An archaeology of korean sport for international development discourse in Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In April 1991, South Korea began its full-fledged participation in international development with the establishment of the Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA). Since then, KOICA has implemented a variety of overseas sport volunteer programmes, Taekwondo-specific programmes and sport aid projects in the Global South. Our analysis aims to identify the rules of Korean-specific discursive formations framing these KOICA programmes, which generate particular iterations of the Korean sport for international development discourse. Six different sets of KOICA documents published from 1991 to 2017 were collected and analysed using Foucault’s (1972) archaeology and its categories of rules of formation of objects, enunciative modalities, concepts and strategies. The findings reveal that elite sport and elite athletes in recipient countries were visible as objects. Korean instructors were given the subject position of legitimate expert through the formation of enunciative modalities. Two concepts, input-oriented volunteering and output-oriented volunteering, incorporated values of compassion and a spirit of sharing and respect along with personal achievement. Lastly, the transfer of Korean (sport) development knowledge and experience emerged as sport-oriented and non-sport-oriented strategies. The conclusion offers critical reflections that distinguish Korean sport for international development from Western SFD through a focus on the relationship between former colonies, and on Taekwondo as a symbolic national tool for SFD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".