Scanning the Landscape of Southeast Asian Studies in Southeast Asia

by Maria Serena I. Diokno. Published online on 13 Nov 2025. Completed in Feb 2023. Last updated in Sept 2025.

💡 For the best reading experience, please view this article on a laptop or desktop—or expand your browser window.
Charts, maps, related resources, and citations display more clearly there.

Abstract

We persist in studying a field that by certain accounts is nearing its demise. Critical of the origins of Southeast Asian studies in Cold War strategic priorities, its alleged limited theoretical contributions, and a perceived rootedness in the nation and region as fixed, bordered units of study, some scholars conclude that the field is dying. While this may be so in North America and parts of Europe, is this the case in our region? We believe not. What we have found in our study is that the field of Southeast Asian studies is open and is growing. Yes, conditions are not the same everywhere in the region (not even in the same country within the region), and in some universities, student enrollment has fallen while others suffer from budgetary constraints. Despite these limitations, the data we collected—degree programs in Southeast Asian studies, individual courses about Southeast Asia that are taught by different (disciplinal) units or departments, Southeast languages taught by universities other than their own respective languages, centers of Southeast Asian studies, and journals produced in the region about Southeast Asia—evince the idea that different trajectories of what might be called Southeast Asian studies are present within the region and reflect varied educational, intellectual, and institutional priorities which, in turn, shape how studying the region is pursued. Rather than presume a single Southeast Asian perspective, we posit a constellation of approaches, frameworks, and epistemologies that indicate the kinds of engagements by and among Southeast Asian institutions and scholars in the region.

Introduction

The intellectual health of Southeast Asian Studies is an ongoing conversation for scholars and practitioners affiliated with this broad field of area studies. Scholars from across the humanities and social sciences continue to engage in a reflective, diagnostic (even anxious, at times) discussion about the field’s overall condition: its growth and development, shortcomings, underlying condition, decline, and possible futures. For several decades, many scholars have pointed to a decline in the value of Southeast Asian Studies in particular and of area studies in general. Critical of the field’s origins in Cold War strategic priorities, its alleged limited theoretical contributions, and a perceived rootedness in the nation and region as fixed, bordered units of study, some scholars continue to push for a “post-area studies” agenda that in recent years has even inspired some to suggest a crisis in the field’s “legitimacy.”1

While useful as a way of introducing new approaches to conceptualizing Southeast Asian studies, the majority of these discussions primarily consider developments outside of the region (particularly North America and Europe), their institutions of knowledge, and the communities that contribute to their intellectual construction. The alleged crisis of Southeast Asian Studies abroad is not basis, however, to conclude that the same exists in the Southeast Asian region today, notwithstanding gaps and weaknesses identified in this report. This mapping project examines developments on the ground in the region, tapping SEASREP’s experience of three decades and its wide regional network, in order to identify, in part, the different forms of Southeast Asian studies and the institutions that produce them. The data collected by our research team evince the idea that different trajectories of what might be called “Southeast Asian Studies” are present within the region and reflect varied educational, intellectual, and institutional (including funding) priorities which, in turn, shape how studying the region is defined and pursued. Rather than presume a single “Southeast Asian” perspective on how Southeast Asian studies are expressed within the region, we posit a constellation of approaches, frameworks, and epistemologies that may strengthen future engagement with Southeast Asian institutions and scholars.

The very idea of Southeast Asian studies being a singular intellectual field, with an established body of foundational texts, approaches, founding fathers, and practices is also an overstatement: it ignores varying epistemological traditions within national settings and overlooks the ways in which notions of Southeast Asian studies are understood and operationalized in Southeast Asia. Critically, scholars treating Southeast Asian studies as belonging to professional scholars while ignoring how practitioners engage and construct ideas in the name of Southeast Asian studies highlights a dynamic that is prevalent within the region.

[1] Chua et. al., 2019.

Goals

The study, which was supported by a grant from the Henry Luce Foundation, seeks to establish a picture of Southeast Asian studies in academic institutions of the region by providing various indicators of the levels and types of activities in the region. The focus on academic programs does not, however, suggest that knowledge about the region is an exclusive preserve of academia, for indeed, civil societies in Southeast Asia have generated and continue to generate new and interesting knowledge spanning a broad range of regional concerns (e.g., environment, indigenous peoples, gender issues, heritage preservation, etc.). If at all, our study suggests that knowledge production outside the academe deserves a treatment all its own.

Pioneer studies of Southeast Asian programs in Southeast Asian institutions of higher learning date back to the Toyota Foundation-funded international conference organized by the Indonesian Institute of Science (LIPI, today renamed the National Research and Innovation Agency or BRIN) in early November 1993, on the state of Southeast Asian studies in the region. Published by LIPI the following year, the conference report, Towards Promoting Southeast Asian Studies in Southeast Asia, found that the development of Southeast Asian studies in the region was not only uneven but also tended to be approached from quite restrictive frameworks: national and disciplinal.² A regional dimension and multidisciplinary approach were missing. In a sense, the founding of the SEASREP Foundation a year later was a by-product of and a response to the conference findings.

Nine years after the LIPI publication, the Asian Center of the University of the Philippines organized a conference to examine Southeast Asian studies not just in the region but in the broader area of East Asia (China, Hong Kong, Japan, and Korea). Written from the perspective of individual countries, the papers generally found that although a few courses focused on single country studies, most programs and courses relating to Southeast Asia were taught using different disciplines to examine the region as a whole. There also appeared to be initiatives in some institutions to study the region as an entity or compare countries across the region through historic, ethnographic, religious and other disciplinal themes.³

In sum, the concerns raised in the earlier reports were as follows:

Formal academic programs are few and limited to major capitals in the region (Singapore, Kuala Lumpur);
Programs are uneven in scope and reach; and
Studies of the region tend to be constrained by disciplinary boundaries and the framework of the nation-state.

We find that Southeast Asian studies degree programs today have expanded well beyond the capital cities of the region, although there is still unevenness across programs. The typology of programs and courses is quite diverse, a quality we view positively, given varying conditions, capacities, and epistemological currents in the region. Our report shows, for instance, that vigorous efforts have been exerted in the last few decades to develop more holistic programs built on multidisciplinary, thematic thrusts, just as country specializations have also emerged. Significantly, the traditional emphasis on international relations in degree programs appears to have extended to newer and broader fields of study. Perhaps for these reasons, we view Southeast Asian studies in the region with a considered measure of optimism.

[2] Taufik Abdullah and Yekti Maunati (eds.), 1994.

[3] Baviera et al., 2003.

Framing Southeast Asian Studies

We view Southeast Asian studies from the lens of Southeast Asians residing in the region who study ourselves. East Timor is part of our definition of ‘region’ even if it does not (yet) belong to the ASEAN, though admittedly SEASREP has had little progress in establishing ties with East Timorese scholars. For this reason, East Timor is not part of this report. We also use the term ‘region’ broadly to mean a dynamic confluence of space rather than a rigid combination of national territories inherited from colonizers.

While Southeast Asians who focus entirely on their own countries could be called Southeast Asianists by reason of geography, their singular focus on their own country does not automatically translate into knowledge of the Southeast Asian region. We note, for example, that ‘own’ country programs have proliferated in various universities, such as Thai Studies in Thailand, Philippine Studies in the Philippines, Khmer Studies in Cambodia, and Indonesian Studies in Indonesia. But what we want to learn about is not the study of one’s own country but the study of other countries in the region, or the region itself, or comparative parts of it, or even its sub-regions however these are characterized. For the purposes of this study, therefore, ‘own’ country programs are not included in the landscape of Southeast Asian studies programs in the region.

Instead, we define Southeast Asian studies as larger than the ‘own country’ approach, which (not incidentally) is also typically tethered to the nation. We therefore describe our approach to Southeast Asian studies as:

the study of a country in the region other than one’s own; or
a comparative study of two or more Southeast Asian countries, peoples, cultures, or histories (‘own country plus’); or
a thematic study that cuts across national borders and is oriented toward the Southeast Asian region as a whole rather than particular countries.

The approaches outlined above seek to avoid, on one hand, the exclusive concentration on the study of the self (one’s own country, nation, history, culture, etc.), and on the other, the conflation of the study of the self with that of the Southeast Asian region (for the two are not necessarily the same). In this sense, SEASREP‘s ‘own country plus’ formula represents an effort to strike a middle ground while opening a door to the region. Because of its reflexive orientation—proceeding as it does from the self—the ‘own country plus’ approach might be viewed as a narrow means of understanding the region. And it could be if compared to a regional study of Southeast Asia (i.e., a broad, encompassing thematic study). But when SEASREP started in 1995, the formal study of the region (as a Southeast Asian Studies program) was limited to fewer than five Southeast Asian academic institutions. There were no grants to study Southeast Asian languages, let alone do archival and field research in other countries of the region. Scholars wanting to undertake graduate studies on Southeast Asia sought universities in North America and Europe, not in their neighboring countries. The idea of retaining interest in one’s country and expanding it through comparisons or by themes that cut across the region thus became the gateway to studies of Southeast Asia.

Methodology

The project began in 2020 and was understandably delayed by the Covid-19 pandemic. An ambitious research guide was designed pre-pandemic, which sought information not only about academic programs and courses on SEA (including language courses), but also the number of enrollees, graduates, theses and dissertation titles, faculty researches and publications, research centers devoted exclusively or primarily to studies of the region, and needs or gaps that ought to be addressed in order to advance the field of Southeast Asian studies. SEASREP tapped 23 colleagues from the region (project team members) to carry out the initial research. We tried but were unable to find a participant from East Timor and the participant from Myanmar backed out owing to personal reasons.

Data gathering was severely hampered by the pandemic. With universities shut down, researchers had to resort to institutional websites and email inquiries. Responses to email queries were slow and in some cases, no responses were received at all. Attempts by project participants to verify or corroborate the information they gathered met limited success. We also discovered that universities gather, organize, and store their data differently and some are better record keepers than others. Websites are helpful to a certain extent but again, the amount of detail they offer varies in quality and scope. University catalogues, for instance, are not always available on official websites, and websites in any case are not regularly updated. We had the most difficulty with data on enrollment and graduation, which is why we can only present examples.

Based on the information we received from the project team and were able to gather on our own, we selected the following as indicators of activity in the field of Southeast Asian studies in the region:

Number and level of degree programs in Southeast Asian studies;
Individual courses about Southeast Asia taught by different (disciplinal) units or departments;
Southeast languages taught by universities other than their own respective languages;
Centers of Southeast Asian studies; and
Journals produced in the region about Southeast Asia.

In this report we qualify some of the numbers we received with the adjectives ‘selected’, ‘some’ or ‘significant’ based on an apparent pattern or trend. When we do provide numbers, we offer them with caution and invite the reader to consider them as suggestive rather than definitive. Overall, we did not include data we found questionable and are confident that the trends and patterns we present are reasonably accurate. Note that we made no judgment as to the quality of the teaching and research programs and publications in the region although in a few cases, we are able to point out the limitations or evident weaknesses.

To process the country reports, three workshops were planned in 2020. But the pandemic quickly put an end to this plan and online discussions were instead conducted in August 2020. After these sessions, project members were consulted individually regarding questions about their submissions, mostly to clarify certain items, identify sources, and omit questionable information. Additional information was further gathered in-house from various websites to flesh out or verify the information submitted by the research team. The SEASREP board of advisers met twice (online) in July 2022 to discuss the draft. To validate the report, we held a face-to-face workshop in Kuala Lumpur the following month with some of the project participants.

The project participants agreed that some of the data in the report, such as the list of researches, theses, and courses had to be updated. Local branches of foreign universities, like the London School of Public Relations in Jakarta, were removed from the report. The research participants also discussed other factors that affect Southeast Asian Studies, such as government policies (which affect funding support) and the business and employment market for graduates of Southeast Asian studies programs. Since the completion of the report in February 2023, we have updated the information to the extent possible, subject to the limitations cited earlier.

In addition to the country reports, we invited three institutions to produce case studies of their own teaching programs and research experiences, namely: Naresuan University (Thailand), Vietnam National University Hanoi (Vietnam), and the University of Gadjah Mada Center for Southeast Asian Social Studies (Indonesia). Naresuan University and Vietnam National University Hanoi offer full degree programs in Southeast Asian studies, while the Center for Southeast Asian Social Studies at Universitas Gadjah Mada is a research center focused on the region. These snapshots, produced in 2022, have not been updated but remain useful reflections on the difficulties and opportunities that institutions experience in undertaking Southeast Asian studies.

The case studies were prepared by the following:

Naresuan University: Dr. Thanida Boonwanno, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Faculty of Social Sciences;

Vietnam National University Hanoi: Dr. Vo Xuan Vinh, former Deputy Director General, Institute for Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS Vietnam), Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences; and Dr. Ho Thi Thanh, head of the Department of Southeast Asian Studies, Faculty of Oriental Studies, Vietnam National University Hanoi; and

Center for Southeast Asian Social Studies, Universitas Gadjah Mada: Dr. Hermin Indah Wahyuni, former Center Director, and her team.

Summaries of the case studies are available here (Naresuan University, VNU, UGM). The case studies have not been updated since their submission in 2022.

We were also interested in the perspectives of young Southeast Asianists, given SEASREP’s long-standing preferential option for emerging and early career scholars. We thus invited twelve emerging scholars (Young Southeast Asianists) to share their experiences as Southeast Asianists living and working in the region. These scholars all work on countries other than their own based on their professional and personal interests. A summary of their workshop discussion is provided later in this report.

Degree Programs in Southeast Asian Studies

There are 87 full-degree programs on Southeast Asian studies—majority at the undergraduate level—offered by 49 universities, broken down as follows: 46 BA programs, 30 MA and 11 PhD programs (Degree Programs and Universities). Most of the degrees are offered by universities in or close to the region’s major capitals and cities.

Map 1. Universities with SEA Studies Degree Programs

Thailand offers the largest number of full degree programs (34 across all higher educational levels), while Laos, Brunei, Myanmar, and Indonesia offer from one to three programs.

The titles of the programs vary. Some are called Southeast Asian Studies and others, ASEAN Studies (there is a difference, as we explain later). Some programs are described disciplinally, such as Western University’s (Cambodia) BA in ASEAN Law, while other degrees state the focus of the program, such as Western Mindanao State University’s (Philippines) BA in Asian Studies major in the ASEAN Community. We categorize the programs as follows:

Degree Programs by Type

Type 1. Asian (or Oriental, as labeled in Vietnam) studies with focus or major on Southeast Asia
Type 2. Southeast Asian studies
Type 3. ASEAN studies
Type 4. Disciplinal programs (e.g., Southeast Asian Archaeology, Southeast Asian History)
Type 5. Programs that study another country in the region (e.g., BA Indonesian and Malaysian Studies, MA Mekong Studies)
Type 6. Combination of the above (e.g., BA ASEAN and Southeast Asian Studies, BA Thai Language)

Figure 1. Degree Programs by Type

Some Vietnamese universities use the name ‘Oriental Studies’ to signify the larger region of Asia (akin to Asian Studies), and under this rubric offer courses about Southeast Asia. Ba Ria Vung Tau University’s (Vietnam) MA Oriental Studies program, for instance, has these courses:⁴

Chinese in Vietnam and Southeast Asia
Industrialization and Modernization in Southeast Asia
Malayo-Polynesian Ethnic Groups in in Vietnam and Southeast Asia
Southeast Asian International Relations in the Post-Cold War Period.

Full degree programs about the region are multidisciplinary and broader in scope than disciplinal programs with a concentration on the region. The latter are also significantly fewer in number. Most of them require course work, although a few, like the MA and PhD programs of Universiti Sains Malaysia, are research degree programs.⁵ The medium of instruction is usually the national language of the university’s country, except for some universities which use English, such as the University of the Philippines, National University of Singapore, and Universiti Brunei Darussalam. ‘International’ programs in Thailand, such as Chiang Mai University’s BA and MA ASEAN Studies and Chulalongkorn University’s Master’s in Southeast Asian Studies are taught in English (hence the name, ‘international’) to attract non-Thai students. (They also tend to charge higher tuition.) The MA program in ASEAN Studies offered by the consortium of five open universities in the region is also taught in English.

A word of caution is necessary, however, as to the content behind the degree titles. The MA Southeast Asian Studies program of Centro Escolar University in Manila, for example, requires six major courses to be chosen from a list of 23, but only three of the 23 actually concern Southeast Asia. The rest are about the Philippines and specific disciplines such as anthropology and sociology.⁶ Notwithstanding its title, the Southeast Asian specialization of the degree thus becomes doubtful.

[4] Ba Ria Vung Tau University.

[5] Universiti Sains Malaysia

[6] Centro Escolar University

ASEAN and SEA Studies

The newest strand of Southeast Asian studies in the region is ASEAN studies (ASEAN studies programs), which appear to have been prompted by the ASEAN resolution to establish an economic community a decade ago. Indonesia and Thailand responded by putting up degree programs in ASEAN studies, ASEAN studies centers, and journals devoted to different aspects of the ASEAN. How different are ASEAN and Southeast Asian studies? The ASEAN (organization) makes a rather awkward distinction between ASEAN and Southeast Asia. The first is driven by “constructed” values of non-interference, peaceful resolution of conflict, adherence to international law and rules of trade, and respect for independence and territorial integrity, which are all based on the ASEAN’s constitutional documents (e.g., Bangkok Declaration of 1967, Kuala Lumpur Declaration of 1971, etc.). Southeast Asia, on the other hand, is anchored on “inherited” values “that the people of Southeast Asia region ascribe to, which have been passed on for generations, through the natural process of human interaction that develops into various type of communities with much (sic) similarities.”⁷ But who constructs the “constructed” values? More fundamentally, while there might be a single ASEAN (organizational) identity, there are numerous Southeast Asian identities, each of them organic to the diverse peoples of the region, and which are not constituted by legal documents. Above all, one cannot know the ASEAN identity (however that is construed) without knowing Southeast Asia.

Three models of ASEAN studies are evident in the region. The first is about the ASEAN, its history as an organization, structure, agreements, and relations among member states and between the ASEAN and other states (such as China and Japan) and entities (such as the European Union). An example is the MA ASEAN Studies program of the Pridi Banomyong International College of Thammasat University.

The second confuses the concepts ‘ASEAN’ with ‘Southeast Asia’ or conflates the two. The example here would be the joint MA in ASEAN Studies program of the consortium of five open universities in the region formed in 2013.

The third model talks about both ASEAN and Southeast Asia and recognizes that they are not the same. The delineation between the two is evident, for example, in the courses of the International Masters of ASEAN Studies of the University of Malaya’s Asia-Europe Institute.

A different image of the region emerges from the Southeast Asian studies type of program. Chulalongkorn University’s MA Southeast Asian Studies proclaims, for instance: “Understand Southeast Asia from a Southeast Asian Standpoint.”⁸Established in 2003, the program requires four core courses, whose titles suggest a distinction between Southeast Asia (a civilization, a locus of various historical processes) and the ASEAN (an institution):

Southeast Asian Civilization
Modern Southeast Asia: Colonialism, Nationalization, and Democratization
ASEAN in Regional and Global Context
Research Methodology in Southeast Asian Studies.

Except for one course (which relates to the ASEAN), the elective courses concentrate on Southeast Asia (peoples, societies, and cultures). In addition to regional thematic courses, the MA Southeast Asian Studies program of Chulalongkorn University offers electives on individual countries in the region, with emphasis on Thailand’s closest neighbors.

The concept of Southeast Asia as a living place, peoples, and cultures carries, on which Southeast Asian studies are grounded, is thus rather different from the ASEAN focus of ASEAN studies, which looks at the organization of nation-states and agenda often dictated by governments in the region.

[7] ASEAN, “The Narrative of ASEAN Identity,” 2020.

[8] Chulalongkorn University

Courses about Southeast Asia

The interchangeable use of ASEAN and Southeast Asia is also seen in some of the courses offered across the region. For example, Geography of ASEAN (Chulalongkorn University, Thammasat University), Cultures of ASEAN (Ba Ria Vung Tau University), and ASEAN Dance (Nakhon Pathom Rajabhat University) actually refer to Southeast Asia and not to the ASEAN organization. Some 170 universities teach courses about the region or specific countries or parts of it. (Courses on Southeast Asian languages are treated separately.) There are, in all, over a thousand courses but the bulk (76%) are taught at the undergraduate level and by discipline.

Figure 2. Courses on Southeast Asia by Degree Level

*Figures in parentheses represent the number of universities that offer SEA courses.

For the purpose of this report, we categorize the courses as follows.

Table 1. Typology of Southeast Asian Courses

Course Type	Example
By discipline or field	University of the Philippines, Archaeology: Settlement Patterns and Household Systems in Southeast Asia National University of Singapore, Art History: Time Traveller— The Curatorial in Southeast Asia National University of Laos, Tourism and Hotel Management: Tourism in Southeast Asia East Yangon University, Myanmar, History: Economic and Social History of Modern Southeast Asia
Comparative, transregional or cross-country themes	National University of Singapore: Human Trafficking in Southeast Asia Mahidol University, Thailand: International Rivers in Mainland Southeast Asia: Mekong and Salween Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya University, Thailand: Buddhism in the Mekong Basin Nanyang Technological University, Singapore: The ‘Big Man’ and Political Legitimation in Southeast Asia
About a Southeast Asian country other than one’s own	Prince of Songkla University, Thailand: Selected Readings in History and Culture of Myanmar Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City: Introduction to Indonesian Studies Ramkhamhaeng University, Thailand: Khmer Civilization Universitas Hasanuddin, Indonesia: History of Malaysia and Singapore
‘Own country plus’	Dong Thap University, Vietnam: Vietnamese Culture in the Context of Southeast Asia Hatyai University, Thailand: Thailand’s Relations in Southeast Asia Ateneo de Manila University, Philippines: Philippine Literature in Relation to Southeast Asian Literature Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Kalija, Indonesia: History of Islam in Indonesia and Southeast Asia
Courses on ASEAN	Binus University, Indonesia: ASEAN Community—Security, Economic, and Socio-Cultural Aspects Hanoi Law University, Vietnam: ASEAN Law Walailak University, Thailand: Contemporary ASEAN Universiti Brunei Darussalam: Globalizing Southeast Asia—ASEAN and International Organizations

Myanmar has a surprisingly large number of undergraduate courses on Southeast Asia, which are similarly titled across the six universities of Dagon, East Yangon, Myeik, Yangon Universities, Yangon University of Distance Education, and Yangon University of Foreign Languages (Myanmar courses). The American University of Phnom Penh offers a minor in Southeast Asian Studies in the BA program on Global Affairs.

Language Training

In addition to courses about Southeast Asia, at least 44 universities in the region teach Southeast Asian languages other than their own: a vast improvement from the two or three some 30 years ago, but still relatively few given the expanse of the region. Of the Southeast Asian languages taught by these universities (SEA languages), Vietnamese and bahasa Indonesia/Melayu are the most taught, and Filipino the least. Some of the language courses are offered intermittently, depending on the number of student enrollees and available language teachers. Southeast Asian language teaching is costly owing to small and unpredictable class sizes.

Figure 3. Languages* Taught by Southeast Asian Universities

* Other than their own

Notably, Thai universities (62 of them) have engaged most aggressively in the teaching of other Southeast Asia languages. They teach all the languages above and some teach both bahasa Indonesia and Melayu.

Figure 4. SEA Languages Taught by Thai Universities Compared to All Universities

Academic Journals About the Region

Another sign of activity is the number of humanities and social science journals about Southeast Asia, which now number 45 in the region (Journals in SEA about SEA). The figure below shows the number of journals produced in the region according to the decade in which they first appeared, the oldest journals being the Journal of Southeast Asian Studies and Contemporary Southeast Asia, both based in Singapore, the Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health in Thailand, and Akademika: Journal of Southeast Asian Social Sciences in Malaysia. The newest journals (since 2010) are produced in Indonesia and many of them are about the ASEAN.

The number and geographic distribution of journals has clearly grown. Nearly all of the journals are produced by universities or research institutes in the region, and virtually every major university in the region has a journal dedicated to Southeast Asia or a Southeast Asian country other than one’s own. In general the journals span multidisciplinary interests (eg., Southeast Asia: A Multidisciplinary Journal; JATI: Journal of Southeast Asian Studies; Malim: Jurnal Pengajian Umum Asia), while a few deal with specific topics (eg., Journal of Borneo Kalimantan, Journal of Southeast Asian Human Rights, Journal of Islamic Civilization in Southeast Asia). The past decade, moreover, has witnessed a marked increase in the study of various aspects of the ASEAN (economy, education, law, management, entrepreneurship, tourism) as the various ASEAN journals are published in different countries of the region (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand). A number of the journals still tend to talk about the self notwithstanding the label, ‘Southeast Asian’, in their titles. We removed such journals from the list.

Figure 5. Journals About Southeast Asia by Country and Decade of First Issue

Is the growth in the number of journals a healthy development? It is, no doubt, a sign of activity, and there appears to be strenuous effort among many publishers to get their journals indexed internationally, certainly a far cry from K. S. Sandhu’s warning more than forty years ago about “the bleaching bones of fly-by night journals and periodicals” in the region.⁹ At present, fewer than a fourth of the journals are indexed with Scopus. But the effort to gain credentials and the desire to extend their reach beyond the domestic audience explain why many of the journals are published in English (some are bilingual). Of course we are concerned about the tendency to conflate the intellectual quality of a manuscript (or perceived lack of it) with the author’s facility (or lack of it) in the English language.

[9] Kernial Singh Sandhu, 1981: 20.

Research Centers, Scholarly Work, and Graduate Theses

There are today at least 122 research centers in the region that focus on Southeast Asia, 66% of them in Indonesia.

Map 2. SEA/ASEAN Studies Centers

Of the 122 centers, 87 were established from 2010 onwards, and slightly more than 60 percent of all the centers are ASEAN Studies Centers. Majority of the centers in Indonesia are devoted to ASEAN studies.

Figure 6. Number of Southeast Asia-Focused Research Centers by Country

Among the early ASEAN studies centers in Indonesia was that established in 2013 at Universitas Gadjah Mada to initiate the cooperation between the university and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Center’s tagline, “Bringing ASEAN Closer to you,” is an effort to make the ideas, spirits, and programs of the ASEAN “people-centered.”¹⁰ Subsequent ASEAN Centers in other universities in Indonesia, both public and private, have common principles, agendas, and objectives, though not all are equally active. Despite the fact that most of these centers were established upon the prodding of the Indonesian Foreign Affairs Ministry—some without the prior knowledge of the faculty engaged in Southeast Asian studies—the funding and management of the centers were left to the universities that host them. At the higher levels of the university administration, there is, however, little or no articulation of the vision and role of the ASEAN Study Center within the larger university setting (likely because these were imposed from on top) or in relation to other centers in and outside Indonesia. Hence, in addition to the lack of direction, funding for the centers has become a serious concern.

Some examples of researches produced by research centers are available here (Researches). Research topics reflect a mixed bag of ‘old’ topics (the traditional emphasis on history and culture and on international relations) and new themes (in part as a response to contemporary problems of climate change, online disinformation, and the ever present challenge of democracy and democratization). One way to view the mixed bag of studies is to approach current researches from SEASREP‘s perspective of Southeast Asian studies. From the tendency to focus on more reflexive studies of the region (emanating from one’s own country), for example, research centers have broadened their radar to include studies of countries other than their own and conduct comparisons that allow a more comprehensive understanding of the region. Samples of recent researches and publications by individual scholars as well as selected theses and dissertations are provided here (Individual Scholars).

[10] ASEAN Study Center, Universitas Gadjah Mada

The Making of Southeast Asianists

SEASREP has had from the outset a preferential option for young and emerging scholars, a preference articulated both in the policy and practice of its grants programs. The reason is fairly obvious: studies of the region will advance only if the pool of Southeast Asianists continues to grow and expand in the region. The same thinking guides this mapping project. Young scholars represent the future of the field and their voices must be heard. For this reason, SEASREP invited twelve emerging (mid-level) scholars to share their experiences as Southeast Asianists living and working in the region. Each produced a ‘think piece’ (about 2,000 words) in response to the guide below. A selection of their essays may be read here (Onanong, Nguyen, Udom, Muhamad Riza, Zi Hao, Lam).

Talk about your experience as a scholar of Southeast Asian studies and why you chose to specialize on the region (or another country in the region).

Discuss the challenges you have encountered (personal, institutional, disciplinal) in the course of your work, how you dealt with them, and what you find most beneficial or rewarding about working on Southeast Asian studies.

How do you see the future of Southeast Asian studies in the region and what aspect of Southeast Asia do you think should receive more attention or be improved?

The titles of the reflection pieces are interesting for they indicate individual views and understandings of the region. Two, for example, speak of “detours” in their journey of Southeast Asian studies; one alludes to the “failure” of the field; two identify themselves by their specializations; two highlight the issues that brought them to the region; and two discuss the problems of methodology. Yet underlying these variations in point of view and experience is a firm commitment to pursue their intellectual (and personal) interest in the field.

Most of the scholars got involved in Southeast Asian studies by choice. As an undergraduate student, for instance, Najib Noorashid (Brunei) had an interest in Malay linguistics. Extending his interest to cover the broader Malay world beyond Brunei seemed like a natural next step in his master’s program. Like Najib, Sok Udom Deth (Cambodia) admits that his study of the region sprang from his interest in his own country. But as an undergraduate sociology major in Turkey, he felt “guilty … not knowing about Cambodia’s history or that of the region where I am from whenever I was asked about the topic.” Thus for his master’s degree, he looked for universities that offered programs in Asian and Asia-Pacific studies, which is how he discovered the field of Southeast Asian studies.

The other participants had an interest in neighboring countries. Thanyarat Apiwong (Thailand) explains that she chose to focus on Myanmar history because she wanted to understand it “beyond the more common war history narrative between Thailand and Myanmar (Burma) that I had learned for years.” Onanong Thippimol’s (Thailand) exposure to the region was more purposive: it began with SEASREP‘s first traveling classroom in 1999 and subsequent language training and MA study grants (also from SEASREP) that enabled her to develop her interest in Indonesia. Her PhD thesis on Shariah law in Aceh (University of Queensland) brought her to the Netherlands and Indonesia. Onanong is today a recognized Indonesianist in Thailand. Like Onanong, Tan Zi Hao (Malaysia) acknowledges the role others played in his development as a Southeast Asianist. “It was this contingency of relations” with friends and colleagues, he says, “not a calculated forethought concerning one’s career development, that propelled me towards Cirebon and towards the now-precarious field of Southeast Asian Studies. (More about the “precarious” field later.)

Other scholars were drawn to the region by their interest in specific issues such as human rights in the case of Boualaphiane Sisouk (Laos), disasters in the case of Riza Nurdin (Indonesia), and gender inequality in the case of Zamal Nasution (Indonesia). For Theodora Lam (Singapore), her interest in the region was “accidental,” preferring to identify herself “more by my topic of research (migration) and discipline (geography), rather than the geographical region of my research.”

Challenges of the Field

In general, the workshop participants cited two major challenges in studying the region: the epistemology of the field—what Southeast Asian studies mean today—and the difficulty of research and weak support mechanisms.

The discussion of the first challenge ranged from conceptual questions about the nature of the field—are there ‘forbidden’ topics, for example—and methods of Southeast Asian studies—insider vs. outsider, going against the grain—to the practical impact of this epistemology on the employment potential of graduates. Let us start with the last. Nguyen Ha Phoung emphasizes that students do not receive any career orientation about Southeast Asian studies. Yet knowledge about the region and the additional benefits of proficiency in English and a Southeast Asian language, and competence in research and international communication provide a sound foundation for future employment.

As for the epistemology of the field, one question that emerged was: Is the idea behind Southeast Asian studies to understand a particular theme better or to know the region better? Or both? Those who focus on specific issues appear to have used the issue as a springboard to the region rather than the reverse. In a sense the springboard does not matter as long as the final trajectory is the study of the region. Knowledge of the region will certainly deepen an understanding of the issue or theme under investigation. But if the final trajectory is the understanding of the issue—wherever it applies—then Southeast Asia could simply become a case study of one among many across the world that are affected by common issues.

Furthermore, in light of the region’s breadth and diversity, the matter of generalizing about Southeast Asia raises another question about its epistemology. Theodora Lam, who took part in a research project on Southeast Asian children left behind by migrant parents, asks: Should the title of the project be “Left-behind Children from Southeast Asia,” or “Left-behind Children from East Java, Indonesia and Laguna, the Philippines”? In other words, does a locality represent a country? And do two localities or island countries represent a region? Indeed the epistemological challenge of Southeast Asian studies is the formation of generalities about an immensely varied and complex region. And it is a constant challenge that could deepen as modern day problems mutate into more difficult forms. On the other hand, what region in the world can make a claim to homogeneity? Even the study of a single country poses a challenge to generalizing. Capital cities do not represent the entirety of life in any country and marginalized peoples, who reside everywhere in the world, do not appear enough in single-country studies. In this sense the challenge of generalities is not unique to the field of Southeast Asian studies and should drive rather than obstruct deeper investigation.

External forces such as laws or official policies, state-driven agenda, and government funding also affect the epistemological content of the field. Thailand’s lèse-majesté law, for instance, forbids any negative discussion of the monarchy and punishes violators with years in prison. Tan Zi Hao points out that when Southeast Asian scholars cannot talk negatively about their own state, they go to the West to do so. He proposes another solution: to move to a different country in the region if they want to tackle topics that would be dangerous in their home countries. The danger of self-censorship, he adds, is that the practice might become a habit even when there is no longer a need for it.

The market is another factor that affects Southeast Asian studies. Certain topics are more ‘fashionable’ than others with funding readily available. There is a sense that non-government organizations in the region are better positioned owing to their focus on urgent issues, their place in the global network of civil society groups and the access to international funding partners. Academic topics, in contrast, are not always ‘fundable’ because of questions about relevance (often understood in terms of the utility of research results), resulting in a possibly lop-sided content of Southeast Asian studies.

Southeast Asian Studies on the Ground

The participants also described the ways in which they approach Southeast Asian studies. Theodora Lam presents the insider/outsider approach not as a pair of opposites (local/Southeast Asian vs. foreign/Western), but as a single, merged perspective, using herself as an example: an “insider outsider” working in the region about the region. As for Nguyen Quang Dung, the only way to approach Southeast Asian studies and ensure its success is to be issue-based, interdisciplinary, and collaborative so that Southeast Asianists are able to present implications of practical solutions rather than offer “mere descriptive work.” Among the issues he considers important are climate change, the impact of transnational connectivities in the region, China’s claim to a nine-dash line, the Mekong River as environmental commons, cross-border haze, human trafficking through borderlands, and health, all of which are regional in scope.

To undertake this sort of investigation, Nguyen Ha Phoung raises the importance of networks among institutes and universities in and outside the Southeast Asian region and with businesses and international organizations in the region. The first will facilitate access to documents and student exchange (joint degrees could be one result), while the second will provide students with an opportunity for internships at companies in the region.

How does one maneuver his or her way around the complex field of Southeast Asian studies? Tan Zi Hao borrows the analogy of Filipino filmmaker Kidlat Tahimik, who likens filmmaking to a road trip. One can start a film (no doubt an expensive undertaking) with either a full tank and credit card to complete the project all the way, or load up with a few initial cups of gasoline until the money runs out and one is forced to scrounge around for more cups of gas to eventually arrive at his destination. Tan maintains that cups-of-gas research allows one to work with little funding even if it takes longer (given the fund-scrounging stops along the way). Moreover, it can open the door to creative makeshift solutions: one can “stray on track” cup by cup and shift gears and direction if the cup runs out. Might this approach solve the funding problems that hound Southeast Asian researchers?

Nearly all the participants expressed optimism about the future of Southeast Asian studies, notwithstanding the difficulties described above. Tan Zi Hao stands out as one who sees Southeast Asian studies declining in popularity—beset by “failed narratives,” “crisis upon crisis” and “detours upon detours”—something that is also true, he says, about area studies as a whole. For the field to continue into the future, he calls for “undisciplined” Southeast Asian studies, free of academic shackles and open to creative detours.

Despite all the challenges, Theodora Lam finds research in the region “exciting and full of interesting possibilities.” She adds:

In the past, Southeast Asians studying Southeast Asia often felt a need to study in the north or other western institutions so that their research could be validated. Thankfully, this is no longer prevalent as institutions in the region rise in rankings and the work of scholars from within Southeast Asia are increasingly recognized and valued. Southeast Asian scholars are crafting their own research agenda, and the promise of groundbreaking and innovative work is becoming a reality.

Alive and Striving, Not Dying

Theodora articulates what SEASREP set out to do thirty years ago and has implemented through its various programs. While the field of Southeast Asian studies is declining in Western countries and institutions, the case is not so in the region. What we have found in our study is that the field is open and is growing. Yes, conditions are not the same everywhere in Southeast Asia (not even in the same country within the region), and in some parts student enrollment has fallen. Budgetary constraints hound the advancement of the field because, let us face it, Southeast Asian studies are costly. The laboratory is the region, whether it be a large swathe of it or ‘just’ a tiny corner. Primary sources are located in former and distant imperial capitals (archival digitization has helped); and the acquisition of language and research competencies and fieldwork cannot be done exclusively in the researcher’s home country. Universities that offer Southeast Asian studies programs and courses face a range of challenges as outlined in this report. Yet the loudest appeals for help from burgeoning Southeast Asian Studies programs like Vietnam National University Hanoi emanate from understaffed faculty: faculty who are stretched beyond their limit so as to meet student demand.

If there is a lesson to be learned, the Southeast Asian Studies Program of Thammasat University shows us the way. It might not be a typical case in the region, but it is no doubt an outstanding example, as admissions data show.

Figure 7. SEAS Program Admissions, Thammasat University 2021-2024

Source: Faculty of Liberal Arts, Thammasat University, 2021-2024.

While the number admitted has remained more or less the same in recent years (ranging from 98 in 2023 to 109 in 2021), the number of applicants has consistently risen. The program is, thus, highly selective, with an admission rate of 10.5% in 2021 and 7.4% in 2024. We understand the selectivity rate has been good from the outset.

The tuition of the program is triple that of other undergraduate programs. Yet the Southeast Asian Studies program is unquestionably attractive. Why? Rather than assume that the program has inherent appeal—how can it when university applicants probably do not know what Southeast Asian studies mean?—the faculty and program administrators have exerted painstaking effort to disseminate the program among high school graduates, orient potential applicants about job opportunities, and engage alumni, including social media influencers among them, in these orientation seminars. Lecturers in the program are not confined to academics. Southeast Asian specialists from government and the private sector who know the region from actual experience are invited as guest lecturers (which explains why the tuition is high). The program also has a “study abroad” component as early as the first year; students’ trips to the region are partly subsidized by the program. A Southeast Asian language (other than Thai) is also required.

The graduates, moreover, demonstrate strong employability: 91.4% secure employment and the rest pursue further studies.¹¹ The program has managed to use the diversity of career opportunities in government service, the private sector, international organizations, research institutes, and media to its advantage. While the case of Thammasat might be exceptional, we can confidently say that on the ground Southeast Asian studies in the region do not appear to be nearing a state of demise.

[11] Thammasat University Survey on Employability of Thammasat University Bachelor’s Degree Graduates, 2025.

References

Abdullah, Taufik and Yekti Maunati (eds.). 1994. Towards Promoting Southeast Asian Studies in Southeast Asia. Jakarta: Program of Southeast Asian Studies, Indonesian Institute of Science.

ASEAN. 2020. “The Narrative of ASEAN Identity,” 37th ASEAN Summit, 12 November <https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/The-Narrative-of-ASEAN-Identity_Adopted-37th-ASEAN-Summit_12Nov2020.pdf> Accessed 8 January 2021.

Ba Ria Vung Tau University. N.d. Đông Phương Học (MOS), Graduate School <https://sdh.bvu.edu.vn/dong-phuong-hoc-mos/>. Accessed 27 March 2021.

Baviera, Aileen, Milagros Espinas, and Armando Malay Jr. (eds.). 2003. Southeast Asian Studies in Asia: An Assessment. Quezon City: UP Center for Integrative and Development Studies.

Centro Escolar University. 2014. Master of Arts Southeast Asian Studies: Curriculum <https://www.ceu.edu.ph/academics/academic-programs/161>. Accessed 13 May 2024.

Chua, Beng Huat, Ken Dean, Ho Engseng, Ho Kong Chong, Jonathan Rigg and Brenda Yeoh. 2019. “Area Studies and the Crisis of Legitimacy: A View from South East Asia,” South East Asia Research 27, 1: 31–48.

Chulalongkorn University. 2003. “Understand Southeast Asia from a Southeast Asian Standpoint,” MA Southeast Asian Studies <https://seachula.com>. Accessed 27 November 2022.

Sandhu, Kernial Singh. 1981. “Southeast Asian Studies: Some Unresolved Problems,” in Tunku Shamsul Bahrin, Chandran Jeshurun, and A. Terry Rambo (eds.), A Colloquium on Southeast Asian Studies, 15–27. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Thammasat University. 2025. Survey on Employability of Thammasat University Bachelor’s Degree Graduates.

_______. 2021–2024. Admissions Data for the BA in Southeast Asian Studies, Faculty of Liberal Arts.

Universitas Gadja Mada. N.d. ASEAN Study Center <https://asc.fisipol.ugm.ac.id/our-profile/>. Accessed 30 July 2022.

Universiti Sains Malaysia. N.d. Postgraduate Studies, School of Humanities <https://admission.usm.my/images/SCHOOL_OF_HUMANITIES_USM.pdf>. Accessed 2 May 2020.

About the Author

Dr. Maria Serena (Maris) I. Diokno is Prof. Emerita of History at the University of the Philippines. She co-founded SEASREP along with Profs. Taufik Abdullah, Charnvit Kasetseri, and the late Shaharil Talib.

This project was supported by the Henry Luce Foundation.