The Birth of Academic Subalterns

Abstract

This study analyzes the learning and cultural experiences of Korean graduate students in the United States. Based on 50 qualitative interviews, the study focuses on how global knowledge and the power relations of language determine their education in a transnational system. At a theoretical level, the study criticizes both the functionalist approaches that limit analysis to socialization processes and the pragmatic analyses that seek to solve problems of adaptation. Rejecting these perspectives, this study instead analyzes how a series of power relations based on knowledge and language operate in a global education environment to shape cultural attitudes as well as daily interactions and interprets the result as the daily embodiment of the global hegemony enjoyed by American universities. I explain this mechanism by examining global, national, and local interactions within the global hierarchy of higher education, contradictions within the Korean university system, and students’ transnational learning experiences. During these processes, Korean graduate students, operating as academic subalterns in the global educational system, also contribute to this global hegemony through their active consent to and participation in the assumptions of American research universities. Ultimately, I argue that because the production and consumption of academic capital operates within the power structure of global higher education, we need to pay attention to how various power relations conjoin in transnational learning and teaching, and how they dynamically generate academic domination beyond the functionalist approach.

Keywords

academic capital global hegemony of American universities research university studying in the United States transnational education

Study abroad and transnational education are emerging as hot issues worldwide in the field of higher education. Developed countries welcome foreign students to expand the service industry and ensure the security of their financial resources for higher education. At the same time, developing countries are concerned about brain drain, leakage of foreign currencies, and the diminishing of their own higher education systems, and thus are actively intervening to halt the increasing tendency to study abroad. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ([OECD] 2004) estimated that a total of 2.7 million people were studying abroad and that the global market was worth 60 billion dollars. The Institute of International Education, which compiles annual statistical information regarding the number of international students and trends in international education, announced that international students now contribute about 13.5 billion dollars in revenue to the U.S. economy (Chin & Bhandari, 2006, p. 14). Educational policies in Australia, England, and Canada emphasize securing financial resources for higher education by attracting international students (Asteris, 2006; Coley, 1999). In 2006, the United States attracted 22% of all international students, while England drew 14%, France 10%, Germany 10%, Australia 7%, China 6%, Japan 5%, Canada 3%, and other nations 23% (Chin & Bhandari, 2006, p. 24).

Accompanying the sharp increase in international students is the study of how well these students adapt. Several active studies have been conducted in the United States, where many international students come to study, as well as more recent work from countries like Australia that attract a significant number of international students.¹ Scholars are paying increased attention to this matter as the number of international students increases annually and as their problems have come to the fore as a major issue in global higher education. Studies of international students and their adaptation processes generally share three characteristics. First, most studies have a pragmatic purpose meant to help international students better adjust to their lives. Thus most studies propose a pragmatic solution after analyzing the causes of international students’ difficulties. This approach, however, typically lacks theoretical discussion and elaboration.

Second, quantitative research analyzes the correlation between many variables without paying serious attention to power relations in higher education, whereas qualitative research focuses on understanding one specific element of the adjustment process. Quantitative research has proved useful in finding the correlation between successful adaptation to study abroad and such factors as students’ age, gender, marriage status, nationality, level of English fluency, major, duration of stay, relations with professors, and relations with peers as well as with the size of the school and the facilities it provided (see, for example, Lee & Wesche, 2000; Simpson & Tan 2009; Trice, 2004; Wang, 2009). Such quantitative research considers many factors and enables the quantification and description of the data but fails to provide a valid insight into transnational adaptation processes. On the other hand, while qualitative research helps with understanding the adaptation processes, it often concentrates on very narrow topics such as class participation (Smith, 2007; Tatar, 2005), sexual or racial discrimination (Green & Kim, 2005; Habu, 2000; Hanassab, 2006), foreign students’ initial experience (Brown, 2008; Lee & Shouse, 2008), or relations with the academic advisor (Kim, 2007).

Third, most research analyzes the process of adaptation using a functionalist perspective, and as a result it fails to show how the global academic system and its hierarchy affect the international students and members of the local community. From a functionalist perspective, “adaptation” or “adjustment” is the process of understanding and acquiring knowledge, values, norms, and roles in an academic situation. In these studies, analysis of the process of adaptation is divided into four steps: encountering the host culture, encountering various obstacles, generating responses, and overcoming obstacles (Ramsay, Barker, & Jones, 1999).

This functionalist account fails to describe the dynamics of the multidimensional tension and conflict students experience in a transnational situation. As shown in this study’s interviews, Korean students perceive American universities as “the center of academic activity,” “the mainstream,” “a big body of water” (as opposed to “a well”), or “a forest” (as opposed to “a tree”), and they view the United States as “the most powerful nation in the world,” “the center of the world,” and even as an “empire.” In contrast, Korea or Korean universities are perceived as “a tree,” “a well,” “a periphery of academic activity,” and as an “epigone in the academic world,” terms that signify strong recognition of the global hegemony of American universities. Such recognition, which begins as Korean students hear about American higher education while living in Korea, is reinforced throughout their academic experience abroad. In short, previous studies of foreign students’ adaptation fail to show how the global hegemony of American universities forms in the micro processes of education. The global hegemony of American universities manifests itself in four areas: (a) as the center of research concentration and knowledge flow; (b) as the hub of global knowledge communication due to the global role of English; (c) as the attractor of global talent; and (d) as the exemplar of ideal practice (Marginson, 2008, pp. 308-311). Such characteristics are accepted by all, but there has been no discussion of how the hegemony of American universities is formed in the experiences of international students.

Academic power relations largely depend on who produces how much of the recognized academic capital. Academic capital is cultural capital produced and circulated in schools and academic circles (Bourdieu, 1996). In this article, it means acquisition of professional knowledge, an advanced degree (cultural capital in institutionalized form), English (cultural capital in embodied form), and academic competence. To Korean students, the process of earning this academic capital in American universities involves endless struggle, negotiation, and achievement, a tension exacerbated by the ambiguity that accompanies their in-between position as they move from Korean to American universities. Perceiving themselves as inferior subjects while they attend classes, fulfill teaching assistantship (TA) and research assistantship (RA) work obligations, and perform research, Korean students develop the image of a superior America opposed to an inferior Korea as they experience the excellence of American universities and their cultural leadership and as they meet the leading experts in their fields. At this point, I emphasize the fact that this hierarchy is formed through active and voluntary consent, which takes place in everyday life (Gramsci, 1988, p. 194). At the same time, the academic relations between Korea and the United States reinforce global hegemony because of systemic and cultural problems prevalent in Korean universities. In other words, the inferiority of the Korean university system, which features discrimination ruled by an academic caste system (Kim, 2011), sexism, domineering authority exercised by professors, and a clique culture, helps to highlight the moral and cultural leadership of American universities.

Research Method

Qualitative research is appropriate for a holistic understanding of complex issues as it not only interprets the meanings of the interviewee’s experience of a given situation but also connects these meanings with wider social contexts and structures. Through this process, it can reveal how interviewees understand and form their worldviews and how their perceptions interact with social structures. Qualitative interviews employ recursive, flexible, and ever-changing sets of questions (Creswell, 2007; Rubin & Rubin, 2005). Through flexible repetition of these questions, the interviewer obtains detailed information on the subject and conducts interviews until data reaches a saturation point and valuable insights are gained.

This study is based on interviews held over a 5.5-year period (from December 1999 to May 2005) in a research-centered university in the United States (dubbed Z University in this article) targeting Korean graduate students studying abroad. All interviewees had obtained bachelor’s or master’s degrees in Korea and then moved on to an American graduate school. I have tried to work with a diverse pool of students, considering many factors such as age, gender, major, and the Korean universities from which they graduated. The focus of the interviews was the motivation behind the decision to study abroad and the adaptation process; while their motivations were discussed in a previous article (Kim, 2011), this study pays more concerted attention to their everyday life experiences. Most interviews lasted 1 to 2 hr, but some lasted more than 2 hr. The interviews are open-ended, relying on a few main questions; they varied according to the interviewees’ background information because the interviewees described many dimensions of their lives in the United States. All 50 of the interviews were transcribed, and their learning experiences were classified by open coding. Because coding is highly dependent on the analyst’s subjective decision, the study was put through an elaboration process that involved reading transcriptions repeatedly.

Z University prioritizes research and ranks in the top 50 universities, according to the Shanghai Jia Tong University’s global university ranking. Z University ranks in the top 10 in the United States in terms of the number of doctoral degrees it grants. The faculty consists of 2,900 professors and 5,000 staff members. There are 30,000 undergraduates and 11,000 graduate students enrolled. Of them, a total of 4,900 international students make up 12% of the entire student body. Z University promotes globalization in both its student admissions and its academic exchange.

While this article relies primarily on the qualitative interviews described above, it also takes into consideration informal conversations between the interviewees and the interviewer, observations during the interviewing period, relevant references and statistics, and essays published about studying abroad. Qualitative interviews about studying abroad were processed under open coding, and the main subjects were classified according to academic relations. To understand the subjects’ learning experiences, both the spatial frame (transnational situations, the shift of environment from Korea to the United States, and the preformed habitus and collision with American culture) and the temporal frame (admissions, class time, exams, research, and obtaining the degree) were taken into consideration.

Findings

The learning experiences were largely divided into five categories: experience of the Korean university system in Korea, classroom experience in the United States, experience of the superiority of the U.S. university organization, the research process, and encounters with leading experts. This article focuses on how such learning experiences contribute to students’ formation of the hegemony of American universities. It should be noted that this process occurs when they acquire transnational perspectives comparing U.S. and Korean university systems and cultures.

Korean Students’ Experience of the Korean University System

Korean students’ learning experience in the United States depends on their learning experiences in Korea because their perceptions of U.S. graduate schools are constantly formed through their transnational or comparative perspectives on the two educational systems and by their desire to pursue the U.S. degree. First of all, learning culture in Korean universities has been greatly influenced by the U.S. university system. Almost all students stated that their undergraduate curricula adopted theories and methods developed from U.S. universities (see also Hanul Committee, 2003). For example, Hyunyoung (social work, female) told me that her undergraduate textbooks were based on the work of American scholars and she wanted to learn the principles of her field directly from its leading scholars; naturally, her desire led her to study in a U.S. graduate school. In addition, as a university in Korea has more prestige, it tends to hire U.S. doctorate holders rather than those from Korea and elsewhere. For instance, the majority of faculty members in Korea’s top three universities (Seoul National University, Yonsei University, and Korea University), as well as its leading science and engineering schools like POSTEC and the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, received their PhD degrees from the United States (Kim, 2011). Because many professors obtained their degrees from the United States, they tend to depict U.S. universities as an ideal place to study and recommend studying in the United States to students who can afford its cost. In general, a degree from the United States has much higher value than one from Korea.

Second, many students view Korean universities as places full of sexism and academic cliques where the academic capital is unsatisfactory in both quality and quantity. The academic world is described as “sewage” or “a mess.” Interviewees believed the Korean academy was undemocratic in three main ways. First, many female interviewees believed that the Korean university system was patriarchal because most faculty members are male and women have little chance of enjoying a successful academic career (see also Kim & Kim, 2003). Haemin (leisure studies, female) stated that she “hates” the Korean university system because she experienced daily discriminations. Her professors and seniors took care of male students in graduate school, but they treated female students as guests because they believed that females tend to quit academic careers for marriage and other reasons. Second, many complained about the authoritarian relationship between professors and students. In a Confucian society like Korea, students are more likely to be exploited by professors. For example, Minseok (leisure studies, male) confessed that he escaped from his Korean advisor and entered a U.S. graduate school because his professor was irrational and dominating, and exploited Minseok as labor for various projects. In addition, Korean professors’ teaching styles are more rigid and less tolerant than those of American professors. For instance, Yoonjung (piano, female) told me that her Korean professors demanded rote performance rather than allowing her to express individual style and interpretation but during her short visiting program in the United States she discovered that American professors were pleasant and professional, and therefore entered a U.S. graduate school.

Third, many students mentioned the so-called Hakbeol, a degree-caste system in Korea through which one’s lifelong earnings and status are dictated primarily by the status of one’s alma mater. Hakbeol influences one’s initial job, likelihood of promotion, rank, social network, and even one’s value in the marriage market (Lee, 2007). Koreans consider Seoul National University, Korea University, and Yonsei as the top three universities, while POSTEC and KAIST are regarded as the two leading science and engineering schools. Most parents and students perceive that failing to enter those schools diminishes one’s chances of attaining elite status in Korea. Earning a degree from less privileged colleges is regarded as a stigma for one’s entire life. Because more than 80% of high school students advance to tertiary education, one’s alma mater is crucial to one’s social position in Korea. Students who experience various types of discrimination in this degree-caste system state that getting an advanced degree in U.S. universities will cancel the stigma of their college degrees in Korea. For instance, Eunju (social work, female) stated that her 2-year college degree gave her less earning power and less chance of promotion in her workplace even though she did the same work as those who graduated from other colleges. Eunju expected that the U.S. degree would erase the low status of her Korean college degree.

These experiences in the Korean university system are connected with Korean students’ learning in U.S. universities because they influence their perception of U.S. academic culture and system in a transnational situation. At the same time, those experiences reinforce the global hegemony of U.S. universities because their experiences in Korea undermine Korean universities’ cultural and moral leadership, as I will explain later. In what follows, I describe Korean students’ learning experiences in U.S. graduate schools in detail.

Classroom Experience in the U.S. Graduate School: Becoming an Inferior Subject

Almost all Korean graduate students at Z University are excellent students and constitute the so-called distinguished elites and promising talent in Korea. Most have graduated from Korea’s most prestigious universities with outstanding grades. Even those who did not have the opportunity to attend a prestigious university belonged to the top echelon in their colleges and exhibit a strong passion for academic achievement. As the setting changes to American graduate schools, however, the same formerly elite students start to perceive themselves as inferior. This perception is not a reflection of American attitudes casting Korean students as inferior beings; instead, Korean students suffer this psychological shock because they start to realize that they no longer lead discussions or perform with distinction in classes as they did in Korea. In other words, Korean students perceive themselves as inferior not because of their abilities, but because of their transnational positioning. Recognition of themselves as inferior students begins in lectures.²

Lectures are the most prominent difficulty international students face in their first months of studying abroad. Most interviewees reported experiencing pain and misery in class, mostly due to their difficulty understanding English. Graduate school lectures largely take the form of a seminar, a setting that demands student participation. Ji-Sun (anthropology, female) points to debate in seminar classes as her worst memory of all.

Ji-Sun:

In class, something was being debated … It wasn’t even like I was determined to speak, but it was just so frustrating for a moment. The discussion … I started talking with a “well,” and back then, there weren’t that many international students in my class. About 1 to 3 per class of 20. It was a big class. Well, I started talking and then forgot. I didn’t know what to say. In the middle … So I got really, really agitated … so I just said, “I’m sorry. I forgot.” And then that was it. So everyone was tense and they were looking at me. It was embarrassing .… That experience haunted me all along …

Such painful experiences are common to international students. Because of the language problem, Korean students tend to be very passive in classes. Kyung-Hee (social work, female) described this pattern of passive response in class: “But at first, I think it was hard to be assertive. It made me feel unintelligent to admit, to admit that I don’t know it … . It wasn’t like that in Korea, but I felt stupid and things like that, so I couldn’t ask.” As shown in the case of Kyung-Hee, students who were very brilliant in Korea felt dumb in American classes, demonstrating the abrupt change in self-image in the new transnational situation. The experiences of Hee-Soo (social work, female) show how suddenly the sense of inferiority and frustration forms in such transnational situations.

Hee-Soo:

I was always ahead of everyone, so I thought I was really that good. Up until now, I thought I was good, but when I came here, I was the worst, the worst. This was really like being treated as an outsider … I’ve become an inferior student. That feeling, I really couldn’t do anything about it. I thought I was going to go into a depression, and then at first I was living in that small room, it was so oppressive… . When I was really stressed out I was afraid I would really go crazy (laughs) I thought I would just explode and lose my mind.

In addition to problems communicating in class, international students struggle with class readings and writing assignments. Jin-Hee (biology, female) confessed it was hard to prepare for classes because it took her so long to read papers. She said it depressed her to know that American students could perform the same task in a fraction of the time. Such difficulties in class are alleviated 1 to 2 years later as students gain experience and competence reading in English, but Korean students are still forced to accept the fact that they cannot express themselves as well as natives do. International students invent strategies to help them catch up in class, relying on trial and error before they adjust. They plan strategies for debates, such as preparing questions or practicing what to say beforehand. In addition, they receive help from classmates or fellow Korean students regarding lecture content. At the same time, they accept the fact that they cannot speak perfect English and that they cannot lead the class as they did in Korea. Joo-Hwan (labor and employment relations, male) said “I now accept my limitations,” and regrets he can’t speak as well as a native does no matter how hard he tries. Sometimes international students joke in self-mockery: “I should have been born in the United States”; “I don’t know why my parents didn’t have me in the United States.” Kyu-Min (chemistry, male) declared he had no choice but to accept his “handicap” as a foreigner, adding that “Blaming the whole thing on being a foreigner and not being able to speak English is just a waste of time and depresses me.” Accepting the limitations and the handicap means accepting one’s place, one that is destined not to meet the standards set by American students and the professors. Formation of this new self-image is a very dramatic experience in their academic careers. Many students are tortured by a situation in which they must accept their inferiority and cope with reality by accepting their place in the back rows of the educational system.

Dependent Academic Relations: Relations With Professors and Fellow Students

Graduate school education seeks to cultivate researchers who create knowledge, but the ability to create knowledge depends on the quality and quantity of academic capital the student is given (Bourdieu, 1996; Collins, 1998). Simply put, the more qualified professors there are, the stronger the possibility of cultivating excellent students will be. Such chances provided by the educational system, along with everyday student–professor academic interactions, are important factors in cultivating competent researchers.

Korean students most often come into contact with American professors in courses or labs. Many international students are deeply touched by how meticulous and sincere their professors are, and often form their evaluations of American professors by comparing them with Korean professors. For example, Bo-Bae (music, female) described her experience with Korean and American professors by saying “that’s so big a difference; it’s like heaven and earth”; in Korea, she said, the professors were frequently late for classes, and published class times and schedules were changed according to the professor’s needs. In contrast, many American professors care for each individual student and explain their rationales and theories in practice sessions. Bo-Bae praised her American professor as “very academic” and directly criticized Korean professors for not being so. The expression “heaven and earth” used by Bo-Bae demonstrates the profound difference between American and Korean universities perceived by Korean students studying in the United States. It also shows how these students accord legitimacy to the academic ethos and norms of American universities as they retrospectively criticize the legitimacy and value of academic activities in Korean universities. Those comparisons create respect for American higher education and academic activities, and the students willingly accept the moral leadership of American universities. As another example of this difference, Hyung-Woo (sociology, male) remarked that he was surprised that one of his professors marked every error in his paper with a red pen: this passionate response stood in marked contrast to his experience in Korea, where professors were too busy to take a look at his papers.

For graduate students, the relationship with the academic adviser is supremely important. Just as any graduate student would do, Korean students consider several factors when choosing their adviser, including their field of study, the funding allotted to the professor, the professor’s stature in his or her field, and the professor’s personality. Of these factors, Korean students often place most weight on the professor’s personality because they need someone to lead them along. Kyu-Min (mechanical science and engineering, male) said, “In the case of international students, research is important, too, but such things as the professor’s personality are important … It’s important how much the professor cares for and understands the students,” thereby affirming how the students’ foreigner status affects the choice of the academic adviser. International students generally agree that American academic advisers are more passionate than those in Korea about guiding their students. Such academic passion is possible only through everyday interaction with an excellent professor; because Korean academic activity is peripheral in most fields, the chances of developing such a relationship are very low. Interaction with outstanding professors reinforces the excellence and hegemony of American universities.

All the same, international students sometimes experience problems with communication, unclear expectations and directions, and neglect in their relationships with their professors (Adrian-Taylor, Noels, & Tischler, 2007; Trice, 2003). In addition, many international students claim they have been discriminated against by their professors. For example, Ye-Jin (communication, female) claimed her professor favored American students over her and never even looked at her papers. Others indicated that their professors responded impatiently to international students’ slow progress and disdained them.

Peer relations are considerably important to international students. Classmates not only help with class work and other academic activities but also provide emotional support in times of distress. Korean students categorize their fellow students in 3 groups: the Americans, the Koreans, and the “Internationals” (students from other countries). In general, Korean students are more comfortable with other international students than with Americans and most comfortable with other Koreans because of the ease of communicating with students who share the native language and are going through similar experiences. Some international students, however, do receive help from their American friends. Ah-Seung (dance, female) and Ji-Hyuk (communication, male) said their American friends proofread their papers for them. Han-Soo said he naturally bonded with his American friends over beer and sports. International students obtain information directly related to class from American classmates, who have better access to information. Unofficial information on graduate school life, such as advice on how to survive work as a teaching or research assistant and informal ratings of professors, comes from American classmates. Even so, Korean students still have a strong tendency to consider themselves outsiders in their classes. International students often experience racial discrimination from American students: Dae-Hee (chemistry, male) reported that a coworker at his lab mistreated him and even threw objects at him. Joining other “international” students, Korean students sometimes form study groups to help each other with homework and study for tests. The same groups often meet for beer, movies, sports, and games.

However, the most important support comes from the Korean student body. Korean classmates in the same major are especially important for class. In the first few years of studying abroad, students obtain general information and advice from more advanced Korean students about courses, professors, social life, TAs, RAs, and paper-writing tactics. More advanced Korean students also provide the kind of emotional stability and fellowship that is possible only among people who share similar experiences. If the academic advisers direct course work, Korean upper-class men guide overall life. Other international students, who are considered marginal when compared to their American classmates, form a fellowship of the weak with Koreans whom they have met for the first time in a distant land.

Exploring Amidst Global Academic Order: The Research Process

Korean graduate students also encounter the hegemony of American universities during their research. Because the United States is the center of research and the hub of knowledge communication, Korean students are always alert to the newest trends in American research. Even when choosing a research topic or method, they take into consideration the academic atmosphere in the United States and Korea, their own academic strengths and weaknesses as researchers, and the job market. The global role of English pertains to their field of research because publication in a prestigious English journal is often a prerequisite for earning an academic position. During the process of preparing the journal manuscript, the advice coming from the academic adviser is absolute. Korean students also regard symposiums held in the United States as opportunities to create and reinforce social networks. In these elements of the research experience, Korean students realize, once again, that they are marginal.

Once students have completed coursework and passed the primary exams and the final exam, they carry on to their next step, the dissertation. In the humanities, where professors have less influence, students have more free time to become independent scholars. In the sciences, however, the professor has a much greater influence because of the close relation between the experiment and the entire project. When choosing their field of research, Korean students consider many factors, but the most important fact is that they are stuck between two countries. The ambiguity and stress of their in-between position is amplified when the student is a humanities major, when his or her major is still new or its market is too small in Korea, when the paper has nothing to do with the academic adviser’s project, and when the student has changed majors after coming to the United States. Thus the research process should be understood in terms of transnational academic situations. Chang-Woo (social work, male) said he is worried about whether his research had market value in Korea or the United States. Chang-Woo’s subdiscipline has not yet been established as a recognized field in Korea, and he questions whether his work will be accepted back in Korea. Other students also reported worrying about whether they would stay in the United States or go back to Korea permanently.

Because they are labeled as foreigners, international students frequently change their research area or methods. Se-Rim (human resources and development, female) recognized her comparatively poor command of English, took her market value in the United States into consideration, and switched from qualitative research to quantitative research. When Se-Rim first encountered qualitative research in English in the United States, she realized that it was too hard for her and switched to quantitative research.

Se-Rim:

Sometimes when I transcribe, I can’t understand. Then I have to listen to it again and again, and it takes a long time. And then when I write up papers, I start writing with a definite idea in my head but that idea is not as good as my American classmates. With my classmates … I think this is a big gap. And it was really hard to contact people. There, I had to make this connection and contact people but that didn’t happen, ever … Imagine this interview was held in English—I couldn’t speak like this. Koreans, well, they just meet a dead end like that. Oh, if I’m going to get a job in the United States, well, then it would be better to handle data than this … Instead of contacting everyone one by one, I thought it would be better to sit in the office and do this and that with the given data, it would be better, it would be a way … that’s what I thought, so I chose quantitative research.

For the same reason, Min-Gu (human resources and development, male) chose quantitative research, which is popular in both Korea and the United States and is also advantageous for international students. Because Korean students are relatively better at statistics and math than students of other nationalities, they tend to choose quantitative fields where they enjoy a relative advantage. Most science and engineering majors also consider both the Korean and American market when making decisions about their careers. Dong-Hoon (computer science, male) worries because his field of research involves simulation and prediction using super computers, a field not yet developed fully in Korea. For that reason, he is looking for a job in the United States. In the same way, science and engineering majors are always cognizant of the subdisciplines that are popular in Korea and of how much market value their major will have in the future.

Humanities majors sometimes experience confusion when they apply academic theories and methods of American universities to Korean contexts. Jin-Hyun (communication, male) said that there is a problem with the Korean community of intellectuals using the same theories and methods as in American universities and warned that Korean intellectuals and students alike tend to apply western theories and methods without considering local contexts. His remarks point to a dilemma that Korean students conducting research face because of their in-between position: as they develop a transnational perspective on their own work, they confront discomfort and ambiguity in their research process. As a result, while continuously feeling confused by the discrepancy between the academic cultures of the United States and Korea, they compromise with a variety of academic powers.

Experiencing the Superiority of the U.S. University Organization

Most Korean students describe the excellence of American universities by comparing it to the experience they had in Korean universities. The excellence of American universities described by their professors and the media in Korea is confirmed by the experience of studying in the United States. It should be noted that Korean universities are not inherently inadequate; in global rankings that evaluate universities in the context of the host nation’s economic capacity, their standing is relatively good. All the same, while U.S. universities account for more than half of the top 100 in global rankings, no Korean universities belong in this category, according to the Shanghai Jiao Tong University ranking, which emphasizes research capability more than other rankings do (Marginson, 2006, 2008). Inevitably, Korean students compare “one of the best research universities in the world” to a “relatively good” Korean university. As they make this comparison, the hierarchical order produced by global rankings, along with the attendant distribution of power, is perceived by Korean students as an obvious, commonsense calculation.

Korean students agreed that Z University’s organization, facilities, and culture are all superior to those found in Korean universities. Many students had graduated from Korea’s most prestigious colleges, but they agreed that even the best university in Korea could not compete with Z University. Because science and engineering majors spend most of their time in the lab, the facilities and organizational structure greatly affect their research. They all compare the excellent American lab system to the unsatisfactory one in Korean labs. The American university’s labs feature expensive equipment, which makes it easier to schedule the experiments, as well as plenty of labor, which facilitates the smooth progress of the experiments.

Ji-Sung (mechanical science and engineering, male):

When you first make the equipment, when you first set it up, that’s the most difficult part. But in Korea, one student has to do every single step.

Author:

A graduate student?

Ji-Sung:

The graduate students has to well, set it up, be in charge of the materials, manage the money, everything. But here it’s just so simple. There’s a person who manages money …

Author:

Like a secretary … ?

Ji-Sung:

The secretary manages the money … The setting is done by the engineer when we contact him. When he does it for us, he does a good job so we have no problem with the experiment.

Author:

In Korea, there’s no one to ask, right? About how to set things up?

Ji-Sung:

You do it all alone. And then you graduate.

Ji-Sung extolled the American lab system because it frees him to “completely focus on research only.” Most Korean students who have participated in experiments at Z University said that such a system is unimaginable in Korea. Sung-Jun (mathematics, male) doesn’t participate in experiments but was awed by other facilities such as the library and gym. He appreciated the 37 libraries on campus and the millions of volumes of books; he also appreciated the fact that most journal papers are in electronic form, enabling easy search. In addition, the recreational facilities built for students’ leisure and exercise cannot be found in Korea. Most international students are satisfied with the quality of facilities such as the labs, the libraries, and the gyms.

In addition, international students also frequently mention the specialization of expertise displayed by American professors, a system they admire. At bottom, the transmission of learning depends on the quantity and quality of academic resources: the more qualified professors there are, the better the chances of transmitting quality scientific knowledge. Dong-Hoon, who has graduated from Korea’s most prestigious engineering college, pointed out that there were only 30 professors in his Korean school, compared to the 50 in Z University. Because the professors’ subdisciplines are more specialized, Z University students can choose from a broader range of studies and future careers. Chung-Hee (music, female), who majors in wind music, confirmed that the music professors at Z University are much more specialized, which enables in-depth education.

Chung-Hee:

Well, here, there is the flute professor, oboe professor, everyone. But there are none in Korea. At the school I attended before, there were just two strings professors, like that. All the others were part-time instructors. The flute was taught by a part-time instructor. So there wasn’t much interaction … Here everything is more subdivided. There’s a piano professor, one for violin, one for viola, there’s one for each instrument …

Author:

Then what about the wind instruments?

Chung-Hee:

Here there’s one for flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon, horn, saxophone, trumpet, trombone, tuba—some even have two. So there are a total of 10.

Because the Z University department of music employs a number of professors with specific expertise, Chung-Hee could avail herself of an in-depth education. The size of its faculty, the variety of specialized expertise offered by its professors, and the close interaction between the faculty and their students all make the American university superior. It is important to note that the perception international students form about the global order distinguishing Korean from American universities is something that they had not directly experienced before. This perception highlights not only the excellence of American universities but also the inferiority of Korean ones. When students attended Korean universities, they accepted those universities’ culture and structure without question. When they subsequently attend an American university, however, they begin to question their previous university environment. Thus, to international students who have experienced the superiority of the American university system, the structural and cultural inferiority in Korean universities is revealed. On the other hand, they perceive educational experiences in the American university as something positive, and this leads to naturalization of the hegemony and superiority of the American universities.

Meeting the Leading Expert and Participating in the Academic Community: Participating in and Experiencing the Expert Community

The academic world and its intellectuals are ranked in tiers of prestige to form a pyramid. The elite at the top of each academic field make up a very small group, an inner core of no more than 1% to 2% of all academics or researchers in their field, but they produce about 25% of all papers in that field. The outer core group, which constitutes about 20% of the academic community, still plays a pivotal role in academic activities, while the remaining 75% to 80% of the community is composed of transient researchers who work for only a few years and then switch to another field or give up (Collins, 1998, p. 43). This pyramidal order occurs because the attention researchers can give to others’ work in any given field of study is limited. Research-centered American universities are home to many leading experts. Contact with such scholars stimulates academic passion. The leading experts of American universities have produced the hegemony of American universities; they reinforce it through their daily interactions with international students.

In the interviews, Korean students repeatedly referred to the privilege of meeting leading experts and members of the academic elite whom they couldn’t meet back in Korea. Because such experience is rare in Korea, they take pride in being part of an American university, a global hub for research. Ah-Seung (dance, female) reported that when a leading expert in the history of dance came as a guest speaker, she was tremendously excited.

Ah-Seung:

That I saw Merce Cunningham … I could live in Korea forever and never see him. No, never. I just saw him and got so excited I was just crying … I saw somebody in history … I could see him because I came to the United States. … The joy was overwhelming. It was fascinating … When I was in Korea, this book and I were in different worlds … In a real history book … Just like you would learn Korean history, a person in history … His dances, we could only see on video … although he’s still alive, we learned of him as if he had passed away. But when I came here I could see him and I could even talk to him. I can not only read about his intentions in books but I can speak with him.

To Ah-Seung, Merce Cunningham is a “person you can’t ever see in Korea”; her expression stresses the point that Korea is a marginal area in dance. In contrast, the American university becomes an ideal and sacred place offering the chance to meet leading experts “you can’t ever see.” Because Ah-Seung could “even talk to” this legendary figure, she could form an entirely new perspective on the relationship between the legend and herself, between his work and herself, and between the history of dance and herself: In short, Ah-Seung felt that she had been admitted to the global academic system. In other words, meeting with the leading experts not only reminds the students of the fact that the United States is the global center of education and learning but also is seen as a privilege granted only to those who attend American graduate schools. In such a process, the global hegemony is not only recognized by reason but also reinforced by emotional experiences.

Sung-Jun (mathematics, male) said that meeting the leading experts and “just … being able to participate at the same level” is a very important part of research. One can ask any questions via e-mail to the leading experts, learn from their research, and most importantly initiate the process of becoming a member of a community of experts. As the result of such relations with experts, Korean graduate students can identify the most recent and promising areas of research as well as develop social resources and networks.

Two factors—its role as the hub for academic exchange and the position of English as the global language—help maintain the hegemony of American universities and education. Korean students participate in and experience the network of experts not only through guest visits to the host university but also by traveling to conferences. As their own research progresses, graduate students are given the opportunity to present their work in conferences, and on those occasions they meet many scholars and fellow researchers. Jin-Hyun (communication, male) said that he was deeply impressed by the ability to meet people whom he had only read about before at conferences, and said that this influenced his study.

Jin-Hyun:

I could meet famous scholars in conferences whose works I had the chance to read, and as I said before there’s a certain kind of joy in meeting people you’ve only read about. Another is that there is this kind of influence they have when you read their excellent work. So in that respect it was a very meaningful experience.

There are many benefits to interacting with leading experts or researchers in the early stages of an academic career. First, graduate students can learn about innovative, state-of-the-art research; second, such encounters help them to imagine becoming similarly successful researchers. Through these interactions, the Koreans students gain the opportunity to promote their research projects and join a global network of experts.

Korean students also come into contact with networks of professionals by participating in research projects extending beyond the borders of their host university. In most cases, these projects are linked to their own labs and academic adviser. For example, Kang-Il (aerospace engineering, male) said that he enjoyed the opportunity to work with experts at NASA. In addition to the fact that this kind of opportunity was impossible in Korea, he benefited from the chance to observe the organization and culture of the experts he worked with and learn from the interactions among them. He also emphasized that his work with NASA made for an invaluable addition to his resume. Dong-Hoon (computer science, male) had a chance to visit a company in Silicon Valley that had connections to his academic adviser and was also sent to another big colab for computer simulation. Through such experiences, he could learn how his field of research applies in the real world and get to know a network of experts outside the school.

Finally, international students submit the fruit of their research to journals and receive evaluations to become admitted to the expert community. Writing up the research is one of the most difficult steps and many Korean students reported feeling stress because of their poor English. International students agree that English is difficult beyond description. Dae-Hee (chemistry, male) was deeply hurt, for example, when his academic adviser pointed out every mistake in his paper with a red pen. Many international students have seen their mistakes in expression pointed out when they submitted articles to journals; they are set back once again because of their difficulties mastering English. Even in the process of submitting to journals and receiving evaluations, international students are reminded that they are marginal in the field.

Discussion

This article has showed how Korean graduate students in the United States simultaneously display struggle, negotiation, and achievement, during which they experience continuous ambiguity, chaos, and in-betweenness. These contradictory learning experiences should be understood in terms of a transnational educational system in which global production and consumption of knowledge and degree operate in multiple power relations in educational fields. First, Korean students’ experiences of the Korean university system demonstrate the American hegemony through which theories, methods, and academic discourses are taught, circulated, and learned in Korean universities. In addition, Korean students mentioned that this American hegemony works hand in hand with organizational and cultural contradictions in the Korean university system, where a caste system of degrees, gender inequality, an authoritarian culture, and nepotism prevail. For example, women or graduates of less prestigious schools regard Korean colleges with hate and contempt and extol the virtues of American colleges. Those who have been subordinate in Korea praise the ethical and cultural leadership of American institutions even more. Often, American universities are described as an ideal place for research and education. In other words, the absence of moral and cultural leadership in the Korean university system solidifies the global hegemony of American universities. In this respect, the global hegemony of American university involves complex global/national/local interactions.

When Korean students begin their studies in U.S. graduate schools, their social status and identity as Korea’s elite change dramatically. They perceive themselves as inferior beings in everyday life and accept their handicap as their fate. Thus the Korean students fashion a form of subalternity for themselves. It should be noted that they are not inferior per se, but their transnational movements from Korea to the United States actively produce this self-perception. In the classroom, they could not articulate their ideas in front of classmates and professors. Their lack of legitimate linguistic and cultural capital makes Korean students more subordinated to professors and more dependent on their classmates. During their research experiences, Korean students are also located in contradictory transnational situations. When they choose research topics, they consider academic job markets, field size, audience, and the topics’ relative popularity in the United States and Korea. In this process, many students choose fields that match their research strengths. For instance, more students tend to choose quantitative methodology because of their limited linguistic capital and strong math skills. Most humanities and social science students are worried about the contradictions between U.S. theories and methods and the Korean contexts they have studied. But how do Korean students endure, and in fact actively accept, their subordination and subalternity? Why do they endure negative experiences in U.S. graduate schools? I suggest two points, highlighting the global hierarchy of higher education (the superiority of U.S. university compared to Korean universities) on one hand and the transnational positionality of Korean students on the other. In other words, their negative experiences are compensated by two things: the excellence of the U.S. university system and the value of the U.S. degree they will obtain.

First, Korean students’ contradictory and negative experiences in U.S. graduate schools coexist with strong and positive feelings about the U.S. university system produced primarily by their comparative or transnational perspective on U.S. and Korean systems. As already mentioned, Korean students are highly critical of their country’s universities where sexism, a degree caste system, and U.S. theories and methods dominate. Judging from their own experiences in Korea, the Korean students are very satisfied by the quantity and quality of the academic capital offered by American professors, by the excellence of the infrastructure, by their meetings with leading experts, by the well-developed research networks, and by the ethos and norms of American academic activities. Because of such experiences, they regard American universities as the ideal place for academic activities and accept the academic norms of American universities as the universal reference point. The feelings Korean students have toward American universities and academics include respect, praise, honor, and love.

Second, we should understand the multiple but contradictory positionings of Korean students. It is important to consider whether Korean students actively accept the global hegemony of American universities without any critical thought. As argued by James Scott (1985, 1990), subjects of dominance do not completely succumb to the hegemony but instead continuously find their own ways of fighting against it where they are not in plain sight. As a demonstration of this point, the Korean students I interviewed criticized American professors, faculty members, and peers for discriminating against themselves and expressed outrage at their actions. Also, Korean students, especially those majoring in the humanities, criticize the imperialistic aspects of American universities revealed by the lack of active participation in the global political issues of our time on the scholars’ part and by the conservative culture in American universities. As I was conducting these interviews, international students witnessing the war against Iraq and Afghanistan held critical opinions about the American universities that failed to express strong opposition. Despite these critical opinions, no active foreign students’ group protests took place. This is precisely because of their position as foreigners who cannot express political opinions freely; furthermore, they lack the time or the energy to devote to political activity. Moreover, the academic resources (professional knowledge, mastery of English, and the advanced degree) are very valuable to their lives. The tuition fees, the time it takes to obtain a degree (in the case of the doctorate, from at least 4 to at most 10 years), the sacrifice and expectation coming from their families, the emotional investment and exhaustion, and their passion and aspiration for academics are all reasons to endure any discrimination or contempt that comes their way.

However, one can question whether the Korean students can be accurately defined as subaltern. Here, it should be noted that the polycentric transnational relationship allows flexibility in the positionality of Korean students. In the context of the global hierarchy of higher education, Korean students are a dominated group lacking legitimate cultural capital or habitus in American universities. However, they are originally elite in Korea and are very likely to enjoy continued elite status when they return with their American degrees. Thus, as Scott (1990, p. 82) stated, the Korean students gladly accept the discrimination and state of being dominated because of the hope and possibility that one day they will dominate. By their calculations, even if they are dominated in American universities, they will be dominant in Korean settings. To Korean students, an American degree, professional knowledge, and mastery of English are all necessary for occupying a dominant position in the Korean university system and culture. That’s the rule of the game. Amidst the current expansion of the global network in Korean universities, where evaluation centers on the publication of papers in English and on increasing the number of lectures delivered in English, the Korean students who obtained their professional degrees in the United States are more likely to enshrine the academic capital they acquired in the U.S. universities, instead of rejecting its values and legitimacy. This is why Korean students as academic subalterns succumb to the global hegemony of American universities through their voluntary and active consent and participation.

This study has examined how global knowledge and language power relations shape foreign students’ learning processes in the U.S. research university in terms of a transnational educational perspective. Beyond a functionalist perspective that primarily focuses on the socialization processes of graduate students, it has taken a critical stance examining how multiple knowledge and linguistic power relations in global education system operate at the micro level or in daily interactions. Korean graduate students internalize the superiority of the American university system and the inferiority of the Korean university system as they rely on the comparative perspective they gained in their transnational educational experience. The organizational excellence of the American university system, its superior academic ethos and norms, and the hope of interaction with celebrated scholars all demonstrate how the global hegemony of American university system is daily embodied in Korean students. But I have also argued that the inner contradiction of Korean educational systems also contribute to the solidification of this American hegemony. In other words, multiple dimensions of education—the global level, the national level, and the local level—operate not separately, but instead simultaneously, throughout the educational experiences of Korean students. Thus, global, national, and local interactions and dynamics should be considered to fully understand foreign students’ learning experiences in the global educational field. Future studies on studying abroad need to examine how various power relations conjoin in transnational learning and teaching, and how they dynamically generate academic domination beyond the functionalist approach.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author is very grateful to all interviewees for sharing their stories on studying abroad. Without their kindness and sincerity, this research would not be possible. The author also wishes to thank the sociology students in Kyung Hee University who helped transcribe all interviews in detail, and Gardner Rogers who edited this article. Finally, the author thanks the anonymous referees for their valuable comments and criticisms.

Author’s Note

This article draws on prior work published in Korea (Kim, 2010).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the Kyung Hee University Fund in 2010 (KHU-20100666).

Notes

Bio

Jongyoung Kim is an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology at Kyung Hee University, Seoul, South Korea. His research interests include globalization and education, science and technology studies, and cultural studies.

References

Adrian-Taylor

Noels

Tischler

(2007). Conflict between international students and faculty supervisors: Towards effective conflict prevention and management strategies. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(1), 90-117.

Asteris

(2006). British universities: The “coal exporters” of the 21st Century. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10, 224-240.

Bartram

(2007). The sociocultural needs of international students in higher education: A comparison of staff and student views. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(2), 205-214.

Bourdieu

(1996). The state nobility ( Clough

, Trans.) Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Brown

(2008). The incidence of study-related stress in international students in the initial stage of the international sojourn. Journal of Studies in International Education,12(1), 5-28.

Brown

Holloway

(2008). The adjustment journey of international postgraduate students at an English university. Journal of Research in International Education, 7(2), 232-249.

Butcher

(2002). A grief observed: Grief experiences of East Asian international students returning to their countries of origin. Journal of Studies in International Education,6, 354-368.

Campbell

(2008). Asians students’ voices: An empirical study of Asian students’ learning experiences at a New Zealand university. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12, 375-396.

Carr

McKay

Rugimbana

(1999). Managing Australia’s aid- and self-funded international students. International Journal of Educational Management, 13, 167-172.

10.

Chin

Bhandari

(2006). Open doors 2006: Report on international education exchange. New York, NY: Institute of International Education.

11.

Coley

(1999). The English language entry requirements of Australian universities for students of non-English speaking background. Higher Education Research & Development,18(1), 7-17.

12.

Collins

(1998). The sociology of philosophies: A global theory of intellectual change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

13.

Creswell

(2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage.

14.

Gramsci

(1988). The Antonio Gramsci reader ( Forgacs

, Ed.). New York: New York University Press.

15.

Grayson

(2008). The experience and outcomes of domestic and international students at four Canadian universities. Higher Education Research and Development,27, 215-230.

16.

Green

Kim

(2005). Experiences of Korean female doctoral students in academe: Raising voice against gender and racial stereotypes. Journal of College Student Development,46, 487-500.

17.

Habu

(2000). The irony of globalization: The experience of Japanese women in British higher education. Higher Education,39, 43-66.

18.

Hanassab

(2006). Diversity, international students, and perceived discrimination: Implications for educators and counselors. Journal of Studies in International Education,10, 157-172.

19.

Hanul Committee. (2003). The United States in our studies: Critical reflections on transplantation of American research paradigm into Korea. Seoul, South Korea: Hanul Academy. (in Korean)

20.

Kim

(2007). Difficulties in quality doctoral academic advising: Experiences of Korean students. Journal of Research in International Education, 6, 171-193.

21.

Kim

(2010). Migukdaehakui global hegemoniui ilsangjuk chehwa (Daily embodiment of the global hegemony of American universities). Economy and Society, 85, 237-264. (in Korean)

22.

Kim

(2011). Aspiration for global cultural capital in the stratified realm of global higher education: Why do Korean students go to US graduate school? British Journal of Sociology of education, 32(1), 109-126.

23.

Kim

(2003). Experiences of female doctorate holders in the faculty job market and strategies to address the obstacles. Korean Journal of Sociology of Education, 13(3), 21-44. (in Korean)

24.

Lee

(2005). A traveler’s tale: The experience of study in a foreign language (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

25.

Lee

(2007). A study on “Hakbeloism” and class conflict in Korean society. Korean Journal of Sociology of Education, 17(4), 63-85. (in Korean)

26.

Lee

Wesche

(2000). Korean students’ adaptation to post-secondary studies in Canada: A Case study. Canadian Modern Language Review,56, 637-689.

27.

Lee

Shouse

(2008). Is education fever treatable: Case studies of first-year Korean students in an American university. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy,5(2), 113-132.

28.

Marginson

(2006). Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education. Higher Education, 52, 1-39.

29.

Marginson

(2008). Global field and global imagining: Bourdieu and worldwide higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29, 303-315.

30.

Marginson

van der Wende

(2006). To rank or to be ranked: The impact of global ranking in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11, 303-315.

31.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2004). Internationalization and trade in higher education: Opportunities and challenges. Paris, France: Author.

32.

Ramsay

Barker

Jones

(1999). Academic adjustment and learning processes. Higher Education Research & Development, 18(1), 129-144.

33.

Rizvi

(2005). International education and the production of cosmopolitan identities, in Arimoto

Huang

Yokoyama

(Eds.), Globalization and Higher Education (pp. 77-92). Hiroshima, Japan: Hiroshima University.

34.

Rubin

(2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage.

35.

Sawir

Marginson

Deumert

Nyland

Ramia

(2008). Loneliness and international students: An Australian study. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12, 148-180.

36.

Scott

(1985). Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of peasant resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

37.

Scott

(1990). Domination and the arts of resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

38.

Simpson

Tan

(2009). A home away from home: Chinese student evaluation of an overseas study experience. Journal of Studies in International Education,13(1), 5-21.

39.

Smith

(2007). Globalization and desire: A case study of international graduate student education in literacy studies. Journal of Studies in International Education,11(1), 54-72.

40.

Tatar

(2005). Classroom participation by international students: The case of Turkish graduate students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 9, 337-355.

41.

Trice

(2003). Faculty perception of graduate international students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7, 379-403.

42.

Trice

(2004). Mixing it up: International graduate students’ social interactions with American students. Journal of College Student Development, 45, 671-687.

43.

Wang

(2009). A study of resiliency characteristics in the adjustment of international graduate students at American universities. Journal of Studies in International Education,13(1), 22-45.