Is there a need for a central database of research projects?
Etnopedia Team Articles, Research Chatter Thursday, April 29th, 2010
This is the second part of questions posed to researchers for a missions conference. 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.
Proposition – Missiological researchers and mission organizations are often unaware of what research has already been done for a people group they are trying to reach.
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.
Short URL: http://www.etnopedia.info/?p=366
Posted by admin
on Apr 29 2010. Filed under Etnopedia Team Articles, Research Chatter.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
A more productive approach would be a central PORTAL that could SEARCH all available databases to enable more researchers to see the views of ethnicity and strategy represented in the various lists and databases.
Why not organize a participatory METABASE (metasearch of databases) that would search and present information on each ethnicity of the world form all participating sources? This idea has been discussed, for instance for a long time by the stewards of the Harvest Information System. The portal and the data publishing system has not yet been produced. Someone would proceed with this. This requires NO CHANGES IN ANYONE’s DATA, no EXECUTIVE DECISIONS relegating anyone’s data or view of ethnicity in their database to irrelevancy. Every user/searcher would have access to more data and more combined information than ever before!
The idea of a single central DATABASE merged or compiled or organized as a STANDARD has been shown to be an impediment, not an advantage. I have addresses this in various venues, oral and written, in consultation with numerous other world researchers. That is why we don’t have it yet. It is not a new idea. No one can agree on the STRUCTURE of the data, and which or how many fields to have in it.
We do not have to get sidetracked or bogged down on the structure and preferences of any one current database or source of ethnic data. (It always happens when we talk about the ONE GREAT DATABASE.) We can just enable everyone to look at it! (Security concerns being honoured as necessary.)
Ethnicity does not occur in boxes. Let’s not make the matter harder than it is by imposing our cultural technical categories on the dynamic and ever-changing realities of real peoples in real situations, changing constantly, often multi-lingual and multi-ethnic.
Thank you Orville, You say “We do not have to get sidetracked or bogged down on the structure and preferences of any one current database or source of ethnic data.” I agree and a community is what will move us all beyond this.
Two sets of eyes comparing global people lists using name, language assignment, population, location, needs to change because now it is possible to create communities of researchers.
We researchers are too few as well. We need to create a community so that a new generation of researchers can emerge. And it should be something easy and multi-lingual. If we complicate it with structure and push our preferences on them, it will not succeed.
It may need to have alternate views of peoples. Why not? It saves people the time trying to mesh the global lists. And you know first hand what meshing global lists entails. You are one of the few people in the world that has done this work.
So my hat is off to you as you touch on two very important keys that “move” us further toward an answer. Moving beyond the structure, moving beyond the preferences, and moving beyond the boxes!
Yes we need central data base that provides grass root level (village level) information in all world major languages.Field survey should be conducted wherever possible to identify major Unreached people groups at village level etc.Whatever the information is not available on web should collected through field survey.