A Pioneering Effort to Give Voices to Indigenous Psychology in Southeast Asia

Historical Backdrop to This Special Issue

In the past, indigenous psychology (IP) has been seen as a movement to counter Western psychology theory by looking at psychological concepts or disciplines in the non-Western context (Kim & Berry, 1993) to examine the impact of culture and other social processes on people’s intrapsychic processes and behavior. In recent years, IP has advocated for giving voices to the voiceless through empowering local psychologists to conduct culturally relevant and just studies to improve the lives of local communities, especially among the Global South, who still live in poverty (Bhatia, 2019). Southeast Asians have the intersectionality of East and West due to the imprints of Western colonizers, which provides a myriad of opportunities to study the whole spectrum of cultural transformation and exchanges. Its unique multiracial and multireligious landscape provides the context in which to develop a global understanding of the complex dynamics between different cultural groups. However, in the past, most of the international and indigenous psychological publications in Asian regions have been dominated by high-income and homogenous countries, such as Hong Kong, Mainland China, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan (see Kim et al., 2006; Yeh, 2019). Southeast Asian psychology discipline was underdeveloped due to its third-world countries label, lack of equal development, history of colonization and trauma (e.g., Cambodia), disaster-prone ecology (e.g., the Philippines, Indonesia), and ethnoreligious conflicts (e.g., Myanmar; Rich et al., 2020). Fortunately, in the past 30 years, the previous domination of first- and second-world psychologies in third-world societies in the Southeast Asian region is increasingly being challenged, as more local psychologists are exposed to the decolonization movement (Moghaddam, 1987).

The first voice calling for decolonizing psychology in Southeast Asia was pioneered by Enriquez after his return to his home country – the Philippines, when he developed both indigenous study methods and indigenous concepts for Filipinos (Enriquez, 1993). However, the momentum of Filipinos IP did not spread to neighboring countries, and there has been a lack of solidarity among SEA psychologists. Indeed, the tension between mainstream psychology and IP has led to a ghettoing phenomenon among SEA indigenous psychologists, in both research and practice, due to the fear of not being accepted (Sundararajan, 2019). The lack of a properly ranked international journal focused on this part of the world could be one reason many junior researchers do not pursue IP research. Another is the disjuncture between critical theories of IP and applied theories of IP (e.g., mental health and culture), which have resulted in a lack of empirically validated models that are accessible for local practitioners to incorporate in their practice with Indigenous or minority groups.

In December 2021, we hosted the first Southeast Asian Indigenous Psychology scientific meeting (SEAIP-2022) to promote IP research in this region. The meeting was hosted by Monash University Malaysia’s Culture and Health laboratory under the sponsorship of the Asian Association of Social Psychology. Our meeting goals were:

1. 1.
   Demonstrating the contribution of Southeast Asian (SEA) indigenous psychologies to the building of a more equitable global psychology;
2. 2.
   Promoting psychological research that addressed culturally relevant issues in the SEA region (e.g., postcolonial trauma, ethnic conflicts, illegal migration and refugees, postpandemic recovery, urbanization and deforestation, disaster mental health, marginalized Indigenous people, etc.); and
3. 3.
   Giving voices to less represented psychological research and practices from low- to middle-income Southeast Asian countries.

In December 2022, we hosted the second SEAIP meeting, with over 200 registrants from 15 countries. In between the first and second meetings, there was a call for papers for a special issue to feature current research pertaining to culturally relevant concepts in SEA psychology, including a focus on the COVID-19 pandemic. We are honored that International Perspectives in Psychology is hosting this special issue, as it is linked to the UN Sustainable Development Goals of protecting the cultural heritage in this region. This special issue focuses on both indigenous concepts and the practices of indigenous psychology in the SEA region, and how both could help to decolonize and reconstruct the conceptual space in current psychological research. We are pleased to include under-represented psychologists from the less-developed countries in the SEA region to amplify their voices to enable a more equitable global psychology. We hope our special issue inspires translational research by indigenous psychology researchers from other regions.

Contributions of This Special Issue to Global Psychology

For this special issue, eight manuscripts were accepted. The contributions showcase a range of indigenous psychological concepts and practices in the SEA region. These include the Filipino values of “kapwa” (shared identity) and Indonesian values of “Mangan ora mangan sing penting kumpul” and “Dalihan Na Tolu” (both referring to the importance of kinship) in relation to one’s preferred sources of social supports (Barrozo et al., 2023), Filipino coping strategies of “diskarte” (resourcefulness) and “bayanihan” (mutual, collective support) in managing mental health challenges (Umil et al., 2023), the “Sikolohiyang Pilipino” (Filipino Psychology) movement in the Philippines (Terol et al., 2023), the “kiasu” mindset (fear of losing out; Cheng & Wee, 2023), and traditional Chinese healing practices of “dang-ki” (consultations with a divine deity; Lee, 2023) in Singapore. The contributions all address sustainable development goals in SEA communities, such as mental health challenges and practices in Indonesia (Balmores-Paulino et al., 2023; Prawira et al., 2023), the Philippines (Balmores-Paulino et al., 2023; Barrozo et al., 2023; Umil et al., 2023) and Singapore (Lee, 2023); the marginalization of ethnic minority groups (Prawira et al., 2023; Sundararajan, 2023; Terol et al., 2023); effects of postcolonialism in the Philippines (Barrozo et al., 2023; Terol et al., 2023) and Malaysia (Sundararajan, 2023); and issues of urbanization, deforestation, and climate change in Malaysia (Sundararajan, 2023). Some assessed specifically the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on SEA populations’ well-being, including comparisons of COVID-19 stigma and quality of life in Indonesia and the Philippines (Balmores-Paulino et al., 2023), the associated factors of self-harm and suicide ideation among Chinese Indonesians (Prawira et al., 2023), and the mental health challenges faced and coping strategies utilized by doctors working in rural areas in the Philippines (Umil et al., 2023).

Collectively, this special issue also features a variety of research methodologies including qualitative (Barrozo et al., 2023; Lee, 2023; Umil et al., 2023) and quantitative (Balmores-Paulino et al., 2023; Prawira et al., 2023), as well as conceptual papers (Cheng & Wee, 2023; Sundararajan, 2023; Terol et al., 2023). The contributions also feature a variety of SEA countries: Singapore (Cheng & Wee, 2023; ), the Philippines (Balmores-Paulino et al., 2023; Barrozo et al., 2023; Terol et al., 2023; Umil et al., 2023), Indonesia (Balmores-Paulino et al., 2023; Prawira et al., 2023), and Malaysia (Sundararajan, 2023) and collaborations across Southeast Asian countries, such as Indonesia and the Philippines (Balmores-Paulino et al., 2023; Prawira et al., 2023). Some included marginalized populations and Indigenous people in SEA, such as the Clarkfield Aytas community (Terol et al., 2023) and the rural Eastern Visayas community in the Philippines (Umil et al., 2023), ethnic minority Chinese Indonesians in Indonesia (Prawira et al., 2023), traditional Chinese devotees in Singapore (Lee, 2023), and the Indigenous people (Orang Asli) in Malaysia (Sundararajan, 2023).

There is a strong practice focus in many of the contributions. Importantly, the voices of a variety of populations during the pandemic are featured, such as helping professionals (Barrozo et al., 2023), frontliners (Umil et al., 2023), Chinese diaspora (Lee, 2023; Prawira et al., 2023), and Indigenous people (Sundararajan, 2023; Terol et al., 2023). The contributions describe the various impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic in this region, which, in turn, can inform policy makers and future community engagements with healthcare practitioners. Contributions also focus on translating their empirical findings to target the UN sustainable goals in less developed countries, including promoting good health and well-being (Balmores-Paulino et al., 2023; Barrozo et al., 2023; Prawira et al., 2023; Terol et al., 2023; Umil et al., 2023), reducing inequalities (Balmores-Paulino et al., 2023; Sundararajan, 2023; Terol et al., 2023), building sustainable cities and communities, addressing climate action (Sundararajan, 2023), and strengthening partnerships toward addressing these goals (Terol et al., 2023). There is also a focus in some contributions on the influence of unique aspects of religious/spiritual and traditional healing methods (Lee, 2023; Terol et al., 2023; Umil et al., 2023).

Challenges in Doing IP Research in SEA

Despite showcasing multiple pathfinding researchers in this region, we want to call attention to the challenges of doing IP in the Southeast Asian region, as pointed out by several authors. First, the main challenge faced in the field of IP is the ontological and epistemological incompatibility with mainstream psychology, as suggested by Sundararajan (2023) in her closing remarks for this special issue. Many IP researchers have to advocate for the legitimacy of traditional knowledge and practices, which are not honored in Westernized mainstream psychology and may even be deemed to be superstitious. We advocate that IP should not stay with a simplistic and reductionist approach of international psychology (i.e., psychologists who do research in SEA) but give voice to the indigenous culture and traditional ways of knowing (i.e., psychologists who use indigenous methods of studying indigenous phenomena). Other authors, such as Cheng and Wee (2023), brought up similar issues in their conceptual paper. Despite the observed prevalence and impact of the indigenous construct “kiasu” in Singapore, its ontology is still lacking voice in mainstream psychology, which is individualistic and lacking relational context.

Second, many IP researchers adopt a culturally inclusive methodology that may be incompatible with mainstream psychological methods, which favor a quantitative approach, although it is acknowledged that this is changing. We argue that what constitutes good evidence (credibility) might differ across cultures. Seemingly empirical research methodologies (e.g., laboratory-based studies, cross-sectional surveys) may not always be welcomed by SEA communities, as they can be considered an imposition on local values, beliefs, and practices. The challenge lies in IP researchers responding to mainstream psychology criticisms about the lack of empirical evidence supporting the efficacy and effectiveness of IP interventions, which are often rooted in traditional methods of healing. As Lee (2023) notes in his case study about the Chinese “dang-ki” healing method, traditional healing practices rooted in philosophies and experiential truth cannot be objectively or empirically evaluated by conventional Western standards (e.g., randomized controlled trials).

A further challenge faced by IP researchers is that many instruments or measurements of psychological constructs are not validated for use with local communities. The high cost of translating and validating these tools is also not feasible for IP researchers, particularly for those working in developing countries that may lack the adequate facilities/infrastructure that would enable a broader outreach in conducting research with Indigenous communities. Hence, many authors from our special issue cite limitations of generalizability in their research – being restricted to collecting data online, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., Prawira et al., 2023; Umil et al., 2023) or having limited capacity to observe more than one individual for a case study report (e.g., Lee, 2023).

Finally, many IP researchers are concerned about the loss in translation dilemma when they choose to publish their work in an English-based special issue of this journal. Language barriers are also a notable challenge in IP, given that most IP authors are non-native English speakers and may face difficulties in presenting their research findings to the majority of researchers who use English as the primary medium of communication. On the other hand, having researchers in the field of IP who come from Westernized institutions or backgrounds could also pose challenges in ensuring that cultural nuances in IP research are clearly identified and communicated (Barrozo et al., 2023).