Area studies (also regional studies) are interdisciplinary fields of research and scholarship pertaining to particular geographical, national/federal, or cultural regions. The term exists primarily as a general description for what are, in the practice of scholarship, many heterogeneous fields of research, encompassing both the social sciences and the humanities. Typical area study programs involve international relations, strategic studies, history, political science, political economy, cultural studies, languages, geography, literature, and other related disciplines. In contrast to cultural studies, area studies often include diaspora and emigration from the area.
Interdisciplinary area studies became increasingly common in the United States of America and in Western scholarship after World War II. Before that war American universities had just a few faculty who taught or conducted research on the non-Western world. Foreign-area studies were virtually nonexistent. After the war, liberals and conservatives alike were concerned about the US ability to respond effectively to perceived external threats from the Soviet Union and China in the context of the emerging Cold War, as well as to the fall-out from the decolonization of Africa and Asia.
In this context, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Carnegie Corporation of New York convened a series of meetings producing a broad consensus that to address this knowledge deficit, the US must invest in international studies. Therefore, the foundations of the field are strongly rooted in America. Participants argued that a large brain trust of internationally oriented political scientists and economists was an urgent national priority. There was a central tension, however, between those who felt strongly that, instead of applying Western models, social scientists should develop culturally and historically contextualized knowledge of various parts of the world by working closely with humanists, and those who thought social scientists should seek to develop overarching macrohistorial theories that could draw connections between patterns of change and development across different geographies. The former became area-studies advocates, the latter proponents of modernization theory.
The Ford Foundation would eventually become the dominant player in shaping the area-studies program in the United States. In 1950 the foundation established the prestigious Foreign Area Fellowship Program (FAFP), the first large-scale national competition in support of area-studies training in the United States. From 1953 to 1966 it contributed $270 million to 34 universities for area and language studies. Also during this period, it poured millions of dollars into the committees run jointly by the Social Science Research Council and the American Council of Learned Societies for field-development workshops, conferences, and publication programs. Eventually, the SSRC-ACLS joint committees would take over the administration of FAFP.
Other large and important programs followed Ford's. Most notably, the National Defense Education Act of 1957, renamed the Higher Education Act in 1965, allocated funding for some 125 university-based area-studies units known as National Resource Center programs at U.S. universities, as well as for Foreign Language and Area Studies fellowships for graduate students.
Meanwhile, area studies were also developed in the Soviet Union.
Controversy within the field
Since their inception, area studies have been subject to criticism—including by area specialists themselves. Many of them alleged that because area studies were connected to the Cold War agendas of the CIA, the FBI, and other intelligence and military agencies, participating in such programs was tantamount to serving as an agent of the state. Some argue that there is the notion that US concerns and research priorities will define the intellectual terrain of area studies. Others insisted, however, that once they were established on university campuses, area studies began to encompass a much broader and deeper intellectual agenda than the one foreseen by government agencies, thus not American centric.
Arguably, one of the greatest threats to the area studies project was the rise of rational choice theory in political science and economics. To mock one of the most outspoken rational choice theory critics, Japan scholar Chalmers Johnson asked: Why do you need to know Japanese or anything about Japan's history and culture if the methods of rational choice will explain why Japanese politicians and bureaucrats do the things they do?
Following the demise of the Soviet Union, philanthropic foundations and scientific bureaucracies moved to attenuate their support for area studies, emphasizing instead interregional themes like "development and democracy". When the Social Science Research Council and the American Council of Learned Societies, which had long served as the national nexus for raising and administering funds for area studies, underwent their first major restructuring in thirty years, closing down their area committees, scholars interpreted this as a massive signal about the changing research environment.
Fields are defined differently from university to university, and from department to department, but common area-studies fields include:
- African studies
- North and Latin American studies (Interamerican Studies)
- American studies (in the United States this has traditionally referred primarily to North America and especially the U.S.)
- Canadian studies
- Québec studies (see also Latin American studies)
- Caribbean studies (see also Latin American studies)
- Latin American studies (see also Iberian studies, Romance studies, Caribbean studies and Québec studies)
- Asian studies
- Central Asian studies (see also Turkology)
- Middle Eastern studies (Near Eastern studies)
- Assyriology (also under Classical studies)
- Caucasology (Caucasiology, also under European Studies)
- Iranian studies (Iranology or Iranistics)
- Islamic studies
- Judaic studies (Jewish studies)
- Turkology (Turcology)
- East Asian studies
- Sinology (Chinese studies)
- Japanology (Japanese studies)
- Koreanology (Korean studies)
- Mongolian studies (also under Central Asian studies)
- Tibetology (Tibetan studies, also under Central Asian or South Asian studies)
- Uyghur studies
- Yi studies
- Zhuang studies (Zhuangology)
- Miao studies
- South Asian studies
- Southeast Asian studies
- European studies
- Baltic studies (Baltic Sea Region studies)
- Byzantine studies (Byzantinology or Byzantology)
- Caucasology (Caucasiology, also under Near Eastern studies)
- Celtic studies (Celtology)
- Classical studies (Classics)
- Dutch studies (nl:Neerlandistiek)
- Finnish studies
- German studies (Germanistics or Germanics)
- Romance studies (see also Latin American studies)
- Scandinavian studies
- Slavic studies (Slavonic studies or Slavistics)
- United Kingdom studies
- Pacific studies
Due to an increasing interest in studying translocal, transregional, transnational and transcontinental phenomena, a Potsdam-based research network has recently coined the term "TransArea Studies" (POINTS – Potsdam International Network for TransArea Studies).
Other interdisciplinary research fields such as women's studies (also known as gender studies), disability studies, LGBT studies and ethnic studies (including African American studies, Asian American studies, Latino studies, Chicano studies and Native American studies) are not part of area studies but are sometimes included in discussion along with it.
Area studies is sometimes known as regional studies. The Regional Studies Association is an international association focusing on these interdisciplinary fields.
Some entire institutions of higher education (tertiary education) are devoted solely to area studies such as School of Oriental and African Studies, part of the University of London, or the Tokyo University of Foreign Studies in Japan. At the University of Oxford, the School of Interdisciplinary Area Studies (SIAS)School of Interdiscplinary Area Studies, Oxford and St Antony's College specialise in area studies, and hosts a number of post-graduate teaching programmes and research centres covering various regions of the world. Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, is the only institution with immense contribution towards popularising area studies in India. An institution which exclusively deals with Area Studies is the GIGA (German Institute for Global and Area Studies) in Germany. Additionally, Lund University in Sweden offers the largest Asian Studies masters program in Northern Europe and is dedicated to promoting studies related to South Asia through its SASNet.
- Cultural studies
- Ethnic studies
- International studies
- Library of Congress Country Studies
- "Máster Universitario Internacional de Estudios Contemporáneos de América Latina".
- "Guia Informativo - Universidade Aberta".
- Ellen Condliffe Lagemann, The Politics of Knowledge: The Carnegie Corporation, Philanthropy, and Public Policy (University of Chicago Press, 1992), p. 178.
- David L. Szanton, "The Origin, Nature and Challenges of Area Studies in the United States," in The Politics of Knowledge: Area Studies and the Disciplines, ed. David L. Szanton (University of California Press, 2004), pp. 10–11.
Note for example:
Rupprecht, Tobias (2015). "5: Desk revolutionaries: Soviet Latin Americanists and internationalism in the late Soviet Union". Soviet Internationalism after Stalin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 273. ISBN 9781107102880. Retrieved 2017-08-22.
Academics from Moscow State University and IMEMO [founded in 1956] often turned to broader area studies at the ILA [the Institute of Latin America (founded in 1961 as part of the Soviet Academy of Sciences)] and taught at MGIMO [founded in 1944], Moscow State University or Lumumba University [established in 1960]. Others moved from area studies into international journalism. [...] All state and Party organs that dealt with cultural diplomacy drew on the staff of area studies and their network of contacts.
- Cumings, Bruce (1997). "Boundary Displacement: Area Studies and International Studies during and after the Cold War". Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars. 29: 6–26. doi:10.1080/14672715.1997.10409695.
- See Patrick O'Meara, "Changing perspectives on international education", (Indiana University Press 2010), pp. 81.
- Moseley, W.G. 2009. “Area Studies in a Global Context.” Chronicle of Higher Education. Nov 29. http://chronicle.com/article/Area-Studies-in-a-Global-Co/49284/
- See "Rational Choice Theory," by John Scott, in Understanding Contemporary Society: Theories of The Present, edited by G. Browning, A. Halcli, and F. Webster (Sage Publications, 2000). "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2009-02-27. Retrieved 2008-07-30.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link). Retrieved 2009-04-23.
- See Chalmers Johnson and E. B. Keehn, "A Disaster in the Making: Rational Choice and Asian Studies," The National Interest 36 (summer 1994), pp. 14–22.
- "Study Asia in Lund!". lu.se. 27 June 2017. Retrieved 6 April 2018.
- Kuijper, Hans (2008). "Area Studies versus Disciplines: Towards an Interdisciplinary, Systemic Country Approach". The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, Vol. 3, Issue 7, pp. 205–216.
- Miyoshi, Masao; Harootunian, Harry D. (2002). Learning Places: The Afterlives of Area Studies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. ISBN 0822328267.
- Schäfer, Wolf (2010). "Reconfiguring Area Studies for the Global Age." Globality Studies Journal, no. 22. 31 December 2010.
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Area studies.|