Context and Comparison in Southeast Asia: The Practical Side of the Area Studies-Discipline Debate

A recent Pacific Affairs special issue explores key dimensions of the discipline/area studies divide in the context of Southeast Asia. It asks whether it is possible to use the comparative methods favoured by disciplines while doing justice to the rich nuance of individual cases. We offer a practical perspective on this debate. We argue that the demands of discipline audiences and area-studies audiences can vary significantly, making it difficult to effectively address both within a given project. Furthermore, while individual scholars retain agency over the nature of their research, structural factors like the job market and tenure requirements nudge junior scholars towards disciplinary audiences. We support this claim with an analysis of several academic job markets across the social sciences and humanities. We also interview several junior scholars who focus on Southeast Asia to examine the channels that link structural factors with scholarly orientations, finding both direct and backchannel connections. We conclude that in the absence of structural changes to the hiring and promotion practices at major universities, the question of an ideal balance between comparative approaches and deep area nuance will be answered by practical—rather than ontological or normative—concerns.

东南亚研究中的语境与比较：区域研究—学科之争中的实际问题

 —回应《太平洋事务》“东南亚研究中的语境、概念和比较” 特刊 (第87卷第3期）

关键词：东南亚；　区域研究；　方法论；　学术就业市场；　政治科学。

《太平洋事务》最近的一期特刊专门探讨了东南亚研究领域中存在的学科与地域研究之分野的关键性维度。特刊探究了是否可能在运用学科研究所青睐的比较方法的同时还能兼顾到个案中丰富精微的细节。对这个争论我们提出一个实际的视角。我们提出，学科研究和区域研究的读者们可能会有极为不同的要求，这导致在某一既定课题中很难做到同时有效地满足两者。进一步说，尽管学者个人在决定他们自己的研究课题的性质上还具有能动性，但就业市场以及终身教职评定要求等结构性的因素却促使青年学者转向学科性研究的读者。通过分析社会学和人文学科领域内几个学术就业市场，我们得以验证此观点。我们还访谈了几位主要关注东南亚地区的青年学者，目的是考察结构性因素和学者研究取向之间的关联，我们发现两者之间既有直接联系，也有非正式的路径。在结论中我们认为，在主流大学的聘用及提升等做法并无结构性变革的情况下，对于如何才能在比较方法和深厚精微的地域研究之间取得理想的平衡这一问题，得到的答案不是通过对本体论或是规范性问题的考量得出，而是充满现实色彩。

Translated from English by Li Guo