Abstract
Textbooks on research methods generally emphasize the need to collect data with high validity, reliability, and in the case of qualitative research, authenticity. Yet, field research often poses unanticipated challenges, particularly when the research is conducted in less-than-well-documented milieus. This article outlines field challenges encountered by the authors when doing a qualitative study of a slum community in the Philippines. Acceptable Western standards for gaining entry into a research community, for participating in local community life, and for the language and dress code used in the field had to be re-evaluated by the authors according to the prevailing Filipino cultural norms and the norms used in the local slum community. Lessons learned in this research can inform those doing qualitative research generally, but particularly those considering research in non-Western cultures.
Textbooks on research methods generally emphasize the need to collect data with high validity, reliability, and in the case of qualitative research, authenticity. Currently, a number of textbooks suggest different protocols on the optimal ways to achieve validity, reliability, and authenticity in qualitative data collection (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005; Dillman, 2007; Emerson, 2001; Foddy, 1994; Fowler and Mangione, 1990). However, despite recommended best practices, researchers are often left on their own devices once they face unanticipated challenges in the field. Researchers concede that every field setting is unique, and while best practices guides are helpful, researchers must employ creative approaches or ‘artistic blending’ to address challenges encountered in a research scenario (Dunlap et al., 1990: 122). Indeed, collecting data is as much an art as it is a science (Dunlap et al., 1990). Moreover, current textbook protocols on how to collect valid, reliable, and authentic information have been largely developed in Western settings. These protocols are therefore generally based upon Western culture that may not hold true in non-Western settings. In the United States, for example, direct communication is generally the cultural norm (Park and Kim, 2008) such that survey enumerators can generally assume that respondents will convey what they actually mean (unless the social milieu discourages truthful answers, such as in domestic violence surveys). In a culture that celebrates individual freedom, one can assume that the responses given are manifestations of individual opinions. However, in a culture where communication is more indirect, respondents may convey information beyond the stated words (Harle et al., 2007; Maggay, 1999; Mendoza, 2004). In a culture that emphasizes collective identity, personal opinions are usually coated so as not to make the collective look bad (Enriquez, 1986, 1993; Leon, 1987). These differing cultural assumptions about communication has direct implications on the researchers’ abilities to gather valid, reliable, and authentic information in the field. 1
This article uses field information from an ethnographic research conducted in a slum area in Metro Manila, the Philippines. The project was conducted to understand the lived experiences of slum residents who are recipients of a comprehensive community program that aims to improve the structural conditions and social dynamics of slum communities. This comprehensive community initiative, locally known as Gawad Kalinga (GK), is a housing program that incorporates community organizing, job generation, child and youth development, and values/spiritual formation. Specifically, a team from the GK organizes slum residents into a neighborhood association, enlists residents’ support in the construction of new homes that residents will eventually own, and organizes volunteers to teach in the educational, livelihood, and spiritual programs that is part of the GK model.
The researchers observed a slum community in Quezon City that comprised 101 housing units with at least 150 households and close to a thousand residents. During the time of the research, a multipurpose hall that was part of the GK program had already been constructed, and a child development program organized by GK was actively in place. House building for the community was midway in its implementation with 55 housing units already constructed and 4 units undergoing construction. Construction of 42 other housing units was on hold due to an unresolved legal issue raised by residents who did not want to participate in the GK program. The researchers are based in a university in the United States, but both grew up in the Philippines and are fluent with the Filipino national language (Tagalog). One of the researchers (R.N.) immersed in the community for 2 months and was able to observe and interview residents in the community during the duration of his stay. Much of the information presented in this article is based upon R.N.’s experiences during this 2-month immersion.
To provide context, the article starts with a brief description of some aspects of the Filipino culture that were directly relevant to this field investigation. The article then proceeds to describe the researchers’ field experiences, the challenges they encountered when using standard Western protocols in the Philippine setting, and innovations they implemented to address challenges posed during field research.
Reflections and suggestions presented toward the end of this article should appeal to other researchers who are embarking on conducting research in a non-Western setting.
Filipino culture
Two facets of Filipino culture had the most bearing on this field experience. First is the Filipinos’ sense of collective identity that is also a characteristic of many of their Asian neighbors. Cross-cultural psychologists and cultural anthropologists have noted that Filipinos generally want to preserve smooth interpersonal relationships where individual whims and caprices are set aside in order to conform to a collective good (Church, 1987; Enriquez, 1986; Lynch and Makil, 2004). Opinions that may hurt others’ feelings, according to this cultural code are kept to oneself, or at the very least, are not widely divulged. Family and community members, for example, are encouraged to be careful in sharing any information to outsiders that may put the family or community in a shameful situation (Pe-Pua and Protacio-Marcelino, 2000; Watkins, 1982; Watkins and Gutierrez, 1989). This collective identity is captured in the Filipino adage: Ang sakit ng kalingkingan ay dama ng buong katawan, which roughly translates as ‘the pain of the little finger is felt by the whole body’. This adage suggests that the identity and reputation of an individual member of a family or a community is shared by all. It also follows that if a reputable member endorses a new member to the community, other members will welcome the new member usually without reservations (Pe-Pua and Protacio-Marcelino, 2000; Watkins, 1982; Watkins and Gutierrez, 1989). The new member usually benefits from the reputation of the endorsee. This collective identity is depicted as a horizontal relationship that keeps community members together (Church, 1987; Enriquez, 1986; Lynch and Makil, 2004).
Second is a Filipino attitude that historians and academics have referred to as the Filipino colonial mentality (Constantino, 1976; David and Okazaki, 2006; Rimonte, 1997). Four centuries of governance under Spain followed by 50 years under the United States have had significant impact on the way contemporary Filipinos view social relationships between the rich and the poor, the educated and not-so educated, and the Westernized and the not-so Westernized (David and Okazaki, 2006; Pomeroy, 1992; Rimonte, 1997). While the Philippines has been an independent country for almost 70 years, a vertical social relationship that privileges one social class over the other still permeates every aspect of the Philippine society. Researchers, for example, are usually viewed to come from the elite class: they are typically richer, more educated, and by their physical appearance, more Westernized than the participants of the research. On account of internalized inferiority (Constantino, 1976; Rimonte, 1997), research participants usually accord deferential treatment to their university-affiliated visitors. There is an unstated, albeit false assumption, that the researchers ‘know more’ than the participants. In the process, there is an inherent power-differential between the researchers and the participants. Additionally, even within the lower social classes, there is a vertical relationship that privileges the poor over the very poor. Leaders in slum communities, for example, enjoy considerable esteem from their less affluent neighbors.
These two facets of Filipino culture (sense of collective identity and colonial mentality) were particularly evident in this data collection effort and affected how participants accepted the researchers into their communities, how they responded to requests for interviews, and how they treated the researchers as they went about the community. The fact that the researchers are familiar with the Filipino culture provided a more nuanced understanding of the attitudes and tenor of the community. However, this did not exempt the researchers from the pitfalls of using standard protocols that backfired, or assuming, at least initially, that some standard practices would be acceptable in this slum community. The article illustrates how some commonly held Western practices fared in this field experience, specifically, how these practices were received by the Filipino slum community, the challenges these posed for the researchers, and the innovations that were then introduced by the researchers to address problems in the field.
Gaining entry through a reputable informant
Standard qualitative research protocols suggest that to gain entry into a research setting, the researchers should establish trust and rapport with the participants. To establish trust and rapport, the researchers are often advised to identify a key informant, preferably one who has a valued reputation in the community (Whyte, 1943) who could then introduce the researchers to members of the community. It is also helpful if the key informant is someone who is personally known to the researchers. The relationships developed through these networks will determine the quality of information that can be accessed by the researchers (Singleton et al., 1999).
This protocol for gaining entry served as our guide. Given that slum communities are generally hard to penetrate (Jocano, 1975), entry into this community was facilitated by a well-respected member of the GK, Eduardo (pseudonym), who, though not a member of the slum community, had served in this slum community for almost 10 years and commanded considerable support and respect from community leaders and members. Eduardo is also R.N.’s relative (uncle) and is therefore personally known to the researchers. Consistent with the recommended protocols, this network provided immediate acceptance of the researchers into the slum community. For R.N., being introduced as ‘Eduardo’s nephew’ automatically imbued him with the good graces that Eduardo enjoyed in the community. R.N. was eagerly accepted by the residents who offered their homes for his temporary stay, even vying against each other in inviting him to their place. The host families would often offer their only bedroom to R.N., to make his stay more comfortable. The residents would also routinely invite him for breakfast, lunch, or dinner and despite their meager means, offer him their best meals. R.N. observed that the residents tried their best to gain kapalagayang loob or confidence with him.
The residents’ kapalagayang loob effort is consistent with the Filipinos’ collective identity and colonial mentality. Residents were eager to repay the kindness Eduardo had shown to their community by treating Eduardo’s nephew as one of their own. This was expressed by the common statement among residents ‘Ah, kamag-anak pala kayo ni Eduardo, hindi na kayo iba sa amin’, which translates as ‘Ah, you are Eduardo’s relative, you are no longer a stranger to us’. Colonial mentality was manifested in the manner in which residents accorded deferential treatment to R.N.. Since Eduardo is considered to be of a higher social class, the residents also assumed R.N. to be such. Residents would ask R.N. what his affiliations were, where he currently lives, and what he does for a living. They would express admiration when they learn that he is affiliated with a university in the United States. ‘Wow, ikaw ang panalo’ or ‘you are the winner’ would be a common remark. To residents of the slum community, these are indications of success, and they placed R.N. on a social pedestal. When entering a house, for example, household members would hastily clean and rearrange their furniture to make the house more presentable and express their hiya or embarrassment for supposedly not preparing earlier. They would address R.N. as ‘sir’ to acknowledge his supposedly superior social status. In group gatherings where R.N. participated, residents would always make sure that he was properly seated, and they would offer their seats if all were taken. In community meetings, he was almost always acknowledged publicly and was usually asked to say a word or two.
Advantages and disadvantages
Following the protocol of being introduced by a reputable member of the community offered many advantages. First, it afforded the researchers the ability to move around the community without much constraint. Second, being placed on a higher social pedestal greatly facilitated R.N.’s interviews of community members. Residents, for example, would immediately leave their household chores as soon as R.N. identified them as his next interviewee. Employing a systematic sampling in the interview protocol where every third house was chosen, the selected household members would eagerly await their turn. In focus group discussions, residents willingly invited other participants to join. When R.N. visited a nearby slum community as a comparison site, the residents volunteered to introduce him to leaders and residents of the nearby slum.
Although the advantages of this privileged status are desirable, there were disadvantages that, when left unrecognized, could have potentially biased the research results and even jeopardized the study. For one, as an accepted member of the community, R.N. was expected to share in preserving the reputation of the community and to do his part in protecting the community according to the Filipino standards of collective identity. Residents had entrusted their stories to him; thus, he was now expected to only present the community in a positive light. In reporting the research findings, the implied belief was that, like a family member protecting the reputation of an errant brother or sister, R.N. would be quiet about negative behaviors and only highlight positive aspects about the community. This became evident to R.N. when he saw lingering drinking practices among residents, which should have been removed with the coming of GK into the slum community. At the beginning of the immersion, R.N. observed that residents did not engage in public drinking, an uncommon trend in Filipino slum areas where public drinking is commonplace. However, as R.N. became fully immersed in the community, he observed that many male residents actually engaged in public drinking. In one of the drinking sessions, a resident explained to R.N. that the reason he was not able to notice their drinking practices earlier was because residents consciously hid their drinking activities from him. One of the agreements the residents had with the GK program is to lessen, if not eradicate, public drinking as this projects an image of disorder. The resident said, Dahil di ka naman na iba sa amin, nagpapakatotoo lang kami sa iyo. At wala namang masama sa ganitong pagtitipon, di ba, lalo at paminsan minsan lang naman. At naniniwala kaming atin-atin na lang ang impormasyong ito. (Since you are not a stranger to us, we are just being truthful to you. And there is nothing wrong with this gathering, right, particularly as we do it only once in a while. And we believe that this information should be between you and the community.)
Presenting the community in a positive light is particularly beneficial for GK communities that heavily depend upon outside resources and support to keep the neighborhood’s transformation going.
Additionally, despite the fact that residents professed that R.N. was part of their community, the colonial mentality of Filipinos instructed the residents to still view him differently. There was a tacit understanding among residents that R.N. was a representative of a ‘higher social class’. R.N. realized this when residents would continually say ‘baka pwede mo namang iparating sa kinauukulan ang aming hinaing’, which roughly means, ‘you might be able to relay our concerns to those in authority’. R.N. realized that residents see him as a medium to express a message that goes beyond his research. They perceived him to have a direct line to government officials and other malalaking tao or ‘influential people’, thus believing that any information they conveyed to him had the potential of being relayed to these authorities. Reflecting on his field notes, R.N. realized that the nature of the initial acceptance into the community was somewhat dualistic: he was considered a member on behest of Eduardo; yet, he was also considered an outsider due to his perceived higher social status. Despite the outside appearance of confidence, R.N. felt that residents were cautious on what they said. Thus, care had to be taken to discern whether the statements of the residents portrayed what they actually felt or whether these were merely statements meant to be conveyed to relevant authorities. For example, while residents openly discussed general issues about the community, they were careful when it came to discussing relationships with leaders of the community. This was especially true among the less powerful residents. These residents were guarded in sharing information that they believed might antagonize the community leaders if by chance R.N. shared this information with the community leaders. After all, he was introduced to the community by the leaders. Residents would often remind him to keep the information atin atin na lang or ‘just among ourselves’, especially in cases when residents believe that they may have divulged some negative information. Although R.N. continually reassured the respondents that all information would be kept confidential, he recognized that the answers given to him may not be what the residents actually felt. This was best exemplified by Linda, a resident who did not participate in the GK program but was still part of the neighborhood. Linda initially described how she and other members felt disrespected when they were not consulted by the leaders of the community. She also described what she thought were acts of favoritism displayed by the leaders. Upon learning that R.N. stayed for a week in a community leader’s house, Linda changed the tone of her narrative and claimed, instead, that there had been no problems with the community leaders and that everything had been patched up.
In a similar fashion, community leaders often only divulged information that portrayed the community in a positive light. In one case, Leno, a community leader who is the key contact person for visitors and researchers and who has some knowledge about the research process, asked R.N. what his research hypotheses were. Leno then flatly suggested that ‘those outcomes had been achieved’, that is, drug use, family fights, and teenage pregnancy had decreased ever since GK was implemented in the neighborhood. In succeeding conversations, Leno hinted that the positive portrayal of previous research reports on their community brought more resources into the community which allowed the development of many programs. This implied that residents may consciously provide visitors with information that portrays their community in a positive light in hopes of generating more resources for the community.
R.N. realized that he was not getting a holistic picture of the community since the residents were consciously showing him only the strengths of their community. Because of this, R.N. was mostly shielded from some of the realities of life in this slum setting. For example, being accommodated, at least initially, in what is oftentimes the only bedroom in the house, R.N. did not experience the challenges of sleeping on the floor where the rest of the household slept. With some households having multiple families, he did not see the interfamily conflicts that resulted from the crowded spaces. Being invited to share meals with the residents where they prepared their best meals, he also did not see, at least initially, the hunger that was experienced in the community. Sitting among the leaders’ row during community meetings also prevented him from hearing the murmurs of discontent among ordinary members. Additionally, being considered a person of higher respectability, residents consciously introduced him only to other residents whom they considered to be of higher status in their community. R.N. discovered that only those who attended the community’s regular meetings and paid monthly dues were the ones referred to him for interviews. This excluded those who have lower standing in the community and who may express more negative views.
Innovations in the field
To overcome the limitations outlined above, in about the third week of the immersion, R.N. consciously began efforts to be viewed as a person with similar social status as the residents. So as not to be associated with Eduardo, he asked residents whom he had befriended to introduce him to other residents without mentioning his ties with Eduardo. He consciously minimized the incidents where he and Eduardo could be seen together. At succeeding households where he stayed, R.N. slept on the floor. Although initially there was resistance to this setup, he was able to convince his hosts that this was a better setup for him. He requested residents to call him kuya or ‘older brother’, instead of ‘sir’ and consciously informed them that he actually did not have any ties with the mga kinauukulan or ‘authorities’ but that he was willing to listen to their stories.
These innovations had advantages. Being introduced as someone na may itanung-tanong lang or ‘with a few questions’, residents became less mindful of his presence. Residents were more relaxed and tended not to pay much attention to R.N.. They would go about their ordinary chores. During formal and informal interviews, residents tended to be more open, cracked more jokes, and appeared to be more engaged. By removing the social status barrier, residents tended to treat him also as their equal. For example, in a conversation with Ronnie, one of the resident-volunteers in constructing houses,
Kuya Raymund, bakit pala kayo tumatambay dito sa amin? Siguro may balak kayong manligaw sa mga dalaga namin dito, ano? (Kuya Raymund, why do you hang out in our community? Perhaps you intend to court one of our ladies here?) (With a humorous demeanor.)
Ah ganun ba, hehehe, sige nga, kwentuhan mo nga ako sa mga ligawan ng mga binata at dalaga rito sa lugar niyo. (Ah, is that so, [smile] can you then tell me more about the courtship among teens here?)
In this scenario, Ronnie freely engaged R.N. with jokes, a rare occurrence when he was introduced as ‘Eduardo’s nephew’. Ronnie then discussed courtships in the neighborhood and their problems with teenage pregnancy. R.N. noticed that when he was introduced simply as nakikipanirahan sa bahay ni Mang Jose or ‘someone who lived in the house of Jose’ (or any of the other households), residents tended to be more honest with their answers. Without being viewed as angat sa buhay or ‘someone with higher social status’, R.N. was able to solicit responses from participants that were devoid of subtleties meant for people in authority. 2 R.N. was able to observe the residents’ behaviors in a more natural setting with less social reactivity, and he was able to interact with community members with lower social standing in the community. For example, R.N. was able to join in inuman or ‘drinking sessions’, an all male activity that lasted for hours. Here, R.N. was able to gather closely guarded information and confidential stories of rivalries and conflicts among residents that are usually not revealed during formal interviews.
Participating in community life
Aside from being introduced to the community, researchers are also advised to ‘put a foot inside the door’ by volunteering in organizations within the community. Volunteering in the community puts a ‘foot inside the door’ as it provides credibility to the researchers by showing their interest in an aspect of the community’s life (Lincoln and Guba, 2000; Singleton et al., 1999). Volunteering provides the basis for a more active participation in the community, which then provides access to additional information not usually available by mere observation.
In this study, a modest amount of donation that was raised by a student group from the researchers’ own university to support the neighborhood’s preschool program allowed the researchers to readily participate in the neighborhood’s existing preschool program. 3 The amount raised was used by the community to support the operational expenses of the school. As a supporter of the school program, the researchers endeared themselves to the teachers and the parents. The researchers were able to observe the students while in the classroom and were able to interact with parents as they picked up their kids from school. The teachers also openly shared their school records with the researchers, which provided additional information on community dynamics. The parents were eager to invite the resident researcher (R.N.) to their homes for additional interviews, and this provided R.N. the opportunity to observe household events and talk to other children in the home. When students were not in the school premises, R.N. was given permission to make use of the multipurpose hall to conduct focus group discussions among the residents. Additionally, as a benefactor, R.N. was invited to join GK volunteer meetings held outside the community. R.N.’s attendance in these meetings provided him with more information on how the GK organization operates in other sites.
These resident behaviors are again consistent with the Filipino traits of collective identity and colonial mentality. By participating in the school activities, residents were confident that R.N. shared their community’s dreams and aspirations. In one school–community meeting, for example, teachers referred to R.N. as kaisa sa pangarap (‘one with our dreams’) or kakampi sa adhikain (‘a partner in our goals’). Because R.N. did his fair share of padugo (‘sacrifices’), residents allowed R.N. to ‘own’ the program. For example, he was designated by the community residents to report on their achievements in a Metro Manila–wide gathering of GK volunteers. Coupled with the knowledge that R.N. is ‘Eduardo’s nephew’, the school staff granted R.N. access to the resources of the school, a privilege usually reserved only to the members. Colonial mentality, however, was manifested by how highly the teachers and parents valued R.N.’s opinions. Upon knowing that R.N. is based in a university in the United States, the teachers were anxious to get feedback on their teaching and would often ask R.N. for points for improvements. Knowing that R.N. was able to mobilize support for the community and may be counted on as a future benefactor, the teachers and the community leaders were very open in showing pertinent documents and minutes of their meetings to R.N.. According to teacher Grace, ‘ito lamang ang tanging paraan para makaganti kami sa inyong kagandahang loob’ (this is the only way we could show you our gratitude for the help you extended to us).
Advantages and disadvantages
Participating in community life and gaining ‘a foot inside the door’ presented many advantages. First, it gave researchers credibility and impressed upon the residents that the researchers were not there simply to extract data. This became evident through a discussion with Leno, the same community leader quoted earlier, who was usually in-charge of dealing with researchers. He said, yung ibang mga nananaliksik, lalo na yung dumating bago sa inyo, pumunta lang dito, nag-survey, nagtanung-tanong, pagkatapos ng isang buwan umalis na … di man lang nagpaalam. Para bagang nagamit lang kami. (Other researchers who came here before you, they conducted surveys, interviews, and after a month, they left … they did not even tell us they were leaving, we felt we were just used.)
By actually participating in school activities, the researchers were able to demonstrate that they were interested in the community’s life. Second, active participation in community life provided R.N. with the chance to learn intimate details about the neighborhood such as parents who were not paying their weekly contributions or those remiss on their duties of preparing food for the kids. This information is important in determining the impact of the GK in the community’s social dynamics. Getting a ‘foot inside the door’ also facilitated R.N.’s access to participants for surveys and focus group interviews. For example, GK teachers Grace and Linda would write letters to the parents to encourage them to be involved in the surveys. R.N. observed that, through the teachers’ prodding, wives would ask their husbands to stay home from work, for the interviews.
While these behaviors facilitated the research process, there were drawbacks that, when not addressed, can compromise the reliability, validity, and authenticity of the information gathered. For example, by being accepted as a full member of the community, R.N. became the repository of chismis or ‘loose talks’ in the neighborhood. Residents would share stories, for example, about a mother caught stealing in a department store, the latest teenager who got pregnant, or a husband who was cheating on his wife. While these accounts are colorful and provided intimate understanding of the life of the community, the truthfulness of these stories are difficult to prove. It is commonly acknowledged that chismis should be heard for its entertainment value and that people should be aware that it can be used to taint the reputation of other residents. For an unsuspecting researcher, however, this can be mistaken as a form of thick description.
Being a supporter of the community, R.N. also unintentionally reinforced the notion that he came from a higher social status and may have access to resources that can be tapped for the benefit of the community. As such, R.N. was expected to actually help in the needs of the residents. This expectation was best illustrated when R.N. was approached by a resident, Anita, to help her eldest daughter who was 19 years old find a job. Anita had several children, and her husband was irregularly employed. Financial constraints forced her daughter to drop out of college. Given the nature of the Philippine employment market where often one needs to be endorsed by a sponsor to get a job, Anita expected R.N. to pull his connections among local employers for her daughter’s benefit. Given the difficulties of endorsing someone and the fact that this request goes beyond the study’s goals, R.N. informed Anita that he cannot honor such a request. Anita was disappointed as she had hoped that a trusted community member could extend help. In these circumstances, the quality of the researcher–participant relationship may have been compromised. Anita’s expectations were not met; thus, her trust of the researchers may have been compromised.
By being known as one who comes from a university, R.N. was also expected to have knowledge about many issues. For example, during interviews, participants would stop themselves to ask whether they were providing the correct answers. In another instance, R.N. inquired about how the parents came up with the idea of rotating the responsibility of cooking meals for the children in order to better understand labor divisions in the community. In response to this inquiry, a resident retorted, Eh, hindi ba dapat alam niyo yan, sa inyo lang din naman namin nalaman yan. (Aren’t you supposed to know that, it is from you (academics) where we learned these things.)
Innovations in the field
Given the outlined unintended consequences of actively participating in community life to get ‘a foot inside the door’, the researchers thought it best to lessen participation in school activities in order to minimize the residents’ expectations. R.N. reduced his volunteer efforts in the school’s activities, lessened the instances where he could be seen with the teachers, and minimized his use of the multipurpose hall. He also requested that the teachers not introduce him as a benefactor but merely someone ‘who wants to know more about the community’. It was also clarified to the residents that the modest amount given to the school program was a collective effort of many individuals and was not from personal donation by the researchers.
By not being introduced as a benefactor to the school, R.N. was better able to move around the community without the aura of importance. Residents became more natural in the way they interacted with R.N. and became less conscious of whether they answered questions correctly. The instances where the residents would consciously stop the interview and ask whether they were providing the correct answers diminished sharply. Removing the label of benefactor also better defined the researcher–participant relationship. This shielded both R.N. and the participants from embarrassment when R.N. admitted he cannot do anything about their personal requests. By disengaging in school activities, R.N. was also able to make his researcher role more prominent. As ‘someone who wants to learn more about our community’, the teachers and parents became more circumspect in sharing the latest chismis in the community. In intensive interviews, for example, residents would self-correct themselves if the information they provided was a chismis, as they themselves would not want such information to get out of the community. Finally, by not being viewed as a benefactor, R.N. was better able to probe details about the residents’ experiences. Residents were more willing to share their experiences without fear that the information they shared could be used to cast the community in a bad light.
Use of language and dress
Researchers are also often advised to know the language that participants use in the community, to be cognizant of specific code words that are commonly thrown around by members of a community, to be familiar with peculiar symbols used (Dunlap et al., 1990), and to be able to distinguish messages conveyed in a ‘wink and a twitch’. Ease of using the language and other means of communication enable researchers to be more readily admitted into the community they are studying (Cicourel, 1964; Dunlap et al., 1990). Additionally, researchers are also advised to dress like those in the community they are studying to better blend into the community (Singleton et al., 1999). Blending through physical appearance will limit the potential that researchers will draw attention to themselves or cause discomfort and unease among community members.
The researchers are fluent in Tagalog, which greatly facilitated their ability to communicate with the residents, most of whom also spoke Tagalog. Consistent with recommendations that researchers blend into the community they are studying, both in language and in clothes, R.N. began his immersion by mostly speaking to the residents in Tagalog. He also learned the code words used in the community such as the word rekal, a truncated version of ‘recalcitrant’, which refers to residents who do not abide by the community’s rules and regulations, and pres a shortcut for ‘president’ or the community leader. He used these code words in communicating with the residents and also imitated their accent and verbal expressions. Additionally, he dressed like the members of the community and wore a kamiseta (t-shirt) and maong (jeans), which were the popular attires among residents.
Advantages and disadvantages
Speaking in the language the residents clearly understood and using an attire similar to those worn in the community posed advantages for the researchers, as anticipated. Researchers were able to deepen discussions with participants, and participants were able to discuss issues without any language problems. Likewise, blending with the community through the appropriate attire made the researchers innocuous, providing them the opportunity to conduct unobtrusive observations. This also complemented R.N.’s efforts to downplay the high social status that the residents accorded him.
These efforts, however, also posed challenges that the researchers did not anticipate. It took the researchers some time to realize that the residents expected R.N. to speak to them in English, at least for those who knew that he came from a university in the United States. Residents were appreciative and animated when he spoke to them in English and made them feel important. This also gave residents the opportunity to practice their English with R.N.. There seemed to have been a subtle understanding, consistent with the colonial mentality of Filipinos, that mastery of English indicates that someone is knowledgeable and educated. Therefore, R.N. was expected to speak English in certain contexts or drop a line or two in English to increase his credibility. Mimicking the residents’ accent and employing code words and verbal expressions that the residents used was initially thought to bring the researchers closer to the community. However, accent mimic and code use backfired in many instances, as oftentimes, it elicited giggles, and sometimes, disdain, particularly if not done correctly.
Dressing in clothes similar to the residents also posed challenges for R.N. in that it gave the impression that he should not be taken seriously. For those who did not know R.N., this suggested to them that he was of low status and therefore, could be ignored. This made it difficult to enlist participants in the research project. In many instances, the residents did not make time for R.N. and used their busy schedules (such as doing their laundry, preparing food, putting a child to sleep, taking a nap, drinking alcohol with friends, etc.) to turn down a request for an interview. Even when they agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes made R.N. wait for hours or simply advised him to come back another day. There were some days when R.N. was not able to interview anyone because of these types of incidents. Additionally, by blending with the community in language and appearance, R.N. also encountered incidents that otherwise he may not have encountered, such as being accosted by drug sellers to sell him illegal drugs.
Innovations in the field
In order to address the disadvantages, R.N. increasingly balanced his use of the language and dress depending upon the context. R.N. would use English when talking to teachers and community leaders and when asked by those who were eager to practice their English, so as not to disappoint them. He would also drop an English sentence or two when asked to speak in community gatherings. This was acceptable since the community leaders and volunteers regularly spoke in English during their gatherings. When talking with community residents, R.N. endeavored to talk to them in Tagalog and used expressions common in the neighborhood. However, when the residents initiated discussions with R.N. in broken English, R.N. obliged them by answering in English. This resulted in amusing discussions as the participants had fun practicing their English with R.N..
Except for the first week, R.N. maintained a more formal attire while moving around the community. R.N. wore a polo shirt and long pants, the preferred dress code of the GK volunteers. Dressing like one who is respectable (kagalang-galang) allowed R.N. to use his social status as a researcher as necessary. R.N. used his best judgment when dressing informally. In instances where there was an already established trust and rapport with segments of the community, R.N. would use a more informal attire to encourage a more free-flowing discussion with community residents.
Discussion
The scenarios above demonstrated advantages as well as loopholes in the use of Western protocols for collecting field data in non-Western settings. While extant protocols certainly have advantages, researchers need creative approaches in collecting field data that are tailored to the challenges in the field. A balancing act is necessary when using tried methodological standards in unfamiliar surroundings to avoid bias, misinterpretation of facts, and harm to participants. As illustrated earlier, while the researchers found it useful to be introduced into the community by a known community leader and also to participate in community life to gain access to the residents’ social circles, this proved inappropriate in certain contexts. After a seeing unexpected responses from residents due to the use of standard research protocols, the researchers adopted creative approaches to gain the trust and confidence of the slum residents. In his immersion, R.N. found that being known as ‘Eduardo’s nephew’ helped him in pursuing respondents who continually eluded him, but persistent use of this status alienated him from the community, or gave him biased information when residents viewed the interviews as a way of airing their concerns to people of authority and for gaining potential funding sources. The failure to recognize undercurrents behind subjects’ responses threatens the validity of research findings and needs to be particularly recognized in settings that are new to the researchers. Despite fluency in Tagalog and their Filipino background, the researchers (particularly R.N. who immersed in the field) had to continually negotiate their identities and roles in the community not only in gaining entry and trust but also in maintaining relationships with participants in the field.
The illustrations above underscore the importance of understanding how facets of a culture greatly influence research practices and outcomes. Without knowledge and understanding of the cultural traits of one’s subjects, researchers may well be implementing protocols that are inappropriate or even harmful to the local setting (Pe-Pua, 2006), even though these practices may be standard in Western settings. Understanding the cultural nuances of a research setting, particularly the less-studied, non-Western research sites, will provide researchers with some foundation for building strategies that could work in their unique context.
Footnotes
Funding
This research was partly funded by the Knowlton Johnson Fellowship from Michigan State University’s School of Criminal Justice. All opinions are of the authors and do not reflect the official position of the funding source.