First I want to note how the popularity of the label “Area Studies” only
caught on slowly, and suggest that this was because the meaning of the
label “Area Studies” was initially quite often misunderstood.
“Area Studies” exists only as a generic term: it does not denominate what any
individual student learns about or what any individual lecturer teaches. I, for
example, teach American Studies. I do not think of myself as teaching Area
Studies. But I have learnt to understand that American Studies is an Area
Study. In this sense, I have come to understand that I am teaching within the
generic field of Area Studies, and, by so doing, am undertaking things in common,
more or less closely, with those teaching Canadian Studies, Australian Studies,
Latin American Studies, West African Studies, Southeast Asian Studies, Korean
Studies, European Studies, and so on. This sort of framing of the term leads to
the following kind of definition:
Area Studies is a generic term applied to the study of the society or
societies of a given geographical space. The term covers national areas
under such titles as American Studies of Australian Studies, and
bi-national or multi-national regions under titles such as African
Studies, Caribbean Studies, European Studies, Latin American Studies,
and Pacific Studies. The empirical content of Area Studies programs
therefore varies widely. Programs in Area Studies are multidisciplinary (grounded in two or more different academic disciplines and/or
interdisciplinary [explicitly] integrating two or more disciplines).
(Quality Assurance Agency 2002)
|