Research Accolades

Dan Friess - Award for Excellent Researcher 2017

Associate Professor Dan Friess (Department of Geography) recently received the FASS Award for Excellent Researcher (AER) which is presented to researchers based on the overall impact and strength of their research. The successful researcher would have “achieved consistent research excellence, produced a piece of research of great impact and be recognised by the research community as having achieved a significant breakthrough.”

Dan's research focuses on threats to tropical coastal habitats and is based on three interdisciplinary themes: 1) quantifying ecosystem services; 2) habitat loss due to sea level rise; and 3) habitat loss due to deforestation. He concentrates on human-environment interactions in the coastal zone, particularly tropical mangrove forests. Dan is interested in the benefits (ecosystem services) that mangroves provide to human populations, and the threats that mangroves face, such as sea level rise and deforestation due to development and agriculture. His work on sea level rise and deforestation in Southeast Asia has been published in high impact journals such as Nature, Nature Climate Change, Biological Reviews, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Conservation Biology, Biological Conservation, Global Ecology, Biogeography, Global Environmental Change and Annals of the Association of American Geographers. Find out more about Dan's projects at The Mangrove Lab.

Dan was recently awarded (as lead PI, joint with Singapore-ETH Centre) ~SG$4.8 million by the National Research Foundation to conduct a Singapore Ecosystem Services Assessment, where the benefits provided by Singapore’s environment and how ecosystem services will change with development are quantified. The output of this is a planning document and decision support tool to aid land use planning.

We congratulated Dan and spoke to him about his research work.


Congratulations on receiving the Award for Excellent Researcher, Dan! How did you and your team come to develop the research plan for the Singapore Ecosystem Services Assessment?

Between 2014 and 2017 we were funded by the Ministry of Education to undertake a project that quantified several ecosystem services of mangrove forests, and then projected their fate under future land use scenarios. Through this project we came up with some novel techniques to measure ecosystem services such as carbon, fisheries, and cultural values. This project proved to be a kind of pilot study for our broader Singapore Natural Capital Assessment, which takes a similar approach for all ecosystems in Singapore, projects their distribution under scenarios such as the Master Plan, and provides a decision support tool for decision makers to use to test future land use scenarios.


Could you discuss the term ‘Natural Capital’ that the Ecosystem Services Assessment aims to quantify? Could you also elaborate on the term ‘Ecosystem Services’ and its relationship to ‘Natural Capital’? What is the history behind these terms?

‘Ecosystem Services’ are the direct and indirect benefits that natural habitats provide to people. It is a term that was first coined in the early 1980s, though arguably we’ve been using the concept in management for more than a hundred years. ‘Natural Capital’ refers to abiotic (physical) and biotic (biological) assets that contribute to economic output and social wellbeing. These assets encompass ecosystem services, alongside other parts of the environment that help produce ecosystem services.


What are the challenges of carrying out an Ecosystem Services Assessment in Singapore?

National-scale Assessments are increasingly being conducted in Europe (such as the UK’s National Ecosystem Assessment), but we are one of the first to conduct such an assessment in the urban tropics. This poses two major challenges: firstly, our knowledge of tropical urban ecosystem services is quite low compared to other parts of the world, so we need to increase this baseline. Secondly, conducting an assessment in an urban area is much harder than an equivalent national assessment in a larger country with more rural areas. This is because Singapore’s urban landscape is very heterogeneous, so ecosystems are mixed up in close proximity to each other, and boundaries between ecosystems are fuzzy. This is a huge challenge for mapping and monitoring, but provides us with a unique opportunity to show that ecosystem services assessments can be achieved at a variety of scales.


The project will produce a tool for policy makers that will incorporate ecosystem services into land use planning. How could this tool be modified for use beyond Singapore?

The project will provide a framework for the assessment of tropical urban Natural Capital. This framework should provide a tool kit that is applicable enough that it could be taken and applied to any other comparable tropical urban setting.


The 2016 article ‘Rates and drivers of mangrove deforestation in Southeast Asia, 2000-2012’, co-authored with Dr Dan Richards in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, discusses the novel remote sensing analysis you undertook to quantify the key causes of mangrove deforestation in Southeast Asia between 2000 and 2012. How did you develop this new method of conducting remote sensing analysis?

We took advantage of some new global datasets that had recently become available. Firstly, researchers at the United States Geological Survey had produced a global mangrove map, so we knew where mangroves were found. Secondly, researchers at the University of Maryland had created a dataset of global forest loss from 2000 to 2012. We merged these datasets to show where mangroves had been lost, and then we looked at what each patch of lost mangrove (40 000 patches!) had been converted into. From this, we could tell if mangroves had been lost to aquaculture, rice, oil palm or urban development.


You indicate that prior to this research, most researchers, NGOs and policy makers were under the assumption that mangroves were being lost at 1-3% per year, and you showed that in fact deforestation rates had reduced substantially to ~0.18% per year. Why was this assumption taken for granted? In addition, your research revealed that oil palm was a regional deforestation driver – how much did this come as a surprise?

This assumption was present because those were the only statistics available at the time. They had been produced 10-20 years ago, and were best guesses based on a literature review of previous (smaller scale) studies. These numbers kept getting cited and recycled in the literature, without much critical thought. Our study, along with another global study published in 2016, were some of the first to quantitatively map regional and global mangrove change for the 21st century, and showed that the real rates were now almost an order of magnitude lower. This is due to many things such as aquaculture intensification, changing land uses, and the successful implementation of government conservation policies. But we still have more to do!

Oil palm as a driver of mangrove loss came as a surprise, as we never talk about it in academic circles. But when we contacted NGOs on the ground and newspaper articles, we found a lot of evidence that this was a fairly common cause of mangrove deforestation. We are happy that our study has highlighted this and has been able to communicate it to other researchers and to the policy arena.


You indicate that prior to this research, most researchers, NGOs and policy makers were under the assumption that mangroves were being lost at 1-3% per year, and you showed that in fact deforestation rates had reduced substantially to ~0.18% per year. Why was this assumption taken for granted? In addition, your research revealed that oil palm was a regional deforestation driver – how much did this come as a surprise?

Our knowledge of mangrove ecosystem services is spread across so many disciplines – geography, ecology, conservation science, chemistry, economics and policy. This book aims to bring all of this knowledge together in one place to provide a comprehensive overview. It also has several chapters on mangrove conservation and policy, and how ecosystem services can contribute to this. So I hope that it will be of interest to practitioners and decision makers, as well as students and mangrove researchers.


Lastly, what are your future research projects and plans?

My future plans are to continue highlighting the importance of ecosystem services in Southeast Asia. We’ll be doing this through the Singapore Natural Capital Project, but also through continuing studies of mangroves in the region. My ultimate aim is to have applied, as well as conceptual impact in this field.


Thank you, Dan. We wish you well in your future projects.

For more information on Research Accolades e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Konstadina Griva

Associate Professor Konstadina Griva (Department of Psychology) recently received the FASS Award for Excellent Researcher (AER) which is presented to researchers based on the overall impact and strength of their research. The successful researcher would have “achieved consistent research excellence, produced a piece of research of great impact and be recognised by the research community as having achieved a significant breakthrough.”

A/P Griva is an accomplished awardee. She is an internationally recognized leader in the field of psychonephrology, which is an appreciation of the psychological and social issues affecting those living with the physical burden of kidney disease. Her Hemodialysis Self Management Randomized Trial (HEDSMART) landed a research award from the European Renal Association – European Dialysis Transplantation Association (ERA_EDTA). HEDSMART is also the largest Randomized Controlled Trial of psychological intervention for renal patients (sample size of 242), comprehensive assessments of clinical endpoints, behaviours and adjustment indicators, and inclusion of long-term follow up assessments (12 & 24 months) to explore sustainability. HEDSMART has contributed to further competitively funded research: the Combined Diabetes and Renal Control Trial (C-DIRECT), sponsored by Singapore’s National Kidney Foundation, and an Agency for Integrated Care-funded diabetes adaptation of the programme set to run from 2017 to 2020.

We congratulated A/P Griva and spoke to her about her research work.

Your nomination for this award was heavily due to HEDSMART, a Hemodialysis Self Management Randomized Trial that ran from 2009 to 2014 and assessed the short and long term effects of a practical, low intensity self-management intervention for hemodialysis patients from ethnically diverse backgrounds who have low socioeconomic status. How did you and your research team come to develop HEDSMART?

My work in the field of PsychoNephrology has spanned more than 20 years now – while my earlier renal research work was on mapping key patient outcomes across the journey, ultimately the goal was to put research in the service of patients and providers and contribute to improved patient care.  To this end, the priority has always been the development of programmes to help patients with long-term conditions to get the best from treatment by supporting optimal adherence or better allowing existing health services to meet patients’ needs.
Interventions specifically designed for CKD patients are limited (at best) – which contrasts the abundance of support programs for patients of other conditions (such as diabetes). HEDSMART was conceived to address this gap. The intention was to develop a feasible, light touch intervention to support patients on dialysis. Pragmatic, feasible and culture sensitive were key considerations in this work. We opted to develop HEDSMART using a ‘bottom-up approach’ seeking input from various stakeholders rather than ‘transplant’ packages from other settings. The work was guided by psychological principles but foci, content, and delivery/implementation procedures were finalised following extensive formative work with patients in the local context and input from renal health providers so as to ensure relevance and good engagement for users and frontline staff respectively.  While the program was mainly to address and support patients, we placed equal weight on supporting the staff involved (facilitators) who were the  ‘lifeline’ of the project by developing a training course, complete manual and debriefing/mentoring opportunities in the pilot phase of the research. We are grateful for the hard work of many people on both research and implementation who have made this work possible – and truly consider HEDSMART an exemplary partnership of front care staff in NKF and researchers in NUS and UK for improved patient care.

What initially drew you to the field of psychonephrology?

When I embarked on my work in the field I was surprised by dearth of studies on renal population(s). Much of the evidence was either lacking or was somewhat outdated/conducted in the 1970/80s when models of renal care were different. I wanted to revisit key questions with a stronger methodology and to fill in gaps left unaddressed in the limited literature. The questions remain relevant today as numbers of patients with CKD are rising rapidly due to ageing and diabetes.
From the behavioural medicine perspective, there are few parallels for the burden of Chronic Kidney Disease/End Stage Renal Disease for patients and health care systems.  Aside the staggering costs, CKD has a profound effect on all aspects of life and functioning including cognitive capacity, identity, emotions, family, relationships, and employment -
Patients are facing an intense, complex and demanding treatment regimen, dependence on artificial means for survival (dialysis), and multiple difficult treatment decisions and transitions. These may regard the commencement of dialysis, a switch from one treatment type to another (as in the case of patients receiving a kidney transplant), patients withdrawing from dialysis or converting from one modality (home based dialysis, peritoneal dialysis) to in centre hemodialysis, and/or a return to dialysis after graft failure.
The various renal replacement modalities have distinct characteristics, including different delivery methods (eg, in-center vs. at home), schedules (intermittent vs. daily; nocturnal vs. daytime), requirements for self-care (eg, clinician-directed or carer-assisted vs. self-care), and physical invasiveness (eg, need for catheters or surgery). Renal care is a journey for patients and families.

renal dialysis technician

Renal Dialysis Technician by wlstechcolleges (Flickr)

Your 2016 article Quality of life and emotional distress in patients and burden in caregivers: a comparison between assisted peritoneal dialysis and self-care peritoneal dialysis published in Quality of Life Research suggested that caregiver burden and quality of life should not prevent the use of assisted peritoneal dialysis (PD).  What most intrigues you about this finding?

The lack of differences between assisted PD and self care PD is compelling as it challenges the notion that PD is only or best suited for young and ambulatory patients who can self-care and self-administer treatment at home. Outcomes for assisted PD – ie. patient dependence on caregivers for performance of PD were comparable and the burden to their caregiver was NOT higher. The findings would therefore support expanding utilization of assisted PD to cater to the growth of frailer elderly people or patients who are unable to self care and require dialysis by supporting dialysis at home, away from tertiary care centres.

Focal to my research work are patient-reported outcomes (i.e. quality of life; emotional adjustment, behavioral responses) – such measures capture patients’ experience and have prognostic value and utility over and beyond clinical markers/indicators. Good measurement (reliable, valid, sensitive) and pertinent to the population under study are however important.

You developed the Transplant Effects Questionnaire to measure emotional and behavioural responses to transplantation. This questionnaire has been adapted for kidney, liver, heart, and lung transplant populations, translated into German, Dutch, and Turkish, and has hundreds of registered users worldwide. Could you shed light on how you developed it?

The Transplant Effects Questionnaire (TxEQ), a transplantation specific tool to measure emotional and behavioral responses to transplantation was developed as part of my research with renal transplant patients in the UK. Developing a questionnaire is a challenging and arduous ‘task’ – at best to be avoided, as I typically advise my research students. Yet we felt the TXEQ was timely and much needed as evidence indicated a range of areas and concerns of transplantation not captured in existing measures. We have developed the measure based on an extensive review of the transplantation literature, a transplant focus group and in-depth interviews with transplant recipients and two research studies comprising more 330 kidney transplants.
The combined approach of such quantitative and qualitative methodologies was thought to be the best approach to capturing transplant recipients’ perspectives on their post-transplant experience and establishing the psychometric properties of the questionnaire. The instrument has been well received in the transplantation community – it has been translated in other languages. We have recently completed a study at NUH using the TXEQ with renal transplant recipients in Singapore.

How do you foresee your findings being incorporated in related fields of behavioural science and health psychology?

I believe my work has contributed to scientific and empirical literature of my field (Behavioural Science/Health Psychology) by mapping key outcomes across a course of diseases and treatments (neuropsychological, behavioural and emotional) for a population, which not been well researched, and by advancing measurement (e.g. the Transplant Effects Questionnaire). Like most researchers however, I would like to see my research work transcending the realms of my scientific field/discipline (Health Psychology/Behavioural) - contributing to better care and health services.

It does sound rather cliché but ultimately everybody that chooses a career in caring professions (including Psychology) aspires to be helpful to others. I have hence strived to align my research with issues of more direct relevance to patients’ experience and heart so that my work has both scientific and pragmatic value:
(a) by alerting the health care community to key challenges and support needs of their patients – e.g. symptoms of depression, and cognitive impairments related to dialysis that may compromise adjustment or highlighting their misperceptions and misunderstanding that may hinder the decision making process and hence may need to elicited or addressed in consultations/pre-dialysis care.
(b) by informing the development of support programs (adjust to usual care) such as HEDSMART to improve outcomes for patients.


What are some of the research topics you are preparing to work on in the future?

In terms of my future research plans I would like to continue my work in the field of long-term conditions and focus more on scalability and sustainability of interventions to extend care beyond tertiary settings.
Some key themes and directions are as follows:

(a) Develop programs to support culture-sensitive home-based care for people with long term conditions in their communities and with their caregivers/family members through the use of technology. I would like to contribute to the development and evaluation of telehealth-based care for wide pool patients and their caregivers. This line of work can have great value for key clinical issues such as increasing utilisation and penetration of peritoneal dialysis regimes, supporting chronic disease management by patients and caregivers, decongesting tertiary care by obviating routine appointments and allowing more room for 'on demand' appointments.
(b) Initiate a research programme to specifically target the fast growing numbers of patients who have multiple co-morbidities/coexisting conditions. With the ageing of the population and the increased prevalence rates of diabetes, patients with multiple diagnoses have already become the norm of health care users. The presence of multiple chronic conditions increases the burden of disease and negatively influences health status beyond the sum of the effects of each single condition. The importance of managing co-existing chronic conditions is critical to slow progression and prevents associated complications, yet this is particularly challenging for patients and health care providers alike. Nevertheless health care systems worldwide continue to focus on the treatment of single disease at a time, a fragmented approach, which does not match the profile of typical patient nowadays. Likewise, psychological support programs and interventions have failed to address the needs of these patients. Up to date there has been a reliance on very intensive interventions delivered in tertiary care settings by leading experts and multidisciplinary teams with highly selected, motivated, and uncomplicated patients. I therefore aim to expand and build on my experience with chronic disease populations by exploring the multiple needs of patients with multiple co-morbidities and coexisting conditions with the view of developing and evaluating models of support interventions to facilitate adjustment and improve outcomes.

Thank you, A/P Griva. We wish you well in your future projects.

For more information on Research Accolades e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Hajimu Masuda

Assistant Professor Masuda Hajimu (Department of History) was recently granted the FASS Award for Promising Researcher (APR). This award is presented to researchers who have produced research that shows potential impact and promise. 

Dr Masuda’s research focuses on the modern history of Japan and East Asia, the history of U.S. foreign relations, and the social and global history of the Cold War. A former journalist for Mainichi Shinbun and the author of articles in Foreign Policy, the Journal of Cold War Studies, the Journal of Contemporary History, and Diplomatic History, he has analyzed the evolving power of the people in the modern world, with particular attention to intersections between war and society and politics and culture in the mid-20th century. His first book, Cold War Crucible: The Korean Conflict and the Postwar World, published by Harvard University Press in 2015 and widely praised, has been reviewed in 20 publications.

We congratulated Dr Masuda and spoke to him about his research work.

Your nomination for this award was largely due to your book, Cold War Crucible: The Korean Conflict and the Postwar World. How long did it take you to complete the book and what were some of the most challenging and memorable parts of the process?

book cover

The project began in 2005 as a term paper in a first-year graduate course at Cornell. At that time, I didn’t expect the paper to end up as my first book at all. Looking back, the most challenging part was to go beyond conventional academic boundaries that have long divided the discipline of History, both thematically and geographically. In the case of this project, these include diplomatic history, social history, and cultural history, as well as Asian history, American history, and European history. I was thinking that, in order to fully re-conceptualize Cold War experiences, we need to look at both policymakers’ and ordinary people’s experiences, and do so through synthesizing local, comparative, and global perspectives.

Because of this ambition, eventually I visited fifty-eight archives and libraries in Asia, Europe, and North America over the past decade. This part was, of course, challenging, but mostly memorable because I found that these research trips almost always gave me lots of enjoyment, satisfying my taste for traveling and backpacking. Now, I’m very happy to become a scholar of what I would call a “global and comparative social history” through the process of completing this book.

A group of women in New York City protesting against the Soviet regime (1951)

A group of women in New York City protesting against the Soviet regime (1951)


What drew you to research the Cold War, and how does the book conceptualize the Cold War?

Initially, I was thinking of writing an international history of the Korean War, but my project quickly developed into a broader inquiry into the very nature and meanings of the Cold War. This was because I was increasingly frustrated with the ways in which the history of the Cold War had been written and remembered, without much fundamental inquiry into what it really was. Also, I was interested in the metamorphosis of the Cold War during the Korean War period from policymakers’ discourse to ordinary people’s “reality,” and from a diplomatic stand-off in Europe to a gigantic social mechanism that operated on the ground in many parts of the world. 

In short, my book re-conceptualizes the Cold War in three ways: as imagined reality, ordinary people’s war, and social mechanism. I argue that the Cold War was more than an international and geopolitical confrontation between the Western and Eastern blocs. It was also a social mechanism for purity and order, which functioned in many parts of the world to tranquilize chaotic postwar and postcolonial situations through containing a multitude of social conflicts and culture wars at home. In short, what my book aims at is to strip away Cold War imaginings, shedding light on locally specific realities and, in doing so, destabilize our understanding of the Cold War as a single, international confrontation between the two superpowers.

Why did you decide to look at the formation of the Cold War in terms of social and diplomatic history and the role of the Korean War in particular?

The problem with existing literature is a general tendency toward a particular division of labor among scholars. Diplomatic historians have tended to focus on policymakers’ calculations and personalities, while social and cultural historians have tended to look at the effects of the Cold War on society, culture, and the daily lives of ordinary people. Likewise, Asian specialists have tended to look for elements of the Cold War in Asia, exploring how the global conflict impacted that continent. Of course, these studies have their own merits, but, because of the accumulation of them, we tend to have this impression: policymakers’ conduct shaped the Cold War, which, in turn, had enormous aftereffects on ordinary people’s daily lives, and Asia was an end recipient of the global confrontation.

I consider such a narrative problematic. First, as long as we continue accepting this narrative, we will continue to view society, culture, and ordinary people’s daily lives as passive entities under the global and political conflict, and, thus, we will not think about how they might have conditioned and shaped the ways in which the Cold War was made. Second, as long as we continue to view Asia as a passive, end-recipient of the global confrontation, we will continue to accept this Euro-American centric perspective, and, thus, will not imagine how Asia might have also participated in the making of the Cold War world. That’s why I attempted to synthesize social and diplomatic history, as well as Asian and U.S. history, to rewrite Cold War history, to restart our examination of the Cold War, and, in so doing, ultimately, to reconsider the postwar and postcolonial history of the mid-20th century world.

As for the role of the Korean War, I have recently discussed it elsewhere (“H-Diplo Roundtable Review”), but, in a nutshell, the Korean War was significant because it reminded many people of World War II and sparked fear of World War III, which, in turn, helped to codify the imagined reality of the global Cold War.  That’s why I have argued that the “reality” of the Cold War was a product of social and historical construction based on the fear of World War III, built in the shadow of World War II and consolidated by the outbreak of the Korean War.

A mass accusation meeting of land reform at the Yangsi district in Pudong, PRC (1951)

A mass accusation meeting of land reform at the Yangsi district in Pudong, PRC (1951)


What were your research methods for investigating the role of ordinary people and small scale local events in contributing to the “reality” of the Cold War? Can you discuss some of your most intriguing findings?

What was significant in the Cold War’s metamorphosis during the Korean War period was that, underneath a global Cold War logic, it actually took on an aspect of “social warfare” at home, with active participation of ordinary people: Suppression of Counter-revolutionaries in China, the White Terror in Taiwan, the Red Purge in Japan, the crackdown on “un-Filipino” activities in the Philippines, and anti-communist and anti-leftist movements in Western societies, such as anti-labor agitation in the United Kingdom and McCarthyism in the United States. Conventionally, these events have been considered the global Cold War’s aftereffects, and have been examined separately.

However, in looking at these events, I was taken aback in seeing how ordinary people actively and quite enthusiastically took part in and used Cold War logic to contain diverse social disagreements and culture wars at home, thus, effectively transforming policymakers’ diplomatic stand-off into an ordinary people’s war at home. That’s why my book re-defines these events as parts of a global phenomenon of nativist backlashes—a sort of social conservative suppression—that operated to silence various disagreements that surfaced in the aftermath of World War II.

Thus, one of the most intriguing findings was that the actual divides of the Cold War existed not necessarily between the Eastern and Western blocs but within each society, with each, in turn, requiring the perpetuation of such an imagined reality to restore and maintain social order and harmony at home. So, perhaps, the Cold War was more than a rivalry among superpowers at the international level. My book suggests that it could be better understood as an imagined reality that took on the role of social tranquilizer, pacifying various disagreements in the aftermath of World War II.

How do you foresee your re-interpretation of the materialization of the Cold War world being incorporated in other areas of research, historical and otherwise?

In terms of scholarly implications, I think my approach could open up new lines of inquiries and discussions as to the reconsideration of postwar and postcolonial histories, in general. What I have tried to do in my book is, in a sense, to relativize the importance of the Cold War narrative in mid-20th century history, and look at locally specific realities underneath the mantle of the Cold War. While only a handful of cases can be discussed in one book, such “unlearning” of Cold War narratives might help us to shed new light on other regions’ and countries’ histories that have been similarly viewed through the Cold War lens, including, for instance, France and Italy, Greece and Iran, Kenya and South Africa, Thailand and Vietnam, and Guatemala and Mexico, as well as the Soviet Union.

In a much broader sense, what I have been problematizing is the imagined and constructed nature of “reality” and “history,” and their functions in society in erecting sorts of “walls” among people and within communities, which operated to clarify lines between “us” and “them.” Once we take off the Cold War lens and re-examine what the Cold War really was, we should be better equipped to see the imagined and constructed nature of our walls, reality, and history, today. I hope that such a recognition would help us to raise questions concerning stereotypical narratives about our world that tend to simplify complex stories and prevent us from thinking further. 

What research topics are you preparing to work on in the future?

Currently I am at work on with a number of projects, including three books. First, I am working on a monograph, tentatively titled “After the Occupation: The Rise of Grassroots Conservatism in Postwar Japan.” It examines Japan’s social experience of war and occupation, with a particular focus on the recurrent rise of grassroots conservative backlashes involving ethnicity, gender, education, and other issues. Viewing these as social conflicts over purity and stability—a phenomenon that was quite common across the world at that time—my study will situate postwar Japan's social experience within the context of a global history of the mid-20th century. A second monograph, provisionally titled “Players of Memory: The Politics of Remembering and Forgetting in Postwar Japan,” explores how diverse memories of the Asia Pacific War emerged and were contested, how specific versions became dominant, and who shaped them and why. Particular attention will be given to roles played by ordinary people, rather than the state, media, or power holders, in choosing, shaping, and maintaining specific versions of war memories.

Third, I am working on an anthology titled “Unlearning Cold War Narratives: Toward Alternative Understandings of the Cold War World.” Through examining regions and countries that my book doesn't discuss, this anthology aims at deconstructing Cold War imaginings and shedding light on locally specific realities and everyday conflicts underneath Cold War narratives, destabilizing common understandings of the Cold War as a single, international confrontation. In addition, I have been working on three articles: “The Social Experience of War and Occupation” for The Cambridge History of Japan; “Reconsidering U.S.-Japanese Relations History” for The Oxford Handbook of American Foreign Relations; and “The Early Cold War” for The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to U.S. Foreign Policy.

Thank you, Dr Masuda. We wish you well in your future projects.

For more information on Research Accolades e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences

Dean's Office, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences National University of Singapore

  • Add: The Shaw Foundation Building, Block AS7, Level 5
  • 5 Arts Link, Singapore 117570
  • Tel: +65 6516 6133
  • Email:
  • Fax: +65 6777 0751
We use cookies to improve our website. By continuing to use this website, you are giving consent to cookies being used. More details…