Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"This volume confronts the idea of universal science from the perspective of area studies, offering fruitful debate between Southeast Asian Studies and variegated disciplinary vantage points. It provides a platform for dialogue and constructive friction between divergent approaches to knowledge generation, while taking into consideration the area-specific contexts of research practice and bringing to attention cross-cutting methodological issues. The contributors investigate issues such as the tension between disciplinary mainstreaming and suggestions for decentering, diversifying and decolonizing methodology; the relevance and practice of different forms of contextsensitivity in research; contrasts and comparisons suitable to the ambitions of area studies. The research approaches covered in this volume range from quantitative, to qualitative and mixed-methods research, from econometrics to participation and collaboration, and from text analysis to field research. Working in a variety of disciplines both within and outside of Southeast Asian Studies, the contributors addresse the burning question of how to ground research practice in area-specific, yet globally entangled contexts such as 'Global Southeast Asia'."

"This book addresses the question of how to ground research practice in area-specific, yet globally entangled contexts such as 'Global Southeast Asia'. It offers a fruitful debate between various approaches to Southeast Asia Studies, while taking into consideration the area-specific contexts of research practice cross-cutting methodological issues."

"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."

"ABSTRAK The journal aims to promote excellent, agenda-setting scholarship and provide a forum for dialogue and collaboration both within and beyond the region."