News & Events 게시판목록 | Sungkyunkwan University ( SKKU ) College of Social Sciences

Sungkyunkwan University Explores Expanded Research Collaboration with Swedish Foundation RJ NEW

Sungkyunkwan University Explores Expanded Research Collaboration with Swedish Foundation RJ - RJ Leadership Visits Campus for Lively Discussions with Social Science Faculty - - Exploring Opportunities for International Research Partnerships and European Research Funding in the Social Sciences - Sungkyunkwan University hosted a meeting with a delegation from Riksbankens Jubileumsfond (RJ), a Swedish foundation that supports research in the humanities and social sciences, on October 12 at the university’s 600th Anniversary Memorial Hall. The three-member delegation, which included RJ Chief Executive Officer Marika Hedin, met with Choi Hoon-seok, Vice President of the Humanities and Social Sciences Campus; Bae Sang-hoon, Dean of Academic Affairs; and faculty members in the social sciences to discuss ways to expand international joint research and academic exchange. The meeting aimed to strengthen institutional ties between the university and RJ, foster exchanges between social science researchers in Korea and Sweden, and lay the groundwork for future international research collaborations. Established in the 1960s with an endowment from the Swedish central bank, RJ is an independent research funding foundation that focuses on the humanities and social sciences. Since 1965, it has awarded approximately $2 billion in research funding, equivalent to about KRW 2.7 trillion. The foundation also offers funding opportunities to international researchers collaborating with Swedish scholars, encouraging cross-border research partnerships and the development of international academic networks. During the meeting, Hedin introduced RJ’s major funding programs and international collaboration policies. She explained that the foundation emphasizes a bottom-up approach, allowing researchers to propose their own research topics. Its funding portfolio ranges from three-year research projects to large-scale programs spanning six to eight years. She also outlined RJ’s Research Initiation program, which supports early-stage international collaborations by helping researchers connect with potential partners and develop joint research plans. Professor Koo Jung-woo of the Department of Sociology shared his experience conducting collaborative research with Professor Amy Alexander, a political scientist at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, and other colleagues, with support from RJ’s Research Initiation program. Researchers from Korea and Sweden visited each other’s institutions and held joint workshops. Building on these exchanges, the team is now preparing a proposal for a longer-term international research program. Faculty members also introduced their research interests and experiences in international collaboration. Professor Park Da-eun of the Department of Psychology discussed ongoing collaborative research on generative AI and human motivation with researchers at institutions including the University of Chicago and the University of Hong Kong. Professor Jeon Hee-jung of the Department of Public Administration shared examples of international research partnerships with scholars in Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic on immigration, sustainability and smart cities. Professor Baek Tae-hyun of the Department of Media and Communication discussed his recent experience applying for Horizon Europe funding with researchers in the United Kingdom. Professor Sung Ji-hyun of the Department of Child and Adolescent Studies described international research collaborations on child and adolescent development and education involving scholars in the United States, Australia, Austria, Singapore and Hong Kong. Professor Cho Won-bin of the Department of Political Science and International Relations discussed opportunities to work with European researchers, drawing on comparative studies of political attitudes and polarization in Korea and East Asia. Expanding research partnerships between Korean and European scholars through Horizon Europe was another key topic. Since 2025, Korea has participated in Pillar II of Horizon Europe as an associated country, opening new opportunities for international collaborative research. Participants highlighted Cluster 2, which focuses on democracy, governance, cultural diversity and social change, as a particularly relevant area for social science researchers. They also agreed that practical, institution-level support is essential to help faculty members build international research consortia and navigate the funding application process. The visit marked an important step toward expanding the university’s international research network in the social sciences and strengthening ties with a leading Swedish research funding institution. Participants emphasized the importance of international collaboration and agreed to continue exploring concrete opportunities for joint research in the future.
- 작성일 2026-10-14
- 조회수 1
Department of Consumer Studies Hosts “2026 Consumer Studies Day” NEW

Department of Consumer Studies Hosts “2026 Consumer Studies Day” ▲ Faculty members and students gather for a group photo at the event The Department of Consumer Studies, chaired by Professor Nam Su-jeong, hosted “2026 Consumer Studies Day” on October 10, bringing together faculty members and students to foster交流 across academic years and strengthen connections within the department. The event featured a Q&A session with faculty members, presentations of award-winning research from the Consumer Studies Academic Festival, networking between current students and alumni, and career talks. During the Q&A session, students asked questions about academic life and career paths and received advice from faculty members. At the research presentation session, students shared their analyses of consumer issues and proposed solutions under the theme “Analyzing Consumer Issues and Proposing Solutions.” A total of 11 teams participated. The award-winning projects were: ▶ Grand Prize: Young-woong Choi and Jun-ha Jang, “Will AI Recommend More Expensive Products If You State a Higher Budget?” ▶ First Prize: Hwi-min Oh and Ye-chan Yoo, “Analyzing the Risks of Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) and Proposing Consumer Protection Policies” ▶ First Prize: Yu-min Choi and Jun-ho Woo, “Dark Patterns in Dynamic Currency Conversion (DCC): Current Practices and Consumer Protection Measures” The career talks featured Son Ho-jun and Choi Jeong-jin, growth marketers at EcoWithUs Co., Ltd., who shared their professional experiences in marketing and discussed how they prepared for their careers. Ho-jae Jang, a 17th-cohort alumnus of the Department of Consumer Studies, also spoke about pursuing a career as a certified public accountant, offering advice to students preparing to enter professional fields. The program concluded with an activity report from SO:ONE, the department’s 40th student council, followed by presentations on the activities and achievements of EICS, a student club, and S.4.C, an academic society. A lucky draw and a post-event gathering gave participants further opportunities to socialize and build connections. The event provided a valuable opportunity for students to showcase their academic work and strengthen relationships across cohorts. The Department of Consumer Studies expressed its gratitude to the faculty members, students, and guest speakers who took part in the event.
- 작성일 2026-10-14
- 조회수 4
[Faculty] Professor Lee Ji-young’s Research Team Finds That Visual Vividness in Social Media Feeds Draws Attention to Fake News NEW

Professor Lee Ji-young’s Research Team Finds That Visual Vividness in Social Media Feeds Draws Attention to Fake News - Fake news posts with more saturated colors than surrounding posts attract viewers’ initial gaze significantly faster - A research team led by Professor Lee Ji-young of the Department of Media and Communication has found that differences in visual vividness — specifically, color saturation — between social media posts and their surrounding content influence how quickly users direct their attention to fake news. Conducted in collaboration with researchers at the University of Connecticut in the United States, the study provides experimental evidence that the visual context of an entire feed, not just the appearance of an individual post, can shape how users encounter misinformation. Social media platforms such as Instagram have become an integral part of everyday communication. At the same time, visual fake news, including images and photographs that have been manipulated or distorted, continues to spread widely, posing a growing social challenge. Previous research has focused largely on the accuracy and credibility of individual fake news posts, giving less attention to how people actually use social media: scrolling through feeds and encountering multiple posts in rapid succession. To address this gap, the research team created a simulated news feed resembling a real social media interface and conducted a controlled experiment involving 347 adults. Using webcam-based eye-tracking technology, the researchers measured participants’ visual attention as they viewed the feed. They manipulated the color saturation of posts surrounding a particular piece of misinformation, comparing conditions in which the target post appeared more visually vivid than its neighbors with conditions in which the surrounding posts were more vivid. The results showed that participants directed their gaze toward the misinformation post significantly faster when its colors were more vivid and saturated than those of the surrounding posts. In other words, fake news that stood out visually from the rest of the feed was more effective at capturing users’ initial attention. However, faster initial attention did not mean that participants looked at the post for longer or remembered its content more accurately. The findings suggest that visual vividness can be a powerful cue for attracting an initial, potentially automatic glance, but it does not necessarily promote deeper understanding or better retention of information. Other factors, including users’ prior knowledge and beliefs, may play a greater role in how information is processed and remembered. “Many users, including adolescents, scroll rapidly through social media feeds on their smartphones and can easily have their attention drawn to visually striking fake news images without realizing it,” Professor Lee said. “Malicious actors could exploit this effect by making surrounding posts appear nearly black and white while rendering fake news images more vivid. Platforms therefore need safeguards that go beyond warning labels on individual posts and take into account the visual arrangement of the entire feed.” The study was supported by the Ministry of Science and ICT and the National Research Foundation of Korea. Its findings were published in Computers in Human Behavior, a leading international journal in cyberpsychology and human-computer interaction.
- 작성일 2026-10-13
- 조회수 51
[Faculty] Professor Lee Sook-jong, [Seoul Economic Daily] South Korea-Japan Economic Security NEW

A Europe Divided by Two Competing Currents Europe moves to strengthen security cooperation Radical right gains ground in Germany, Britain and France The challenge is to find common ground between solidarity and sovereigntism Europe is being swept along by two currents that could collide. One is a push for closer security cooperation, driven by the protracted war in Ukraine, the continuing threat from Russia and the United States’ reluctance to take a more active role in European security. The other is the rise of radical-right and sovereigntist forces. Once most visible in Hungary and Poland, this trend is now spreading to major Western European countries, including Germany, France and the United Kingdom. The question is how the drive for greater security cohesion across Europe will collide with the nationalism gaining ground in domestic politics. Since early this year, proposals have emerged for a mechanism modeled on Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which provides for consultations among NATO allies when a member’s security is threatened. Under the proposed arrangement, if an EU member state faced a hybrid threat, such as a drone incursion or a cyberattack, all 27 member states would convene to discuss a collective response. Last month, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen proposed an emergency security protocol and the creation of a European Security Council. The envisioned council would be a leaders-level forum for security consultations, bringing together not only major EU countries but also partners outside the bloc, including the United Kingdom, Norway, Ukraine and Canada. Separately, von der Leyen also proposed granting Canada the EU’s first associate-member status. Significant questions remain, including potential overlap with NATO’s role and the legal relationship between the two institutions, particularly given that 23 of the EU’s 27 member states already belong to NATO. Even so, the push for a separate European security framework signals an effort to build the institutional capacity to consult and respond collectively without relying entirely on the United States. Meanwhile, radical-right and sovereigntist forces have already secured considerable influence in the European Parliament. Although they have not united into a single political bloc, they share a commitment to national sovereignty and a desire to limit the powers and reach of the EU. Last month, Germany’s Alternative for Germany (AfD) won 43.8 percent of the vote in the Saxony-Anhalt state election, falling just three seats short of an absolute majority. It also finished first in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, with 38.2 percent, and third in the Berlin state election, with 16.8 percent. Germany’s Basic Law embodies the principle of militant democracy, allowing the Federal Constitutional Court to ban parties deemed to threaten the free democratic basic order. Yet an extreme measure such as a party ban could itself run counter to democratic principles. Established parties have therefore pursued a strategy of keeping the AfD out of coalition governments. In the United Kingdom, Reform UK, led by Nigel Farage, who spearheaded the Brexit campaign, has emerged as a major political force challenging both Labour and the Conservatives. In France, Marine Le Pen, a leading figure in the National Rally, is also seen as a potential contender to win next year’s presidential election. Britain, France and Germany are central to European security and the liberal international order. Political shifts within these countries are therefore bound to have far-reaching consequences for the direction of policy across Europe. How, then, will the EU’s drive for deeper integration and solidarity intersect with the nationalist right gaining ground in major European countries? One likely source of friction is support for Ukraine. Radical-right parties tend to view the war not as a shared European challenge but as an external conflict imposing a heavy financial burden on their own citizens. They have consequently opposed aid to Ukraine. Climate policy could also face renewed resistance. Radical-right parties have criticized the EU’s stringent environmental regulations, arguing that technocrats in Brussels are imposing excessive costs on businesses and farmers. Immigration policy, however, may see the most significant shift. As voters frustrated by economic stagnation and inequality increasingly perceive immigration not merely as a question of jobs but also as a threat to national identity, governments are likely to face mounting pressure to adopt more restrictive policies. For now, radical-right parties are more likely to expand their influence through participation in coalition governments than by governing alone. This could open the door to political bargains: established parties might accommodate some of the right’s demands on immigration, while radical-right parties might compromise with the European mainstream on security cooperation. Ultimately, Europe’s trajectory will depend on where the external pressure for a “stronger Europe” meets the domestic political demands of member states for “stronger nation-states.”
- 작성일 2026-10-13
- 조회수 39
[Faculty] Professor Cho Won-bin, [Kukmin Ilbo Column] "A Time for the Opposition to Hold the Government to Account" NEW

A Time for the Opposition to Hold the Government to Account Supreme Court appointments, the launch of new investigative agencies, real estate, and the personnel system: a long list of issues awaits scrutiny Ruling party calls for a focus on people’s livelihoods and policy Opposition parties prepare to highlight the government’s seven major failures If parliamentary audits become little more than political grandstanding, they lose their purpose. What the public needs is an opposition willing to seek answers to their questions South Korea’s annual parliamentary audit, known as the National Assembly audit of state affairs, will take place from October 6 through October 30 this year, with 846 government agencies and public institutions subject to scrutiny across the National Assembly’s 17 standing committees. The 1987 constitutional amendment, the ninth constitutional revision in South Korea’s history, restored and introduced a range of mechanisms designed to enable the National Assembly to check the president and the executive branch. One of these was the restoration of the parliamentary audit system. Abolished 15 years earlier under the 1972 Yushin Constitution, the authority to conduct such audits was brought back. It allowed the National Assembly to conduct a comprehensive annual review and investigation of the administration’s overall performance. Unlike similar oversight mechanisms in many Western democracies, the parliamentary audit is a distinctive institution in South Korea’s constitutional history. It has undergone a unique evolution through the country’s experience with authoritarian rule and its subsequent struggle for democratization. The authority to audit state affairs was first established in Article 43 of the 1948 Constitution. After the first audit was conducted in December 1949, the system remained in place through the Third Republic, with regular audits divided into general audits covering state affairs broadly and special audits focusing on specific issues. That changed under President Park Chung-hee’s Yushin Constitution of 1972. The administration abolished the parliamentary audit system altogether, arguing that such audits encouraged corruption and could paralyze government administration. In practice, the move significantly weakened the legislature’s ability to oversee the executive branch. Following the 1987 constitutional revision, parliamentary audits were restored and fully resumed with the 13th National Assembly in 1988. The audits became a symbol of the restoration of legislative power, as lawmakers used them to investigate corruption and abuses associated with the Fifth Republic. They also produced prominent parliamentary figures, including Roh Moo-hyun and Lee Hae-chan, who gained national attention through their performances in parliamentary hearings. In 2017, Roh Hoe-chan of the Justice Party staged one of the more memorable moments in the history of parliamentary audits when he spread newspapers on the floor and lay down on them himself. The performance was intended to challenge claims by former President Park Geun-hye’s side that she was being subjected to human-rights violations because of the cramped conditions of her detention. By visually demonstrating how small the average detention space—roughly 0.7 pyeong, or about 2.3 square meters—is, Roh delivered a message to the public that proved more powerful than words alone. The first parliamentary audit of the second half of the 22nd National Assembly begins as President Lee Jae Myung enters the second year of his term, with approval ratings for his administration remaining in the 30-percent range. A number of major issues are already drawing public attention. Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae has said that he would address the issue of the Supreme Court justices through the parliamentary audit after rejecting a request from the presidential office for a renewed recommendation of Supreme Court justices. Other major issues include the abolition of the prosecution service and the launch of new investigative bodies, including the Serious Crime Investigation Office and the Public Officials Corruption Investigation Office. With several ministerial nominees having recently withdrawn or been rejected, questions about the Lee administration’s personnel system are also likely to come under scrutiny. Other issues include a recent landmine explosion in the Demilitarized Zone, shortages in housing supply and the difficulties facing renters, three major mega-projects, and the proposed introduction of single-stock leveraged exchange-traded funds. The parliamentary audit is therefore likely to become a major forum for debate over a wide range of issues affecting both government policy and everyday life. Because the parliamentary audit is fundamentally a mechanism for scrutinizing the executive branch, the ruling and opposition parties naturally approach it from sharply different perspectives. The ruling party generally focuses on defending the government and highlighting its policy achievements. In preparing for this year’s audit, the Democratic Party of Korea has emphasized restraint in partisan conflict and called for an audit focused on people’s livelihoods and policy. It is seeking to highlight government budgets and the performance of key initiatives, including the proposed Future Response Fund. The opposition parties, by contrast, are seeking to expose what they regard as government failures and pressure the administration to change course. The People Power Party, the main opposition party, has presented 130 priority legislative initiatives across seven policy areas corresponding to what it calls the Lee administration’s “seven major failures.” It has signaled particularly strong criticism of the confusion it says has resulted from the implementation of the revised Criminal Procedure Act and the resulting changes to the judicial system. The Rebuilding Korea Party is also expected to focus heavily on the continuing controversy over prosecution reform. Despite its fundamental purpose of holding the executive branch accountable, the parliamentary audit has faced strong criticism every year for inefficiency and excessive political confrontation. Contrary to public expectations, productive criticism of government policy often gives way to politically motivated revelations, personal attacks, and angry exchanges aimed at discrediting the opposing side. It is not uncommon for committee members to summon heads of government agencies or witnesses only to berate them without giving them a meaningful opportunity to respond. Such public-shaming tactics have become a recurring feature of the audits. There is also a structural problem. Each standing committee must examine dozens or even hundreds of government ministries, agencies, and public institutions within only a few days. With so little time allocated to each institution, the process can easily become a superficial exercise that merely skims the surface. Another weakness is the lack of effective follow-up. During the audit period, numerous problems are identified and receive extensive media coverage. Yet once the hearings are over, there is often little systematic monitoring of whether the executive branch has actually corrected the problems identified, or whether the recommendations have produced meaningful changes. If this year’s parliamentary audit once again ends as little more than a political confrontation between the ruling and opposition parties, the ruling party has relatively little to lose. What the public needs, however, is an opposition that can help find answers to the questions people are asking. Despite the government’s optimistic macroeconomic indicators, many citizens continue to struggle with the accumulated burden of high prices, persistently high interest rates, and a prolonged slowdown in domestic consumption. The opposition’s role should be to bring these concerns into the parliamentary audit—and to press the government for concrete answers.
- 작성일 2026-10-07
- 조회수 109
[Faculty] Professor Lee Hee-ok, [Kyunghyang Shinmun Column] "We Are Overlooking the China Factor" NEW

We Are Overlooking the China Factor The U.S.-China summit at the end of September has come and gone. While some media outlets dismissed it as a “hollow summit” or a “tactical truce,” the meeting nevertheless offered a revealing glimpse into how the U.S.-China relationship has changed. President Xi Jinping, who made his first state visit to the United States in 11 years, made clear that the Taiwan issue is no longer a matter for negotiation but rather “the core of China’s core interests.” He also sought to recast the U.S.-China relationship not within the framework of “strategic competition” advanced by Washington, but around what Beijing calls “constructive strategic stability.” On artificial intelligence, meanwhile, he drew a clear contrast with the United States, which has been skeptical of regulation, arguing that AI must remain under human control. As the unipolar system declines, the liberal international order weakens, and an international order increasingly shaped by competing spheres of influence takes form, China has been calling for multilateralism, the United Nations system, action on climate change, and an open trading order as it seeks to shape a more multipolar world. At the same time, Beijing has begun a new contest of narratives with Washington across the realms of political systems, institutions, technology, and ideology. It has been particularly active in projecting diplomatic influence into its surrounding regions, Central Asia, Africa, and other parts of the “Global South.” In late August, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, hosted the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit, followed in September by the BRICS summit in New Delhi, India. At both gatherings, China took the lead in discussions on strengthening connectivity across Eurasia, building a fairer international order, and, increasingly, reducing reliance on the U.S. dollar. These efforts reflect a longer-term strategy aimed at securing strategic advantages in the overlapping areas of U.S. and Chinese influence. China is also deepening strategic cooperation with Russia, whose role is directly relevant to peace on the Korean Peninsula, as well as with North Korea, with which its relationship had become strained for some time. Russia, anticipating that relations with the United States and Europe will not easily improve even after the war, has little choice but to keep open what may be described as a window of opportunity through China. For North Korea, economic cooperation with China is likewise an essential condition for achieving an economic breakthrough and strengthening the legitimacy of its rule. Indeed, during my recent visits to the China-North Korea, North Korea-Russia, and China-Russia border regions, I observed that sanctions on North Korea appeared to have eased considerably. This changing status of China is also affecting South Korea-China relations. Since the launch of the Lee Jae Myung administration, bilateral relations have been restored at a rapid pace. The two countries have held two summit meetings, during which China expressed its willingness to play a constructive role on issues concerning the Korean Peninsula. Although partly driven by a semiconductor-related distortion, bilateral trade has also increased, while efforts by both governments and civil society have helped improve mutual perceptions to some extent. These developments reflect the results of a policy shift that sought to advance both South Korea-U.S. and South Korea-China relations. Yet by treating alliance management, trade negotiations, the transfer of wartime operational control, and a potential U.S.-North Korea summit as the country’s most pressing national-interest issues—and committing much of its diplomatic attention to them—we have lost the room to read South Korea’s relationships with the United States and China as part of a single, interconnected strategic picture. As a result, the momentum in South Korea-China relations has gradually weakened, while differences in policy perceptions between the two countries have continued to widen. At the root of this problem is, to a significant extent, our failure to dynamically adjust South Korea’s diplomacy to reflect China’s changing status. High-level strategic communication through reciprocal visits has declined, and it is increasingly difficult to find evidence that the China factor is being given sufficiently serious consideration in the policymaking process. Paying attention to the China factor is not simply a question of being pro-China or anti-China. Rather, it is a form of preventive diplomacy: an effort to engage with China by recognizing its position in the international system “as it is.” For South Korea, which is in the particularly difficult position of needing to call for China’s constructive role in maintaining peace on the Korean Peninsula, this approach is all the more important. Several factors have contributed to the current situation, but mixed messages on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the Taiwan issue have also played a role. For example, at a U.S.-South Korea-Japan foreign ministers’ meeting held ahead of the 81st session of the UN General Assembly, South Korea readily endorsed language calling for the “complete denuclearization of North Korea” and opposing “any attempt to change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait.” Yet in his address to the UN General Assembly, President Lee Jae Myung used the expression “a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula” rather than “the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.” In an interview with The New York Times, he also put forward an ambitious proposal linking a halt to further development of nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missile technologies with corresponding compensation. These are not merely differences in diplomatic rhetoric. They point to questions of diplomatic philosophy, strategic vision, and policy direction. China, too, is watching these mixed signals closely as it assesses the extent of South Korea’s strategic autonomy. Diplomacy always has counterparts—but never just one. South Korea’s foreign and security policy agencies must be capable of developing a strategy that takes into account both the United States and a China that has fundamentally changed. Resolving issues with the United States will not, by itself, automatically resolve the China question. What is needed, therefore, is a system of collective intelligence that allows issues concerning peace on the Korean Peninsula and China to penetrate more deeply into the public policy debate. At the same time, the institutional barriers among foreign and security policy agencies must be decisively lowered so that they can function as a strategic whole through both specialization and cooperation. From the outside, that is how a country’s foreign policy must appear: not as separate agencies pursuing separate priorities, but as one coherent strategy. Professor Emeritus Lee Hee-ok, Department of Political Science and Diplomacy, Sungkyunkwan University
- 작성일 2026-10-07
- 조회수 122
[Faculty] Professor Lee Tae-kyung Named a 2026 SKKU Teaching Award Recipient

Professor Lee Tae-kyung Named a 2026 SKKU Teaching Award Recipient The Office of Academic Affairs selected 19 faculty members for this year’s award. The recipients were honored at a ceremony held on September 18 as part of the University’s 628th Anniversary Ceremony. Pictured, from left, first row: ▲William Hislop (University College) ▲Lee Tae-kyung (Department of Child and Adolescent Studies) ▲Kim Chan-min (Department of Statistics) ▲Choi Areum (Department of Business Administration) ▲Kim Jang-soo (Department of Mathematics) ▲Park Jun-young (Department of Physics) ▲Hong Seok-in (Department of Semiconductor Systems Engineering) ▲Jo Jae-min (Department of Software) ▲Kim Jae-kwang (School of Global Convergence Studies) ▲Lee Dong-yeop (School of Chemical Engineering) ▲Kwon Oh-seok (Sungkyun Institute of Nanotechnology) ▲Lee Hyo-jong (School of Pharmacy) ▲Kim Yeo-eun (Department of Education) ▲Kim Hyeong-geon (Department of Bio-Mechatronic Engineering) ▲Jo Jin-kyung (Department of Sport Science) ▲Kang Chul-in (Department of Medicine) ▲Lee Jeong-seung (Department of Global Biomedical Engineering) ▲Lee Ki-baek (Department of Philosophy) ▲Park Eun-young (Academy of East Asian Studies)—a total of 19 faculty members who were honored with the SKKU Teaching Award. The SKKU Teaching Award is a prestigious university honor recognizing faculty members who have made significant contributions to improving the quality of education at Sungkyunkwan University. Since its establishment in 2011, a total of 153 faculty members had received the award through 2025. The award places particular emphasis on faculty members who go beyond simply delivering knowledge by systematically structuring pre-class learning and in-class interaction, experimenting with AI-assisted approaches to learning, expanding global education models, and cultivating students’ interdisciplinary abilities to examine and address social issues from diverse perspectives. Recipients have not only achieved high levels of student satisfaction with their courses but have also demonstrated a sustained commitment to supporting students in career planning and academic pursuits. Through the award, the University seeks to actively share the achievements of faculty members who are committed to educational innovation and willing to experiment with diverse teaching methods, both within and beyond the University. By doing so, SKKU aims to contribute to enhancing the quality of higher education more broadly.
- 작성일 2026-09-21
- 조회수 296
[Faculty] Professor Yoon Bi, [Kyunghyang Shinmun Column] A President Above ‘Munjo-teollaeyu’ and ‘New Lee Jae-myung’

A President Above ‘Munjo-teollaeyu’ and ‘New Lee Jae-myung’ President Lee Jae-myung has failed to reconcile differences within his own support base and to mediate factional conflicts. What is needed now is a “politician” Lee Jae-myung— not merely an administrator—who can speak out sharply against a culture of political insult. President Lee Jae-myung has written what amounts to a letter of reflection. He did so in the form of a press conference, prompted by his declining approval ratings. There are likely many reasons for the decline. From the housing market to the stock market, the side effects of ill-advised remarks and poorly conceived policies have surfaced in various places. Problems have also emerged in his personnel appointments. At the same time, there is much to commend in the Lee Jae-myung administration’s record and ongoing agenda, including its diplomacy, efforts to promote economic growth, preparations for the transition into the age of artificial intelligence, and policies aimed at achieving more balanced regional development. Why, then, has a president who has produced such achievements been compelled to offer a public mea culpa barely a year after taking office? One reason is his failure to reconcile differences within his own support base and mediate conflicts among competing factions. The estrangement of so-called hard-line and highly engaged supporters is particularly serious. They suspect that the president may be seeking to settle prosecutorial reform through compromise at an early stage, or that by defending certain personnel appointments, he may ultimately undermine the broader reform agenda. Those who accuse Lee of being lukewarm toward prosecutorial reform ask why he would place in key positions people suspected of having actively cooperated with the previous Yoon Suk Yeol administration’s alleged abuses of prosecutorial power. Critics of Lee’s appointments argue that it is problematic, both symbolically and practically, to place people who once defended the authoritarian conduct of the Yoon administration in positions of political or administrative importance. Shortly before his press conference, the president criticized the excessive inflexibility and impatience of these supporters in a public statement. Such an attitude, he warned, could provoke a backlash, slow reform, and even cause it to fail. I will not dwell at length on whether their position is correct, whether the president’s concerns are justified, or whether both sides have a point. As a general principle, it is true that rigid positions can provoke a counterreaction and derail reform. Yet there is also some validity to their argument that reforms have often failed precisely because ambiguous positions, dressed up as prudence and political realism, ultimately diluted them. Whatever one thinks of the merits of either side, all of these arguments are perfectly legitimate in a democratic system of party politics. But when we ask whether President Lee has managed these conflicts in a manner befitting his office, it is difficult not to hesitate. No matter how stubborn or emotional his more hard-line supporters may appear—and even if there is some truth to such perceptions—the president, as the leader of the government and the ruling party, must be able to step back from his own position and view the situation from a broader perspective. If he fails to do so, he may end up becoming part of the problem rather than solving it. At the root of the current conflict lies a culture that cannot accept disagreement simply as disagreement. Differences of opinion are exaggerated into ideological or moral betrayals, while those who advance views different from one’s own are routinely denounced in ferocious language—as opportunists, or even as spies. This has become commonplace across party lines, among lawmakers and ordinary supporters alike. Those classified as part of the so-called “New Lee Jae-myung” camp label hard-line supporters “anti-Lee.” YouTubers who style themselves as political commentators heap ridicule and abuse on them, calling them “Munjo-teollaeyu,” a derogatory label whose very coinage is intended as an insult. Those branded “Munjo-teollaeyu,” in turn, are furious that their criticisms are being portrayed as nothing less than a rebellion against the president. But on closer examination, this kind of one-sided labeling did not begin with the current dispute. It goes back at least to the days when some of those now making these accusations themselves branded anyone who differed from them even slightly as “watermelons”—a derogatory term for people perceived as secretly supporting the opposition while claiming allegiance to Lee. And as long as this culture of insult persists, today’s “New Lee Jae-myung” supporters will sooner or later find themselves subjected to the same kind of abuse now directed at the “Munjo-teollaeyu.” In the end, the routine practice of labeling and vilifying political opponents shuts down dialogue and suffocates both party politics and democracy. The Lee Jae-myung of old would probably have sharply criticized this entire spectacle before deciding which side was right. He would have regarded the very circulation within the ruling party and its orbit of labels such as “pro-Lee” and “the president’s thinking”—echoing the “pro-Park” and “Park-identifiers” of the Park Geun-hye era, terms that seem more suited to a feudal age—as a serious problem in itself. But he remained silent. Criticism soon followed that the president was taking one side and tacitly condoning factionalism. That, in turn, became an important reason why the president ultimately found himself standing before reporters and reading what amounted to a public apology to the nation. At his press conference, the president appealed to his supporters to stop excessively attacking those on the other side. But a divide that has deepened over time cannot be bridged overnight. The key to resolving it lies, more than anyone else, with the president himself. We have already seen enough of “Administrator Lee Jae-myung.” From this point forward, what remains to be seen is “Politician Lee Jae-myung.” Professor Yoon Bi, Sungkyunkwan University
- 작성일 2026-09-21
- 조회수 321
[Faculty] Professor Haena Lee Co-Authors NBER Working Paper, Selected as Featured Working Paper

Professor Haena Lee Co-Authors NBER Working Paper, Selected as Featured Working Paper A study co-authored by Professor Haena Lee of the Department of Sociology at Sungkyunkwan University has been published as an NBER Working Paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), one of the world’s leading economic research organizations. The paper has also been selected as a Featured Working Paper on the NBER website. Founded in 1920, NBER is a leading network for economic research and has been affiliated with 43 Nobel laureates in economics. The NBER Working Paper Series is a major channel through which significant research in economics and the social sciences is circulated among scholars and policy experts worldwide before formal journal publication. The publication of the study as an NBER Working Paper and its selection as a Featured Working Paper highlight its academic significance and international interest. The paper, “In Sickness and in Health: Retirement Responses to Spousal Health Shocks,” examines whether individuals’ retirement decisions are shaped not only by changes in their own health but also by changes in their spouse’s health. Previous research has largely focused on how deteriorating personal health affects retirement. This study takes a “linked lives” perspective, which views the lives and decisions of spouses as closely interconnected, and examines how a spouse’s health shock can affect an individual’s withdrawal from the labor market and timing of retirement. The researchers used data from the U.S. Health and Retirement Study collected between 1992 and 2022. The analysis included 12,435 married or cohabiting adults who were between the ages of 51 and 61 and working full time when they first entered the study. Spousal health shocks were measured using a range of indicators, including declines in self-rated health, new disease diagnoses, hospitalization, increases in out-of-pocket medical expenses, and declines in the ability to perform activities of daily living. Because health shocks occurred at different points in time for different individuals, the researchers applied a staggered difference-in-differences approach. The analysis found that an individual’s probability of retirement increased by 1.2 to 1.3 percentage points after a spouse was diagnosed with a new illness or hospitalized. This represents an increase of approximately 12 to 13 percent relative to the baseline retirement probability. In many cases, the resulting retirement occurred earlier than originally planned. The findings suggest that a sudden deterioration in a spouse’s health can become a significant family-level event that alters not only labor force participation but also an individual’s retirement plans. The retirement response to spousal health shocks was concentrated among women rather than men. The finding suggests that women may take on a greater share of family responsibilities following a spouse’s illness or hospitalization, including managing medical appointments, monitoring medication, communicating with medical providers, and handling insurance-related administrative tasks—responsibilities that may not be fully captured by conventional measures of caregiving. Health insurance also played an important role. Retirement increased substantially following a spouse’s health shock among respondents whose spouses could retain health insurance coverage after the respondent retired. By contrast, when continued employment was necessary to maintain a spouse’s health insurance coverage, individuals tended to postpone retirement even when out-of-pocket medical expenses increased. The findings indicate that while a spouse’s declining health may encourage retirement, the ability to actually retire can depend on institutional factors such as access to health insurance after leaving the workforce. The study moves beyond conventional approaches that explain retirement primarily in terms of an individual’s health or economic resources. It shows how spousal health, marital relationships, gendered family responsibilities, and health insurance arrangements can interact to shape the timing of retirement. The findings also suggest that policies aimed at extending labor force participation among older adults should consider not only individuals’ own health but also their spouses’ health, family caregiving responsibilities, and access to health insurance after retirement. Authors: Hyeran Chung (University of Texas at El Paso), Haena Lee (Sungkyunkwan University), Sita Slavov (George Mason University) NBER Working Paper 35477: https://www.nber.org/papers/w35477
- 작성일 2026-09-17
- 조회수 353
[Faculty] Professor Koo Jeong Woo, [Segye Ilbo Column] "Should Jennie Cut Ties with Adidas?"

Should Jennie Cut Ties with Adidas? “Single-Shoe” campaign featuring an Israeli soldier Criticism over perceived insult to victims of war Controversy spills over to collaborator Jennie Action needed to protect trust with fans BLACKPINK’s Jennie recently collaborated with Adidas to launch a collection of sneakers, apparel and other designs. The market response was enthusiastic—at least initially. Soon, however, fans began calling on her to “cut ties with Adidas.” The controversy stemmed from Adidas’s promotion of a “single shoe” designed for people with limb loss. One of the models featured in the campaign was a former Israeli soldier who lost a leg while serving during the 2021 Israel-Gaza conflict. Palestinian organizations and consumers criticized the campaign as an insult to victims of war. Their question was simple: How could Adidas feature an Israeli soldier when so many Palestinians, including children, have been killed or left with disabilities as a result of Israel’s military operations? The fallout has now reached Jennie, one of Adidas’s collaborators. There is, in fact, no direct connection between the business of selling a single shoe and Jennie’s design collection. Jennie did not appear in the controversial advertisement, nor did her collection’s campaign contain anything offensive. This is, quite literally, a case of controversy sparked by a global brand spilling over onto one of its collaborators. How, then, should Jennie and her agency respond? ▲Koo Jeong Woo, Professor of Sociology at Sungkyunkwan University Brand advertising has long been vulnerable to reputational risk. Adidas itself faced a backlash just two years ago after featuring Palestinian-American model Bella Hadid in an advertisement for its SL72 sneakers. In that case, the criticism came from the opposite direction: Adidas was accused of insulting Israel. In 2023, British retailer Marks & Spencer faced criticism after decorations resembling burning Christmas hats in an advertisement were said to evoke the Palestinian flag. A boycott followed, as one might expect. South Korea has seen similar cases, including Musinsa’s controversy over an advertisement perceived as mocking the late democracy activist Park Jong-chul in 2019, and the more recent “Starbucks Tank Day” controversy. From Jennie and her agency’s perspective, this is undoubtedly a difficult situation. When it comes specifically to brand collaborations between companies and celebrities, it has usually been the celebrity who has caused the trouble. If a celebrity is caught driving under the influence, becomes embroiled in a school bullying controversy or makes inappropriate remarks, companies have typically responded by pulling advertisements or terminating contracts. This time, the situation is reversed. A brand has sparked controversy and faced calls for a boycott, leaving Jennie in a difficult position simply because she partnered with the company. The lesson is clear: celebrities have entered an era in which they, too, must pay close attention to and manage the reputational risks of the brands they work with. What are brands failing to recognize? It is a lack of the social awareness needed to understand what makes people uncomfortable, what images provoke anger and what issues are particularly sensitive. What companies and marketers need is social sensitivity—the ability to understand where people are frustrated or hurting, and to anticipate how a company’s words and images will be interpreted within the social context of the moment. No matter how well-intentioned an advertisement may be, once it touches on areas where social conflict is concentrated—such as war, race, gender, ideology or historical memory—it can take on an entirely different meaning. Until now, advertising contracts have commonly included morality clauses allowing companies to terminate an agreement if a celebrity causes a scandal that damages the company’s image. The reverse is also possible: reverse morality clauses can allow celebrities to suspend or terminate a contract if a company engages in illegal or unethical conduct that damages the celebrity’s reputation. This is a point that K-artists planning global collaborations should pay close attention to. As online spaces have become the foundation of economic and social activity, a single misstep on a socially sensitive issue can expose not only companies and brands but also the artists and creators who work with them to intense backlash and boycotts. The resulting losses in sales and damage to brand image can far exceed expectations. In 2023, U.S. beer brand Bud Light saw its U.S. sales volume fall by more than 15 percent in the fourth quarter following controversy and a boycott over its collaboration with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney. So, should Jennie cut ties with Adidas immediately? Not necessarily. Above all, Jennie was not responsible for the controversy. She has no reason to apologize for something she did not do. She should, however, express concern about the controversy and call on Adidas to provide a responsible explanation and take measures to prevent similar incidents from happening again. The sooner, the better. Such action is essential to protecting the trust Jennie has built with her global fan base.
- 작성일 2026-09-14
- 조회수 404