Running head: Attrition among Singaporean Bi-vocational Christian Missionaries

Exit among Missionaries from Singapore

Data from a pilot study was collected pursuant to the proposed hypothesis and methodology by Davis (2001) that missionaries from Singapore who exit prematurely are more likely to attribute exit to external factors. Ten potential respondents were identified by a Singapore missions director, with quantitative data collected from seven, a 70% return rate, and qualitative interviews conducted with four. Analysis of the results support the hypothesis, with 87.5% indicating their respective sending agency caused exit. This result is amplified by qualitative data demonstrating the magnitude of current measurements and methodologies incorrectly attributing locus of exit: All ten subjects self-report continued successful missionary work. A detailed study is recommended. Results of the study are included.

Hypothesis

Missionaries from Singapore who exit prematurely are more likely to attribute the exit to external factors than internal factors.

Most missionary research uses agency leaders and agency documents to proxy for primary source data. Researchers seldom use missionaries directly for source data. Though the “real reasons” (Taylor, 1997b, p.11) people exit may be unknowable, use of qualitative research methods can bring clearer understanding to what is currently known. Quantitative data are easier to acquire and analyze from archival sources and agency gatekeeper analysis than contacting the principle parties themselves. A review of available research reveals most Singaporean missionary exit is attributed by their respective sending agencies to internal locus causes in the missionaries.

Brierley (1997, p. 89) reports over 80% of overseas Christian missionaries from Singapore who exit do so prematurely. He writes further, “The reasons that missionaries leave vary according to the source of information!” I undertook this pilot study because I found one piece of the reported data too fantastic and apparently biased to be credible from what I know of Singaporean missions: that 22.3% exit due to a “change of job” (p. 94). Previous researcher comments indicate additional research is warranted (Lewis, 2000; Moon, 1998; Taylor, 2000). This study undertook to collect information from a sample of those missionaries.

Measures

Measures for the pilot study were created from a review of the literature, discussions with Singapore missions directors, and email communications with missionary researchers. Respondents were generally affable to the measures used, and overall they indicated a willingness to participate.

Processes. To measure missionaries from Singapore who exit missionary fieldwork prematurely, ten qualified candidates were identified by a Singapore missions director as possible respondents. Qualified candidates were listed as no longer missionaries by their sending Singapore organizations. Each was contacted by the director via telephone or email to request their participation in the study. One declined to participate, stating they had not exited.

The researcher then contacted the remainder with quantitative instruments to measure the cause they attributed for exit. Each potential respondent was offered Appendices A, B, C, and D via their choice from the following means: (a) print, (b) email, (c) facsimile, or (d) the World Wide Web. Two then declined to participate due to concerns over political security. Three subjects were re-contacted after two days to request they complete and return of the instruments. Altogether seven subjects completed and returned the instruments.

Instruments. A Contact Information form (Appendix A) was used to measure subject’s agreement to participate in the study. All subject questions about the study were answered via email or voice.

Elkins and Lewis (1997) Attrition Tracking Guidelines was adapted (Appendix B) for this study to capture related quantitative data. Responses are an open selection of attributing causes to exit and a percentage weighting of the attributed causal selection(s).

Possible demographic, psychographic, or national confounding variables were collected to strengthen the study. These included fifteen short-answer items (Appendix C) for age; education; ethnicity; gender; marital status; dependants; tenure; geographic locality; position status; shame; filial piety, security, acceptance, and religion. Each respondent completed all the requested instrument items, with no indication that any confounding variable exists in the hypothesis.

Four respondents were interviewed by the researcher for qualitative data specific to the study hypothesis. The interviews covered the six disclosed questions of Appendix D, adapted from Attribution Theory (Chadwick, 2000) to determine the causal locus of exit:

1. Did you to perform the work of a missionary?

2. Did you become a missionary on a whim, just because you felt like doing it?

3. Were you capable of doing the work necessary to be a missionary?

4. Did you work as a missionary because you felt you had to or should do it?

5. Did you fit in with a group of people important to the work?

6. Why did you stop working as a missionary?

Results

The researcher asked a Singapore missions director to identify ten qualified, potential subjects for the pilot study. In deference to Singaporean culture, the director was also asked to make initial contact with each subject to gain their trust to participate in the study. The director identified and contacted ten study subjects from three missions agencies, and passed their respective contact data to the researcher.

Subject participation. Each subject was contacted via email or voice, and asked how they preferred to receive the study instruments. Reassurance of (a) their anonymity, (b) usefulness of their participation, and (c) the importance of timeliness with their response was provided to each subject at that time. The subjects were dispersed across five countries on three continents.

One subject declined to participate in toto, adamant in their insistence that they continued missionary work irrespective of their sending agency’s statement to the contrary. This subject wanted reassurance their relationship with the missions director was intact.

The nine other respondents agreed to participate in the study. Two requested the survey instruments sent by email. One asked the instruments be Faxed to due to political security concerns. Four asked for print media via overnight delivery. Two wanted to view the material over the World Wide Web because their email, FAX, and print delivery methods were each actively monitored by national security organizations.

The last two were uncomfortable transmitting the study results by any means other than a personal courier, which exceeded the study budget. When asked if they could encrypt or anonomize their submission (via http://www.anonymizer.com/), they replied that they lacked technical competence to do so, but would participate if not for political security concerns.

Four subjects responded overnight with completed study documents. The remaining three were re-contacted after two days to request their completed participation. Each fulfilled their commitment within the subsequent 48 hours, providing a 70% response rate. All seven completed all quantitative and qualitative items.

Four subjects were selected for qualitative interviews by the researcher. Selection was based on minimizing interview costs. It is not believed this biased the study results, as the preponderance of all subject data demonstrate similar understandings. Interviews were conducted individually by voice, and averaged twenty minutes each.

Subject data. Analysis of the results support the hypothesis, that missionaries from Singapore who exit prematurely are more likely to attribute the exit to external factors than internal factors. Six (87.5%) of the respondents provided convincing testimony of this. The remaining respondent attributes part of their exit to their sending agency, and alone indicated some shame for their situation.

The four interviewees were unanimous in attributing their exit to external factors when asked the questions from Appendix D. Each reported performing the work of a missionary. Each reported they became a missionary purposefully. Each reported being capable of performing the work necessary to be a missionary. Each reported performing missionary work because they chose to in response to a calling. Each reported fitting in with multiple groups of people important to the work. And unexpectedly, each reported continuing work as a missionary even after they exited their sending agency. The reported 22.3% exit due to a “change of job” (Brierley, 1997, p. 94) is found wanting for reliability.

Astoundingly, all ten subjects reported they continue to be personally involved in missionary endeavors overseas. Seven of them are financed by Christian agencies where they reside. One self-funds periodic return trips to their prior field assignment, and two are supported by Singaporean friends. Yet their Singapore sending agencies each report them as no longer involved in Christian missionary enterprise, and have severed all supporting relationships.

The quantitative indicators are amplified by qualitative data demonstrating the magnitude to which current measurements and methodologies incorrectly attribute locus of exit to missionaries from Singapore agencies, and the intensity of missionary calling and activities after exit from those agencies. All ten subjects self-report continued active, successful missionary work.

Conclusions

The response rate was unexpectedly high, and is attributed to the nature of personal relationships typical of Singapore culture and its missions agencies. Undoubtedly becoming personally involved in obtaining the data increased participation.

Likewise, such involved continued missions work among the subjects was unexpected. Exactly half of the respondents continue to work in their originally assigned countries. Four of those who do not encountered political exigencies which make immediate return difficult. Some remain in Singapore, some do not.

The interview process was difficult for a novice. Following established methodologies helped, such as using a typed script. Being flexible helped as well, but I found the missionaries willing to meet realistic pressures of the study. A similar study based in Singapore likely might succeed if administrators facilitated interviews during evenings, meals, and weekends. Obtaining active cooperation from missions directors is probably mandatory for success.

Each subject added qualitative data intoning the definitive nature of the study conclusions. I am struck by the influence the sending agencies retain over the thinking of these subjects through manipulating events to favor local Singapore importance over field work. Two notes are included with the Appendix E data. Another is that witnesses (who came forward in the course of this study) report it appears local Singapore politics could not cope with a successful unreached people group church plant by a non-ordained clergy member.

Each of the study subjects appeared to be normal, content, and happy. They have good jobs and good relationships. What pained me during this pilot study, is how injured missionaries become when they are “excised” by their sending agencies. Everyone of them endures the stages of grief (Anonymous, 2000; Pastan, 1996): denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. No matter what their background or qualifications, every one of them is enduring it largely alone. Even though they appear to be dealing with their loss, they seem to lack a community that understands the loss, and (again, appear) to need someone with whom they can share their stories. I was completely caught off guard during the interviews by this, and unprepared to salve the wounds they uncovered for me. Had I known this when the first subject declined participation I might have discussed denial with them.

I find myself quoting Jeremiah 8:22 (New International Version of the Holy Bible) over and over again as I consider these study results. “Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there? Why then is there no healing for the wound of my people?” A poem entitled “The Five Stages of Grief” by Linda Pastan (1996) tells the allegory of these missionaries’ current existence with much less emotion than I experienced.

The night I lost you someone pointed me towards the Five Stages of Grief. Go that way, they said, it's easy, like learning to climb stairs after the amputation. And so I climbed. Denial was first. I sat down at breakfast carefully setting the table for two. I passed you the toast - you sat there. I passed you the paper - you hid behind it. Anger seemed more familiar. I burned the toast, snatched the paper and read the headlines myself. But they mentioned your departure, and so I moved on to Bargaining. What could I exchange for you? The silence after storms? My typing fingers? Before I could decide, Depression came puffing up, a poor relation its suitcase tied together with string. In the suitcase were bandages for the eyes and bottles of sleep. I slid all the way down the stairs feeling nothing. And all the time Hope flashed on and off in defective neon. Hope was a signpost pointing straight in the air. Hope was my uncle's middle name, he died of it. After a year I am still climbing, though my feet slip on your stone face. The treeline has long since disappeared; green is a color I have forgotten. But now I see what I am climbing towards: ACCEPTANCE, its name is in lights. I struggle on, waving and shouting. Below, my whole life spreads its surf, all the landscapes I've ever known or dreamed of. Below a fish jumps: the pulse in your neck. ACCEPTANCE. I finally reach it. But something is wrong. Grief is a circular staircase. I have lost you.

Each respondent who indicated a desire for a summary of the pilot study results has been sent one. I am indebted to their participation, and humbled by their openness. All disclosures have been made consistent with the study proposal. No deception was involved. All expenses except subject receipt and retransmission of instruments were born by the researcher. Detailed quantitative research results to Appendix B, the adapted Attrition Tracking Guidelines by Elkins and Lewis (1997) follows in Appendix E.

The willingness of respondents to participate might indicate a fuller study is accomplishable on a necessary larger scale. Such a study is recommended. Professionally competent counselors sympathetic to Christian missionary endeavors should be made available to follow-up all interviews. Realizable community support and understanding is recommended for a topic to the pulpits of Christian churches.

References

Anonymous. (2000). Information from your family doctor: Grieving: Facing illness, death and other losses. American Family Physician, 62(7), 1689.

Brierley, P. (1997). Missionary attrition: The ReMAP research report. In W. D. Taylor (Ed.), Too valuable to lose: Exploring the causes and cures of missionary attrition. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library.

Chadwick, S. A. (Novermber 16, 2000). Attribution theory. Ames: IA: Iowa State University. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://chadwick.jlmc.iastate.edu/theory/attrib.html

Davis, D. (2001). Exit among Christian missionaries from Singapore. Unpublished manuscript. Available from D. D. Davis, Center for Leadership Studies, Regent University, 100 Regent University Drive, Virginia Beach, VA, USA 23464.

Lewis, J. (2000, December). Missionary attrition. Available E-mail.

Moon, S. S. C. (1998). Going further with the research. Training, 98(2) 4-5. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.wefbookstore.org/assets/images/98oct.pdf

Pastan, L. (1996). The five stages of grief. Chicago Review, 42(3),195-197.

Taylor, W. D. (1997b). Introduction: Examining the iceberg called attrition. In W. D. Taylor (Ed.), Too valuable to lose: Exploring the causes and cures of missionary attrition. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library.

Taylor, W. D. (2000, December). Attrition tools. Available E-mail.

Appendix A

Contact Information

Thank you for participating in this survey. Your participation will help improve the condition of future Christian missions. Information you provide will be kept confidential. Your participation is voluntary. We do need to interview some individuals to better understand the responses. A summary of the results of this research is available to those who participate if they request it. Please write your name and contact information only here on this page.

Name: ________________________________________________

Signature _____________________________ Date: ______________

Telephone: ________________________________________________

Address: ________________________________________________

________________________________________________

Email: ________________________________________________

Send me a summary of the research results YES: o NO: o __________

Appendix B

Attrition Tracking Guidelines

Adapted from Elkins and Lewis 1997

Perhaps the most important function of this guide is that it will help missionaries and mission administrators keep in mind the factors they depend on to select, prepare, and support missionaries on the field. The Tracking Guide will promote a constant review of these factors in the overall process of sending and maintaining the missionary task force. This could contribute significantly to alerting missions and missionaries of problem areas and allow time to compensate for them.

The information gathered is useful for planning purposes. Administrative decisions are only as good as available understood information. Analysis of the data will suggest specific courses of action aimed at preventing unnecessary attrition. Sharpening our aim in dealing with the root causes of attrition will help reduce the number of those coming back prematurely, and increase the overall effectiveness and stewardship of missions.

Firstly, check the reasons for departure that apply. Secondly, assign a percentage to each of those reasons in terms of how much it contributed to the decision to leave. The percentages should add to 100. Here is an example:

ü 20 Weather. Change in weather pattern.

We want you to understand how important your voluntary participation is. If you have any questions please ask the facilitator.

Anticipated Reasons

____________ Normal retirement. Retirement following normal completion of missionary service or contract.

____________ Completion of contract. Completion of contract established for a specific task or time period.

Political or Catastrophic Reasons

____________ Political removal. Forced removal from country due to war, government persecution, epidemics, famine, civil unrest, withdrawal of visa, or denial of visa extension.

____________ Death in service. Death or unexplained disappearance of serving missionary.

Marriage / Family Reasons

____________ Children. Children unable to adjust to culture, schooling, health or behavioural problems.

____________ Elderly parents. Need to care for aging parents.

____________ Marriage / family conflicts. Marriage or family conflict, or death of spouse or child.

____________ Outside marriage. Marriage to someone outside the mission.

Sending Organisation Reasons

____________ Home support. Inadequate financial, prayer, and other support from home country.

____________ Disagreement with sending organisation. Disagreement with mission agency over policy, authority, etc.

____________ Theological reasons. Disagreement with the mission agency over charismatic issues, church practice, or doctrinal issues.

Personal Reasons

____________ Immature spiritual life. Problems related to spiritual life such as unmet spiritual needs, lack of spiritual maturity, etc.

____________ Health problems. Problems related to mental or physical health.

____________ Inadequate commitment. Lack of understanding of the cost of commitment involved in long-term missionary service.

____________ Personal concerns. Problems related to low self-esteem, dealing with stress, anger, unrealistic expectations, the need to marry, loneliness, etc.

____________ Lack of call. Lack of conviction regarding the genuine call to missionary work, or loss of it.

____________ Immoral lifestyle. Immoral behaviour, alcohol or drug abuse.

Team Reasons

____________ Problems with peer missionaries. Relationship problems with mission field leaders or fellow missionaries.

____________ Problems with local leaders. Relationship problems with local church leaders or other local colleagues.

Cultural Reasons

____________ Poor cultural adaptation. Unable to adapt to culture, customs, traditions, and living conditions of the country.

____________ Language difficulties. Unable to learn the ethnic or country language adequately.

Work-Related Reasons

____________ Dismissal by agency. Dismissal due to inability to carry out duties and responsibilities satisfactorily.

____________ Lack of job satisfaction. Inadequate, inappropriate, or authoritarian supervision of work by mission agency, including lack of pastoral care, team building, and other support.

____________ Inadequate training. Inadequate or inappropriate training and preparation for missionary work.

Other Reasons

____________ Other reasons. Other important reasons not mentioned (specify here):

____________________________________________________

Appendix C

Study Validation

Please provide the following data to help us more accurately represent valid results should potential data problems occur when analyzing the results of this study. We will separate these answers from your other data. In no case will anyone be allowed access to identify you from the responses. Your accurate answers might help prevent misinterpretation of the results.

Please give short answers. Use one word where possible.

How old are you

What is your education level

What is your race/ethnicity

Are you male or female

Are you married or single

Do you have children, and if so how old are they

Are you concerned about bonding a son for national service

How many years were you on the field

What country do you work in

Are you leaving because the sending organisation wants you to work in Singapore

Are you leaving due to filial piety

Are you leaving because your family wants you to be secure in Singapore

Does you family appreciate you being a missionary

Are your parents Christian

Do you feel shamed into leaving the field

Thank you for your help.

If you have any questions or comments please provide them here:

Appendix D

Attribution Theory Interview Questions

Did you to perform the work of a missionary?
Did you become a missionary on a whim, just because you felt like doing it?
Were you capable of doing the work necessary to be a missionary?
Did you work as a missionary because you felt you had to or should do it?
Did you fit in with a group of people important to the work?
Why did you stop working as a missionary?