“Insider Outsider:” Challenges in Researching Southeast Asia

I share my humble autobiographical experiences as a native Southeast Asian scholar researching on and in the region for over two decades. I do not claim to be an expert on the region and would perhaps qualify more as an “accidental” scholar of Southeast Asian studies. I identify myself more by my topic of research (migration) and discipline (geography) rather than the geographical region of my research. I can be considered as an “insider outsider” researcher in the region.

I am an “insider researcher” because I was born and raised in Singapore as the third generation in my ethnic Singapore-born Chinese family. I received a Singapore-focused education that briefly introduced me to selected Southeast Asian neighbors, particularly Malaysia. I did not think much about this ‘gap’ in my education then nor considered it essential knowledge. Naively, the younger me generalized that my close schoolmates from Thailand and Indonesia as well as relatives in Malaysia were all pretty similar to myself. I first realized the importance of an in-depth regional outlook and understanding of one’s neighboring countries while taking my undergraduate degree in Geography in New Zealand, where the faculty had deep and detailed knowledge of the Pacific Islands.

Continuing my honors study in Geography at the National University of Singapore (NUS), I fortuitously stumbled upon transnational migration as a dissertation topic. As a student with limited economic resources but several social and familial links to Malaysians and Malaysia, the topical choice of transnational familial links of Chinese-Malaysians residing in Singapore proved to be a shrewd and prudent decision (see Lam, Yeoh and Law, 2002; Lam and Yeoh, 2004). I was an insider researcher in this study even though I was frequently reminded that my knowledge of Malaysia was quite superficial (which I rationalized was adequate for an honors dissertation).

When the opportunity to take my MA arose, I thought it safer to retain my focus on familiar insider ground, this time concerning Singaporean transmigrants venturing out into the region and the education of their children overseas (Lam and Yeoh, 2011). Although my research brought me to different Singapore-linked schools in the region, I eventually chose Bangkok over Jakarta for fear that conducting research in Jakarta would be too difficult for an outsider like me. I must add that the MA module on “Places, Peoples and Cultures of Southeast Asia” (and its long list of relevant literature) offered then helped augment my insider knowledge.

After a very brief stint as a broadcast journalist I returned to academia, working as a research assistant at the Asia Research Institute, NUS. Coincidentally, a major grant from Wellcome Trust came through right at this time, allowing me to work with researchers from the United Kingdom and in-country partners from Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Vietnam in a mixed-method comparative study on Child Health and Migrant Parents in Southeast Asia. Managing the research in four different countries allowed me to travel to each site and learn from the local team of researchers.

While I am a native Southeast Asian, I was still very much an outsider in all four study sites. My choice of field sites for my PhD was mainly influenced by the availability of language courses at NUS. Except for Tagalog, Bahasa Indonesia, Thai and Vietnamese were all popular language classes. I was not, however, confident in mastering Vietnamese and Thai scripts quickly, and thus decided to enroll in Bahasa Indonesia. I hoped to get by with English in the Philippines. One semester of language training is definitely insufficient to transform me into an insider and I wisely worked with translators in conducting field interviews. The resulting research partnerships allowed the team and myself to continue the study longitudinally and opened up avenues for further collaboration (see Lam and Yeoh, 2018; 2019a; 2019b).

Did the numerous studies permit me to call myself an expert on the region? Certainly not, and neither did I see myself as a specialist on individual Southeast Asian countries. My knowledge and research were limited to specific field sites and my stays in these sites were not lengthy or immersive. I might even be criticized as a “helicopter researcher” (Adame, 2021). However, this I can say. An initial insider familiarity with specific populations and countries in Southeast Asia jumpstarted my interdisciplinary training in migration research. With further academic training and fieldwork in collaboration with in-country and in-village researchers—facilitated by well-timed funding resources—I was able to expand my research in the region even as an outsider who was often mistaken as an insider. Though misunderstandings and missteps often occurred due to my outsider status and cultural differences, the support of local collaborators, field guides and translators was essential in ensuring the success of our efforts. Due to the pandemic, I had to pivot my research to Southeast Asians in Singapore but am happy to say that I have broadened my research sample to include Burmese domestic workers and Southeast Asians such as Vietnamese who married Singaporeans (Yeoh et al., 2021).

As for the challenges of doing research in the region, I have a fairly long list. Dealing with different languages, cultures, social and political practices is not easy. Unfamiliarity with ever changing and lengthy bureaucratic prerequisites and the lack of relevant social networks can restrict access to local field sites. These challenges, however, are not insurmountable. Dependable in-country researchers and assistants help immensely but one must find suitable collaborators (fluent in English and familiar with qualitative research) even when recruiting remotely. Time is of the essence in preparing for fieldwork in Southeast Asia with paperwork needing to be submitted way in advance. In-country institutions are also becoming warier of working with ‘foreign’ researchers for fear of exploitation, inequality, and lack of access to research data, and government funding opportunities tend to be devoted to homegrown scholars. Fortunately, the conditions of our grant allowed close collaboration throughout the research process, which meant sharing the data and providing due recognition and compensation.

Regular and honest communication with collaborators is crucial to building good working relationships and ensuring academic rigor in a multi-country/sited project. Nonetheless, expectations are sometimes mismatched and weak local telecommunication systems pose a hindrance. Communicating in a frank yet sensitive and inoffensive manner is a skill, particularly by text and email. Fortunately, having cultural sensitivity as a fellow Southeast Asian helped. Growing up in multi-cultural Singapore sensitized me to different cultures and food, and I needed less adjustments in these aspects when out in the field. (That said, I must confess that cold bathing water and cockroaches are my special pitfalls in the field.) It is also important to be consistent, to set or clarify one’s expectations from the start, and solve any misunderstandings immediately.

Another challenge comes from interviewing respondents who are culturally not inclined to share negative views or reply in the negative. The difficulty in obtaining meaningful replies was further hindered by my incompetency in their native language. At times, we identified the gaps only months after the fieldwork, when the transcriptions/translations were completed. While the situation can be improved with reliable live translation software, it is also important to have thorough training and debriefing sessions with the local field assistant during fieldwork to identify any potential issues. Different strategies and ways of questioning (such as role play) must be developed to elicit detailed responses, and this is sometimes only learnt through experience and reflection.

Differing standards of ethics and individual cultural preferences across study sites are another research challenge. Privacy during an interview is not always possible where there is only one room in the house or where the safety of both the respondent and researcher is of primal importance. Informed consent is also alien to some of the respondents who are anxious to dive into the research proper. The onus lies on the researcher to remain ethically responsible toward the respondent whilst upholding research integrity.

There are then the uncontrollables like diseases, natural disasters and the weather. Volcanic eruptions and earthquakes, typhoons and floods, and SARs and COVID-19 were some of the disruptions I encountered in my fieldwork over the years. In some instances, I had to delay the fieldwork or pivot the study to accommodate these “acts of God.” The safety of researchers and respondents is also of paramount importance. We must thus be always open to adjusting our study design in light of changing circumstances.

Finally, there is the dilemma of labeling our work. We tend to rather liberally name our studies as Southeast Asian when we actually present research only on a few provinces/districts within one or two countries. It is much quicker and neater, for example, to title my work as “Left-behind Children from Southeast Asia” or “Left-behind Children from Island Southeast Asia,” rather than “Left-behind Children in East Java, Indonesia, and Laguna, the Philippines.” Would the broader titles help define my research? While it is not my intention to generalize, I also want to avoid creating the impression that a country can represent the region.

Despite all these challenges, I am hopeful about the future of Southeast Asian studies. 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.

Having experienced the ups and downs of an insider outsider researcher studying Southeast Asia, I am convinced that research in this region remains exciting and full of interesting possibilities. Native and non-native Southeast Asians and locals and non-locals have more avenues for collaboration and comparative studies than ever before. Working with in-country researchers is an enriching research experience. The collaboration not only deepened my local understanding but also made field research meaningful, exciting, heart-warming and fruitful. In the course of developing research partnerships I made lasting friendships. What more could I ask?