Advertisement

Introduction: Knowledge Production, Area Studies and the Mobility Turn

  • Katja Mielke
  • Anna-Katharina Hornidge
Chapter

Abstract

Calls for interdisciplinary and transregional Area Studies research have become ever more pressing. They are necessary to address the fact that the geographically fixed categories in which our world operates are increasingly characterized by degrees of dynamism that no longer justify a division of the world into territorially fixed units. By considering the current debate on Area Studies, as well as comparative insights, recent reinterpretations and innovations in the field, the introduction provides a frame for the subsequent ontological, theoretical, methodological and pedagogical reflections on Area Studies at the Crossroads. Indicative of this rethinking process are various forms of mobility and mobilization processes, borders and boundaries, processes of boundary production, weakening and crossing, as well as a deepened emphasis on reflexivity and considerations of positionality. This process is then conceptualized as part of a larger ethical-pzolitical project that Area Studies should take on in challenging science policy and academic power structures.

Keywords

Knowledge Production African Study Disciplinary Boundary Student Migration Systematic Discipline 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Bibliography

  1. Alpers, E., & Roberts, A. (2002). What Is African Studies? Some Reflections. African Issues, 30(2), 11–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at Large. Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  3. Appadurai, A. (2000). Grassroots Globalization and the Research Imagination. Public Culture, 12(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aung-Thwin, M. (2013). Continuing, Re-Emerging, and Emerging Trends in the Field of Southeast Asian History. Trans-Regional and -National Studies of Southeast Asia, 1(1), 87–104.Google Scholar
  5. Baberowski, J. (1998). Das Ende der Osteuropäischen Geschichte. Bemerkungen zur Lage einer geschichtswissenschaftlichen Disziplin. Osteuropa, 48(8–9), 784–799.Google Scholar
  6. Bachmann-Medick, D. (2007). Cultural Turns. Neuorientierungen in den Kulturwissenschaften. Reinbek: Rowohlt.Google Scholar
  7. Basedau, M., & Köllner, P. (2007). Area Studies, Comparative Area Studies, and the Study of Politics. Context, Substance, and Methodological Challenges. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft, 1(1), 105–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bates, R. (1996). Letter from the President. Area Studies and the Discipline. APSA-CP: Newsletter of the APSA Organized Section in Comparative Politics, 7(1), 1–2.Google Scholar
  9. Bilgin, P., & Morton, A. (2002). Historicising Representations of “Failed States.” Beyond the Cold-War Annexation of the Social Sciences? Third World Quarterly, 23(1), 55–80.Google Scholar
  10. Boatca, M. (2012). Catching up with the (New) West. The German “Excellence Initiative,” Area Studies, and the Re-Production of Inequality. Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge, 10(1), 17–30.Google Scholar
  11. Braig, M., & Hentschke, F. (2005). Die Zukunft der Area Studies in Deutschland. Tagungsbericht 14.-16.7.2005, Max-Liebermann-Haus, Berlin. Afrika Spectrum, 40(3), 547–558.Google Scholar
  12. Bunnell, T. (2013). City Networks as Alternative Geographies of Southeast Asia. Trans-Regional and -National Studies of Southeast Asia, 1(1), 27–43.Google Scholar
  13. Burgess, C. (2004). The Asian Studies “Crisis.” Putting Cultural Studies into Asian Studies and Asia into Cultural Studies. International Journal of Asian Studies, 1(1), 121–136.Google Scholar
  14. Chou, C., & Houben, V. (2006). Introduction. In C. Chou & V. Houben (Eds.), Southeast Asian Studies. Debates and New Directions (pp. 1–22). Leiden: International Institute for Asian Studies. Google Scholar
  15. Chou, C. (2006). Reconceptualizing Southeast Asian Studies. In C. Chou & V. Houben (Eds.), Southeast Asian Studies. Debates and New Directions (pp. 123–139). Leiden: International Institute for Asian Studies.Google Scholar
  16. Ellings, R., Hathaway, R., Clarke, C., Yang, A., Bobrow, D., Acharya, A., et al. (2010). Roundtable. Are We Adequately Training the Next Generation of Asia Experts? Asia Policy, 9, 1–43.Google Scholar
  17. Emmerson, D. (1984). “Southeast Asia”: What’s in a Name? Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 15(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  18. Engel, U. (2003). Gedanken zur Afrikanistik. Zustand und Zukunft einer Regionalwissenschaft in Deutschland. Afrika Spectrum, 38(1), 111–123.Google Scholar
  19. England, K. (1994). Getting Personal. Reflexivity, Positionality, and Feminist Research. The Professional Geographer, 46(1), 80–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Evers, H.-D. (2000). Die Globalisierung der epistemischen Kultur. Entwicklungstheorie und Wissensgesellschaft. In U. Menzel (Ed.), Vom ewigen Frieden und vom Wohlstand der Nationen (pp. 396–417). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  21. Feuer, H., & Hornidge, A.-K. (2015). Higher Education Cooperation in ASEAN: Building towards Integration or Manufacturing Consent? Comparative Education, 51(3), 327–352.Google Scholar
  22. Freitag, U., & von Oppen, A. (2010). “Translocality.” An Approach to Connection and Transfer in Regional Studies [Introduction]. In U. Freitag & A. von Oppen (Eds.), Translocality. The Study of Globalising Processes from a Southern Perspective (pp. 1–24). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  23. Glick Schiller, N., Basch, L., & Szanton Blanc, C. (1995). From Immigrant to Transmigrant: Theorizing Transnational Migration. Anthropological Quarterly, 68(1), 48–63.Google Scholar
  24. Godehardt, N., & Lembcke, O. (2010). Regionale Ordnungen in politischen Räumen. Ein Beitrag zur Theorie regionaler Ordnungen. GIGA Working Paper Series 124, Hamburg.Google Scholar
  25. Graham, L., & Kantor, J.-M. (2007). “Soft” Area Studies versus “Hard” Social Science: A False Opposition. Slavic Review, 66(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
  26. Grotz, F., Langenohl, A., Lentz, S., Middell, M., Obertreis, J., von Steinsdorff, S., et al. (2013). Streit der Fakultäten: Area Studies und Fachdisziplinen in der Globalisierung. Osteuropa, 63(2–3), 81–102.Google Scholar
  27. Guyer, J. (2004). Anthropology in Area Studies. Annual Review of Anthropology, 33, 499–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hanson, S. (2009). The Contribution of Area Studies. In T. Landman & N. Robinson (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Comparative Politics (pp. 159–174). London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hentschke, F. (2009). Area Studies Revisited [Conference Report]. Available at:. http://www.hsozkult.de/conferencereport/id/tagungsberichte-2625 [Accessed 26 May 2016].
  30. Hornidge, A.-K., & Mielke, K. (2015). Crossroads Studies: From Spatial Containers to Studying the Mobile. Middle East—Topics and Arguments, 4, 27–33.Google Scholar
  31. Hornidge, A.-K., Oberkircher, L., & Kudryavtseva, A. (2013). Boundary Management and the Discursive Sphere—Negotiating “Realities” in Khorezm, Uzbekistan. Geoforum, 45, 266–274.Google Scholar
  32. Houben, V., & Rehbein, B. (2010). Regional- und Sozialwissenschaften nach dem Aufstieg des globalen Südens. ASIEN, 116, 149–156.Google Scholar
  33. Jackson, P. (2003). Mapping Poststructuralism’s Borders. The Case for Poststructuralist Area Studies. Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, 18(1), 42–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jessop, B., Brenner, N., & Jones, M. (2008). Theorizing Sociospatial Relations. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 26, 389–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. King, V. (2005). Defining Southeast Asia and the Crisis in Area Studies. Personal Reflections on a Region. Working Papers in Contemporary Asian Studies 13, Lund.Google Scholar
  36. King, V. (2006). Southeast Asia. Personal Reflections on a Region. In C. Chou & V. Houben (Eds.), Southeast Asian Studies. Debates and New Directions (pp. 23–44). Leiden: International Institute for Asian Studies.Google Scholar
  37. Kleinen, J. (2013). New Trends in the Anthropology of Southeast Asia. Trans -Regional and -National Studies of Southeast Asia, 1(1), 121–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic Cultures—How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Krauth, W.-H., & Wolz, R. (1998). Wissenschaft und Wiedervereinigung: Asien- und Afrikawissenschaften im Umbruch. Berlin: Akademie.Google Scholar
  40. Lackner, M., & Werner, M. (1999). Der cultural turn in den Humanwissenschaften. Area Studies im Auf- oder Abwind des Kulturalismus? Bad Homburg: Programmbeirat der Werner Reimers Konferenzen.Google Scholar
  41. Lentz, S., & Schmid, S. (2005). Blauer Riese. Das OSTEUROPA-Raumbild 1951–1955. Osteuropa, 55(12), 133–138.Google Scholar
  42. Lewis, M., & Wigen, K. (1997). The Myth of Continents. A Critique of Metageography. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  43. Leitner, H., Sheppard, E., & Sziarto, K. (2008). The Spatialities of Contentious Politics. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 33(2), 157–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Marcus, G. (1998). Ethnography through Thick and Thin. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Massey, D. (2005). For Space. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  46. McClennen, S. (2007). Area Studies beyond Ontology: Notes on Latin American Studies, American Studies, and Inter-American Studies. A Contracorriente: A Journal on Social History and Literature in Latin America 5(1), 173–184.Google Scholar
  47. Melber, H. (2005). African Studies: Why, What for and by Whome? [Editorial]. Afrika Spectrum, 40(3), 369–376.Google Scholar
  48. Merton, R. (1949). Social Theory and Social Structure. Toward the Codification of Theory and Research. Glencoe: Free Press.Google Scholar
  49. Middell, M., & Naumann, K. (2010). Global History and the Spatial Turn: From the Impact of Area Studies to the Study of Critical Junctures of Globalization. Journal of Global History, 5, 149–170.Google Scholar
  50. Mielke, K., & Hornidge, A.-K. (2014). Crossroads Studies: From Spatial Containers to Interactions in Differentiated Spatialities. Crossroads Asia Working Paper Series 15, Bonn.Google Scholar
  51. Mintz, S. (1998). The Localization of Anthropological Practice. From Area Studies to Transnationalism. Critique of Anthropology, 18(2), 117–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mommsen, M. (2013). Paradigmenwechsel. 60 Jahre politikwissenschaftliche Osteuropaforschung. Osteuropa, 63(2–3), 119–136.Google Scholar
  53. Nuscheler, F. (2000). Vom (großen) Nutzen und (kleinen) Elend der Komparatistik in der Entwicklungstheorie. In U. Menzel (Ed.), Vom ewigen Frieden und vom Wohlstand der Nationen (pp. 467–492). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  54. Powell, R., Klinke, I., Jazeel, T., Daley, P., Kamata, N., Heffernan, M., et al. (In Press). Geography, Area Studies, and the Imperative of Singularity. Political Geography.Google Scholar
  55. Prewitt, K. (1996). Presidential Items. Items, 50(2/3), 31–40.Google Scholar
  56. Prewitt, K. (2003). Area Studies Responding to Globalization. Redefining International Scholarship. Berliner Osteuropa Info, 18, 8–11.Google Scholar
  57. Probst, P. (2005). Between and Betwixt. African Studies in Germany. Afrika Spectrum, 30(3), 403–427.Google Scholar
  58. Puhle, H.-J. (2005). Area Studies im Wandel. Zur Organisation von Regionalforschung in Deutschland [pdf]. Available at: http://crossroads-asia.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Literatur/Area_Studies/Puhle2005_Area_Studies_im_Wandel.pdf [Accessed 15 May 2015].
  59. Rigg, J. (2013). From Rural to Urban. A Geography of Boundary Crossing in Southeast Asia. TRaNS: Trans-Regional and -National Studies of Southeast Asia, 1(1), 5–26.Google Scholar
  60. Robertson, J. (2002). Reflexivity Redux: A Pithy Polemic on “Positionality.” Anthropological Quarterly, 75(4), 755–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rose, G. (1997). Situating Knowledges. Positionality, Reflexivities and Other Tactics. Progress in Human Geography, 21(3), 305–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schlögel, K. (2005). Die Wiederkehr des Raums—auch in der Osteuropakunde. Osteuropa, 55(3), 5–16.Google Scholar
  63. Schramm, K. (2008). Leaving Area Studies Behind. The Challenge of Diasporic Connections in the Field of African Studies. African and Black Diaspora: An International Journal, 1(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
  64. Segbers, K. (2000). Vom (großen) Nutzen und (kleinen) Elend der Komparatistik in der Transformationsforschung. In U. Menzel (Ed.), Vom ewigen Frieden und vom Wohlstand der Nationen (pp. 493–517). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  65. Soja, E. (1989). Postmodern Geographies. The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  66. Spivak, G. (1993). Outside in the Teaching Machine. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  67. Sutherland, H. (2005). Contingent Devices. In P. Kratoska, R. Raben, & H. Schulte Nordholt (Eds.), Locating Southeast Asia: Geographies of Knowledge and Politics of Space (pp. 20–59). Singapore: Singapore University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Tornow, S. (2005). Was ist Osteuropa? Handbuch der osteuropäischen Text- und Sozialgeschichte von der Spätantike bis zum Nationalstaat. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
  69. Troebst, S. (2013). Sonderweg zur Geschichtsregion. Die Teildisziplin Osteuropäische Geschichte. Osteuropa, 63(2–3), 55–80.Google Scholar
  70. Urry, J. (2007). Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  71. van Schendel, W. (2002). Geographies of Knowing, Geographies of Ignorance: Jumping Scale in Southeast Asia. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 20(6), 647–668.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katja Mielke
    • 1
  • Anna-Katharina Hornidge
    • 1
  1. 1.Bonn International Center for Conversion (BICC)BonnGermany

Personalised recommendations