Reimagining boundaries: geographical and conceptual shifts

Many Global Asian Studies institutions struggle with how to approach Asia not as a singular, isolated region, but as a complex, interconnected space shaped by historical and contemporary transnational flows. Despite differences in local contexts, these institutions share a vision for a more globally engaged Asian Studies, recognizing that Asia’s influences and implications extend beyond its geographic borders and affect global politics, economics, culture, and environmental issues. As a result, many institutions seek to highlight Asia’s interconnectedness with the world, positioning Asia not as an isolated region but as an active participant in global transformations.

This attempt challenges the traditional academic divisions that have long structured Asian Studies. For instance, Tansen Sen at New York University Shanghai, drawing inspiration from The Myth of Continents: A Critique of Metageography (Lewis and Wigen Reference Lewis and Wigen1997), conceptualizes Asia as an “artificially constructed meta-continent” – a region whose boundaries were not naturally defined but shaped by historical forces. He echoes Arjun Appadurai’s assertion that “histories make geographies,” not the other way around (Appadurai Reference Appadurai2010). Similarly, Liu Hong at Nanyang Technological University Singapore highlights how Asian Studies departments have been compartmentalized, dividing research into separate regional categories such as East Asia, Southeast Asia, and South Asia. This segmentation limits cross-regional dialogue, as scholars working within a specific regional focus rarely engage with those studying other parts of Asia. The division of Asian Studies into rigid geographic categories has, in many ways, reinforced the idea of Asia as a fragmented entity rather than a fluid and interconnected space. Expanding on this idea, Tamara Sears at Rutgers University suggests that Global Asias allows scholars to “find Asia anywhere that Asia is” and “anywhere that Asia interacts.” Rather than being tied to rigid geographic divisions, she argues that Global Asian Studies should explore Asia’s global networks, the Asian diaspora, and the ways Asia has shaped, and been shaped by, the world.

Studies on the movements of opium, tea, cotton, and labor in the last century were frequently cited as powerful and concrete examples during multiple interviews. For instance, Tansen Sen raised questions about the transnational circulation of goods and people: how Indian cotton traveled to Japan and Shanghai; how indentured laborers from China and India were sent to British Guiana, Fiji, and Mauritius, and later to the Caribbean before migrating to Toronto; and how Asian diasporic communities subsequently formed in the Caribbean and the United States. Similarly, Nadine Attewell highlighted the Komagata Maru incident of 1914 as a poignant example. The Komagata Maru – a Japanese ship carrying more than three hundred Punjabi immigrants and a Japanese crew – arrived in Vancouver via Hong Kong and Japan at a time when racially restrictive Canadian immigration laws were in force. Its arrival provoked intense anti-Asian backlash, forcing the passengers to remain on board for two months (Johnston Reference Johnston2006). These questions and incidents demonstrate that the histories of migration, trade, and cultural exchange cannot be fully understood without examining the reciprocal and multidirectional interactions between Asia and the wider world. In the contemporary context, research on environmental impacts similarly transcends the borders of Asia, reinforcing the need for more interconnected and globally oriented approaches to scholarship.

The artificial compartmentalization of the world not only affects contemporary academic research but also distorts our understanding of historical Asia. The separation between Asia and the rest of the world has narrowed scholars’ perspectives, preventing them from fully appreciating the long history of cultural and economic exchanges across regions. As a result, traditional frameworks have often overlooked the reality of Asia’s deep-rooted global connections. By breaking away from Cold War-era frameworks that compartmentalized Asia into rigid geopolitical regions, “Global Asia” encourages scholars to think broadly across disciplines and regions, enabling them to explore interconnections that traditional approaches have struggled to address.

Apart from interconnections, comparison is also another possible approach. For example, studying Chinese migration solely within the context of Chinese migration to the United States might reinforce a limited, America-centric perspective. However, comparing Chinese migration to the U.S., Australia, and Southeast Asia allows scholars to see broader global patterns of migration, labor, and cultural exchange. This comparative approach helps scholars develop more nuanced and globally relevant analyses, rather than reinforcing artificial divides between Asia and the rest of the world.

Beyond rethinking the Asia conceptually, Global Asian Studies institutions also emphasize the importance of collaboration between scholars across and within Asia in a practical sense. Sonoda Shigeto, director of the program at the University of Tokyo, stresses that meaningful Area Studies requires close, reciprocal connections with intellectuals in the countries being studied. The idea of “Global Asian Studies” at the University of Tokyo was initiated from its previous institutional forms, one of which was the “Global Japan Studies” initiative, aiming for mutual understanding through dialogues between Japan studies in Asia and Asian Studies in Japan, which developed into “Global Asian Studies” (Sonoda Reference Sonoda2023). He argues that the knowledge production should not be a one-way process. Understanding the interactive nature of the knowledge production of one country in another country also deepens our understanding of ourselves. Only through interaction with others can we realize who we are. Linking this with the aforementioned “inside-out” perspective, what is “inside” can only be identified through interactions with others, whether they are non-Asianists or Asianists from other countries.

For example, Sonoda points out that even when Japanese scholars write about Asia, their work is often produced in Japanese, for a Japanese audience, within a Japanese academic framework. In such cases, can this work still be classified as Asian Studies, or should it also be understood as Japanese Studies? In his view, this question pertains to how Japanese scholarship perceives a region. This example highlights the importance of scholarly exchange and the fluid nature of academic boundaries and the need for scholars to be more self-aware about how knowledge is created, shared, and consumed.

While many Global Asian Studies institutions emphasize the importance of studying Asia from within, they also stress that Asian Studies should contribute to broader global discussions. Liu Hong, the director at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, argues that while research may be deeply rooted in local Asian contexts, it should also engage with global issues and debates. A concrete example he raises is the Bandung Humanism project, which does not simply document what happened in Bandung – it also explores how Bandung emerged as a key symbol of Asian and African solidarity in the post-colonial world, its roles in shaping the transnational flows of ideas among Asian-African nations, and the multi-dimensionality and fluidity of Bandung humanism in the evolving domestic and international landscapes (Liu & Zhou Reference Liu and Zhou2019).

By moving beyond national and regional boundaries, Global Asias engages with the transregional flows of materials, people, and ideas. This approach reinforces the notion that Asian Studies should not be confined to a fixed geographic space, but rather should actively contribute to broader intellectual debates and global conversations.

Breaking away from the East-West divide

Another major challenge is the enduring East-West dichotomy, which has historically framed Asian Studies through the lens of Orientalist perspectives (Said Reference Said1978, Paramore Reference Paramore2016). In this framework, Asia has been positioned not as a center of knowledge production, but as an object of study – a place for Western scholars to observe, categorize, and analyze rather than a site of theoretical innovation or intellectual leadership.

A major theme among many Global Asian Studies institutions is the effort to decolonize Asian Studies and challenge the dominance of Western academia, particularly the Orientalist traditions that have historically shaped the field. One of the most common critiques of existing knowledge structures is that Asia has long been framed as “the Other” – a subject for Western scholars to interpret, rather than a region producing its own theories and intellectual contributions. Lan Pei-Chia, the director at National Taiwan University, explains that in the traditional model, “Asia is really just ‘the Other’ for the Global North scholarship to look at something totally different.” She also highlights the paradox that many Asian scholars have been trained in Western institutions and are more connected to academic networks in the Global North than to scholars in neighboring Asian countries, even though they are physically located in Asia. This has led to a disconnection between Asian Studies as practiced in Asia and as understood in Western academia. To correct this imbalance, she argues that more efforts should be made to foster intra-Asian academic collaborations and to promote knowledge production from within Asia itself, rather than relying on Western theoretical models.

This structural imbalance in knowledge production was also emphasized by Director Lim Jie-Hyun of the Critical Global Studies Institute. He argues that one of the key tasks of Asian Studies is to go beyond the conventional division of scholarly labor, where Western scholars provide theories while Asian scholars supply empirical data to support those theories. This hierarchical structure has reinforced academic inequalities, where Western institutions dominate the production of theoretical frameworks, while scholars in Asia remain largely confined to fieldwork and case studies.

To challenge this imbalance, many scholars emphasize the importance of bringing intellectual leadership back to Asia. This aligns with what Tzeng, Richter, and Koldunova (Reference Tzeng, Richter and Koldunova2018) described as the “Asianization of Asian Studies,” as advocated by Sato and Sonoda (Reference Sato and Sonoda2021). The “inside-out” perspective, which highlights knowledge produced from within Asia based on local lived experiences, also represents an effort to move beyond the artificial division of academic labor. Liu Hong, the director of Global Asia Research Cluster, Nanyang Technological University, takes a similar stance, arguing that scholarship should emerge from within Asia itself, based on its unique social, political, and economic realities. While this approach does not exclude perspectives from outside the region, he emphasizes that the intellectual force behind Asian Studies should primarily come from within Asia, as scholars based in the region experience its transformations firsthand. The Bandung Schools, founded by Chen Kuan-Hsing, also represent an initiative aimed at producing scholarship that is globally relevant while remaining firmly grounded in local intellectual traditions. It does so by deliberately rejecting the institutional constraints of traditional academia, including the university system itself. Drawing inspiration from inter-Asian cultural studies and decolonial and de-imperial thought, the Bandung Schools foster alternative forms of knowledge production, challenging the dominance of English-language academia and Western research methodologies.

A similar problem exists in Japan’s academic tradition, which has itself long treated Asia as “the Other.” Sonoda Shigeto, director of the initiative at the University of Tokyo, explains that Japanese academia has traditionally positioned Japan as separate from the rest of Asia, reinforcing a sense of distance between Japan and other Asian countries. One of the key missions of the initiative is to fight against this worldview. By using Global Asian Studies as a new conceptual tool, scholars in Japan are working to challenge conventional ideas of Japan’s relationship with Asia and to reimagine new ways of engaging with Asian Studies beyond historical divides.

However, breaking away from Orientalist influences does not mean simply reversing the equation and creating a new “Other” out of the West. A reactionary approach – where the West is demonized, and the East is idealized – can be just as problematic as traditional Orientalism. Director Lim Jie-Hyun clearly argues that to truly move beyond these colonial frameworks, scholars must deconstruct not only Orientalism but also Occidentalism. Along this line, a potential pitfall is Asian exceptionalism – the belief that Asian experiences are entirely unique and incomparable to other regions. In Lim’s words, this is the “trap of essentialization,” where Asia is treated as a monolithic, homogeneous entity with a single “essence.” He stresses that scholars must recognize the diversity within Asia, rather than viewing it through a singular, fixed identity. He also cautions against geo-positivism – an approach that assumes regions can be defined in objective, static, or purely geographical terms. Instead, he argues for a more decentralized view of Asia, acknowledging that its meaning varies depending on historical, cultural, and geographical contexts.

Today, scholars in Global Asian Studies are using new epistemologies and frameworks to rethink Asian Studies, moving beyond the mental and structural limitations of the West-East divide. By challenging historical academic hierarchies, deconstructing rigid regional divisions, and encouraging intra-Asian and transnational collaboration, these scholars are working toward a more inclusive, globally integrated approach to Asian Studies.

The challenge is not just to reject old frameworks but to create new methodologies that better reflect Asia’s role and scholarly positionality in global intellectual production. Global Asian Studies institutions recognize that breaking away from the East-West dichotomy is not just about shifting power dynamics but also about expanding knowledge in a way that is more representative of Asia’s complexity and global influence. Through this process, Global Asian Studies can move beyond being an object of study and become a driving force in contemporary global thought.

Bridging disciplinary silos and creating infrastructure

In addition to geographical, epistemological, and conceptual barriers, another major challenge in Global Asian Studies is the rigidity of disciplinary divisions within academia. Many Global Asian Studies institutions actively work to dismantle the separation between Area Studies and disciplinary approaches, as scholars often find themselves constrained by academic silos that separate regional studies from broader theoretical and disciplinary frameworks.

Tamara Sears from Rutgers University describes the bipolar nature of academia in the United States, where scholars must navigate two parallel conversations. Domestically, research is heavily dependent on departmental affiliations, with scholars expected to frame their work through a strict disciplinary lens. Internationally, however, scholars engaged in Asian Studies often find themselves in two sets of conversations – one in reference to disciplinary knowledge, and one in Asian Studies, not fully recognized by their home discipline.

This structure reinforces a hierarchy, where disciplinary work is seen as generating theory, while Area Studies is viewed as providing descriptive content without contributing to broader theoretical discussions. This divide has historically marginalized Asian Studies within academia, reinforcing the idea that theoretical innovation must come from Western disciplines, while Asian scholars are expected to supply data rather than shape intellectual debates.

Tina Chen, the director at Penn State University, points out a related problem: the lack of institutional structures that facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration between Area Studies, Ethnic Studies, and Diaspora Studies. These fields, while overlapping in subject matter, have been kept separate due to differences in assumptions, priorities, and methodologies, with little effort made to foster intellectual cross-pollination. The problem is not just a matter of different scholarly traditions, but rather a structural issue, where academic institutions have failed to create spaces for scholars to work across disciplinary boundaries.

To address these limitations, Global Asias at Penn State University encourages scholars to integrate both theoretical frameworks and empirical data, challenging the notion that theory should come exclusively from established disciplines, while Asian Studies remains confined to empirical work. She argues that global Asian Studies should not only work to deconstruct academic silos but also rethink and “deconstruct” the concept of Global Asia itself. Instead of allowing Global Asian Studies to become a rigid, institutionalized field, she suggests that it should remain an open platform for interdisciplinary exchange, where scholars can engage in ongoing conversations without consolidating knowledge into a single, fixed structure. In her words, Global Asias should function as a space that keeps things “epistemologically unconsolidated.”

Several Global Asian Studies institutions have taken concrete steps to break down disciplinary divisions and foster interdisciplinary collaboration. At Rutgers University, efforts have focused on creating institutional mechanisms that connect faculty across departments. Recognizing that many scholars interested in Asia are housed in separate departments, Rutgers has developed graduate working groups and cross-departmental initiatives to encourage scholars from different fields to collaborate. These efforts reflect a broader trend across institutions, where universities are actively creating new academic spaces that allow scholars working on Asia to engage with each other beyond disciplinary and institutional barriers.

At Simon Fraser University, Global Asian Studies functions as a hub for interdisciplinary collaboration, bringing together faculty and students from a wide range of fields, including business, international studies, geography, and the humanities. According to the director, students in the program come from diverse academic backgrounds, reflecting the growing recognition that Asian Studies is not just a topic for the humanities but a crucial part of understanding contemporary global issues across all disciplines and fields.

A similar initiative is underway at Monash University, where Global Asia is explicitly designed to promote “Asia literacy.” The program seeks to help students develop a deeper understanding of Asia’s diversity, encouraging them to engage with Asia beyond simplistic national or cultural stereotypes. By offering a comparative and transnational perspective, Monash aligns with broader efforts across the university’s Asian Studies programs to expand the intellectual scope of Asian Studies and to encourage students to think critically about Asia’s place in the world.

Beyond addressing intellectual and disciplinary challenges, many Global Asian Studies initiatives are also working to transform academic institutions by building new infrastructures that support interdisciplinary and transnational collaboration. These efforts go beyond simply encouraging interdisciplinary work – they involve creating new academic spaces, networks, and resources that enable scholars to work across traditional academic boundaries, bridge theoretical and empirical research, challenge outdated academic hierarchies, and foster meaningful dialogue across fields.

Institutional structures and disciplinary influence

To begin with institutional conditions, participants often described their initiatives as interdisciplinary and/or multidisciplinary, aiming to foster collaboration across departments and schools within their universities and to overcome disciplinary boundaries and silos. Although the vision of cross-disciplinary conversation is prevalent across most institutions, we found that pre-existing disciplinary structures continue to influence thematic interests, collaboration methods, networking strategies, and resource allocation.

For example, at National Taiwan University, where the center is housed within the College of Social Sciences, the focus is on “Asian modernities,” as this concept better captures contemporary “transformations and changes rather than the stagnant, unchanging nature of Asia.” This focus aligns with the core research interests of its faculty, who are primarily social scientists – sociologists, political scientists, geographers, and economists. However, this presents challenges in fostering interdisciplinary collaboration with the humanities. As the interviewee noted, historians tend to focus on longer time frames and the uniqueness of each country, whereas social scientists emphasize “connectivity and comparisons.”

Rutgers University, on the other hand, has a strong emphasis on the humanities while making efforts to incorporate social sciences, including political science, economics, and sociology. Given the significant potential for integrating Asian Studies across a large research university, the directors of the Global Asias Initiative at Rutgers University highlighted the importance of an “institutional mechanism” that provides faculty and students with structured opportunities for cross-departmental conversations. Following a year of brainstorming and discussions on intersecting interests, the working group determined that the key to sustaining interdisciplinary collaboration lies in creating institutional spaces for dialogue and cooperation. This led to the expansion of theme-based graduate student working groups across Asian Studies at Rutgers University. However, as of 2022, when the interview was conducted, the initiative was still working toward its goal of institutional stability and recognition. While the interdisciplinary vision encourages a broad geographic and temporal approach to Asian Studies, logistical challenges – such as the physical distance between different schools and campuses – hinder sustained collaboration.

Some Global Asian Studies institutions go further, attempting to establish alternative and experimental models for intellectual collaboration and networking. Examples include the Flying University of Transnational Humanities by the Critical Global Studies Institute and the Bandung Schools, which operate outside or with minimal institutional constraints from traditional universities.Footnote ⁵ These initiatives challenge conventional academic structures and propose more flexible, non-hierarchical approaches to knowledge production and exchange.

Leadership and vision

The role of the director is essential to the institutional structure of these programs. Not only does it shape the thematic direction of the initiative, but it is also closely connected to the extent of intra-institutional and international networks developed by each program. Interestingly, most of these initiatives were driven by the strong leadership of their founding faculty members, whose vision for Asian Studies played a key role in shaping the trajectory of their respective programs. The leadership of directors has influenced these initiatives in multiple ways, including their thematic focus, relationship with existing Asian Studies frameworks, sustainability, and intra-institutional and international collaborations.Footnote ⁶

More broadly, Global Asian Studies programs adopt different positionalities toward Asia and Asian Studies, often reflecting the previous experiences of their directors and their intellectual perspectives. For example, program directors at New York University Shanghai, the University of Tokyo, Bandung Schools, and Sogang University have dedicated their academic careers to pioneering intellectual practices and fostering cross-disciplinary and cross-regional conversations, either within academic institutions or through research initiatives. Tansen Sen of New York University Shanghai’s program previously ran the Nalanda-Sriwijaya Center at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore from 2008 to 2012, where the emphasis was on examining inter-Asian connections before transitioning to NYU Shanghai, before establishing the Center for Global Asia at NYU Shanghai in 2015. Global Asian Studies at UTokyo developed from previous initiatives such as Global Japan Studies and ASNET (Network for Education and Research on Asia), where the director had been actively involved as a key faculty member.Footnote ⁷ Bandung Schools has been closely connected to Inter-Asia Cultural Studies since 2004, while Critical Global Studies Institute at Sogang University builds upon the transnational humanities program initiated by the same director.

Unlike these cases, the program directors of Nanyang Technological University, Monash University, and Rutgers University have not directly institutionalized Asian Studies or transnational knowledge production. However, they have leveraged their education and research experience in Asian Studies, along with their networks with scholars in Asia and Asian Studies, to develop their programs and facilitate transnational intellectual exchanges with other institutions in Asia.

Besides their challenges to existing Asian Studies paradigms and local academic traditions, the disciplinary backgrounds and research interests of each director also correlate with the overarching themes and topical focus of their programs. Under the common umbrella term of Global Asia(s), themes vary substantially across institutions. For example, National Taiwan University focuses on migration and transnationalism; Nanyang Technological University emphasizes Asia’s global connections; Sogang University explores global memory spaces; and Penn State University centers on transnational mobility and Asian American studies. Similarly, Simon Fraser University highlights gender studies and transnational history, while the Bandung Schools focus on de-imperialization and decolonization theory.

Despite differences in leadership styles and thematic priorities, these initiatives and programs often represent pioneering efforts within their universities and broader academic communities. In some cases, they also refresh traditional academic conventions, which will be addressed in the next section. However, a critical challenge remains regarding the sustainability of these programs. Strong leadership raises concerns about succession, as the long-term viability of these initiatives depends on how well they transition to the next generation of scholars. Meanwhile, in some cases, such as Rutgers University and Simon Fraser University, the director is appointed for a fixed term. Appointment-based directorships raise questions about continuity, as new leadership may shift priorities or restructure programs entirely. The future sustainability of Global Asian Studies initiatives will depend on their ability to institutionalize their impact beyond individual leadership and establish mechanisms for sustained interdisciplinary collaboration.

Resources and institutional capacity

The third component of institutional conditions includes both tangible and intangible resources, such as faculty members, funding, library collections, and institutional networks, which shape current activities and enable future opportunities. The presence of dedicated faculty members and cooperative colleagues within and beyond each home university serves as the foundation for these interdisciplinary and intra-institutional projects. At Rutgers University, for example, directors describe their initiative as a “vastly collaborative process” that incorporates faculty, graduate students, and increasingly, undergraduates. They characterize it as a “grassroots effort from the bottom-up, from faculty up”, highlighting both its reliance on internal cooperation and the need to establish sustainable outreach mechanisms.

Among the ten programs analyzed, the Global Asian Studies (GAS) program at UTokyo stands out as a unique case. Unlike many other programs, UTokyo’s GAS initiative emerged from an existing institutional apparatus tied to well-established research institutes in Asian Studies. As a result, it benefits from an already substantial network of collaborating colleagues within the university as well as pre-existing international research counterparts. As such, UTokyo’s program invests its resources in inter-regional partnerships and international academic dialogues beyond Japan.

NYU Shanghai is another distinct case, benefiting from its global campus system and international academic networks. As part of New York University, NYU Shanghai maintains direct institutional ties to campuses in New York and Abu Dhabi, as well as twelve study-abroad sites in Berlin, London, Sydney, Buenos Aires, and other locations. This extensive international infrastructure enables the development of university-wide Global Asia courses, the implementation of co-taught classes with faculty members from different locations, and the utilization of virtual classrooms for real-time interdisciplinary engagement. Additionally, NYU Shanghai leverages its global academic network for research collaboration, as exemplified by the “Port Cities Environments” project. Furthermore, NYU Shanghai’s strategic location and its director’s professional networks facilitate partnerships with universities in New York, Boston, Singapore, and Hong Kong.

Students also play a crucial role as key resources in Global Asian Studies programs, both in undergraduate and postgraduate education. Their personal experiences, social and historical contexts, and cultural backgrounds determine classroom discussions and curriculum development, as seen in the cases of Simon Fraser University and Monash University. Factors such as students’ majors and minors, family histories, migration paths, nationalities, cultural interests, language proficiency, ethnicity, gender, and career aspirations influence in-class discussions and the reception of historical and contemporary topics in Global Asian Studies.

Finally, financial resources and library collections serve as critical material assets for sustaining and expanding Global Asian Studies programs. Programs at Monash University and UTokyo demonstrate how extensive archival and research collections in Asian Studies not only enhance research networks abroad but also enable the development of research-driven curricula. Funding directly impacts the stability and long-term viability of these initiatives, including the scope of activities and collaboration, the thematic focus, employment and the program’s sustainability. Limited budgets can restrict program activities, while strong financial support – whether from the internal university budget or external grants – can create new opportunities for research, education, and international collaboration. In some cases, funding availability affects thematic priorities and determines potential research collaborators, as seen in the cases of National Taiwan University, UTokyo, and Penn State University. Funding is even more critical given that the transnational intellectual dialogue often involves the mobility of people through hosting or attending international academic events. After COVID-19, some of these institutions have made efforts to utilize online platforms to overcome both physical and financial limitations.

Locality and global positioning

The geographical setting of a university or institution appears to contribute to the development of a Global Asia(s) agenda, as seen in multicultural and multiethnic cities such as Singapore and New Jersey, transnational port cities like Shanghai, Vancouver, and Melbourne, and increasingly cosmopolitan megacities like Tokyo, Seoul, and Taipei. However, there is a noticeable divide between institutions located in Asia and those outside Asia in how they approach Global Asian Studies. While both groups recognize Asia as deeply connected to their own societies and histories, their perspectives and objectives differ.

Institutions based in Asia in a geographical sense tend to emphasize the need to redefine and relativize Asian Studies within their own societies, advocating for a transnational, comparative, or global perspective, as seen in the cases of National Taiwan University, Nanyang Technological University, UTokyo, and NYU Shanghai. They promote a Global Asia framework by emphasizing historical and contemporary connections and interactions. Simultaneously, these programs aim to expand the traditional scope of “Asia” for domestic audiences and scholars, encouraging a broader and more inclusive imagination of the region. Within the Asian region, “Asia” is often perceived as a tangible entity composed of real people, cultures, and historical legacies, of which “we” are a part, rather than merely as a geopolitical or conceptual construct.

In contrast, programs outside Asia, such as Rutgers University, Simon Fraser University, Penn State University, and Monash University tend to focus on understanding their own communities through connections and interaction with Asia. Many of these initiatives emphasize Asian diasporas and migration histories, reflecting the lived experiences of local Asian ethnic communities. In this context, Asia is not a distant subject but an integral part of their own local history and society. Another approach taken by institutions outside Asia is to study Asia as a point of reference, using it as a comparative framework to better understand global dynamics and their own societies. Whether through diasporic histories or comparative studies, these programs recognize Asia’s growing relevance in contemporary global affairs, reinforcing the idea that “Asia is within us” and the idea of Asia as a key counterpart in contemporary global society that “we” are part of.

The sense of proximity and distance to Asia, as well as each institution’s local history of Asian connections, influences how they conceptualize and implement Global Asian Studies. Every director is keenly aware of their own institution’s local background, adapting global perspectives on Asia and Asian Studies to suit their specific academic and social environments. For example, the director at National Taiwan University highlights “the need to connect Taiwan Studies with other parts of Asia,” positioning Taiwan as a part of both East and Southeast Asia. The director strategically emphasizes “inter-Asia connections” to enhance the visibility of Taiwan Studies on the international stage. Similarly, Monash University leverages its position as an English-speaking institution in the Asia-Pacific to develop a Global Asian Studies perspective that reflects its in-between positionality in regional and global academic networks.

Local academic traditions and intellectual legacies

Local academic traditions and intellectual legacies are significant factors that influence the character and approach of each Global Asian Studies program. In English-speaking countries such as Canada and Australia, the longstanding influence of Anglophone hegemony and frequent academic exchanges with the United States have contributed to the intellectual frameworks used in their institutions. Meanwhile, Global Asias initiatives in the United States must navigate the historical dominance of Area Studies in American academia, particularly within Asian Studies, while also contending with tensions between Area Studies and disciplinary traditions.

The intellectual influence of the so-called Global North or Anglophone hegemony is not limited to North America or other English-speaking contexts. As the director of National Taiwan University noted, many scholars trained in Western institutions experience a dual academic identity, describing the dilemma as “theoretically and methodologically affiliated with the West, but physically and socially connected to Asia.” This paradox highlights the challenge of producing knowledge that is simultaneously rooted in local Asian contexts while engaging with global academic discourses. The Bandung School takes a relatively radical approach to these issues, positioning itself as a decolonial and de-imperialized alternative to traditional university-based scholarship. It actively experiments with non-university-centered knowledge production, promoting inter-Asian collaboration and intellectual exchanges between peripheral regions (Chen, Lu, and Qiu Reference Chen, Lu and Qiu2022, Chen Reference Chen2023).

Other institutions strive to address and overcome historical and institutional legacies within their own national academic traditions. For GAS at UTokyo, one of its intellectual challenges is grappling with the legacy of the Institute of Oriental Studies, which was established in 1941 immediately before the Pacific War. The institute changed its English name to the Institute for Advanced Studies on Asia in 2011 and has expanded its regional scale, topical scope, and international network beyond Japan. Additionally, a lack of dialogue between Japan Studies in Asia and Asian Studies in Japan, as well as an underestimation of comparative and global perspectives in Japanese academia were brought up as a characteristic of Japanese academia that GAS has engaged from its earlier institutional forms. Similarly, the Critical Global Studies Institute in Korea was founded to challenge methodological nationalism in Korean academia, aiming to transcend national boundaries and foster transnational approaches to knowledge production.

Finally, each institution forms its Global Asian Studies agenda in response to contemporary social and global challenges, taking on intellectual responsibility for addressing pressing issues in their locales. For example, Rutgers University engages with local communities through public and digital humanities initiatives specifically to instruct Asian American studies in New Jersey and other schools, while NYU Shanghai incorporates research on the environmental impacts of China’s Belt and Road Initiative on coastal environments. The program at Monash University focuses on training students to become globally conscious citizens, and that of Sogang University works toward overcoming nationalism by promoting new memory cultures.

These diverse institutional and intellectual contexts have led to distinctive approaches in how each program defines, implements, and expands the field of Global Asian Studies. As will be examined in the next section, despite differences in institutional structures, geography, and disciplinary traditions, these initiatives share a common goal: to challenge conventional knowledge production and promote a more globally interconnected and balanced perspective on Asian Studies.