• The Southeast Asian review
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.93-135
• /
• 2011

Vietnamese scholars contend that they have developed Southeast Asian studies viewing Southeast Asia as both a geographical entity with a long history and cultural tradition and a strategic region for modern development. This study has traced the construction of Southeast Asian studies as an academic discipline in Vietnam through the studies and arguments of Vietnamese scholars. It has put primary focus on the institutionalization of Southeast Asian studies, taking note of the assessment and perceptions of Vietnamese scholars. It also looked into the construction and limitations of Southeast Asian studies in Vietnam, which advocates Southeast Asian Studies as interdisciplinary area studies, with stressing of the origin of indigenous studies. The major contents of this study include: First, a historic overview of the institutionalization of Southeast Asian studies centering on research institutions of Southeast Asian studies in Vietnam, Second, the perceptions of Southeast Asian studies inside Vietnam and the inside evaluation of the effort to indigenize Southeast Asian studies. This study took note of Vietnamese scholars' perceptions and assessment of Southeast Asian studies performed by outsiders, primarily by Western scholars; the perceptions and evaluation of Southeast Asian studies conducted by Southeast Asian insiders; and the perceptions and evaluation of the origin of Southeast Asian studies indigenous to Vietnam. Last, it examined the construction and limitations of Southeast Asian studies in Vietnam, which advocates the studies as interdisciplinary regional studies.

• SUVANNABHUMI
• /
• v.7 no.1
• /
• pp.89-103
• /
• 2015

Over the last decade, the field of Southeast Asian Studies has been inundated with issues of its "territory" (or the definition of what comprises Southeast Asia), relevance and future. The methodology of approaching Southeast Asian Studies has also come under constant scrutiny providing much fodder for debate. One significant suggestion was that the field of Southeast Asian Studies should "break out of the comfort zone" (Van Schendel, Bijdragen, 2012:168(4)). This paper will explore some of the ways of approaching Southeast Asian Studies beyond that comfort zone by examining other/alternative units of studying Southeast Asia in place of the traditional (or statist) perspectives that tend to confine the field within the scope of the national/nation-state boundaries. The paper will also provide some personal observations of the author on the current state and limitations to teaching and researching Southeast Asian Studies in the region.

• The Southeast Asian review
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.101-145
• /
• 2010

Southeast Asian studies in Singapore has had a problem with locating local scholarship from the outset. The initiation of English-track scholarship was done by British scholars while Chinese scholars in the beginning were not considered as local people but as sojourners who identified China as their fatherland. If the latter had successfully located their scholarship in the post-colonial environment of Singapore, the job of identifying local scholarship would have been much easier. Indeed, for some time in the 1960s-70s, there existed a relatively strong local scholarship that was based mainly at Nanyang University. However, they became marginalized as English became dominant not just in education but also in Singapore society. Unlike the Chinese-track scholarship, the English-track scholarship in Singapore has developed greatly over the years. The establishment of ISEAS was the crystallized form of Singapore's endeavors to develop a Singapore brand of Southeast Asian studies to the world. Alongside ISEAS, NUS has carried on the English-track Southeast Asian studies and become a world-class university in this academic field. The formation of the Southeast Asian Programme and ARI marked a cornerstone for NUS in advancing Southeast Asian studies. However, Singaporean scholarship continues to be weak in comparison to foreign scholarship. In the absence of strong local scholarship, the typical way in which Singapore has chosen to develop Southeast Asian studies has been to establish world-class institutes and to bring in foreign talents. This strategy has perhaps paid off since it has situated Singapore as the prime place where scholars gather, information goes around and quality research outcomes are published. However, whether or not it has strengthened local scholarship remains a controversial issue. The dominant contribution of foreign scholars continues to pose the problem of whether the ownership of Southeast Asian studies in Singapore belongs to Singapore itself. The identification of scholarship in Singapore is an unsettled matter.

• SUVANNABHUMI
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.7-33
• /
• 2021

With a view to contributing to the epistemological and methodological debates in Southeast Asian Studies, the aim of this paper is to examine critically the epistemic concepts and approaches in the social sciences and then to seek an epistemic reflexivity and its potential methodological applications to Southeast Asian Studies. Although the field of social sciences has attempted to search for a means of tackling the ontological and epistemological dilemmas in its major paradigms, Southeast Asian Studies still demands a more 'actor-centered' epistemic account of reflexive interaction between actors and social structures. Bearing in mind the need for a more 'actor-centered' epistemic approach, this paper continues to discuss the 'epistemic reflexivity' in the social sciences and its potential applications to Southeast Asian Studies. In this paper, I will consider 'epistemic reflexivity' as an alternative methodological orientation. It emerges as interlinked with the ontological standpoint of what is called 'reflexive approaches' and its application to the detailed 'reflexive methodology' which I am proposing in this paper. In doing so, this paper discusses the autobiographical experiences of the author arising from his ethnographic field research in North Sulawesi, Indonesia and their implication for a reflexive methodology in Southeast Asian Studies. In conclusion, the paper argues that we need a 'more actor-centered' epistemic framework to compensate for the epistemological and methodological dilemmas in the social sciences and the alternative framework will equip Southeast Asian Studies with a reflexive methodology relevant to the life-dynamics of the social world in the process of developing its inquiries, methodological technics, analysis, and validation.

• SUVANNABHUMI
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.111-130
• /
• 2020

This paper introduces the different Southeast Asian Studies academic programs of three universities in northeast Asia namely: Peking University (China); Tokyo University of Foreign Studies (Japan); and Busan University of Foreign Studies (Korea). This study mainly focuses on the Philippines as part of Southeast Asian studies program in the said universities. The researcher utilized archival work related to the Southeast Asian studies programs of each university. The study also examined the curriculum of the program, background of faculty, and motivations of students in studying Southeast Asian studies by conducting interviews and surveys. Strength, Weakness, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT) Analysis was employed by the researcher in analyzing the data from the different universities. Finally, in mapping out the teaching of Filipino language and Philippine-related subjects, this paper argued that Northeast Asian universities established a Southeast Asian Studies focused on Philippines because of various socio-economic-political factors, and not only because of the Filipino diaspora in the region.

• SUVANNABHUMI
• /
• v.7 no.1
• /
• pp.13-57
• /
• 2015

The paper brings together several strands of debate and deliberation in which I have been involved since the early 2000s on the definition of Southeast Asia and the rationale of Southeast Asian Studies. I refer to the relationship between area studies and methodologies as a conundrum (or puzzle), though I should state from the outset that I think it is much more of a conundrum for others than for me. I have not felt the need to pose the question of whether or not area studies generates a distinctive method or set of methods and research practices, because I operate from a disciplinary perspective; though that it is not to say that the question should not be posed. Indeed, as I have earned a reputation for "revisionism" and championing disciplinary approaches rather than regional ones, it might be anticipated already the position that I take in an examination of the relationships between methodologies and the practice of "area studies" (and in this case Southeast Asian [or Asian] Studies). Nevertheless, given the recent resurgence of interest in the possibilities provided by the adoption of regional perspectives and the grounding of data gathering and analysis within specified locations in the context of globalization, the issues raised for researchers working in Southeast Asia and within the field of Southeast Asian Studies require revisiting.

• SUVANNABHUMI
• /
• v.10 no.2
• /
• pp.157-180
• /
• 2018

Area studies, including Asian and Southeast Asian studies, in the post-Cold War era have been facing an epochal challenge that is rooted in two conditions: on the one hand, the end of the Cold War and the fading geopolitical rationale, and on the other, the emergence of the technology-driven transformation of the global economy and society. The consequences thus far are paradoxical: 1) While the technology-led transformation needs a workforce with critical and innovative abilities, higher education becomes more hyper-utilitarian; 2) While the transformation instigates increasing diversity of identities in global cultures, many countries thrive for STEM education at the expense of learning languages and cultures, including area studies which are essential for diversity. Southeast Asian studies programs need to change in response to these new conditions. These changing conditions and paradoxes, nevertheless, take different forms and degrees in the American, European and Asian academies, thanks to their different histories of higher education. The prospects for Southeast Asian Studies in these various academies are likely to be different too.

• SUVANNABHUMI
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.133-148
• /
• 2017

In spite of being one of the first countries in Asia to establish an institution devoted to the study of the Asian region, area studies in the Philippines has languished over the years. In contrast, area studies programs of her neighbors have grown by leaps and bounds, invigorated by both public and private support. This observation becomes more glaring as Filipino scholars have made a name for themselves in the field of Southeast Asian Studies abroad. The paper is an appraisal of the current state of Southeast Asian area studies and the extent of its operation by the Philippines' top four universities, namely: the Asian Center of the University of the Philippines, the Ateneo de Manila University, the De La Salle University, and the University of Santo Tomas. Starting from the inception of area studies in the mid-1950s leading to a template patterned after the North American - European model, the paper then describes the challenges and its decline in the 80s toward its progression on a paradigm defined by the growing importance of, and actors within, the region. The paper expresses the view that one, the role of the government was both a boon and a bane in the development of area studies; and two, that the rapid economic growth and immense integration in the region in the last two decades gave a new impetus to Southeast Asian area studies, an enormous opportunity to capitalize on for Philippine universities.

• SUVANNABHUMI
• /
• v.10 no.2
• /
• pp.57-85
• /
• 2018

The debates continue on the conceptualization of Southeast Asia and the ways in which those of us who are concerned to attempt scholarly interventions in the region define, conceive, understand and engage with it. But, in an important sense, the region has now been defined for us by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and whatever academic researchers might wish to impose on Southeast Asia in regard to their priorities and interests, it may make little difference. Given the politically-derived, nation-state definition of Southeast Asia, are all our problems of regional definition resolved? In some respects, they have been. ASEAN has constructed and institutionalized a regional organization and an associated regional culture. But in certain fields of research we still require academic flexibility. We cannot always be confined by an ASEAN-derived regional definition. The paper will explore other configurations of 'region' and its sub-divisions and propose, that in the spirit of academic freedom, we can continue to generate imaginative depictions of Southeast Asia and its constituents both within and beyond the region.

• SUVANNABHUMI
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.77-94
• /
• 2016

The paper examined Southeast Asia as a whole and focused on similarities among countries composing what is now known as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). In order to determine these similarities, the analysis focused on the fact that during World War II the whole of Southeast Asia was occupied by one political power: Japan. The policies the Japanese implemented in the region were to a degree very similar in terms of pressures and tensions that occurred in the different countries. The paper argues that these pressures and the responses of the various peoples of Southeast Asia instilled a nucleus of common identity in Southeast Asia as a whole. Basically, the policies that the Japanese implemented all over Southeast Asia were the following: the setting up regional administrations; the extraction of resources and emphasis on local self-sufficiency; the implementation of cultural Japanization; and local indigenization policies. The Southeast Asian responses that crystalized this joint Southeast Asian identity may be described as: accommodating and resisting the Japanese; commemorating portraying; and collectively remembering the era. The process of action and reaction between Japan and Southeast Asia was formative of this joint Southeast Asian identity.