e

Perspectives on the Production of (Scientific) Knowledge in Southeast Asia

Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin

Philosophische Fakultät III

Institut für Afrika- und Asienwissenschaften

Seminar für Südostasienstudien

Forschungsseminar: South and Southeast Asia:

Connections and Comparisons

Dozent: Prof. Dr. Vincent Houben

Wintersemester 2013/2014

Fabian Hempel

Studienfach:

M.A. Modern South and Southeast Asian Studies

MAP Modul 1: Geschichte der Modernisierungs-

prozesse in Süd- und Südostasien

Table of Content

Table of Figures ..................................................................................................................... I

1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................1

2. Theoretical Perspective: Conceptual Framework .............................................................2

2.1. Science .....................................................................................................................2

2.2. (Scientific) Knowledge .............................................................................................4

2.3. The Captive Mind.....................................................................................................5

3. Historical Perspective: "Modern" Science in Southeast Asia ...........................................6

3.1. Colonial Roots, Neocolonial Dependency and Indigenization ...................................6

3.2. The Development of the University of Malaya ....................................................... 10

4. Quantitative Perspective: Publication Output in Southeast Asia .................................... 13

5. Qualitative Perspective: Challenging Academic Dependency ........................................ 16

5.1. An Example: The Social Sciences in Southeast Asia ............................................... 16

5.2. Possible Approaches to Develop Academic Independence and Diversity ................ 18

6. Summary, Conclusion, and Outlook .............................................................................. 21

7. References .................................................................................................................... 22

I

Table of Figures

Figure 1: Number of Scientific Publications during the Period of 1991-2010 ..... 14

Figure 2: 10-year Comparison of Publication Output.......................................... 14

Figure 3: Research Intensity versus GDP per capita ........................................... 15

1

1. Introduction

Southeast Asian economic and political development provides the context for the ad-

vancement of the different research and higher education systems of the region and is at

the same time dependent on the expansion of research and edification, precisely because

the production and application of science and technology have become a central pillar of

economic activity in the recent past. This growing importance of scientific knowledge war-

rants an encompassing discussion about the nature, direction and amount of research con-

ducted in the area. Research institutions throughout the world have been criticized as being

too detached from the concerns of ordinary people and the essential problems of their re-

spective surroundings. Exactly the opposite is needed in Southeast Asia, if the scientific

enterprise does not want to appear as a tool for the few to exploit the masses, if it really

seeks to play a genuine role in improving the lives of all layers of society throughout the

region. It goes without saying that a lot of debates relating to this are going on in all South-

east Asian countries. In their respective varieties, however, these discussions seem to be

restricted in some measure to certain societal levels. The line has often been drawn be-

tween the spheres of research policy circles close to governments, private corporations and

marginalized groups within academia as well as non-governmental organizations.

The aim of this text is to bring together different perspectives and insights from varying

levels of inquiry that more often than not disagree with or ignore each other in regard to

the nature and production of scientific knowledge, to name here especially the fields of

science studies and the more policy-oriented science and technology studies on the one

side and on the other side postcolonial and area-based approaches. But, indeed, both sides

have much to offer to each other in regard to analytical tools and theoretical dispositions.

An argument will be made for epistemological diversity as the most suitable general scien-

tific approach in Southeast Asia. Epistemological restrictions based on ethnocentric foun-

dations of modern science need to be acknowledged in its application, because it is ethno-

centrically compromised towards Western perceptions. Yet, all civilizational knowledge

spheres are in a sense ethnocentric and therefore epistemological limited. Furthermore,

Southeast Asia with its own history of local and indigenous knowledge, its historic connec-

tions to South Asia and China, as a part of the Islamic world and as former colonies of

Western countries is in a unique position to develop a genuine diverse approach to science.

The outline of this paper will be as follows: The second chapter develops a basic stand-

point towards the theoretical concepts of science and scientific knowledge. Chapter three

presents an historic overview of institutional modern science in Southeast Asia. Further-

2

more, an institutional perspective in the case of the development of the University of Ma-

laya is presented. The fourth chapter offers quantitative insight into the knowledge produc-

tion of Southeast Asian research institutions. Chapter five explains the facets of academic

dependency by taking the example of the social sciences in Southeast Asia. Subsequently,

some general approaches in challenging academic dependency will be proposed. The sixth

chapter sums up and concludes the results of the paper.

2. Theoretical Perspective: Conceptual Framework

This chapter serves the purpose of developing a conceptual standpoint concerning the fun-

damental question of this paper by connecting different positions within the fields of sci-

ence studies, postcolonial theory and the area studies.

2.1. Science

The social studies of science have established the notion that science and society co-

construct each other respectively. And even though this is not an attempt to propagate sci-

entific relativism, the assumption that all of modern science is objective and universally

applicable has been rightfully challenged in the past, especially by postcolonial theory

(Anderson 2002) and area studies (Shamsul 2007). In this respect, standpoint approaches

show different social perspectives and locations and are one vast array of sources for the

questioning of the unity of science and the claim of many productive non-Western episte-

mologies (Harding 1998:3).

The development of modern science started in the 16th and 17th centuries in Europe and

has since then closely interacted with the history of the West. Science and its technological

products are always determined within its socio-economic context and in turn are influenc-

ing the socio-economic context (Goonatilake 1982:253). Hence, the scientific enterprise of

the Western Civilization was both reason and result of its political, economic and military

ascent to global dominance. Thus, Harold J. Cook (2007) analyzes the commercial enter-

prises of the Dutch Empire during the seventeenth century as a key to the scientific revolu-

tion. The British Empire was able to build undersea telegraph cables that connected the

British core and its vast colonial realm by using a product derived from the sap of South-

east Asian trees to insulate copper wires against sea water (Hunt 1997).

Apart from being a tool in colonizing most parts of the world, the scientific dominance of

the West demonstrated to be very productive in material terms. But, at the same time, it

proved to be more often than not deprecatory towards any scientific formulations outside

3

of its own epistemological tradition, despite or precisely because of its universal claim

(Goonatilake 1984). Insightful knowledge about the physical reality is produced and has

existed in several regions around the globe throughout history. That includes classical civi-

lizations of China, South Asia, Middle East and ancient as well as the late medieval Eu-

rope. Goonatilake also names local knowledge of smaller social entities, even down to the

tribal level. As a trained engineer, he offers a very practical definition of scientific activity

as "the search for explanations of physical reality" (Goonatilake 1984:2). In another paper

he offers again a rather banal, yet very precise and application oriented definition of what

is good science: "[...] science, whatever its social, political, psychological, or philosophical

roots, is ultimately 'that which works'" (Goonatilake 1998:1). That alone might constitute a

sufficient argumentation basis for the rejection of both radical relativism and ethnocentric

blindness in science.

Furthermore, by using the example of scientific cross-fertilizations of ancient Greece and

South Asia, Goonatilake argues that the conventional historiography of Western science

has caused a false sociology of ideas (1984:45). Thus, a consideration of the development

of science and its produced knowledge only within the boundaries of a one civilization,

especially the West, without regarding the contact and connections to other civilizations,

forced a narrow inquiry of the relations between social structure, conducted science, and

produced knowledge. Yehuda (1981) takes a very strong view by asserting that no single

scientific trait can be shown to be exclusively Western and only confined to modern West-

ern science. As a matter of logical equilibrium this notion appears to be applicable to every

other civilizational knowledge system. In addition to that, Goonatilake (2000:925) is pre-

dicting a collapse of Western hegemony in epistemology.

Does this mean to abandon Western science completely and instead develop an isolated

Southeast Asian science with a pure indigenous epistemology? There are voices that argue

for the creation of radically different scientific and technological traditions that "can

evolve only through a reliance on indigenous categories, idioms and traditions in all

spheres of though and action" (Third World Network 1991:14). Goonatilake rejects this as

non-applicable because of the advanced interconnectedness of the world's areas and an-

swers programmatically:

I do not want to replace the Western Doctor of Philosophy with the witch doctor. I believe,

however, that there are elements that the witch - or in more sophisticated cases, "civilization

knowledge carrier" - can contribute to the knowledge base of doctors in different sciences.

(Goonatilake 1998:8)

4

Accordingly, attempts of purist scientific epistemology seem to be doomed. Goonatilake

accepts the hegemony of modern science and the impossibility of abandoning it because of

its global outreach. But he aims to improve it. Modern science, when taken individually,

offers many facets and even contradictions in regard to the methodology, epistemology,

and ontology of the different scientific disciplines. His ideal is a post-European and post-

enlightment future in science (Goonatilake 1996). It is therefore essential to overcome the

Western rooted ethnocentric limitations of modern epistemology. That can be done by de-

fining and mining existing civilizational, indigenous, and local knowledge traditions and

thereby developing modified ones at the same time. One requirement for that is the imple-

mentation of epistemological diversity as a primal research framework in interpreting

knowledge traditions and conducting modern research. In this way, the current scientific

approach can be directed in a true global and inclusive direction by acknowledging differ-

ent scientific knowledge traditions and maxims.

2.2. (Scientific) Knowledge

As every social activity the production of scientific knowledge – as knowledge in general

in the sense of understanding a subject that you get by experience or study – is affected and

in some measure determined by a variety of non-scientific influences, especially by politi-

cal, historical, cultural and economic aspects (David 2005). Thus, scientific knowledge

might be "universalistic in that it is valid in the narrower area of exploration, but is particu-

laristic in that what is explored and limited by social forces" (Goonatilake 1982:257). This

allows a recapitulation of Michael Foucault's work on the relationship between knowledge

and power (1975, 1976). He sees knowledge as form of power that can be used against

subjects that lack knowledge. Foucault's point is that "the goals of power and the goals of

knowledge cannot be separated: in knowing we control and in controlling we know" (Gut-

ting 2013). Therefore, knowledge can be produced for the sole purpose of exercising and

sustaining power over others. Knowledge determines, creates and influences discourses

that define the norms of thought which in turn direct the paths of individual subjects and

whole societies. According to Ashis Nandy, contemporary research and higher education,

comparable to organized religions in the past, possess the ability to define and establish

new categories and concepts which is essential to the interdependence of knowledge and

power:

The old, clichéd saying, “knowledge is power,” has acquired a new potency in recent years. For

nearly a century it was fashionable to study how interests and material forces of history shaped

5

knowledge. The world that has come into being in the aftermath of World War II seems to have

reversed the relationship. It has forced us to recognize that dominance is now exercised less and

less through familiar organized interests, such as class relations, colonialism, military‐industrial

complexes, multinational corporations, and the nation‐states. Dominance is now exercised

mainly through categories, embedded in systems of knowledge. [...] Universities have come to

share this new power, for they specialize in handling categories. (Nandy 2000, 115‐116)

Throughout the 20th and 21th century research and education institutions have become one

of the most powerful elements that determine the ideological norms of thinking. As a con-

sequence, these institutions more often than not have served the ruling class and ensure the

status quo, although there are countless of examples of groups and individuals that were

products of these institutions and began to question and challenge these predominant so-

cial, political and economic norms. For that reason alone the scientific enterprise can be

seen as inherently ambivalent. In accordance with the deconstruction of modern science as

a unified and universal science, the formerly rigid boundaries between scientific and non-

scientific and between Western and non-Western scientific knowledge are beginning to

crumble. In Foucaultian terms Hans Weiler (2011, 208) calls this the rehabilitation of sub-

jugated knowledge. In addition, Weiler (2011, 209) applies Foucault's analytical frame-

work of the relationship between knowledge and power to the contemporary global science

and higher education system, whereby he points out the following:

the significance of hierarchies in the knowledge order,

the relationship of reciprocal legitimation between knowledge and power,

the transnational division of labor in science and academia,

the commercialization of knowledge.

2.3. The Captive Mind

One particularly useful concept that attempts to describe the relationship between econom-

ically developing countries and industrialized countries, especially North America and

Western Europe that still dominate the international knowledge network, is that of the cap-

tive mind. Developed in Southeast Asia by the Malaysian scholar Syed Hussein Alatas, the

captive mind pictures an “uncritical and imitative mind dominated by an external source,

whose thinking is deflected from an independent perspective” (Alatas 1974, 692). Even

though Hussein Alatas used this concept mainly in regard to the practices in the fields of

the social sciences and humanities, it can be applied to all disciplines of sciences, even to

the natural science or mathematics. For the scientist with a captive mind almost all scien-

6

tific sources and theories are find in Western science and imitated uncritically. This per-

vades all spheres of scientific activity, for example problem selection, analysis, abstraction,

generalization, conceptualization, description, explanation, interpretation and most of all

application of theory (Alatas 1972, 11). Furthermore, Syed Farid Alatas, the son of Hus-

sein Alatas, elaborates the features of a captive mind:

Among the characteristics of the captive mind are the inability to be creative and raise original

problems, the inability to devise original analytical methods, and alienation from the main is-

sues of indigenous society. The captive mind is trained almost entirely in the western sciences,

reads the works of western authors, and is taught predominantly by western teachers, whether in

the West itself or through their works available in local centers of education. Mental captivity is

also found in the suggestion of solutions and policies. (Farid Alatas 2007)

Most of all, this epistemological dogmatism of the captive mind is an alienation from the

major societal issues that concern its immediate living environment. What this concept

accomplishes is a clear description of the habitus of blindly following a monopolistic aca-

demic dominance, in this case a Western dominance, without asking in the sense of

Susantha Goonatilake the most ordinary and nevertheless the most important question of

every scientific activity: Does it work?

One of the most profound Southeast Asian examples of the captive mind and academic

dependency provides A.B. Shamsul (1999) who exposes the problems of the Malay. This

ethnic category was constructed by colonial knowledge and has since been naturalized and

embedded within the history of Malaysia. According to Baharauddin, this demonstrates

that colonial knowledge is still the most powerful form of knowledge in decolonized socie-

ties and at the same time sparsely recognized. This example reveals one defining element

of the development of research institutions in Southeast Asia which will be the focus of the

next chapter.

3. Historical Perspective: "Modern" Science in Southeast Asia

Chapter three outlines the major trajectories of the historical development of modern insti-

tutional science in Southeast Asia. The case of the University of Malaya is presented in

order to track these general assumptions in more detail.

3.1. Colonial Roots, Neocolonial Dependency and Indigenization

As already indicated, apart from Western Civilization complex knowledge systems have

been developed around the world throughout history. Pre-colonial Southeast Asia devel-

7

oped a diverse corpus of knowledge that was and still is deeply influenced by its connec-

tions to the Middle East, South Asia and China. Houben emphasizes (2003:151) that the

philological tradition of the study of Islam in Southeast Asia was characterized "by cultural

transfer from the Middle East, Persia, and India [...], amongst other ways, through transfer

by translation and adaptation of an Islamic literary canon" (Houben 2003:151). He further

refers to a study conducted by Peter Riddel (2001) that gathered information of Islamic

theology written by Malay-Indonesian scholars and documents "the appearance of a

'distinctive' theology in this region" (Houben 2003:151). Another striking indicator of so-

phisticated knowledge production in Southeast Asia are literary works, for instance the

Hikayat Mareskalek, composed by Abdullah al-Misri in the 1810s. Al-Misri's depicts the

rise of the main character to rule in Java connected with underlying ideas of sovereignty

and governance of state. Sumit K. Mandal (2013) analyzes the Hikayat Mareskalek as a

transregional site of interactions in the Malay world and throughout the Indian Ocean that

is characterized by multiple languages and the transmission of ideas across great distances.

Present Southeast Asia is marked by vast political and economic diversity. There are sig-

nificant differences in the region which is in part deceiving (Lee 2006:2). Singapore is a

small city state and, in material terms, one of the wealthiest places in the world. Malaysia

and Thailand are newly industrialized countries. But the majority of the area is in transition

from an agricultural economy to an industrial economy. Furthermore, all Southeast Asian

countries, except Thailand, have a colonial history.

Western influence on Southeast Asian research is varied and complex which can be at-

tributed both to the lasting effects of colonial power and the current dominance of Western

countries in modern science and research. The colonial heritage can be divided between

colonial science and the foundation of higher education as well as research institutions in

Southeast Asia based on Western models. Colonial science means the scientific knowledge

that was produced during the colonial era in the colonized regions by scientists mostly

from the West or with Western training. A lot of knowledge was created about Southeast

Asia with striking social and political dimensions and ramifications. In concern to institu-

tional modern science in contemporary Southeast Asia, the majority of research is con-

ducted at higher education institutions. Most of these are rooted in European and US-

American models, either based on colonial power, e.g. in Indonesia and Malaysia, or more

voluntarily adopted, for instance in Thailand (Altbach 2004:15). Altbach further summa-

rizes the spheres of Western impact on Asian higher education that is also applicable to

research:

8

Every academic institution in contemporary Asia has its roots in one or more of the Western ac-

ademic models. Patterns of institutional governance, the ethos of the academic profession, the

rhythm of academic life, ideas about science, of examination and assessment, in some cases the

language of instruction, and a myriad of other elements are Western in origin. Indeed, it can be

said that the Western idea of the university is perhaps the most successful of all Western con-

cepts in terms of overseas impact, certainly much more than the "Westminster" parliamentary

pattern. (Altbach 1989:6)

Despite this appropriate description it is difficult to generalize the colonial heritage in

terms of its impact on knowledge production in Southeast Asia, because every country

went, up to a certain degree, through its own unique colonial experience. The Dutch active-

ly prevented higher education until the last phases of their rule in Indonesia. During the

Spanish period the Roman Catholic Church shaped higher education in the Philippines,

whereby the US changed the education approach and rapidly expanded the system. British

themed academic systems emerged in Malaysia and Singapore, although the British author-

ities never actively promoted the development of large academic systems in their colonies.

These were primarily teaching institutions, research was conducted on an individual base

and not on institutional ones. The academic structure was based on metropolitan models in

terms of teaching and learning, textbooks, communication, teaching staff and scientific

research, in other words epistemology. The curriculum matched that of institutions in the

home countries of the colonial powers and contained therefore no relevant orientation to-

wards Southeast Asian societies and needs. Academic staff came from the center, among

them a lot of able scientists, but they reinforced the metropolitan epistemological norms

and values that at present still tend to dominate Southeast Asian universities. As result of

the direction towards the colonial motherlands contact and cooperation between universi-

ties in Southeast Asia was negligible. Although colonial authorities restricted academic

freedom and thought, colonial universities became sources of resistance towards colonial-

ism. But at the same time these institutions were one of the ideological and structural roots

for the totalitarian ruling elites of the following nation states, a Western export by the way

(Altbach 1989:9).

The contemporary impact of the West in science and technology overlaps with these colo-

nial roots. Southeast Asian research and higher education systems are part of an interna-

tional knowledge network that is dominated by the West. One defining aspect of this sys-

tem is the influence of the English language as the lingua franca of the current scientific

enterprise, it reflects a certain research culture, most journals are published in English,

9

most data corpora are based in English, most scientific meetings are held in English, most

students study in English. Furthermore, a large number of Southeast Asian scientist have

been educated in industrialized countries, particularly in the West. This directs the for-

mation of working and research networks as well the orientation in regard to epistemology.

Even though Western research culture and organization still predominates, Southeast Asian

institutions are shaped to a certain degree by indigenous influences (Altbach 1989:16). In

Malaysia, the British university has been transformed, on the one side to resemble the

American model and partly and on the other to make it more relevant to local needs

(Welch 2011). Albeit Bahasa Malaysia has been implemented as the medium of local in-

struction and publication, English remains the main language for international for interna-

tional publications. Malaysia also abandoned pure meritocracy in higher education to a

certain degree. In 1973, the Malaysian government established an affirmative action pro-

gram that created a structural preference for Malay students over Chinese and Indians in

public university admissions. "The quota is generally acknowledged to have failed to in-

voke competition and a sense of excellence among bumiputra students" (Lim 1995:79). In

turn, such policies surely hampered the development of research capabilities of the re-

search institutions. Furthermore, academic freedom is partially restricted in some Southeast

Asian countries, especially in regard to social and religious issues. Regarding research out-

put, modern science is above all money consuming. Consequently, countries that invest

most resources in their research capabilities have the most sophisticated research systems.

For financial reasons alone, most Southeast Asian countries simply cannot effort a sophis-

ticated development of their science and higher education infrastructure. In consequence,

only the more economically developed countries in the region were able to create competi-

tive systems, especially in the case of Singapore.

In this regard, Farid Alatas (2003) describes the postcolonial state of science and higher

education in the region with the terms academic imperialism of the West and academic

dependency of Southeast Asia. He applies this notion mainly to the social sciences, but

even though the natural and applied sciences are more productive, a dependency exists in

these fields, too. Scientists rely "on their counterparts in the West for concepts and theo-

ries, research funds, technologies of teaching and research, and the prestige value attached

to publishing in Western journals" (Farid Alatas 2001:53).

Because of a lack of resources the core of knowledge is naturally produced in developed

countries and disseminated to research institutions in the developing world (Goonatilake

1984:110). This asymmetrical academic and intellectual relationship gives the developed

10

countries the power to use this knowledge to dictate and influence the norms and agendas

in the developing world. Although developed assistance from developed countries have

brought significant progress in Southeast Asia, these knowledge imbalance was used in

many cases to influence the political and economic direction of the developing countries,

especially by the USA and the USSR during the time of the Cold War (Selvaratnam 1988).

3.2. The Development of the University of Malaya

The University of Malaya, located in the Malaysian capital Kuala Lumpur, appears to be a

suitable model university in Southeast Asia because of its research and teaching perfor-

mance in the last decades. Indeed, universities in Singapore have a considerably higher

research output, but no other country in Southeast Asia will have the economic capacity to

fund its research institutions with comparable amounts of money for a foreseeable future

(Mukherjee and Wong 2011:136).

Modern institutional higher education and research in Malaysia began with the establish-

ment of the predecessors of the current University of Malaya: King Edward Medical

School and Raffles College. From 1871 to 1904, in reaction to a shortage of medical per-

sonal, young men from the Straits Settlements were sent to the Madras Medical College in

British India for medical training (Kim 2005:2). While this policy did not solve the short-

age, the local Chinese community argued with the British for the creation of higher educa-

tion institutions. Colonial authorities were reluctant to introduce higher education, because

they regarded primary and secondary education as suitable for their dominion. Yet, Chi-

nese funding efforts of $89000 finally allowed the establishment of the Singapore-based

Straits and Federated Malay States Government Medical School in 1905. A five-year

course based on a curriculum that met the requirements of the General Council in Britain

was implemented and strictly maintained. The first two years were devoted to basic scienc-

es, physiology and basic anatomy. The remaining three years were structured by clinical

clerkships (Kim 2005:7). Teaching language was English. Staff was made-up of part-time

lectures, almost all were British. It was an inherent British education for locals to serve the

medical needs of the colonial state. In 1916, the school was recognized for its academic

standards by the British General Medical Council in 1916. The school was renamed King

Edward VII College of Medicine as its status was raised to college in 1921.

In 1929, the colonial state established the Raffles College in Singapore. It provided a more

generalist higher education, again based on the British model and taught in English. The

three-year diploma provided courses in English, history, geography, physic and mathemat-

11

ics, entirely within an Anglocentric epistemology and "largely unrelated to the immediate

economic, political and social-cultural environment of Malaysian students" (Selvaratnam

1989:189). Some of the graduates were able to enter the Malay Administrative Service that

became the source for the first two generations of political leadership in postcolonial Ma-

laysia.

In 1949 and as a consequence of the Carr-Saunders Commission, these two institutions

merged into the University of Malaya in Singapore, "an English-language HEI with de-

gree-granting status" (Welch 2011:56) and faculties of Arts, Science and Medicine. From

its merger to 1961, the institution added faculties of Education, Engineering, Law and Ag-

riculture. As in Britain each faulty was organized across discipline-oriented departments.

The epistemological direction of the university was not changed. Teaching staff was still

primarily from or trained in the West. It thereby was a stopover for young Western scien-

tist that would become leaders of their respective fields, e.g. the information scientist

Derek de Solla Price or the mathematician Alexander Oppenheim who became the first

vice-chancellor of the university. In 1959, the university opened an autonomous division in

Kuala Lumpur that became a separate university three years later. The Singapore campus

developed into the National University of Singapore.

When Malaysia was formed in 1963, the University of Malaya (UM) was the only full-

fledged university in the country. Selvaratnam considered the university as an ivory tower,

"because the system was foreign to the non-European socio-cultural traditions of the peo-

ple of the country except for a small group of English education and Western trained

elites" (1989:194).

During the 1960s and 1970s the UM grew in student numbers, staff, and facilities because

of an increase in demand for university education (Lee 2004: 224). In reaction to the 1969

racial riots the Malaysian government implemented ethnic admissions quotes for public

higher education institutions (Chandler et al. 2005:417). In 1971, through the Universities

and University Colleges Act the Ministry of Education of Malaysia gained full control of

UM and all other universities of Malaysia. From there on the government was the domi-

nant decision maker in regard to matters of finance, staff recruitment and promotion, cur-

riculum, medium of instruction, and student enrollment of the Malaysian universities (Lim

1995). UM still was mainly a teaching institution. Government and university administra-

tion did not implemented any institutional incentives to do research and to develop an own

epistemological approach. Therefore, the epistemological outlook did not change pro-

foundly. But the construction of the university changed . In 1970, a Department of Islamic

12

Studies was placed under the Faculty of Arts and Social Science. By the end of the seven-

ties, most of the expatriate academic staff had left the University. By 1983, Bahasa Malay-

sia was implemented as language of instruction. Yet, UM still lacked the critical mass of

researchers, infrastructure, institutional policies and funding to produce top-quality re-

search as a contribution to the international knowledge system (Selvaratnam 1989:197).

In 1979, the focus on research was institutionalized by the establishment of the Institute of

Advanced Studies as a postgraduate research institution. Research in the institute was car-

ried out under in the fields of environment and natural resources, human development,

Malaysian land use, health and medical sciences, technology and industrial development

and biotechnology. Even though this reveals no indication of a gradual development of an

academic independence in relation to the developed centers of scientific knowledge, the

areas of research showed a clear influence of the Malaysian government and its New Eco-

nomic Policy by using the universities as education institutions for the young population

and as tools for economic and material advancement. Since then the research intensity and

output is growing continually, concomitant with the rise of funding and the quantity of

qualified researchers at UM.

Concerning university governance, most leading research universities throughout the world

possess a vast degree of institutional and departmental autonomy. The Universities and

University Colleges Act of 1971 was gradually modified in 2000. Within government

guidelines restricted academic and operational autonomy was now granted to universities

and within the institution to deans and heads of academic units. But the “government still

appoints vice chancellors, however, a practice that attracts criticism within the profession"

(Welch 2011:58).

Over the past decade, research funding and incentives for UM has rapidly risen. In 2008,

its total budget amounted to $280 million (UM 2009). The university upgraded "its re-

search infrastructure toward the objective of supporting R&D projects to promote multi-

disciplinary approaches and increased productivity" (Mukherjee and Wong 2011:155). The

Institute of Research Management and Monitoring was implemented to guide of all re-

search entities. Furthermore, the university is now fully integrated with the industry in Ma-

laysia.

Indeed, that are positive developments. The University of Malaya seems to be integrated

visible point in the international knowledge network and is one of the leading research uni-

versities in Southeast Asia. But "UM’s participation and performance in international aca-

demic activities have depended on individual staff action rather than on common university

13

practice" (Muhkerjee and Wong 2011:161). There are no institutional signs for the devel-

opment of an own approach towards research. The first research goal of UM is to generate

world class high impact publications and provide incentives and recognition for excellent

research outputs (UM 2010). High impact publications are publications that have a high

number of citations. Most publications with high impact factors are based in the developed

countries, especially in the West. And these publications are mostly edited and read by

Western scholars. Therefore, the interpretation can be made that the institutional policy of

UM lets a Western perspective dictate what is excellent research. To conclude, Malaysia's

premier university appears to have become an able participant in a game that is still in

large part dependant on and judged by the old knowledge powers in the West.

4. Quantitative Perspective: Publication Output in Southeast Asia

This chapter tries to give a quantitative perspective on the knowledge production in South-

east Asia. A quantitative breakdown provides an approximation of scientific activity and a

schematic overview of the produced knowledge. In addition to that the data corpora of the

bibliometric studies analyzed here cover only the international visible scientific output of

Southeast Asian research. This constitutes a clear bias towards scientific mainstream, on

the other hand exactly that enables us to make restricted assumptions in regard to state of

connectivity of Southeast Asian with the international knowledge network. The widely

used fundamental currency in most fields of modern science is the publication of scientific

articles in peer-reviewed academic journals. In the international knowledge network only

journals that are indexed in the Web of Science (WoS)1 or the SCOPUS

2 database are

widely recognized by the majority of scientific community and institution. The indexation

selection is mainly made on the basis of impact evaluations and covers several academic

disciplines including the natural sciences, social sciences, arts, and humanities. However,

WoS only covers 10-12% of all peer-reviewed journals (Monastersky 2005). Criticism is

constantly being voiced, thereby pointing towards the deficiencies of the composition of

such commercial databases and in connection with the calculation of the journal impact

factor (Alberts 2013).

Yet, Nguyen and Pham (2011:108) acknowledge the large number of articles published by

WoS journals as an important measure of scientific activity in Southeast Asia. They ana-

1 Web of Science: http://thomsonreuters.com/web-of-science-core-collection/

2 Scopus: http://www.scopus.com/

14

lyzed the publication output of ASEAN scientists in WoS indexed journals between 1991

and 2010. During 1991 and 2010, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines,

and Singapore published 165,020 original articles in WoS indexed journals which repre-

sents 0.5% of total world scientific publications. The yearly publication increase was 13%

that was largely driven by Singapore, Thailand and Malaysia. These countries and Vietnam

recorded an average yearly increases of 13% or higher, the output of Indonesia and the

Philippines grew on average 8% per year (Nguyen and Pham 2011:109).

Furthermore, Nguyen and Pham (2010:110) found that the total number of publications

from the 10 countries in 2001-2010 was increased by 3.3-fold compared to the period from

1991 to 2000 (Figure 2). The highest was found in Cambodia, the lowest rates were ob-

served in Indonesia and the Philippines.

Figure 1: Number of Scientific Publications during the Period of 1991-2010

Source: Nguyen and Pham 2010:110.

Figure 2: 10-year Comparison of Publication Output

15

Source: Nguyen and Pham 2011:111.

By using the research area classification of WoS, Nguyen and Pham (2010:110) grouped

the ASEAN publications into 12 groups – agriculture, basic science, biomedical sciences,

chemistry, economics, engineering, environmental science, material sciences, mathematics,

physics, public health, and social sciences – and were able to decipher the most active sci-

entific disciplines of the countries. In Singapore, Thailand and Malaysia publication output

in biomedical science and engineering were ranked among the top research fields. In Vi-

etnam, Indonesia and the Philippines, articles in biomedical science and agriculture had the

largest share. To a certain degree this result can be put in perspective by acknowledging

the varying publication standards of the different scientific fields. But, clearly, in most

Southeast Asian countries science policy and funding is focused of the development of

research capabilities in the fields of natural science and technology.

A comparative study of research capabilities of East Asian countries by Hien (2010) calcu-

lated the research intensity of each country upon the total number of peer-reviewed publi-

cations in the WoS database per one million people and depicts the result in relation to per

capita GDP of each country (Figure 2). The varieties in research activity reflect the differ-

ent levels of economic development. Research intensity seems to have a strong correlation

with GDP per capita.

Figure 3: Research Intensity versus GDP per capita

16

Source: Hien 2010:617.

This brief bibliometric review of Southeast Asian research underlines several assumptions.

Southeast Asia appears to be a very small part in the international knowledge network, at

least in terms of publication output of research articles in peer-reviewed journals indexed

by the Web of Science database, one of the commercial pillars of the global science net-

work. But the output is rising fast. Singapore has become the center of research in South-

east Asia, Malaysia and Thailand as well. This and the mentioned correlation between re-

search intensity and GDP per capita illustrate, among other things, the notion that the mod-

ern scientific enterprise is first and foremost dependent on abundant financial funding re-

sources.

5. Qualitative Perspective: Challenging Academic Dependency

The purpose of this chapter is on the one side to exemplify the notion of academic depend-

ency and the resulting problems in doing research in the case of Social Sciences in South-

east Asia. The second part tries to propose some practical approaches to enact epistemolog-

ical independence and diversity.

5.1. An Example: The Social Sciences in Southeast Asia

According to Selvadurai et al. (2013:100), the various disciplines in contemporary social

sciences practiced in the developing countries are snowed under with mainly conceptual

knowledge from Euro-American discourse, especially from the Anglo-Saxon tradition.

Reason for that, as already mentioned, are varying: colonial influence, the dominance of

Western rooted international knowledge network, the psychological state of the captive

mind and the fact that modernization and industrialization strategies by Southeast Asian

17

governments were often modeled after the Western trajectory which required Western

knowledge.

The response to this Western hegemony in Social Sciences by peripheral countries can be

distinguished between the epistemological and the practical level. First, the universalist

assumptions of Western science are increasingly being questioned from within the West as

well as from scholars in developing societies, "but somewhat at a slow pace and operating

in the margins" (Selvadurai et al. 2013:104). Different disciplines of the Social Sciences,

especially the area studies, postcolonial studies or interdisciplinary comparative studies,

advocate the need for adapting social theory to local contexts and conceptualizing local

social knowledge.

In this sense Farid Alatas propagates alternative discourses in Social Sciencees and defines

these as:

[...] those which are informed by local/regional historical experiences and cultural practices in

the same way that the Western social sciences are. [...] These are all to be considered as poten-

tial sources of social science theories and concepts, which would decrease academic dependence

on the world social science powers. Therefore, it becomes clear that the emergence and augmen-

tation of alternative discourses is identical to the process of universalizing and internationalizing

the social science. It should also be clear that alternative discourses refer to good social science

because they are more conscious of the relevance of the surroundings and the problems stem-

ming from the discursive wielding of power by the social sciences [...]. (Farid Alatas 2006:82)

Farid Alatas further elaborates on the varying degrees of universality of alternative dis-

courses in social science:

1. At the simplest level, relevant social science would insist on a cautious application of Western

theory to the local situation. An example of this would be economic dependency theory.

2. At a higher level of universality, both indigenous and Western theories are applied to the local

context.

3. At yet another level of universality, local, Western and other indigenous theories and concepts

(that is, indigenous to other non-Western societies) are applied to the local setting. I have in

mind as an example, the application of Ibn Khaldun’s theory of state formation to the Mongol

conquest of China.

4. The highest level of universality refers to the application of indigenous theory from within and

without one’s own society to areas outside of one’s own area. (Faird Alatas 2008:11)

In the 1960s, Malaysia witnessed a foundational debates on the state of the Social Scienc-

es, but this discourse was lead by Western and local scholars who were still shaped by co-

18

lonial science (Selvadurai et al. 2013:103). Selvadurai et al. furthermore name a seminar in

1974 that attempted to initiate indigenous ideas led by Marxist influenced anthropologists

and sociologists. As in other scientific fields, Western approaches still prevail today in

Malaysian Social Sciences. Yet, a lot of institutionalized connections within Malaysia and

between Malaysian and other Southeast Asian universities have been developed through

collaborative research projects and conferences.

One further research strategy in countering academic dependency of social science was

suggested by Hussein Alatas (2006). The program of the sociology of the fool could pro-

vide the autonomous scholar with the diagnosis of scholarly fools that blind gregarious

animals in higher academic and political positions. Hussein Alatas (1977:45) and his son

Farid Alatas (2008:21) clarify the traits of such a scientific fool. A fool is unable to recog-

nize a problem, he is unable to solve a problem, he is unable to learn what is required to

solve a problem, he is unable to learn the art of learning and, most of all, he is unable to

admit that he is a fool. Even though this notion reveals a certain sense of caustic humor of

its inventor, it offers a clear standpoint and direction of analysis.

Furthermore, it appears to be essential to integrate non-Western ideas and epistemology

into social science teaching, at best in general theory courses and foundation courses. Farid

Alatas and Vineeta Sinha (2001) from the National University of Singapore have done this.

For instance they have implemented medieval Middle Eastern scholar Ibn Khaldun or the

Filipino thinker José Rizal into their sociological theory courses. Western Social Sciences

still is and will remain a substantial part of their teaching, but its ethnocentric constraints

are be openly acknowledged in class.

5.2. Possible Approaches to Develop Academic Independence and Diversity

To overcome the disparate traditional system of modern scientific knowledge and the cen-

tralized power over its conceptualization, dissemination, and application, the four major

pillars of this system have to be recognized by its marginalized actors, e.g. Southeast Asia.

These are in reference to chapter two "the critical importance of hierarchies in the existing

knowledge order", "the relationship of reciprocal legitimation between knowledge and

power", "the transnational division of labor in the contemporary knowledge order", and

"the political economy of the commercialization of knowledge" (Weiler 2009:209).

Knowledge hierarchies symbolize the distribution of power within the international

knowledge network. To a certain degree, hierarchies can be useful, but only if they are a

product of transparent meritocratic processes and only if they are not carved in stone and

19

generalized. Good science is doing what works best in solving a particular problem. Yet,

the current hierarchies of the international knowledge network are only partially the prod-

uct of merit or ability. Particular interests by political and commercial actors not only un-

dermine the development of a fair and sustainable facilitation of competition, exchange,

and consensus-seeking of scientific ideas and approaches. They define what is excellent

and good science on the ground of their own agenda. Because of its colonial roots and as

an actual part of the network, even if it is marginal, Southeast Asian research systems are

currently possessing most of these traits.

Weiler (2009:210) underlines the reciprocal legitimization of knowledge and power in re-

search and higher education. In that sense a centralization of knowledge has to be opposed,

because that causes a centralization of power which in turn causes an exuberant concentra-

tion of interpretational sovereignty. This inference can be applied to all levels of

knowledge production and dissemination. In theory, a continuing interdependence should

prevent that, therefore checks and balances have to be implemented on every governance

level of research: between individual scientists, between student and professor, within in-

stitutions, within national research systems and within the international knowledge net-

work. In order to prevent the creation of new and the perpetuation of existing knowledge

monopolies, calls for a democratization of science, open science, and open access haven

been made. Southeast Asia and other marginalized, but growing centers of knowledge pro-

duction can complement and improve these projects through its diverse knowledge tradi-

tions in a call for and implementation of epistemological diversity. Furthermore,

knowledge hierarchies within Southeast Asia as within all developing regions are already

existing. Singapore can be contemplated as being dominant science power in Southeast

Asia and is therefore in a position of power in regard to knowledge production and dissem-

ination towards it neighbors.

One particular example for the perpetuation of knowledge monopolies between knowledge

centers and its peripheries is the composition of citation databases that gather data on arti-

cles published in peer-reviewed journals. Most of them are operated out of commercial

motivation. That narrows the selection process in regard to the scientific journals included

in their computed observations. Furthermore, most indexed journals and its editors are

based in developed countries, mostly. This bias is perpetuated by private and state funding

mechanisms throughout the world. And Southeast Asian research systems are no excep-

tions, throughout all universities in the area incentivize their researchers to “generate world

class high impact publications” (UM 2010:3). The impact of an article is usually assessed

20

by number of citations. Articles published in journals indexed by commercial databases

like Web of Science receive on average more citations than articles published in non-

indexed journals. Therefore, scientist are systematically asked to construe their research

projects according to trends of developed countries. In order to break on foundation of the

current knowledge order, these publication strategies have to be changed. This could also

boost open access. Unrestricted access to peer-reviewed articles in turn would reduce the

costs of doing research, because subscriptions of indexed journals consume a vast amount

of money.

Even though the division of labor in the international knowledge order is gradually chang-

ing, as the development of Southeast Asia during the last decades has shown, a disparity

prevails. To overcome the restrictions and imbalances of the disparate traditional system of

knowledge production, Weiler (2009:213) names further steps:

the acknowledgement of the cultural and political nature of the production and dis-

semination of knowledge combined with the requirement of systematic and critical

inquiry of these processes;

a continual and meticulous reflection on traditional modern science and its disci-

plines concerning epistemological and organizational diversity;

scrutinizing the means of evaluation and quality assurance of science while recog-

nizing the power that is associated with these procedures;

a reconsideration of the role of research and higher education institutions in main-

taining and determining the international science system.

The growing interconnectedness between private commerce and public research has been

another trait of Southeast Asian research that can be found all around the globe. Most

countries in Southeast Asia cannot cover the cost for all modern research. Therefore re-

search institutions are dependent on private funding. Whereby public research at best con-

ducts research to improve the lives of all people, private actors often and naturally support

research out of private interest. In the case of private corporations the produced knowledge

has to serve commercial purposes. “[The] overall growth in the commercialization of

knowledge production has added a further layer of politically constituted interests to the

contemporary system of knowledge production” (Weiler 2009:212). To counter the com-

mercial exploitation of public knowledge production capabilities, Southeast Asian coun-

tries have to create and implement rules of conduct and mechanisms that controls and re-

stricts the commercial use of public created research.

21

The possible advantages for Southeast Asian research by implementing reflexive epistemo-

logical diversity as fundamental research paradigm have already been exemplified.

Selvadurai et al. (2013:102) emphasizes that Southeast Asia as an amalgam of different

civilization groups provides a rich source for social conceptualization, local and indigenous

knowledge. With this assumption and at the end of this chapter, let me bring forward a

wish concealed under the coat of a broader research proposal. A possible comprehensive

project for all the different fields of Southeast Asian studies could be a twofold elaboration

of the history of science and knowledge of the area, thereby putting one emphasis on min-

ing local and indigenous knowledge of smaller social groups and another emphasis on

mapping the connections of science and knowledge within Southeast Asia as well as with

other regions. It is probable that the results of this project will reveal a vast amount of

knowledge based on very different epistemological outlooks. At the same time will might

prove particular intellectual similarities between Southeast Asia and other civilizational

areas, as the work of Pande (2005) already indicates to some extent. In the process of this

long-term venture the outcomes could be subsequently added to the different curricula of

Southeast Asian higher education institutions, as courses on the Southeast Asian philoso-

phy and history of science, at best compulsory for undergraduates at Southeast universities.

That sort of project roots for epistemological diversity.

6. Summary, Conclusion, and Outlook

This research report has reviewed several aspects of knowledge production in Southeast

Asia. It has offered a glimpse on the ongoing debates in science studies, postcolonial theo-

ry and area studies. In these the unity of modern science is subsequently being decon-

structed in consequence of its Western ethnocentric bias. The relationship between

knowledge and power appears to be essential for the analysis of the intricacies of science

systems in regard to its susceptibility to political and commercial inference and direction.

Arguments for the productiveness of different knowledge traditions were proposed. Fur-

thermore, the development of modern science in Southeast Asia, its colonial routs and still

ongoing dependence on Western power were traced. Southeast Asian research capabilities

are rapidly advancing, its output is rising fast, even though it still embodies, quantified,

only a small part of worldwide research intensity.

Epistemological diversification – unity in science through unity in diversity of its outlooks

– can be a suitable general research agenda, especially for Southeast Asia with its plural-

istic societies and its historic connections to other regions of the world. This is recognized

22

by many Southeast Asian scientist, especially within the different disciplines of social sci-

ence. But in order to be productive and applicable for individual scientists, epistemological

diversity has to be recognized and institutionalized on every level of research governance,

within universities, within national research systems and within the international network

of knowledge.

The network of knowledge is dominated by developed countries, especially by Western

countries. This constitutes and perpetuates a prerogative of interpretation and direction in

science. Yet, a more precise inquiry of the different actors in this network blurs the appar-

ently clear borders between scientific developed and developing countries. On every level

– individual, institutional, national, regional, and worldwide and international – the line

can be drawn between those who wield power, who have a political and economic incen-

tive to monopolies and control knowledge and those who are marginalized and demand an

open science, access to knowledge, and a right to conceptualize. Regarding its colonial

history, Southeast Asian people are acquainted with the perspective of speaking from a

marginalized position and with the means to break interpretational monopolies. In this

sense, by successfully implementing epistemological diversity in their research systems,

Southeast Asian research can become a more genuine force for the advancement of their

people’s lives and a model for the democratization of science.

7. References

Alatas, Syed Hussein. 1974. "The Captive Mind in Development Studies." International Social

Science Journal 34, 9-25.

_________________. 1974. "The Captive Mind and Creative Development." International Social Science Journal 36: 691-699.

_________________. 1977. Intellectuals in Developing Societies. London: Frank Cass.

_________________. 2006. "The Autonomous, the Universal and the Future of Sociology." Cur-rent Sociology 54: 7–23.

Alatas, Syed Farid. 2001. "Alternative Discourses in Southeast Asia". Sari 19: 49-67.

_______________. 2003. "Academic Dependency and the Global Division of Labour in the Social

Sciences." Current Sociology 51: 599–613.

_______________.2006. Alternative Discourses in Asian Social Science: Responses to Eurocentrism. New Delhi: SAGE Publications.

_______________. 2007. "Captive Mind." In Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, edited by George Ritzer. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell. Accessed March 31, 2014. DOI:

10.1111/b.9781405124331.2007.x.

_______________. 2008. Intellectual and Structural Challenges to Academic Dependency. E-

Bulletin. International Sociological Association 9, 3-26. Accessed March 31, 2014.

http://www.isa-sociology.org/publ/e-bulletin/E-bulletin_9.pdf

Alatas, Syed Farid, and Vineeta Sinha. 2001. "Teaching Classical Sociological Theory in Singa-

pore: The Context of Eurocentrism." Teaching Sociology 29: 316–331.

23

Alberts, Bruce. 2013. "Impact Factor Distortions." Science 340: 787.

Altbach, Philip. 1989. "Twisted roots: The Western impact on Asian higher education." In From

Dependence to Autonomy. The Development of Asian Universities, edited by Philip Altbach

and Viswanathan Selvaratnam, 1-21. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

____________. 2004. "The Past and Future of Asian Universities: Twenty-First Century Challeng-

es." In Asian Universities. Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Challenges, edited by Philip Altbach and Toru Umakoshi, 13-32. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Anderson, Warwick. 2002. “Introduction: Postcolonial Technoscience.” Social Studies of Science

32: 643-658.

Chandler, David, Norman G. Owen, William R. Roff, David Joel Steinberg, Jean Gelman Taylor,

Robert H. Taylor, Alexander Woodside, and David K. Wyatt. 2005. The Emergence of

Modern Southeast Asia. A New History. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.

Cook, Harold J. 2007. Matters of Exchange: Commerce, Medicine and Science in the Dutch Gold-

en Age. New Haven: Yale University Press.

David, Matthew. 2005. Science in Society. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Foucault, Michel. 1975. Surveiller et punir. Paris: Gallimard.

Foucault, Michel. 1976. Histoire de la sexualité. Vol. I: La Volonté de savoir. Paris: Gallimard.

Goonatilake, Susantha. 1982. Crippled Minds. An Exploration into Colonial Culture. Ghaziabad,

India: Vikas Publishing.

Goonatilake, Susantha. 1984. Aborted Discovery: Science and Creativity in the Third World. Lon-

don: Zed Books.

Goonatlikae, Susantha. 1998. Toward a Global Science. Mining Civilizational Knowledge.

Bloominhzon and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

Goonatilake, Susantha. 2000. "A post-European century in science." Futures 31: 923-927.

Gutting, Gary. 2013. "Michel Foucault." In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by

Edward N. Zalta. Accessed March 30, 2014.

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/foucault.

Harding, Sandra. 1998. Is Science Multicultural? Postcolonialisms, Feminisms, and Epistemolo-

gies.Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

Hien, P.D. 2010. "A comparative study of research capabilities of East Asian countries and impli-

cations for Vietnam." Higher Education 60: 615-625.

Houben, Vincent. 2003. „Southeast Asia and Islam.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of

Political and Social Science 588: 149-170.

Hunt, Bruce. 1997. "Doing Science in a Global Empire: Cable Telegraphy and Electrical Physics in Victorian Britain." In Victorian Science in Context, edited by Bernard Lightman, 312-333.

Chicago, Illinois: University Of Chicago Press.

Kim, Khoo Kay. 2005. 100 Years the University of Malaya. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaysia

Press.

Lee, Molly. 2004. "Malaysian Universities: Toward Equality, Accessibility, and Quality" In: Asian

Universities. Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Challenges, edited by Philip

Altbach and Toru Umakoshi, 221-246. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

________. 2006. "Introduction." In Higher Education in South-East Asia, edited by Asia-Pacific Programme of Educational Innovation for Development, United Nations Educational, Sci-

entific and Cultural Organization, 1-12. Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok, 2006.

Lim, Teck Ghee. 1995. "Malaysian and Singaporean higher education: Common roots but differing

directions." In East Asian higher education: Traditions and Transformations, edited by Al-

bert Yee, 69-83. Oxford and New York: IAU Press.

24

Mandal, Sumit. 2013. "The Indian Ocean in a Malay text. The Hikayat Mareskalek in transregional

perspective." Indonesia and the Malay World 41 (120, Special Issue: Global conjunctions in the Indian Ocean: Malay world textual trajectories): 237-254.

Monastersky, Richard. 2005. "The number that’s devouring science." The Chronicle of Higher Education 52. Accessed March 31, 2014. http://chronicle.com/free/ v52/i08/08a01201.htm.

Mukherjee, Hena; and Poh Kam Wong. 2011. "The National University of Singapore and the Uni-versity of Malaya: Common Roots and Different Paths." In The Road to Academic Excel-

lence. The Making of World-Class Research Universities, edited by Philip Altbach and

Jamil Salmi, 129-155. Washington D.C.: The World Bank.

Nandy, Ashis. 2000. "Recovery of Indigenous Knowledge and Dissenting Futures o the Universi-

ty." In The University in Transformation: Global Perspectives on the Futures of the Uni-versity, edited by Sohail Inayatullah and Jennifer Gidley, 115-123. Westport, Connecticut:

Bergin & Garvey.

Nguyen, Tuan V., and Ly T. Pham. 2011. "Scientific output and its relationship to knowledge

economy: an analysis of ASEAN countries." Scientometrics 89, 107-117.

Pande, Govind Chandra, editor. 2005. India's Interaction with Southeast Asia. New Delhi:

Munshiram Manoharlal.

Riddell, Peter. 2001. Islam and the Malay-Indonesian world. Transmissions and responses. Singa-

pore: Horizon.

Shamsul, A.B. 1999. "Colonial knowledge and the construction of Malay and Malayness: exploring

the literary component." Sari: International Journal of Malay World Studies 17: 3-17

___________. 2007. "Producing knowledge of Southeast Asia." In The Inter-Asia Cultural Studies Reader, edited by Kuan-Hsing Chen and Huat, Chua Beng, 140-160. London and New

York: Routledge.

Selvadurai, Sivapalan, Er Ah Choy, Marlyna Maros, and Kamarulnizam Abdullah. 2013. Shifting

Discourses in Social Sciences: Nexus of Knowledge and Power. Asian Social Science 9 (7):

97-106.

Selvaratnam, Viswanathan. 1988. "Higher education co-operation and Western domi-nance of

knowledge creation and flows in Third World countries." Higher Education 17, 41-68.

Selvaratnam, Viswanathan. 1989. "Change admist continuity: University development in Malay-

sia." In From Dependence to Autonomy. The Development of Asian Universities, edited by Philip Altbach and Viswanathan Selvaratnam, 187-205. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Third World Network. 1991. Modern science in crisis - A Third World response. Penang, Malaysia: Consumers' Association of Penang.

University of Malaya. 2009. Annual Report 2008. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press.

University of Malaya. 2010. UM Strategic Plan 2011-2015. Accessed March 30, 2014. http://www.um.edu.my/doc/File/administration/UM%20Strategic%20Plan%202011-

2015.pdf

Weiler, Hans. 2011. "Knowledge and Power. The New Politics of Higher Education." Journal of

Educational Planning and Administration 25 (3): 205-221.

Welch, Anthony. 2011. Higher Education in Southeast Asia. Blurring borders, changing balance.

Oxon and New York: Routledge.

Yehuda, Elkana. 1981. "A Programmatic Attempt at an Anthropology of Knowledge." In Sciences

and Cultures: Anthropological and Historical Studies of the Sciences 5, edited by Everett Mendelssohn and Elkana Yehuda, 1-68. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.