~B

Hello Everyone, we have discussed the possibility of using new terms over the years. Unengaged as well as least-reached. I think we have been discussing all this since 2005.

I feel that we have worked very hard to help Latin America understand the one term unreached. And still many millions of Christians in Latin America have not yet heard the term unreached. So to add any new terms will be going backwards or confusing the few that understand and know what unreached is.

From a researchers standpoint, we UPG researchers have not even gotten a good handle on how many people groups are unreached. So until we do, should we be trying to track unengaged or least reached?

You can track these things when you have a small people list like Paul does. Paul made no error, we did by running with a term he uses in his movement.

*******UPG NUMBERS****5000 UPGs******

Depending on which database you look at you will get a different number for people groups and unreached people groups. The last time I did a deep comparison of people group databases was 2009 for the Ethne meeting in Colombia.

The first column is the Database Name – Word Christian Database, Global Status of Evangelical Christianity, Joshua Project, Harvest Information System, Etnopedia.org
The second number is People Groups Across Country figure – counts the people for every country they live in.
Third number is People Groups In country figure. Peoples are counted only once – not counted every time they are in two or more countries.

WCD 13,601 8,699
GSEC/IMB 11,601 8,313
JP 16,304 9,763
HIS n/a 10,609
Etnopedia n/a 10,478

The unreached numbers very even more, because every effort has a different definition of what is unreached and/or use different sources.

But for those who are looking for a round number, the average between all the Databases above is about 4,800 unreached people groups.

I always say 5,000 UPGs because we still do not know how many people groups there are.

Joshua Projects people group number has grown to about 10,000 now, 250 more than in 2009. So the lists are growing, they are not complete.

Take care!

I’ve worked closely with the coordinator of Adopt-a-People COMIBAM for over ten where on occasions we have tried to network Latin American churches and leaders on the people group level. We don’t have a solution. Actually the first Etnopedia was in Spanish only and had all the mechanisms for tracking adoptions. It was invitation only/password protected as well. We removed those mechinisms when changing to the multi-lingual Etnopedia because they were not being used. So I too have tried to network and track engagements and have failed. The mechinisms were in place for two years before we removed them. We really tried hard to make it simple and had very little participation.

Years of trying and failing at this effort have show us some things. We see that most networking happens behind the scenes and we (the mechanism) were but one link in the long chain of events. If we try to network churches, agencies and people, the mechanism is just one link in the chain. The networking (linking up) of people, agencies etc. happens one time. From there those entities seem to do what they do beyond that initial linking up. To sum it up, we could not track engagement at the Latin American level. We just couldn’t get people to tell us that they had adopted, much less engaged unreached peoples. Mexico had about 60 adoptions that did not give updates, so we don’t know if those entities actually went and reached a people group. So at the country level we had more success, but since then we have tried tried to get updates with little response. Very little has been done with Adopt-A-People in Mexico since then. This dosen’t mean that people aren’t going, they are, we just don’t know about it. So we don’t do adoptions, we just give people information and they go.

So maybe what we are after is a starting point to create that one link that produces a longer chain of events beyond the initial linking up of people, churches etc. If you create a linking up place, you may not get to see a bustle of activity like you see on public social networks. You also may not get much feed back on what happens behind the scenes. But God knows and the Gospel is gettng out into the unreached peoples!

Discussing issues and creating forums on problem solving is not social networking really. Even though it is valuable, you might not want to create a discussion forum on the networking/linking up place. I have been on FaceBook for about three years and have met personally with one person that I knew in High school. Many friends accepted my invitation to network with me and about 20 more have emailed me personally on one or two occasions. So you see that even FaceBook with 300,000,000 users doesn’t really provide much REAL socializing or networking. Most people I know and who communicate with me use email. I get three personal regular emails now from friends I found or found me on FaceBook. Those have come out of about 250 friends I have accumulated. 

The 240+ members of the Last Mile Calling initiative may have “Connected” and are now networking and working together beyond the website, thus you won’t see activity in the database, but it might be happening!  So if the goal is to track engagements or activity, it may not be attainable.

If the ultimate vision is to see networking happen for UPG’s you may also find there are not that many people interested in going or even funding the going. I calculate that about 2% of the entire Christian body is “interested” in UPG’s. And a much smaller percentage of that 2% is actually doing something about their so called interest. Not a criticism, just my opinion and an estimate. Of course there are people doing something about upg’s but those people are in Afghanistan or where ever and can’t or don’t have time to social network. So the vision is to network at best 2% of the Christian body worldwide AND that has an Internet connection. Those are some fairly accurate but hard realities  you are looking at. That is your audience. 

Question: What is the core vision, creating forums? Everyone wants to forum, Lausanne Conversations proved this. Is the vision to creating problem solving venues? Or is it a place to track activity? Or should it simply be to create a place where people link up one time that creates behind the scenes activity. If we do create a social network for people interested in linking to UPG’s I have some suggestions below. However, we have some hurdles. 

First Hurdle

You will need to connect them to a list of UPG’s and this problem has not really been resolved at the global people list level yet. Unless you just choose one list to work with which is problematic. So you might need to build the linking place around a more flexible, open people list and not a closed people list that has limitations or restrictions. Even if you use an existing people group list then you have the greater problem of  updating it. Jim C. (IMB) Dan S., Duane F., Chris M. and myself recently spent four days trying to resolve this problem and we don’t really have a good solution yet. Just syncing the different people databases on people groups is on thing, the greater issue here is scale of reachedness. On one source the people group is reached and on the other unreached.

Second Hurdle

If we are trying to track engagements (activity from the network) among UPG’s, our website will probably not show us the results. Again, that activity may happen beyond the site but we will never know how much or how little for that matter. So I would not create a second hurdle for ourselves at all. The scales of reachedness on ethnic people data shows engagement once Christians are recorded, and that data comes from the field after many years if the data comes at all. That should be the only engagement data we track as it will be hard enough to gather and never be completely accurate. It should be placed directly on the people group data gathering point. Why have two scales Engagement and Reachedness, we can’t even track reachedness yet at the world level. Example of an engagement scale we experimented with for FTT.  http://en.etnopedia.org/wiki/index.php/Research:Progress_Scale_-_Finishing_the_Task 

Trying to track which groups your network are engaging is also probably not going to happen enough to warrant the creation of the tracking mechanism and its maintenance. The president of COMIBAM asked me several years ago about how we plan to track which groups were engaged from Latin America. I told him that we aren’t concerned about this. Putting the best UPG information in the hands of the people is all we can do. We do however need to tell them to have a plan B and C just incase their people group is already engaged. This way, if they get to the field to and their people A and it’s reached, then they can go to B or C.

My suggestion is to create a linking up place connected to an open, flexible people group list and let the work part of networking happen naturally. 

Thoughts about the social network:

1. It needs to be fast

2. It needs to be almost as functional as what is available to the secular public.

a. More than a user photo isn’t necessary in my opinion.

3. It needs to be tied to a UPG people list that is flexable and easily updateable.

4. It needs to be secure if you are tying to connect your community to specific people groups.

Thoughts about security and UPG connections:

    a. I’m not sure I would want to connect your members to specific peoples although this is the idea. I could have faked my identity when getting into Last Mile Calling. If you just had your community join a country and not a people group, then they can communicate with those interested in the country.

    b. I don’t know that there are too many people who even know which people group they want to newly work with, those who know about the specific people group are probably already doing something and don’t need to network. They have probably already googled to get their networking contacts or work in a denomination or with a country level agency..

    c. Here is an idea, maybe your linking place chooses a people group for the users. I tell new missionary candidates to click the random page button on Etnopedia, or pray through a countries people profiles they are interested in.

    d. I think you will find that with all the newly NEEDED social networking, the people don’t have a specific people in mind yet. Or it’s a cluster like Kurd or it’s a country.

    e. So it could be that beyond the scenes they will connect in private about specific peoples. Those country level groups give more specific info to people wanting to do pioneer church planting and Bible translation among a totally unreached group.

    f. For example: If I were an agency reaching 5 people groups in Chad and I was aware of an Online Network for people interested in UPG’s I would be a member of the Chad group and connect with those members in private. Also if I wanted to get involved in Chad I would look for the members of Chad that were marked as members who could get me connected (such as the agency). Then once that connection is made something happens beyone the Online Network.

    g. You might have everyone register anonymously and have a group within the Chad group called “Members of Chad that know about specific people groups” or something. Then you do away with the need for high security.

    h. The process of verification to these connecting individuals could be in a manual that tells them how to do it. That leaves the verification process up to the members and is not part of the mechanism. Then you do not have a need for a monitoring staff.

5. People like Chris D. and Chris M.  need to be heavily if not directly involved in the development of it as they have had the most success at networking people.

6. It needs have a narrow focus in order to gain participation and be significant.

    a. Only UPG focused in my opinion

    b. Last Mile Calling had a very broad scope. Businesses, Funders, Agencies, Churches, people etc.

           I think that funding, agency work etc. will happen beyond the linking place or those businesses and funders will get involved and the actual work done will not be seen on the website.

   c. Everyone is on the same level which is “member”, be they businesses, agency, interested party etc.

7. Researchers don’t seem to collaborate as they are focused on their own projects so this social network might not need to have a research group within that community. Keep UPG research and Social Networking separate. All research collaboration can take place on the people group list, if it is set up for discussions, histories, private messaging etc.

8. It needs to be based on a existing software that has a lot of users so that future development isn’t a problem

    a. http://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=Social

    b. http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Facebook

    c. Developers need to think 10 years and even 20 years down the road as the Internet goes through a major metamorphosis about every 10 years.

9. I also would use an open source database; MySQL

10. I would also use PHP as this is where most development is happening.

11. I would gather a survey from some key people on what they would like to see in the UPG social network.

    a. Barb B. is involved in much networking

    b. Chris M. has much knowledge and experience

    c. Jim H. is involved in the HIS community Sharepoint team portal.

        Just a few ideas for people on your survey

12. Have several skype meetings on the development

    a. Missionary conferences may not be the best place to talk about this as many people go to conferences to talk and input but not actually do work.

13. You might also analyze all the other failed attempts and get input from those who developed them and maybe even users (a second survey or research)

14. Comparison on the existing social networking software available

    a. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_social_networking_software

    b. http://socialmedia.wikispaces.com/

    c. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites

15. It needs to be in other languages

    a. This is the main reason I would use an existing software as they have developers on different language interfaces.

16. Please don’t sell anything or advertise, we get enough of that on Facebook.

17. I personally would use Etnopedia.net (domain not being used) to build your social network to tie it to a practical collaboration effort on UPG information.

    a. This way you are promoting to some degree one place and not completely inventing another wheel.

LIST OF SOCIAL NETWORKS ON UPGS OR MISSIONS RELATED

1. Linda B. Two Way Prayer Networks – Linking Together For The Unreached  http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=172671196080125

2. Last Mile Calling  http://www.lastmilecalling.org/

3. Prayer Guard  http://prayerguard.net/  http://members.prayerguard.net/wp-login.php 

4. GMINet  http://gminet.ning.com

5. Partners.Worldmap.org  https://partners.worldmap.org

6. Efurther  https://www.efurther.com

7. Tokyo Basecamp no longer exists. tokyo2010.basecamphq.com

8. UPG Researchers my test to narrow the scope for UPG researchers and try out software.  http://upgresearchers.org/

9. WorldWideOpen http://www.worldwideopen.org/en

10. Mission Infobank http://www.missioninfobank.org/page.php?4

11. Finishing the Task http://www.finishingthetask.com/

12. I think Liz A. also has some prayer networking on the Internet

13. Google Docs various things

14. Lausanne Global Conversations (a World Wide Open product.)  http://conversation.lausanne.org  

15. Lausanne Research Network  http://www.lrin.org/

16. Facebook. We created a facebook account to connect people to upg and missions information (in Spanish). I started it about 18 months ago and added one friend, it has grown to over 3,000 friends with no work on my part, other than approving the friend requests. but we have yet to see any real connection to upgs (that we know of) and there are probably hundreds of pastors and churches aroung Latin America connected. So Facebook seems to be more a lite social tool and not a serious connection tool. http://www.facebook.com/misionestransculturales

The Etnopedia community thanks the Wikipedia Foundation for allowing us to use their software for free.

Gentlemen,  What happened concerning the number of UPG’s in Pakistan?  Why has it increased from 371 to 440?  Look forward to hearing from you.

It’s encouraging to learn that people are looking closely at the data.

Our data for South Asia (including Pakistan) comes from a researcher who periodically he sends us a new set of his data.  The data we received recently shows an increase of people groups in Pakistan from 389 to 455, and the Least-Reached count increased from 374 to 440.

The main explanation for the increase is that he broke out 64 Jat communities to become people groups in their own right which had in the past been subsumed within the large “Jat, Muslim” people group.

He feels this same process could legitimately be applied to several other South Asian people groups, that many so-called sub-groups could properly be treated as main groups. He did a similar thing to the Brahman groups in India recently, causing our count to increase substantially.

This is a good reason why all major research efforts need to collaborate on a centralized list. I was told yesterday that we will never see collaboration happen between research efforts. I continue to keep the faith. We will reach many more peoples if we keep trying to make a few steps in that direction. Pray for our meeting scheduled in August to deal with this.

Question – Is there a need for a central searchable (and secure) database of research projects? Is anybody attempting this? How would you recommend the need be met?  Is there a need?

Yes, the love for Christ who loves the lost compels us. Many times we think about our database restrictions or organizational limitations when we need to think “what is best for the unreached peoples”. Also many times we set at tables and talk about building our databases on new technologies that 95% of the world can’t access — as if our perspectives and tools were primarily for our use. We forget that thousands of missionary candidates, agencies, young people and more importantly children need easy access to the information. We all know of the urgent need to get unreached people information into the hands of emerging missionary movements (in their languages) and yet we debate over database cross-referencing and technologies that are too hard to use or too slow for the average Internet user. I have a cuad core with high speed Internet access and still don’t look at kml data on Google earth. The Joshua Project did a survey on how to improve their website: see http://www.joshuaproject.net/future.php – I love their website, it is the best out there but it took me a while get used to the navigation. The researchers in Africa say they cant even load the JP site because its too heavy. There is a need and the need is primarily to non-westerners. I was born in the US so it hurts me to know that the greater need is for non-western participation in world missions.

Central List
The first step to getting a central list is major research effort collaboration. This is the only way we will know which peoples found on one database and not on another are real peoples. It is also the only way we will be able to keep up with newly identified peoples and languages. Lets not forget that socio-linguistic research is not finished yet. The SIL socio-linguistic researcher for China and Southeast Asia says there are 100 languages in China not in the Ethnologue. 

Searchable
The alternate name issue is a huge challenge, but the database should be searchable. Many people groups have several alternate names and alternate language names and the language name is not the people name.

Secure
We have spent many hours discussing the security issue. Security is a problem only when we mention 1. Missionaries names. 2. Organizations targeting the people group and 3. Location data on groups of believers churches etc.

The “In progress scale” (yellow) presents some security risks. But the need to have the database open is much more important so that interested Christians have access to the information. We tried to lock down Etnopedia at its launch in 2006. We gave out 3,000 unique passwords and usernames to the Latin missionary movement. This failed and still today some think you need a password to enter Etnopedia.

After all our pondering we concluded that the “yellow” scales are already out there and available to the public. Or the majority of the enemies of the Cross probably already know of the groups of Christians in a small people group. Or we (Christian researchers) don’t know and should not know the whereabouts of those groups of Christians. AND we researchers should never put sensitive data it on any web server, secured or unsecured.  Etnopedia is the only project that has removed missionary and agency names from their information.

I have considered many times to only display reached (green) and unreached (red) in our project. I don’t think displaying “green” is much more a security risk than “yellow”.  Joshua Project, WCD and Peoplegourps.org all display yellow/in progress data.

Etnopedia does not display in progress data on Bible translation status because of our agreement with SIL. This is also important.

Is anybody attempting this?
Etnopedia shows people groups that are on Joshua Project and not on CPPI/GSEC Peoplegroups.org and vice-versa. Those groups do not appear on their respective projects. We also show field data for a few countries where groups were not accepted into those projects. More country level  field data is coming. 

How would you recommend the need be met?
I previously sent this in response to your first question. In sumary, we need to provide a place for a community to develop their own upg information. It needs to be in their language, fast, and in two clicks you are seeing people groups. We also need to put the Bible translation need right up front. It also needs an integrated prayer plan . See: http://en.etnopedia.org/wiki/index.php/Etnopedia:Ethne_to_Ethne

See examples of what we are working on here. http://en.etnopedia.org/wiki/index.php/Kurd
This page shows language, tribes and clans. e.g. Shabak is a clan.

Blessings to you brother! This is not an easy subject to deal with. But it is very valid and more important than any other time in history. We need to direct the future missionaries into unreached Bibleless peoples.

Proposition

Question – Is missiological research valued as it should be among mission leaders? Why or why not?

Introduction

This is an edited and organized compilation of responses to the proposition and question noted above. I have not added any of my own comments, and have not taken extra time to refine the categories. Thus, much commentary could be added to each point, and further organization could be offered.  The final product will not be intended as an exhaustive treatment of the subject. Rather, it will be considered a fair starting place for discussions to be carried on into the future, containing a significant number of the key factors as identified by experienced researchers. Please take this into account when offering replies.

General Factors

    1. Value varies enormously from totally valued to completely not valued.

    2. The variance is among mission leaders, among organizations, and even within organizations.

    3. Valuing relates to the cost of obtaining the information, not just on the perceived value of the information.

    4. Valuing relates to the type of research done (qualitative vs. quantitative, etc.)

Factors Affecting How Mission Leaders Value Research

1. Do they understand it? If they “get it” they will value it. But if the data is not understood, or not relevant to the decisions a leader is making, the resources used to undertake the project are wasted. This reinforces the idea in a leader’s mind that research is not of practical benefit.

2. Are enough people doing research that can be applied? When missiological research is not highly valued, it can be because the findings are not readily applied to a field context, or else the reports are not sufficiently practical. On the other hand, when research clearly outlines new models that can be reproduced and multiplied, and offers compelling information and data, mission leaders are able and willing to embrace the information and make changes.

3. What information do they view as appropriate to use in guiding their strategy development?

4. What effect has their formal or informal training had on them?

        a. Have they been exposed to missiological research?

        b. Have they been encouraged to use research?

5. What is their organizational decision-making tradition? This determines the protocol for valuing of research.

        a. Are decisions a purely spiritual practice in which “God’s will” is discerned through spiritual disciplines?

        b. Are decisions a strategic component of completing a known objective, with the spiritual component assumed?

        c. Are decisions made by a hybrid of these two approaches?

6. Are mission leaders open to changing their strategies based on research? Research may only be valued among mission leaders when it supports their presuppositions. When it might require them to change or adapt based on the reality that the research presents, they often times refute or trivialize it.

7. Are the mission leaders visionaries and strategists who are looking to accelerate the completion of the Great Commission? Or are they simply looking to hang on in their organization as long as they can?

8. Will mission leaders only “own” research that comes from their organization or constituents?

Other Issues with Mission Leaders and Research

1. They are not proactive in getting research done, even if they do appreciate it.

2. Decision makers so often don’t pay attention to the research results that are already available and usable. They seem to make decisions based on other factors.

3. Even if mission leaders value research, there is a gap at the grassroots practitioner level. Most mission leaders are aware that the greatest effectiveness can only come when we know the current status of progress (where work is and isn’t, and how “healthy” it is). In contrast, most grassroots practitioners are rightfully more focused on what their calling and task is rather than the larger task, meaning the research is not as relevant to them. Those with “big picture” responsibility recognize the value of the research far more readily.

4. In many cases, mission leaders seem to still be using data numbers that are outdated.

5. Mission leaders can base their assumptions on what happens in their church or mission, and assume that this must be what other groups are doing as well.

6. Research could have been performed, but the results reported in a format inaccessible to the leaders.

7. Mission researchers and mission leaders are not communicating well. We are expecting mission leaders to take up the research based on a passive relationship. Intentional partnerships will yield better results. Without communication of available vs. desirable research, the researcher doesn’t always gather what the mission leader wants or needs and the mission leader doesn’t always know or desire what the researcher offers.

 Other Issues Related to Researchers

1. Have researchers demonstrated how existing demographic research can be applied before undertaking customized projects?

2. Some of the research done is very poor and does not really correspond with field realities.

The following document is a response to an email to a gentleman planning the research tract of a mission’s conference in 2010. Hello M, forgive me for taking so long in responding. I have been busy with Etnopedia. I did not receive the Research Question #2 email. I may be interested in that email but it is really the first question I am most interested in and most qualified to participate on. 

1. Assessments of what remains to be done to make disciples out of every people group
This needs to be a collaborative effort. A friend at the Joshua Project, another from the IMB research and myself are dialoging and testing some ways this can be done on the Internet through the use of a “centralized people list”. This utilizes the Harvest Information System’s ROP3 code. You probably know about the ROP3. It is the only code that links all our databases together on the people group level. This type of collaboration isn’t an easy task, but through it, we are going to answer part the first research question. I say part because it will only be answered on the peoples that we know exist. Once we answer the first question, then we have a foundation / basis by which we can answer some of the other questions, (new models, coordination among missions organizations etc.). All those will be more efficient once we have a more accurate centralized people list. Even then, we will only be able to focus on about 70%  to 75% of the worlds known people groups.

Collaboration on a centralized people list involves two basic areas:

A. Identifying where major research efforts people lists are in agreement and where they are not.  Major research efforts come together and discrepancies are worked out by collaboration on the centralized list. Where the major people lists do not agree will still be shown. This is important as some people groups may then be brought into the one another’s people lists as a result. The major research efforts might begin to argue that  “they view peoples differently”. This is where (if we are truly going to collaborate), major research efforts will have to bend on some issues and personal perspectives. If a major research effort collaboration does not happen, there will be no centralized list and you will have to continue to choose which brand (perspective) of people list you want. Jim H. at the IMB calls the centralized people list “the convergence list”. Gaining a convergence list only solves the problem temporarily. The collaboration effort will only work as long as they collaborate. But eventually the solution to maintaining a convergence list is to facilitate an international multi-lingual community. I will talk about this later in the document.

B. Developing a process by which newly identified peoples can be added to the centralized list. This is much more important than part (A) although (A) is needed to get to this part (B). We need a way to collaboratively add and see all the newly identified peoples in one place. All the sending entities and movements long for this. We need a place to see all the new peoples added by the Joshua Project, the IMB, MANI, IMA and AMTB and so on. The problem is that right now, if the Joshua Project adds 100 new peoples, they may or may not ever be seen or added to the IMB people list and vice-versa.

So there is a need for the first step, (A): Major research efforts collaborate. The holders of world people lists and even regional lists collaborate on the centralized list. The purpose is to confirm the peoples that exist on each list, and to identify the peoples that exist on one list and not on another.

Then there is a need for step (B): Develop a way to add newly identified people. I believe that in order to accomplish both steps we need to develop an international multi-lingual community of researchers who collaborate together. While collaborating in the community they are also building their unreached people information that they own and immediately use in their own local mobilization. This is where Etnopedia comes in. It provides an excellent place for a centralized list to take shape while it becomes useful immediately useful. Surveys have shown that unreached people information in other languages is also longed for.

Etnopedia attempts to show all the people groups from all the different lists and perspectives. It is also the most sophisticated tool for this type of work. It handles the dynamic of “it gets messy before it gets accurate” and was built to accomplish just that. It is also development funded by millions of dollars and has user manuals in many languages. It is almost as if this tool was made for the Christian research community.

Etnopedia does not have a complete list of known people groups. Currently the project is focusing on translation of unreached people information and therefore it does not have a complete list. This could be remedied, possibly in a year or less if a team were gathered and focused to complete the known people group list. Then Etnopedia could be used as the centralized list as well as the meeting place where an international multilingual community comes together. Never the less, I have not been able to convince the major research efforts to collaborate there. It is just too simple.

*Firstly, you cannot filter and sort the Etnopedia database as you can with access or excel. You can sort and filter Etnopedia and it is a database, but not like access. Only about 2% of the Christian movement is interested in unreached peoples. So I am curious to know how many of them do research and how many of those use access? I am not trying to be disrespectful, just stating the statistics.
*Secondly, the research movement has perspectives on populations of people groups by each country they live in that Etnopedia could show, but has chosen not to after analyzing the data. The data clearly shows that these perspectives add too much complexity when you desire to facilitate collaboration of large research community.
**For one, we do not really know the populations of the people groups, and or the data is very old or generated by queries, formulas, estimates or percentages of world population growth. You cannot force the worlds “estimated” population into the 10,000 known people groups when there are many more peoples we have not identified. It inflates the population of the known people groups in our list.
**We cannot know the real population of a people group. Even where there exists fairly good (highly political) governmental statistics. Many countries do not have the infrastructure for census taking. Or census data is almost always at least 10 years old.
**We cannot split the people groups into every country they live in, showing reached status in each country they live in and simplify the collaboration effort enough to facilitate large community. The answer is simple. If a people group has a significant barrier to the Gospel because they live in two countries, they need to be two separate people groups in our list. We are not trying to create the most anthropologically correct people list. Wikipedia is well on the way to accomplishing that. We are however, trying to identify the points of missionary sending need. (See the traditional definition of people group for evangelization purposes: http://en.etnopedia.org/wiki/index.php/Research:Etnopedia%27s_definition_of_a_people_group)

The major research efforts databases grow in record size by almost one third because of 250 (mainly reached) mega peoples. Example; the Han Chinese Mandarin who take up over 100 records in the database, thus adding 100 reached status scales and 100 different populations by every country they live in. Then add the French, the British and others and the records grow beyond what a small team can actually handle. So the question arises, what is more important? Developing an international multilingual field research community, or continuing to build and compare complex databases that cannot track migration or know populations by country anyway? If you study the major research efforts lists, most all people groups live in one country and speak one language. The reality is that they actually do not, but this is what our efforts have been able to track so far. All the major research efforts people lists show that 8,000+ of the approximate 10,000 known peoples live in only one country. The people by country perspective could easily be surrendered in order to build a community.

Independent Collaboration or Community Collaboration?

The part (A) collaboration process can work in two ways. We collaborate and compare the major world and regional people lists and continue to work independently, or we collaborate and compare the major lists while building a global research community. It needs to be clear that major research effort collaboration on a centralized list temporarily fulfills a need unless we build a community.

This does not mean that all the major research efforts disappear and work in one place although this would be ideal. Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world. It simply means that there is one centralized list, people group list (or place) that shows us where the different databases agree and shows their newly identified peoples. Again, more importantly, this is done while it builds community that will be able to maintain and expand the list.

I’m inventing a phrase here called “independent collaboration“. Independent collaboration is where the major research efforts collaborate but continue to work independently during and after. This is not only extremely inefficient, but would require a tremendous amount of work and time, and in the end we would still have a few small teams trying to keep up with all their independent changes. Furthermore, the public will still have to pick and choose which research effort they think is most accurate.  Community collaboration, on the other hand, will exponentially grow and improve the people list.

Presently, the key to collaboration (independent or community) is the ROP3 people code and accomplishing the first steps (A) mentioned above. But this hasn’t been achieved. So I call for community collaboration just like I believe you are calling for this as you present your first most important question. (1. Assessments of what remains to be done to make disciples out of every people group.)

In summary, independent collaboration presents ongoing difficulties because the major research efforts will continue to work independently of each other during and after the collaboration. It’s a logistical nightmare.

The challenge to everyone involved in research is to rethink what it is that we actually want to achieve by collaborating a centralized people list? Whatever process comes about will be extremely intensive and take a spiritual breakthrough to get going. The collaboration idea has been around for many years.  We very aware of the need and the challenges it poses. Still we need to think about the outcome. What do we want to accomplish?

Many of the issues that independent research efforts face in collaboration have been solved during the arduous development of Etnopedia. I believe that in order to have a collaborative community effort, your project must be simplified to some extent.

Importance of Field Driven Research

The project must also involve field research efforts (or at least their data) and it must be in other languages. Another key concept is that it must respect the field researchers perspectives. This will be a challenge but the field efforts need to speak to the centralized people group list and not the other way around. Sometimes major research effort pick and choose which peoples it allows into the their list. This needs to change. We personally have made this error undermining the field research effort and thus loosing their participation.

I will use another phrase here; “field driven research“. We need the research to be “field driven” and not “major research effort” driven. This field driven research concept has not been accomplished because we have not provided a community where it can happen until now. It will get messy, but secular projects have shown us that large scale community collaborations eventually draw in the experts and the mess gets cleaned up. The days of ”major research effort” driven research are nearing an end. We can move toward collaboration independently or in community, the choice is ours.

Of course I personally believe in Etnopedia. Not in the name, but in the potential it has to encourage a community to participate. Many people don’t see this potential part of Etnopedia because of its simplicity. But the limitation of its simplicity is minimal compared to the potential to truly collaborate, which is what we are longing for. We all want to finish Christ’s Commission and the Fathers Plan!

The field missionaries in this region have identified at least twenty-five known peoples beyond the 50+ languages, most of which are unreached. He is the expert, and he says that there might be another 40 ethnic peoples yet to be identified here. He calls them “Points of Need”. This means that there is a definite point where a separate missionary effort is needed. He may not realize it but his term fits the classic definition of a people group. “Where the Gospel will naturally flow without encountering barriers of understanding or acceptance.”

As we were traveling up into the mountains, we got out of the vehicle and he showed me where one group ended and another began. On this mountaintop we could see three points of need. Not only were the groups very different linguistically, they were warring tribes. In this area you are persecuted and sometimes put to death for preaching the Gospel.

It is so interesting to me that when you get closer to the field things are clarified. All of us researchers need to get out into the field more often to get back in touch with “why” we are doing research. Here is a field missionary (national) who has been in one of the most resistant people groups in the region for over 15 years. He knows exactly “why” we are doing research and “what” we are looking for. 

WHAT We are looking for are the “Points of Missionary Need”.

There is a definite point on the earth representing some form of people grouping where missionaries are needed. WHY? The Gospel will not flow there naturally because of some barrier. Could these be the ends of the earth? These are substantial BARRIERS that define the lines between one ethno-cultural group and another. They are definite Points of Need for a separate missionary effort. The same missionary might be able to meet the needs in two points, but he or she will have to make two separate efforts, and in some cases, translate another Bible. We are not trying to create more work for the missionary movement or keep ourselves in a job. We are trying to make the needs known so prayer can be raised and missionaries can be sent.

Our team waited ten years before we started to add ethno-cultural groups to our national list. This was a mistake; we should have started long ago. Ten years ago we didn’t feel qualified and feared that the mission movement would revolt seeing all the newly identified peoples on the list. We feared adding so many more unreached peoples to the list, most of the new additions will be unreached. So we began preparing the people year after year saying that one day we will be adding peoples to the list. I have seen at least 15 new languages added over the years. I just got the new list of the languages that are not in the Ethnologue from national SIL director. I haven’t counted yet but he tells me there are at least 5 languages I do not have on our list. We automatically count new languages as new peoples pretty much around the world. So we need to be prepared to see many new languages identified. The barrier of understanding is our greatest point of missionary sending need. The world needs Bible translators!

Unfortunately, many other parts of the world are similar to the region I was recently in. We simply do not know how many peoples or languages there are. I have personally spoken to two of the foremost researchers for India. One of them says we definitely have at least 4,000 peoples. The other says that there are at least 5,000. According to these researchers, these are definite Points of Missionary Sending Need. Most of the world people lists show only 2,500 to 2,700 peoples in India. We just don’t know. So, there is a definite need to continue to identify all the new people groups.

Problem: Who defines where the points of need are (the people groups)?

Solution: The definition of people group is determined by the field entity that is giving us the point of missionary need. We allow field efforts tell us what these points of missionary need are and where they are. If we try to define peoples at a higher level above the field, we will complicate the issue and undermine the field entities efforts. The real priority is getting the points of need identified. We are not attempting to create an anthropologically correct people list. We are trying to identify the needs for missionary sending. 

One of the greatest problems we have in the missionary movement is knowing “how many unidentified people groups there are”.  Last year I was asked to put together a comparison of four world people lists for a mission’s conference. To sum it up, there is an average disparity of 1,800 peoples between all four lists. This means that there are many peoples on one list and not on the other. Which ones are real? Which ones are duplicates? Which ones on one list need to be brought into the other lists? But more importantly, which peoples do not appear on any of the 4 lists? We need to involve more field entities in our research.

See: http://en.etnopedia.org/wiki/index.php/Research:Etnopedia%27s_definition_of_a_people_group

“Unreached peoples is not a strategy, it is a biblical concept.”

“The unreached is not the only focus. But it always has been and always will be an important focus because there are unreached.”

“(The unreached people concept) is still an issue, especially for the global south”

“(The concept) is not passé; it is successful and is a drum being beaten.”

“Has the Bible changed?”
“(The Unreached are) people being cut off from the message.”
“(The Unreached are)Beyond the scope of the existing churches”
“It is a 4,000-year-old concept.”

“Intermediate Steps”  ???
“It is a practical reality, whether or not the watchword is passé.”