Future Visions: Challenges and Possibilities of Korean Studies in North America — Social Science panel. From left to right: UC Berkeley's Laura Nelson, University of Michigan's Jordan Siegel, Stanford's Yong Suk Lee, USC's David Kang, Harvard's Paul Chang.

How can Korean studies faculty cultivate supportive and critical scholarly communities with graduate students? What can be done to overcome the severe constraints on Korean language training in North America? Why is there a dearth of Korea scholarship in academic literature? And how should Korean studies librarians prepare for the future in the light of new technologies and young researchers’ increasing interest in digital scholarship?

These were some of the questions examined at a two-day conference, “Future Visions: Challenges and Possibilities of Korean Studies in North America,” convened by the Korea Program of Stanford’s Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC) on November 1-2. Co-sponsored by the Seoul-based Foundation Academia Platonica, the conference, the first of its kind, gathered distinguished Korean studies scholars from twelve North American institutions to consider the state of the field, assess its challenges, and carry forward a vision for its future direction and potential. Its six unique panels focused not only on the major disciplines of Korean studies—history, literature, and the social sciences—but also on language education, library collections and services, and Korean Wave.

“The presentations and discussions by our fellow experts reflected the breadth and depth of Korean studies in North America,” says APARC Director and the Korea Program Director Gi-Wook Shin. “Our program was established at Stanford in 2001 and has since become a leader in Korean studies in North America, so it is a special privilege for us to bring together colleagues from eminent institutions around the continent to further advance Korean studies education and research in the academic and policy worlds, and to build upon our track record of action and achievements.”

“The field of Korean studies, however,” notes Shin, “has significantly changed over the past seventeen years and it isn’t without its challenges. This is our opportunity to consider frankly where we go next and how we could explore the path ahead together.”

Conference participants indeed engaged in deep conversations and shared ideas and dilemmas regarding teaching in the different disciplines of Korean studies in North America. Harvard sociologist Paul Chang listed three types of challenges facing the field: publication, academic, and professional challenges. David C. Kang, professor of international relations and director of the Korean Studies Institute at the University of Southern California, emphasized the publication challenge: why is it, asked Kang, that top academic journals in the discipline of political science and international relations publish so much more scholarship about Europe than they do about Korea and Asia at large, even while the rise of Asian nations is surely one of the most consequential issues of the twenty-first century? The onus, Kang argued, comes back to East Asia scholars “to produce better and more compelling scholarship, and to better train graduate students.”

University of British Columbia's Ross King and conference participants.

Yet complex issues surround the question of how to broaden graduate coursework—and whether to do so. Korean language and linguistics expert Ross King, head of the department of Asian Studies at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, was one of several panelists who considered the obstacles to graduate training, among different aspects of academic challenges facing the field of Korean studies. King probed into how Sinocentrism and what he called the “Mandarin conceit”—that is, the notion that training in Literary Sinitic should be predicated on a near-native proficiency in modern Mandarin Chinese—are emerging as a major stumbling block to the study of premodern Korean literary culture. He also pointed to the constraints on language training in both Korean and hanmun in North America, which, he claimed, is why we can probably anticipate continued decrease in the number of ethnically non-Korean (non-Korea-educated) graduate students undertaking graduate study in Korean literature.

University of Washington's Hyokyoung Yi (left) and Stanford's Joshua Capitanio at a panel on library collections and service.

Sung-Ock Sohn, who coordinates the Korean language program in the department of Asian languages and cultures at the University of California – Los Angeles, further shed light on King’s prediction. She explained that while enrollments in Korean language classes have shown a sharp increase in American higher education institutions in the past decade, particularly at the introductory level and among ethnically non-Korean students, there is a high attrition rate of students from an introductory to advanced Korean classes nationwide.

How should the field move forward?

Participants proposed a host of ideas to that end. These included helping graduate students collaborate with colleagues in Korea; dedicating funding for junior faculty to spend periods of time before tenure conducting research and honing language skills in Korea at appropriate institutions, and for mid-career scholars to spend a year in Korea; emphasizing the application of social science theories and methods to premodern and modern East Asia; motivating scholars to apply a comparative lens to the study of the historical and contemporary experience of East Asia; and integrating linguistic and cultural diversity in Korean language classes by, for example, incorporating service learning in authentic contexts and extending the content spectrum to include topics such as Korean popular culture.

Image

Korean Wave was the focus of the conference’s widely attended closing panel that featured K-pop star Siwon Choi, a member of Korean boy band Super Junior, and multi-platinum music producer Dominique Rodriguez, managing director of SM Entertainment USA. They spoke about the global reach of Korean pop music and some of the ways in which Korean popular culture could stimulate interest in Korean studies. Dafna Zur, assistant professor in Stanford’s department of East Asian languages and cultures, who chaired the panel, challenged her students to consider “what it means not just to monetize culture but to design culture with specific markets and audience in mind.” The Stanford Daily published a detailed article on the panel.

“We are grateful to Foundation Academia Platonica for its generous support of Stanford’s Korea Program at Shorenstein APARC and for making this conference possible through our shared vision for the future of Korean studies in North America,” said Gi-Wook Shin. “Our thanks also go to our many other friends and partners, including the Korea Foundation that has helped achieve great results through its commitment to promoting understanding of Korea in academia and beyond and its support of the overseas Korean Studies Program since its establishment in 1991.”

South Korean TV company SBS NBC filmed the conference that will be featured in an upcoming documentary about Korean studies in the United States.

Read the conference report or listen to the audio recordings of the sessions, below.

A matrix with m rows and n columns looks like a rectangle filled with tiny boxes: m times n boxes, to be exact. But after visiting the Stanford Center at Peking University (SCPKU) for three months, my mental matrix of the world looked more like a weird trapezoid. New acquaintances added rows and their unique perspectives added columns. My brain drew lines from geography to economics to politics, but the lines were on crumpled paper. Ah and don't forget history. So multiply the rectangle by time t and out comes a 3D trapezoid.

How do we mentally travel through odd shapes with any sense and efficiency? China Studies in Beijing classes at the SCPKU sharpened our tools for the endeavor. On day one, Thomas Fingar emphasized that the goal of a foreign policy class is not to remember a list of facts, but to build a personal matrix of relations and to learn tricks for traversing the matrix. Jean Oi demonstrated how people's ideals can constrain the goals of business and political leaders. Scott Rozelle showed how economic developments in China changed real lives. Clarity reduces the dimensions we care about. Sometimes we need to melt and reshape the whole matrix. Other times we just need to prune a few rows and columns. We have the algorithms, technologies, "intelligences." Our tools, both natural and artificial, can be useful for navigating political spheres and leading to action.

But tools are not all we have. Other people's matrices sometimes slam into our own. Warping it, filling it. At Peking University (PKU), I met students with different stories and missions. One student transfers industrial expertise from China to Southeast Asia. Another connects Stanford and PKU students to openly discuss US-China relations. I also collaborated with PKU researchers. The scientists are fast learners and deeply curious. The clinicians are hard working and harder feeling. They all faithfully give their time and spirit. Despite the different bases of our matrices, language in particular, we could cooperate and together build a fuller model of the world.

What was the visiting graduate student's place in all of this? As a psychologist, I study humans and their brains. The brain itself is a messy matrix. Figuratively, a life history of data to curate; literally, cells that code spacetime. Maybe the psychology and geometry of every other brain is not so foreign from each of our own. Our science can keep digging deeper and tilling truer in search of common ground. We can build an empirical basis for humans to flourish together.

Sometimes, after long times, a complex matrix can instead be depicted as a fractal. Like flakes of snow. Each one is unique, starting with the same properties of H₂O but morphing through many phases. Maybe with study and reflection we will look back at both China studies and brain studies and, rather than see a messy matrix, find a fractal. Hopefully such a model can also be useful to guide our way forward.

About the author Josiah Leong: Awarded a SCPKU Predoctoral fellowship for research from August to November 2018. He is a doctoral candidate in psychology and his research is about how brain creates emotions and makes decisions. During his visit, he started a neuroimaging study with the Peking psychology department and taught neuroimaging data analyses to addiction researchers at the Peking Sixth Hospital. He also engaged with researchers in anthropology, history, and political science, and he audited courses from the China Studies in Beijing overseas program. These experiences clarified his vision for how psychological science can guide the policies that govern everyday life. He has seen how scientific collaboration builds communities across borders, and he remains optimistic that the practice of science can lead people to question their assumptions and reshape their matrices, so to speak.

Tune in to SupChina Sinica Podcast with Matthew Kohrman about his book Poisonous Pandas: Chinese Cigarette Manufacturing in Critical Historical Perspectives.

Listen on the SupChina's website.

Francis Fukuyama explains to the Commonwealth Club how our connection to personal identities has disconnected us from a base understanding of dignity. Listen here.