Southeast Asia from the Ground Up - Researching the Region

How Do We Study Southeast Asia as a Region?

Through its seven episodes, the series traces the processual journey of Southeast Asian scholars—from meta-thinking about research and deconstructing research puzzles to exploring the nature of data, conducting fieldwork, elite interviews, and engaging in scholarly reflection. Each episode features exchanges between your host, Emir Syailendra, who shares his own experiences and reflections, and the field-based insights of these scholars.

Primary Landing Page

Your host, Emir Syailendra, views research as a journey—a process guided by seven key principles:

Dialogue: Treating research as an iterative process—a two-way exchange, not a one-way street.
Innovation: Striving to address both theoretical and empirical gaps with fresh ideas.
Understanding: Developing a deep grasp of the universe of data, recognising its subjective nature and what it truly reveals.
Immersion: Engaging fully with data, whether through fieldwork, ethnography, or keen observation.
Retrieval: Mastering the techniques of gathering data, including conducting interviews—even with the most elusive elites.
Reflection: Taking time to meaningfully meditate on the data as it accumulates.
Insight: Generating valuable insights through comparison and synthesis.

Building on the success of the first ANU Southeast Asia Institute Limited Series, Southeast Asianists, this second series will guide you through these seven stages, offering a comprehensive approach to studying Southeast Asia.

Southeast Asia from the Ground Up – Researching the Region explores the experiences of eight emerging and established scholars as they design, conduct, and write their research on Southeast Asia. The "ground-up" approach focuses on empirical insights gained from fieldwork, ethnographic research, archival materials, and large-scale surveys conducted with Southeast Asian citizens.

In pursuing theoretically sophisticated and empirically grounded research, how can scholars capture the dynamic interplay between continuity and change in this diverse, fragmented, and ever-evolving region?

The producer, Emir Syailendra, is a PhD Candidate and Research Fellow at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University. While this series primarily targets academic audiences, it also serves as an invaluable resource for anyone seeking to understand Southeast Asia as a region.

Episode 1: Rethinking Research on Southeast Asia as a Dialogue

In this episode, host Emir Syailendra speaks with Dr Edward Aspinall on how to approach research in Southeast Asia. Ed sees research as an ongoing dialogue—one that connects his past experiences, current interests, and aspirations for the future of the field.

Curious about how to approach research in Southeast Asia? Tune in to this episode to learn more.

Ed's fieldwork has spanned diverse topics, from observing elections in Aceh to studying patronage and money politics, which has allowed him to explore multiple facets of research on Indonesia and Southeast Asia. Through these experiences, Ed focuses on localised analyses, emphasising bottom-up, grassroots perspectives that highlight the agency of individuals and communities and bring their experiences to the forefront. Central to his approach is a commitment to understanding the people involved—what they do and why they act as they do—an engagement that is both intellectually rewarding and resonant within the broader academic literature.

Ed also believes that in-depth case studies provide essential intellectual leverage, enabling comparative and theoretical insights. He approaches research by identifying puzzles that arise from empirical observations and pressing questions. For him, making meaningful contributions to the field requires ongoing dialogue—within oneself, with research participants, with other scholars, and through engagement with broader academic debates. Ed underscores the importance of harnessing these dialogues to refine research design and deepen scholarly inquiry.

About Dr Edward Aspinall

Dr Edward Aspinall’s work focuses primarily on Indonesian politics, democratisation, and social movements in Southeast Asia. He has made significant contributions to the understanding of clientelism and elections through books such as Democracy for Sale (Cornell University Press, 2019) and Mobilizing for Elections (Cambridge University Press, 2022, co-authored with Meredith L. Weiss, Allen Hicken, and Paul D. Hutchcroft). He is a Professor and Head of the Department of Political and Social Change at the Coral Bell School of Asia Pacific Affairs, Australian National University.

Episode 2: Designing Innovative Research Puzzle

Emir believes that a strong research question not only addresses empirical and theoretical gaps but also opens up possibilities for tackling real-world issues by incorporating often-overlooked perspectives and voices. In this episode, Emir interviews Dr. Maria Tanyag to learn from one of the most innovative fields in International Relations: feminist approaches. Their discussion sheds light on how to deconstruct and reconstruct research puzzles by drawing on feminist methodologies.

How do we conceptualize innovative research grounded in lived experience? Tune in to this episode to find out.

A Good Research Start Begins with a Good Research Question.

From the outset, Maria suggests that "decentering your lens by incorporating key players who are often marginalized can open the door to innovative research design, enabling global-level analysis through unit-level experiences."

For instance, when we pay attention to factors like gender, race, and sexuality, we, as students of Southeast Asian studies, can rethink and retell the dominant narratives of statehood and a state’s own identity. Maria highlights three guiding principles:

Rethink and Retell: Including marginalized factors, such as gender and identity, allows researchers to ask critical questions about narrative formation and statehood.
Recover: Challenging dominant narratives helps uncover key voices that have yet to be represented in the literature.
Redress: Engaging marginalized voices enables researchers to explore alternative readings and data sources beyond dominant perspectives.

These approaches help researchers understand Southeast Asia in new ways.

About Dr. Maria Tanyag

Maria Tanyag is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of International Relations of the Australian National University and an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DECRA) Fellow. She is author of the book The Global Politics of Sexual and Reproductive Health (Oxford University Press, 2024).

Further readings:

Alexander L. George and Andrew Bennett, Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2005). Chapter 1 (Introduction), Chapters 3 to 6 (How to Do Case Studies) and Chapter 10 (Process Tracing and Historical Explanation).

Elisabeth Armstrong, Bury the Corpse of Colonialism: The Revolutionary Feminist Conference of 1949 (University of California Press, 2023).

Neferti Tadiar, Remaindered Life (Duke University Press, 2022).

Kelly Gerard and Joshua McDonnell, “Valuing women’s empowerment: tracking funding in Southeast Asia,” in Review of International Political Economy 31(3): 1022-1047.

Episode 3: The Universe of Data: How Data Generation in the Field Shapes Better Analysis

Data is at the heart of every research project. However, your host, Emir Syailendra, is often struck by how frequently its nuances are misunderstood. To delve deeper into these complexities, Emir speaks with Dr Sana Jaffrey, a researcher with extensive experience working across both quantitative and qualitative methodologies.

How can we truly understand the "universe of data" and use it to enhance scholarly analysis? Tune in to this episode to uncover more.

Numbers are commonly perceived as exact representations of data, but in reality, a multitude of factors—often shaped by researchers' biases—underpins their creation. While numbers offer precision and measurability, they cannot always capture the qualitative aspects or broader contexts of complex phenomena. They provide clarity but often lack the nuance and interpretation needed for a full understanding.

Sana underscores the importance of using quantitative data with deliberation about how they are generated. She points out that the belief in the objectivity of quantitative data is misleading. “The process of deciding what to collect is subjective,” she explains. “Choosing which sources to use, determining which indicators to include, and even coding the data—all of these steps are shaped by the researchers’ judgment.” She illustrates this point with the example of death statistics, which, despite appearing definitive, rely heavily on subjective decisions about which reports to trust. Researchers can make informed judgments about the reliability of sources. This is why it is important for researchers to be transparent about explaining the subjective choices they make in both collecting and interpreting the data.

For Sana, the process of data generation is just as critical as the results. Fieldwork, in particular, plays an indispensable role in helping researchers refine their understanding of variables. It allows them to frame meaningful questions, adapt their methodologies, and develop survey instruments that are both effective and realistic. Fieldwork also provides opportunities to revise approaches and refine tools based on on-the-ground realities, ultimately enriching the data and analysis.

This episode explores real-world examples of crafting coding instruments in Indonesia, the challenges involved, and the insights Sana has gained through her work.

About Dr Sana Jaffrey

Dr. Sana Jaffrey is a Research Fellow and Lecturer in the Department of Political and Social Change, College of Asia and the Pacific, at the Australian National University. A seasoned researcher specialising in Indonesian politics, she brings over 15 years of experience in both quantitative and qualitative research. During her tenure at the World Bank, she led the National Violence Monitoring System (NVMS) project, which remains the most comprehensive violence dataset for any single country. Sana continues to advance the field by refining survey instruments and bridging the gap between quantitative data and qualitative insights.

Episode 4: Navigating Southeast Asia: Fieldwork to Scholarly Insight

Emir believes that fieldwork, when conducted effectively, is fundamental to enhancing the precision of analysis during the writing stage. It provides key insights that are often unavailable through secondary literature alone. These insights enable scholars to craft meaningful and impactful scholarly interventions. In this episode, host Emir Syailendra speaks with Dr Eve Warburton on preparing for fieldwork and marshalling fieldwork insights to fine-tune research design and scholarly contributions.

Curious about how to conduct fieldwork in Southeast Asia and marshal scholarly insights? Tune in to the episode to learn from Emir’s and Eve’s experiences.

Eve shares how her fieldwork experiences in Indonesia have profoundly shaped and refined her research. In her first book on resource nationalism in Indonesia (Cornell University Press, 2023), she began with a single research puzzle but, through fieldwork, developed it into two distinct puzzles—illustrating the transformative impact of reflexive fieldwork. This iterative process allowed her to engage more deeply with the literature and craft targeted interventions.

Eve approaches her fieldwork critically, weighing diverse perspectives and actively seeking access to key information and individuals to sharpen her analysis. For her, effective fieldwork hinges on creating conversations where interviewees feel they also benefit, making preparation and patience essential.

Keenly aware of her positionality as a female academic in hierarchical and patriarchal contexts, Eve draws on all available tools to navigate these dynamics. In this episode, we explore her insights on fieldwork preparation, the challenges and opportunities posed by her identity, and how she draws on her field experiences to contribute to cutting-edge research.

About Dr Eve Warburton

Dr Eve Warburton is a Research Fellow in the Department of Political and Social Change at the Coral Bell School of Asia Pacific Affairs and Director of ANU's Indonesia Institute in the College of Asia and the Pacific. Her research addresses issues of representation and governance in young and developing democracies, focusing on Southeast Asia, particularly Indonesia. She has published in leading disciplinary and area studies journals on topics including democratic representation, state-business relations, and the political economy of policymaking in Indonesia.

Episode 5: In the Field – Conducting Research and Elite Interviews in Southeast Asia

Fieldwork is more than asking questions—it’s about immersing yourself in the environment and letting observation guide you. Enormous amounts of data can be gleaned simply by keenly observing actors in their context. This belief is shared by your hosts, Emir Syailendra and his guest, Dr Marcus Mietzner.

How do you master the art of research and elite interviews in Southeast Asia? Tune in to this episode for tips, techniques, and fascinating stories from the field.

Both Emir and Marcus are seasoned field researchers with extensive fieldwork experience. Marcus, in particular, has developed a unique expertise in conducting elite interviews. His impressive portfolio includes interactions with Indonesia's highest-ranking officials, such as President Joko Widodo (2014–2024) and President Abdurrahman Wahid (1999–2001). For Marcus, fieldwork hinges on being in the right place at the right time to meet the right people. He suggested that scholars aspiring to gain insights should consider three key aspects.

Be Prepared. Master the fundamentals before your interviews. Preparation demonstrates credibility and respect.
First Impressions Matter. The beginning of an interview sets the tone. Your interviewee will gauge how much to share based on your initial approach. Establish your "street credibility" early on.
Beware of Biases. Elite subjects often present themselves in the best possible light, while your goal is to uncover the “real stories.” Approach with critical curiosity.

Marcus emphasizes that preparation is crucial because memory is often unreliable. People’s recollections are filtered through the events of the day, shaped more by present circumstances than past realities. As a result, information must be scrutinized carefully—never taken at face value.

Emir adds that situatedness matters. As a Sumatran conducting interviews in Java, he is often perceived as an outsider. His regional identity and gender frequently influence the dynamics of elite interviews, demonstrating how personal identity intersects with fieldwork.

Marcus, drawing from his training in the Frankfurt School tradition, takes a critical approach to interviews. This might include respectfully challenging his subjects or offering critiques during the conversation. Done skillfully, such techniques can deepen engagement and yield richer insights—turning even contentious discussions into productive dialogues. For Marcus, the ultimate ambition is not just to understand local nuances but to uncover universal patterns within power structures.

About Dr Marcus Mietzner

Dr Marcus Mietzner is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political and Social Change at the Australian National University. During fieldwork for his PhD on Indonesia’s military, Marcus also worked with USAID in Jakarta for over seven years. Since completing his doctorate in 2005 and joining ANU as a lecturer in 2008, Marcus has focused his research on political parties and the presidency in democratic Indonesia. Marcus has authored several influential works, including The Coalitions Presidents Make (Cornell University Press, 2023) and Military Politics, Islam, and the State in Indonesia (ISEAS, 2008).

Further readings

Layna Mosley (ed.). Interview Research in Political Science (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2013). Introduction (by Layna Mosley), Chapter 1 (by Julia F. Lynch), Chapter 3 (by Lauren M. MacLean), and Chapter 4 (by Erik Bleich and Robert Pekkanen).

Oisin Tansey. “Process Tracing and Elite Interviewing: A Case for Non-probability Sampling,” PS: Political Science and Politics 40:4 (October 2007): 765-772.

Mietzner, Marcus. The Coalitions presidents make: Presidential power and its limits in democratic Indonesia. Cornell University Press, 2023.

Episode 6: Meditating on the Method of Reflection: Post-Fieldwork Notes

How should scholars approach reflection after fieldwork?

In this episode, host Emir Syailendra discusses with Dr. Nicholas Chan a key topic: how to make sense of the extensive data collected during fieldwork. This episode specifically explores scholarly “meditation”—understood as the act of reflection. Emir identifies four types of reflection:

Interconnectedness: Identifying patterns and connections
Doubting Others: Questioning established ideas or interventions
Doubting Oneself: Challenging one’s own beliefs
Seeking Wisdom: Shaping concepts into guiding principles

Tune in to this episode to find out more.

Emir's four types reflect both the non-linear process of scholarly reflection and the essential features researchers need to make meaningful contributions to the literature. The episode is structured around Emir and Nick’s exploration of these types of reflection.

The discussion primarily focuses on the first two types, with a brief mention of the latter two.

On interconnectedness, Emir suggests that scholars often seek to identify patterns, as posited by Spinoza, especially in two areas: (1) the unity of mind and body, where researchers analyse how the thoughts of subjects—whether policymakers or particular populations—influence behaviour; and (2) the relationship between humans and nature, often examining how external pressures impact actions. Nick highlights that data does not interpret itself; researchers must actively work to uncover meaning, often through writing, rewriting, and navigating various data points. He also emphasises the importance of immersing in subjects’ thoughts and discursive practices. However, Nick cautions that researchers must recognise how prior knowledge and personal biographies influence the process of identifying patterns, addressing the need to account for pre-existing beliefs in scholarly analysis.

On doubting others, Emir suggests that responding to established theories is a productive way to begin reflection. This approach mirrors the Hegelian dialectic: (1) forming a thesis, (2) challenging it with an antithesis, and (3) synthesising elements of both. Nick adds that exploring explanatory and empirical gaps offers another fruitful path. Explanatory gaps reveal discrepancies between field observations and established theories, while empirical gaps clarify unexplained processes leading to specific outcomes. However, both Emir and Nick note that this approach may sometimes limit scholars within a Western-centric academic framework. Nick thinks that our curiosity should be informed by theories, but not constrained by it.

About Dr Nicholas Chan

Dr Nicholas Chan is a Research Fellow in Asian Security at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University. He holds a PhD from the Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge. His research interests lie at the intersection of religion and politics, with a focus on areas such as the politics of status-seeking, religion and social media, and the role of millenarian thinking in international politics.

Further readings:

Nick Cheesman’s ‘Reading paperwork realistically’ talks about the question of interpretation.

Iza Hussin’s book ‘The Politics of Islamic Law’ touches on the theme of interconnectedness. It discusses how to study the making of Anglo-Muslim law in the 19th century as an “inter-regional study” (p. 17).

Episode 7: 'As a Region' - Performing Comparison in Southeast Asia

In this episode, your host, Emir Syailendra, takes a step back to observe from behind the camera. This episode centres on a conversation between two scholars, Dr Evelyn Goh and Dr Paul Hutchcroft. While both study Southeast Asia as a region, their approaches to doing so differ significantly. Evelyn’s journey into Southeast Asian studies began with the ambition of being a regional specialist without necessarily being a country specialist. In contrast, Paul started as a country specialist and later realised the importance of comparison to fully grasp the region’s dynamics. This episode compares their experiences and sheds light on how scholars study Southeast Asia as a region.

Want to learn more about studying Southeast Asia as a region? Tune in to this episode!

In this episode, the discussion focuses on three key questions:

What is the difference between being a country specialist and a regional specialist? How are these two perspectives connected?
What does “comparison” mean for Southeast Asianists engaged in scholarly research?
To be more effective in studying the region, should scholars be “lumpers” or “splitters”?

Question 1: Country Specialists vs Regional Specialists

Paul emphasised that understanding Southeast Asia as a region requires accounting for diversity on a country-by-country basis. He argued that it’s impossible to be a regional specialist without first understanding individual countries. For example, conducting cross-country comparisons significantly enhanced Paul’s understanding of the Philippines. He highlighted how comparison aids in concept formation and refinement, which are crucial for scholarly analysis.

Evelyn, however, presented a contrasting perspective. She began her academic journey by attempting to study Southeast Asia as a region without focusing on specific countries. Her approach involved highlighting the diverse experiences and strategies of Southeast Asian countries to challenge the assumption of Southeast Asia as a coherent, unified region. However, Evelyn later acknowledged that developing expertise in domestic processes is often essential to understand broader regional patterns.

Both scholars agreed that addressing significant research questions often requires breaking them down into a series of cases that account for the diversity of experiences—necessitating attention to regional trends and comparative politics.

Question 2: What Does “Comparison” Mean?

Evelyn highlighted the complexity of performing comparisons in Southeast Asia, pointing out the “endless possibilities” for axes of comparison. She noted that addressing empirical gaps is often more rewarding than resolving theoretical ones, though both present challenges. Two key difficulties include deciding what to compare and determining whether to focus on similarities or differences. Evelyn further elaborated on the importance of recognising researchers’ "situatedness"—the biases and perspectives they bring to their analysis. Comparison, she argued, can help scholars become more aware of how their own viewpoints shape their understanding of the world.

Paul added that scholars often enter research with preconceived expectations about what they will or should observe. Engaging in comparison, however, often reveals that these expectations are not “normal” and can themselves constitute significant findings.

Question 3: Lumpers vs Splitters

Evelyn admitted to a tendency to be a “lumper,” a term inspired by Cold War historian John Lewis Gaddis. Lumpers are scholars who aspire to make mid-level generalisations, while splitters focus on identifying and emphasising variations.

Paul challenged this dichotomy, describing himself as neither exclusively a lumper nor a splitter. He explained that while he remains deeply engaged with studying the Philippines and its complex dynamics, he does not want to confine himself to a single-country focus. Instead, Paul identifies as a scholar of comparative politics who seeks to understand a wide range of issues across countries.

Both Evelyn and Paul shared the sentiment that politics significantly impacts people’s lived experiences. Their reflections underscore the importance of diverse perspectives and methodological approaches when studying Southeast Asia as a region.

About Dr Evelyn Goh and Dr Paul Hutchcroft

Dr Evelyn Goh is the Shedden Professor of Strategic Policy Studies at the Australian National University (ANU) and has served as the Director of the Southeast Asia Institute since August 2022. She is an accomplished scholar who has published extensively on U.S.-China relations, East Asia’s regional security order, Southeast Asian strategies towards great powers, diplomatic history, and environmental security. Her recent publications include Rising China’s Influence in Developing Asia (Oxford University Press, 2016), an edited volume, and Re-thinking Sino-Japanese Alienation: History Problems and Historical Opportunities (co-authored with Barry Buzan, Oxford University Press, 2020).

Dr Paul Hutchcroft is a leading scholar of comparative and Southeast Asian politics, with a particular focus on Philippine politics and political economy. He is a Professor of Political and Social Change at ANU’s Coral Bell School of Asia Pacific Affairs, where he served as the founding director from 2009 to 2013. From late 2013 to late 2017, he was on secondment as Lead Governance Specialist with the Australian Embassy in Manila. Between 2018 and 2021, he served as the chief investigator of an A$2.1 million Australian government grant to ANU, supporting a range of research and advocacy projects on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in Southeast Asia.

Further readings

Foot, Rosemary, and Evelyn Goh. "The international relations of East Asia: A new research prospectus." International Studies Review 21.3 (2019): 398-423.

Goh, Evelyn, and Liu Nan. Chinese investments in Southeast Asia: patterns and significance. ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, 2023.

Goh, Evelyn, ed. Rising China's influence in developing Asia. Oxford University Press, 2016.

Hutchcroft, Paul David. Booty capitalism: The politics of banking in the Philippines. Cornell University Press, 1998.

Barbara Geddes, “How the Cases You Choose Affect the Answers You Get: Selection Bias in Comparative Politics,” Political Analysis 2 (1990): 131-150.

James Mahoney, “Qualitative Methodology and Comparative Politics,” Comparative Political Studies 40:2 (February 2007): 122-144.