Framing of China’s Soft Power in Nepal: A Case Study of Cultural and Educational Diplomacy in the Media

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses a timely and relevant topic by exploring how Chinese cultural and educational diplomacy is represented in Nepalese media. While the paper identifies soft power as a central concept and references media framing theory, it largely remains descriptive rather than analytical. The findings emphasize favorable portrayals of Confucius Institutes, scholarships, and language programs, but the article misses an opportunity to critically examine why these portrayals dominate. It would benefit from a deeper exploration of factors such as media ownership, editorial influence, or political alignment that may shape coverage. The methodology is underdeveloped, with insufficient explanation of source selection, coding categories, or analytical rigor, raising concerns about reliability and bias. Expanding the media sample to include more diverse or critical outlets, and incorporating counter-narratives or dissenting perspectives, would add necessary complexity. Additionally, the study could be enriched by situating Nepal’s media environment within broader geopolitical or regional dynamics, perhaps comparing Chinese soft power efforts with those of other nations active in Nepal, such as India or the United States. The article shows promise but requires more theoretical depth, methodological transparency, and critical analysis to make a strong academic contribution.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. In this paper, I only want to focus Nepalese media framing on Chinese soft power; education and cultural diplomacy as there are lots of Nepalese students studying in China with Chinese government scholarship programs. As different factors you mentioned, there will be more complicated concepts and perceptions, so I exclude those factors from what I analyze. For your suggestions concerning methodology and data analysis, I will follow your suggestions. Thanks a lot for that.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The authors analyze Nepalese English-language newspapers (see Methodology, p. 5). Does this imply that these newspapers, by being in English, inherently reflect Western (American or British) soft power in Nepal, and therefore frame China’s presence from a competitor's perspective? I would like to see the authors reflect on this point in the paper, including related methodological considerations.

2. To better understand how Nepal is targeted by various foreign cultural diplomacies, it would be helpful if the authors also addressed alternative or competing foreign programs similar to those implemented by China. These may include initiatives by the USA (in addition to the mentioned Hollywood movies, perhaps education?), India, Pakistan, Russia, and other countries, if applicable.

3. While discussing China’s cultural diplomacy programs in Nepal, could the authors also provide examples of Nepal’s cultural presence or influence in China? In other words, are the projects carried out by China toward Nepal, including student and exchange programs, mutually to some extent, or do they reflect one-sided influence?

4. Some parts of the manuscript are repeated, for instance, lines 76–87 and 159–166.

5. There is no need to repeat explanations of the same abbreviations multiple times. One explanation at the beginning is sufficient; for example, “China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)” appears redundantly on lines 141, 179, 335, etc.

6. Figure 1 (p. 6) shows a very small number of relevant articles published over a five-year span, based on the selected keywords. This further supports the suggestion to also consider soft power initiatives by other actors in Nepal. Extending the keyword set (e.g., “soft power of India,” “Bollywood movies”) could offer a more comparative perspective on the soft power competition in Nepal as reflected in the media.

7. Regarding the selected time frame for content analysis (2021–2025), Figure 1 shows no articles on the topic from 2021. Why not begin the analysis from 2020? This would cover the early pandemic period, when newspaper readership increased globally, and would allow for a full five-year analysis period (especially given that 2025 is still ongoing and cannot be fully assessed yet).

8. Would it be possible to include a few brief, representative quotations from the newspapers that illustrate the authors’ arguments?

9. I suggest removing Appendix A, as it occupies substantial space without providing essential information for the reader.

I would be pleased to review the article again once these improvements are addressed, if necessary.

Author Response

 

Thank you for your suggestion. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf