BASIC

F E AT U R E S
OF
S I K O L O H I YA
NG PILIPINO
 VIRGILIO ENRIQUEZ: PIONEER OF
SIKOLOHIYANG PILIPINO
• Born in the province of Bulacan, Philippines, Virgilio Gaspar Enriquez
was trained by his father to speak the native tongue fluently since he was
a child. His father would always find time to have a discussion with him
in Filipino. For example, he would ask the young Virgilio to read the
day’s English language paper, but read it out loud in Filipino as if it was
originally written in that language. Even with his Ph.D. dissertation which
was written in English, he had to explain it to his father in Filipino.
• Enriquez was formally initiated into psychology in 1963 when he started
teaching at the University of the Philippines (U.P.). As early as 1965, he
was using the Filipino language in teaching. For example, in a
Psychology class exam, he did not translate a certain dream to English
because this was an actual dream told to him by a resident of Bulacan.
• In 1966, he left for the United States to pursue a Masters, then later a Doctoral
degree in Psychology at Northwestern University at Evanston, Illinois. While in
this foreign land, amidst foreign theories, he watched the disenchantment of
young student activists in the Philippines over the deteriorating political and
social conditions of the country. The stream of nationalism was starting to have
an effect on the teaching of different courses at U.P. Through his correspondence
with Lagmay, Enriquez learned that the matter of teaching in the Filipino
language was being taken up eagerly. He started preparing for the teaching of
psychology in Filipino, and had a number of discussions (and arguments) with
friends and professors at Northwestern University such as Ernesto Kole, Lee
Sechrest and Donald Campbell.
• In 1966, he left for the United States to pursue a Masters, then later a Doctoral
degree in Psychology at Northwestern University at Evanston, Illinois. While in
this foreign land, amidst foreign theories, he watched the disenchantment of
young student activists in the Philippines over the deteriorating political and
social conditions of the country. The stream of nationalism was starting to have
an effect on the teaching of different courses at U.P. Through his correspondence
with Lagmay, Enriquez learned that the matter of teaching in the Filipino
language was being taken up eagerly. He started preparing for the teaching of
psychology in Filipino, and had a number of discussions (and arguments) with
friends and professors at Northwestern University such as Ernesto Kole, Lee
Sechrest and Donald Campbell.
• Enriquez returned to the Philippines in 1971, bringing with him a wealth of
Western knowledge which he did not impose on his Filipino colleagues and
students. His Western education actually drove him to be more Filipino-oriented
in his teaching and research in psychology. He established the Philippine
Psychology Research House (PPRH) which later became the Philippine
Psychology Research and Training House (PPRTH). This place became home to
materials on Sikolohiyang Pilipino, growing to its present size of more than
10,000 references. It also became home to research with a Filipino perspective;
as well as an abode to individuals inspired by Enriquez’s enthusiasm, who
eventually made their own contribution to the growth of Sikolohiyang Pilipino.
• Enriquez became Chairman of the Department of Psychology in 1977–1982. He
motivated students to write their papers in Filipino to discover important ethnic
concepts, thus contributing to the growth of the national language. He was
adviser and reader of theses and dissertations written in Filipino in psychology,
linguistics, anthropology, philosophy, and Philippine Studies. His influence went
beyond the U.P. He taught at other institutions, such as De la Salle University,
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, University of Santo Tomas, and Centro
Escolar University. He was also Visiting Professor at the University of Hawaii,
Tokyo University for Foreign Studies, University of Malaya, and University of
Hong Kong. (Pe-Pua, 1991)
• Enriquez received numerous awards during his lifetime – fellowships,
scholarships, recognitions and grants – both in the Philippines and
internationally. He made significant contributions to the awareness of
Sikolohiyang Pilipino and Asian psychology. One of his most significant
award, the Outstanding Young Scientist of the Philippines from the National
Academy of Science and Technology in 1982, was in recognition of his work
in Sikolohiyang Pilipino. After his death, he was given a posthumous award,
the National Achievement in the Social Sciences Award (1997), by the
National Research Council of the Philippines for outstanding contribution in
the social sciences on a national level.
 FOUR FILIATIONS OF
SIKOLOHIYANG PILIPINO
• The Academic-scientific psychology: the Western tradition – This
coincided with the birth of scientific psychology (German tradition) in
1876, and the entry of Western psychology (mainly American tradition) at
Philippine universities.
• Academic-philosophical psychology: the Western (mainly clerical)
tradition – This was pursued by the University of Santo Tomas and later
other schools of higher learning, under the leadership of individual monks
and preachers and the Jesuits. The study of psychology as an aspect of
philosophy continued in the tradition of Thomistic philosophy and
psychology
• Ethnic psychology – Major basis of Sikolohiyang Pilipino for integrating
academicscientific and academic-philosophical tradition into a national
tradition of Psychology and Philosophy as universal disciplines. This
stream includes indigenous psychology (common to the Filipinos, culled
from language, culture, literature, etc., psychological systems worked out
by Filipinos with indigenous elements as basis) psychology of Filipinos
(as observed by foreigners or as felt and expressed by Filipinos), the
practice of psychology by Filipinos (normal techniques of
enculturation/socialization, and protoclinical practice).
• Psycho-medical system with religion as cohesive element and
explanation.
MAJ OR CHARACTERISTIC S OF
SIKO LOHIYANG PILIPINO AS AN
IN DIG ENOUS ASIAN PSYC HOLOGY
• Enriquez (1985, 1992) set out to define the major characteristics of Sikolohiyang Pilipino. Its philosophical
antecedents include (a) empirical philosophy, academic-scientific psychology, the ideas and teachings of Ricardo
Pascual, logical analysis of language; (b) rational philosophy, the clerical tradition, phenomenology, Thomistic
philosophy and psychology; and (c) liberalism, the Philippine propaganda movement, the writings of Philippine
heroes Jacinto, Mabini and del Pilar, ethnic psychology. Sikolohiyang Pilipino’s principal emphasis in psychology
is on identity and national consciousness, social awareness and involvement, psychology of language and culture,
and applications and bases of Filipino psychology in health practices, agriculture, art, mass media, religion, etc. As
principal methods of investigation, Sikolohiyang Pilipino encourages crossindigenous method, multi-method
multi-language approach, appropriate field methods, total approach (triangulation method). In terms of areas of
protest, Sikolohiyang Pilipino is against a psychology that perpetuates the colonial status of the Filipino mind. It is
against a psychology used for the exploitation of the masses. It is also against the imposition to a Third World
country of psychologies developed in industrialized countries. Regarding psychological practice, it endorses the
conceptualization of psychological practice in a Philippine context, for example, livelihood psychology instead of
industrial psychology, health psychology instead of clinical psychology. It is also concerned with folk practices or
indigenous techniques of healing, popular religio-political movements, and community or rural psychology
• On the science-humanism issue, Sikolohiyang Pilipino is concerned with both.
Scientific and humanistic approaches are both valid. It develops psychology as a science
and psychology as an art. On the mentalism-behaviorism issue, Sikolohiyang Pilipino
admits both but with lesser emphasis on individual experience and with greater
emphasis on the collective experience of a people with a common bond of history.
Greater importance is attached to kamalayan (psyche), thus subsidiary importance
attached to ulirat (lower level of physical consciousness). The analysis-wholeness issue
is not a big issue in Sikolohiyang Pilipino. It is methodologically on the side of analysis
but interprets the result of analysis with a bias for wholeness. Enriquez also clarified that
Sikolohiyang Pilipino is not inconsistent with a universal psychology but is actually a
step towards the development of a universal psychology. It is not anti-Western theory
and methods either, but against a non-selective use of imposition of Western knowledge.
DEVELOPMENT OF INDIGENOUS
CONCEPTS AND THEORIES
• There is a good deal of literature on the Filipino personality which has
become available. The Filipino personality is a popular area of study of many
foreign scholars who came to the Philippines. Using language interpreters
and without really immersing themselves in the culture of the people, these
foreign ‘‘experts’’ have published their versions of Filipino values. These
depictions filtered into the textbooks of the Philippine educational system,
which was already greatly influenced by Western ideas to begin with. These
‘‘Filipino values’’, together with other colonial interpretations offered by the
foreign scholars, have been transmitted from one generation to another, thus
perpetuating a distorted, if not false, picture of the Filipino.
RETHINKING FILIPINO VALUES
• Enriquez was critical of this approach to the study of Filipino values. He
encouraged Filipino scholars to take a second look at these values using a
Filipino orientation. Social scientists such as Lagmay, Salazar, and
Bonifacio took up the challenge in their own research. Let us examine
three of these ‘‘Filipino values’’ from the exogenous and indigenous
perspectives.
• Bahala Na. The Filipino cultural value of bahala na has no exact English
translation. Bostrom (1968) was the first psychologist to analyze this
value by comparing it with American fatalism. This is obviously a
pervasive interpretation that when Thomas Andres published the
Dictionary of Filipino Culture and Values, he still defines bahala na as
‘‘the Filipino attitude that makes him accept sufferings and problems,
leaving everything to God. ‘Bahala na ang Diyos (God will take care of
us)’ . . . This attitude is a fatalistic resignation or withdrawal from an
engagement or crisis or a shirking from personal responsibility’’ (Andres,
1994, p. 12).
• The Sikolohiyang Pilipino perspective interprets bahala na differently.
Lagmay (1977) explained that bahala na is not ‘‘fatalism’’ but
‘‘determination and risk-taking’’. When Filipinos utter the expression
‘‘Bahala na!’’ they are not leaving their fate to God and remaining
passive. Rather, they are telling themselves that they are ready to face the
difficult situation before them, and will do their best to achieve their
objectives. The expression is a way of pumping courage into their system
so that they do not buckle down. In fact, even before they have said
‘‘Bahala na!’’ they have probably done their best to prepare for the
forthcoming situation
• Hiya. Sibley (1965), an American scholar, translated hiya as ‘‘shame’’. Another American, Lynch
(1961) saw hiya as ‘‘the uncomfortable feeling that accompanies awareness of being in a socially
unacceptable position, or performing a socially unacceptable action.’’ For example, when an
employee is scolded in front of other people. To add to the negativity of this interpretation of hiya,
Andres (1994) described hiya as ‘‘an ingredient in why Filipinos overspend during fiestas in order
to please their visitors, even to the extent of going into debt’’ (p. 64). This conventional
interpretation of hiya is inadequate because it does not take into account the importance of
understanding how affixations in Philippine languages can give a new meaning to a word.
Bonifacio (1976) alerted us to the different meanings of the word hiya depending on its form –
nakakahiya (embarrassing), napahiya (placed in an awkward position), ikinahiya (be embarrassed
with someone), etc. With some affixes, it becomes negative, e.g., napahiya; with others, positive,
e.g., mahiyain (shy); and in still other forms, it can either be positive or negative depending on the
context, e.g., kahihiyan (sense of propriety, or embarrassment).
• Salazar (1981, 1985b) expounded on affixation and hiya and showed the
internal and external aspects of hiya. Evidently, it is the external aspect
which foreign scholars have captured. After all is said and done, the more
appropriate translation of hiya in English is not ‘‘shame’’ but ‘‘sense of
propriety’’.
• Utang na loob. Utang na loob was translated by Kaut (1961) as ‘‘debt of gratitude’’. Andres
(1994, pp. 190–191) defined it, following Kaut’s logic, as ‘‘the principle of reciprocity
incurred when an individual helps another. The person helped then feels an obligation to
repay the debt in the future when the helper himself (sic) is in need of aid, or he (sic) may
repay his debt by sending gifts. It is often not clear when a debt has been fully paid, so that
the relationship becomes an ongoing one.’’ Hollnsteiner (1961) took this interpretation
further by claiming that the recipient of the favor is forced ‘‘to show his (sic) gratitude
properly by returning the favor with interest.’’ Enriquez (1977) dared to speculate that there
is an element of wanting to promote reciprocity which is useful for maintaining the image of
the colonizer as benefactor. But looking at utang na loob more closely in the context of
Filipino culture, it actually means ‘‘gratitude/solidarity’’. It is not necessarily a burden as the
word ‘‘debt’’ connotes, because in the Filipino pattern of interpersonal relations, there is
always an opportunity to return a
• favor. It is not absolutely obligatory in the immediate future, for the
opportunity to show utang na loob might come only in the next
generation, maybe not in your lifetime. Your children will see to it that it
is recognized and respected. It is a beautiful element of Filipino
interpersonal relationships that binds a person to his or her home
community or home country. In fact, this is expressed in a popular
Filipino saying, ‘‘Ang hindi lumingon sa pinanggalingan ay hindi
makakarating sa paroroonan. (Those who do not look back to where they
came from will not reach their destination)’’. Utang na loob is a calling
heard by many Filipinos who go to other lands but who still retain strong
ties with their homeland
• Pakikisama vs. pakikipagkapwa. Pakikisama was identified by Lynch
(1961, 1973) as a Filipino value, giving it the English translation of
maintaining ‘‘smooth interpersonal relations’’ by going along with the
group or the majority decision, i.e., conformity
• Enriquez (1978, 1994) started unfolding the concept of kapwa (shared identity), which is at
the core of Filipino social psychology, and which is at the heart of the structure of Filipino
values. He discovered that it is not maintaining smooth interpersonal relationships that
Filipinos are most concerned with, but pakikipagkapwa which means treating the other person
as kapwa or fellow human being. There are two categories of kapwa: the Ibang-Tao (outsider)
and the Hindi-Ibang-Tao (‘‘one-of-us’’). In Filipino social interaction, one is immediately
‘‘placed’’ into one of these two categories; and how one is placed determines the level of
interaction one is shown. For example, if one is regarded as ibang-tao, the interaction can
range from pakikitungo (transaction/civility with), to pakikisalamuha (interaction with), to
pakikilahok (joining/participating), to pakikibagay (in-conformity with/inaccord with), and to
pakikisama (being along with). If one is categorized as hindi-ibang-tao, then you can expect
pakikipagpalagayang-loob (being in-rapport/understanding/ acceptance with), or
pakikisangkot (getting involved), or the highest level of pakikiisa (being one with).
• Using the Sikolohiyang Pilipino perspective, Enriquez (1992) re-conceptualized the Filipino
behaviour patterns and value structure where he designated hiya(‘‘propriety/ dignity’’), utang na loob
(‘‘gratitude/solidarity’’) and pakikisama (‘‘companionship/ esteem’’) as colonial/accommodative
surface values; and bahala na (‘‘determination’’), sama/lakas ng loob (‘‘resentment/guts’’) and
pakikibaka (‘‘resistance’’) as confrontative surface values. He emphasized kapwa (‘‘shared
identity’’) as core value; pakikiramdam (‘‘shared inner perception’’) as pivotal interpersonal value;
and kagandahang-loob (‘‘shared humanity’’) as linking socio-personal value. Associated with the
above are societal values such as karangalan (‘‘dignity’’), katarungan (‘‘justice’’), and kalayaan
(‘‘freedom’’). Thus, the area of Filipino personality developed as a strong area using the
Sikolohiyang Pilipino perspective. The Filipino is a blend of East and West. The Western influence
can be seen more in external ways – dressing, liking for hamburger and other food, Western music
and dance, etc. However, the internal aspect, which is at the core of his pagkatao (personality), is
Asian – deference for authority, modesty/humility, concern for others, etc.
INDIRECT COMMUNICATION
• Another aspect of Filipino personality that was given attention by the
Sikolohiyang Pilipino perspective is the propensity for indirect
communication. Part of our socialization is being sensitive to non-verbal
cues, having concern for the feelings of others, being truthful but not at
the expense of hurting others’ feelings. This has made the sharpening of
pakikiramdam (shared inner perception) a particularly desirable skill in
many situations involving Filipino social interaction. Pakikiramdam is a
request to feel or to be sensitive to. It is a shared feeling, a kind of
‘‘emotional a priori’’. There is ‘‘hesitation to react, attention to subtle
cues,
• and non-verbal behavior in mental role-playing (if I were in the other’s
situation, how would I feel)’’. In other words, it is ‘‘feeling for another’’,
exercising great care and deliberation (Mataragnon, 1987). Pakikiramdam is
especially useful in conducting research in the rural areas. Filipinos find it
difficult to refuse when asked directly to participate in an interview or survey.
But if you have pakikiramdam, you can tell from their body language or the
tone of their voice that the participation they will show is ‘‘half-baked’’, thus
not valid. If you have taken the time to understand their cultural ways, you will
know that it is very important to spend time establishing rapport, letting them
‘‘interview’’ you first so they would feel comfortable enough to disclose their
opinions, knowledge and experiences to you.
• The indirect pattern of communication of Filipinos has thus resulted in indirectness or
euphemisms in verbal exchange, expressive body language, voice intonations that say
more than the words themselves, and other similar behaviors. Among Filipinos, these
are a matter of fact, taken for granted, because they are what they are born into and
grow up with. It is only when these behaviors come in conflict with Western ways that
the Filipino gives them a second thought. In reality, the foreigner or the Westernized
Filipino is impatient with this mode of communication, and questions the usefulness
of this cultural way. The indirectness, for example, not saying ‘‘no’’ outright, has often
been misinterpreted to mean untruthfulness, dishonesty or hypocrisy. To the Filipinos,
they are being frank about their feelings, but they just do not express this verbally. It
thus poses as a great challenge for non-Filipinos to ‘‘read’’ these messages
communicated indirectly, or rather, non-verbally.
INTERNALITY-EXTERNALITY
• Salazar (1985b), through his analysis of indigenous history and culture of the Filipinos, points out
the internality-externality component in the Filipino personality. The Filipino language has two
words for the English word ‘‘honor’’: puri and dangal. Puri refers to honor which is physical, such as
that bestowed through compliments or applauses for a good performance, thus external. It can also
refer to virginity which is a virtue expected of unmarried Filipino women. Dangal is honor from
within – knowledge of one’s true worth, character, achievement and success. It can be acknowledged
through an award or a tribute (parangal, which is actually pa-dangal) but even without such gestures
from outside, it is within you. Thus, a poor person who is a kind and honest person and respects the
dignity of hard work has a lot of dangal. A woman who was raped is not stripped of her dangal even
though her puri was taken away. Other examples of internality-externality includes saya and ligaya
for the English word ‘‘happiness’’; pigil and timpi for ‘‘control’’; and dama and damdam for ‘‘feel’’.
This is not to say that this internal-external dimension is unique to the Filipinos, but this is
something researchers should be conscious of when trying to understand the Filipino personality.
DEVELOPMENT OF INDIGENOUS
PERSONALITY MEASURES
• In the area of Filipino Personality, Enriquez, together with PPRH, developed the
Panukat ng Ugali at Pagkatao (PUP) (Measure of Character and Personality) in
1975 which utilized dimensions of personality that are relevant to Filipinos. While
psychological testing is of Western origin, the substance of the PUP originated
from an understanding of the Filipinos. The test administration procedures were
also adapted to Filipino ways (Enriquez & Guanzon, 1985). It must be noted that
Enriquez’s PUP and three other examples of Philippine personality measures may
actually have cross-cultural similarities in the dimensions they measure (Guanzon-
Lapen˜a, Church, Carlota, & Katigbak, 1998). Filipino personality test
development efforts have in fact come a long way, as can be seen in the history of
psychological measurement in the Philippines.
• Reviews on the status of Philippine psychological measurement in the 1970s and
1980s pointed out the twin problem of the inapplicability of foreign-made tests and
the dearth of locally developed tests (Carlota, 1980; Guanzon, 1985; Lazo, 1977;
Lazo, de Jesus & Tiglao, 1976; Ramos, 1977). Carlota (1980) noted several trends
in personality measurement, citing developments in the areas of personality testing,
and the measurement of abilities and aptitudes, and of deviant behavior. Guanzon
(1985) also noted the phenomenon of measures being locally developed
particularly in the area of personality measurement. Despite this welcome
development, however, she decried the tendency of local test users to use foreign-
made tests lock, stock, and barrel, with no attempt whatsoever to adapt these tests
through item or test modification, test translation, or development of local norms.
• Cipres-Ortega and Guanzon-Lapen˜a (1997) documented and organized the information on both published
and unpublished work in the area of psychological measurement, and saw a recent upsurge in the
development of indigenous psychological measures. Interest has grown by leaps and bounds from the
handful of tests in educational psychology which were locally developed in the 1950s, to the interest in
personality testing of the projective type in the 1960s. They further noted that ‘‘the 1970s saw tests
developed in creativity, selfperception, personality and vocational testing, and the 1980s an increased
interest in personality testing, with a number of researchers doing studies on the Filipino child and the
Filipino adolescent. And in the 1990s, tests were developed to measure a wide variety of Filipino
characteristics – katalinuhan [intelligence], pagkarelihiyoso [religiosity], kaasalang sekswal [sexual
behavior], kakayahang magdala ng tensyon [ability to handle stress], pagkamabahala [anxiety], kahustuhang
emosyonal [emotional stability], kakayahang berbal sa Filipino [verbal ability in Filipino], Filipino
management style, dementia screening, empathy, and trustworthiness, to name a few’’ (Cipres-Ortega &
Guanzon-Lapen˜a, 1997, p. 7). In the history of Philippine psychological measurement, Enriquez’s Panukat
ng Ugali at Pagkatao clearly stands out as one of the first, if not the first, instruments that are culturally
sensitive in its assessment of the Filipino personality
DEVELOPMENT OF INDIGENOUS
RESEARCH METHODS
• The impact of Sikolohiyang Pilipino was greatly felt in the area of social research methods. In 1975,
Carmen Santiago, a postgraduate student of psychology at U.P., did a study on pagkalalaki (no equivalent in
English, but approximately, it means ‘‘masculinity’’, ‘‘maleness’’, ‘‘manhood’’, or all of these) for a class
under Enriquez. This study was to be the turning point in Philippine social research for it was in her articles
(Santiago, 1975, 1977) that the pakapa-kapa (‘‘groping’’) approach was first introduced. To many traditional
researchers, her approach was avant-garde for she believed that it is not necessary to have a clear-cut
research design nor a review of related literature before embarking on a research, especially if existing
written materials are foreign to the culture being studied. In a subsequent paper, she and Enriquez discussed
the loopholes of Philippine social research, including the lack of relevance of research topics to the needs of
the people being studied, inappropriateness of (Western) methods to the ways of the people, definitions
based on Western theories, and overemphasis on data rather than on the process. As an alternative, they
proposed ways of making research more Filipino, which eventually became the backbone of indigenous
research methods – methods which are not imported nor invented, but are natural or existing patterns of
behavior (not methods), discovered and developed as research methods. (Santiago & Enriquez, 1976)
• In searching for appropriate research methods that are indigenous to Filipino experience, Filipino scholars
have learned to assume the pakapa-kapa perspective, ‘‘a suppositionless approach to social scientific
investigations. As implied by the term itself, pakapa-kapa is an approach characterized by groping,
searching and probing into an unsystematized mass of social and cultural data to obtain order, meaning and
directions for research’’ (Torres, 1982, p. 171). There are at least five basic guiding principles relevant to the
use of indigenous perspective in general, and indigenous research methods in particular. First, the level of
interaction or relationship that exists between the researcher and the researched significantly determines the
quality of the data obtained in the research process. The levels of interaction are the same ones as the kapwa
classifications – Ibang-Tao (‘‘Outsider’’) and Hindi-IbangTao (‘‘One-of-us’’). It is recommended that the
first level under Hindi-Ibang-Tao, which is pakikipagpalagayang-loob (level of mutual trust, understanding,
rapport) should be reached, at the minimum, in order to be assured of good quality data. The dichotomy of
the ‘‘One-of-us’’ and the ‘‘Outsider’’ categories reflects a value for defining membership in a group which
determines the boundaries or the extent of allowable behavior for a person. Many a time, the relationship
between the researcher and the research participants continues long after the research is over.
• Second, research participants should always be treated by researchers as equal, if
not superior – a fellow human being and not like a ‘‘guinea pig’’ whose sole
function is to provide data. From this principle, certain behaviors on the part of the
researcher are prescribed. For example, in the method of pagtatanong-tanong
(literally, ‘‘asking questions’’, marked by casualness when in fact, the researcher is
truly determined to get answers to his questions), the research participants are free
to ask the researcher as many questions as they want, therefore acting much like a
‘‘researcher’’ themselves. These questions should be accorded the same respect and
not avoided (Pe-Pua, 1989). In many of the research methods, research participants
actually have an input in the research process itself – in terms of time management,
structure of the questions, interpretation – without their being aware of it.
• Third, the welfare of the research participants take precedence over the data
obtained from them. The goal of research is understanding, but not at the
expense of the very people from whom this understanding will spring. The
primary ethical responsibility of researchers should be to the people and not
to their institution or funding agency. For example, if the publication of the
research report will jeopardize the situation of the people, then it should not
be continued. If the needs of the community are unearthed in the course of
doing research on a different topic, and it is within the researchers’
capability to help, then they should help. The research, aside from being
enlightening for the respondents, should also be empowering
• Fourth, the method to be used in a research should be chosen on the basis
of appropriateness to the population (and not sophistication of the
method) and it should be made to adapt to existing cultural norms. For
example, having somebody else butt in in the middle of an interview
session is not something to be upset over; one should go through the
process of getting to know each other first informally before asking
questions on topics that are not that common to people. Researchers
cannot expect people to adjust to the method; the method should adjust to
the people. And here is where pakikiramdam (sensitivity) is most needed
– in trying to figure out how the research method will work most
effectively.
• One essential ability that researchers must possess, whatever method they are
using, is pakikiramdam, a special kind of sensitivity to cues which will guide
them in their interaction with group members, especially with Filipinos who
are used to indirect and non-verbal manner of communicating and expressing
thoughts, attitudes, feelings and emotions. It is through pakikiramdam that a
researcher will know when to ask personal questions and when not to pursue
them; when it is time to leave; or how to interpret a ‘‘yes’’ or a ‘‘no’’. Fifth, the
language of the people should be the language of research at all times. If this is
not possible, local researchers should be tapped for assistance. It is in their
own mother tongue that a person can truly express their innermost sentiments,
ideas, perceptions, and attitudes.
• Some of the indigenous research methods that have been identified are
pagtatanongtanong (improvised informal, unstructured interview) (Pe-
Pua, 1989), pakikipagkuwentuhan (‘‘story telling’’ or ‘‘informal
conversations’’) (Orteza, 1997), ginabayang talakayan (collective
indigenous discussion), nakikiugaling pagmamasid (participant
observation) (Bennagen, 1985), pakikisama (‘‘getting along with’’) (Nery,
1979), pagdalaw-dalaw (‘‘visiting’’) (Gepigon & Francisco, 1978), and
panunuluyan (‘‘residing in the research setting’’) (San Juan & Soriaga,
1985).