Exit among Missionaries from Singapore

 

Thank you for participating in the pilot study on missionary exit from Singapore. The following summary is from the study report For the record, no deception was used in this study. If you wish to see the complete report, it is available on the Internet at: http://www.geocities.com/dennisddavis/sgpilotstudyreport.html

 

Summary

 

Data from the pilot study was collected to research the hypothesis 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.

 

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 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.

 

Measures for the pilot study were created from a review of available 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.

 

A Singapore missions director was asked 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. They were dispersed across five countries on three continents.

 

Each respondent 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 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.

 

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 difficulties which make immediate return difficult. Some remain in Singapore, some do not.

 

Each of the study respondents 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: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. No matter what their background or qualifications, every one of them has endured 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.