The status of efforts to indigenize psychology in the Philippines is reviewed. We address progress in four aspects of indigenization: theoretical/conceptual, methodological, topical, and institutional. Much, but not all, of this progress is the result of efforts associated with the indigenous Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino psychology) movement, which emphasizes (a) the development of a Filipino psychology that reflects the unique experiences and orientations of Filipinos, (b) Filipino identity and national consciousness, (c) explicit socio-political considerations, (d) application of psychology to societal problems, (e) the study of less elite Filipinos, (f) interdisciplinary efforts, and (g) the use of indigenous languages in the development and dissemination of indigenous psychology.
We note considerable progress, but also controversy, in the selection and interpretation of indigenous concepts and less progress in the formulation of indigenous theories. Existing theories are narrow in scope, only partially specified, and have uncertain heuristic value in generating verifiable predictions.
Filipino psychologists have also adapted or further specified Western theoretical frameworks to make them more sensitive to Philippine contextual factors.
Many indigenous measures have been developed, but more information is needed on their psychometric properties. Several indigenous research methods have been described and these methods typically emphasize the importance of the researcher-participant relationship. There remain questions about the objectivity and cultural uniqueness of these methods, however, many of which involve (a) unstructured conversations and discussions in lieu of structured interviews, (b) varying degrees of participant observation, or (c) qualitative phenomenological methods. Extensive topical indigenization is evident in studies that focus on everyday Filipinos and Philippine societal concerns.
Institutional indigenization is reflected in courses, theses and dissertations, journals, books, conferences, and professional organizations with an indigenous focus. Potential limitations or risks to the indigenous movement include insularity and the limited research culture.
Implications of the Philippine case for indigenization efforts in other cultures are discussed.L’état des efforts pour indigéniser la psychologie aux Philippines a été étudié. Nous avons enregistré des progrès dans quatre aspects de l’indigénisation: théorique/conceptuel, méthodologique, thématique et institutionnel. Ce progrès est en grande partie, mais pas totalement, le résultat des efforts associés avec le mouvement indigène Sikolohiyang Pilipino (psychologie philippine), qui mettent l’accent sur le développement de la psychologie philippine (a) reflétant les expériences et orientations uniques de Philippins, (b) l’identité philippine et la conscience nationale, (c) mettant en évidence des considérations sociopolitiques, (d) sur l’application de la psychologie aux problèmes de société, (e) l’étude de Philippins qui n’appartiennent pas à une élite, (f) sur des efforts interdisciplinaires et (g) l’utilisation des langues indigènes dans le développement et la vulgarisation de la psychologie indigène.
Nous notons un progrès considérable, mais aussi des controverses dans le choix et l’interprétation des concepts indigènes et moins de progrès dans la formulation des théories indigènes. Les théories existantes offre une courte perspective, elles ne sont que partiellement spécifiées et possèdent une valeur heuristique incertaine dans la réalisation de prédictions vérifiables. Les psychologues philippins ont également adapté ou spécifié d’avantage les cadres théoriques occidentaux afin de les rendre plus sensibles aux facteurs contextuels philippins. Beaucoup de mesures indigènes ont été développées, mais plus d’informations sur leurs propriétés psychométriques sont nécessaires. Plusieurs méthodes de recherche indigène ont été décrites et en général ces méthodes mettent en relief l’importance de la relation chercheur – participant. Cependant, il reste encore des questions ouvertes à propos de l’objectivité et l’unicité culturelle de ces méthodes. Beaucoup d’entre elles sont composées de (a) conversations et discussions déstructurées au lieu d’entretiens structurés, (b) des différents niveaux d’observation des participants ou (c) de méthodes phénoménologiques qualitatives.
Une large indigénisation thématique est évidente dans des études focalisées sur les affaires relatives au quotidien des Philippins et à la société philippine. L’indigénisation constitutionnelle se reflète dans les cours, les thèses et les dissertations, les journaux, les livres, les conférences, et les organisations professionnelles centrées sur les thèmes indigènes. Les déficiences ou risques éventuels du mouvement indigène résident sur son isolation et l’état actuel de la culture de recherche. Les implications de l’exemple philippin sur les efforts d’indigénisation dans d’autres cultures sont discutées.Se examinó el estado de los esfuerzos para ‘indigenizar’ a la psicología en las Filipinas. Tratamos del progreso en cuatro aspectos de la ‘indigenización’: teorético/conceptual, metodológico, temático, e institucional. En gran parte, pero no del todo, el progreso es el resultado de los esfuerzos asociados con el movimiento indígena Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Psicología filipina), el cual enfatiza (a) el desarrollo de una psicología filipina que refleje las experiencias y orientaciones únicas de los filipinos, (b) la identidad filipina y la conciencia nacional;
(c) las consideracionessocio-políticas explícitas, (d) la aplicación de la psicología a los problemas de la sociedad, (e) el estudio de los filipinos que no pertenecen a una elite, (f) los esfuerzos interdisciplinarios, y (g) el uso del lenguaje indígena en el desarrollo y la divulgación de la psicología indígena. Observamos un progreso considerable, así como controversia, en la selección e interpretación de los conceptos indígenas y menos progreso en la formulación de las teorías indígenas. Las teorías existentes son de alcance limitado, y especificadas solamente de manera incompleta. Y tienen un valor heurístico incierto para generar predicciones comprobables. Los psicólogos filipinos también han adaptado o especificado aun más los marcos teóricos occidentales para convertirlos en algo más sensible hacia los factores contextuales filipinos. Se han construido muchas medidas indígenas, pero se necesita más información acerca de sus propiedades psicométricas
. Se han descrito varios métodos de investigación indígena y estos métodos, por lo general, enfatizan la importancia de la relación entre el investigador y el sujeto participante. Sin embargo, hay cuestiones que continúan sin respuesta acerca de la objetividad y la unicidad cultural de estos métodos. Muchos de éstos están compuestos por (a) conversaciones y discusiones sin estructura en lugar de las entrevistas estructuradas, (b) varios niveles de observación participante, o (c) los métodos fenomenológicos cuantitativos. Se manifiesta en forma evidente una ‘indigenización’ temática en los estudios que se enfocan en los asuntos cotidianos de los filipinos y su sociedad filipina. La ‘indigenización’ institucional se refleja en materias académicas, proyectos de tesis, revistas científicas, libros, conferencias, y organizaciones profesionales con un enfoque indígena. Las posibles deficiencias o riesgos del movimiento indígena incluyen el aislamiento y el estado actual de la limitada cultura de investigación. Se discuten las consecuencias del caso filipino sobre los esfuerzos de la ‘indigenización’ para otras culturas.
| The Philippines
Of the countries in Asia, the trend to indigenizing psychology is strongest and most articulate in the Philippines. (Sinha, 1997, p. 153) Sikolohiyang Pilipino seeks to explain Philippine realities from the Filipino perspective, taking into account the peculiarities and distinct values and characteristics of the Filipino which the Western models invariably fail to explain or consider. (Enriquez, 1994a, p. 27).
Sinha (1997) noted the scepticism or outright opposition in many countries to Western psychology. In the Philippines, Western theories, concepts, and methods still permeate psychological science and practice, but Filipino scholars have long questioned their applicability1. Criticisms have ranged from calls for local adaptation to charges of intellectual dependence and academic and political imperialism (David, 1977; Enriquez, 1976b, 1977, 1994a, b; Espiritu, 1982; A.V. Lagmay, 1984; Salazar, 1991). In the 1970s, dissatisfaction with Western psychology, an emergence of cultural pride and identity, cogent scientific reasons, and parallel movements elsewhere contributed to the emergence of an indigenous Sikolohiyang Pilipino movement (SP; Filipino Psychology; Enriquez, 1976b; Mataragnon, 1979; Salazar, 1982b). SP proponents advocate a Filipino psychology rooted in its Malayo-Polynesian and Asian heritage and the experience, ideas, and orientation of Filipinos (Enriquez, 1994a).
In the writings of prominent advocates such as Virgilio G. Enriquez, one finds ideas that parallel and helped mould the terminology and thinking of indigenous psychologists elsewhere. For example, Enriquez (1979) coined the terms indigenization from within (culture-as-source) versus indigenization from without(culture-as-target) in referring to the distinction between indigenous psychology—native psychology that is not transplanted from other cultures—and indigenization—adaptation of psychology originating in other cultures (Adair, 1992).Enriquez (1994a) distinguished between cultural validation of imported concepts and methods to determine their relevance for the Philippines and cultural revalidation of indigenous concepts and methods. In lieu of the combined emic-etic approach, which seeks a comprehensive psychology through a blending of the indigenous and imported (Adair, 1992; Sinha, 1997, p. 133), Enriquez (1979) advocated a cross-indigenous approach in which multiple indigenous psychologies are developed independently prior to cross-cultural comparisons.
In reviewing the status of efforts to indigenize psychology in the Philippines it is useful to distinguish four aspects of indigenization (Kumar, 1979; Sinha, 1997): (1) theoretical and conceptual indigenization—development of indigenous concepts and theoretical frameworks; (2) methodological indigenization—adaptation or development of instruments and methods that are culturally appropriate; (3) topical indigenization—the extent to which the topics under study are relevant to the concerns of the society and people; and (4) institutional indigenization— the extent to which institutional and organizational structures and processes support the creation and diffusion of indigenous psychological knowledge2. In the Philippines substantial progress has been made in all four aspects of indigenization.
Although the SP movement has been at the forefront in efforts to develop indigenous psychology in the Philippines, contributions to indigenization were also made prior to the full emergence of the SP movement and by researchers who are not clearly associated with the SP movement. In assessing progress toward the development of an indigenous or “indigenized” Philippine psychology, it seems unwise to ignore these other efforts, although the extent to which they are consistent with the philosop hy and methods of the SP movement has sometimes been controversial. Thus, we also refer to contributions that are not purely emic or indigenous in nature, reflecting the fact that the distinction between emic and etic, or indigenous and imported, is often not a clear dichotomy, but rather a continuum representing different levels of indigenization (Church, 2001).
A number of authors have noted that indigenous elements can come from both internal sources (indigenization from within; internal indigenization) and the adaptation of elements from external sources (indigenization from without; indigenization of the exogenous) (Adair, 1992; Enriquez, 1979; Sinha, 1997). In short, our review might best be viewed as an analysis of the broader progress toward the indigenization of various aspects of Philippine psychology, which clearly includes but is not limited to the contributions of SP proponents. Nonetheless, we begin with an overview of general characteristics of the SP movement because of its centrality in the development of indigenous elements in Philippine psychology. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SIKOLOHIYANG PILIPINO (SP)
Enriquez (1994b, p. 3) defined Sikolohiyang Pilipino (SP; Filipino psychology) as a “psychology based on the experience, ideas and orientation of the Filipino.” Enriquez (1994a) outlined major characteristics of SP, which included: (1) principal emphases on identity and national consciousness, social awareness and involvement, psychology of language and culture, and applications and bases in such fields as health practices, agriculture, art, mass media, and religion; (2) principal methods of investigation that include the cross-indigenous method; indigenous field methods; and multi-method, multi-language application of traditional experimental and psychometric methods; (3) primary areas of protest against a psychology that perpetuates the colonial status of the Filipino mind, the exploitation of the masses, and the imposition of psychologies developed in industrialized countries; and (4) a focus on psychological practice as applicable in the Philippine context (for additional characteristics, see Enriquez, 1994a, Table 2).
Others who have discussed the historical or philosophical bases and goals of the indigenous SP movement include Salazar (1982b; 1985a), San Buenaventura (1985), Enriquez (1976b), and Pe-Pua and Protacio-Marcelino (2000). As these characteristics suggest, there is a strong and explicit sociopolitical thrust in many SP writings (e.g., Enriquez, 1994a,b; L. Samson, 1985). This thrust is seen, for example, in Enriquez’s (1994b) description of six phases of cultural domination to which he believes Filipino psychology and culture have been subjected, followed by his discussion of how decolonization, counterdomination, and empowerment of Filipino psychology can be achieved through (1) indigenous theorizing, (2) the development of indigenous methods, and (3) resistance to sociopolitical, class, and gender oppression and academic dependency. Enriquez (1994a, p. 2) called for a psychology that is both liberated (malaya) and liberating (mapagpalaya), that is, both free of American influence and responsive to Philippine social problems that are rooted in the inequitable distribution of wealth between Westernized Filipinos and the masses.
Not surprisingly, then, another characteristic of SP has been its preferential focus on less elite Filipinos. Salazar (1991)referred to the Great Cultural Divide in Philippine society between educated, Westernized Filipinos and the Filipino masses, andEnriquez (1994a) argued that Western-oriented psychology in the Philippines caters to the upper classes. This is particularly true, he opined, in industrial psychology—for example, in the use of selection tests that favour those who are more fluent in English—and he proposed focusing instead on “livelihood psychology” among the Filipino masses (Enriquez, 1994b, pp. 66-67). The real psychology of Filipinos, he argued, will be found not in academic psychology, which is largely Western, but on street corners, in public markets, in rural barrios, and so forth. Historically, there has also been a strong interdisciplinary thrust in SP, with SP finding applications in, and being enriched by, art and literature (Antonio, 1999; Rivera-Mirano, 1999), religion and philosophy (Bautista, 1999; Mercado, 1977; Obusan & Enriquez, 1994a; Sevilla, 1982a), history (Salazar, 1985a, 1991), linguistics (Enriquez, 1976a), law and politics (M.E. Samson, 1999), education (Mendez, 1982; Morales, 1999), and agriculture and rural sociology (Bonifacio, 1999; Velasco, 1982).
For example, researchers have drawn on indigenous music, folklore, literature, and linguistic features in the language in a search for clues about Filipino worldviews, values, and personality (Antonio, 1999; Timbreza, 1999). Illustrative of this interdisciplinary focus is a recently edited book on SP, which contains several chapters on applications in education, religion, politics, and the arts (Protacio-Marcelino & Pe-Pua, 1999)3. From the beginning, a defining characteristic of SP has been the use and development of the Filipino language for psychological research and writing. Proponents noted that (1) use of native languages is consistent with an indigenization-from-within approach; (2) native languages are an important source of indigenous constructs; (3) the development and communication of an indigenous psychological science may benefit from the use of native languages; and (4) reports written in native languages can reach a wider audience and contribute toward the development of national identity (Enriquez, 1994b; Enriquez & Marcelino, 1984; Javier, 1996; Rood, 1985; Salazar, 1982b, 1991; Sibayan, 1994).
In addition, research indicates that the nature and quality of the data obtained with Filipinos may depend on the language of data collection (Church, Katigbak, & Castañeda, 1988; see Church, 1986, pp. 106-113, for a review). In the view of Enriquez (1977, 1994a), reliance on the English language (a language of instruction) and token use of Filipino can result in a distortion of Philippine social realities, the miseducation of the Filipino, and “an irrelevant Anglocentric psychology which fails to answer the needs of the Filipino people” (Enriquez, 1994b, p. 10)4. We turn now to a discussion of the status of theoretical and conceptual, methodological, topical, and institutional indigenization efforts in Philippine psychology. THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL INDIGENIZATION
Considerable progress has been made in the identification and elaboration of indigenous concepts, particularly in the area of personality and values. Prior to the emergence of the SP movement, many researchers had already elicited traits and values using free-response descriptions of various persons or roles (e.g., “a real friend,” “the best priest,” “the ideal boss,” “a healthy Filipino”); analyses of Filipino proverbs, folklore, and other literature; responses to projective stories; and ethnographic and survey methods with children and their parents (see Church, 1986, for a review). Others have identified indigenous personality concepts while developing indigenous tests (e.g., Carlota, 1985; Church et al., 1988; Enriquez & Guanzon, 1985) or taxonomies of person-descriptive terms (Church, Katigbak, & Reyes, 1996). In student papers and theses conducted from an SP perspective, descriptive studies of single indigenous concepts have been extremely popular.
In these studies, respondents typically are asked to define the concept, associate to related terms, and describe the antecedents, manifestations, or consequences of the concept, with responses being summarized qualitatively or with frequency counts (Cipres-Ortega, 1985)5. Detailed anthropological, linguistic, philosophical, or conceptual analyses have been conducted on a number of Filipino concepts, including utang na loob (Hollnsteiner, 1973; Kaut, 1961; Kiefer, 1968; Lawless, 1966), hiya (Bulatao, 1964, 1966;Salazar, 1985b), bahala na (Bostrom, 1968; Jocano, 1974; A.V. Lagmay, 1993), pakikiramdam (Enriquez, 1994a; Mataragnon, 1987), sumpong(Mataragnon, 1977), kapwa (Enriquez, 1978), kaluluwa (Salazar, 1982a), pakikisama (Lynch, 1973), and amor propio (Bonifacio, 1977; Lynch, 1973). Many purported Filipino traits and values have been critiqued in the context of discussions of national identity and development (e.g., Andres, 1989; Domingo-Tapales & Alfiler, 1991; Morales, Talisayon, & Roxas, 1991).
Although such analyses are consistent with the SP focus on the elaboration of native language constructs, SP proponents have expressed ambivalent or negative attitudes towards some of these studies. They argue that concept interpretations have sometimes reflected colonial perspectives and that discussions of the role of purported traits and values in national development can draw attention away from “compelling social realities” such as poverty and social injustice (Bartolome, 1985, p. 534) or serve to blame the victim for these social realities (Enriquez, 1994a, p. 58). In addition, the importance and interpretation of some concepts continues to be controversial. For example, the frequent mention of the concept pakikisama (getting along with or making concessions to others) in a number of studies was cited byLynch (1973) as supportive of his theory of smooth interpersonal relations (SIR) among Filipinos.
The theory was influential during the 1960s and 1970s, but not without its critics (Enriquez, 1977; Jocano, 1966; Sechrest, 1969). Pakikisama was viewed by Lynch as an important means, along with euphemism and the use of gobetweens, by which Filipinos achieve smooth interpersonal relations, which in turn is an important means of maintaining social acceptance, a basic aim of lowland Filipinos according to Lynch (1973). Enriquez (1977, 1978) criticized the singling out of pakikisama and other Filipino language terms, however. Enriquez attributed the focus on pakikisama to the token use of Filipino by Western-oriented social scientists, who were not immersed in the culture or language. Nonetheless, numerous Filipino writers continue to cite pakikisama as a salient value or trait of Filipinos (e.g., Andres, 1989; Bulatao, 1992; Domingo-Tapales & Alfiler, 1991). Enriquez (1977, 1978, 1994a) has championed instead kapwa as the core concept underlying Filipino interpersonal behaviour.Kapwa, he argued, refers to the recognition of shared identity with others, a deeper concept than SIR, which refers to merely avoiding conflict. Further, Enriquez argued that pakikisama refers to only one of many levels of interaction in Philippine culture, ranging from the uninvolved civility of pakikitungo to the total identification of pakikiisa.
In contrast, pakikipagkapwa, Enriquez argued, is a superordinate concept that embraces all levels of interaction. Pakikipagkapwa means accepting and dealing with others as equals, treating them as fellow human beings (kapwa tao), and having regard for the dignity and being of others (Enriquez, 1977, 1978). Here too, however, different authors have presented different interpretations of kapwa. For example, Enriquez (1994a) viewedkapwaas encompassing interactions with both ingroup and outgroup members. Ramirez (1997), however, associated kapwawith behaviours towards ingroup members only, although she advocated a broadening of kapwa to include the outgroup. Uncertainties regarding the interpretation of kapwa and other indigenous concepts may be due to limited empirical data. AsSta. Maria (1996) has noted, conceptions of kapwa have relied heavily on “speculations” and “unsystematic interpretations of the concept rather than on research regarding how the concept is used in everyday language and observed in everyday experience” (p. 110).
Controversy has also surrounded the interpretation of other salient concepts. For example, does bahala na refer to submissive fatalism or to determination in the face of uncertainty? Does utang na loob refer to contract-like debts of gratitude or to a commitment to human solidarity? Does hiya refer to social shame and embarrassment or to moral propriety and dignity? Doesamor propio refer to oversensitivity or personal dignity and honour? Of some concern is the apparent role of sociopolitical influences on the interpretation and selection of concepts. Many of the values and traits attributed to Filipinos have been criticized as presenting colonial images of Filipinos, which reflect ideological considerations and implicit comparisons against Western values and behaviour (David, 1977; Enriquez, 1994a; Salazar, 1991). In attempting to move from a “colonial psychology” to a “liberation psychology,” Enriquez (1994a) countered purported colonial or “accommodative” values such as utang na loob, pakikisama, and hiya, with more “confrontative” values such as lakas ng loob (inner strength) and pakikibaka(cooperative resistance), and a more assertive interpretation of bahala na(determination). At the societal level, the values of karangalan (dignity), katarungan (justice), and kalayaan (freedom) are now emphasized in Enriquez’s (1994a) value model.
However, these values seem to be emphasized as much for sociopolitical reasons—that is, their role and salience during such sociopolitical events as the People Power Revolution of 1986—as for scientific or empirical reasons (e.g., see Enriquez, 1994a, p. 79). Tan (1997b) has noted that recent reinterpretations of indigenous concepts such as pakikisama, bahala na, utang na loob, andhiyamay be equally vulnerable to the criticism made of earlier value research—an overreliance on ideological impressions and intuitions. He notes that while earlier writers seemed to emphasize “What is wrong with us?” (e.g., “Why are we an underdeveloped country?”), SP seems to take the position that “nothing can be wrong with us” (pp. 564-567). Sta. Maria (1996) has also questioned the empirical basis of those concepts that comprise Enriquez’s (1994a) structure of values. She portrays Enriquez’s efforts as symptomatic of pangkaming (Salazar, 1991) or reactive syndrome, in which selected concepts are elevated to the status of key values because they contrast with those highlighted by foreign social scientists.
As Sta. Maria(1996, p. 102) noted: what [Enriquez] essentially did was to ‘scan’ the entire range of indigenous terms and to ‘pluck’ out the ones that contrast with foreign interpretations and to elevate these concepts to the level of ‘values’. With this approach, any term in Filipino becomes a potential value as long as it satisfies the contrast criterion and his idea about the confrontative Filipino. Pertierra (1992, p. 41) has also raised concerns about a politically motivated indigenous social science, in which “the task becomes one of discovering or inventing national characteristics which forward the ‘national interest’.” A final limitation of these concepts is that they have generally been considered in isolation, with little consideration of their structure or organization (i.e., how they interrelate theoretically or empirically).
A few efforts have been made to structure the value domain, using rational considerations rather than empirical data (Enriquez, 1994a; Hennig, 1983; Talisayon, 1997).Montiel (1991) used factor analysis to derive higher-order value dimensions, but the values analyzed were those assessed by Rokeach’s Value Survey, not indigenous values. The limited data available on the structure of Filipino personality concepts motivated Church et al. (1996) to develop a comprehensive taxonomy of Filipino trait and emotion terms and to investigate the dimensional structure of these domains in self-report data (Church, Katigbak, & Reyes, 1998a; Church, Katigbak, Reyes, & Jensen, 1998b, 1999; Church, Reyes, Katigbak, & Grimm, 1997; Katigbak, Church, Guanzon-Lapeña, Carlota, & Del Pilar, 2002). Indigenous theories
Filipino psychologists have made much more progress in elaborating indigenous concepts than in formulating indigenous theories. We can define a theory as including (1) a set of assumptions and constructs that are systematically related to each other; (2) operational definitions of the constructs that enable them to be related to empirical data; and (3) an evolving set of empirical propositions (e.g., hypotheses and predictions), which follow from the theory and facilitate understanding, explanation, and prediction of phenomena in the domain of interest (Hall & Lindzey, 1978, pp. 9-15). A theory could be viewed as an indigenous theory to the extent that the assumptions, constructs, operational definitions (e.g., measures), and predicted phenomena of the theory are themselves indigenous, or have a culturally relevant conceptual and empirical basis. By this definition, we would have to conclude that theory development in Philippine psychology has been minimal.
Existing “theories” are narrow in scope, only partially specified, and their heuristic value in generating verifiable predictions is unclear. Theoretical development has proceeded only to the point of specifying constructs and their interrelationships, and these efforts have been largely conceptual rather than linked to empirical data. For example, Enriquez (1994a) provided a conceptual structure of indigenous values made up of three tiers: (1) a top tier comprised of surface values, both colonial/accommodative (hiya, utang na loob, pakikisama) and confrontative (bahala na, sama/lakas ng loob, pakikibaka ); (2) a middle tier comprised of the pivotal interpersonal value of pakiramdam (shared inner perception), which underlies the surface values; the core value of kapwa (shared identity); and a socio-cultural value ofkagandahangloob (shared humanity) linking the core value of kapwa to the bottom tier; and (3) a bottom tier comprised of the associated societal values of karangalan(dignity), katarungan (justice), and kalayaan (freedom).
Enriquez (1994a) argued that the conceptual relations depicted in this model were “recognized links.” It is not clear, however, how universally recognized or obvious these links are, and most of the indigenous values discussed in the literature are not encompassed by the hypothesized structure. Enriquez (1994b, pp. 51-54) described the levels and modes of social interaction delineated by Santiago and Enriquez (1982)as an “indigenous social interaction theory.” Santiago and Enriquez (1982) described eight levels of social interaction ranging from more superficial levels applied with outgroup members to the deeper levels obtained with ingroup members. One of the most thoroughly specified and empirically tested theories was Lynch’s (1973) theory of SIR (smooth interpersonal relations).
However, proponents of SP and others have tended to reject the theory as based on stereotypes, colonial interpretations, limited understanding of the Filipino language, and limited data (see Church, 1986, pp. 29-35, for a review). More recently,Sta. Maria (1999) proposed an indigenous person typology for Filipinos, which was derived from content analyses of relatively open-ended descriptions of self and others. Carandang (1981) described a conceptual framework, termed the Rubic’s Cube approach, which is less a formal theory than a framework for holistic and multidimensional analyses in studies with Filipino children.
The four dimensions of analysis included: (1) the child as a total person, including intellectual, emotional, physical, social, and moral/spiritual development; (2) the child’s developmental level; (3) the context of family, community, and culture; and (4) the child’s inner world or subjective perceptions. The approach has been cited as the conceptual framework for a number of phenomenological studies of children (Araneta-de Leon, 2000; Gonzalez-Fernando, 2000; Lee-Chua, 1999; Puente, 2000).
When theoretical frameworks have been referred to they have often been Western frameworks. However, a number of Filipino psychologists have adapted or further specified these frameworks to make them more sensitive to Philippine contextual factors. For example, Montiel (1997, 2000a) and Briones (2000) applied ideas from an imported model of personality and politics in constructing conceptual models for Filipino political and peace psychology; the authors provided indigenous specification by incorporating context-specific elements such as the history of colonization, the Marcos dictatorship, and the role of the Catholic Church. In a series of political psychology studies, Montiel has questioned the assumptions underlying Western theory and research on political trauma and recovery (Montiel, 2000b), discussed Filipino cultural characteristics that may need to be incorporated in imported models of conflict resolution (Montiel, 1995), and suggested that political psychology theories in the Philippines may need to incorporate stronger affective, religious, and collective processes than is typical of political psychology in the United States, where the focus, she argues, tends to be more cognitive, secular, and individual istic (Montiel & Macapagal, 2000).
In other examples of adaptation or indigenization of imported theory, Protacio-Marcelino adapted a Western stress and coping framework in her studies of children of political detainees and children experiencing torture during armed conflicts (e.g., see Protacio-Marcelino, De la Cruz, Camacho, & Balanon, 2000); Bernardo (1999) drew on imported theories of number representation in bilinguals, but further specified these models to more fully reflect the bilingual context in the Philippines; and Tan (1997a) combined Western theory on explanatory style with indigenous conceptual analyses of the bahala na concept (A.V. Lagmay, 1993) to interpret his findings on the contentment versus discontentment of poor Filipinos. Western counselling theories continue to dominate in counselling research, training, and practice in the Philippines, despite concerns about their applicability. In a review of Western counselling approaches in the Philippines, Villar (1997) considered the compatibility of each approach to Filipino traits and culture.
There have been a few attempts to develop indigenous counselling theories or frameworks. Salazar-Clemeña (1991, 1995) drew on Filipino worldviews and conceptions of peace to construct a counselling for peace model for Filipinos (e.g., she noted the need to include peace with God as a central component because of the theocentric worldview of most Filipinos); however, the counselling methods advocated to help clients attain peace are standard Western techniques. Bulatao (1978) presented a Filipino-relevant therapy, labelled transpersonal counselling, which he described as compatible with the group-centredness of Filipinos, their tendency to prefer paternalistic counsellors over nondirective ones, and their readiness to enter into altered states of consciousness. Decenteceo (1999) described a Pagdadala (burden-bearing) model in counselling and therapy in which the normal burden-bearing experienced by Filipinos serves as a metaphor or model for counselling with Filipinos; although Western techniques are seen as compatible with the model, Decenteceo anticipates that the model will also lead to more indigenous therapeutic approaches. Responding to the strong economic needs of many Filipinos, Velazco (1987) described a model of economics counselling that integrates economic principles with traditional counselling techniques.
The costs of limited theoretical development may be considerable. For example, Sta. Maria (1996, p. 118) argued that “the indigenization crisis in Philippine social science” has not been resolved by SP because SP has not determined how to systematize indigenous knowledge. This systematization of knowledge would probably be greatly facilitated by the development of overarching theoretical frameworks. Finally, it can be noted that at least some of the controversies surrounding the selection and interpretation of indigenous constructs, and their theoretical relationships, result from disagreements about methodology (e.g., the procedures or instruments used to identify and elaborate indigenous concepts and their relationships). That is, theoretical and conceptual indigenization are inherently tied to methodological indigenization.
The Philippines has been a leader in the development of indigenous instruments and research methods. Enriquez (1994b) credits Sinforoso Padilla with the development of the first local test, the Philippine Mental Abilities Test, which was developed in the 1950s (Carlota, 1999). Ortega and Guanzon-Lapeña (cited in Guanzon-Lapeña, Church, Carlota, & Katigbak, 1998) noted that more than 200 local measures have now been developed. Unfortunately, as Bernardo (1997b) has noted, many of these measures have not been described in published sources, so they are not readily available and the extent to which they are valid and culture-specific is unclear. Early and continuing efforts have been made to develop local tests of educational and occupational aptitude, achievement, and interest, such as the College Scholastic Aptitude Test (CSAT), Philippine Aptitude Classification Test (PACT), and Philippine Occupational Interest Survey (POIS) developed by the Center for Education Measurement, a testing and research centre serving the private educational sector (Buen, 1994). These tests resemble, in both content and format, comparable tests in the United States.
More indigenous in content, but also relying on Western item formats, are the Philippine Indigenized Preschool and Primary Intelligence Test (Taylor, 1993) and the content-indigenized subtests for rural children developed by Katigbak and Church (Church & Katigbak, 1987; Church, Katigbak, & Almario-Velazco, 1985; see also Guthrie, Tayag, & Jacobs, 1977). Velazco (1985) and Church et al. (1985) described the development of indigenous rating scales that can be used to assess adaptive competencies of rural preschoolers based on parents’ conceptions of intelligence. Ledesma, Diputado, Orteza, and Santillan (1993) developed a “de-Westernized” dementia screening scale. In the personality domain, indigenous projective tests have been developed, beginning with the efforts of A.V. Lagmay, who constructed the Philippine Thematic Apperception Test (PTAT; A.V. Lagmay, 1965) and the Philippine Children’s Apperception Test (PCAT; A.V. Lagmay, 1975a, b).
The PTAT and PCAT have sometimes been used to elicit values or concerns of particular groups, rather than to measure individual differences in personality (e.g., Carandang, 1996; L.A. Lagmay, 1993). Other indigenous projective tests include Jurilla’s (1986) Family Welfare Cards and the Crime Picture Interpretation Test (see Lamug, 1987). Other researchers have also used indigenous thematic content or sentence completion stems (e.g., Gonzalez-Fernando, 2000; Laguisma-Sison, 2000; Puente, 2000). The two most prominent multidimensional personality inventories are the Panukat ng Pagkataong Pilipino (PPP; Carlota, 1985) and the Panukat ng Ugali at Pagkatao (PUP; Enriquez & Guanzon, 1985; see also Guanzon-Lapeña et al., 1998), whose authors selected the traits to include by drawing on the literature on Filipino personality, person descriptions, and cultural informants. Church, Katigbak, Reyes, and colleagues developed indigenous measures of personality and mood dimensions using a comprehensive lexical approach (Church et al., 1996, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999).
Katigbak, Church, and colleagues developed a multidimensional measure based on Filipino college students’ conceptions of healthy and unhealthy personality (Church & Katigbak, 1989; Katigbak, Church, & Akamine, 1996). Indigenous self-concept measures have been constructed by Pasao (1987) and Agbing (1988). Some information on the structure, reliability, and validity of selected personality measures can be found in the original sources and in reviews by Carlota (1985), Guanzon-Lapeña et al. (1998), and Church and Katigbak (2000a, b). However, as Carlota (1999) noted, there is a strong need for further research on the psychometric properties of the indigenous measures.
Although many of the trait dimensions assessed by these inventories seem similar to those in Western inventories, others seem especially salient for Filipinos. There has been very little research on how the dimensions of these measures relate to those in other cultures. Recently, however, Katigbak et al. (2002) found considerable overlap between the dimensions of three indigenous inventories and the dimensions of the five-factor model (McCrae & Costa, 1997). Such studies are consistent with a cross-indigenous approach to evolving a universal psychology.
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.
Topical indigenization in the Philippines has generally taken two forms: (1) calls for studies of non-elite or “everyday” Filipinos and their behaviours and ideas; and (2) calls for research on applied topics that address societal needs and problems. Examples of the former type of study include those on haggling behaviour (Du & Paysu, 1979), the “Kristo” (bet-taker) of the cockpit (Alabanza, Gonzaga, & Obligacion, 1979), garbage scavengers in slum areas (Gepigon & Francisco, 1982), and studies of Filipino conceptions of time (Nicdao-Henson, 1982), justice (Avila, Diaz, & Rodriguez, 1988), old age (Domingo, 1991), manhood (Santiago, 1982), and privacy (Pangilinan, 1986), all of which applied the indigenous methods referred to earlier. Examples of studies that have adddressed applied societal needs include studies of treatment compliance (Orteza, 1996; Ventura, Abella-Matto, & Cipres-Ortega, 1993), adjustment of Filipino overseas workers and their families (Du-Lagrosa, 1986; Samonte, 1998), adaptation of rural migrants in an urbanizing barrio (L.A. Lagmay, 1993), political conflict and peace-making (Briones, 2000; Gonzalez-Intal, 1991; Montiel, 1984-85, 1991, 1995, 1997, 2000b; Sta. Maria, 2000a), pre-election attitudes (Guanzon-Lapeña, 1996), torture of children in situations of armed conflict (Protacio-Marcelino et al., 2000b), child labour (Torres, 1998), and children experiencing sexual abuse, prostitution, or trouble with the law (Araneta-de Leon, 2000;
Arellano-Carandang, Fernando, & Sison, 1999; Bautista, 2000; Carandang, 1996; Carlota, 1982-83; Gonzales-Fernando, 2000; Laguisma-Sison, 2000; Nery, 1982; Protacio-Marcelino, De la Cruz, Balanon, Camacho, & Yacat, 2000a; Triviño, 2000). Other popular applied topics include families, married life, and children (e.g., Aguiling-Dalisay, Mendoza, Santos, & Echevaria, 1995; Philippine Social Science Council Secretariat, 1995; Ventura, 1985), gender psychology (Torres, 1988), stress and coping in various groups (e.g., Relucio, 1995; Vergara, 1999), and applied cognitive and educational topics related to learning, thinking, problem-solving, and bilingualism (Bernardo, 1993, 1996, 1997a, 1999; Liwag, 1999; Ventura, 1994). Filipino political psychology provides a particularly good example of topical indigenization, as the nature of the topics addressed has shown considerable sensitivity to the evolving Philippine political situation in recent decades, for example, from pre-martial law through the martial law period and the transition to democracy (Montiel & Macapagal, 2000).
In sum, there is extensive evidence of topical indigenization in Filipino psychology. Topical indigenization has often been accompanied by either theoretical or methodological indigenization. However, a number of the studies cited here were conceived outside the indigenous SP perspective and have addressed societally relevant topics using Western theoretical models. For example, Gonzales-Intal (1991) found an imported relative deprivation theory to be useful in understanding collective political violence in the Philippines. Araneta-de Leon (2000), in a study of children in conflict with the law, interpreted the results largely in terms of Western attachment theories. Clamor (1997) found Western conflict management frameworks to be useful in understanding conflict management practices in semiconductor companies in the Philippines. Nonetheless, such studies are relevant here because the extent to which researchers address applied problems of local concern has been described as one criterion for judging the extent of indigenization in given cultures (Sinha, 1997).
Considerable progress has been made in the development of institutional structures and processes in the Philippines that support the creation and diffusion of indigenous psychological knowledge. This progress takes the form of courses, materials, degree programmes, and theses/ dissertations; journals and other publications; and psychological organizations with an indigenous focus.
Courses and curricula
Pe-Pua and Protacio-Marcelino (2000) and Enriquez (1994a) have reviewed the evolution of course offerings dealing with indigenous Filipino psychology and the teaching of psychology using the Filipino language. At the University of the Philippines, efforts to teach psychology courses in Filipino began around 1970. Other landmark events and dates include the following : the first psychology master’s theses at the University of the Philippines written in Filipino (1972); the first elective undergraduate course and the first permanent graduate level course on Filipino psychology at the University of the Philippines (1978); the first compilation of papers on Filipino psychology made available for student use (1982); the first psychology textbook using the Filipino language and Philippine materials, published at Centro Escolar University (1983); the first course in Filipino Psychology as an integral part of an undergraduate curricula, at the University of Santo Tomas (1987); the first two psychology doctoral dissertations written in Filipino at the University of the Philippines (1990); and the first graduate of the doctoral concentration in Philippine Psychology at the University of the Philippines (1994).
Other Philippine universities offer courses in indigenous Filipino psychology and since at least 1975 students have been encouraged to write papers, theses, and dissertations in Filipino. Despite these efforts, Enriquez (1994a, p. 36) conceded that English still predominates in the classroom. According to Gaerlan (1996), by 1994-1995 “Filipino was still used to teach sikolohiyang Pilipino and a few other courses, [but] English was predominantly used for teaching other areas of psychology which were dominated by Western concepts” (pp. 148-149)6. Sta. Maria (1996) also noted that Western psychology continues to predominate in Philippine universities and that indigenous methods are given less emphasis than are traditional experimental and survey methods.
The limited integration of Western and Filipino perspectives is suggested by the following observations : (1) Filipino psychology tends to be taught as a separate course alongside standard (Western) courses in general psychology, personality psychology, experimental psychology, and so forth; (2) although Filipino psychology courses are taught in the Filipino language, most other psychology courses are not; and (3) Filipino psychology seems to be treated as a distinct topic area (e.g., like the Filipiniana section in book stores and libraries) in other ways, for example, in departmental compilations of student research that list Filipino psychology projects in a separate category from those on personality, psychometrics, and so forth.
Efforts to teach indigenous Filipino psychology have been inhibited by the limited availability of indigenous texts and reading materials. It was not until the early 1980s that introductory textbooks written by Filipinos included substantial references to Filipino psychological studies and concepts (Del Pilar, 1985). Recently, the psychology department of Ateneo de Manila University was tasked by the Commission on Higher Education to develop General Psychology course materials for use in colleges and universities; the resulting product includes indigenous materials (Teh & Macapagal, 1999). SP proponents have also compiled several collections of readings to address the need for indigenous materials (e.g., Aganon & David, 1985; Bautista & Pe-Pua, 1991; Pe-Pua, 1982; Protacio-Marcelino & Pe-Pua, 1999).
Efforts to create instructional and scientific materials in Filipino might be facilitated by some agreement on scientific terms in Filipino or to provide criteria for selecting such terms (e.g., Enriquez, 1994a, p. 23; Enriquez & Marcelino, 1984). However, there are apparently several schools of thought regarding proper writing in Filipino, for example, regarding vocabulary selection, extent and type of language borrowing, and level of formality (Gaerlan, 1996). Although an advocate of the use of Filipino in teaching scientific disciplines, Sibayan (1994) expressed the view that Filipino is not yet an intellectualized language that can be used without difficulty for this purpose. Meanwhile, Gaerlan (1996) reports a widespread lack of interest in translations of English materials into Filipino, and, in any case, some SP proponents would have strong philosophical objections to doing this.
Journals and organizations
There are ample presentation and publication outlets for disseminating indigenous Filipino psychology. The organization most closely linked to the SP movement is the Pambansang Samahan sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino (PSSP; National Association for Filipino Psychology), which has held annual conferences since 1975. The Filipino language is used in conference presentations and published proceedings. The other major general psychological organization, the Psychological Association of the Philippines (PAP), also holds annual conferences and the presentations are in English. The Philippine Journal of Psychology, the journal of the PAP, is also published in English, and although some articles address indigenous topics with indigenous methods, the articles more frequently resemble traditional Western psychology.
Two counselling organizations with strong Filipino involvement—the Philippine Association for Counselor Education, Research and Supervision (PACERS) and the Association of Psychological and Educational Counsellors of Asia (APECA)—also consider the development of indigenous or indigenized counselling techniques as part of their mission (Salazar-Clemeña, 1991, 2000). Many university psychology departments publish their own journals. The Philippine Psychology Research and Training House (PPRTH), founded in 1971, is a base for research and training activities and a repository for SP materials with more than 10,000 references (Pe-Pua & Protacio-Marcelino, 2000).
POTENTIAL PITFALLS AND LIMITATIONS
Sinha (1997), Ho (1998), and Adair (1992), among others, have noted potential pitfalls or limitations of indigenous psychologies, and we ask to what extent they characterize indigenization efforts in the Philippines.
Polemics and cosmetic indigenization
Adair (1992) has noted a “bandwagon” tendency in developing countries, in which local psychologists adopt the language or “slogans” of indigenization, but with limited attempts to make their own research indigenous and limited awareness of how to do so. Related to the pitfall of “more talk than action” is “cosmetic indigenization,” which Sinha (1993) characterizes as casual reference to indigenous concepts in studies that are basically Western in nature. In the Philippines, many psychologists, though not all, have jumped on the indigenization “bandwagon” and Sta. Maria (1996, p. 104), for one, has noted a continuing tendency to “dwell on slogans.”
There are also clear examples of polemic language and uncritical rejection of Western models and concepts. However, there has also been significant action to back up the talk, for example, in the elaboration of indigenous concepts and methods. In addition, several authors have warned against cosmetic indigenization, noting, for example, that “token” use of the Filipino language (Enriquez, 1994a, p. 62), “verbal Filipinization” (Bennagen, 1985), and Filipino “labelling” activities (Bennagen, 1985; Church, 1986) may not result in truly indigenous perspectives and indeed may lead to misconceptions about Filipino psychology.
Sinha (1997, p. 158) criticized the uncritical eulogizing and speculative views about indigenous psychological knowledge derived from traditional religions, philosophies, and folklore, “whose only claim to validity is their ancient origin.” One sees some of this in the Philippines, for example, in the frequent references to the native psychological knowledge associated ^with indigenous religions and healers (e.g., Enriquez, 1994b, p. 26-27). On the other hand, Enriquez (1994a) has been explicit about the need to “revalidate” such indigenous knowledge. Pe-Pua and Protacio-Marcelino (2000) noted that some Filipino scholars have questioned the scientific nature of SP because of its phenomenological orientation and the uncertain objectivity, reliability, and validity of its indigenous methods, but argued that SP “has mechanisms in place to ensure that the tenets of scientific endeavor are upheld” (p. 65).
One serious threat to the scientific objectivity of SP may be the substantial influence of sociopolitical factors in the selection and interpretation of indigenous concepts and methods. Indeed, one can question the compatibility or necessity of the explicit sociopolitical thrust of SP in developing a scientific and objective indigenous psychology, at least in the long-term. To concerns about lack of objectivity, Enriquez (1994b, p. 49) countered that the SP philosophy of science is actually more demanding than its Western counterpart, because it not only requires empirical demonstration of katatagan (replicability and reliability) and katapatan (multiple operationism and validity) but also requires that the results be authentic (patunay; e.g., experientially valid), affirmed by participants, and attested to by concerned nonparticipants (i.e., patotoo).
Experiential validity has been applied in a few studies in which Filipino researchers sought to experience first-hand various spiritual, psychic, or paranormal phenomena under investigation (Talisayon, 1994). In addition, researchers have occasionally arranged for their findings to be affirmed by research participants or attested to by concerned nonparticipants (e.g., Elman & Pioquinto, 1997). However, the multiple validation criteria advocated by Enriquez (1994b) have probably never been applied in a single study.
Sinha (1997, p. 159) reminds us that the “goal of indigenization is not parochialism in psychology, but the development of ‘appropriate’ psychology.” Parochialism or insularity can take the form of extreme cultural relativism, indiscriminate rejection of Western psychology, the proliferation of indigenous psychologies at the expense of efforts to develop a universal psychology, and resistance to external stimulation and perspectives (Ho, 1998; Sinha, 1997). Insularity can be seen in the views of some SP proponents. A milder form of insularity, and perhaps legitimate at some point in the research process, is the suggestion by some that previous (mostly Western) literature and models be ignored when studying an indigenous phenomena, at least until after the data have been collected and interpreted, so as not to be biased by Western perspectives (Torres, 1982). A more consequential form of insularity is the insistence by some authors that only native languages be used to disseminate SP ideas and research (e.g., Javier, 1996; Salazar, 1991).
We have noted the importance of the native languages for indigenous psychology. However, proponents of the Filipino-only view go further by criticizing those who publish their research in the English language. Salazar (1991) has raised an important point in emphasizing the need for Filipinos to evolve their own internal or “insider perspective” (pantayong pananaw), which is achieved, in part, by (1) communicating in the Filipino language; and (2) avoiding the goal or tendency to explain Filipino behaviour or psychology to those outside the culture (e.g., to Western social scientists) using the English language. Accordingly, Javier (1996) noted with dismay the increasing tendencies in the 1990s to get away from the exclusive use of Filipino in SP writings and to publish SP works in English, in part, for a foreign audience. One of Javier’s concerns is apparently that SP proponents are now communicating results outside the Filipino psychological community without first obtaining greater understanding of Filipino psychology within the community.
He is also critical of Filipino social scientists who have gone abroad—and are thus no longer “insiders”—but now publish articles in an outsider’s language such as English to be read by those inside the Philippines. A major dilemma, of course, for indigenous psychology movements is how to evolve an independent psychology without the risks and costs of insularity. Both De Raedt (1982) and Rood (1985), for example, noted that exclusive use of Filipino will probably be harmful in the long run because it will exclude the perspectives of social scientists who are more distant from the culture. They argued that a combination of insider and outsider perspectives is optimal in avoiding metatheoretical biases. An insular SP may also become scientifically inefficient, if not misleading, by (1) ignoring or rejecting aspects of imported psychologies that might be applicable in the Philippines; (2) “reinventing” theories or repeating mistakes already made elsewhere; or (3) overstating the cultural specificity of concepts or methods that may be universal.
To these risks to SP itself, we can add the costs to the international community of an insular SP. Filipino psychologists have been among the leaders in the development of indigenous concepts and methods and psychologists elsewhere can benefit if they are easily able to remain informed about Philippine developments. It also seems contrary to the nature of science, where developments are never final, to postpone dissemination of SP ideas and findings until some undefined level of understanding about Filipino psychology is achieved among SP insiders. Another example of insularity is the view that SP should encompass only native Filipinos residing in the Philippines, excluding, for example, Filipino-Americans (Javier, 1996; Salazar, 1991; Sta. Maria, 1996, p. 104).
The SP advocacy of research on the Filipino masses also risks being exclusionary by treating more educated or elite Filipinos as less worthy of study and as insufficient bearers of the indigenous culture. Although the focus on the Filipino masses may be an important corrective to the oversampling of more educated (and indeed more Westernized) Filipinos, Filipinos on both sides of the “great cultural divide” are representative of Filipinos. Indeed, some cross-cultural psychologists argue that comparisons of individuals with different levels of acculturation (e.g., Filipino-Americans in America, or elite Filipinos versus the masses) can be a powerful methodology for isolating the cultural variable and learning about indigenous cultures. The more insular perspective in SP may be the minority perspective, however.
For example, Enriquez (1994b, p. 44) rejected the nativistic pantayong pananaw and the exclusion of Filipino-Americans as “inward looking and isolationist”. Pe-Pua and Protacio-Marcelino (2000) also expressed a more open view toward inclusion of Filipinos outside the Philippines archipelago, who do, in fact, share Filipino culture and identity to varying degrees. In fact, Enriquez (1994b, p. 4) argued that one purpose of SP is to “strengthen and develop awareness of Filipino cultural heritage and indigenous identity among expatriate Filipinos.”7 Enriquez’s (1979) cross-indigenous approach is also explicitly non-insular, as are attempts to relate indigenous and imported personality and intellectual dimensions in the Philippines (Church et al., 1985; Katigbak et al., 2002).
Limitations of the research culture
Some of the factors that inhibit the development of indigenous Filipino psychology are not specific to indigenous approaches, but involve the research culture more generally. Structural constraints include the limited resources for research, although Bernardo (1997b) describes the funding situation as improving. Bernardo (1997b) also referred to the limited research culture in Philippine psychology. For example, only a limited number of Filipino psychologists are active researchers, in part because of heavy teaching or administrative duties and limited demands and rewards for research, although this, too, is changing at some universities. Many SP proponents have gone abroad as migrants or students, reducing the critical mass of SP researchers, and constituting a kind of SP brain drain of uncertain long-term impact.
In Bernardo’s (1997b) view, this small critical mass of researchers, along with some hesitancy to criticize others’ work, has limited academic criticism and exchange and the development of a peerreview system, both of which could contribute to the resolution of indigenous psychology issues (Sta. Maria, 1996). Several reviewers have noted that most of the empirical research is done by students for papers, theses, and dissertations, and that little of this research is continued or published (Bernardo, 1997b; Sta. Maria, 1996; Ventura, 1985). Protacio-Marcelino et al. (2000a) noted that the results of many funded research projects are also not widely disseminated beyond the funding agencies.
As a result, Bernardo (1997b) concluded that publication is not a very good indicator of research activity in the Philippines. Sta. Maria (1996) expressed the opinion that SP progress has been too closely tied to organizational activities rather than the research programmes of individual psychologists or the psychological community as a whole. Regarding the research itself, Bernardo (1997b) and Sta. Maria (1996) both criticized the descriptive, atheoretical, and nonprogrammatic nature of most studies and Bernardo concluded that this was equally the case for both the more traditionally Western and indigenous studies. Bernardo noted that when theoretical frameworks were used they were most often imported frameworks, but that SP researchers were somewhat more likely than other Filipino psychologists to elaborate on the rationale of their research methods.
Despite the limitations and controversies noted here, we believe it is reasonable to conclude that Filipino psychologists are among the leaders in the development of indigenous psychologies. Pe-Pua and Protacio-Marcelino (2000) also concluded that SP is “alive and well” several years after the death of its foremost intellectual leader, Virgilio G. Enriquez. Loubser (1985) argued that to indigenize a social science the following must be accomplished: (1) derivation of indigenous theories, concepts, and methods; (2) research based on local needs; (3) development of own teaching and training materials; (4) recruitment and training of own nationals as members; (5) incentives for scholars to stay in the country and to publish in national journals; and (6) provision of indigenous sources of support. Our review indicates considerable progress in most of these areas, with greatest progress being made in the elaboration of indigenous concepts and methods and in topical and institutional indigenization.
Among the most pressing needs that remain are the following: (1) formulation of indigenous theory, allowing greater integration of the growing database; (2) objective consideration, informed by empirical data, of the centrality and meaning of indigenous constructs; (3) continuing development and validation of indigenous measures; (4) systematic investigation of the comparative and convergent validity of various indigenous and imported research methods; (5) institutional/structural improvements leading to growth and stability of the indigenous research culture; (6) maintenance of an appropriate balance between the pursuit of an independent psychology and the avoidance of insularity; and, eventually, (7) increased efforts to relate indigenous elements to those in other cultures, as part of a cross-indigenous approach toward a universal psychology. These recommendations, and other issues discussed in this article, might serve as a useful guide for indigenization efforts in other cultures as well. In particular, we would like to conclude by highlighting what we believe to be some of the most important implications for indigenization efforts that follow from the Philippine experience.
First, the Philippine experience, which is corroborated by reports on indigenization efforts in other Asian cultures (Kim & Berry, 1993; Sinha, 1997), suggests that indigenization will most readily be achieved with respect to psychological concepts and the topics studied (i.e., conceptual and topical indigenization). The development of indigenous theory has proven more difficult and may await further elaboration of the conceptual and empirical relationships among indigenous constructs. The development of culture-relevant research methods is a unique contribution of the SP movement to indigenous and mainstream psychology and it would be quite valuable for indigenous psychologists elsewhere to examine the applicability of these methods in their cultures. Second, the Philippine case may provide an example of a more general process or stage-like sequence in the development of indigenous psychologies. Enriquez (1994b) proposed a phase model depicting the process by which indigenous Philippine psychology could liberate itself from the domination of Western psychology.
It would be worthwhile for psychologists elsewhere to search for commonalities in the emergence of indigenous psychologies to determine whether a general stage model can be formulated. At least in general outline, current models of racial/ethnic identity development may have heuristic value in formulating such models. Indeed, it might not be surprising if there were parallels between the process of developing a self-actualized racial/ethnic identity in the face of majority culture domination and the process of developing an indigenous psychological identity in the face of Western scientific domination.
For example, Cross’s (1971) stage model of racial identity development, when adapted for this purpose, might suggest stages such as the following : (1) pre-encounter: A stage in which Western psychology is uncritically accepted and practised, and potential indigenous elements are denied or marginalized; this stage would probably encompass the Denial and Withdrawal, Destruction and Desecration, and Denigration and Marginalization “phase of cultural domination” outlined by Enriquez (1994b); (2) encounter: A state in which dissonant experiences with Western psychological elements lead to the realization that Western elements may not be entirely appropriate, followed by an initial search for more indigenous elements through limited adaptation of imported models, concepts, and measures; this stage might overlap with the Redefinition and Token Utilization, Transformation and Mainstreaming, and Commercialization and Commodification phases described by Enriquez (1994b); (3) immersion-emersion: A stage characterized by energetic efforts to construct truly indigenous psychological elements, concomitant with an uncritical rejection of Western psychological elements; within this stage there might be a typical order in which indigenous concepts, methods, and theories emerge; this stage would encompass much of what Enriquez (1994b) described as phases of Decolonization, Counterdomination, and Empowerment; and (4) internalization: A stage characterized by confidence, security, and nondefensiveness regarding established indigenous elements, plus an increased or renewed openness to the blending of Western elements that may be culturally relevant;
Enriquez (1994b) does not describe a corresponding phase, but he has warned against the dangers of uncritical rejection of imported psychological elements. Such stages might be useful in describing (1) the predominant stage of indigenous psychology within a culture as a whole, and (2) the varied stages or statuses of individual psychologist s within these cultures. Third, the Philippine experience has implications for the relative potential of culture-as-source (indigenous) versus culture-as-target (i.e., adaptation of imported elements) approaches in the development of an “indigenized” and culturally appropriate psychology. Although both approaches have value, it is unlikely that the full range of indigenous concepts, methods, and measures that have been formulated in Filipino psychology would have emerged without the direct indigenous approaches advocated by SP proponents.
We expect that this will be the case in other cultures as well. In addition, the combined emic-etic approach always risks being overdetermined by imported elements—perhaps because they are further along than indigenous elements in development and replication. In the cross-indigenous approach advocated by Enriquez (1979), however, cross-cultural integration can be delayed until indigenous elements are on a more equal footing. Finally, the Philippine experience highlights one of the central dilemmas that must be addressed in the development of indigenous psychologies in all cultures: How does one evolve an independent and appropriate psychology while avoiding the risks of parochialism or insularity?
Although this is a serious issue for consideration, we suspect that this dilemma may solve itself in each culture as researchers with an indigenous focus continue to identify and apply indigenous concepts and methods, while others, including culture-comparativer psychologists, simultaneously pursue the challenging task of integrating indigenous and imported elements. This implies that a diversity of approaches along the emic-etic continuum is to be valued, rather than discouraged or denigrated. Indeed, the eventual integration of well-established indigenous elements and well-adapted imported elements can be viewed as the ultimate goal of indigenous psychologies.