• Journal of Families and Better Life
• /
• v.23 no.2 s.74
• /
• pp.107-125
• /
• 2005

Each ethnic group has a different cultural background and has developed its own culture in the name of a tradition. The interaction between different cultures is ever increasing through the process of acculturation or culture contact The purpose of this study is to provide baseline information about domestic living of Korean immigrants in Australia and Australians for a larger cross-cultural study project. As the first step, the usage of domestic space and seating styles of 52 Korean households in Melbourne were analyzed. Ethnographic research was conducted, utilizing a questionnaire. The findings of this research are as follows: 1. The most popular type of Living-Dining-Kitchen arrangement was the one which the kitchen is separated from the living and dining area. The level of satisfaction was the highest when the living room, dining room, and kitchen were all separated. 2. A laundry room was indispensable for Koreans in Australia, and they wanted to dry laundry and do ironing in there. Most people were satisfied with the toilet separated from the bathroom A drain hole on the floor of the bathroom was not indispensable for most Korean-Australians. 3. Korean-Australians tend to engage in various activities in their individual rooms, and they estimated that the size of most rooms were small. They also wanted to renovate the house to expand the rooms. 4. The seating style of Korean-Australians was mostly chair-seating. Yet, they often made beds on the floor for guests, and made kimchi sitting on the floor. Also, when they were relaxing, they were using both chair-seating and floor-seating. 5. Korean-Australians were not very satisfied with the use of floor carpets because of the dust collected on the carpets, and the difficulty to clean. It may be related to their preferred floor seating style, as well. 6. Almost all Korean-Australians take off their shoes inside of the house for hygienic reasons. They had a shoes cabinet at the entrance inside of the house. 7. The most popular heating system was ducted heating. The level of satisfaction about this was moderate because hot air contains lots of dust and it makes rooms very dry. Many were using electric blankets and their desired heating system was Ondol (heated floor). 8. Korean-Australians thought that the living room was the most important place for the family, and believed it should be decorated well to entertain guests. They also pointed out that the lighting was not bright enough in general.

• Journal of the Korean association of regional geographers
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.180-194
• /
• 2016

The local identity of a female marriage migrant is not fixed to certain boundary or location, but rather comprised flexibly according to geographical movement or new settlement to different place. This research focuses on the local identity and life change of female marriage migrants that are constituted/reconstituted according to spatial transition, or migration. The analysis was conducted to find out traits of changes in the periods of migration and settlement based on the following categorization: multiculturalism and bicultural identity, assimilation and host country identity, exclusion and origin country identity, marginalization and marginal identity. The results are as follows; while having identical experience in terms of a migration, the local identities of marriage migrant women differed according to individual/regional characteristics as well as their respective roles within those traits. In addition, most of females showed passivity in maintaining and exposing their cultural identities of original states. Moreover the life satisfaction change of female marriage migrant that is type of assililation and host country identity is appeared more than others. through this assimilation and accommodation mean adaptation to female marriage migrant lived in Korea. However the intercultural competences of both marriage migrant woman and children in multicultural families facilitate the connection among different cultures. Based on these outcomes, with the transition to multicultural society and space, this research proposes the necessity of fostering global citizenship for mutual recognition of each culture, thus enabling coexistence.

• Journal of International Area Studies (JIAS)
• /
• v.13 no.4
• /
• pp.251-284
• /
• 2010

Through specific cases, this article examines the causes and measures to overcome cultural divergences most frequently encountered by Koreans living in Vietnam and Korean-contacting Vietnamese in terms of mode of communication, mode of living and mode of doing business. Historical reality proves that Vietnam and Korea have a lot in common in history, culture and society, due to the influence from the Chinese culture on both countries. However, each country has its own acculturation, hence, there exist, apart from the normal dissimilarities, differences between the two countries especially in natural environment andpolitical systems. As a result, in Vietnam, Koreans and Vietnamese have met with quite a lot of divergences in communication, business and living activities. In order to overcome these cultural divergences, in addition to the ceaseless efforts made by Koreans in Vietnam and Korean-contacting Vietnamese, there should be concern, assistance as well as cooperation between the people and the authorities of the two countries. We should draw lessons from the groundless or trivial affairs which, springing from the Chinese people's dislike for Koreans, have been blown up and disseminated on the internet; where by we are to reconsider the relationship between Koreans and Vietnamese. What is more, Korea still feels historically ashamed to have sent nearly 350,000 soldiers to the wa rin Vietnam for economic purposes in the past. As our predecessors brought about that historic shame to get bread for our fatherland in exchange, our generation today should approach Vietnam out of a sense of responsibility towards history. Having experienced a period of economic difficulties, Vietnam innovated and started its open-door policy in 1987. However, this event should not be regarded as the reason for us to approach Vietnam with only one rigid economic principle.