There remains a dearth of Filipino-centred research methodologies that are indigenized, decolonized, and culturally robust. Rogelia Pe-Pua and Elizabeth Protacio-Marcelino’s work on the Philippine-based research methodology “Sikolohiyang Pilipino” (Philippine Psychology) highlights the struggles and successes Philippine-based scholars Virgilio Gaspar Enriquez and Dr. Alfredo V.Lagmay faced on the quest to advance the indigenized, decolonized, and culturally robust Sikolohiyang Pilipino.

Up until the 1960s, most students were studying Western psychology and research, meaning that their understanding of themselves and psychology as a whole were based on the perspectives of Westerners. As noted by the publication, that was not only problematic due to colonial implications, but it was also problematic because well-meaning Western researches who could not easily discern cultural nuances of Philippine societies (especially in terms of the local language, where many untranslatable words abound, and polite Filipino gestures that were seen as “rude” in a Western context) misrepresented those societies and its people. By using his American-based education to collaborate with Philippine-based researchers rather than impose his beliefs, Enriquez’ efforts helped push back those narratives, and Sikolohiyang Pilipino began replacing Western psychology in school. There still remains a divide to this day between more Westernized Filipinos and more “traditional” Filipinos, those that want to modernize versus those that want to stay close to their roots. I continue to advocate for Filipinos to embrace their roots while not shaming them for their current conditions. Implementation of Philippine-based research designs such as Enriquez and Lagmay’s Sikolohiyang Pilipino, and mass dissemination of such efforts such as this publication, are important aspects of decolonization in places like the Philippines, as it not only contributes to the decolonization of academia, but also the bridging of the gap between those closer to the neocolonial core (in this case, Metro Manila) and the more indigenous peripheries (in this case, the more rural provinces of the Philippines). As Westernization intensifies and is starting to reach even the indigenous peripheries, we must always ask ourselves “modernization for who, and for what?”, the same way as Enriquez probably asked himself “Western research, for who and for what?”

The authors did a great job in also pointing out some valid criticisms of Sikolohiyang Pilipino, although I would respectfully push back on some of those criticisms myself. One scholar, while praising its revolutionary nature, disagreed with Enriquez’ inclusion of the Filipino diaspora, as they believed that they have lost connection to the homeland. I would respectfully disagree with that notion. Such thinking not only denies the diaspora communities their Filipinoness, but it also ignores the socioeconomic context regarding conditions relating to migration. Many Filipinos, especially overseas foreign workers and skilled workers, left because they wanted a means to provide for their families and communities back home, so their connection to the homeland is not lost, even if the physical connection has been. It also does a disservice to those in the diaspora that have actively been advocating for closer connections to the homeland. Another scholar questioned whether Sikolohiyan Pilipino’s phenomenological orientation is scientific enough to pass scientific standards of objectivity, validity, and reliability. However, I had me wondering if the scholar was referencing Western-oriented scientific standards. In that case, they would have had to re-evaluate their critique because as mentioned previously, not only is imposing Western-oriented research on non-Western subjects (be it people or societies as a whole) colonial in nature, it would not be robust enough to account for local and cultural nuances needed to understand the broader context of psychology in the local community of interest. While Sikolohiyan Pilipino may have its pitfalls, it’s meant to initiate a push to decolonize research and reframe the meaning of “scientific” and “psychology” so that it accounts for all societies. It will not happen overnight, but this important endeavour must be supported if research as a whole wants to support its subjects in a meaningful way.