Meet the Editor:
Associate Prof. David Hundt
Associate Professor David Hundt is a distinguished scholar in the field of Asian Studies, with a focus on South Korea’s political economy and international relations. With over a decade of experience as an editor for prominent journals including our very own Asian Studies Review, he brings a wealth of knowledge and unique perspectives to the academic community. In this insightful Q&A, Prof. Hundt shares his academic journey, thought-provoking research, and valuable advice for early-career researchers.
Can you introduce yourself and share some defining moments in your academic journey that led you to specialize in Asian Studies, particularly South Korea on its political economy and international relations?
I am an Australian comparative political economist who has worked in the Asia/Indo-Pacific region for many years. Since 2007, I have been part of the International Relations group at Deakin University, Melbourne, where I currently serve as Associate Professor. My research focuses on South Korea’s political economy and international relations, with additional expertise in multiculturalism, migration, and Australia’s relations with South Korea.
My journey has been shaped by a mix of deliberate choices and serendipity, a series of ‘sliding doors’ if you will. For example, I didn’t get the marks I needed at high school to study Law at university, but I did well enough to enter an Asian Studies program instead. A chance conversation prompted me to focus on Korean Studies instead of Japan, which proved to be a pivotal decision. Real-world events, such as the Asian financial crisis, also influenced my academic direction, shifting my focus to Korea’s political economy. Throughout, I have benefited immensely from good advice, mentoring, collegiality, and friendship. People such as the late Geoffrey Stokes, Roland Bleiker, Jaechun Kim, Yoon Youngkwan, Ruth Barraclough, and Kyounghee Moon have helped me make better choices and offered me opportunities I wouldn’t have otherwise had.
How does your research on East Asian political economy influence academics and policymakers beyond the region?
My work challenges conventional theories like the East Asian developmental state (DS). For instance, my book Korea’s Developmental Alliance: State, capital and the politics of rapid development redefined Korea’s rapid development by emphasizing the state-capital alliance rather than a purely state-centric view. A later book co-authored with Jitendra Uttam expanded this framework: hyper-developmentalism in Asia was not exclusively the result of the developmental state but equally the result of social demand. Collective assertiveness stemming from social mobilisation in Asian societies, resentments, and protests compelled the state to institute an egalitarian participatory economy. Increased social participation led to a high degree of embeddedness for capitalism in Asia. These insights provide a broader understanding of capitalism’s diverse expressions globally.
By integrating Asia into global debates on capitalism, my research bridges regional and international perspectives. This approach underscores Asia’s significant contributions to global economic theories and inspires new ways to understand development dynamics, illustrating the capacity for ideas and models to travel not only from the West to Asia, but in the reverse direction too.
You’ve worked on projects that provided valuable insights into the development and human rights dynamics in East Asia. What challenges do researchers typically encounter when collaborating across cultures, especially in the context of politically sensitive topics?
Political scientists, and especially those who are interested in a region such as Asia, which is home to such a wide variety of political systems, will inevitably engage in topics that are politically and/or culturally sensitive. That a topic is sensitive does not qualify it for or disqualify from research. The real question is whether a topic has genuine intellectual value.
The best way to explore sensitive topics is by drawing on regional or local expertise and explaining the findings of a paper in ways that resonate with as wide an audience as possible. For example, if authors highlight dominant interpretations while acknowledging alternative viewpoints it might be possible to minimize if not avoid criticism from some quarters. There is also value in identifying the sensitivities at play and the reasons for them, while not treating these as a barrier to debate and the airing of ideas. By fostering nuanced debates, we can promote a broader and deeper understanding of complex issues without sensationalizing them.
That all said, there have been numerous instances of scholars (not to mention politicians and civil society activists) being imprisoned, detained, harassed, or otherwise punished for expressing their views about politically sensitive issues, for being associated with local activists who have fallen out with repressive regimes, or for merely being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The risks are very real, and the challenge is to ensure that research into repression can continue, while ensuring that the safety of researchers is not compromised.
Your contributions in the Routledge book: China and Human Rights in North Korea, explores a nuanced topic. Were there any findings or conclusions that you believe challenged conventional views on human rights approaches?
Our book examines how China’s economic opening influenced human rights in North Korea, challenging the common belief that reform is impossible due to the regime’s nature and lack of a rights-based culture. We argue that economic and political rights often develop in parallel, with economic advancements typically preceding political reforms.
Rather than viewing human rights efforts as either futile or beneficial only to the ruling elite, we highlight how even modest improvements—such as those seen in China—could positively impact ordinary North Koreans. While China’s model is not an ideal solution, it offers a baseline for potential change.
The book also examines the role of South Korea and Japan in shaping the debate on human rights. These two societies have undergone their own economic and political transformations, developing substantial cultures of rights in the process. Crucially, their experiences demonstrate that economic development can provide the ‘political space’ needed to ease authoritarian elements out of power—but also that there must be an understanding that democracy and human rights are the endpoint of the process.
Ultimately, the book presents multiple pathways to reform in North Asia, each with potential implications for North Korea’s future. It is beyond our capacities as scholars to suggest a blueprint for reform, but we have illustrated the immense benefits of political leaders in North Korea and its neighbouring societies of committing to that goal.
What led you to become a Deputy Editor of Asian Studies Review and what are some key responsibilities of your role that help shape the work of researchers who contribute to the journal?
My journey with Asian Studies Review began as a Regional Editor for Korea, followed by my tenure as Editor-in-Chief, where I led a collegial and interdisciplinary Editorial Board focused on advancing scholarship in the humanities and social sciences with a regional emphasis on Asia. I viewed my leadership as an exercise in academic citizenship, striving to enhance the journal’s processes, professionalism, and standing within the field.
Now, as Deputy Editor, I support the work of the current Editor-in-Chief while focusing on the ‘back end’ of our editorial operations. My primary responsibility is to work with authors whose articles have been accepted for publication, ensuring their research is presented in the most accessible, valuable, and engaging way possible. This involves refining the articulation of arguments, clarifying key concepts, and optimizing titles, keywords, and abstracts to maximize the reach and impact of their work.
A key part of my role is to enhance the clarity and structure of submissions, helping to ensure that articles published in Asian Studies Review remain relevant and valuable to readers over time. By focusing on these aspects, I see myself playing a ‘developmental’ role in the production and dissemination of knowledge, helping to shape the scholarship that contributes to broader conversations in Asian Studies.
As the leader of Asian Studies in Australia, are there any discoveries or insights you encountered within our journals that were particularly insightful or relevant to current trends and challenges in this field?
In my view, the Journal of Contemporary Asia (JCA) is the best in the field of Asian Studies, or at least in the subfields of most interest to me. It publishes work that is bold, cutting-edge, progressive, and politically savvy. I place it slightly ahead of another standout publication, Critical Asian Studies, which has a similarly venerable place in the field.
As a former editor of the journal, I inevitably am conversant with what is published in Asian Studies Review, and in recent years there have been some collections (special issues) that have touched on some of the most important and timely issues in the field. A collection about ‘everyday politics’ in North Korea (2024) illustrated how and why it is valuable to look for political processes in all societies, including autocracies, while one that focused on Northeast Asia’s history of trauma and disaster (2022) showed how the traumas of the past live on in the present. A retrospective on Robert Hefner’s concept of ‘civil Islam’ (2020) artfully revisited and updated the debate about the sustainability of Indonesian democracy, and a special issue that analysed China’s ethnic minority boarding schools (2019) provided a nuanced view of sub-national politics within the PRC.
Having published extensively with Taylor & Francis, what aspects of our publishing process – from peer review to final dissemination – have you found most effective in helping you achieve your research impact goals?
I have received excellent guidance from the editors of Taylor & Francis journals over the years, including Michael Wesley (Australian Journal of International Affairs) and Kevin Hewison (Journal of Contemporary Asia). Their editorial input has not only enhanced the quality and impact of specific articles I have written but has also influenced my own approach to editing.
My experiences with these journals reinforced the idea that while authors retain primary responsibility for the substance of their research, editors can play a valuable supporting role in shaping how that research is refined and disseminated. A particularly memorable example was an article I published in Journal of Contemporary Asia, where I received constructive and thoughtful reviewer feedback alongside directive editorial guidance. The editing process was exacting yet constructive—right down to precise suggestions on the title and a strong emphasis on accuracy, such as ensuring specific page numbers were included in citations. It was the epitome of good editorship and it set a standard that I tried to emulate during my term at ASR.
As someone who has navigated multiple aspects of academic publishing, what advice would you offer to early-career researchers looking to publish their work effectively and meaningfully to the field?
The first thing to remember as an early-career researcher (ECR) is that your work matters. It often represents the freshest and most cutting-edge research in the field, as the early stages of an academic career—particularly during PhD candidature—allow for maximum focus on research. Contrary to the common assumption that only well-established scholars get published, journal editors actively seek innovative contributions, regardless of the author’s career stage. In fact, my own estimates suggest that about one-third of the articles published in Asian Studies Review in a given year are written by ECRs, though this proportion varies across journals.
That said, putting your work ‘out there’ can be daunting, particularly if you are new to the publishing process. Rejections and setbacks are inevitable, but they are part of the learning experience. A key factor in getting your paper through the initial review process—and avoiding a desk rejection—is how you position and present your research. You will typically need to establish at least one claim to novelty and significance, which could take several forms:
Methodological innovation – Investigating a problem in a new way, such as drawing meaningful but unconventional connections between related phenomena across time and space.
Evidentiary innovation – Presenting or generating new or rarely used data, such as interviews or archival materials that shed fresh light on a problem.
Theoretical innovation – Applying a new or underutilized theoretical perspective to challenge conventional wisdom on a settled question.
Beyond demonstrating your contribution, it’s important to consider the accessibility of your work. While your paper should reflect your voice and perspective, remember that academic writing is a two-way process—you are writing for an audience, not just for yourself. Using clear, non-dogmatic, and engaging language will make your work more accessible. It is also crucial to articulate what is at stake in your research and how it connects to existing knowledge. Striking the right balance—neither too modest nor too bold—in communicating your claims is key.
Additionally, give careful thought to the key elements of your paper—its title, abstract, keywords, introduction, and conclusion. These sections shape the first impressions of your readers, including editors and reviewers. A strong start can capture attention, while a weak introduction may lose it before the paper even gets fully read.
Finally, collegiality goes a long way in your interactions with editors and reviewers. The best way to demonstrate professionalism is by engaging constructively with feedback and meeting deadlines to the best of your ability. If a deadline cannot be met or if certain reviewer comments cannot be fully addressed, communicate this clearly and promptly with the editorial team. Editors understand that constraints exist, and they will appreciate your transparency and professionalism.
Publishing can be a challenging process, but by positioning your work effectively, writing with clarity, and engaging respectfully with the academic community, you can maximize your chances of making a meaningful contribution to your field.
About the Journal
Explore more cutting-edge research and insights from Associate Prof. Hundt and others in Asian Studies Review.
Visit the journal homepage for the latest articles.
Asian Studies Review is a multidisciplinary journal of contemporary and modern Asia. The journal sets out to showcase high quality scholarship on the modern histories, cultures, societies, languages, politics and religions of Asia through the publication of research articles, book reviews and review articles. It welcomes the submission of research articles from across the broad spectrum of the social sciences and humanities on all the regions of Asia and on international and transnational issues in which Asia is the major point of focus.
