K-Pop and Education Migration to Korea in the Digitalised COVID-19 Era

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript tackles one of the interesting issues related to the relationship between the global popularity and perception of cultural content as a factor in the decision-making process of educational mobility, particularly deciding on the destination country.  Given the recently increased presence of international students in many universities in South Korea, this study's questions are appropriate and valuable to studies in the relevant fields.

     However, this manuscript can be improved by clarifying and elaborating a few points. Firstly, one of the parts that this paper needs to elaborate, pertains to the nationality or region of international students that this paper focuses on. This research seems to reveal the nationality or region of interviewees rather randomly. While the majority of the interviewees seem to come from South Asian countries such as Myanmar and the Philippines, this paper does not specifically tell which regions or countries international students in South Korea come from. This lack of information or insensitivity to the students’ nationality is hard to ignore. It needs to be revised and elaborated by providing more specific information regarding the basic patterns of the increase of international students in terms of their region or nationality in South Korea. I think that revealing both the nationality(or region) of all interviewees and more specific information about the region and nationality of international students, who recently moved to South Korea for their education, might strengthen some of the arguments of this research.

     Secondly, considering this study is based on in-depth interviews as a qualitative method, I was not convinced that this study provides detailed enough information and nuanced insights into the often complex decision-making processes by international students in South Korea in choosing the destination country for their study abroad. For example, what mainly motivates students’ choice of the region and country for their study abroad, other than economic factors? Is it more likely aspiration or strategic career consideration? When they decided, were there any other choices of countries? What are the relative merits of South Korea as a destination country compared to other countries, such as Japan, Hong Kong, Australia, or Singapore, and more extensively, UK and US? In addition, what kinds of expectations or considerations, not just perception or cultural familiarity with Korean content, did they have? In short, even though the cultural familiarity or factors become important, it is still a complex process. The decision-making processes are never linear or one-dimensional, and cannot be generalized regardless of their countries, regions, economic status, gender, etc. In this sense, this manuscript would greatly benefit from providing thicker descriptions of the complex decision-making processes.

   Finally, allow me to provide a list of the line numbers that need revision, elaboration, or clarification.

• (Related to the first point mentioned above) Line #27 to #30: I think the increase of international students needs to be broken down in terms of countries or regions. This is almost essential in that the interviewees in this research seem to be from mostly Asian countries. I wonder how much the increased number of international students from Asia (or even specific Asian countries)  is accountable for the entire number.
• Line #263 (as well as Line #183): I am not sure that “innocence” is the right choice of words, given that the 4.1 section mostly discusses narratives, visual allure, and a positive fan-idol dynamic. What this “innocence” means is confusing. While innocence sometimes seems to refer to perception (mostly of the interviewees), it also refers to more than perception, for instance, marketing, or media management strategy by K-pop singers and their agencies, when the 4.1 section talks about fan-idol interaction and their multiple presence in other shows and dramas.     
• Line #352 to #354: the sentence deserves some reference or specific evidence. It needs to clarify how much the introduction of specialized fandom platforms is responsible for the expansion of the transnational fandom communities. 

Author Response

Pls see the attached file below 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present study reports the major factors of K-pop which promote education migration to South Korea. There has been a noticeable increase in research on Korean wave in the last several years, but as the author(s) note, limited research has examined the role of K-pop on an increase in education migration. I therefore enjoyed reading the paper and believe that it has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to the field of Korean Wave research. Given the growing ubiquity of media communication, the relationship between K-POP and education migration to South Korea is certainly a timely and relevant topic. Having said that, I have several questions and concerns about the paper which I will detail below.

 

The first paragraph would benefit from further clarity and support in several areas. First, the transition from tourism trends to international student mobility could be more logically structured, as the connection between the two is not clearly established. Also, the reference to “many experts” lacks citation; it would strengthen the argument to include specific studies or sources that support the claim that Hallyu (the Korean Wave) influenced international student enrollment.

 

On page 2, the sentence “many countries have begun to strengthen socio-cultural” is unclear. Please consider rephrasing it to specify what aspect of socio-cultural power or diplomacy is being referenced.

 

There is a noticeable shift in focus from soft power to educational migration without a clear transitional bridge (p. 2). Strengthening the link between cultural soft power (e.g., K-pop, BTS) and actual migration behavior would improve the logical flow.

 

The claim that “studies on the derivative effects in the spread of Hally through the media have been actively conducted so far. The proliferation of K-Pop content has been notably identified as a key driver in the surge of tourism to Korea.” is vague and needs citations (p. 2).

 

The sentence beginning "First, we focus on Analysis and research on the acceptance form of the Korean Wave..." is grammatically awkward and redundant (p. 3). A more concise and grammatically accurate phrasing would be more effective.

 

The paragraph referencing Oh and Lee (2021) creates confusion about the relevance of their study to the current research (p. 3). While their categorization of K-Pop research into areas like content, exhibitions, fandom, and industry developments is informative, the claim that their analysis “highlights two pertinent areas for this study: K-Pop’s consumer acceptance and its link to education” seems misleading unless Oh and Lee directly address education or migration.

 

The data point regarding contact routes (e.g., 82.0% via online platforms) is useful, but its implications are not discussed (p. 3). How does this dominance of digital access relate to educational migration or cultural engagement? Expanding on this would strengthen the theoretical linkage to your research focus.

 

The phrase "contrary to initial expectations" imply a contrast, but the paragraph doesn’t clarify whose expectations these were (p. 3). Be specific or remove subjective phrasing unless it is grounded in literature.

 

The claim that “Overall, it is generally reported that global audiences actively build international communities through diverse media, engaging with celebrities and fellow enthusiasts” needs citations (p. 3).

 

There are some repetitive phrases and minor grammatical errors. For example, “emphasized in 2021” (Kang and Go) seems misplaced—this paper is already cited as 2019, and the mention of the 2021 emphasis should be clarified (p. 5).

 

The transition from digital fandom to educational migration could be smoother. A sentence explicitly framing how the participatory nature of fandom ties into personal aspirations such as studying in Korea would help (p. 5).

 

The sentence “This Hallyu study focused on the reporting phenomenon, the study focused on the economic effects, an essential study with critical research…” is unclear. It should be revised or clarified (p.6).

 

While the recruitment process is described, the criteria for final selection of the eight participants need clearer articulation. For instance, what does "demonstrated affinity for K-Pop" mean in measurable or observable terms (p. 7)? Was there a screening tool or specific question used?

 

The section claims a qualitative approach, but the inclusion of behavioral observation and video analysis suggests some cross-method elements. It would help to clarify how these data types were analyzed (p. 7-8).

 

How were interviews recorded, transcribed, and coded? Were interviews conducted in English, Korean, or other languages? If multilingual, how was translation handled? (p. 7-8)

 

The subsection title, “The Innocence of K-Pop Content,” captures one aspect, but the content also discusses aesthetic appeal, emotional impact, idol relatability, and moral comfort (p. 8). Consider renaming this subsection to something broader.

 

The term “innocence” is used frequently but needs clearer definition. Does it refer to moral purity, emotional sincerity, modesty in representation, or lack of profanity (p. 8-12)?

 

There are a few grammatical slips. For instance, “cultural modest” (p. 9); “excited and handsome in Korean music” (p. 10) are unclear.

 

Please clarify “the existence of an idol continues the story of the character beyond music” (p. 10).

 

While the conclusion of this section touches on the role of K-pop during the COVID-19 pandemic, most of the analysis centers on participants’ overall impressions of K-pop rather than their specific experiences during the pandemic (p. 8-12). If the intention is to foreground the therapeutic or emotional function of K-pop in crisis contexts like COVID-19, it would be helpful to more clearly frame and foreground these experiences.

 

The term “transgression” is not clearly defined in this context. It usually implies boundary-crossing, but that idea isn’t fully developed in the body text (p. 12).

 

Terms like HIBE, Weverse, and Dear U Bubble are very familiar to K-pop fans, but to those outside the fandom, they may be obscure (p. 13). A quick description will make the text more accessible to a wider audience.

 

There are a few grammatical issues. For example, sentences such as "This collective phenomenon is a culture that shares Korean culture and presents a strong means in sharing new songs and albums," "The fandom also established its own K-Pop fan community within their country through offline activities, leading to the formation of various fan groups" and “For example, sharing experiences with others or creating events together” need to be revised (p. 14-15).

 

The following sentence is fragmented and hard to follow:“Most of the participants encountered K-Pop Between Hallyu 2.0 and 3.0. The period when all students except Jerry, Doris and Dawn became fans of K- Pop is in line with the second half of Hallyu 2.0." (p. 16). Also, the definition of Hallyu 3.0 is necessary.

 

“Rather Diane's interest in K-Pop aroused form her parents’ generation” is awkward and unclear (p. 19).

 

The sentence “Looking at Jerry’s case a little more, it was a case in which she became interested in K-Pop after entering the Korean language department due to parents’ interest in Korean dramas” is confusing (p. 18).

 

This illustrates how the Korean Wave transcends generational boundaries. A comparison can be drawn with the resurgence of Trot music..." (p. 20). Please make sure to cite where these claims come from or offer references to support broader cultural assertions.

 

The claim that “The Korean Wave's influence on overseas study has predominantly impacted women” appears to be overstated based on the data presented. While the interview sample includes more female participants (seven women vs. three men), the 2021 KOFICE survey indicates that 52.1% of Hallyu enthusiasts are women—a marginal majority that does not strongly support the word “predominantly” (p. 20). I recommend clarifying this claim or providing additional evidence to more convincingly argue for a gendered pattern.

 

The discussion on gender, particularly feminism and education, is promising but underdeveloped (p. 21). You might consider engaging with feminist theory to give theoretical weight to your observations.

 

The claim that K-Pop is “perceived by international students as less aggressive and potentially less harmful compared to Western music” would benefit from empirical support or clarification—does this refer to lyrical content, performance style, or fan culture? (p. 22)

 

"K-Pop has increasingly emerged as a significant, yet indirect, influence" is somewhat vague and could be more analytically framed (p. 22).

 

The phrase “social heritage” is compelling but underdeveloped; it would strengthen the conclusion to elaborate on what is meant by this term, and how it functions in the context of educational migration (p. 23).

 

The discussion could be enriched by acknowledging any limitations of the study and proposing more concrete directions for future research, particularly in relation to post-pandemic mobility and evolving digital fan cultures (p. 23).

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

While the manuscript offers valuable insights into the influence of K-Pop on international education and cultural identity, the quality of English language use needs careful attention to ensure clarity and academic rigor. Although the overall structure is coherent, there are frequent grammatical issues and unclear sentence constructions.

Author Response

 Pls see the attached file below 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your submission. I found the topic original and relevant, and I appreciate the effort to address such a timely issue. However, the manuscript would require substantial revision in several key areas, including the theoretical framework, methodological transparency, discussion of findings, and ethical considerations.
Please refer to the detailed review report attached for specific observations and suggestions. I hope the comments are helpful to further develop your work.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

As a non-native English speaker, I do not feel qualified to assess linguistic quality in detail.

Author Response

Pls see the attached file below 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper improved after the revision. I have no issue with publishing this manuscript as it is. 

Author Response

pls see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for including additional literature on the topic. However, the key concept of educational migration still remains somewhat vague.

As this term is central to your study, I believe it would strengthen the article to provide a brief but clear definition early on — ideally in the literature review or introduction. It would also be helpful to clarify what types of migration are included (e.g., degree-seeking only? informal or short-term academic mobility?), and how you understand it in relation to international student mobility more broadly.

Without this conceptual clarity, the analytical link between K-Pop and educational decisions is harder to follow.  

Thank you for clarifying the meaning of “offline” interviews in the appendix — that part is now clearer.

However, regarding ethical approval, the sentence in the response is hard to understand, and the manuscript itself still lacks a transparent explanation. It would be important to clearly state whether the study received approval from an Ethics Committee (or institutional review board), and under what conditions. If no formal approval was required, please clarify what ethical safeguards were taken (e.g., informed consent, anonymisation, voluntary participation).

This is especially relevant in cross-cultural studies involving personal interviews, and may also be a requirement for publication.

I hope these final suggestions are useful in strengthening your manuscript further. Thank you again for your work and revisions.

Author Response

Pls see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf