Historiographical evaluation of Korean Buddhism in mainland China, revealing methodological gaps and future directions.
Since the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and South Korea in 1992, research on Korean Buddhism in mainland China has undergone more than three decades of accumulation and has developed a relatively comprehensive research framework; its methodological characteristics, however, have not yet been subjected to systematic examination. This article offers a historiographical and methodological evaluation of that field rather than a systematic bibliometric review. Drawing principally on Chinese-language literature from the CNKI database, supplemented by Korean-language publications from the RISS and KCI databases, it examines journal articles, theses, monographs, and edited conference volumes published between 1992 and 2025, selecting individual works for detailed discussion according to their scholarly influence, thematic coverage, and methodological significance. Using contemporaneous scholarship from the Korean academic community as an external point of reference, it conducts a cross-linguistic evaluation of the developmental trajectory of the field. The findings indicate that this field has made distinctive contributions in the excavation of Chinese-language historical sources, the construction of the history of bilateral exchanges, and the study of state–monastic relations. At the same time, the long-standing absence of substantive dialogue with Korean academia, the overall lack of research on material religion, and the systematic neglect of gender perspectives constitute major bottlenecks constraining its further development. Through methodological refinement and the institutional construction of Sino–Korean academic reciprocity, this field may transcend a purely bilateral framework and offer original contributions to the study of comparative religious history in East Asia, as well as to a broader comparative programme encompassing other scholarly traditions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Qian et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: