who can navigate Seoul's subway system and order dinner in Korean but cannot analyze complex social issues or conduct rigorous research.
Saeji's autoethnographic analysis reveals that Korean studies suffers from "ambiguity, contestation, and ultimately lack of clarity about what 'Korean Studies' is" that "plays out in two realms: between researchers in professional activities and institutionally" (Saeji, 2018, p. 445). Summer programs perpetuate this institutional confusion by avoiding definitional challenges entirely, defaulting to cultural appreciation rather than grappling with what serious Korea scholarship actually requires.
Saeji's own teaching methodology demonstrates what rigorous Korean studies pedagogy actually looks like. Unlike typical professors who limit themselves to "read, discuss, write an essay or take an exam, and present their work," Saeji designed assignments that required genuine ethnographic engagement with Korean society. Her students interviewed grandparents about living under Rhee Syngman, attended Buddha's birthday celebrations, interviewed museum curators, accessed special research centers, tracked down movie directors for interviews, and learned to play traditional instruments (Saeji, 2018, p. 454). Students in her courses read newspapers to analyze ongoing social and political issues that young people typically ignore, such as elderly care policies and economic initiatives.
This methodological approach reveals the vast pedagogical possibilities that current summer programs systematically ignore. As Saeji notes, "nothing does that like shaking up the standard classroom" when the goal is helping students "really understand" rather than simply consume cultural content (Saeji, 2018, p. 454). Her willingness to pay for guest speakers from her own salary when universities provided no budget demonstrates the institutional neglect that serious Korean studies faces—while tourism-focused programs receive abundant funding for cultural activities that require no analytical sophistication.
The contrast between Saeji's ethnographic methodology and typical summer programming reveals exactly why the field produces graduates who can navigate Seoul's subway system but cannot conduct meaningful research. Serious Korean studies requires students to engage with contemporary Korean society as active researchers, not passive cultural tourists.
The Current Institutional Emphasis Problem
The gap between serious Korean studies scholarship and summer programming represents a fundamental misalignment between available analytical sophistication and institutional priorities. Rather than programs being inherently deficient, the issue lies in their emphasis on accessibility and cultural experience over methodological rigor.
Universities responded to unprecedented student interest by choosing the most institutionally conservative approaches possible—cultural appreciation and experiential tourism—rather than developing programming that leverages the analytical sophistication Korean studies has achieved in serious research contexts.
The consequences reveal institutional priorities rather than programmatic failures:
Students receive academic credentials for cultural tourism rather than training in analytical methodologies
Korean studies becomes defined by its most accessible expressions rather than its most intellectually sophisticated ones
Complex historical processes get reduced to experiential opportunities rather than subjects for systematic investigation
Methodological innovations remain confined to graduate seminars rather than informing broader educational programming
The irony is institutional: precisely when Korean studies has developed sophisticated frameworks for understanding Korean society as a complex analytical object, academic institutions emphasize programming that prioritizes cultural consumption over social analysis.
Toward Actual Standards
The solution isn't eliminating cultural engagement—it's distinguishing between cultural appreciation and intellectual work. Students wanting Korean cultural experiences should book tourist packages. Students wanting to understand Korean society need methodological training that respects their intelligence.
Programs with actual academic standards would:
Assume basic cultural literacy instead of providing orientation-level cultural tourism
Teach analytical methodologies for investigating social phenomena
Examine popular culture structurally rather than treating it as entertainment
Analyze state-culture relations historically instead of presenting current exports as natural cultural expressions
Develop comparative frameworks for understanding cultural production within global systems
The Korean Advanced Research & Studies Institute represents one attempt to address this methodological catastrophe through what they call "Level 2" Korean studies—programming that assumes students completed introductory cultural orientation and are ready for analytical work. Their emphasis on "street-level methodology" and rejection of culture as mere "content" reflects broader scholarly conversations about methodological innovation that most institutions assiduously ignore.
The Stakes Are Higher Than You Think
Choosing between cultural appreciation and analytical investigation isn't just a pedagogical preference—it's epistemological positioning with real consequences. When universities reduce Korean studies to cultural consumption, they're claiming Korea is best understood through experiential immersion rather than rigorous investigation.
This epistemological cowardice shapes how Korean society gets represented in academic, policy, and public contexts. If the next generation of Korea specialists learns cultural appreciation instead of social analysis, their professional capabilities will reflect these methodological limitations. They'll be qualified to appreciate Korean culture, not analyze Korean society.
Korean studies has developed analytical sophistication that far exceeds what current institutional programming represents. The field possesses theoretical frameworks, methodological innovations, and intellectual rigor that make summer cultural tourism programs look like academic kindergarten.
Dr. Hurt’s “Introduction to the Art of Photography students in Hongdae, 2016.
Students deserve Korean studies education that matches the field's analytical capabilities rather than its most marketable expressions. The cultural phenomena that drove initial interest—K-pop, cinema, digital culture—represent complex social systems worthy of serious investigation, not cultural products for academic consumption.
The question facing Korean studies is whether it will be defined by its methodological innovations or its institutional compromises. Current evidence suggests universities are choosing cultural accessibility over analytical sophistication.
Students interested in understanding Korean society as a serious analytical object increasingly need to look beyond traditional institutions toward programs that prioritize methodological innovation over cultural tourism.
It's time to acknowledge that most Korean studies programming emphasizes institutional convenience over intellectual rigor—and start demanding better.
AI Research Methodology and Usage Statement
Note: This statement follows emerging academic standards including "AI Usage Disclosure" (Princeton University), "Declaration of Generative AI and AI-assisted Technologies" (Elsevier), and similar frameworks now required by leading academic institutions.
Expert-Directed AI Research Process: Dr. Michael Hurt controlled the entire research and writing process using Claude AI as an advanced research assistant. Dr. Hurt provided all intellectual direction, theoretical positioning, and argument development based on his expertise in Korean studies methodology and extensive knowledge of academic debates within the field. Claude AI conducted comprehensive literature searches and synthesis under Dr. Hurt's direct supervision and according to his specifications.
Research Integration: The analysis integrates Dr. Hurt's original theoretical insights with comprehensive source verification and systematic literature review. All scholarly interpretations, theoretical frameworks, and critical assessments reflect Dr. Hurt's academic expertise rather than AI-generated content. Claude AI functioned exclusively as a research tool for source identification, verification, and formatting under expert guidance.
Verification Standards: All citations underwent verification for accuracy and contextual appropriateness. Dr. Hurt evaluated source quality and theoretical relevance based on his knowledge of Korean studies scholarship and methodological debates. The AI assisted with citation formatting and source compilation but played no role in theoretical interpretation or scholarly assessment.
Transparency Commitment: This methodology statement ensures readers understand exactly how AI tools supported rather than replaced expert analysis in academic research. The integration of AI assistance with domain expertise represents emerging best practices for maintaining scholarly integrity while leveraging technological capabilities for enhanced research efficiency.
References:
Academy of Korean Studies. (1998-). The Review of Korean Studies. https://www.aks.ac.kr/com/cmm/EgovContentView.do?menuNo=2010123200
Academy of Korean Studies. (1961-). Korea Journal. https://www.aks.ac.kr/com/cmm/EgovContentView.do?menuNo=2010124200
Clark, J. C. (2018). Staying relevant in the digital age: 100 years of (re)defining gugak. Asian Musicology, 15(2), 42-67.
Duke University Press. (2024). The Journal of Korean Studies. https://read.dukeupress.edu/journal-of-korean-studies
Global Market Insights. (2024). Korean language learning market size, outlook 2025-2034. https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/korean-language-learning-market
강승혜 [Kang, Seung-hye]. (2012). 한국문화교육 연구 동향 분석—주제와 방법론을 중심으로 [Analysis of research trends in Korean cultural education: Focusing on topics and methodology]. 한국언어문화학 [Korean Language and Culture Studies], 9(1), 1-38.
Lee, H. K. (2017). From censorship to active support: The Korean state and Korea's cultural industries. The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 28(3). [Referenced in Wilson Center and Cambridge Core materials]
Lie, J. (2012). What is the K in K-pop? South Korean popular music, the culture industry, and national identity. Korea Observer, 43(3). [Referenced in Korean studies methodological literature]
Lie, J. (2014). K-pop in Korea: How the pop music industry is changing a post-developmental society. East Asia, 31(2). [Referenced in academic discourse on Korean studies methodology]
임형재 [Lim, Hyung-Jae]. (2018). 해외한국학에 대한 접근방법 연구—한국학의 유형 분석을 중심으로 [Research on approaches to overseas Korean studies: Focusing on the analysis of Korean studies types]. 한국언어문화학 [Korean Language and Culture Studies], 15(3), 195-220.
MSU Denver. (2023, April 25). Korean wave washes over America — and college campuses. MSU Denver RED. https://red.msudenver.edu/2023/korean-wave-washes-over-america-and-college-campuses/
NPR. (2022, October 19). Enrollment in Korean classes has shot up thanks to cultural imports, experts say. National Public Radio. https://www.npr.org/2022/10/19/1129380984/korean-language-classes-us-colleges-k-pop-parasite-squid-game
Saeji, CedarBough T. (2018). No Frame to Fit It All: An Autoethnography on Teaching Undergraduate Korean Studies, on and off the Peninsula. Acta Koreana, 21(2), 443-460. doi:10.18399/acta.2018.21.2.004
Schmid, A. (2002). Korea between empires, 1895-1919. Columbia University Press. [Referenced in Korean studies methodological debates]
Schmid, A. (2017, March 31). Reflections on Korean studies methodology. Korean Studies Undergraduate Fellows Blog, University of Pennsylvania. https://web.sas.upenn.edu/korean-studies-student-blog/2017/03/31/dr-andre-schmid-reflections-by-john-g-grisafi/
Shin, G. W. (2006). Ethnic nationalism in Korea: Genealogy, politics, and legacy. Stanford University Press. [Referenced in Korean studies theoretical literature]
Stanford Freeman Spogli Institute. (2024, February 15). Hallyu entertainers and Korean studies scholars explore the future of South Korea's pop culture. https://fsi.stanford.edu/news/hallyu-entertainers-and-korean-studies-scholars-explore-future-south-koreas-pop-culture
USC Dornsife Korean Studies Institute. (2024). Research and programs. https://dornsife.usc.edu/ksi/
Wilson Center. (2023, August 8). Paving the path to soft power: Crucial moments in South Korea's cultural policies. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/paving-path-soft-power-crucial-moments-south-koreas-cultural-policies
한국학중앙연구원 [Academy of Korean Studies]. (2020). 해외 한국학 연구 동향 [Overseas Korean studies research trends]. 해외 한국학도서관 동향 [Trends in Overseas Korean Studies Libraries], 21, 3-19.