Indigenization of psychology in the Philippines

Abstract

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.

Indigenous Research Methods: A Systematic Review

“…Church and Katigbak (2002) presented an overview of several Filipino research methods: pakapa-kapa (groping), pagmamasid (general scanning or looking around), pakikiramdam (sensing, feeling what is happening), pagtatanung-tanong (unstructured, informal, interactive questioning) (Pe-Pua, 1989), pagsubok (testing the situation), padalaw-dalaw (occasional visits made to respondents' homes), pakikisangkot (deeper involvement in barrio activities), paali-aligid (casing), pakikipagkuwentuhan (storytelling), pakikisama (frequent interaction with the research participants), pakikipanuluyan (residing in the research setting), nakikiugaling pagmamasid (adopting the ways of a group one is observing), ginabayang talakayan (guided discussion), and pagninilay or paglilimi (introspection or reflection) (Pe-Pua, 1989;Pe-Pua & Protacio-Marcelino, 2000). Both pakapa-kapa (groping) and pagtatanung-tanong (unstructured, informal, interactive questioning) have been explored by many authors (Church & Katigbak, 2002;Pe-Pua, 1989;Pe-Pua & Protacio-Marcelino, 2000;Protacio-Marcelino, 1990). Pakapa-kapa refers to the investigation of phenomena and data without using a theoretical framework; this practice aids in the development of Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Church & Katigbak, 2002;Pe-Pua & Protacio-Marcelino, 2000;Protacio-Marcelino, 1990).…”

“…These methods also operate from the assumption that the data quality is reliant on the relationship between the researcher and participant and that by utilizing Filipino research methods, the power differential between researcher and participant will be negated to some degree (Church & Katigbak, 2002).…”

“…Pakapa-kapa refers to the investigation of phenomena and data without using a theoretical framework; this practice aids in the development of Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Church & Katigbak, 2002;Pe-Pua & Protacio-Marcelino, 2000;Protacio-Marcelino, 1990). Pagtatanung-tanong is considered a culturally safe form of qualitative data collection and has been utilized by several Filipino researchers (Church & Katigbak, 2002;Pe-Pua, 1989;Pe-Pua & ProtacioMarcelino, 2000;Protacio-Marcelino, 1990). …”

“…Research in psychology in the Philippines has generated the term "Sikolohiyang Pilipino," which refers to a uniquely Filipino perspective on psychology (Enriquez, 1992;Protacio-Marcelino, 1990). In order to house this entire branch of psychology that is specifically Filipino, there is a whole library of Indigenous Filipino research methods (Church & Katigbak, 2002;ProtacioMarcelino, 1990). While we cannot explore the depth of each Filipino research method in this review, we have provided a summary.…”

Phenomenological Look at the Experiences of Filipina Correspondence or Internet Brides

“…Filipino psychology or Sikolohiyang Pilipino (SP) was first developed by Virgilio Enriquez as a response to the dominant usage of Western psychology in various academic and clinical settings in the Philippines (Church & Katigbak, 2002;Montiel & Teh, 2004;San Juan, 2006). Filipino scholars have criticized the application of some of the Western models of psychology, indicating that its usage promoted "intellectual dependence" (Church & Katigbak, 2002, p. 130) and "academic imperialism" (p. 130).…”