＠~~ill~DISCUSSION PAPER NO. 斗9
Institutional and Methodological Problems
on Multidisciplinary Researchin Asian Area Studies
byShinichi Ichimura
August, 1972

The Center for Southeast Asian Studies
Kyoto University
Kyoto, Japan

THE CENTER FOR SOUTHEAST ASIAN STUDIESDISCUSSION PAPER NO. 斗9
Institutional and Methodological Problems
on Multidisciplinary Researchin Asian Area Studies
byShinichi Ichimura
August, 1972

Institutional and Methodo工ogical Problems on Multidisciplinary
Research 工n Asian Area Studies. Asian Area Studies in Japan1
The academic 工nst1tut1ons in Japan have been oriented toWestern civilizations and technology. Even as late as in 1930,
there was no well‑established research 工nstitute specialized in thestudies of contemporary Asia.会

Perhaps the 工nstitution that had

the best information on contemporary Asia in late 30's was theresearch department of South Manchurian Railroad Company.

It wasf the Great East Asian War
く o
not until late 301s and the outbrealthat Institute of East Asian Studies and Institute of Ethnology wasestablished to promote As工an studies. These and other institutionsof Asian studies were completely dissolved after the war, andthe documents and personnels were dispersed all over the country
and even abroad.
It d工d not take a long time, however, to recognize aga工n
that as the Japanese economy recovered, Japan had to play apositive role in the studies of contemporary Asia. The postwar
development of Asian studies had to be initiated by establishinga few governmental research institutes, but this fresh start＊ 工 n prewar Japan there are two Institutes of East Asian Culturesat Tokyo and Kyoto Universit工es. The studies of contemporary
Asia were done in a small way there.
‑1‑encountered various difficulties instェ
tutionally and methodological‑
ly.

Soon enough a number of other private and university research

insitutes began to・
undertakeAsian studies. This paper purports
to review the postwar exper工ences of manager工al and researchadministrations of these new institutes and other、arrangements andderive lessons for better insti七u七ional and met:1odological ways ofdeveloping Asian area studies and other new scientific fields.

2. Types of New Institutions and Their Administration
The new institutions established for the purpose of reviving
the practical and academic interest in the studies of contemporary
Asia may be classエf工ed as the follow工ng three types. There arealso two other ways of organユZ工ng research actエvities on the non‑institutional basis. They are listed here as A, B, C, and d, e:
A: Governmental or Semi‑Governmental Research Institutes,
B: University Research Institutes,
C:

Private or Business Research Institutes,d: Research Programs,e: Research Projects.
Needless to say, d and e are not necessarily inconsistent
with A, B, and C. These institut工onal setups are largely areflection of general organization of research institutes in Japan,
but there are some characteristics peculiar to new institutions
for Asian studies as well as many problems common to all research
institutes. These institutional measures will be explained first
and then compared with each other in three aspects:(1) Manager、
ial

Administration and Funding, (2) Personnel Administration or the‑2‑

Reward System, (3) Research Administration or Methodology ofMultidisciplinary Research.

Some discussions will be made on thecritical evaluation of the system of institutions as a whole.
A: There are two ways of ca
工＇rying out research works in government
ministries. The first is to have a research section within somedepartment of the ministry, and the second is to establish a
research institute attached to the M工n工stry. Examples are:
Institute of Economic Research at the Econom工C Planning Agency,
Institute of Population Problems at the M工n工stry of Welfare,Institute of International Problems at the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, Institute of Education at the Ministry of Education, andso on. These institutes are more or less independent of the Ministry's
day‑to‑day routines and meant to carry out the studies requiring along term and somewhat more bas工c rather、than pract工cal. They
have the advantage of recruiting specialists and establishing bettercontact with academic circles. Top management is sometimes
adopted from professors but usually appo工nted from heads of otherdepartments in the ministry.

Some inst工tutes made researchcontracts with outside researchers or even requested them to guidethe research proJects on part‑tエme basェs. This was a device started
by Institute of Economic Research at the Economic Planning Agency.
Relatively young and capable academic economists were assigned tobe the leaders of research projects organized at the institute,and they succeeded in achieving the research objectives with thehelp of able assistants provided by the institute.
These institutes have been 1工m工ted ユ
n their field of researchー3‑Vlt工es assユgned to the m工nユstrユes. For example,
to the actェInstitute of Population Problems could not study the population
problems in foreign countries, because the Ministry of Welfare has
no obligation to deal wi七h the population problems abroad. When,
therefore, it was contemplated to establish a new research insti‑
tute for Asian economic affairs, it became necessary to have a
new law passed by the Diet and to make the Institute of Developing
Economies‑the Japanese name is Institute of Asian Economy‑‑a"special juridical person" not attached to any particular ministry.
This institute is semi-government~l, because its budget is partially
supported by the contribut工ons from private bus工nesses.公The great

nmental、difference between this institute and old types of gover
institutes is that the former has its own employees, whereas the、has not. Formally the personnel administration is independent
latterin Institute of Developing Economies.

In fact, however, theParkinson's Law of related ministries created a fairly serious
rivalry of de facto jurisdiction.
nstitutes in addition: Good Japanese universities have research ユ
Bgraduate and、to the departments wh工ch are prエmar工ly for under
titutes are administered independently
graduate education. Those ins・of the departments, although some of their staffs often participate
raduate education.
工n g* In 1971 the Ministry of Agriculture establェshed the ResearchCenter of Tropical Agriculture within the ministry. This issomething new, contrary to the regulations mentioned above, which
may open up the possibility for other m工nistr工es also to under‑s. It ェ
take the studies of the problems in developing countr工es
n
o
i
s
n
e
t
x
e
n
a
y
l
p
m
工
s
t
u
b
n
o
s
r
e
not, however, a special JUr工dical ptutes.
of old governmental research ユnstェ
ー斗ーSeveral new research institutes were established for Asianstudies： 工 nstitute of Asian and African Languages and Culturesat the Tokyo College of Foreign Languages, The Research Center forSoutheast Asian Studies at Kyoto University, Institute of Tropicalty. These are all at the governmental
Med工C工nes at NagasakェUn工versェ
sities. They have the autonomy in personnel and financia工、univeradministration in the sense that the faculty meeting of eachst工tute can appo工nt 工ts staffs and requests or allocates the
工nbudget through the university senate. The determination of budget
by the Ministry of Education is made not at the level of eachte. There are several
七u
university but each department and inst工sities which have established similar institutes、
private univer
y
e
i
‑
:
or research centers, but ma工nly due to the shortage of bud雪et, t
are organized in fact as "research programs" to be classified as d.
sities include such famous ones as Waseda, Keio, Sophia、
These univer. Some governmental un工ver‑and Internat工onal Chr工stエan Un工vers工tユes
sities also have shown their interest in Asian studies and, without
government『 s budgetary support, initiated small scale of researchrograms," relying mainly on private℃ h p
activities as "resear
ons.
contr1butェ
The notorious imbreeding of Japanese university professors
and the simple seniority in the salary scale make the interchangeof personnels of research 工nstエtutes very difficult in spite of thegreat need of flexエbility エn s七affs and the工r specialities. The
ministry of Education is tightly controling the budgets of all thegovernmental unエversitie号 and the subsid工es to private universities,、and priority is given todies are still very meager
but the subsエ‑ー5about ten outstanding universities among governmental universities.
It is very difficult, therefore, for private universities and non‑privileged governmental universities to support the expensive
research activities abroad. The annual budget of each instituteis calculated ma工nly on the basis of the numbers of professors,
associate professors and research associates. For this reason,
七he allocation of research funds is often made on the egalitarianprinciple. The additional expenses needed for team researches orlarge scale of spec工al f工eld works or exper工ments are usually、
ch projects
provided only by the Ministry s support of the resear
to be discussed as e.
C:

It would be obvious from the explanat工on above that both govern‑

mental or semi‑governmental institutes and university institutes
lack the flexibility to meet the urgent demand for quick answers
to many Asian questions and training the necessary specialists
and practical personnels in businesses. For these purposes andalso for meeting the various other needs of expanding Japanese
economy and foreign trade, a number of private institutes or
research centers and consulting companies have been establユshed
primarily by private businesses. The Japan Econom工C ResearchCenter, associated W 工th the Japan Econom工C Newspaper Company, theNomura Research Institute, associated with the Nomura Security℃ h I
nstitute, associated with 七heCompany, the Mitsubishi Resear

famous Mitsubishi group etc. are somewhat early examples of thistype.
In the recent years, partly because quite a few capable‑6‑

scholars left the universities due to the students turmoils on thecampus, a number of non‑profit‑making research institutes havebeen created to tackle with the very contemporary problems with thehelp of private businesses or government mユn工str工es.

Inst工tute of

System Engineering, Institute of Social Engineering，工 nstitute of、of Japan
Resources Problems, The Internat工onal Development Center
etc. may be classified under this category.
There seem to be two ways of administering these institutes.
. The insti‑］eくOne is to run it as a consulting company or its 11tute has its own staffs, information system and carries out the
research works in itself. Another is to run 工七 as an organizer of
research projects.

It has the minimum number of core personnels,a fair number of assisting staffs and secretar工es, and good contact
with private businesses, universities and government offices.

In

both cases they are much more liberal 工n the salary scale among
unds and℃h findividual specialists and in the allocation of resear
the decision of research programs. The leadersh工p of director or
managing directors can be more easily performed in this case thanin the case of A and B types of institutes.
From these explanations and observations I would like tosummarize the evaluation of efficiency of the admin工stration of three. From th工S 七able the reader shouldtypes of institutions as Table I
not jump into the conclusion 七hat C type of institutions are thetutes. This is merely my personal
most suitable for research instェ
rough observation of ex工stユng 工nst工tut工ons 工n Japan 工n the工r waysof administration. Condlus工ons must be drawn after more careful
examination of other aspects of these 工nst工tut工ons to follow.
ー7‑Table I Efficiency Evaluation of 工nstitute Administration

A

B

C

fair

poor

good

(2) General Management

fair

fair

good

(3) Personnel Administration

poor

fair

good

Research Administration

poor

fair

fair

（
工
）

（
斗
）

Financial Administration

d: Research Programs have been the typical method of organizing the
resear℃h activities in American universities for Area Studies. As
the Foundations policies shifted from area studies, many of these、s or programs are d工smantlエng themselves.
centerIn Japan thユs method

was adopted, as was mentioned above, only as a subst工tute for B bysome universities. The most serious shortcoming of this method is、worksthat the scholars can never get the full credit for theirin the resear℃ h programs in the department to which they beユ
ong,because the departments are naturally discipline‑oriented and the
Asian area studies are often subsidiary to the professiona工
training.

Besides there is always an uncertainty that the program

may be dissoloved any time, and then the position of scholars
participating in the program is relatively weakened. Jointユ
appointment cannot overcome the difficulty. Th工s method is partーcularly inappropriate for attrac七ing young capable graduate
students or scholars into the new research fields which require
the adventurous spirits and long‑term field research. The Asianstudies in Japan as well as in the West are undoubtedly such‑8‑

research fields.

For these reasons I have been critical on the

Asian and African area studies in the United States.
Unpopularity of this method in Japan, however, is not due
七o careful consideration of 七hese d工sadvantages on the part of the

Ministry of Education or university authorities. The reasons are:(1) the principle of budgeting is the number、of personnels, (2)the budget is always annual, (3) no budget can be allocated toan エnterdepartmental group.
Since, however, there are advantages in organ工Z工ng
research programs in many universities, and the limitations
mentioned above can be overcome by changing 七he government regula‑tions, I believe that it is highly desirable to introduce"research program" method into Japanese universities and otherinstitutes, because this seems to offer an experimental period
for new fields of research or multi‑disciplinary types ofresearch to be finished after a certain number of year、s
. Thisintroduces the necessary flex工b工lity into A, Band C. To someexte,
nt this direction of movement is beginning at some institutes.
e: The Research Project method has been used traditionally tosupport rather expens工ve reserch works and unusual expenses needed
for young scholars' works or new types of reserch works. Althougha considerable number of small grant‑giving foundations have beenfounded, and still some more‑‑‑‑maybe larger エn scale‑foundations
are likely to be formed, the main source of funds for maJor
research projects is the Ministry of Education, which has set up
several committees of selecting the grantees for various kinds of‑9‑research projects respectively.

The grants are limited to a single

year，、 Japanese c工tizens and very restrエct工ve 工n the use of funds.
The committee members are usually well‑established scholars, andcriticisms are seldom‑heard about fairness of selection.

If there工s anything to be desired, it is the difficulty for junior scholars

to obセain a large sum of grant for new research.
The need of extending research to international cooperationis recognized very well. The Ministry of Education setup the Japan
Science Promotion Council to promote the interchange of personnels
with foreign universit工esand institutes as well as within Japanese
universities.

But the scale is very small and the procedure is toocomplicated and time‑consum工ng. The so‑called Japan Funds newly
created may hopefully make a unエque contr工bution to the promotionof international exchange of cultural and academic activities.
There is one area of funding which is suffering most serious‑
ly from the shortage of grants. That is the training program ofgraduate students and young scholars. The underdevelopment ofgraduate education in Japanese un工vers工t工esand the shortage ofcapable young scholars in crucially needed areas like Asian studies
are mainly due to the careful foresエght and plann工ng of personnel
requirement in future academエc and pract工cal research and studies.

3. The Reward System
Three types of research institutions and two additional waysof organizing research activities have strong and weak points. At
least one of most effective cr工terions to evaluate these organizations
is to see how they stimulate good research and discourage bad‑10‑research and meet the need of developing new and essential inquiries.
However, it is rather difficult to judge what resear℃hes are good.
An easier way to look at the same question from the view‑point of
attracting capable research workers. Ragner Frisch once said that
good research 工nstitutes are the ones with good resear℃h w
orkers.
工n this sense we may examine which of these institutions attract

more of outstanding scholars.

In a sim工lar sense we may also

considerwhichof these institutions and the two methods can allocate
the resources needed for excellent research more effectively to thehands of capable researchers.

This is the way of evaluating the

reward system in Japanese research institutions to be adopted inthis paper.
The incentives for scholars consist of many factors.

It is

not just the pecuniary remuneration. The main factors to be consi‑
dered would seem to be the fo工lowing:
1) official salaries,2) opportunities permitted to earn extra incomes,
3) research expenses guranteed or easily obtainable,
斗）social prestige carried with the position,

5) free time beyond obligatory works,
6) chances of promotion in salary and position,7) stability of position,8) freedom or flexibility in selecting research subjects,9) effective evaluation of research achievement.
Many of these incentives are mutually related and also
depend not only the reward system of one 工nst工tut工on but also on thesurrounding environment of the Japanese academy.
‑11‑

Nevertheless, itwould be of some interest to show my personal observations on therelative merits of three types and two methods from the nine
points of view listed above. That is Table II.
Table II Evaluation of Reward System ofThree Types and Two Methods
B

C

fair

fair

−
201
σ
晶
千
・a
−

. salary
1

A

2

good
1

3

・工

r

ム
千

2

fair
2

good
1

poor

poor

2

. freedom in subject poor
82

. achievement credit .poor
9
3

P

、
poor

fair

good

fair

fair

fair

poor

poor

poor

poor

3

a3

2

e

fair

good
1

fair

3

. stability
7

good

・gム
ユ

. promotion
6

good
1

al

. free time5o. social prestige
4口

ch expense、. resear3

pd. extra income
2

d

3

3

fair
2

good
1

fiar

good
1

poor excellent excellent

fair

fair
1

2

3

3

good

good

Table II would not require much of explanation. Caution is
on, because there
necessary against straight‑forward 工nterpretatェare many varieties of institutions and different ways with eachcategory of classifications and, needless to say, opinions may
differ from my own evaluation. Moreover, so much depends on theon wh工ch is not only institution‑
actual way of running each institutェ
al but also aceエdental and histor工cal.
‑12‑

In particular, the appointment

of the director and key personnels who have the power of selecting
the leading scholars and research staffs who can really guide theresearch works.
仁Comparison of existing resear、
ch institutes' experiences
and actual achievements in the field of Asian studies seems toindicate the difficulty of generalizing the observations of a few
cases.

But still I would ma1nta工n with the support of manycolleagues that given the institutional framework in Japan at thepresent time and the most probable administration, university
research institutes located at prユ
V工leged universities are most
likely to attract outstanding scholars, so that they are best suited℃h activities.穴
for advanced resear

This does not imply, however, that even the practical or
policy‑oriented research works cannot be carried out more advantage‑
ously by governmental, semi‑governmental or private research
institutes.
会

工 myself should admit that there are many institutions

The view expressed here may be biased in favor of university
institutes, because the author is a university professor and the
director of a resear、
ch institute at Kyoto University. A friendof mine, who holds a responsible position in a large governmental
research institute, expressed the opinion based on his own obser‑
vat工ons 七ha七 university professors are usually very poor adminis‑
trators even in guiding a team of researchers and it isexceptional rather than normal f r good researchers to be goodadministrators. Generally speaking I myself tend to agree withthis view of a friend of mine. But the necessary number ofcapable administrators is very small, so that it is importantand possible to appoint the exceptionally capable administratorswith sufficient knowledge of the scholar、
ly world.

。

It is important to note that the institutional framework ofJapanese research 工nst工tutions may change 工n the near future.
The Ministry of Education is seriously contemplating to makeJapanese univer、
sities inter、nationally open. In addition,、s are mushrooming andC type of research institutes and center
may play much more important role in produc工ng scholarly researchand surpass un工vers工七工 es at least 工n policy‑or工entedresearches.
‑13‑

esand private businesses that have produced
エn government m工nistrユ
more results than unユversity ins七itutes in the same fields.

In

the field of Asian studies, however, the situation seems to be
directed gradually toward specialization in academic research andpractical, policy‑oriented, data‑collecting or ‑making types ofstudies．会

This specialization seems to create the circumstance 工nwhich academically oriented specialists wish to move to universities.
） seem to be playing important), 6), 7), 8) and 斗
There factors 5function.
) has two aspectsィ
Factor 9

One is to have the achievement in

zed W 工th工n the 工nstユtute. Another is the recogni‑
research recognェ
tion in the academエc and 工ntellectual c工rcles. Table II considered
only the former aspect. The 工atter aspect is also very important
for researchers in any institute.

It can be achieved throughpublication and personal contact. Hence, the incentive in thisrespect may be subdivided as:1) the chance of publishing the results of research works with theauthor's name‑‑‑anonimity is no attraction to confident scholarly
chers,、
researth the well‑established) accessib‑ility to and association wェ
2
There are at least two more special工zat工ons which can be exploredwith benefit. One is by areas, and another by maJor d工scipl工nes.
In the Japanese context, we badly need at least one sizable
research institute on contemporary China as soon as possible and七es on South Asia, West Asia, Africa andperhaps some institu
ent groups of、
Latin America later. Specialization by differ
specialities is very difficult to draw a dividing line. Perhaps
four groupings are possible; languages, humanities, social
sciences, and natural sc工ences. Any 工nst工tute must be bu工lt
around one or two groups of fields with sufficient emphasis but
always specific in the areas to cover; otherwise, the integrationof research activities will be ex七remely difficult and theinstitute may become an academic apartment house.
‑1斗ーscholarly world‑personal contact with outstandユng scholars byattending nat工onal meet工ngs and エnternational conferences or
joining in international research teams.
The more spiritual satisfaction can be derived from the achievement
in research, the less important the pecuniary and other material。

incentive will be to attract scholarly personnels int the research
institutions.

In this sense, the old universities which historically

carry a great deal of prestige and has many leading scholars inmany fields have a great advantage. The 工nstitutes located within
or officiated with such universitiesare very attractive from theview‑point of young aspiring scholar、s who are about to go up theladder of academ工C career. As we all know, the reward system ofrecognition 工n the academic or intellectual world is b工ased verymuch in favor、of old prest工g工ous universities. The recognition of
new research can be more easエ
工 y and quickly made if it is done byuniversity professors. This is a very strong attraction of univer‑sity institutes. The same circumstance, however, makes occasionallythe university institutes mere "ivory towers" and deviate unduelyfrom practically significant research.

It seems highly desirable,

therefore,on the one hand to have a certa工n reward system forrecognizing practical or policy‑oriented research and on the other
hand to open the way of 工nterchanging personnels among three typesof research institutions and at the same t工me adopt two methods
across all the related 工nstェ
tutes.

同.

Multidisciplinary and Interdisciplinary Research
The last perplexing matter 工s the methodolog工cal problems to‑15‑

carry out the multidisciplinary and sometimes "interdisciplinary"
research works in As工an area studェes. Th工S 工s a new type of
research often emphasi写ed in the study .
of developing countries.
Apart from the 工nstitutional problems discussed above, there aremethodological problems to be consユ
dered, and they are closely
related to the research administration in all three types of insti‑
tutions.

It must be admitted that the studies of problems in Asianarea resear、
ch along the line of traditional scientific disciplines
are undoubtedly very 工mportant in themselves but often reach the
剛・ιboundaries of each science very quickly.

In order, therefor、e, tofurther the analysis, the knowledge of neighboring sciences must be
brought in and combined with 七he science on hand‑‑multidisciplinary‑,or sometimes the development of new knowledge in "zwischengebiet"(in‑between area) becomes necessary‑interdisciplinary.
The basic reasons for the need of new approaches are theinsufficient specialization of primitive societies in many parts ofAsia and inadequate division of sciences and conceptual frameworks
of western sciences to deal with Asian people and societies. A few
concrete examples may be in order. A separat工on of demography from
economics is most improper、for the study of developing countries.
The socio‑political process of nat工on‑bu工ld工ng must be carefully
analyzed along with the process of economic development. Many
blunders committed by famous economists in presenting too optimistic
forecasts for the future of South and Southeast Asian econom工es areoften due to simple‑minded or single‑minded application of pureeconomic analysis. Another example may be the spread of "high‑yielding variety" of rice in Southeast Asia. The green revolution‑16‑

is often studied only by agronomists and agricultural economists,
but the study must be supplemented not only by the studies ofagricultural engineers but also the ones by anthropologists orpolitical scientists. For the spread of new knowledge is veryin the "loosely structured society" in Southeast Asia.
limited.
Unless the characteristics of social organization of such a society
are clearly understood, too opt工m工stic pol工cy suggestions arelikely to come out.
For these reasons, I bel工eve that the research institutes for
Asian area studies at the presenセ stage of our scientific inquiries
had better be organized as multidisciplinary research institutes
rather than a group of independent institutes organized around single
nite advantage of having close contact with eachdisciplines. A defュother among different disciplエnes of scientists is that they canlearn the way of thinking,research methods and the establishedknowledge in neighboring sciences on the kind of problems that they
are studying or interested in through informal lunch meetings orseminars.

Such discussions would never be possible unless many

scientists live together, so to say, in the same institute and feel
responsible for the achievement of the institute as a whole. The
importance of fr工endly informal dエscussions can hardly be exaggerated.
The kind of information and preliminary discussions obtainable atthe informal talks among colleagues cannot be learnt from publica‑
tions. The published works are very partial and formalized.

In

the field of Asian studies where so many problems are still unsettled
or even not formulated yet, exchange of various experiences, casualor careful observations 工n field works and the front knowledge of‑17‑related sciences, is essential to pick up some topics for research,tentatively to discuss W 工th scholars 工n related disc工pl工nes,
evaluate the relative importance of the topics and examine the pos‑sibility of formulating some research problems.

In fact, multi‑

disciplinary research can be achieved most successfully when some、of common interests
specific problem can be formulated as a centerof scholars in the related sciences.

Such an identification ofproblems and collaborative effort in formulat工ng the problem エs a
key to the success of multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary'a few advantages of this 七ype of institutes.
t
s is one och. Thエ、resear
Before discussing some other advantages, a list of advantages
points may be listed:、formulat工on of problems common to multiple disciplines,(1) easier、researchers,(2) easier collaboration of junior senoir
司(3) ready cooperat工on w工th matching research programs in other
Asian research institutes or government offices.
The concrete cases of success in the sense of （工） may bequoted here. There are two articles already published:. T. Watabe， The Formation of Glutinous Rice Zone in Thailand,"a
Anthropology, 1970.
minatnts Affecting the Potential、
b. H. Fukui, "Environmental Deter
Dessemination of High‑Yielding Varieties of Rice," Theエ 971.
，、Southeast Asian Studies, December
Watabe, professor of agronomy at Kyoto University, succeededin clarifying the historical changes in the spread of glutinous
rice varieties in Thailand by discriminating the various kinds ofrice hulls contained in primitive bricks discovered in old temple‑18‑

buildings in Thailand. The discovery of such bricks was accidentally
made and casually told by one of hエs colleagues, Takaya, geomorphol‑ogist at the Research Center for Southeast Asian Studies of Kyoto
University, while both researcher、s were making field works in
Thailand. The subsequest working seminars with agronomists, Thai
historian, rice taxonomist, geographer suggested a more carefulsampling of bricks and resulted in this unique, pioneering work
which shed a light on the undocumented part of old Thai history.
Fukui's article is in effect a joint paper by agronomist,
geomorphologist, soil scientist,・
irrigation engineer and economist.
The topic was chosen to analyze more carefully the reasons why many
experts on Thailand at the Research Center did not share with thecommon optimism on the spread of IRRI varieties of rice in the
Chao Phraya basin of Thailand.

This discussion started at the lunch

meeting, and a chance of presenting our view on the Green Revolution
at an international conference sparked a series of working seminars
attended by quite a variety of scientists who had the common interestin the Green Revolution. As a result this unusually interdisciplinary
paper was successfully written.

It should be emphasized here thatcooperation between social scientists and natural scientists issometimes very important for Asian area studies.会
The importance of collaboration between senior scholars andjunior postdoctoral researchers mentioned as (2) is not sufficiently
recognized by many scholars as well as the administrators of* One important interdisciplinary research project has been started
at the Kyoto Univer、sity Research Center、for Southeast AsianStudies： Man and Nature in Tropical Southeast Asia." This
project tries to inquir、
e into the interaction between climaticand other natural environment and socユo‑econom工c human behav工or.
‑19‑

foundations and institutes.

So often we encounter juniorgraduate students sent from some American universities or Japan‑
ese research inst工tutes working ユsolatedly 工n remote v工llages in
Asia or urban bustling with no effective research guidance which
is so badly needed at some crucial points and which they canalways get if 七hey are at home universities. There is no doubtthat so much tェ
me and energy is wasted by maladministration ofthesis‑writing field works by junior researchers. A well‑。

organized research plan for anthropol gical studies in fieldworks can be prepared more eas,ily 工f junior member、s have thebases to contact at the local center、s if possible or write backat least to the home center where var工ous sen工or scholars can bereached.

For this purpose, some research center must be firmly

established for certain areas and the local liaison offices betterbe held.

This is why we have the local offices in Bangkok andDjakarta and try to place at least one senior scholar in each
office.
In Asian area studies the training period required to be an
independent researcher is a few years longer than in the trainingof Ph.D.'sin ordinary disciplines, firstly because of additional
language requirement and secondly becuase of the need of famili‑arity with the people and societies so different from homecountry. To economize the time required for such trainings,
constant assoc工ation with senュor scholars wエth long years offield experiences and frequent visitors from the countries
concerned is very effective. This is made easy by being affliatedwith the multidisciplinary research center for area studies.
‑20‑

It is essential to keep friendly cooneration with native
scholars and universitエes or instエtutes whenever possェ
ble. The best
くs w
ith native
way is to carry out any research always as joint worJ

ly done when we respond to the demand
experts. This can be more easェfor certain research or studies in which leadership is native 工ndesigning the program.

Since many different problems are likely tobe proposed by the same leading people in many Asian countries, it
is easier to respond to them if the responding institutes are
multidisciplinary and can answer many k工nds of questユons as requested.
,.
This aspect is increasingly impoPtant to ensure the welcome fieldworks to junior researchers and also against the charge of intel‑
lectual or political neo‑colonialism.

It 工s also very effective forthe training of native Junior scholars as well as the junior scholars
to be sent into the countries for the first time. The young Ph.D.'s
who have just come home often need somewhat more training andexperiences to carry out independent research works at their homecountries. The international cooperation between academic research
institutes seems to offer an excellent opportunity for this purpose.

5. The Size of an InstituteAll these considerations seem to imply that the size of sucha research institute must be fairly large.

But of course theadministration becomes more difficult as the size of an institutegets larger.

When I made a trユp around the world to learn lessons

on the administration of multidisciplinary institutes for Asian areastudies, almost all the experienced directors of similar institutes
warned not to make to size of institute larger than 20 senior‑21‑

research scholars. According to their、advice, the primary reason
for this limitation is the enormous burden on the director.

The

ideal director must combine wide and balanced knowledge of different
disciplines and excellent managerial ability.

It would be very

difficult to find such a director, and moreover，、 if one is found,
it is extremely hard for him to remain excellent for many years.
For the scientェ
fエc knowledge qu工ckly depreciates. The difficultymust be overcome, therefore, by having plural deputy directors who
can alternate directorship everytwo or three years.

It remains to−噌・

be seen, however, if this can be a solution.
If, however, i七 エ s adm
ユtted that the maximum size is about
20 senior scholars, the institute must have a number of affiliatedscholars who partic工pate in the research pro〕ects organized at theinstitute.

This means that the institute must adopt the method of

research program d工scussed 工n sect工on 2 to supplement the research
activities done by its own staffs. This arrangement can be mademore easily if a multidiscipユinary institute is established as apart of large unエversity W 工
七h many departments and institutes. The
difficulty in organizing successful large projects at Institute ofDeveloping Economies and Institute of Asian and African Languages
and Cultures can be explaエ
ned at least partly by the lack ofaffilliated scholars.
It is necessary, therefore, for institutes with no bases 工nlarge universities to find some way of adopting the method of
resear、ch program as a supplementary measure.
devices could be made for this purpose.

It would seem that

But there is still adisadvantage in this supplementary arrangement; that is, scholars‑22‑

of different disciplines cannot have the opportunities of informal
association unless they are on the same campus.

Thus the institutes

outside large universities better、be more or less specialized in thespecific fields of research where multidiscipユinary research isonly exceptional.

ー23‑