2.1 Overview of internationalization and EMI in Korea’s higher education

Attracting international talent has been a central agenda in Korea’s higher education policy, aimed at enhancing global competitiveness and countering the steady decline in the school‑age population (Choi Reference Choi2024; Jung Reference Jung2024). This reflects the government’s strategy to preemptively secure a skilled future workforce and strengthen national competitiveness through aggressive internationalization initiatives designed to reverse brain drain and expand international student enrollment (Bolton et al. Reference Bolton, Ahn, Botha and Bacon–Shone2023; MOE 2023).

According to the Korean Education Development Institute (2024) census, the number of international students in both degree and non‑degree programs at Korean universities more than doubled in just a decade, from 91,332 students in 2015 to 208,962 students in 2024. More revealing is the number of international student enrollments in degree programs consistently surging over the past decade. While a large proportion of international students come from neighboring Asian countries, recent years have witnessed a significant uptick in the student population from non‑Asian regions. As one of the strongest economies in Asia, Korea’s unprecedented economic development, together with the rising global popularity of K‑culture, has attracted growing numbers of international populations seeking education and career opportunities, thereby cementing its status as an appealing destination.

Central to Korea’s higher education internationalization strategy has been the importance of adopting a language policy to suit international students. English functioning as a dominant currency for both economic and academic prestige rendered it an obvious choice as a medium of instruction for many universities (Bowles and Murphy Reference Bowles and Murphy2020; Fenton–Smith et al. Reference Fenton–Smith, Humphreys and Walkinshaw2017). EMI has therefore become a top‑down response to internationalization, making it a recurrent practice in Korean higher education ever since the turn of the century (Byun and Kim Reference Byun and Kim2011). The growing prevalence of EMI reflects a broader neoliberal shift in higher education (Park Reference Park, Flubacher and Percio2017; Rahman and Hu Reference Rahman and Hu2025). Universities are increasingly expected to compete on a global scale, attract international students, and tailor their curricula and language policy to meet market demands. In this regard, English is indisputably a constant in the equation of internationalization in Korean higher education. Nevertheless, the choice of EMI itself should not be taken for granted, as ‘internationalization covers an area more closely linked to institutional policy, which does not necessarily concern the English language, even if this is in fact often the case’ (Costa and Mariotti Reference Costa, Mariotti, Bowles and Murphy2020, 230).

2.2 Theoretical frameworks

The study draws upon a multi‑layered analytical approach to examine how integration and marginalization are produced and reproduced in international students’ lived experiences of EMI in Korean higher education. Grounded in Spolsky’s (Reference Spolsky2004) framework of language policy, the analysis draws on Bourdieu’s (Reference Bourdieu1991) linguistic capital and symbolic power and Fricker’s (Reference Fricker2007) epistemic injustice to account for the conditions shaping these experiences.

Language policy is a complex construct that is a product as well as a manifestation of ideologies and values associated with language(s) in a specific context (Wright Reference Wright2016). It encompasses a set of principles established by governments and institutions in making language choices and shaping language use. Spolsky’s (Reference Spolsky2004) framework of language policy – comprising practices, ideologies, and management – offers a useful lens for illuminating the complexity of the choice of medium of instruction in higher education, given that ‘language policies adopted by universities condition the access to knowledge for students’ (Gazzola and Wickström Reference Gazzola and Wickström2017, 3). In this sense, language policy is not merely a linguistic decision but presupposes intentions shaped by multiple and even competing perspectives. The presence of a language policy, however, may not guarantee implementation, nor does implementation necessarily result in success, as policy may not align with actual language practices. Such discrepancies may arise from tensions between top‑down initiatives and the bottom‑up practices embedded within linguistic communities (Cogo and Jenkins Reference Cogo and Jenkins2010; Rahman and Hu Reference Rahman and Hu2025; Ricento and Hornberger Reference Ricento and Hornberger1996). Understanding the degree of alignment – or misalignment – between management efforts and actual practice requires attention to the underlying language ideologies and unequal distribution of capital at play (Tollefson Reference Tollefson and Ricento2006).

Among the different forms of capital, Bourdieu (Reference Bourdieu1991) conceptualizes linguistic capital as the value intertwined with the mastery of the so‑called legitimate language, which functions as a key instrument in asserting symbolic power. Language, in this sense, operates as a form of currency that shapes how individuals are perceived and how power is exercised in the linguistic market. This perspective foregrounds the socially constructed value of language and its role in structuring access to participation, recognition, and legitimacy, while a lack thereof may reinforce inequity and marginalization within institutional contexts. From this viewpoint, universities implementing EMI policy can be understood as a specific type of linguistic market (Abrar–ul–Hassan Reference Abrar–ul–Hassan2021; Webb et al. Reference Webb, Schirato and Danaher2002). When situated in a non‑English‑speaking environment, such as Korea, EMI classrooms constitute a nested linguistic market that operates within a broader national linguistic market. In this type of context, linguistic capital does not solely refer to the ability to communicate in the medium of instruction but to the possession of institutionally valued linguistic resources. Here, Korean, which is the official language, functions as a legitimate linguistic currency that can be translated into additional forms of linguistic capital and symbolic power. For example, students whose linguistic resources do not conform to these dominant norms and beliefs may experience symbolic violence, placing them at a disadvantage. In this process, they may internalize exclusion and marginalization rather than recognizing them as structural outcomes of institutional language practices (Samuel Reference Samuel2013).

This can be further understood by referring to Fricker’s (Reference Fricker2007) notion of epistemic injustice, which refers to a form of injustice related to knowledge that occurs when people are wronged in their capacity as knowers. She further notes that even in the absence of any specific social agency actively excluding them from democratic participation, exclusion nonetheless occurs, indicating the operation of social power. This arises when people are unfairly treated or disadvantaged in their ability to understand, interpret, communicate or have their experiences recognized as legitimate knowledge. She distinguishes two primary forms of epistemic injustice: testimonial injustice and hermeneutical injustice. Testimonial injustice is related to a credibility deficit caused by prejudice on the part of the hearer. It occurs when the speaker’s words are taken less seriously due to ingrained assumptions related to characteristics such as class, nationality or linguistic and cultural background. This may operate unconsciously and need not be the result of deliberate discrimination. Speakers who are subject to testimonial injustice may find their accounts discounted, making it difficult for their experiences to be acknowledged as legitimate knowledge. As a result, their testimony is not afforded the epistemic trust it deserves, thereby silencing their voices within knowledge‑producing contexts.

Hermeneutical injustice arises when there is a gap in shared interpretive resources, which puts certain people at an unfair disadvantage in making sense of their experiences. In such cases, speakers may lack the conceptual tools necessary to articulate their experiences, and hearers may lack the interpretive frameworks required to understand them. In other words, this gap of not having enough shared experiences can prevent their experiences from becoming intelligible within dominant discourses. In this sense, epistemic injustice operates as a lived manifestation of symbolic power, demonstrating how it not only regulates participation but also shapes whose knowledge is heard, trusted and rendered meaningful within academic practices (Williams and Stelma Reference Williams and Stelma2022). Taken together, these perspectives provide a nuanced lens for examining how EMI within higher education internationalization agendas can inadvertently engender equity‑related challenges that shape international students’ access to education appropriate to their academic needs and, in turn, their academic integration or marginalization.

2.3 Previous studies

In contexts where English is widely viewed as instrumental to the internationalization of higher education, EMI is often perceived as a means of acquiring symbolic capital (Bourdieu Reference Bourdieu1991). As reported by Molino et al. (Reference Molino, Dimova, Kling and Larsen2023), ideologies that foster positive attitudes toward EMI are typically associated with the perceived benefits of English proficiency, access to up‑to‑date academic knowledge and enhanced competitiveness in the global job market. Moreover, with world university rankings becoming an increasingly influential factor, many universities have intensified their efforts to expand and refine EMI on an unprecedented scale to enhance global visibility, engendering an international campus that attracts international faculty and students (Bowles and Murphy Reference Bowles and Murphy2020; Jenkins and Mauranen Reference Jenkins and Mauranen2019).

Although EMI continues to serve as a major pull factor for international student recruitment, only recently have there been studies that have drawn attention to the challenges associated with studying in non‑English‑speaking environments (e.g., Choi Reference Choi, de Wit, Minaeva and Wang2022; Galloway et al. Reference Galloway, Numajiri and Rees2020; Jung and Kim Reference Kim, Fenton–Smith, Humphreys and Walkinshaw2017; Wan and Gao Reference Wan and Gao2020). Anderson (Reference Anderson, Jenkins and Mauranen2019) distinguished between temporary, non‑degree‑seeking students as part of the ‘old internationalization’ and degree‑seeking students from abroad as the ‘new internationalization’, highlighting the important roles of the latter. While there are only a handful of studies situated in Asian, non‑English‑speaking contexts regarding this perspective, this line of research has begun to gain momentum, revealing how the growth of EMI has taken divergent forms depending on local sociolinguistic and policy landscapes. In China, for instance, Wang (Reference Wang2017) identified a policy vacuum in EMI implementation, noting that international students’ linguistic needs were assumed rather than empirically examined. Issues of exclusion and inequality, urging for a more inclusive approach to alleviate marginalization, were also highlighted (Han and Dong Reference Han and Dong2024). In Taiwan, Lin and Lin (Reference Lin, Lin, Su, Cheun and Wu2021) underscored the importance of addressing the diverse linguistic backgrounds of international students to promote equitable participation. In the Korean context, Jon (Reference Jon2012) and Byun et al. (Reference Byun, Chu, Kim, Park, Kim and Jung2011) documented linguistic discrimination and unequal access to academic support among international students, revealing a persistent gap between policy and practice and, in some cases, experiences of discrimination (Byun and Jung Reference Byun and Jung2019).

Despite the growing number of EMI studies, the existing literature has largely focused on Korean students’ perspectives, with international students included only as peripheral participants whose contributions merely supplement the main analyses (Jon and Cho Reference Jon and Cho2024; Williams and Stelma Reference Williams and Stelma2022). As a result, little is known about how EMI policies translate into practice for degree‑seeking international students and how these students navigate EMI within their academic trajectories. The literature reveals a notable gap in understanding how Korean universities accommodate diverse international student populations and whether EMI policy aligns with their lived experiences (cf. Muller Reference Muller2025). As degree‑seeking international students are becoming core members of the academic community and key stakeholders in the internationalization of Korean higher education, understanding how they interpret and respond to these language policies warrants closer analytic attention (cf. Jon et al. Reference Jon, Lee and Byun2014; Jung Reference Jung2025). To gain a deeper understanding of how EMI policy operates within this tension, the present study seeks to explore the following research question: How is EMI policy implemented in practice, and to what extent does it align with degree‑seeking international students’ lived academic experiences?

5.1 Shattered expectations of English‑track students

One of the main themes that emerged from the interviews was when students’ expectations were not met. Due to the limited availability of EMI courses, the prestige and legitimacy associated with English proficiency were not fully recognized within the institutional context. While students admitted via the Korean‑track were generally satisfied with EMI offerings in terms of quantity, those who entered via the English‑track were relatively unified in their dissatisfaction, as they assumed that there would be a sufficient number of EMI courses available. They expressed frustration over academic struggles stemming from the limited availability of EMI courses, which constrained their course enrollment options.

The following illustrates a case in which international students were treated differently from their Korean counterparts in mainstream academic settings, constituting a form of epistemic injustice that operated as a barrier to academic progression. Like other English‑track interviewees, S3 pointed out the notable lack of EMI courses, as not all of the required courses were available in English, expressing deep resentment about the situation.

A similar case was also pointed out by S2, who had previously been led to think that students could complete their major studies without knowledge of academic Korean. Students relying on EMI were constrained by repetitive or insufficient course offerings, which often required them to take courses out of sequence or extend their studies. As a result, they experienced overloaded or underloaded course schedules, incurred additional tuition costs and faced delayed graduation. Some were even compelled to enroll in unwanted English language courses to fulfill credit requirements despite already being fluent. These structural constraints contributed to confusion, poor academic performance and, ultimately, regret over their decision to apply to the case university.

Some participants also criticized the university’s policy of allocating an additional quota of seats exclusively to exchange students, perceiving it as discriminatory toward degree‑seeking international students. As illustrated by S4, this contributed to a sense of relative deprivation and broader perceptions of systemic inequities on campus.

Echoing this concern, S2 and S3 noted that the quota policy may have resulted in the unintentional marginalization of degree‑seeking international students. With limited EMI options and unexpected challenges, S1, S2, S3, and S4, for instance, had no choice but to take KMI courses despite their limited Korean proficiency. They were largely self‑taught, relying on translations passed down by their predecessors who had faced similar struggles. Rather than seeking preferential treatment, they expressed frustration that the university had failed to provide equitable learning opportunities by not offering EMI versions of existing KMI courses despite repeated demands. While English competence constitutes a valuable linguistic capital that provides access to participation and legitimacy in EMI courses, a structural impasse created by a Korean divide reflects epistemic injustice, contributing to academic marginalization.

5.2 Korean‑track students’ difficulties in navigating EMI courses

In contrast to those who experienced a Korean divide in Section 5.1, students on the other end of the spectrum – those who had entered the university through the Korean‑track and were comfortable with Korean but struggled with English – faced an English divide in EMI due to their limited English proficiency, which negatively affected their academic performance. Some Korean‑track students noted that the graduation requirement to complete a number of EMI courses posed a burden. The following illustrates a pertinent example of epistemic marginalization, where students’ academic difficulties arose from disparities in English proficiency. S11 expressed a desire for EMI offerings to be tailored to varying levels of English proficiency.

S5 also shared the experience of observing other international students struggle with their English skills in EMI classes, although this was not the case for S5. It was also noted that Korean‑track students had struggled engaging in English discussions held in class and expressed a lack of confidence. As such, those who preferred taking KMI courses also wanted their voices to be heard as they too faced challenges, albeit from a different perspective. While EMI may benefit those with strong English proficiency, it can inadvertently marginalize international students who struggle with English. This raises important questions about who truly benefits from EMI and whether such policies contribute to educational equity.

5.3 English‑proficient Korean‑track students turning to EMI courses

This section shows another divide even among Korean‑track students. While students such as S10, S11, and S12 primarily took KMI courses because Korean was their stronger foreign language, other students admitted through the Korean‑track opted for EMI courses due to their relatively higher English proficiency. Although some participants met the Korean language requirement for admission, English remained their stronger language and was therefore preferred for academic learning. Realizing that the university offered a range of, albeit limited, EMI courses, these students became more inclined to take EMI courses, as doing so helped them relieve academic pressure and improve their overall grades. For instance, S5, who initially planned to take all courses in Korean, eventually switched to EMI after facing difficulties keeping up with KMI courses and feeling insecure about academic Korean. S6, another Korean‑track student, described choosing EMI courses for similar reasons, noting the opportunity to leverage linguistic capital and thus engage more confidently in EMI settings.

Like other Korean‑track students, S9, despite meeting both language requirements for admission, struggled to keep up with courses conducted in academic Korean. To cope, S9 recorded lectures, engaged in self‑study, and was occasionally permitted to write exam answers in English. Because English remained the stronger academic language, S9 eventually switched from KMI to EMI courses.

As such, EMI courses offered a greater sense of comfort for Korean‑track students whose English was stronger than their Korean, as they were seen as a way to avoid the heavier demands of KMI courses. This preference was further reinforced by the pressure to graduate on time.