검색 상세

International Students as Public Diplomacy Agents : A Comparative Study of Scholarship and Self-Funded Students’ Experiences in South Korea

장학금 수혜 유학생과 자비유학생의 한국 국가이미지 비교: 공공외교 수단으로서의 한국형 장학프로그램

  • Jiin Park (박지인, 국제대학원 국제학과 국제개발협력전공)

초록/요약

This study compares whether South Korea’s government scholarship schemes (KOICA and GKS) generate stronger improvements in international students’ perceptions of Korea than self-funded study. Using Buhmann and Ingenhoff’s four-dimensional country image model (functional, normative, aesthetic, emotional), a retrospective pre–post survey was conducted with 100 international students in Korea in 2025. Results show that both groups held favorable views of Korea, but scholarship recipients reported a larger positive shift, especially when financial, administrative, and cultural support was provided. The findings suggest that scholarship-based mobility can serve as an effective public diplomacy and knowledge diplomacy instrument for South Korea.

more

초록/요약

이 연구는 한국 정부의 장학 프로그램(KOICA, GKS)이 자비유학생에 비해 유학생의 한국 국가이미지를 더 긍정적으로 변화시키는지를 비교한 것이다. Buhmann & Ingenhoff의 4차원(기능·규범·심미·감정) 국가이미지 모형을 적용해 2025년 한국에 체류 중인 유학생 100명을 대상으로 회고적 사전–사후 설문을 실시하였다. 분석 결과 두 집단 모두 한국에 대해 우호적이었으나, 장학금 수혜 집단이 자비유학생보다 이미지 상승 폭이 더 컸고, 특히 생활·문화적 지원이 있는 경우 효과가 뚜렷했다. 이는 장학 기반 유학이 공공외교·지식외교 수단으로서 실질적 성과를 낼 수 있음을 시사한다.

more

목차

ABSTRACT i
국문초록 ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES v
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Korea’s Public Diplomacy and Knowledge Diplomacy 1
1.2 Problem Statement 2
1.3 Research Question and Hypotheses 4
1.4 Significance of the Study 5
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 7
2.1 Scholarship Programs as Public Diplomacy Instruments 7
2.1.1 KOICA Programs as Scholarship Diplomacy Examples 8
2.1.2 GKS Programs as Scholarship Diplomacy Examples 9
2.1.3 Comparison of Scholarship Recipients and Self-Funded Students 10
2.2 Country Image and Buhmann & Ingenhoff's 4D Model 11
2.3 Demographic Factors and Country Image 13
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 17
3.1 Survey Design and Comparison Between Groups 17
3.2 Analysis 18
CHAPTER 4. FINDINGS 21
4.1 Sample Profile 21
4.2 Overall Comparison by Funding Status 22
4.3 Subgroup Results by Funding Status 25
4.4 Dimensional-level Analysis 27
4.5 Item-Level Analysis of the 4D Country Image Scale 31
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION 36
CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION 38
REFERENCES 40
APPENDICES 44
A. Survey Questions 44
B. OLS regression summaries (HC3 robust SE) 52

more
반출 Meta View 목록