Indigenous research methods

Many Filipino psychologists have advocated the development of indigenous research

methods thought to be more compatible with the cultural characteristics of Filipinos. In
1975 Santiago proposed the first indigenous method called pakapakapa (groping)
(Santiago, 1982). Torres (1982) described the method as "a suppositionless approach to
social scientific investigations... characterized by groping, searching, and probing into an
unsystematized mass of social and cultural data to be able to obtain order, meaning, and
directions for research" (p. 171). In this method, data were to be explored without the
"chains of overriding theoretical frameworks" borrowed from observations outside the focus
of investigation, with the goal of generating a broad database free from the biases and
frameworks of Western concepts and methods.

Subsequently, many indigenous research methods have been explicated. Many of them are
associated with the research model of Santiago and Enriquez (1982), which is comprised of
two "scales": Iskala ng Mananaliksik (researcher/method scale) and Iskala ng
Pagtutunguhan ng Mananaliksik at Kalahok (researcher-participant relationship scale). The
researcher/method scale represents a continuum varying from unobtrusive observational
methods at one end, to more obtrusive, researcher-participative methods at the other. For
example, pagmamasid (general scanning or looking around) and pakikiramdam (sensing,
feeling what is happening) are relatively unobtrusive and can be used initially to determine
the feasibility of further study, or in combination with other methods (Gonzales, 1982). In
the middle of the continuum are somewhat more obtrusive methods like pagtatanung-
tanong (unstructured, informal, interactive questioning; Gonzales, 1982; Pe-Pua, 1989,
1993-94). Methods at the bottom of the scale involve increasing levels of researcher
participation and obtrusiveness. For example, whereas in padalaw-dalaw, occasional visits
are made to respondent homes, in pakikisangkot a deeper involvement in barrio activities is
undertaken.

The researcher-participant relationship scale is based on the Filipino view of the equality of
this relationship and the fact that it passes through different levels. For example, the "top"
of the scale describes a superficial level of relationship involving civility and good manners
(pakikitungo). Increasingly deeper levels of relationship are illustrated by pakikibagay
(adjusting to others), pakikipagpalagayangloob (mutual trust and security), and pakikiisa
(the deepest level; love, understanding, and acceptance of the others' aims as one's own).

Other indigenous research methods have been presented, including paalialigid (casing;
Enriquez, 1994b), pakikipagkuwentuhan (story-telling; De Vera, 1982; Orteza, 1997),
pakikisama (frequent interaction with the research participants; Nery, 1982; Pe-Pua, 1993-
94), pakikipanuluyan (residing in the research setting; Nicdao-Henson, 1982; San Juan &
Soriaga, 1985), nakikiugaling pagmamasid (adopting the ways of a group one is observing;
Bennagen, 1985; Pe-Pua, 1993-94); ginabayang talakayan (guided discussion; Enriquez,
1994b; Pe-Pua, Aguiling-Dalisay, & Sto. Domingo, 1993), the collective indigenous method
(community dialogue and small group interviews; Enriquez, 1994b), personal encounter
research (subjective experiencing of the phenomenon by the researcher; Enriquez, 1994b,
p. 60), and pagninilay/paglilimi (introspection/reflection; Obusan, 1994), among others
(e.g., see Elman & Pioquinto, 1997; Obusan, 1994).

Most of these methods involve (1) unstructured (though guided) conversations and
discussions, often in a small group context, in lieu of more structured interviews; or (2)
various degrees of participant observation. Several principles or assumptions underly these
methods (Pe-Pua & Protacio-Marcelino, 2000). A foremost assumption is that the quality
and genuineness of the data obtained will depend on the level of researcher-participant
relationship achieved prior to data gathering. There is apparently some disagreement,
however, regarding the level of relationship that needs to be achieved. For example,
Obusan and Enriquez (1994b, p. ix, foreword) seem to suggest that the deepest level of
pakikiisa must be reached, whereas most SP proponents suggest that the level of
pakikipagpalagayangloob will be sufficient to obtain the kind of information for which
psychologists generally aim.

Another goal of these methods is to reduce the power differential between researcher and
participant, with participants being treated at least as equals. Indeed, in SP's focus on
indigenous facilitation research, the participant wields greater power in determining the
research questions, methods, and interpretations, and the researcher serves mainly as a
facilitator, motivator, and consultant. Other principles emphasise the welfare and ethical
treatment of the participants, method appropriateness over methodological sophistication,
and use of the participants' native language at all times.

A number of authors have questioned aspects of these methods. Church (1986) noted that
pakapakapa (groping) may be sensible during an initial "bootstrapping" or data generation
phase of research, but it could also serve as a rationalization for avoiding literature search
and careful specification of method, and thus of repeating previous research mistakes. The
rationale of the method implies that it is not possible to be informed on previous
(particularly Western) research and still design a research method that will allow the local
data to surface free of bias. Use of the collective indigenous method or pagtatanungtanong
(informal questioning) in groups may be more appropriate for obtaining group-level data
than individual-level data and prolonged informal interviews introduce problems of
inaccuracy and selective recall if recording is not immediate.

Sevilla (1982b) noted that further investigation and explication is needed regarding (1) the
relationship between the research method and researcherparticipant relationship scales of
Santiago and Enriquez (1982) and (2) the nuances or gradations between the different scale
levels. In addition, research is needed to verify the assumption that more genuine and
accurate data will be obtained with "deeper" levels of relationship and under what conditions
this will be the case (e.g., with which samples and topics). Margallo (1981) saw subjectivity
and a higher probability of data contamination as the most basic difficulties with the
methods, noting that the absence of objective instrumentation increases the likelihood of
researcher bias. Data contamination may also be a concern when consciousness raising is a
simultaneous goal of the research (Enriquez, 1994b, p. 56; Strobel, 1998).

A few authors have questioned the cultural uniqueness of these methods, because they
resemble standard ethnographic methods such as naturalistic and participant observation
(e.g., Church, 1986; Sevilla, 1982b). Enriquez (1994b, p. 58) acknowledged resemblances,
but contended that the levels along the Santiago and Enriquez (1982) method continuum
provide more precise specification of different levels of participant observation. Similarly,
Sta. Maria (1996, p. 109) argued that while the methods may be similar to existing
ethnographic methods, their indigenous character is reflected in behavioural and attitudinal
nuances of interaction that are characteristic of Filipino culture.

In recent years, the use of qualitative phenomenological methods has increased

substantially (Sta. Maria, 2000b; Torres, 1997). In particular, in studies of children in
difficult circumstances—for example, children experiencing abuse, torture, prostitution, or
extreme poverty— researchers have emphasized the value of in-depth interviews and case
studies in understanding the children's subjective experience or "inner world" (Araneta-de
Leon, 2000; Bautista, 2000; Gonzalez-Fernando, 2000; Laguisma-Sison, 2000; Puente,
2000; Triviño, 2000). The importance of the researcher-participant relationship in eliciting
the child's phenomenological world is again highlighted and Arellano-Carandang (2000)
noted that the clinical psychologist or "therapist-researcher," by virtue of his or her clinical
training, is particularly suited for this type of research. Although phenomenological methods
are not indigenous to the Philippines, they may be particularly applicable in the
development of indigenous psychologies because of the local and contextual nature of the
information obtained.

In summary, we would like to see more systematic comparisons of the nature and quality of
the data obtained with (1) traditional methods (e.g., survey questionnaires, psychological
scales) versus indigenous methods; (2) different indigenous methods; and (3) different
levels of researcher-participant relationship. The indigenous methods have been applied
most often, and are perhaps most crucial, when investigating less educated samples, who
have limited familiarity with traditional surveys and inventories, or when investigating
particularly sensitive topics