Professional Documents
Culture Documents
that are inappropriate to the situation and would the total sense of identification in pakikiisa”
not sense, intentionally or otherwise, if they had (Santiago & Enriquez, 1976, p. 104). Also, they
offended or hurt the other person. are not just conceptually delineated but are
Meanwhile, Enriquez coined the term marked by different sets of behaviors as well.
“surface values” to refer to a set of values that Ethnoscientific participant observation of food
are easily obvious, especially to the notice of sharing during a town fiesta (feast) revealed a
outsiders (non-Filipinos), but not necessarily progression of relationships that is evident in
the most important ones. The accessibility of the quality of interactions expressed in the
the accommodative surface values (pakikisama, meals, with pakikitungo as the shallowest and
hiya, and utang na loob) would lead foreigners pakikiisa as the deepest (Santiago, 1976). The
to assume that Filipinos are other-oriented. visitor moves from being a guest toward
However, non-Filipinos may also fail to note becoming a host and then, finally, to being a
that confrontative surface values (bahala na, servant at table when the deepest level of rela-
pakikibaka, and lakas ng loob) are equally tionship has been achieved. All these suggest
important to Filipinos when situations call for that behavioral interactions vary as a function
asserting one’s individual rights. The over- of the relationships with the other (whether
emphasis on accommodative values, and the ibang tao or hindi ibang tao). However,
corresponding neglect of their counterpart, the Enriquez was quick to aver that interactions
confrontative ones, painted a distorted and with the ibang tao and hindi ibang tao can still
incomplete view of the Filipino, which be subsumed under an umbrella term:
Enriquez (1990) termed as the pasukong pakikipagkapwa:
Pilipino (the submissive Filipino). This image,
All these [interaction] levels – whether belonging
when perpetuated, was suspiciously more to the ibang tao or hindi ibang tao categories –
beneficial to the colonial masters than to may be grouped under the heading of pakikip-
Filipinos themselves. agkapwa. Thus anyone looking for a core
Kagandahang-loob, the linking sociopersonal concept that would explain Filipino interper-
value, predisposes a person to be attuned to sonal behavior cannot help by being struck by
the needs and purposes of the larger collective: the superordinate concept of kapwa. It is the
the society. Thus, a person who values kagan- only concept which embraces both categories
dahang-loob is also likely to value karangalan of “outsider” (ibang tao) and “one of us” (hindi
(dignity), katarungan (justice), and kalayaan ibang tao).” (Enriquez, 1992; p. 52)
(freedom) in society.
Utilizing Indigenous Research Methods
Aside from the structure of Filipino values,
levels and modes of social interaction have also Many sikolohiyang Pilipino advocates have pushed
been identified (Santiago & Enriquez, 1976): for the development and use of indigenous
Ibang Tao (“outsider”) category: 1) Pakikitungo: research approaches and methods derived from
civility; 2) Pakikisalamuha: act of mixing; Filipinos’ cultural ways of gathering information.
3) Pakikilahok: act of joining; 4) Pakikibagay: A number of these methods have been explicated
conformity; 5) Pakikisama: being united with (e.g., pakapa-kapa, suppositionless approach;
the group. Hindi Ibang Tao (“one-of-us”) Torres, 1982) but three methods are worth
category: 1) Pakikipagpalagayang-loob: act of elucidating because of their more frequent use:
mutual trust; 2) Pakikisangkot: act of joining pagtatanung-tanong (asking around); pakikipag-
others; 3) Pakikipagkaisa: being one with kuwentuhan (exchanging stories); and ginabayang
others. talakayan (indigenous facilitated discussion).
These levels are not only interrelated modes In pagtatanung-tanong, the researcher
but are arranged in babaw (surface) -lalim engages the participant in a more unstructured
(depth) levels of engagement: “from the and interactive questioning session (Gonzales,
relatively uninvolved civility in pakikitungo to 1982; Pe-Pua, 1989). Also, “lead questions”
4
(those questions which directly refer to the A number of principles guiding sikolohiyang
topic being studied) are discouraged; instead, Pilipino research have been identified (Pe-Pua &
questions to be asked should be based on Protacio-Marcelino, 2000): 1) research partici-
participants’ prior responses themselves. pants have to be treated as equal, if not superior,
Meanwhile, pakikipagkuwentuhan requires to the researchers; 2) welfare of the participants
the researcher to motivate participants to takes precedence over any information taken
narrate their experiences about an episode or from them; 3) appropriateness (and not its
event (Orteza, 1997). The interactions could sophistication) to the intended population should
be between the researcher and a participant or be the primary basis for selecting methods; and
between a researcher and a group of people. 4) the language of the participants should be the
Finally, ginabayang talakayan is a combination language of the research.
of a community dialog, focused group
discussion, and group attestation (Enriquez, SEE ALSO: Cultural Psychology; Enriquez,
1994). One particular feature of this set of Virgilio; Indigenization; Indigenous Psychology;
methods is its dependence on face-to-face Indigenous Social Influence
interactions (both verbal and non-verbal)
between researcher and participants.
Torres (1997) enumerated the features of
field studies in the sikolohiyang Pilipino
tradition: contextualized; draws from a broad,
diverse sample base; uses multiple methods;
and is open to interdisciplinary frameworks
and perspectives. Santiago and Enriquez
(1982) proposed that sikolohiyang Pilipino
research should strive to be maka-Pilipino
(for the interests of the Filipino). To ensure
this, researchers should be guided by the use
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
range of methods that vary in their obtrusive-
ness: the less obtrusive (pagmamasid or
observation) to more obtrusive (pakikilahok
or participation). On the other hand, the
researcher–participant relationship scale
would determine the depth or quality of rela-
tionship necessary for the research goals to be
met. An assumption of this model is that a
particular method presupposes a certain level
of relationship with the participant that needs
to be achieved. Or that a certain level of
relationship prior to data gathering would
restrict the range of methodological options
open to a researcher. The appropriate use of
the two scales is assumed to lead to a higher
level quality of data.