Bridging the Disciplinary Divide: 50 years of Research at the Center for Southeast AsianStudies
Kono Yasuyuki1), Nathan Badenoch2) and Mario Ivan Lopez1)
1) Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Kyoto University
2) North American Center, Kyoto University
Abstract
This paper traces the birth of the Center for Southeast Asian Studies (CSEAS) approach to Area
Studies, explores how the institution evolved to consolidate and institutionalize its activities, andintroduces its methodological responses and research initiatives that have evolved over the past 50
years. Since before the founding of CSEAS in 1963, Kyoto University researchers had been
involved in multidisciplinary, field-based investigations of Southeast Asian society and nature.
The origins of CSEAS’s philosophy and commitment to the region lie in the individual researchers
at Kyoto University, their empirically-based studies, and shared interests in ever more integrated
and multifaceted understandings of local society. The paper traces and offers an overview of thelarge-scale projects that framed and guided research to present fundamental approaches towards
issues in the region. This is through a commitment to long-term field-based studies in and of local
societies; empirical studies grounded in local languages; and multidisciplinary, team-based
research that has bridged the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities. This paper also
shows how these approaches arose in response to changes and processes transforming social andenvironmental systems of Southeast Asians societies. This has informed the development ofconceptual and theoretical work that has developed as a response to empirically grounded
understandings emerging from those societies.
Keywords: Southeast Asian Studies; Areas Studies; Center for Southeast Asian Studies (CSEAS);
Multidisciplinarity; Japanese Area Studies, Methodological Eclecticism

1

Introduction
This paper aims to overview the development process of Southeast Asian studies 1 in Japan during
the last six decades and discussing their emerging research agenda within the framework of thedevelopment of the Center for Southeast Asia (CSEAS) 2. This reflection is done as Area Studies
is challenged in terms of theoretical and methodological legitimacy as well as funding cuts inmodern academia in the Global north. The contemporary relevance of Southeast Asian studies, inparticular, is continually questioned as the mainstream of the field emerged as a response to UnitedStates security concerns and approaches toward the region. In this context, Area Studies has been
construed as and continues to be haunted by the image of an imperial project; as a relic ofEuropean-style Oriental studies; as part of a historical colonial project to reinforce power
imbalances between the developed and developing worlds; and as suffering from the constraining
effect of “defined geographical borders” (Chua et al 2019, 45). Other scholars have taken
arguments one step further to argue the very concept of “area” has ended (Sakai 2019). Within
Western academic mainstream discussions on Area Studies there has, and continues to be, anincreasing and awkward focus on and call for further theoretical discussions (Jackson 2019;
Harootunian 2012b). Some go so far as to claim that Area Studies has been on ‘life support’ for ageneration and suffering from both crisis and ancestral sin (Chua et al 2019). These have had an
overt focus on identity politics and geopolitical interests in and on Southeast Asia as a region.
Notwithstanding, scholars within the humanities and social sciences have noted the richscholarship that individual disciplines have contributed to Area Studies: one that has the “potentialof moving into the center of scientific research instead of remaining a rather peripheral
undertaking within the knowledge factories of the contemporary world” (Houben 2013, 4 italics
our emphasis).

In this paper we do not discuss the conceptualization of “Southeast Asia.” For general discussions on this, see
Kratoska et al. 2005, Chou et al. 2006, Shimizu, 2005, Woo et al. 2013; Mielke et al 2014. For a historical overview
of studies of Southeast Asian history in contemporary Japan see Insun (2013). Insun’s review, while thorough, fails
to note the rich multidisciplinary work that intersects with historical scholarship through collaborative work between
Japanese scholars from different disciplines working within the region. For a comprehensive article that engages inJapanese contributions to Southeast Asian Studies see Hayami (2005). For a detailed overview of the ways in which
Japanese natural scientists have contributed to Southeast Asian Studies see Yanagisawa (in Japanese) (2009).
2
Although CSEAS is known as a Center, it is officially designated and acknowledged as an institute by the Japanese
Ministry of Education (MEXT).
1

2

Observing discussions that focus on the origins and practice of Area Studies in Southeast
Asia and theoretical critiques that aim for ‘new’ forms of study in rapidly reconfiguring regions(Jackson 2019), Japanese contributions remains curiously absent 3. Is the lack of visibility due to adominant mode of knowledge production that has sidelined Japanese scholarship? This questionsits uncomfortably with those who are familiar with the deep rich empirical research that has been
conducted over the past 50 years in Japan. Whilst deeply informed by theoretical debates thatdeveloped in the West, Japanese Area Studies have advanced largely outside of and in parallel tomainstream Western Area Studies. Furthermore, Japanese-style Southeast Asian Studies and Area
Studies approaches on the whole have, for some time, been at the heart of scientific research(italics our emphasis), taking multidisciplinarity as a shifting framework of methodologicaleclecticism 4. We take this approach to be one that is sensitive to different disciplinary domains andtheir existent paradigms which, when in dialogue, create conditions to question the basis of
empirical research and subsequent theorization that arises from it. Different disciplinary domains
will adhere to different notions, ideals and methodological research processes that produce
knowledge at different speeds and on different registers. An eclectic approach makes possible theconstitution of an arena of dialogue not tied to specific domains that can constrain approaches.
The ‘crisis’ narrative that Chua et al (2019) have noted unfurls across multiple disciplines
and lays out an argument to explain why, globally, this has arisen. Yet, this concern for thelegitimacy of Area Studies has mainly been anchored in a social sciences / humanities framework
which has dominated approaches in the mainstream study of ‘Area.’ Berg-Schlosser (2018),
writing on comparative Area studies, notes the fine-grained discussion that has underlined social
science approaches to Area Studies in epistemological considerations of other cultures and regions(Schlosser 2018, 33). In these discussions of Area studies however, Japanese scholarship is largely
invisible. Here we ask, in what ways has Japanese scholarship on the region differentiated itself
from other traditions? This paper argues that a more holistic and methodologically eclectic
A number of scholars have placed Japan in discussions on Southeast Asia. The historian Craig Reynolds has statedthat from the view of Southeast Asian historiography the region is mostly a ‘Euro-Japanese construct.’ (SeeReynolds 2006, 5). We thank Caroline Hau for pointing this out. Ben Anderson has also noted how Japanesescholarship and education on Southeast Asia has been crucial for formulating an approach and understanding ofSoutheast Asia that has run parallel to Western educational institutions. See Anderson (2016).
4
Rudra Sil and Peter Katzenstein have proposed analytic eclecticism as an approach that seeks to integrate analyticelements of different theories and within different paradigms to “address related aspects of substantive problems thathave both scholarly and practical significance” (Sil & Katzenstein 2010, 10). We have modified this to reflect upon
CSEAS’s constitution which includes both the medical and natural sciences as two domains of engagement inaddition to the humanities and social sciences.
3

3

approach toward ‘Region’ and ‘Area’ has been developed by Japanese scholars and applied within
a broader philosophy of science. This has been part of a more granular empirical-analytical focus
that has allowed for a plurality of methodological approaches and epistemological discussions toco-exist and feed into one another. This has encouraged researchers to question assumptions about
how areas are constituted. Over the decades, a grounded inter- and intra-disciplinary dialogue has
enabled researchers to refine, and where necessary, challenge epistemological and methodologicalapproaches.
At CSEAS, and in Kyoto University more generally, since the inception of post-WWII
studies in Southeast Asia, the natural and medical sciences have deeply contributed to scholarly
discussions on how to frame and understand the region. Yet Japanese scholarship remained on themargins. This is not for a lack of publications by Japanese scholars working in Southeast Asia andwriting in English 5. It may be due rather to a persistent hierarchy in knowledge production thatprivileges both writing and publication in an Anglo-American continuum. Our intention is toforeground Japanese Area Studies approaches toward Southeast Asian studies in order to facilitatea more fruitful and productive dialogue between scholars working in different streams and fromdiverse disciplines.
This paper aims to contribute to discussions by drawing on the experience of Southeast
Asian Studies conducted primarily, but not limited to Japanese scholars 6 at CSEAS. It explains,
examines, and outlines the alternative approaches to Area Studies that have developed in a
Japanese continuum: ones that have maintained a strong commitment to long-term fieldwork,

It is beyond the scope of this paper to present an overview of English language articles or books authored on
Southeast Asia. Figure 2 in this paper provides a cursory overview of the numbers of books that have been written
by Japanese scholars in CSEAS publications, excluding articles published in English over the years.
6
This paper presents the development processes of Southeast Asian studies in Japan by discussing the wide range
activities of CSEAS over its 50 years of academic work, and discussed the challenges it faces. To celebrate its
milestones, CSEAS has published a self-history for its 25th, 35th, and 50th anniversaries (CSEAS 1993, 2002, 2018).
Of these, the 25- and 35-year histories were produced in Japanese, while the 50-year history resulted in two
substantial overviews in English and Japanese (2016). Additional reflections and interviews on Southeast AsianStudies have been conducted with former directors and staff and published in the CSEAS newsletter (Ichimura 2016,10-24, Shibayama 2012, 3-7, Tanaka, 2012, 5-10) and as parts of special issues (Hayami 2013, 18-20). In addition,
CSEAS periodically publishes annual reports and newsletters, which introduce on-going research and education
activities and are accessible through Kyoto University repository, Kurenai, and the CSEAS website. This paperdraws on these materials and others as its main sources. Arguments presented in this paper are the personalreflections of the authors and do not represent the official view of CSEAS.
54

research agendas elaborated within the ever-changing contexts of local reality, and investment in
partnerships with Southeast Asian researchers.
The Formation of Southeast Asian Studies within Kyoto University
In the late 1950s a group of researchers began to meet at Kyoto University to organize a seminarseries on research being conducted in various parts of Southeast Asia 7. This movement resulted in
the establishment of the Kyoto University Center for Southeast Asian Studies (CSEAS) in 1963.
CSEAS aimed at pursuing holistic understandings of the societies, cultures and naturalenvironment of Southeast Asia. This mission sharply contrasted with the Southeast Asia studies
that arose in the United States at almost the same time with a strong focus on geopolitical researchthat excluded environmental and ecological concerns. Since then, CSEAS has developed into a
research organization initiating large-scale projects and disseminating their results throughpublications. At the core of its philosophical, methodological and strategic operations are the threeprinciples of an emphasis on long-term field work conducted in local languages, the promotion ofinterdisciplinary research, and research agendas defined by local contemporary issues. The story
of CSEAS is then how these principles have been applied to meet the changing times.
In his address at the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Center for Southeast AsianStudies in 2017, Emeritus Prof Tachimoto Narifumi, former director of CSEAS from 1998-2002,
used simple but poignant language to describe the style of research conducted – barabara de issho［ばらばらで一緒］. At the time, we translated this into English as “unity in diversity,” slightly
clichéd perhaps. Yet, it is formed from non-academic words and carries more nuance than thejargonistic technical terms usually used to describe research endeavors. The word barabara means“scattered, many things acting independently without cohesion,” while issho has various readingssuch as “together, as one, or the same” In other words, many research interests, projects, field sites

7

This was headed by Hirazawa Ko 平澤興 (1900-1989) the then President of Kyoto University and included Inoki

Masamichi 猪木正道 (1914-2012), Iwamura Shinobu 岩村忍 (1905-1988), Usi Jijo 臼井二尚 (1910-1997),
Motooka Takeshi 本岡武 (1915-1978), Mizuno Koiichi 水野浩一 (1933-1979), and Yano Toru 矢野暢 (19361999) among others who went on to found CSEAS.

5

and methodologies may appear to be scattered over a wide ranging disjointed intellectual space,however they are united by the core principles of Area Studies research that bring researchers
together: to encourage interaction across a range of academic, geographic and programmaticboundaries. What captures the situation best in this phrase is the impression of disorganization thatis implied, but this is, in fact, a methodological eclecticism that sits at the heart of CSEAS’s
approach to Southeast Asia. It is a diversity in which each is encouraged to pursue their own
interests, yet share the same desire to work together in ongoing dialogue based on empirical data,
first-hand field experience and open thinking.
This requires deeper contextualization. The above diversity is foregrounded by Kyoto
University’s approach to its intellectual endeavors. The motto of Kyoto university is Jiyu-nogakufu 自由の学風 which might be loosely translated as ‘freedom in studies.’ However, thisphrase is composed to capture a subtler philosophy. Instead of study as “discipline” (gakumon 学問) with rigid theories and methodologies, the university has promoted study within the “spirit oflearning” – gakufuu, a Sino-Japanese compound formed from the words “learning” and “wind.”Students and researchers are free to be blown around by the many winds of learning. In this milieu,
creative, yet critical approaches to academic inquiry are fostered to produce insights and form thebasis of basic academic principles wherein theory facilitates discussions between researchers.
While basic principles are not denied, they are not allowed to dominate discussions at the empiricallevel, where researchers bring the insights their own experiences, as well as voices from the field,
into their analysis. Under the history of this motto one also finds a call for the freedom to conduct
intellectual inquiry outside of the control of government, and it would not be an exaggeration to
say that Area Studies invokes a similar freedom to do its research outside of the hegemony ofdominant theoretical and methodological constraints, as well as the a-la-mode jargon of discourse.
Indeed, the university-wide focus on empirical research driven by the commitment of individual
researchers, has produced the largest number of Nobel Prizes (10) in Japan, and this is a key
environmental factor that has led to the flourishing of Area Studies at the University.

6One part of the intellectual heritage of CSEAS as a research institute in Kyoto University
is the critical and creative philosophical explorations that commenced in the late 1800s, developing
into what is now known as the Kyoto School. Among the key thinkers 8 of this intellectual tradition
are Nishida Kitaro (西田幾多郎 1870-1945), Naito Konan (内藤湖南 1866-1934) and Imanishi Kinji(今西錦司 1902-1992). These, and others affiliated to this school, theorized and developed someof the core foundations upon which Kyoto University academics has developed over the years.
Beyond Kyoto University, Chinese studies in Japan represents an even longer tradition integrating
the study of classics, philosophy, history and a diverse range of issues. These characterize a deepand complex cultural history shared between Japan and the Asian mainland, evidenced in therequirement for students in some Western institutions (for example Berkeley) of Chinese studies
to study Japanese in order to access the rich tradition of Chinese studies in Japan. Thus, Kyoto
University’s work in Chinese studies, distributed across several institutions, has provisioned
another complimentary intellectual layer within which Southeast Asian studies evolved. In
addition to Southeast Asian studies, African and Latin American studies have continued to pursue
research frameworks that share similar basic principles. The Graduate School of Asian and African
Studies (ASAFAS) works closely with CSEAS to train the next generation of researchers andteachers of Area Studies.
However, while Kyoto University has played a large role in pioneering Area Studies inJapan, it is by no means the only center of momentum in the field. For example, The SlavicEurasian Research Center at Hokkaido University has been conducting Area Studies since its
founding in 1952. After being incorporated into the Faculty of Law in 1955, it was reborn as anindependent institution with the University as the Center for Slavic Studies and then assumed its
current name in 2014. Moreover, the Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa at
the Tokyo University of Foreign Studies conducts research, as well as processing and producing
data materials and providing language training. While a full review of the development of Area
Studies in Japan is outside the scope of this paper 9, it should be noted that institutions in the country
The Kyoto School has a wide range of ‘satellite’ scholars who have contributed greatly to philosophical andtheoretical discussions on region and area-making. Watsuji Tetsuro’s (和辻哲郎 1889-1990) work on climate (風土Fudo) has, for example, had a strong and lasting impact in some of the philosophical and theoretical considerations
and use of this term in Japanese scholars’ approaches toward study in the region (和辻 Watsuji 1979).
9
For a comprehensive bibliographic and chronological review of Japan’s engagement with area studies within theframework of its deeper historical interactions within Asia and the West, see Urano Tatsuo’s detailed recent study
8

7

have a long history of engaging and shaping Area Studies that spans a geographically broad scopeand reflects a deep commitment to knowledge production 10 through fieldwork and data intensive
analysis that are closely linked to educational programs which have their own historical trajectory.
Japanese academic institutions and knowledge production are not free from a Japanese “ancestralsin” that resides closer to home. Japan’s own imperial pretensions toward empire building brought
it into direct contact with East and Southeast Asia through the “Southern Expansion Doctrine” (南進 論 Nanshin-ron) of the early Meiji period. In the late 19th century, agricultural research
institutions affiliated to universities and schools were set up in Japan’s acquired territories, toresearch tropical resources and crops, improve cultivation techniques and produce higher yields,
especially rice (Tanaka 2006, 100-37). What should be noted here is from the outset of Japan’s
incursion into the region, academic knowledge and the production of researchers who had worked
directly in the region through the early to mid- 20th century informed how knowledge gathered fed
back into academic education programs and research initiatives.
The 50-plus years of development at CSEAS is a combined product of the efforts of theindividual faculty over those years, through Japan’s relations with Southeast Asian countries, andthe research support mechanisms of the Japanese Ministry of Education (MEXT). At the sametime, this development, especially over the last 15 years, reflects the social development ofdifferent regions of Southeast Asia and the surge of interest in Southeast Asian studies. The MEXT
Grant-in-Aid funding framework has been a crucial part of the Center’s ability to carry out
sustained research in the field. These grants allow researchers to propose individual or
collaborative research projects, defined by the researchers themselves and implemented withflexibility to pursue broad academic inquiry. Since the first Grant-in-Aid was awarded to Ishii
Yoneo at CSEAS for a “Map creation of the distribution of religions in Southeast Asia” in 1970 11,(Urano 2018). Urano situates a deeper engagement that stretches back at least 250 years through exchanges withmainland Asia.
For example, the notion of a “Kanji/Hanzi Cultural Area,” is not a direct product of Kyoto University per se, but aconcept used in Japanese Asian Studies that reflects the view of an area defined in terms of a tradition of literacy andsocial, political and cultural worlds that have spawned across much of Asia.

10

The first Grant-in-Aid for a project in Southeast Asia at Kyoto University was in 1965 (芦田譲治 Ashida Jouji,
Botanist (1905-1981). タイ・マレーシア生物相の調査 Tai, Mareshia Seibutsu sou no Chosa.[Research on biota
in Thailand and Malaysia]. Overseas Scientific Survey.
118981 grants had been awarded to Kyoto University for research in the region as of 2018 12. A detailed
inventory is beyond the scope of this paper, yet many of these projects have been multidisciplinary
with teams of researchers cutting across disciplinary divides, different faculties and departments
both within and outside of Kyoto university. Research approaches and agendas suggest that an‘area,’ as constituted as the focus of research, would be analyzed across and through a broad rangeof disciplines to create holistic approaches toward understanding and disseminating new
knowledge. More often than not, a fundamental recognition of a deeper historical relation to theregion and commitment to collaboratively engage with local researchers has been integral aspectof research.
At the heart of research development was an ongoing discussion about whether Southeast
Asian studies itself, constitutes an academic discipline or not 13. Within CSEAS there have been
two ways of thinking about this question. The first is that Southeast Asian Studies should berecognized as a multidisciplinary field of academic inquiry premised upon methodologicaleclecticism not limited to discussion within the humanities and social sciences. The second is that
Southeast Asian Studies is composed of a shared geographic research focus with a shared set ofresearch questions that are theme-based emphasizing process. These two perspectives on the field
have co-existed at CSEAS throughout its development.
On the occasion of the 50th Anniversary of CSEAS, a basic historical narrative that outlined
the historical trajectory was developed that has framed these on-going discussions and dilemmas.
The narrative divided CSEAS’s institutional development into four broad stages to capture theinfluential forces of the changing times and how CSEAS responded to evolve: an Institutional
Development stage (1960s to early 70s); a Joint Studies Development stage (late 1970s to 80s); an
Integrated Area Studies Development stage (1990s to 2000s); and a Multilateral and Global Area
Studies Development stage (2000s until 2016) in addition to the current stage of Reintegration andData on Grant-in-Aids for projects relating to Southeast Asia conducted within Kyoto University was sourced
with help from Fujieda Ayako at the Kyoto University Research Administration (KURA).
12

13
One of the noteworthy criticisms of area studies is the assertion that it cannot be considered as a discipline in its
own right. For a detailed discussion see Miyoshi and Harootunian (2002). However, discussions in Japan havefocused explicitly and intensively on whether Southeast Asian Studies can constitute a discipline in its own rights(See Yano 1992, 1-25 for detailed argument).

9

Expansion (2017 to present). Figure 1. provides an overview of the constitution of CSEAS by
fields and disciplines. This paper follows this temporal framework to highlight the transition froma group of common-interest field researchers, to a national center and finally an international hub.

Fig. 1 Constitution of CSEAS faculty by fields and disciplines (1963~2019)
Source: CSEAS (CSEAS and Center for Integrated Area Studies (CIAS) merged in 2015 and established a newresearch institute which retains the English name as CSEAS).

Institutional Development stage (1960s to early ‘70s)
The history of CSEAS predates its official establishment. In the spring of l959, a group of scholars
in Kyoto began to organize monthly seminars on various aspects of Southeast Asian culture andsociety. As the seminars gradually attracted an increasing number of faculty members and graduate
students from universities in and around Kyoto, the enthusiastic participants sought the possibility10

of organizing the informal gathering into a more institutionalized forum. A preparatory committee
was formed in l961 to organize a systematic program of Southeast Asian studies, one that from theoutset included the natural sciences (CSEAS 1964). Historically, this has been a domain that wascompletely neglected in most Area Studies programs in Western universities and research
institutes. These developments culminated in the creation of CSEAS in January 1963 on thecampus of Kyoto University as a semi-official body for coordinating Southeast Asian studies andits establishment as an officially recognized research center in 1965. These were sensitive times inJapan, with the local political situation greatly influencing the thinking of Kyoto faculty andstudents. Former professor, Shibayama Mamoru noted how, in 1970, protests against the revisionof the Japan-US Security Treaty and universities escalated, spreading from Ritsumeikan
University to Kyoto and Doshisha Universities and making it difficult for students to take classes(Interview with Shibayama Mamoru 2012). CSEAS itself was targeted by campus rioters withstudents from the Federation of Students’ Self-Governing Association protesting against its
establishment. The center was accused of being in bed with “U.S. imperialism” due to having
received $350,000 14 in 1963, from the Ford Foundation towards its establishment. Nonetheless,during this formative period, its mandate would be conceived through a different approach fromthe Area or Asian Studies that were developing in the West. Research would not take place solely
through the humanities and social sciences, but would focus on the region’s natural environment,
eco-systems, cultures and political economy (Ichimura 2016). The aim, at the time, was to coversociety and nature and importantly include the medical sciences, all disciplinary areas which are
now covered by faculty at CSEAS.
From the mid- 1960s, research activities were carried out mainly in Thailand, Malaysia andIndonesia based on individual researchers’ academic concerns and networks. Projects organizedat this stage consisted of those in the Social Science and Natural Science Sections. The former
covered such broad themes as “political organization and governmental processes,” “system andstructure of education,” “modernization factors in economic development,” and “religion inSoutheast Asia.” The latter included “medical surveys 15 ,” “geological surveys,” “studies for
14

This is equivalent to $2,265,138.00 in 2018.

This included research, for example, on leprosy in Thailand by leprosy researchers based at Kyoto University andthe Leprosy Control Division, Thailand (See Nishiura et al. 1965).
15

11

agricultural production,” and “biological surveys.” These were carried out in collaboration withresearchers and scholars from other departments and institutes of Kyoto University as well as fromother universities in Japan, and through bilateral cooperation with counterpart agencies andinstitutions in Southeast Asian countries.
Through these research activities, researchers with backgrounds in different academic
disciplines employed the methodologies of their respective fields to carry out research in their own
areas of interest. Research fell into the broader areas of history, agriculture or economics ofSoutheast Asia. Thus, at this time, the question of whether Southeast Asian Studies should beconsidered a discipline in its own right or a series of disciplines nestling in broader fields had not
yet arisen in the collective consciousness of CSEAS.
It was through these incipient research projects and the push to hone a multidisciplinary
spirit of collaboration that CSEAS initiated official programs and established a publications office,a library, and exchange and training programs to strengthen its institutional base. The publication
program, beginning with the inauguration of the first issue of Southeast Asian Studies in July 1963,
was responsible for publishing the annual bulletin of CSEAS in both English and Japanese, as wellas occasional/discussion papers reporting the tentative results of intensive fieldwork in the region.
The monograph publication series was launched not only in Japanese but also in English, the latterfrom the University of Hawai’i Press. It was during this time that CSEAS recognized the need toliaise with and develop academic relations with scholars from the region and established a CSEAS
fellowship 16 to invite scholars from abroad to visit the center.
Joint studies development stage (late 1970s to ‘80s)
The increase in governmental financial support for scientific research such as Grants-inAid for Scientific Research (Kakenhi) from MEXT helped promote and strengthen joint studies
after the early 1970s. Carrying out individual research related to each researcher’s concern and
To date, CSEAS has invited over 400 scholars to stay at CSEAS. Over three quarters of all fellows have beenfrom Southeast Asia. This attests to the spirit of fostering dialogue with intellectuals and researchers from within theregion and is reflected in the strong inter-university linkages that exist between Kyoto University and those in theregion.
16

12

organizing and participating in joint studies became a principle by which every CSEAS staff
worked. In line with this principle, CSEAS organized team projects such as “Agro-environmental
studies of the Mekong delta of Vietnam” (Project Leader Kyuma Kazutake 1974), “Study on thedevelopment processes of Islamic rice societies under a tropical rainfed climate” (Project Leader
Tsubouchi Yoshihiro 1978), and “The role of education in the agricultural communities inSoutheast Asia (Project Leader Ichimura Shinichi 1974). These were carried out on a ‘team’ basis,in the sense that they consisted of researchers from different fields working closely together, andengaging with local researchers. During this period, the experiential aspect of fieldwork withresearchers from different backgrounds allowed them to develop and hone a framework thatprioritized and encouraged multidisciplinary dialogue. Former director Tanaka Koji has noted thistook place while literally “eating from the same bowl.” Disciplines can be seen as presenting
boundaries with theoretical borders and differing methodologies (both qualitative and quantitative).
It was not the case of just bringing together scholars from different disciplinary backgrounds, but
creating opportunities conducive to “stealing” disciplinary ideas and terminology from each other,something that informed the dynamic interplay between researchers (Tanaka 2012, 7).
I came to realize that when people come together to do research, they don’t just try to understand it fromwithin the boundaries of their own disciplines. They have motivation to look at a region through a variety ofperspectives. In the field, you experience a variety of things: through different disciplines, what do people
observe, what kind of data do they search for, how do they prepare it, and what kind of words do they use to
explain it? This in itself is study. (Tanaka, 2012, 8)

Through these kinds of experiences, the cross-fertilization and sharing (stealing) of methods andapproaches for those working within Area Studies, fostered expectations that new knowledge andscholarship through discoveries, would emerge through this fusion/mixing of disciplines.
Building on these experiences and drawing from these team projects in the second half ofthe 1970s, CSEAS began to promote institutional joint research projects in 1980 by organizing
researchers by themes for five-year internally designated projects. The joint studies exemplifying
this approach were “Dong Daeng Village in Northeast Thailand” (Project Leader Ishii Yoneo
1981) and the “Environment and Human Migration in the Tropical Archipelago” (Project Leader
Maeda Narifumi 1980). These projects adopted contrasting methodologies for conducting team13

projects. In the former project, a village in Northeast Thailand, Dong Daeng, was chosen as asingle research site in which intensive village-level surveys were implemented by a cohesiveinterdisciplinary team consisting of historians, anthropologists, sociologists, agronomists, andirrigation scholars. In this research a diverse range of researchers lived together in a rural Thai
village, experiencing daily life together in their collaborative research. The village has been
continuously researched for over 50 years by a diverse mix of human, social and natural scientists
from not only CSEAS, but other institutions in Japan. Over this period, they have amassed aqualitative and quantitative dataset of an empirical richness and historical timeline that is
unparalleled in Area Studies. This unique understanding of social, economic and agriculturalchange in Thailand is still being constructed by CSEAS researchers 17. In contrast, the latter projectdrew on more wide-ranging and flexible perspectives in geographical terms, with members
consisting of anthropologists, sociologists, geographers, soil scientists, agronomists, and historians
covering a wide range of ecosystems, such as coastal areas, mountainous regions, and watersheds
in Sumatra, Kalimantan, and Sulawesi. Although both projects were interdisciplinary, their focus
and operation differed diametrically.
These presented valuable opportunities to learn what questions researchers from otherdisciplines asked, what information they collected and how they analyzed that data. The findingsthat emerged from each of these disciplinary inquiries were brought together and synthesized. In
the process of working through their outputs, researchers experienced and came to develop amultifaceted understanding of what constitutes a research area that could not be achieved throughthe consideration of each individual inquiry. This experience created a more sensitive approach
toward empirical knowledge generation among the researchers that expanded beyond their own
individual disciplines, leading them to search for a more integrated stance toward Southeast AsianStudies. Concurrently, these early researchers began a shift from research situated in researchquestions and applying established methodologies of a certain singular discipline, to research
approaches that were conceived and developed in the reality of the research site. Methodologies
were then chosen and developed in a flexible way that best met the data needs of the research. In

For overview of past and ongoing research in the village see (Watanabe 2010, 7-9). It is beyond the scope of thispaper to provide an exhaustive list of works carried out, however for details of representative studies and scholarshipsee (Mizuno 1968, 1971, 1978, 1981, Fukui, 1993, Watanabe 2017, Watanabe et al, 2008, Kono et al, 2018).
17

14

this way, a shared awareness of the unique characteristics of Area Studies emerged among thecommunity of researchers working together.
The unique contributions of multidisciplinary projects developing through this area studies
approach with a solid base in the natural sciences, further emerged during this period. Takaya
Yoshikazu’s Agricultural Development of a Tropical Delta: A Study of the Chao Praya Delta first
appeared in Japanese in 1982, with the English edition following in 1987 (Takaya 1982; Takaya1987), announcing the arrival of the natural science approach to Area Studies. Originally ageologist, Takaya 18 expanded his research interests and methodological approach through hisinteractions with Ishii Yoneo, a polyglot historian and Buddhist scholar and others. Takaya’s
publications brought together geology, geomorphology, water resources development, land use
and agriculture to illustrate a comprehensive picture of the basic structure of the Chao Phraya Delta
and the history of its development. The scope and methods of this study provided researchers fromthe natural sciences with a foundational approach to a natural science inflected Area Studies.
It was also at this stage that CSEAS was able to make significant progress in creating a
vernacular to communicate the emerging practice of Area Studies being developed by researchers.
CSEAS received a grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) to enhancethe exchange of scholars between Japan and Southeast Asian countries and to expand CSEAS’s
research network in the region. A series of JSPS Core University Programs, “In Search of a
Collaborative Framework for Southeast Asian Studies,” were initiated in 1986 within a bilateralframework of cooperation with Thammasat University (1986-89). The first half of the program’s
ten-year term covered the exchange of scholars between Japan and Thailand and was later
expanded to other countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia. This reflected the changing academic
context, with increasing intellectual interest among Southeast Asian scholars in their own fellow
colleagues in the region. Through this and subsequent programs, CSEAS came into contact withmany prominent scholars in the region.

Takaya Yoshikazu (高谷好一 1934-2016) is also well known within Japanese Southeast Asian Studies and Area
Studies for his theoretical work on developing the concept of “Unit-world” as a substitute for area and to divide
these up according to their ecologies, factors of land-use and types of agriculture (Takaya 1993). This was a productof global area studies which developed during the multilateral and global area studies development stage. For adetailed introduction to these ideas in English see Tachimoto (1995).
18

15

Integrated Area Studies Development stage (1990s to 2000s)
The movement to establish Southeast Asian Studies through the gradual recognition ofArea Studies came about with the publication of the “Southeast Asian Studies” series between
1990-92. The series comprised of 10 volumes covering nature, society, history, culture, philosophy,
politics, the economy, international relations and so on, and each volume was authored byrepresentative Japanese researchers with CSEAS faculty in charge as an editor. Methods forStudying Southeast Asia (Yano 1990), and Introduction to Southeast Asian Studies (Yano 1992)
were two volumes that stood out. Both these and others authored by CSEAS faculty, carried“Southeast Asian Studies” in their titles and illustrate the spirit of the early ‘90s.
At the same time, natural scientists were increasingly dissatisfied with researchachievements that were limited to their own disciplinary arenas, and made continued and concerted
efforts to reach out beyond their individual research domains. This manifested itself in works such
the The Asian History of Rice Culture (3 Vols, Watabe 1987) and the Encyclopedia of Southeast
Asia (CSEAS 1997). These were put together through the efforts of natural scientists at the timeand done so from the perspective of the natural environment and human-nature relations tosystematically present the formation processes, characteristics and current issues of Southeast
Asian societies. Working in collaboration with the Japanese International Cooperation Agency(JICA), CSEAS researchers undertook a broad-based study of biological diversity within Lao rice
farming landscapes, developing the concept of kasikam thammasat – “natural agriculture,” where
wild and cultivated diversity coexist and interact in agroecological systems – which is still heard
in Laos today (Tanaka 1993; Tanaka 2008). Thus, while adding a unique set of perspectives to thepractice, they also worked to push the boundaries from within the individual studies incollaboration with social scientist and humanities specialists.
As a result of these activities, CSEAS was selected in 1993 as a core institution for a fouryear project under the title “An Integrated Approach to Global Area Studies: In Search of a
Paradigm for a Harmonized Relationship between the World and Its Areas” (1993–96). Generally
referred to as “Global Area Studies,” this project was funded by MEXT through the Grant for
Scientific Research on Priority Areas. Although this program was designed mainly for promoting

16and supporting priority areas in natural and applied sciences, the CSEAS project was the first
institutional proposal selected from the field of humanities and social sciences. This project
involved some 130 area study specialists nationwide in an endeavor to delineate clearly the formand substance of global Area Studies.
While focusing on Southeast Asia, the project was grounded in the cumulative research ofwide-ranging Area Studies, encompassing regions other than Southeast Asia. The project sought
to define the leading domains of Area Studies through subprojects titled “Area and Ecological
Environment,” “Theories on the Formation of Area Identities,” and “Indigenous Theories of Area
Development.” It also examined the formation and interrelations of areas in Southeast Asia
through subprojects titled “External Civilization and Internal World” and “Theories of Area
Interconnections,” and to establish a methodology and logical framework for research through theorganic integration of these themes under the sub-project “Concept of Global Area Studies.” A
new monograph series Chiiki Kenkyu Sosho (Series on Area Studies) was launched in 1995 by
CSEAS together with Kyoto University Press, in response to the need for a suitable outlet for
disseminating accumulated research and knowledge, and for presenting exemplary and original
research. Takaya, for example, proposed the idea of a “unit-world” by focusing on the diversity ofmodes and depth of human-nature interactions within various regions of the world. This now forms
part of a basic theoretical framework that informs Japanese Area Studies. However, Japanese Area
Studies scholars have pointed out that there is difficulty in capturing both the impact of humansocieties and modern forces if emphasis is placed primarily on ecological foundations. To respondto criticisms, Takaya introduced two axes of development and transformation to his theory. Thus,
the unit-world theory became a dynamic one that was used to discuss and analyze developmentsin the West as well in as socialist systems (Takaya 2001). This theoretical framework carried over
into subsequent large-scale projects to offer a departure point for rethinking development paths indifferent regions in the mid-2000s under the GCOE projects (see section 6 this paper).
The second JSPS Core University Program started in 1999 with the general theme of“Region-making in East Asia.” Recognizing the importance of the relationship between East andSoutheast Asia, the program incorporated a wide network of scholars from both Southeast andNortheast Asia in nine subprojects over 10 years. The program covered topics clustered around a17

number of big themes: hegemony and technocracy, the middle classes, regionalism and networks,
state, market and society, flows of people, goods and information, entrepreneurs and rent-seeking,and family. These all reflected emerging important issues in the region and incorporated broader
regional comparisons. The publication of After the Crisis: Hegemony, Technocracy andGovernance in Southeast Asia (Shiraishi et al. 2005) and Dislocating Nation-States: Globalizationin Asia and Africa (Abinales et al. 2005), represented major scholarly contributions to regionbuilding in the face of global economic and political uncertainty and shifting regional orders. With
the steady increase in the number of participating scholars and countries involved, this program
greatly contributed to the extension of CSEAS’s academic networks within and beyond Southeast
Asian countries, and played an important role in bridging Southeast and East Asian academics.
As such, within CSEAS’ 50 years of history, the integrated Area Studies development stage
was one of the periods where the movement to establish Southeast Asian Studies and Area Studies
as a field was most active. It was during this period that the Graduate School of Asian and African
Area Studies (ASAFAS) was established in 1998. Issuing doctoral degrees in Area Studies,
CSEAS played a crucial role in supporting education with teaching, knowledge and access toresearch materials. However, education at ASAFAS had the common requirements of learning
local languages and conducting long-term fieldwork, but this was not the teaching of Area Studies
as a discipline. The contents of courses for graduates corresponded to fostering so-called gradualcommon knowledge that could help young scholars reflect upon the scope of Area Studies anddifferent ways to approach areas in question. Thus, in addition to Area Studies, students at
ASAFAS are required to learn a discipline that is related to their research topics. In regards to this,other graduate schools with Area Studies have been established at other universities, and education
including Area Studies are spreading. However, what they are teaching is almost the same as what
has been done at ASAFAS (Inoue 2017). During this period, with the emerging topics of publichealth, CSEAS added faculty with specializations in medicine, and now medical doctors are an
integral part of the institution.

18

Multilateral and Global Area Studies Development stage (2000s to 2016)
On entering the 21st century, MEXT started to create a large-scale education and research support
scheme that aimed at strengthening Japanese universities international competitiveness. As a resultof this, in 2002, a 21st Century COE program was launched and a number of departments in Kyoto
University established regional hubs in Southeast Asia to promote education and researchexchanges with universities in the region. In 2002 CSEAS, in collaboration with the Graduate
School of Asian and African Area Studies, received new funding under the 21st Century COE
program “Aiming for COE of Integrated Area Studies,” (Project leader: Kato Tsuyoshi 2002-2007).
In addition to the liaison offices in Bangkok and Jakarta, this program facilitated theestablishment of field stations in Yangon, Vientiane, Bogor, Makassar, the Mekong Delta in
Vietnam, Manila, and Kuala Lumpur to facilitate research, training, and collaboration by students
and faculty in the field and with local scholars. It promoted network building in each locale,connecting researchers and providing opportunities for young scholars to conduct fieldwork as
well as present their findings and conduct discussions with local and Japanese researchers. The
above was, in a way, a turning point for the multilateral and global Area Studies development stage
and arose as a response to initiatives within Kyoto University to forge stronger intra-departmental
relations. For example, this included research groups working on energy and biological systems to
set up an office in Bangkok resulting in the deepening of relations between researchers in Kyoto
university and the further development of collaborative large-scale initiatives.
Running alongside these initiatives to develop richer networks in Southeast Asia, otherresearchers were also incorporating new cutting-edge technology to research the region’s history.
One new discipline, “Area Informatics,” was developed that integrated different areas studies
approaches across a number of academic disciplines including human ecology, sociology, history,
cultural studies, economics and political science. One outcome of this was a project that analyzed
the historical urban formation of Hanoi, Vietnam during the 19th and 20th centuries (Project Leader:
Shibayama Mamoru 2005-2009). The project produced new types of spatial analysis based on
historical and present-day maps, satellite images, cadastral maps, historic ruins and vestiges all19

analyzed through rapidly developing GIS (Geographical Information Systems) and RS (Remote
Sensing) technologies.
Following the 21st Century COE, in 2007 CSEAS received MEXT funding to initiate afive-year project for a Global COE program titled “In Search of Sustainable Humanosphere in
Asia and Africa” (Project Leader: Sugihara Kaoru 2007–11), which aimed at an integrated
multidisciplinary approach to the ‘humanosphere’ (生存基盤 Seizon Kiban literally the foundations
for survival). In the research program, the term ‘humanosphere’ was theorized to refer to theintegrated whole made up of the geosphere, biosphere and human society (three areas covered by
CSEAS’s interdisciplinarity). This program marked a turning point in the center’s research in that
there was a shift in emphasis in research from Southeast Asian studies for understanding Southeast
Asia as a region and object of study, to tackling questions emerging from the region that speak
about global issues. Research questions emerged from pressing realities and issues in the region,
and aimed to generate scholarship that could enhance our knowledge and provide solutions towarda Sustainable Humanosphere at a global level and across different regions. This took place througha wider multidisciplinary collaboration than previously experienced at CSEAS and included
applied and earth sciences, while maintaining the field-based approach as well as cooperation withthose outside academia. A number of key questions framed discussions over a five-year period.
How can we reinforce and realize the potentialities of nature while controlling and managing it incoordination with others? How is plural coexistence of cultural, religious and other differencespossible? How can we better connect the knowledge and power of local communities to larger
decisions and global dynamics? In what ways can a better future in the region and around the globe
be envisioned? Researchers engaged in topics covering environment, disaster and sustainability,
democracy and governance, aging society and care, economic disparity and urban development
through cross-regional, multidisciplinary research. These are now recognized as some of the major
issues Southeast Asian societies and the world more generally are now confronting.
Within this dynamic framework, ASAFAS and CSEAS also coordinated to make regional
research the primary concern, however, researchers from other departments within Kyoto
University, particularly those who specialize in energy science, material science, climatology,
ecology, and history also participated. This approach aimed to promote research through a20multidisciplinary approach to cover areas that CSEAS faculty could not adequately respond to. To
compliment research initiatives, 27 Post-doctoral fellows also participated in this project. Manyother participating researchers were already involved in educational and research exchanges inSoutheast Asia, but at the time, this was not in the context of Southeast Asian studies or regional
studies.
The above also included geo-environmental researchers who set up equatorial atmosphericobservation stations in Indonesia; forestry researchers aiming to develop tree species suitable forplantation forestry through genetic modification technology; and life science researchers working
on the development of bio-refinery to realize the multi-purpose use of tropical biomass resources.
From these researchers and initiatives, Southeast Asian researchers learned the potential of theregion’s natural environment and the very limits of present-day technology. Obtaining a newperspective on Southeast Asia and Southeast Asian studies itself, was also the direct acquisition ofknowledge linked to the current issues that Southeast Asian societies are facing. However, thiswas an opportunity for discipline specific researchers to enter into discussion with area researchers
and realize the necessity of considering the broader multiple significances of their research in thecontext of societies in the target areas.
The results of the GCOE Program (2007-2011) were published in the “Humanosphere
Series,” six volumes published in Japanese 19 (Sugihara et al. 2012). These were authored by Area
Studies specialists, but the central themes, cutting across the volumes, were aiming toward acomprehensive understanding of those societies that were the subject of focus. Two theoreticalthreads that underpin the conceptualization of the Sustainable Humanosphere were the following.
First, the recognition of the need to move away from a “production to survival” perspective. The
second is a shift from a “temperate to tropical” perspective. To that end, the central arguments
asserted throughout the program were the need to relativize the development of human societies

From these volumes some chapters have been published in English. Volume 4 was updated and translated to form
the basis of Catastrophe and Regeneration in Indonesia’s Peatlands: Ecology, Economy and Society (Mizuno et al2016). From volume 5 (Seizon kiban Shisu -Ningen Kaihatsu Shisu wo Koete-) [Humanosphere Potentiality Index –Going beyond the Human Development Index] (Sato et al, 2012), research continued leading to the publication of
updated research in English and an online database (Sato et al. 2016). From volume 2 (Chikyuken, Seimeiken no
Senzairyoku – Nettai Chiiki Shakai no Seizonkiban-) [The Potentiality of the Geosphere and Biosphere: the
Humanosphere of Tropical Societies], chapter 10, “The Mechanisms of Agricultural development in the tropicalhumanosphere” (Kono et al 2012), was revised, updated and published in Lopez and Suryomenngolo (eds) (2018).

19

21

after the industrial revolution and re-examine the experiences and knowledge of regional
communities in the world.
Leading on from the Global COE Program, the Southeast Asian Studies for Sustainable
Humanosphere program was initiated (Project Leader: Kono Yasuyuki 2011-16). It aimed tofurther enquire into what constitutes a Sustainable Humanosphere through making use of context
specific knowledge found in Southeast Asian societal contexts. This extended to investigations onplural co-existence in the region, the usage of tropical biomass, its capitalization and circulation
within and beyond the region, and regional networking that led to the creation of the Consortiumfor Southeast Asian Studies (SEASIA). This program, as with the previous GCOE, also functioned
to accept post-doctoral researchers who collaborated with CSEAS faculty to further theorize fromthe ground up. In tandem with the above project, several other cutting-edge programs also ran. Inline with the above, the program “Multidisciplinary Study of Southeast Asian Planted Forests andLocal Societies” (Project Leader: Ishikawa Noboru 2010-2014) was also initiated to examine thetransformation of high biomass societies in maritime Southeast Asia 20. Highly interdisciplinary,
both social and natural scientists work together across different scales to look at how the geosphere,
biosphere and human habitats converged in new emerging landscapes of plantations and planted
forests.
Continuing to explore multidisciplinary dialogues within and beyond academia, CSEAS
was awarded large-scale funding to initiate the “Japan-ASEAN Platform for Transdisciplinary
Studies” (Project leader: Hayami Yoko 2016-2021). This new program was set up to advancetransdisciplinary research that integrates academic, governmental, and civil societies to create newcollaborative research ventures that brings together the expertise of scholars working in Southeast
Asia. Participants in the initiative include scientists and engineers as well as Japanese and ASEAN
political and business communities. In particular, this platform emphasizes the establishment of
new relationships, especially between Japan and Southeast Asia, and identify problem-solving“wisdom” from local realities through empirically grounded research. One of the features of thisapproach has been prioritize local realities and focus on the production of new knowledge throughsynergistic research with local researchers and practitioners on the basis of equal partnerships.
This resulted in a recent edited volume on human-nature interfaces on plantation frontiers (See Ishikawa et al2019).
20

22

Another important key project entitled “Infectious Diseases Spreading across International
Borders in Southeast Asia: The Elucidation of Area-specific Features Based on Multifactorial
Analysis (Project Leader: Nishibuchi Mitsuaki 2007-2011). This was a unique and originalcollaborative attempt to map the trans-regional spread of food-poisoning bacterial entericpathogens (found in mollusks) that arise through cultural food practices in a number of Southeast
Asian nations by a team of microbiologists, food experts and industries based within the region.
In terms of methodology, this project opened up a new collaborative toolbox forged from various
disciplines to tackle complex trans-boundary issues to improve regional safety practices. Thissynergistic and dynamic approach toward research is characterized by the need to develop new
hybrid approaches that can work across borders and frontiers (boundaries which are highly porous
where pathogens are concerned).
Another trend that characterizes the multilateral and global Area Studies development stage
is the strengthening of activities as an international hub for Southeast Asian studies. Whileprevious JSPS Core University Programs had been designed as bilateral exchange, primarily withThailand, the active exchanges and network building had far exceeded the bilateral framework. By
the end of the second Core University Program, “Region-Making in East Asia” (1999–2008), theCSEAS was ready for a multilateral framework to widen its network. The Asian Core Program“Asian Connections: Southeast Asian Model for Co-existence in the 21st Century” (2009–13) madethis possible. In addition to Thailand represented by Thammasat, the Indonesian Institute of
Sciences (LIPI) and Taiwan’s CAPAS Academia Sinica joined to respectively represent mainland
Southeast Asia, insular Southeast Asia, and East Asia. The projects reflected current debates andemerging issues, with such topics as cross-border connections and regionalism, politico-economictransformations, and resources management. While the projects were varied in their focus andoutcome, a common realization was that in this region with rich ecological resources and variedsocial capital—characterized by plural coexistence through regionally specific globalization—negotiations and connections are made in dynamic and layered interfaces. These interfaces need
to be analyzed as emerging on the ground rather than based on taken-for-granted units, paradigms,
or indices.

23

During this period CSEAS relaunched and strengthened its journal and publications. The
journal Southeast Asian Studies (Tonan Ajia Kenkyu), which had started in 1963 as a bilingual
quarterly journal, gained international recognition as a peer-reviewed journal 21 and received
increasing numbers of submissions from all over the world. In 2012, with due respect to thejournal’s function and recognition, both domestically and internationally, the center opted tomaintain the journal’s multidisciplinary content, but re-fashioned the journal. CSEAS launched
the triannual English journal Southeast Asian Studies and the biannual Japanese Journal ofSoutheast Asian Studies (Tonan Ajia Kenkyu), both open-access, peer-reviewed and open tocontributions from scholars all over the world. These journals showcase the best research
conducted in the region. CSEAS also established the Kyoto Review of Southeast Asia to promoteexchange among researchers of the region, including articles published in English, Thai, Bahasa
Indonesia, Filipino, Vietnamese and Japanese 22.
In addition to the existing monograph series, CSEAS launched the Kyoto CSEAS Series
on Asian Studies in 2009. This was in recognition of the strong need for an Asia-based publication
on Southeast Asian studies, in response to the rising quality and quantity of scholarship from theregion. The series aims to reach a wide audience with innovative questions and analyses supported
by meticulous research. CSEAS have now five book series on Southeast Asia. The number ofbooks published (both in English and Japanese) under these series has increased (Figure 2).

21
22

The English journal is now available in both SCOPUS and EBSCO research databases.
KRSEA received over 400,00 views and almost 300,000 visitors in 2018.

24

25
20
15
10
5
0
in Japanese by Japanesein English by Japanesein English by non-Japanese

Figure 2 Number of books published by CSEAS Book Series Source: CSEAS

Continually building on the imperative to promote regionally-based Southeast Asianstudies, CSEAS, in partnership with nine leading Asian and Southeast Asian studies institutions in
the region, established a consortium for Southeast Asian Studies in Asia (SEASIA) in 2013. The
consortium charter was signed by 10 universities in the region 23. SEASIA has been established toallow closer networking between scholars and stakeholders in the region and in particular foster
exchanges that are not just limited to the social sciences and humanities, but also engage with thenatural sciences and medicine. The inaugural event was held in Kyoto on December 2015 with theparticipation of more than 500 participants from around the region including Hong Kong andChina. An Asian network of Southeast Asian studies scholars and institutions is a clear exampleof how a dominant paradigm of imbalanced power relations can be overturned when the focus of
intellectual exchange is located more closely with stakeholders. While bringing together not onlythe ‘internal’ institutions of Southeast Asia is itself a challenge, to expand this to include East
Asian institutions makes the management of such a network very challenging. However, becauseof the personal networks and institutional linkages that have been nurtured over the years, CSEAS
has been able to propose a common platform for the study of Southeast Asia that is based in

23
The founding institutions were as follows: The Center for Asia-Pacific Studies, Academia Sinica; the Institute of
Asian Studies, Chulalongkorn University; LIPI; the Korean Association of Southeast Asian Studies; the Center forSoutheast Asian Studies, Kyoto University; the Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore; theSchool of Humanities and Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University; the Taiwan Association of Southeast
Asian Studies; the Institute of Asian Studies, Universiti Brunei Darussalam; and the Asian Center, University of thePhilippines.

25

collegial exchange around empirical studies and locally-derived research agendas. Since theinception of the fellowship program in the mid- 1970s, CSEAS has fostered a dynamic
environment between staff (as counterparts) and visiting scholars. The networks developed
through this program have strengthened and deepened the ties that Kyoto University has throughuniversity to university MOU arrangements with 31 universities in Southeast Asia (including
departmental level).
Exploring a New Stage: Integration with Expansion
In January 2017, The Center for Southeast Asian Studies was relaunched in a new institution that
integrated the former Center for Southeast Asian Studies and the Center for Integrated Area
Studies (CIAS). In addition to the integration of the research agendas and information production
and management, the new CSEAS is also an expansion of the geographic coverage of theinstitution. In the pursuit of fostering cross-regional dialogue and larger scale comparison of data
and analysis, Latin American Area Studies faculty, their projects and networks became integral
parts of the center, as the institution continues to adapt to the changing world and adopts a moreinter-regional comparative approach towards its research agenda.
In response to the need to further pursue scientific research, CSEAS, together with several
graduate schools and research institutes at Kyoto University, launched the “Japan-ASEAN Science,
Technology and Innovation Platform (JASTIP): Promotion of Sustainable Development Research”
within the framework of the Collaboration Hubs for International Research Program (CHIRP) in2015 funded by the Strategic International Collaborative Research Program (SICORP) of Japan
Science and Technology Agency (JST) (Project Leader: Kono Yasuyuki 2015-2020). JASTIP
promotes Japan-ASEAN collaboration on science and technology research and accelerate theapplication of its outcomes to social innovation in order to achieve Sustainable Development Goals(SDGs). A synergistic Area Studies approach has impacted within the university as well, drawing
on resources that are close at hand.
Along with these science oriented large-scale projects, there has also been the need tosituate and understand the ways in which new technologies, political realities and aspirations have26altered how Southeast Asian’s represent current issues they face within the region. Since 2012,
CSEAS has also initiated the Visual Documentary Project (VDP) and has received close to 500
documentaries from across the region (Project Leader: Mario Lopez 2012-). VDP acts as a bridge
to connect filmmakers to research scholars to offer a complimentary platform to how to perceiveand engage with issues that people face in the region. Each year the project has put forward themes
to encourage debate with Area Studies specialists in Japan and importantly, with an interested
public. It collaborates actively with international film festivals and schools as well as providing
materials for teaching Southeast Asia. To date, under different themes VDP has received highquality works engaging in politics, the environment, urbanization, care, popular culture, human
movement, and plural co-existence. The project ultimately aims to bring academics and cultural
collaborators together to help shape discussions on knowledge production that strengthen linkages
between Japan and ASEAN nations.
Through JASTIP and other ongoing initiatives, CSEAS continues to strengthen
cooperative research and foster links between ASEAN and Japan; to train researchers to become
leaders in their subsequent fields; and accelerates research that will be a driving force with theshared goal to attain sustainable development through closer collaboration between Japan and
ASEAN countries. Nonetheless, most members are Japanese researchers specializing inenvironment, energy, biological resources, biodiversity, and disaster prevention in the context ofSoutheast Asia. The role of Area Studies researchers in this kind of team environment is to reveal
local community issues and to consider what scientific research is necessary to solve them throughcollaboration with researchers in each field. This role can only be achieved by Area Studies
specialists who can develop research topics from the reality of the target area and only throughaccumulated experience by flexibly selecting and developing research methods according to theactual situation of target areas. These frequently require a multidisciplinary approach that
individual disciplines fail to cover. And this kind of collaboration between Area Studies
researchers and cutting-edge scientists is an essential process for constructing sustainable humansocieties based upon the on the premise of diverse communities found in Southeast Asia.
In this context, CSEAS provides a major arena for researchers with various disciplines andnon-academic stakeholders to share knowledge (both theoretical and empirical), to locate suitable27

research partners and carry out collaborative research. CSEAS has become a place of academic
pursuit, intellectual exchange and network consolidation between researchers from Japan,
Southeast Asia and beyond. Its networks extend through all of the Kyoto University system, whereother research is conducted in different fields across the region 24 . Even as the institutionalframeworks for funding, collaboration and regional interaction change, the fundamental CSEAS
methodological approaches remain solid, based on core values that represent a commitment tostudy of the region. In the research agenda for the current stage of work, there are four mainelements.
1) Understand how people live, construct, manage and develop societies within the natural,
historical and cultural continuum of an area.
2) Propose large, empirically-based locally appropriate ideas that can contribute to the healthyand sound evolution of Southeast Asian societies.
3) Learn from unique and diverse Southeast Asian forms that are practiced locally and link into
exchanges with other parts of the world to consider the future directions of global society.
4) Learn from the local knowledge systems within our situated knowledge of the region and allow
Southeast Asia to be a lens to comparatively observe diversity in other tropical regions in theworld whilst questioning what constitutes the region.
The first two represent CSEAS’ traditional stance, while the latter two form part of an
emerging arena within which methodological frontiers and empirical realities are engaged throughcollaborative work with other partners. The world does not need a fixed blueprint for the future.
Rather, it requires a deeper understanding of the modalities that exist to think through and acrossregions comparatively by way of disciplinary approaches that co-presence multiple perspectives.
We believe that this vision of Southeast Asian Area Studies reflects changes underway in the world.
Just as the position of Southeast Asia is evolving as a significant part of Asia, a global identity (ifTo date there are approximately 190 faculty spread across Kyoto University who although not affiliated directly to
CSEAS or Area Studies, work in Southeast Asia in collaboration with other researchers in the region. To thisCSEAS has just under 190 outside of the university who collaborate with CSEAS. This excludes the Japanese
association for Southeast Asian Studies (approximately 600+ scholars based within Japan). Kyoto University has
also recently established an ASEAN Center in Bangkok and an active Network Committee with 20 representatives
from across different faculties (including medicine and engineering) to promote research initiatives and foster
linkages within the region.
24

28

it exists) and the role of the region is undergoing a paradigmatic transformation. A view on
Southeast Asia from Japan is a view that is closely intertwined with views from within other partsof Asia, including crucially those from within Southeast Asia itself. Concurrently, looking out
from Southeast Asia, one sees Japan within Asia, and part of the rapidly changing global
architectures of nature and society. At present, within Japan, political exigencies have placedpressure on producing “social contributions” and institutions doing Area Studies are challenged to
articulate their vision for internationalized, innovative and engaged research. It is precisely at thismoment in time that CSEAS is reconsolidating its approaches and expanding its networks toengage in constructive and productive collaboration with institutions of Southeast Asian studies
across the globe.
The need for Southeast Asian studies will continue to dramatically increase. The ASEAN
region is now home to more than 600+ million people. As numerous nations undergo economic,
socio-political and ecological transformation, the region will increasingly become an important
political and economic entity. In spite of ongoing political uncertainties, security issues andongoing inequality, the region has shown immense progress over the past 20 years. It is one witha vast wealth of biomass resources provisioned by an abundant solar energy supply. CSEAS
recognizes and understands the need to consider political, economic, and ecological possibilities
in the region and this demands an integrated multidisciplinary approach. This recognition arises
from the research mandate that continuously evolves together with the rigorous theoretical andmethodological positions of scholars sharing a concern with environmental harmonization, thewise use of energy and resources and sustainable socio-ecological development for life in the
broadest sense. Responding to imperatives in the region and at a planetary scale, we recognize theneed to continue assessing situated methodologies while keeping in mind the ‘knowledge vectors’
that shape research practices.
Conclusions
As this is written in 2019, we face an unprecedented range of global problems. The naturalenvironment cannot sustain the trajectories that societies are pursing: biodiversity is undergoing acollapse, climate change is intensifying, and weather patterns are increasingly more unpredictable29

with astronomical costs testing the resilience of communities. Social systems are becoming
stretched past their capacity, with economic disparities deepening and poverty growing. Culturaland religious conflicts have been expanding and communicable diseases and transboundary
environmental problems are now major threats to public health. These challenges are interrelated,which means that individual measures have had only limited effects in helping societies cope.
Southeast Asian societies are attempting to realize economic development based on loosely
structured societies, flexible governance and a mixture of traditional and modern technology. The
political systems in which these challenges need to be met are themselves being challenged bypolitical instability. This comes with the understanding that democratic institutions of governancecreated in the post-colonial era cannot adequately confront these. Experience suggests that it istime for us to reconsider the social paradigms that have been premised upon abundant resources,a stable natural environment, and strong governance that sustained the growth of the region in thelatter half of the 20th century.
The transformative nature of Southeast Asian studies is to provide an arena where researchers fromdiverse backgrounds and specializations can meet and work together to examine the realities that
Southeast Asian societies face. However, discussions must move beyond the concerns of scholars
in the humanities and social sciences to include broader scientific dialogues. Bridging disciplinary
divides as a holistic approach has been at the heart of research with the longer-term goal of
constructing understandings and producing perspectives based on the multiple realities ofSoutheast Asian societies and nature. This is possible, and as this paper shows, has been
empirically done for many decades. Interactions need to comprise a transdisciplinary, regional andglobal approach that can derive proposals for human society as a whole, through empiricallygrounded and situated knowledge. Furthermore, future human societies should not be groundedsolely in science and technology originating in the West (nor from Japan), but synthesize thedisparate experiences, wisdom and adaptations of the world’s various regions to realize thecoexistence of diverse societies and coexistence between humanity and nature. This should be
attuned to the exigencies of a region in perpetual flux. The knowledge of facts presupposes aknowledge of values. We can only hope that strategic alliances between researchers incollaboration with regional scholars, policy-makers, government organizations, agencies and civilsociety can foster synergistic knowledge production and engagement. This will contribute toward30

strengthening our commitments to the core values of long-term field research, the cultivation ofunderstanding through local languages and the integration of multiple perspectives through close
collaboration.
Acknowledgements
We wish to acknowledge the generous comments and suggestions from a number of colleagues
including our current director Hayami Yoko, Caroline Hau, Former CSEAS director Tanaka Koji,
Emeritus professors Shibayama Mamoru and Yamada Osamu, and visiting fellows Goh Beng-lan
and Nick Cheeseman.
References
Abinales, Patricio, Noboru Ishikawa, Akio Tanabe. 2005. Dislocating Nation-States:
Globalization in Asia and Africa. Kyoto Studies on Area Studies 12. Kyoto University Press.
Anderson, Ben. 2016. A Life Beyond Boundaries. London: Verso.
Beng-Lan, Goh. 2011. Disciplines and Area Studies in the Global Age: Southeast Asian
Reflections. In Decentering and Diversifying Southeast Asian Studies. Singapore: Institute ofSoutheast Asian Studies.
Berg-Schlosser, Dirk. 2018. Comparative Area Studies: The Golden Mean between Area Studies
and Universalist Approaches? In Ahram, Ariel, Partrick Köllner and Rudra Sil (eds).
Comparative Area Studies: Methodological Rationales & Cross-Regional Applications. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Chua Beng Huat et al. 2019. Area Studies and the Crisis of Legitimacy: a View from Southeast
Asia. In Southeast Asia Research. 27(1): 31-48. DOI: 10.1080/0967828X.2019.1587931

31

CSEAS (I). 1964. Kyoto Daigaku Tonan Ajia Kenkyu Senta- Shoho (I). 京都大学東南アジア研究センター 所報 (I) [Center for Southeast Asian Studies Center Report (I)], 1-22 pp.
――― (II). 1965. Kyoto Daigaku Tonan Ajia Kenkyu Senta- Shoho (II). 京都大学東南アジア
研究センター 所報 (II) [Center for Southeast Asian Studies Center Report (II)], 1-22 pp.
―――. 1980. Soritsu 15 Shunen wo Mukaete.創立１５周年を迎えて [15th Anniversary].
CSEAS, Kyoto University, 16pp.
―――. 1993. Chiiki Kenkyu he no Ayumi – Tonan Ajia Kenkyu Senta- no 25 Nen 地域研究へのあゆみ－東南アジア研究センターの 25 年 [Progress to Area Studies: 25 years of CSEAS]
CSEAS, Kyoto University, 208pp.
―――. 2002. Chiiki Kenkyu no Ayumi – Tonan Ajia Kenkyu 35 Nenshi 地域研究のあゆみ－東南アジア研究センター35 年史 [Progress of Area Studies: 35 years of CSEAS]. CSEAS, Kyoto
University.
―――. 2018. 50 years of history at CSEAS. (Online overview of CSEAS)
https://history.cseas.kyoto-u.ac.jp/ (accessed 21 May 2019)―――. 2016. 21 Seiki no Tonan Ajia Kenkyu: Chiiki Shakai e no Hasshin. 50 Nenshi. 21 世紀の東南アジア研究―地域社会への発信 ５０年史 [21st Century Southeast Asian Studies:
Communicating to Local Societies.
―――. 1997．Jiten Tonan Ajia: Fudo, Seitai Kankyo 事典 東南アジア：風土・生態・環境 [Encyclopedia of Southeast Asia: Climate, Ecology, Environment]. Tokyo: Kobundo.
Chou, Cynthia and Vincent Houben. 2006. Southeast Asian Studies: Debates and New
Directions. Singapore: ISEAS.

32

Fukui, Hayao. 1993. Food and Population in a Northeast Thai Village. University of Hawai’i
Press.
Hayami, Yoko. 2006. Towards Multi-laterality in Southeast Asian Studies: Perspectives fromJapan. In Cynthia Chou and Vincent Houben (eds.) Southeast Asian Studies: Debates and New
Directions IIAS/ISEAS Series on Asia. Singapore. Pp.65-85.
―――. 2013. Southeast Asian Studies in Japan. In Special Feature: Southeast Asian Studies:
Crisis or Opportunity? CSEAS Newsletter 68:18-20.
Houben, Vincent. 2013. The New Area Studies and Southeast Asian History. Göttingen:
DORISEA Working Paper No. 4.
Huotari, Mikko et al. 2014. Methodology and Research Practice in Southeast AsianStudies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ichimura, Shinichi. 2016. Looking to the Past, Inspiring the Future. CSEAS Newsletter 73:10-24.
Inoue, Makoto, Yamamoto Nobuto (eds.) 井上真編．2017．Tonan Ajia Chiiki Kenkyu
Nyumon: Kankyo 東南アジア地域研究入門 環境 [Introduction to the Environment inSoutheast Asian Studies] Tokyo: Keiogijuku University Press.
Ishikawa, Noboru and Soda Ryoji. 2019. Anthropogenic Tropical Forests: Human-Nature
Interfaces on the Plantation Frontier. Singapore: Springer Publishing.
Jackson, Peter A. 2018. Southeast Asian Area Studies beyond Anglo-America: Geopolitical
Transitions, the Neoliberal Academy and Spatialised Regimes of Knowledge. Southeast Asia
Research 2-25. DOI: 10.1080/0967828X.2019.1587930

33

Kono, Yasuyuki et al. 河野泰之. 2012. Chikyuken, Seimeiken no Senzairyoku 地球圏・生命圏の潜在力 [The Potentiality of the Geosphere and Biosphere]. Vol. 2 Koza Seizon Kiban-ron 講
座 生存基盤論 [Humanosphere Studies]. Kyoto: Kyoto University Press.
Kono, Yasuyuki, Sato, Takahiro, Watanabe, Kazuo, Tomita, Shinsuke and Le Zhang. 2018.
Reconsidering development mechanisms of tropical agriculture: Focusing on micro-development
in Mainland Southeast Asia, Mario Lopez and Jafar Suryomenggolo eds., Environmental
Resources Use and Challenges in Contemporary Southeast Asia, pp. 21-39, Springer.
Kratoska, Paul (eds). 2005. Locating Southeast Asia: Geographies of Knowledge and Politics ofSpace. Singapore: NUS Press.
Lopez, Mario and Jafar Suryomenggolo (eds). 2018. Environmental Resources Use andChallenges in Contemporary Southeast Asia. Singapore: Springer.
Miyoshi Masao and Harry Harootunian. 2002. Learning Places: The Afterlives of Area Studies,
Durham: Duke University Press.
Mizuno, Koichi. 1968. Multihousehold Compounds in Northeast Thailand. Asia Survey 8:842842.
―――. 1971. Social System of Don Daeng Village: A Community Study in Northeast Thailand.
CSEAS Discussion Paper, 12-22.
―――. 1978. Change and Development of Two Rice-growing Villages in Thailand: Dong
Daeng and Khok Chyak. Southeast Asia Studies 16(3):353-377.
―――. Mizuno Koichi. 水野浩一. 1981. Tai Noson no Shakai Soshiki タイ農村の社会組織[Social organization of Thai village]. Monographs of the Center for Southeast Asian Studies.
Tokyo: Sobunshya.

34

Mizuno, Kosuke et al. eds. 2016. Catastrophe and Regeneration in Indonesia’s Peatlands:
Ecology, Economy and Society. Kyoto University Press and National University of Singapore
Press.
Nishibuchi, Mitsuaki. 2019 (Forthcoming CSEAS Newsletter 77). Memoir: The Path Hunter
with a Scientific Mind in a Sound Body. Commemorative Retirement Lecture 1-16.
Nishiura, Mitsugu, et al. 1965. Clinical and Pathological Observations of Reactional Cases of
Leprosy in Thailand. Tonan Ajia Kenkyu. 3(1): 105-122.
Reynolds, Craig. 2006. A New Look at Old Southeast Asia. In Seditious Histories: ContestingThai and Southeast Asian Pasts. Singapore: University of Washington Press.
Sakai, Naoki and Gavin Williams. 2019. The End of Area: A Genealogy of Area Studies.
Positions 27(1): 1-31.
Sato, Takahiro, et al. 2012. 佐藤孝宏編. Seizon Kiban Shisu – Ningen Kaihatsu Shisu wo Koete
生存基盤指数―人間開発指数を超えてー[The Humanopshere Potentiality Index: Going
Beyond the Human Development Index]. Vol. 5 Koza Seizon Kiban-ron 講座 生存基盤論 [Humanosphere Studies]. Kyoto: Kyoto University Press.
Sato, Takahiro, Mario Lopez, Taizo Wada, Shiro Sato, Makoto Nishi and Kazuo Watanabe.
2016. Humanosphere Potentiality Index Appraising Existing Indicators from a Long-term
Perspective. In International Journal of Social Quality (6)1: 32-66.
Shibayama, Mamoru. 2012. Appeal for an Area Informatics Approach to Areas Studies(Interview with Kobayashi Satoru). CSEAS Newsletter. 65:3-7.
Shimizu, Hajime. 2005. Southeast Asia as a Regional Concept in Modern Japan. In Kratoska,
Paul (eds). 2005. Locating Southeast Asia: Geographies of Knowledge and Politics ofSpace. Singapore: NUS Press.

35

Shiraishi, Takahashi, Patricio Abinales (eds). 2005. After the Crisis: Hegemony, Technocracy
and Governance in Southeast Asia. Kyoto Studies on Area Studies. Kyoto: Kyoto University
Press.
Sil, Rudra and Peter. J. Katzenstein. 2010. Beyond Paradigms: Analytical Eclecticism in the
Study of World Politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sugihara, Kaoru. 杉原薫他編．2012. Koza Seizon Kiban-ron 講座 生存基盤論 [Humanosphere Studies]（6 Vols). Kyoto: Kyoto University Press．
Tanaka, Koji. 1993. Farmers’ Perceptions of Rice-Growing Techniques in Laos: “Primitive” or“Thammasat”? Southeast Asian Studies, 31 (2): 132-140.
―――. 2012. Eating from the Same Bowl: Japanese Reflections of Southeast Asian Studies(Interview with Tomita Shinsuke). CSEAS Newsletter. 66:5-9.
―――. 田中耕司 2008. Tamasa-tona Jissen, Tamas-tona Kaihatsu. タマサートな実践、タマサートな開発 [Thammasat Practice, Thammasat Development. In Yokoyama, Satoshi andOchiai Yukio (eds) 横山智・落合雪野 . Raos Nozanson Chiiki Kenkyu 『ラオス農山村地域
研究』[Laos Rural Area Studies]. Tokyo: Mekon Press, pp. 191-99.
Tanaka Koji, Imai Ryoichi.田中耕治・今井良一. 2006. Shokuminchi Keiei to Nogyou Gijitsu:
Taiwan, Nanpo, Manshu. 植民地経営と農業技術―台湾・南方・満州 [Colonial Management
and Agricultural Technology: Taiwan, Nanpo, Manchuria] In Tanaka Koji (eds) 田中耕治.
Teikoku Nihon no Gakuchi : Jitsugaku toshite no Kagakugijutsu『「帝国」日本の学知』第７巻実学としての科学技術. [The Academic Knowledge of “Imperial” Japan]. Tokyo: Iwanami
Shoten, pp. 99-133.

36

Takaya, Yoshikazu 高谷好一．1982．Nettai Deruta no Nogyo Hatten 熱帯デルタの農業発展 [Agricultural Development of a Tropical Delta]. Tokyo: Sobunsha 創文社 (translated into
English 1987).
―――.1987. Agricultural Development of a Tropical Delta: A Study of the Chao Phraya Delta.
University of Hawai’i Press.
―――. 2001. Sekkai Tani Kara Sekai wo Miru 世界単位から世界を見る [The World seen
through the Unit World]. Kyoto: Kyoto University Press.
Tachimoto, Narifumi. 1995. Global Area Studies with Special Reference to the Malay orMaritime World. Tonanajia Kenkyu. 33(3): 469-483.
―――. 2016. The Life of a Research Institute (Kenkyu-sho no Inochi). Commemorative Speech
for the Ceremony Celebrating the 50th Anniversary of CSEAS. CSEAS Newsletter 73: 5-9.
Urano, Tatsuo. 浦野起央. 2018. Nihon no Kokusai Ninshiki: Chiikikenkyu 250 Nen Ninshiki,
Ronso, Seikanenfu 日本の国際認識【地域研究２５０年認識・論争・成果年譜】. [JapaneseInternational Recognition: Regional Study 250 Years. Recognition, Controversies andChronology. Tokyo: Sanwa Shoten.
Watanabe, Kazuo. 2010. Don Daeng Research Project: 50 Years of Intensive and Long-Term
Interdisciplinary Observation in Northeast Thailand. CSEAS Newsletter. 62:7-9.
―――. 2017. Improvement in Rainfed Rice Production during an Era of Rapid National
Economic Growth: A Case Study of a Village in Northeast Thailand. Southeast Asian Studies.
6(2):293-306.

37

Watanabe, Kazuo et al. 2008. Alteration of Paddy Plots in the Rain-fed Paddy Field and Their
Influences on Rice Production in Don Daeng Village, Northeast Thailand. Irrigation Drainage
and Rural Engineering Journal 253: 45–52.
Watsuji, Testsuro 和辻哲郎. 1931. Fudo- Ningengakuteki Kosatsu 風土―人間学的考察.
(Translated into English by Geoffrey Bownas (1961) as A Climate – A Philosophical Study.
Japanese Ministry of Education: Printing Bureau Japanese Government).
Woo, Park Seung, Victor T. King. 2013. The Historical Construction of Southeast AsianStudies. Singapore: ISEAS.
Yanagisawa, Masayuki 柳澤雅之. 2009. Tonan Ajia Seitaishi 東南アジア生態史 [Southeast
Asia Ecological History]. In Tonan Ajiashi Kenkyu no Tenkai 東南アジア史研究の展開 [TheDevelopment of Southeast Asian Historical Research]. Tokyo: Yamakawa Shuppan.
Yano, Toru (ed) 矢野暢編．1990．Tonan Ajia Gaku no Teho 東南アジア学の手法 [Methods
for Southeast Asian Studies]. Tokyo: Kobundo．
―――. (ed).1992．Tonan Ajia Gaku Nyumon 東南アジア学入門 [An Introduction to
Southeast Asian Studies] Tokyo: Kobundo．
Watabe, Tadayo. 渡部忠世他．1987．Ine no Ajia-shi 稲のアジア史（全 3 巻）[The Historyof Rice Culture in Asia] (3 Vols)，Tokyo: Shogakukan.

38

Research Projects (Japanese Grant-in-Aid, Direct Funding from MEXT, and JSPS Funded
Initiatives in Chronological Order)
1970. Tonan Ajia ni Okeru Shukyo Bunpaizu no Sakusei 東南アジアにおける宗教分配図の作成 [Map Creation of the distribution of religions in Southeast Asia]. Project Leader: Ishii
Yoneo 石井米雄 . General Scientific Research, MEXT.
1974. Minami Betonamu, Mekon Deruta Ryoiki Nogyou Kankyo Chosa 南ベトナム・メコンデルタ領域農業環境調査 [Agro-environmental Studies of the Mekong Delta of Vietnam Project].

Leader: Kyuma Kazutake 久馬一剛.
1975. Tonan Ajia no Nozon Kaihatatsu ni Okeru Kyoiku no Hatsu Yakuwari 東南アジアの農村開発における教育の果たす役割 [The role of education in the agricultural communities inSoutheast Asia]. Project Leader: Ichimura Shinichi 市村真一. General Scientific Research,
MEXT.
1978. Nettai Taukikoka ni okeru Isura-mu Inusaku Shakai no Tenkai Katei ni Kansuru Kenkyu
Chosa 熱帯多雨気候下におけるイスラーム稲作社会の展開過程に関する研究調査[Studyon the Development Processes of Islamic Rice Societies under a Tropical Rainfed Climate].
Project Leader: Tsubouchi Yoshihiro 坪内良博. General Scientific Research, MEXT.
1980. Nettaitoshoiki ni okeru hito no ido ni Kakawaru Kankyo Keisei Katei no Kenkyu 熱帯島
嶼域における人の移動に関わる環境形成過程の研究」[Environment and Human Migrationin the Tropical Archipelago]. Project Leader: Maeda Narifumi 前田成文.
1981. Hokuto Tai, Don Den Mura Kenkyu. “Tai Koku Sonraku Kozo no Dotaiteki Kenkyu- 20
nenkan no Tsuiseki Chosa”東北タイ・ドンデーン村研究「タイ国村落構造の動態的研究―20 年間の追跡調査」 [Northern Thailand Don Daeng Village Research “Dyanamic Researchon Thai Village Structures: 20-year Follow-up Research]. Project Leader: Ishii Yoneo 石井米雄.

39

1986-1990. Nihon GakuJutsu Shinko Kai Kyoten Daigaku Hoshiki ni Yoru Taikoku to no
Gakujutsu Koryu Jigyo.日本学術振興会拠点大学方式によるタイ国との学術交流事業. [In
Search of a Collaborative Framework for Southeast Asian Studies]. Project Leader: Fukui Hayao
福井捷朗. JSPS Core Program.
1993-1997. Sogo Teki Chiiki Kenkyu no Teho Kakuritsu – Sekai to Chiiki no Kyozon no
Paradaimu wo Motomete.総合的地域研究の手法確立 -世界と地域の共存のパラダイムを求めて [Toward an Integrated Approach to Global Area Studies: In Search of a Paradigm for a
Harmonized Relationship between the World and Its Areas]. Project Leader: Tsubouchi
Yoshihiro 坪内良博. Scientific Research on Priority Areas Funding, MEXT.
1998-2003. Ajia, Afrika ni Okeru Chiiki Hensei: Genkei, Henyo, Tensho アジア・アフリカにおける地域編成―原型・変容・転生[Making Regions: Proto-Areas, Transformations, and

New Formations in Asia and Africa]. Project Leader: Shiraishi Takeshi 白石隆. Global COE
Program, MEXT.
1999-2003. Higashi Ajia Chiiki Shisutemu no Shakaigakuteki Kenkyu 東アジア地域システムの社会科学的研究 [Region-Making in East Asia]. Project Leader: Hayami Yoko 速水洋子.
JSPS Core Program.
2002-2007. Sekai wo Sendo Suru Sogoteki Chiiki Kyoten no Keisei 世界を先導する総合的地
域拠点の形成 [Aiming for Center of Excellence of Integrated Area Studies]. Project Leader:
Kato Tsuyoshi 加藤剛. Global COE Program, MEXT.
2005-2009. Chiiki Kenkyu Joho Gaku no Soshutsu – Tonan Aji Chiiki wo Chushin ni. 地域情報学の創出―東南アジア地域を中心に [Development of Area Informatics – with Emphasis
on Southeast Asia. Project Leader: Shibayama Mamoru 柴山守 . No 17101008 Kiban-S, MEXT.

40

2007-2011. Tonan Ajia de Ekkyo Suru Kansensho: Takakuteki Yoin Kaiseki ni Motozuku Chiiki
Tokisei no Kaimei 東南アジアで越境する感染症：多角的要因解析に基づく地域特異性の解明. [Infectious Diseases Spreading Across International Borders in Southeast Asia: The
Elucidation of Area-specific Features based on Multifactorial Analysis]. Project Leader:
Nishibuchi Mitsuaki 西渕光昭. No 19101010. Kiban-S, MEXT.
2007-2011. Seizon Kiban Jizoku-gata no Hatten wo Mesasu Chiiki Kenkyu Kyoten.生存基盤持続型の発展を目指す地域研究拠点 [In Search of Sustainable Humanosphere in Asia andAfrica.] Project Leader: Sugihara Kaoru 杉原薫. Global COE Program-E04, MEXT.
2009-2013. Guro-baru Jidai ni okeru Bunmei- Tonan Ajia Shakai Hatten Moderu no Kochiku
グローバル時代における文明―東南アジア社会発展モデルの構築 [Asian Connections:Southeast Asian Model for Co-Existence in the 21st Century]. Project Leader: Hayami Yoko 速
水洋子.
2010-2014. Tonan Ajia Nettai Chiiki ni okeru Puranteshon gata Biomasu Shakai no Togoteki
Kenkyu 東南アジア熱帯地域におけるプランテーション型ビオます社会の統合的研究.
[Multidisciplinary Study of Southeast Asian Planted Forests and Local Societies]. Project
Leader: Ishikawa Noboru 石川登. No 22221010. Kiban-S, MEXT.
2011-2016. Laifu to Gurin wo Kijiku to Suru Jizoku-gata Syakai Hatten Kenkyu no Ajia Tenkai-Higashi Ajia Kyodotai Koso wo Sasaeru Rinen to Jinteki Nettwak no Kyoka ライフとグリーンを基軸とする持続型社会発展研究のアジア展開 -東アジア共同体構想を支える理念と人的ネットワークの強化- [Southeast Asian Studies for Sustainable Humanosphere] Kono
Yasuyuki 河野泰之. Special MEXT funding.
2015-2020. Nichi-ASEAN Kagaku Gijutsu Inobe-shon Kyodo Kenkyu Kyoten JASTIP. 日
ASEAN 科学技術イノベーション共同研究拠点 JASTIP. [Japan-ASEAN Science,
Technology and Innovation Platform (JASTIP)]. Project Leader: Kono Yasuyuki 河野康之.
41Funding from Strategic International Collaborative Research Program (SICORP) of Japan
Science and Technology Agency (JST).
2016-2021. Nichi-Asean Kyodo ni Yoru Cho-gakusai Seizon Kiban Kenkyu no Suishin.日
ASEAN 協働による超学際生存基盤研究の推進 [Japan-ASEAN Platform forTransdisciplinary Studies]. Hayami Yoko 速水洋子. Special MEXT funding.
Databases
2017~. Humanosphere Potentiality Index (HPI). http://www.sustainablehumanosphere.org/
Funded by Japan-ASEAN Platform for Transdisciplinary Studies (2016-21) and MEXT Grantin-Aid (Kiban-B) 18H03434.

42