Canada-Focused Social Sciences Studies in South Korea: A 20-Year Scoping Review

A scoping review method is considered to undertake a broad field of evidence synthesis of the classified literature (Pollock et al., 2021). Scoping reviews, also known as scoping studies and mapping studies, give an overview of specific domains through a systematic classification (Petersen et al., 2015). From a post-modern point of view, scoping studies involve searching the relevant literature by category to identify what topics are covered in the research areas mapped to a classification (Lee & Cho, 2021). Such categories used in a scoping study are based on publication information (e.g., fields/affiliations of the authors, publication source, research type, and core topics) as well as abstract/descriptions on the research methods used. Scoping reviews differ from systematic literature reviews, aiming to consider the strength of evidence and a comprehensive understanding of findings in that they primarily focus on classifying the type of research, structuring a research scope, and responding to a set of high-level research questions (Petersen et al., 2015). The literature review method also has a key feature that relies on visualization techniques in presenting findings and aggregating the evidence (Kitchenham et al., 2011).

This work utilizes a well-organized procedure of literature collection strategies, AI-driven analytic tools and results presentation suitable for scoping reviews, as depicted in Figure 1 that ranges from selecting the literature data pool to discussing the knowledge synthesis and the presentation of results (Lee & Cho, 2021). To secure generalizability at most, data collection and data analysis activities that this study adopted in January and February 2025 were demonstrated by multiple scoping studies that Kitchenham et al. (2011), Petersen et al. (2015), and Lee and Cho (2021), and undertook and generated by artificial intelligence (AI) services. For data collection, the researcher entered a single keyword as “Canada” in Korean syllables (i.e., ) on the search window of the Korea Citation Index website (www.kci.go.kr, KCI), and then clicked seven options on the publication information, including ‘social sciences’ as journal types and ‘from 2005 thru 2024’ as published year, to screen relevant research papers used for the study.

Figure 1. Process of data handling and reporting

Download Original Figure

As a result of the high-level search, the work included 211 pieces of literature, except for four non-academic articles from the initial 215 listings. Next, to extract informative bibliographic data in the RIS format that is compatible with EndNote/Zotero Reference Management Software, this study activated 15 bibliographic filtering boxes available on the search page, followed by downloading RIS-formatted files multiple times from the KCI’s database. As shown in Figure 2, all 15 attributes of the standard bibliographic information were imported to the Zotero program and the MS-Excel 365 program. Four fields of English-written names, titles, abstracts, and keywords in a simple text layout were then selected for the systematic classification stage. Lastly, this researcher utilized ChatGPT 4o to analyze text data in a time-effective manner; the Generative AI’s Large Language Model (LLM) engine enabled us to run qualitative descriptive coding methods in analyzing a large volume of the documentary data, followed by a valid and reliable Non-negative Matrix Factorization (NMF) method from ChatGPT 4o (see Appendix).

Figure 2. Screen captured bibliographic data on Zotero and MS-spreadsheet

Download Original Figure

By interpreting the structured outputs made by ChatGPT’s descriptive coding jobs, knowledge synthesis in accordance with Kitchenham et al.’s (2011) and Petersen et al.’s (2015) guidelines on scoping studies, and presentation of the evidence primarily in a tabular format were carried out.

This study looks over temporal trends in publication. To understand the trends in Canada-related studies, it classified the selected papers based on publication year. Figure 3 depicts the publication trend across the time period; the paper counts are grouped into 5-year periods as 2005~2009, 2010~2014, 2015~2019, and 2020~2024. Here, we may easily discover that the amount of research increases by the classified period.

Figure 3. Research distribution over time

Download Original Figure

Publication rates have increased from 27 pieces in 2005~2009 to 80 pieces in 2020~2024; the number of papers has nearly tripled in 15 years, indicating gradually growing academic interest in Canada between the two countries. However, this quantitative rise masks a qualitative stagnation in the diversity of topics or methods, as revealed in later sections. Judging from the full English name of the first authors, this scoping study is able to look into the national dynamics of authorship (See Table 1). Among 211 primary authors, 194 Koreans occupy while 17 pieces are made by non-Koreans, including 15 pieces by Canadian (or Westerners) and two pieces by Chinese authors; Korean authors dominate the literature in social sciences, accounting for nearly 92% of the studies. Only a handful of Canadians make up less than 8% of the total, and two Chinese contributors are represented. These figures clearly show a mono-directional knowledge flow, where Korean perspectives shape the entire discourse on Canada-related social issues. While this demonstrates active Korean scholarly engagement, it also reflects a missed opportunity for co-authored transnational scholarship, limiting the dialogic nature of bilateral studies.

More specifically, this study investigates the work’s form combined with the citizenship of the first author. The number of sole authors is 138 pieces (65.4%), and the number of co-authors is 73(=58+10+5) pieces (34.6%). It appears that Korean authors prefer single works indeed, whereas non-Koreans would rather go with collaborations (see Figure 4).

Figure 4. Publication by form of the research

Download Original Figure

Understanding the distribution of institutional affiliations is crucial; the information gives us authors with resources, support and research impact. Figure 5 illustrates that nearly 162 over 211 (77%) originate from universities/post-graduate schools in Korea, with minimal contributions from overseas, national research centers, or governmental bodies. This institutional concentration implies predominant academic insulation—social sciences research on Canada is conducted largely within Korean universities, with little engagement from practitioners or cross-sector actors such as legal firms, private research groups, or individual researchers with primary/secondary schools.

Figure 5. Types of institutes (Affiliation of the primary author)

Download Original Figure

For this review, as shown in Appendix A, ChatGPT-assisted descriptive coding reveals evolving topical emphases after analyzing three text datasets in the columns of all keywords in English to identify significant shifts by topic shown by five-year periods:

• 2005~2009: Free Trade Agreement (FTA), globalization, and bilingual policy
• 2010~2014: multiculturalism, education, and social integration
• 2015~2019: legal frameworks, customs, and curriculum
• 2020~2024: criminal justice, discrimination, and climate change

Compared to the above topical shifts that AI-assisted descriptive coding undertook, this research manually searched the most frequent words apart among the keywords by grouping five years on MS Excel, using the spreadsheet’s built-in ‘find’ (i.e., search) function. As a result, as Table 2 suggests, it can be confirmed that this timeline captures a similar Korea’s shifting interest between the two analytic methods(i.e., by AI-assisted and handwork)—from macroeconomic ties and trade agreements to social justice issues such as correctional treatment and discrimination, mirroring broader global academic trends.

This mapping study also undertakes a twofold word cloud analysis corresponding to titles and keywords of 211 articles, followed by a thematic cluster based on 211 abstracts using ChatGPT’s NMF technique (see Appendix B), around five core research areas as illustrated in Figure 6 and Table 3, respectively.

Figure 6. Word clouds

Download Original Figure

First, in regard to article titles, research highlights are addressed as follows. Education, curriculum development, and social system reforms are frequent topics. Legal system studies appear as well, highlighting governance and public policy dimensions. International development and student mobility emerge as secondary yet noticeable themes. Studies highlight curriculum reforms in fields such as science and career education, often benchmarking Ontario models. Attention to multicultural aspects and ethnic identity reflects Canada’s influence on social structure. Policy comparison between Korea and Canada seems a backbone approach in many papers. Overall, Canadian studies are used as a lens to critique or inform Korean educational and policy frameworks.

Then, pertaining to keywords in the papers, an intense concentration on FTA suggests a major economic and legal interest. Curriculum development remains central, reflecting Canada's educational influence. Multiculturalism and immigration topics appear frequently, emphasizing Canada's social diversity. Social systems and policy development in Canada are studied as models for Korean adaptation. Environmental issues, such as climate policy, energy transition, and environmental law are emerging. Electronic governance and digital transformation have started to appear but remain less dominant. Legal frameworks like the Canadian Charter of Rights are often explored comparatively. Continually, based on 211 abstracts, Table 3 provides outputs of the thematic cluster around five research sectors supported by ChatGPT’s NMF service. The first research areas are primarily related to governance and policy, with an emphasis on Canadian federalism, tax law, and Quebec’s language rights. While these studies suggest a comparative constitutional interest in the region, they do not deeply engage with Canadian public administration theory. The second domain contains education and pedagogical-related topics, with a focus on curriculum comparison between two countries, often benchmarking Ontario as a meaningful policy reference. This cluster is methodologically diverse but usually lacks policy-to-practice linkage. The third case relates to the matter of international trade, which FTA is involved in, and in this domain, economic issues are also addressed; such writings also provide detailed information on NAFTA/CETA implications and rules of origin, but they often neglect supply chain policy or the dynamics of green trade. The fourth research groups are within legal systems and human rights; topics range from indigenous legal rights to mental health justice, yet few studies integrate indigenous epistemologies or intersectional legal critiques. Lastly, multiculturalism and identity are also key research areas; the focus of the research reflects growing attention to Canada’s multicultural model, often in contrast to Korea’s monoethnic narrative. However, few works examine diasporic identity formation or lived immigrant experience, despite the fact that there are more than 240 thousand Korean immigrants living in Canada nationwide (Korean Consulate General Toronto, 2024).

As Table 4 shows, as for linguistic patterns, a striking 86% of papers (181 pieces) are written in Korean, with only 13% in English. This presents a linguistic silo that limits international accessibility and cross-border citation, inadvertently isolating Korean perspectives from broader Canadianist discourse. Besides, Table 5 shows that in terms of citation frequency, over 90% of papers (191 over 211) are cited fewer than 10 times, and a full 30% are never cited. While citation metrics are not definitive markers of quality, this suggests that Canada-related research in Korea remains marginal in academic influence and may lack disciplinary integration.

Lastly, methodological approaches are depicted in Figure 7. The research methods applied in the literature are predominantly descriptive or unclear, with only a minority using rigorous qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-method basis. As international social sciences literature, this methodological underdevelopment signals an urgent need for deeper empirical engagement, including fieldwork, ethnography, and data modelling.

Figure 7. Research methods

Download Original Figure

This scoping review indicates some key holes in knowledge and academic voids. First, co-authored intercultural studies between researchers in the two nations are insufficient, which creates a highly one-sided academic debate. Second, indigenous Canadian issues have received little attention across Korean scholarly outputs, showing a notable blind spot in researching the multidimensional societal structures within Canada. Third, Francophone Canada is systematically underrepresented in the studies reviewed, despite being deeply embedded in shaping the cultural and political landscape of the nation. Fourth, there is a lack of policy feedback analyses that explore how Canadian models may inform policy innovation or reform processes in Korea. Fifth, the marginalization of immigrant voices, and the limited use of ethnographic inquiry, seriously limit the depth and authenticity of multicultural and societal studies. Last but not least, cross-sectoral engagement including lawyers, NGOs, and government officials remains limited making it difficult to achieve the interdisciplinary scope through which to understand Canada-Korea relations.