A Critique on

The Limits of Western Social Research Methods in Rural Philippines: the Need for
Innovation. By: Gloria Feliciano
By
Mutia, David Lee C.
BS Psychology 3A
While it is true that Western methods have certain limitations in term of cross-cultural
reliability, for we (the Filipino Researcher) overestimate its protocol and interpretation of
data. Gloria Feliciano has made some good points in her paper, faults lie on her
somewhat superficial understanding of scientific (which I think she mislabeled as
Western) methodology and philosophy in conducting researches.
I would say that Feliciano presented a rather concrete scientific discipline like
Agriculture and Social Studies in which both barely touches the true discipline in the
field of Psychology. We must remember that Psychology, in fact is not a concrete, rigid
discipline of science where there are protocols we cannot deviate from. Psychology is
both an art and a science in which there is a possibility of deviation in terms of
methodology and interpretation especially if and when applied in cross-cultural contexts
such as Filipino Psychology. The true aim of this relatively new study is to find the
essence of the Filipino and his culture and not to determine his existence in such
shallow terms such as his identifications and affiliations yet this may help in knowing his
personality as a part of a stratagem towards a holistic perspective of his being.

A Critique on
The Case for an Indigenous Psychology. By: Rita Mataragnon
By
Mutia, David Lee C.
BS Psychology 3A
I would say that Mataragnon did a deep analysis in the rigid application of foreign
psychological theories in a cross-cultural setting that because of either miseducation or
colonization that the particular society and culture has become dependent or may
probably developed a tendency to look-up-to foreign (Western) theories and method. It
is true in fact that although these theories are good and designed for the benefit of all, it is
often mistaken to be appropriate for everybody regardless of their bio-psychological
backgrounds. When in fact these theories came from an idea of a person who is likely to
formulate his theory based on his orientation to his environment and develop ways to
prove the validity of his ideas. And probably he is correct in the sense that his theories
hold true for his own culture but not necessarily apply to man as a whole. What is true to
him and to others in his background or culture may not hold on into another or even carry
a different meaning which is not the ideal definition given by the theorist.
One cannot measure or describe the psychology of another person without relying
on a perception-description bias because what maybe considered normal to one is
abnormal or different to the other. The theory which is designed for a specific culturetarget is accepted as a universally applicable concept because of the influence of the
theorists nationality or fame which is basically wrong since it does not rely on logical
reasoning.
One cannot state that his theory is better than the others. Though what can be said
is that the two are distinct parts designed towards a whole that is interdependent to one
another in order to yield a better understanding of human behavior.