In exploring the role of women during colonial times, historiographers have taken several, though not necessarily conflicting, approaches. Malley and Jemson represent those who have focused on the roles of women in countries under colonial power. However, they are atypical in that they attempt to place the specific continent they studied-South East Asia-in a larger, transnational context. For instance, in claiming that women in Annam (the name of Vietnam before 1950) had diminished economic power, even more so than in their traditional roles, which allowed for some economic autonomy (women's active role in the marketplace culture is cited), Malley and Jemson are able to make certain parallels with societies in which colonial power rested, namely England and France. Yet, the eye for detail that makes their work on Southeast Asia so compelling is lost in broad generalizations. In pointing out that it was deemed unladylike for women to engage in economic activity in both France and French Indochina, Malley and Jemson would have strengthened their case by offering specific examples from both those parts of the world. Additionally, the greater question of how in some cases colonialism not only offered more freedom than did traditional roles (in real estate a woman's initials were part of the deed) but also limited women's freedom would have made the discussion more germane to a transnational context.

On the other hand, Camden and Greely, draw broad conclusions in a transnational context, but their understanding of this context is limited by their narrow focus on the history of a specific country. Such a narrow view, unsurprisingly, leads them to impose certain metanarratives on these countries. For instance, in aiming to show that women in places under the colonial yoke acquired roles similar to women in Europe, and later America, Camden and Greely relied on small island nations in the Caribbean to make their case. In doing so, the two not only compromised the scope of their findings but also did not account for practices within these nations that might call into question the validity of their metanarratives. By overlooking the aspects of the culture of the countries they studied and by not including countries that were more representative of colonialism, Camden and Greely fail to concede that such metanarratives might themselves need some review to better account for more widespread practices. Thus, the few parallels they draw between these Caribbean nations and European powers are unconvincing. As both the approaches of Camden and Greely and those of Malley and Jemson show, historicity would be better served by scholars working in tandem to tease out general themes that apply to countries while also appreciating how a country's local culture informed and coexisted with such themes.