Rethinking Area Studies for a Changing World

Why Do We Need to Rethink Traditional Area Studies?

All participants in this workshop, though coming from diverse backgrounds, share experience in intercultural and inter-regional research. Their work underscores the urgent need to rethink the epistemological foundations and methodological practices of what was once called “area studies.” This transformation goes far beyond institutional or technical reform—it calls for a fundamental epistemic shift. Moving past Cold War legacies, methodological silos, and Eurocentric assumptions, it requires new theoretical frameworks, equitable intercultural dialogue, and interdisciplinary approaches that reflect the entangled, plural realities of today’s world. Without such change, area studies risk becoming obsolete in a time that demands both global insight and deep local understanding.

The call to redefine and transform traditional area studies stems from both internal disciplinary challenges and broader global shifts. Once central to Cold War geopolitics and a model of interdisciplinary engagement, area studies now face significant epistemological, methodological, and institutional limitations. In a rapidly changing world, these limitations must be addressed to meet the evolving demands of contemporary scholarship and society.

The contemporary world is no longer structured by the dynamics of a unipolar order; rather, it is increasingly shaped by the re-emergence of multipolarity. Since area studies themselves were originally born in a multipolar world, this shift opens important questions about how knowledge is produced and evaluated. The growing influence of multiple centres of power—economic, political, and epistemic—requires the creation of new analytical models capable of accounting for plurality rather than subsuming it under singular narratives.

Another dimension of the fact that we live in a changing world is the rapid development of generative AI. Large language models, advanced machine translation, and increasingly sophisticated chatbots transform access to linguistic and regional knowledge. Since language proficiency has long served as one of the field’s traditional gatekeeping mechanisms, these technologies challenge established assumptions about expertise, authority, and the role of the scholar. They also open new methodological possibilities—while simultaneously demanding critical reflection on the biases and epistemologies embedded within AI systems themselves.

Integration of contextual depth with methodological tools

The workshop will address several problems connected to these needs. The discussion will develop from a critical examination of the apparent dichotomy between regional or intercultural studies as a meta-category on the one hand and the various related disciplines within the social sciences and humanities on the other. 

The Cold War institutional support for area studies has diminished, which results in a shift of academic power toward theory-driven, methodologically rigorous political science. This shift marginalizes the deep local knowledge that area studies should imply. In this respect, we will discuss possibilities of integrating the contextual depth of area studies with the formal tools of particular disciplines. Thus, the transformation of area studies must move toward methodological pluralism and theoretical synthesis to remain relevant in a current academic environment.

Ideological Legacies, Essentialist Constructs, and Epistemic Blind Spots

Another issue that needs to be taken into account, are the ideological foundations of area studies in the so-called “Western” academy. In this respect, we need to question the very groundworks of area studies, which emerged as tools of liberal containment and Cold War governance, and were initially shaped by Orientalist assumptions and the managerial priorities of institutional liberalism. In this respect, it is important to see that traditional area studies essentialize “areas” as stable, bounded entities and often reproduce hierarchies between “knowing” (Western) scholars and the (non-Western) “objects of knowledge”. This legacy makes traditional area studies epistemologically outdated and unsuitable. A meaningful transformation, then, requires the decolonization of their foundational assumptions. It calls for the disaggregation of the area as a natural unit of analysis and for renewed attention to transnational flows, diasporic formations, and the politics of knowledge production itself.

New approaches?

In this sense, it is important to see that globalization has not erased the need for local knowledge; rather, global dynamics continue to manifest unevenly across regions. Responding to this, some scholars propose a shift toward Comparative Area Studies (CAS), which enables structured regional comparisons while retaining contextual sensitivity. Yet to fully transcend the limits of globalization—often reduced to power-driven economic and political interconnections—such transformation should also engage with Gayatri Spivak’s concept of planetarity. This perspective calls for ethical, non-instrumental ways of relating across cultures, emphasizing epistemic humility and a commitment to difference beyond managerial or utilitarian frameworks.

Referential Frameworks and the Need for Transcultural Methodology

We also need to critically elaborate upon epistemological problems regarding limitations of comparative theories when conducted through a Eurocentric epistemic lens. In this regard, the method of transcultural sublation, for instance, offers a dynamic, dialogical approach that respects culturally conditioned semantic and referential frameworks. Here, it is important to expose that traditional area studies (especially when engaging with non-Western theories) risk imposing “universal” (i.e. Western) conceptual grids onto culturally distinct materials. A true transformation would thus require an awareness of such differences, without surrendering the possibility of dialogue. It also requires recognition that frames of reference—shaped by grammar, logic, and cosmology—structure not only what we think, but also how we think. Transforming area studies, then, also involves methodological humility, semantic reflexivity, and intercultural competence.

The expected outcomes of the workshop include the gradual integration of its insights into the methodological foundations and curricula of university study programs in regional studies and intercultural research. While ambitious, this goal is realistic given the expertise of the participants and the relevance of the themes addressed. In addition, the workshop contributions will be published in a special issue of Asian Studies (https://journals.uni-lj.si/as), a peer-reviewed Q1 international academic journal issued by the University of Ljubljana Press, thereby ensuring scholarly dissemination and long-term academic impact.

Location: Assembly Hall, University of Ljubljana, Kongresni trg 12, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

Luka Culiberg, University of Ljubljana (luka.culiberg@ff.uni-lj.si) 
Jana Rošker, University of Ljubljana (jana.rosker@ff.uni-lj.si) 
Rajko Muršič, University of Ljubljana (rajko.mursic@ff.uni-lj.si) 
Patrick Heinrich, Ca' Foscari University of Venice (patrick.heinrich@unive.it)
Jonathan Puntervold, University of Gothenburg (jonathan.puntervold@sprak.gu.se)

Jana Rošker, University of Ljubljana
Luka Culiberg, University of Ljubljana 
Rajko Muršič, University of Ljubljana
Patrick Heinrich, Ca' Foscari University of Venice
Laura de Giorgi Ca' Foscari University of Venice 
Stefano Pello Ca' Foscari University of Venice 
Martin Nordeborg, University of Gothenburg
Martin Svensson Ekström, University of Gothenburg 
Jonathan Puntervold, University of Gothenburg

The list of participating students will be provided in January 2026

The program will be announced in January 2026.