Ethical Issues in North Korea Research

How do we conduct research on a country where data are often unavailable or of questionable quality? Should we publish research that could potentially be used to inflict harm on others or to support misguided policies? Should we travel to North Korea or not? Should we accept funding from state institutions? Every researcher working on North Korea will sooner or later encounter these and other ethical questions.[1]

The European Centre for North Korean Studies (ECNK) at the University of Vienna organized a workshop on July 15–16, 2025, to discuss these and related issues. From the understanding that ethics are ambiguous and outlooks shaped by context and personal experience, the ECNK sought to draw on the diverse experience of its non-resident fellow network to enrich discussion regarding topics often thought about but less often discussed. This report summarizes our discussions. The event was held under the Chatham House Rule, so no individual contributions will be attributed. The purpose of this report is to raise awareness of ethical dilemmas and pitfalls, share experiences, and support the development of strategies to address the ethical challenges involved in researching North Korea.

The workshop demonstrated that ethical awareness is of paramount importance in North Korean Studies. While pragmatism—in accepting funding, selecting research topics, or traveling to North Korea—was recognized as a key factor for professional success, it must be balanced with a strong sense of responsibility. Transparency regarding funding sources, data origins, and methodological approaches emerged as a crucial strategy for achieving this. Inclusivity and solidarity were highlighted as particularly important in work involving North Korean migrants.

The Field of North Korean Studies is Not Unique, but…

Ethical concerns are a universal feature of academic research. A recent study analyzing 3,128 publications from 1965 to 2023 finds a growing awareness of ethical issues, but also notes that “significant challenges persist, including the lack of standardized approaches for detecting misconduct, limited understanding of the factors contributing to unethical behavior, and unclear definitions of ethical violations.”[2]

Key concepts in research ethics include integrity, honesty, and responsibility. Informed consent, data manipulation, plagiarism, and conflicts of interest are commonly identified as ethical concerns.[3] Unethical practices can undermine the reliability of research, erode public trust in science, and cause harm to individuals or communities.[4]

To address these challenges, Adjovi recommends “promoting transparency and data sharing, enhancing education and training programs, establishing robust mechanisms to identify and address misconduct, and encouraging collaborative research and open science practices.”

Whether the disciplinary focus lies in the humanities or the social sciences, there is no reason to assume that the field of North Korean Studies is an exception. Accordingly, we can and should draw upon existing analyses and recommendations.

But what does this mean in practical terms? We found that while many issues are indeed universal, the details are often—but not always—specific to North Korea research. This is due to several factors: the highly politicized nature of the subject, the unique characteristics of North Korea itself, and the relatively small size of the field, which often leads to researcher isolation and a lack of peer support and knowledge exchange. These factors shape research practices and amplify the dilemmas researchers face.

The main goal of the workshop was therefore to explore how these factors manifest under the specific conditions of conducting research on North Korea.

Cluster 1: Researching North Korea

Key questions proposed for discussion included:

• What ethical considerations apply when including North Korean defectors/migrants in research?
• How should researchers navigate the lack of reliable data and questions about data quality?
• If nothing else is available, should questionable data be used, or is it better to avoid using any data at all?
• How do we evaluate the credibility of sources?

The question of North Korean defectors (henceforth: migrants) emerged as a central topic in our discussions. This included frequently raised concerns about the reliability of information obtained from them. Specific arguments addressed methodological challenges inherent to oral history; concerns about financial incentives; the fact that many migrants are repeatedly selected for participation in surveys and interviews to the point of becoming de facto professional respondents; and geographical bias due to the predominance of migrants from the northeastern region of North Korea.

Regarding that final point, participants noted that while this regional bias exists, its impact is often overestimated. In particular, an excessive focus on geographical origin may obscure other, potentially more significant factors such as social background, level of education, profession, or relationship with the North Korean state.

Other forms of bias were also discussed, including the influence of contemporary trends and agendas, especially in the study of North Korea’s history. Participants advocated strongly for both quantitative and qualitative approaches respectively, as well as for critical engagement with state publications and propaganda. In this context, attention was drawn to variations between different types of publications, and between their Korean and English versions. Moreover, given the frequency with which (online) content disappears or is edited retroactively, the participants strongly endorsed the archiving of original versions whenever possible.

One participant proposed using the “FAIR” principles as a framework for the responsible management and use of research data: Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable. This was emphasized within the context of political science’s turn toward open science, describing FAIR as increasingly standard in that field. Findable data can take the form of searchable databases of defector testimonies, curated satellite imagery archives, or metadata specifying the origin and date of media content. Accessible data allows others to verify claims and builds trust in findings. Interoperable data uses common coding systems, standardized place names, and machine-readable formats to facilitate collaboration. Reusable data is well-documented and licensed so it can support future research, ensuring that high-cost data collection—such as surveys with defectors or long-term monitoring projects—continues to provide value over time.

Triangulation was discussed as a strategy to mitigate the challenges of incomplete or flawed data. However, the risk of so-called false triangulation was also emphasized: seemingly independent sources often rely on the same original material without being transparent, which may create a false sense of certainty about data quality. Logical reasoning, as well as the application of established theories and models, was recommended as an additional means of triangulation.

A strong case was made for actively involving researchers with a North Korean migrant background in academic exchange wherever possible. Participants stressed that North Korean migrant scholars and professionals should be engaged not just as subjects or interviewees, but as contributors and collaborators in research. This view challenges existing power asymmetries and counters the marginalization and occasional exploitation of such professionals.

Cluster 2: Sharing the results of our work

Key questions proposed for discussion included:

• How do we handle the “Oppenheimer problem”—the unintended consequences of providing crucial insights to actors whose actions we cannot control?
• How do we prevent being used to push a political narrative?
• What strategies exist to avoid misrepresentation or misuse of our work?
• If we are misquoted or misrepresented, how can we respond?
• How do we navigate the risks of blacklisting by North Korea or by other states?

Throughout our discussions, the issue of plagiarism, both in its overt and more subtle forms, was raised repeatedly, particularly regarding the use of insights gained from North Korean migrants. Concerns were expressed about exploitation and appropriation, especially where native knowledge is treated as anecdotal lore rather than as legitimate scientific contribution. Similarly, one participant observed that many international scholars fail to cite Korean-language research. As a response, the concept of “solidarity as a method” was proposed, advocating for equitable collaboration with Korean scholars and for challenging the structural marginalization often present in academic knowledge production.

A related challenge lies in how to ethically handle information obtained during field visits to North Korea—from tour guides, hotel staff, officials, factory managers, and others. These individuals often provide valuable insights, which raises the question of whether and how they should be credited in resulting publications. While recognition may be ethically warranted, it can also expose informants to serious risks. The importance of transparency regarding sources was emphasized throughout the workshop, while acknowledging the ethical dilemmas this poses when it comes to protecting those sources. Notably, it is not always clear whether informants wish to be credited at all, highlighting the importance of asking for consent whenever possible.

One participant noted that invitations, or their absence, to speak at conferences or contribute to edited volumes may sometimes reflect an intent to promote a particular political narrative, especially when the inviting party is already aware of the expert’s stance. Therefore, a professional’s engagement can be selectively curated based on perceived alignment with particular agendas. This raises concerns about the politicization of discourse and its implications for the production and dissemination of knowledge.

With regard to public dissemination, it was suggested that researchers should clearly situate their findings within broader theoretical or comparative contexts. Doing so was described as a way to strengthen academic rigor, avoid reinforcing the notion of North Korea as an exceptional or isolated case, and enhance the relevance of their work to wider disciplinary debates.

Cluster 3: Funding Our Research

Key questions proposed for discussion included:

• Under which conditions should funding from media, governments, intelligence agencies, political foundations, NGOs, or specific countries be accepted or refused?
• How should researchers interact with donors such as intelligence agencies or defense ministries while maintaining ethical integrity?
• How much funding transparency is necessary?
• How do we prevent donor interference in our research?
• How can we protect our work from being discredited due to its funding sources?

The discussion highlighted the complex and multifaceted nature of research funding in the context of North Korea. A central issue concerned independence: one participant described a case in which a major donor became overly intrusive, prompting the recipient to terminate the cooperation despite serious financial consequences. Others reported difficulties in securing funding for projects or events related to North Korea due to donor concerns over potential sanctions violations.

As in previous sessions, transparency was emphasized as a fundamental principle with long-term relevance, both as a core ethical obligation and as a practical safeguard to protect research credibility.

It was also noted that fundraising is becoming increasingly time consuming. One participant estimated that project directors now spend at least 50% of their time on this activity. While endowments can offer a relatively stable source of funding and established mechanisms to protect academic independence exist, the effectiveness of this instrument is limited by the need for substantial capital to generate sufficient returns for meaningful projects.

Donor interest in North Korea-related research appears to be highly selective. Topics such as the nuclear program and related defense issues, the effectiveness of sanctions, and human rights receive relatively more support. In contrast, areas such as economic development, political infrastructure, or how all these components feed into North Korean strategic decisionmaking are less likely to attract funding.

More recently, inflation and international events such as the war in Ukraine have further diverted attention and resources away from North Korea-focused research. This highlights the difficulty of demonstrating the tangible impact of research in this field as a key challenge in securing sustained financial support.

Individual researchers often face a dilemma: either adapt their research topics pragmatically to align with available funding opportunities or pursue their particular interests while risking limited access to grants. For early-career scholars, this choice is particularly consequential. Success in securing research funding is often a key criterion in applications for permanent positions. This tension is especially acute in academic environments where grant acquisition is tied to career advancement and reduced teaching loads.

Cluster 4: Travelling to North Korea

Key questions proposed for discussion included:

• What are the legal considerations researchers must be aware of?
• Do research visits to North Korea financially support the regime?
• Does traveling there legitimize the North Korean government?
• How can we avoid endangering local contacts?
• How do we ensure that locals involved in our research are not exploited?
• How do we communicate our approach to these concerns to the public?

The discussion began with an assessment of the current situation, in which Russian nationals currently appear to be the only foreigners granted regular access to North Korea. Beyond this limitation, the suitability of tourist visits as a means to conduct field research was debated. Many participants expressed support for travel to North Korea, particularly given the lack of formal research opportunities. If sensitive topics are avoided, it was argued, meaningful conversations can be held during such visits.

Challenging the viewpoint that tourism necessarily supports the North Korean state, one participant pointed out that the North Korean government has not shown urgency in reopening the country to foreign visitors. Another noted that in many areas outside of Pyongyang, shops catering to tourists are often run by private or semi-private operators, meaning that tourist money spent there benefits local economies instead of flowing directly to the state.

As a possible response for those that regard travel as an ethical dilemma, one participant shared their own principle of offsetting any potential benefit to the North Korean regime by donating to organizations outside North Korea that attempt to support North Koreans.

A related issue discussed was whether having visited North Korea at least once—or doing so regularly—is a prerequisite for professional credibility in the field. One participant emphasized that being able to present photographs or firsthand documentation can be especially useful when challenging entrenched stereotypes in academic or public discourse.

Key Insights and Learnings

The workshop clearly demonstrated that ethical concerns have a tangible impact on our work. It also became evident that this is a highly complex issue that touches the core of academic practice in our field. Each of the four clusters of questions discussed above would have merited its own dedicated workshop.

Ethical awareness is of paramount importance in North Korean studies. There remains significant room for development, particularly given the pressures arising from limited funding, scarce opportunities for academic careers, heightened media attention, and the strong emotional and political dimensions of debates surrounding North Korea.

Transparency regarding funding sources, data origins, and methodological approaches was repeatedly emphasized as a crucial strategy for navigating these challenges. Inclusivity and solidarity were highlighted as especially important in work involving North Korean migrants.

Pragmatism—in accepting funding, selecting research topics, or traveling to North Korea—was recognized as a key factor for professional success. However, participants also stressed that this should not come at the expense of core ethical principles. Both individual researchers and institutions must define and adhere to ethical boundaries.

Given these insights, the European Centre for North Korean Studies has decided to use this workshop as a starting point for a broader and more systematic exploration of ethical challenges in North Korea research—through continued discussion, deeper analysis, and in a variety of formats.

1. [1]

   Rüdiger Frank assumed primary responsibility for the conceptualization, drafting, and final editing of this report and remains solely accountable for any remaining errors or omissions. Dan Gudgeon and Robin Brehm provided constructive feedback and input throughout various stages of the process. The authors wish to express their sincere gratitude to all workshop participants for their insightful contributions, which have substantially informed and enriched this report.

2. [2]

   Ingrid S. M. Adjovi,  “A worldwide itinerary of research ethics in science for a better social responsibility and justice: A bibliometric analysis and review,” Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 10. 2025. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2025.1504937.

3. [3]

   Peter Lau, “A case study on research postgraduate students’ understanding of academic integrity at a Hong Kong university,” Frontiers in Education, 6.2025. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.647626.

    

4. [4]

   Sivasubramaniam, Shivadas Sivasubramaniam et al. “Unethical practices within medical research and publication – An exploratory study,”. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 17(7). 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00072-y.