Chun Hong-Chan (Prof. of Political Science and Diplomacy, PNU) is well known for his lecture method. During his class, there are no materials or notes on the whiteboard. He tells tale-like stories, but never mentions something irrelevant to the subject. He does not give the answers to the questions in such a way as “A is B.” Rather, he encourages students to understand lectures by making deductions through examples and questions that the professor gave them. Then, the professor and students are engaged in questioning and answering every two to three minutes.

Students’ preference for his unique teaching style is polarized. Some praise his method, which is suggested as “the top-rated class in the 2020 College of Social Sciences lecture quality survey,” “4.7/5 for course evaluation score on “Everytime,” the university anonymous community,” and positive descriptions such as “interesting and the most university-like class with a lot to gain.” On the other hand, others avoid his classes, saying, “There are too many things to study for an exam, and it is hard to prepare and participate in class by reading and answering” and “I avoid his class because I feel nervous about being questioned.” As a result, some actively seek out his classes while others avoid them. On September 21st, “Channel PNU” met Prof. Chun, who got significant attention from students in both positive and negative ways, at his lab.

Q. Your teaching style is so unique that it is even well-known among students from different departments. Are you aware of that?

A. Is that so? Actually, I don’t know how it differs, as I haven’t been in other professors’ lectures. In my class, however, I do not use whiteboards, unlike typical theory-based classes. I simply hated subjects that went with rote memorization. The content is already written in books and students can read them, so there is no need for me to repeat it. Moreover, politics is a social science, in which insight is more important than rote learning.

Q. Then, what should professors teach in lectures?

A. Rather than teaching something specific, it's about training students to be able to think and develop insights. At least in the field of politics, I regard professors as “trainers,” not “teachers.” I felt a sense of frustration while teaching students of the Department of Political Science and Diplomacy because they rarely work utilizing their major. Ultimately, I think the reason for this major is to cultivate insight into the world, nations, and society as a whole. You may forget everything you have learned in class, but the ability to think will remain. My role as a professor is to stimulate students to think about things they have not thought of before.

Q. It seems like you emphasize questions a lot in classes.

A. What students have to struggle with most is to find what questions matter as opposed to their role until high school, which requires them to just answer the questions. While questions may have answers, society does not. There can be multiple correct answers, and you often have to pay prices to get close to the solution. To find rational solutions, it is important to understand what the problem is. Studying social science means figuring out the questions through the cross-checking process asking and answering questions. We are not studying for a certificate.

Q. Is there any specific reason or moment that led to your current teaching method?

A. When I studied abroad in the US, I realized what studying should be like. In a high school affiliated with a college of education there, they were debating and presenting on a specific topic, the Civil War, instead of studying a textbook like “American History.” This approach was also prevalent in colleges or graduate schools. In that method, teachers do not just bring students knowledge but facilitate discussions among students to make them think creatively. This influenced my method style.

Q. I heard that you attended a traditional Korean school (seodang). Please tell us about the process from attending a seodang to studying abroad in the US.

A. I have only told a few people, but you know that. Did I say something like that to you? (laughs) It was not exactly a seodang, but there was a scholar living next door who always wore white robes and glasses while studying Chinese classics. My parents heard about it and sent me there. When I became able to read the signboard written in Chinese Characters he wrote, I felt the joy of learning for the first time.

That joy became my driving force. When I entered university, it was the beginning of Marxism, and studying politics (in an academic, not practical sense) was considered quite bourgeois in the Korean context at that time. I was interested in international politics, like the “position of the Soviet Union in the Cold War,” so I decided to go to the US.

Q. You had taught students as a professor there. Did you ever consider staying there permanently?

A. I have never had such thoughts in the first place. Teaching and writing papers required more than three times the effort of my American colleagues. It felt unjust, and it seemed like an unachievable goal. So, I went without much sleep for about a year. Also, I did not think I would be happy living in the US as a foreigner. Korean senior scholars there, also said that it would be better to return to Korea and establish myself since it is challenging to do so over time. My family was in Korea, too.

Q. After returning to Korea, you have been a professor all these years. Do you have any memorable experiences or regrets?

A. There is only one regret. I served as the Dean of the Office of External Relations for three years (2013-2016). I believe that internationalization of the university is essential. If you only speak Korean, you are limited to a small stage, making it difficult to go abroad. I, therefore, took on the role. For sustainable, long-term success, the university needs fundamental changes. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen, and we couldn't achieve the desired results. Also, due to the nature of national universities, I couldn’t stay in that position for a long time, and when the university president changed, some of the agreements we had made with foreign institutions were disregarded. There needs to be trust that an agreement will be honored, but it wasn't. I was very disappointed then.

Q. Why do you emphasize internationalization?

A. While the Pusan National University (PNU) may be considered a regional university within Korea, it is not regarded at the global scale. We would find another path when we do something toward the world, not Seoul. The biggest challenge PNU faces now is that the level of incoming students has been declining because students prefer to go to the Seoul capital area. However, if we look beyond domestic boundaries and recruit excellent students from other countries, we can address this issue. When I was in the US, I wondered why American universities offered scholarships to Korean students. It is because their goal was to bring in outstanding students regardless of nationality, whether they were Korean, American, or Israeli. To make PNU similar to that, we need to change how we recruit students.

Q. What was the problem when proceeding with internationalization?

A. We needed to establish a consensus among the university members on why we have to internationalize and how it will progress in the long term, but we had not. There may be only side effects when trying to internationalize the university by asking faculty who can’t teach in English to do so, hiring foreign professors, and admitting foreign students. However, the university can implement only short-term strategies such as increasing the number of English-taught classes and exchange students. There hasn't been a fundamental discussion on what kind of internationalization is helpful for PNU. The limited term and lack of an owner hinder PNU from presenting a long-term vision and making critical decisions.

Q. What should be the first step then?

A. We need to understand the issue. “We are continuously declining, but this is a domestic problem. If we break out of this framework, PNU will not be just a regional university.” If the university members agree with these ideas, we have to discuss how to proceed. That is when leadership is needed for persuasion, but such leadership lacks here. Therefore, our efforts remain regional.

Furthermore, we must aim to create unique programs not found in other universities. If distinctive programs are designed in PNU considering long-term factors, PNU can be like the University of Hong Kong in three or four decades.

Q. You have written many papers on nuclear power, even though you studied social science. What motivated you to write about this topic?

A. There is a backstory for it. A close friend of mine who used to work at the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute became a professor in the engineering college at PNU. We had meals together and became close, and through conversations, I heard a lot about nuclear power generation. Until then, I didn’t even know there were nuclear power plants like Kori and Wolsong near Busan. I was surprised to learn that Korea had become a world leader in nuclear technology. However, the professor's concern was that while Korea had top-notch technology, there was a lack of social acceptance for nuclear power generation. In the past, the government had led the development but now that we are a democratic nation, which means that the government cannot handle the public demands or perceptions in a top-down approach.

What I learned from this is that science and technology should not become tools of political contention. In the media, technical issues often become political battles depending on the political agenda. This results in significant societal costs. To avoid this, we need to establish scientific and technological standards and address societal acceptance issues through the social sciences and humanities. For instance, in the UK, they have separate departments for social sciences within nuclear research institutions. It suggests that technical and societal conditions are considered when selecting locations for nuclear power plants.

Q. As you are a professor of political science, let me ask you a political question. You have often said that the people always have politicians of a similar level to their own ones.

A. Under the democratic system, the level of politics reflects the average level of the population. So I don’t criticize politicians much, as it means the problem is the people who elected them. Politics, unlike economics, requires people’s thinking to change, and it takes a long time for politics to develop. After a presidential election, we often see voting trends by age group. The 40s vote for one camp, the 60s vote for another camp. These political roots, which were formed when they were young, do not change throughout their lives although the political conditions change. The key to developing politics is the change in generation.

Some countries are called politically advanced nations, but they were not different 50-60 years ago. If you go back in time, countries like the UK had severe corruption and rigged elections. Change takes time, but the problem is that politics is becoming polarized. Even though the quality of information on YouTube and the internet is uneven, outrageous stories can be mainstream, as it is shown just like a broadcasting system. As a researcher in politics, I have a concern about that.

Reporter Jun Hyung-Seo

Translated by Lee Soo-Hyun