Abstrak
In this paper, I offer a reflection on two cases to assess in preliminary manner the viability of an indigenous methodology for Southeast Asian Studies. The first is Kaupapa Maori Research (hereafter KM) as spelt out in the much talked about book by Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous People (Smith 1999). The second case is Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino Psychology, SP), which began to take shape in the late 1960?s and 1970?s in the Philippines. Arguably these are among the most developed efforts at decolonization or indigenization of methodology. I intend to use these cases to explore the factors that made possible the flourishing and stagnating of indigenous methodologies. I shall argue that the broader context of knowledge consumption, not epistemological and methodological concerns, poses the most formidable challenge to the
viability of indigenization efforts.
