2013
DOI: 10.1080/14766825.2013.827201
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Impacts of diaspora travel on ethnic identity development among 1.5 generation Korean-American college students

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
4
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
(52 reference statements)
1
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Whereas most of the published work in the tourism literature tends to regard diasporas as being undifferentiated, and also considers only recent migrants (Lew & Wong, 2004;Kang & Page, 2000), this study adopts a much broader perspective. The Re-affirmative diaspora tourists correspond with those identified in most of the existing research (McCain & Ray, 2003;Nguyen & King, 2004;Kim & Stodolska, 2013). However, this study suggests they represent just one of five types of diaspora tourist, challenging such rudimentary thinking by presenting a more complete understanding of the complex and nuanced relationship that exists between migration, cultural identity, diaspora tourism and place attachment.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 54%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Whereas most of the published work in the tourism literature tends to regard diasporas as being undifferentiated, and also considers only recent migrants (Lew & Wong, 2004;Kang & Page, 2000), this study adopts a much broader perspective. The Re-affirmative diaspora tourists correspond with those identified in most of the existing research (McCain & Ray, 2003;Nguyen & King, 2004;Kim & Stodolska, 2013). However, this study suggests they represent just one of five types of diaspora tourist, challenging such rudimentary thinking by presenting a more complete understanding of the complex and nuanced relationship that exists between migration, cultural identity, diaspora tourism and place attachment.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 54%
“…Research on travel by members of diasporic communities can be found under many names including home return travel (Duval, 2004;Basu, 2007;Kang & Page, 2000;Nguyen & King, 2004;Hughes & Allen, 2010;Pearce, 2012), roots tourism (Bruner, 1996;Basu, 2005;Handley, 2006;Pinho, 2008), ethnic tourism (Ostrowski, 1991;Kang & Page, 2000;Butler, 2003;Fourie & Santana-Gallego, 2013), visiting friends and relatives (VFR) tourism (Uriely, 2010;Pearce, 2012), genealogical tourism (Santos & Yan, 2010) and of course diaspora (diasporic) travel (Kim & Stodolska, 2013) or tourism (Coles & Timothy, 2004;Moufakkir, 2011). Importantly, with few notable exceptions (Coles & Timothy, 2004), these types of studies tend to regard diasporic groups as being undifferentiated, and who, depending on the group in question, travel for similar reasons and achieve broadly similar outcomes associated with resolving personal identity conflicts, discovering one's roots, retaining or maintaining personal connections or engendering feelings of being at home in their "native" soil (Duval, 2004;Stephenson, 2002;Timothy, 2008;Wessendorf, 2007).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It is important to note that, unlike the GEN2 speakers, the GEN1.5 speakers did not demonstrate pronounced back vowel fronting or an overall fronted vowel space. If we extend our argument from above, it is possible that the GEN1.5 speakers may not feel the need to overemphasize their American-ness through back vowel fronting in the same way as the GEN2 speakers, since GEN1.5 speakers often demonstrate a strong affiliation to Korean cultures as part of their dual identity (Kim and Stodolska 2013). Thus, it is likely that GEN1.5 speakers identify themselves more strongly as Koreans or Korean Americans than Asian Americans.…”
Section: Second-generation Korean Americans' Divergent Participation ...mentioning
confidence: 68%
“…In industrial countries such as France, Italy, Turkey, Thailand, Greece, Singapore, and Malaysia, tourism obtains more foreign exchange than the oil export. As UNESCO declared, Iran is among the top ten countries with a good variety of tourist destinations and the development of this industry would be a suitable alternative for oil export in future [12].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%