Day 17

I completed the first summary of the FGD service user groups today, to help me collate the information and identify trends/themes in the responses of the various participants across the FGDs for easier analysis later. I have to decide though how to structure the analysis as I would have to separate the non-service users and service user FGDs, yet there are several questions that overlap, which I might then instead decide to analyse together (as that would make the most sense, as opposed to repeating myself by analysing them separately then putting them together).

I am quite excited because it feels like I am getting into the meat of the work now, not just the cursory transcribing (though that was not easy either). However being able to sit down and start the analysis feels like I am finally starting on the review - beginning the process of looking at what information and findings the FGDs brought about, which will affect what we look at in terms of the reviw of the counselling programme. In fact, in putting together the summary, it makes me realise that so often we set out with an idea of what to review when doing research in the field, or of the hypothesis or project we have in mind, and how by the end of just the FGDs or interviews themselves we realise that what we really should be reviewing is something else entirely. This is quite similar to what we have seen here in the process of doing the FGDs - that while we were looking at evaluating the effectiveness of the counselling programmes, that what really needs to be done (more than instituting a set model or more centres) is actually increasing public awareness of both what these services are and where they are available.

It makes me wonder whether before we really start out on any research efforts, whether we should do a pre-research "feel" of the field, like a needs assessment to ensure that what we are researching is actually relative to the needs of the client populations and addresses the real service gaps in the industry. If not we will find that our research is two-steps ahead of the field, and not in a good way of pre-empting needs of future potential client populations.

I also attended my second seminar in school today with Mr Benny Bong, where we discussed the concept of spirituality in our work with our clients. It was interesting that when we started with a simple word-association "game" that there were so many different concepts that people linked to the idea of spirituality. However it took quite a while to get as many different words as possible on the board, which we realised was because we were hesitant to offer up our own ideas of spirituality and religion. When trying to figure out why there was this hesitation, one thing that was brought up was the fact that we have been "trained" since young to tread lightly when discussing and talking about this concept of religion and spirituality.

We live in a multiracial, multireligious society, where we practise freedom of worship and recognition - yet because we are so cautious about not creating any animosity or sense of favouritism, an atmosphere of tension is created in our trying to be "fair" to all the religions. Thus we don't talk about such sensitive topics in the open, and when we do it's all extremely politically correct - often to the point where we might be afraid of sharing our own beliefs with others (or disclosing them even). We seem to live side by side yet draw a clear boundary between the areas of religion from each other. It is quite ironic that in order to keep the peace, we create a tension that can cause difficulties in doing everyday jobs, particularly in sectors such as ours (and in other sectors like teaching) where despite it being necessary to talk about spirituality with clients, we often cannot broach the subject first (or at all) because of the secular nature of VWOs, and the worry that we might be seen as trying to impose our religious views on others - a big no-no in any service sector.

The discussion led to how we seem to lead a very dichotomised life here, where we separate the religious and sacred from the secular (whether or not that is feasible within our religions). We take up different roles according to the situation, and which "roles" we take up will dictate how freely we talk about our religious and spiritual beliefs. If one thinks about it however, it is quite incongruous with the concept of the self though - we are supposed to be whole, integrated individuals, where every aspect of our lives makes up who we are and shapes our character and values and belief systems. Yet one of the biggest influences of this - our spirituality, whatever that entails - is left out in certain social contexts, in order to be appropriate and politically correct. The question is whether this dichotomy is actually necessary, or if it is something at we impose on ourselves (and as an extension tend to impose on others we interact with daily).

Then there is the concept of how our secular laws constrain our ability to express our spirituality. Because Singapore is situated in the place it is - centred amongst Muslim countries - and because of the make up of our society, we have strict laws in place to ensure that religious harmony is maintained. That entails not bad-mouthing any religion on a public domain or setting(including the Internet), not discussing or actively promoting religion in schools (except schools with a religious background), and so on (I am not sure if it's illegal to evangelise to a Muslim in Singapore, and I cannot seem to find information about that). While this is all well and good if we were all attempting to bad-mouth and put down each other's religions and spiritual views (as this would cause great unrest, like the riots we had back in the 50s and 60s), it also leads to us being constrained in expressing our spirituality. At times, merely talking about our religion can get us into trouble if done in the wrong context, even if it is just within a discussion about the differences between the religions or answering a question objectively when asked. Mr Bong shared how a counsellor once got into trouble for answering a student's question about her own religion, even though the student followed the same religious beliefs as herself. This I find so strange, as it was not as if she was spreading her religion or trying to convert students to her religion. She was merely following up on a question the student initiated, which helped the student discover more about her own spirituality - an important component in one's adolescent years as you try to develop your own identity.

While I understand wanting to protect people (especially impressionable young minds) from being coerced into a belief system, I also know that children will be curious - and the more you avoid telling them something (or withhold information from them), the more curious they are going to be regarding the matter. This will lead to them finding their own ways and means of obtaining the information - typically from the internet - which might lead to information that is inaccurate and very possiby harmful. Wouldn't it be better to educate them in an environment that the government can control and regulate than to have them "run wild" and not be able to regulate what goes in? There are many extremist websites for the many different religions on the internet that I have encountered that go completely against what I know to be the truth about these religions (having friends who practise the religions). I have even encountered some from my own faith that are so harsh and disrespectful to others within and without my faith that shocks me because it is such a misrepresentation of what the faith is about. What worries me further is that people who read the website will assume that everyone who is from the faith follows the same beliefs, which is not true, and it is worrying that I might not be able to correct that notion if I encounter them when with a client precisely because of the laws and regulations in place regarding such matters. Should then it come to light which faith I am from and if I cannot assuage the client's negative perceptions, that could get in the way of the helping relationship.

One of the tasks given during the seminar was to think of a time when we had ignored or had not addressed a client's spirituality issues, so I shared about an experience where I sat in for a session my supervisor was conducting with a client. During this session the client was convinced that her daughter's behaviour was brought on by a spirit her boyfriend/friend was using to control her, as the way she behaved outside (bubbly, outgoing) was very different from how she was behaving at home and otherwise. She also alleged that the spirit was responsible for her daughter not remembering the events that led to her getting pregnant as well. However, my supervisor suggested that it could also be due to her not wanting to share with the mother, and also due to her going through adolescence (where teens tend to have conflict with their parents). It seemed as if she thought it was a bit of a joke that the client felt it had something to do with spirits.

Mr Benny pointed out that sometimes, because our frame of mind does not understand or cannot accept what the client is saying, we block them out and ignore what they say that has to do with this concept we are not comfortable with. We essentially reject this, and it could be a conscious or subconscious rejection of the idea. The issue, then, is whether it is respectful to give no regard to the client's worldview, or to ignore such a huge portion that makes up that worldview - their spirituality. How effective would our work be if we ignored the client's worldview and simply imposed our own because our worldview cannot comprehend theirs?

In such cases, I feel that we need to respect the worldview of our clients and try to put ourselves in their shoes, such that even if we cannot understand or accept their worldview, we can understand why they adhere to it, and from here help them to work through their issues. Merely ignoring such a huge aspect of their worldview will lead to an incomplete assessment and intervention on our part as practitioners, and will also possibly leave the client hanging and possibly confused, if our intervention and suggestion does not fit into their worldview (or clashes with it). Ultimately we must be able to come down to our client's level, and ensure that the interventions we make will not help and not harm the client.

One way to do this is to ensure that we ourselves are comfortable with the topic of spirituality, which would in all likelihood entail us being comfortable with our own spirituality in the first place. Only when we ourselves are comfortable and confident in our spirituality will we be able to attempt to look at spirituality from our client's point of view, without fear of being influenced or derailed from our own belief systems. Thus for us to be able to discuss such an important aspect of being with our clients, we must first be able to talk about it "with" ourselves and our friends first.