Search results

South Korea imposes more stringent restrictions on political speeches during elections than many other democratic countries. The purpose of this paper is to examine the long‐standing conflict between citizens and institutions in the Korean electoral environment and the effects of the internet on this conflict.

The paper provides a case study of the 2007 presidential election in Korea. During the campaign period, two video clips (one on YouTube and the other on Daum, a major domestic web portal) emerged and implicated the then‐leading candidate in a financial scandal. The paper investigates how these video clips were shared and discussed among Korean voters, even though the country's election laws restricted the sharing of such information in cyberspace. The paper employs a combination of network analysis techniques, including hyperlink analysis, interaction network analysis, and semantic network analysis.

YouTube served as a medium for Korean voters to circumvent local electoral regulations, thus implying the neologism “cyber‐exile”. However, unlike Daum, YouTube failed to facilitate discussions on the posted video clip. The discussion through its comment feature was often derailed by irrelevant comments from seemingly uninterested parties. The address of the video clip was shared through personal blogs and online bulletin boards in Korean cyberspace, but these efforts led only to a fragmented sphere.

Any comparison between YouTube and Daum should be made with caution because of inherent differences between the two platforms.

The results have important practical implications for those interested in designing e‐deliberation environments. For example, they should have a clearer understanding of the composition of users and the undesirable consequences of a fragmented public sphere.

This paper highlights how pre‐internet institutions shape its members’ political activity on the internet. In addition, the results clearly demonstrate that an innovative effort to circumvent barriers on the part of internet users is not enough to harness the potential of online discussions for a measured and sustained discourse on the issue at hand.

The purpose of this paper is to focus on empowering migrant voices. While many write about researchers struggling to be more ethical, few write about specific methods that might improve the processes of researching multilingually (Temple and Edwards, 2002). The paper reports on one method, the handing over control of the running of the focus group interviews to the Korean parent research participants. In considering the outcomes, the paper examines the resultant situated interactive discourse patterns, the data produced and the cues given for data interpretation. Analysis suggests voice can be empowered in co-ethnic settings pushing back constraining conventions of public face.

The issue arose during the author's PhD study. As an outsider, a monolingual English speaker interested in cross-cultural participatory research in a school setting, the author sought to empower participant voices. The research was informed by pragmatic critical theory; used an ethnographic approach (Charmaz and Mitchell, 1997); relied on Charmaz's (2006) modified grounded theory for thematic analysis; and, in this paper, drew on linguistic ethnography's contextualised approach to linguistic analysis, and Brown and Levinson's (1987) patterns of verbal interaction.

The hands-off approach activated an interview genre with more culturally familiar talk-in-interaction and therefore richer sense making. Analysis showed that constraining cultural norms may be challenged in a host setting when a dominant group member subverts familiar boundaries of silence in public discussion of education. The co-constructed group talk provided clear guidelines for data analysis and for memoing, the foundations of theory building, when using modified grounded theory. Issues around the artfulness of sensitive interviewing were also raised.

Translating and analysing concepts across languages is not within the scope of the paper.

The paper informs practice for monolingual researchers conducting focus group interviews in cross-cultural settings. The paper valorises time spent, commitment and reciprocity in ethnographic research. The research also suggests ways researchers can work with schools and their communities to hear migrant voices and imagine new practices and polices.

The paper studies an under-researched field – specific methods that might improve the processes of researching multilingually (Temple and Edwards, 2002). Few have written about qualitative interviews as interactive events in cross-cultural settings (Talmy and Richards, 2011). The paper is valuable to qualitative researchers interested in methods of ethical knowledge production in cross-cultural settings. It is of value to educational groups, and others, that wish to explore methods of engaging in dialogue with migrant communities.