







































Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 1(2), Winter 2020  

 
Kiš, Cabus, Romo, and Welch, “We are poor, but we are developed”  93
   

 

 

“We are poor, but we are developed:” 

Differential Perceptions of “Development” 

among Key Stakeholder Groups in the 

Philippines 
 

Adam D. Kiš, Jovy Conde Cabus, Tzaddi Romo, and Cheyanne Welch 

 

 
This mixed-methods study conducted in the Philippines explores the perceptions of various 

stakeholders in the international development process on the meaning of the word “development.” It 

also measured the extent of differences between stakeholder groups (Adventist Development and 

Relief Agency [ADRA] employees, government liaisons, and beneficiaries) on their perceptions of 

what “development” means. Results show that approximately half of the self-generated indicators 

associated with the word “development” overlap between stakeholder groups, and approximately half 

are unique to each stakeholder group. In addition, the differences measured between stakeholder 

perceptions are statistically significant using ANOVA and MANOVA procedures. The implications 

for these different perceptions according to stakeholder group are discussed. Furthermore, the 

implications for faith-based NGOs working in development (such as ADRA) are also discussed. 

 

 
 

Introduction and Literature Review 

“Development.” This single word has inspired 

countless humanitarian efforts, spawned a multibillion-

dollar industry, and impacted every country in the 

world. One might expect such a powerful term to have 

a universal definition; alas, it does not (Heryanto and 

Lutz 1988; Arndt 1981). One of the major divisions is 

whether to view it from a macro or micro perspective; 

is development about GDP growth and the institutions 

that support (or hinder) it, or is it about small agencies 

and local governments addressing the specific needs of 

the poor? Much theoretical discussion has taken place 

around these questions, but ultimately “development” 

is an “essentially contested concept” (Gallie 1956). 

In addition to these theoretical discussions, 

abundant anecdotal evidence repeatedly affirms that 

the concept of “development” is not understood in the 

same way by everyone. To show this conclusively, 

rigorous academic research is required. Even if 

perceptions differ between individuals, there may be 

some commonality between groupings of people that 

share certain characteristics. What is salient when it 

comes to defining the term “development,” is 1) 

whether there is cohesive perception within stakeholder 

groups involved in the development process, 2) 

whether there is commonality between stakeholder 

groups, and 3) what the implications of any differences 

between stakeholder groups might be for long-term 

outcomes of development interventions. This study 

focuses primarily on the second question, while 

touching upon the first and third. 

A fair amount of literature addresses similar – 

though not identical – questions. We have organized 

that literature into classes, each one progressively 

fulfilling more criteria that we deem important for a 

rigorous empirical study on the meaning of 

“development” to have (these are the same criteria 

upon which we designed our own study). For example, 

studies should ideally address the meaning of 

“development” directly, and not simply through 

associated terms. Ideal studies should also compare at 

least two perspectives on what “development” means. 

We are especially interested in studies that include 

beneficiary perspectives, and not just the perspectives 

of those on the giving end of development assistance. 

Finally, it is important that studies that meet all of the 

previous criteria also be empirically-based rather than 

reason-based; we sought studies that were field-tested, 

and not just conceived through rational means. These 

search criteria are summed up in Table 1. 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 1(2), Winter 2020  

 
Kiš, Cabus, Romo, and Welch, “We are poor, but we are developed”  94
   

 

 C
la

ss
 1

 

C
la

ss
 2

 

C
la

ss
 3

 

C
la

ss
 4

 

C
la

ss
 5

 

C
la

ss
 6

 

Defines 

“Develop-

ment” 

  X X X X 

Includes 

Multiple 

Perspectives 

   X X X 

Includes 

Beneficiary 

Perspectives 

 X   X X 

Field 

Researched 
     X 

Table 1: Literature Search Criteria and Classes of 

Studies Found 

 

Class 1 studies are those that do not directly 

address the definition of “development” itself, but 

rather explore concepts related to development. 

Additionally, these studies did not consider multiple 

perspectives and they are not field researched. 

Nevertheless, they are included in the literature review 

because they highlight the substantial scholarly activity 

around the semantics of key development terms. 

Studying the meaning of development terms is clearly 

not a fringe exercise. Examples include Cornwall and 

Brock (2005), who consider how “participation,” 

“empowerment,” and “poverty reduction” have 

morphed over time to mean very different things than 

before, and how this change in meaning impacts those 

terms’ ability to engender development. Holmberg and 

Sandbrook (1992) argue that “sustainable 

development” needs to be more precisely defined. 

Tipple and Speak (2005) advocate for defining 

“homelessness” in situ so that homeless people can be 

accurately identified and targeted for development 

assistance. Eyben and Napier-Moore (2009) discuss 

how the meaning of “women’s empowerment” within 

the context of international development has many 

shifting meanings, depending upon who is wielding it 

and what their intentions are. And Campbell and 

Vainio-Mattila (2003) posit that “participatory 

development” and “community-based conservation” 

are related terms, and advocate for further exploration 

and clearer definition of those terms as a means of 

making them function synergistically. 

 
1

 The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Development Assistance Committee. The 

OECD-DAC serves as a forum for the world’s most developed countries to discuss and coordinate aid strategy. There 

is much overlap between G7 and OECD-DAC membership, although OECD-DAC membership is considerably 

larger. Being a member of OECD-DAC is a tacit acknowledgement by other members that they consider the country 

to be fully developed, implying that its only role in development intervention should be that of an aid donor and not a 

Class 2 studies continue in the same vein as Class 

1, but also consider the perspectives of beneficiaries. 

Examples include Marcus (2001), in which the impact 

of conservation projects in Madagascar upon 

beneficiaries’ perceptions of the meaning of 

“conservation” are investigated. Lipi (2016) explores 

the meaning of “dignity” and “empowerment” to 

beneficiaries of a women’s microcredit program in 

Bangladesh. And Quinn et al. (2003) assesses local 

perceptions of “environmental risk” in Tanzania. 

Class 3 studies begin to address the meaning of 

“development” itself. Seers (2010), for example, 

defines “development” in the context of government 

priorities. He writes, “The questions to ask about a 

country’s development are therefore: What has been 

happening to poverty? What has been happening to 

unemployment? What has been happening to 

inequality? If all three of these have become less severe, 

then beyond doubt this has been a period of 

development for the country concerned” (Seers 2010, 

12). Ingham (1993) analyzed how the meaning of 

“development” has shifted in response to the spirit of 

the times (people-centered development, sustainability, 

and so forth). Yet all of her examples focus exclusively 

on the perceptions of those on the giving end of 

development assistance. Blowfield (2005) reports on 

how some have redefined “development” as Corporate 

Social Responsibility (CSR), and suggests that such a 

redefinition may not be warranted. Offutt and Reynolds 

(2019) look at how “development” is defined by leaders 

of Faith-Based Organizations (FBOs), finding that 

many subscribed to the transformation paradigm: 

development as restoring broken relationships (human 

to human, human to God, etc.). Diallo and Thuillier 

(2004) discuss the success of “development” as defined 

by the perceptions of development project coordinators 

in Africa. And Sen (1999) elaborate upon 

“development as freedom” in a book by that title. 

Class 4 studies take the focus on “development” of 

Class 3 studies and include multiple perspectives. 

Examples of this include Horn and Grugel’s study 

which reports that the Sustainable Development Goals 

(SDG’s) are understood and prioritized differently 

according to stakeholder groups in Ecuador (Horn and 

Grugel 2018). In this particular case, the two 

stakeholder groups under comparison are national 

government and Quito city government officials. And a 

cluster of studies all pointed out the differences 

between OECD-DAC
1

 and non-OECD-DAC donors 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 1(2), Winter 2020  

 
Kiš, Cabus, Romo, and Welch, “We are poor, but we are developed”  95
   

 

on what “development” means, highlighting how this 

can get in the way of streamlining cooperation and 

harmonizing work toward a common goal 

(Zimmerman and Smith 2011; Bräutigam 2011; 

Chandy and Kharas 2011). 

Class 5 studies move beyond simply including 

multiple perspectives to specifically including 

beneficiary definitions. For example, Cavalcanti (2007) 

reports on the conflicting views of what “development” 

means to a development agency and its beneficiaries in 

Brazil. Cavalcanti do not, however, explore those 

perceptions directly with beneficiaries; instead, he 

speaks with development technicians and reports their 

negative opinions of beneficiaries for not getting on 

board with the project. Bell and Morse (2011) reveal 

how indicator selection for “development” can be 

tyrannical if exercised by powerful external agencies 

upon beneficiaries who don’t contribute to that 

definition. Their article strongly advocates on behalf of 

the inclusion of beneficiary voices, but is not itself based 

upon field research with beneficiaries. Finally, Scheld 

(2018) discusses how the difference between NGOs 

and the common people in defining Haiti’s 

development trajectory ultimately holds back Haiti’s 

development. 

Class 6 studies meet all of the criteria specified by 

Table 1: they focus on defining “development,” they 

include multiple perspectives, they specifically include 

beneficiary perspectives, and they are based upon field 

research. Parkinson (2009) presents a case study of a 

development program in Uganda, describing a 

mismatch between the assumptions of the government 

implementers and beneficiaries on what the goal of 

“development” is for the project. The impacts of this 

mismatch are analyzed in light of Participatory 

Monitoring and Evaluation (PM&E), with the finding 

that beneficiaries do not buy into program 

implementers’ visions and feel that bureaucratic and 

accountability requirements are not their responsibility. 

Carroll-Bell (2015) analyzes three case studies of 

NGOs in Timor-Leste that explore strategies for 

development that take local definitions into account. 

Citing Lewis and Mosse (2006:9), Carroll-Bell writes, 

“the authors argue that significant ethnographic 

research is needed to elucidate ‘the ways in which 

development meanings are produced and negotiated in 

practice and how development processes and 

interactions have different significance for the various 

actors involved’” (2015:314). The present study is one 

such research project, though it differs from Parkinson 

(2009) and Carroll-Bell (2015) in its methodological 

approach, avoiding the case study method in favor of an 

ethnographic survey. 

 
recipient. Nevertheless, some countries play the role of donor, despite not being considered developed enough to 

merit OECD-DAC membership (and, of course, many countries play only the role of aid recipients). 

It should not be construed that any of the foregoing 

literature that did not meet all of the criteria in Table 1 

is somehow deficient or inaccurate. The criteria in 

Table 1 were merely used to highlight the characteristics 

of the research study that we aimed to do, and to 

demonstrate that many of the previous studies did not 

take the particular approach that we deemed necessary 

to fill a specific gap in the literature. 

 

Background 

All of the foregoing contested meanings of 

“development” and its associated terms have an impact 

on the day-to-day operations of development agencies 

at all levels. Even if large institutions don’t pay much 

attention to differences in perception at the grassroots 

level, differences of perception can still impact the 

rollout of development plans and programs. Thus, this 

study was designed around one particular development 

agency and its associated stakeholders in order to 

understand the nature of perceptions on 

“development” at various levels, to highlight areas 

where those perceptions may differ, and to propose 

ways in which differential perceptions can be 

transformed from barriers into opportunities. 

The Adventist Development and Relief Agency 

(ADRA), with headquarters in the United States, is a 

faith-based international NGO that works in the 

domain of humanitarian relief and international 

development in more than 120 countries around the 

world. It is the official humanitarian arm of the Seventh-

day Adventist Church. Although it is motivated by love 

for God and concern for fellow humans, ADRA does 

not discriminate in its programs; one does not have to 

be a church member in order to benefit from ADRA’s 

projects, and  church membership is not even a 

criterion for beneficiary selection. Furthermore, ADRA 

does not discriminate by religion in its hiring practices, 

save for the most senior positions which do require 

membership in the Seventh-day Adventist church. 

Finally, ADRA is explicitly non-proselytizing; there is 

no expectation of conversion on the part of 

beneficiaries, and such conversion is neither actively 

sought nor explicitly discouraged. Though owned and 

operated by the Seventh-day Adventist church, ADRA 

exists to serve the needs of all humanity regardless of 

religious persuasion. 

To explore perceptions of the meaning of 

“development” by various stakeholder groups in the 

development process, we undertook a research project 

in Leyte province, Philippines in 2016. Although the 

Principal Investigator (PI) never worked for ADRA in 

the Philippines, he did work for ADRA in sub-Saharan 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 1(2), Winter 2020  

 
Kiš, Cabus, Romo, and Welch, “We are poor, but we are developed”  96
   

 

Africa for six years. Having lived in the Philippines for 

three years himself, the PI’s personal acquaintance with 

the management team, and ADRA Philippines’ 

openness to research s helped the PI select the 

Philippines as a research site. ADRA Philippines 

provided logistical support for various aspects of the 

research project, but they neither commissioned it nor 

financed it. The research project was born entirely of 

the PI’s initiative and was completely paid for through 

research funding from the PI’s North American 

academic institution. This minimized research 

influence from ADRA Philippines while providing 

access to ADRA Philippines’ personnel and project 

sites. 

In consultation with the ADRA Philippines team, 

Leyte province was identified as a prime location to 

conduct this study. ADRA was heavily involved in 

disaster relief projects following Typhoon Haiyan 

(known locally as Yolanda) which ravaged the province 

in 2013. Over time, ADRA’s interventions transitioned 

to long-term development projects as the province was 

restored to previous operating levels by both national 

and international actors. As the majority of 

humanitarian agencies moved on to other disaster 

zones around the world, ADRA stayed behind, aiming 

to improve the quality of life for Leyte residents beyond 

pre-Haiyan levels. This means that ADRA has had a 

significant presence in the province – among the criteria 

deemed important for a study such as this. 

At the time of this study, ADRA Philippines 

worked primarily in two regions of Leyte province. The 

province occupies the northern three-quarters of Leyte 

island, which is located on the east-central side of the 

Philippine archipelago, facing the Pacific Ocean. In the 

city of Tacloban and its environs (located in northeast 

Leyte), ADRA operated the ERL project (Economic 

Recovery in Leyte), a livelihoods project that aimed to 

restore (and possibly supersede) previous levels of 

economic self-sufficiency for residents impacted by the 

storm. In the municipality of Bato and its environs 

(located in southwest Leyte), ADRA operated the 

MASIGLAHI maternal and child health project (an 

acronym in the local language that means “Better 

Nutrition for Mothers and Children”), which “aims to 

reduce acute and chronic malnutrition among children 

within their first 1,000 days to prevent irreversible 

effects of malnutrition” 

(http://adra.ph/index.php/causes/masiglahi/). It is in 

these two project regions that the current research study 

was carried out. 

 

Methodology 

This research study used a mixed-methods design. 

The initial qualitative phase took place in Bato and its 

environs as a way to understand the nature of 

development stakeholders’ perceptions. Open-ended 

methods were used to elicit descriptions of what people 

perceive when they hear the word “development.” 

From those descriptions, quantitative surveys were 

developed and administered in Tacloban and its 

environs in order to determine the extent of differing 

perceptions among the various stakeholder groups. 

The hypotheses tested were as follows: 

 

H0: There is no significant difference between 

stakeholder groups on perceptions of the 

meaning of “development.” 

H1: There is a significant difference between 

stakeholder groups on perceptions of the 

meaning of “development.” 

 

Creswell and Clark (2006) describe a number of 

different models for mixed-method studies. Some 

studies are primarily quantitative with the qualitative 

portion serving a supplementary role; others are 

primarily qualitative with the quantitative portion 

serving a supplementary role; and still others are equally 

weighted, with qualitative and quantitative portions 

serving complementary roles. This study falls under the 

first type: a study in which the primary aim is to measure 

quantitative differences between stakeholder groups in 

their perceptions of “development,” but where the 

qualitative phase was a necessary preliminary step which 

enabled better quantitative measurement. Creswell and 

Clark define this as an exploratory sequential design 

where the qualitative phase provides data upon which 

to build and test the quantitative phase. They write that 

this method is appropriate when one wants to “explore 

a phenomenon in depth and then measure its 

prevalence” (Creswell and Clark 2006, 75). 

Since data collection occurred sequentially (qualitative 

first, then quantitative) and because development of the 

quantitative survey was dependent upon the results of 

the qualitative phase, both methods and results are 

presented in the same order in which they took place 

during data collection: qualitative methods then 

qualitative results, quantitative methods then 

quantitative results. 

But first, a word about the languages of data 

collection and how that impacted understanding of the 

word “development” for both stages. All interactions 

with ADRA personnel were conducted in English. 

Knowledge of English is a prerequisite for most jobs at 

ADRA, and since English is one of the official 

languages of the Philippines and is widely taught in 

schools, anyone with a substantial amount of education 

speaks English with a fair amount of fluency. The 

language in which most qualitative interviews and focus 

group discussions in the field were conducted, however, 

was Cebuano, the local language in southwest Leyte, 

and most quantitative surveys were conducted in 

Waray-Waray, the local language in northern Leyte. 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 1(2), Winter 2020  

 
Kiš, Cabus, Romo, and Welch, “We are poor, but we are developed”  97
   

 

This is because beneficiaries have substantially less 

fluency in English than do ADRA employees. 

This raises an important concern: different 

languages were used to conduct a study on the 

conception of a single word, “development.” By the 

very act of translation, “development” becomes another 

word – one that has an infinite range of possibilities for 

correlation with the precise meaning in another 

language. Still, the extent to which the inexactitude of 

translation may have affected our results in no way 

surpasses the extent to which the same inexactitude of 

translation impacts the sharing of a common perception 

by all stakeholders in the international development 

process. In other words, whatever challenges this 

introduced into the validity of our study were exactly 

mirrored by the challenges all development 

organizations face when working across a language 

barrier. That is precisely part of the point: beneficiaries 

may not understand the purpose and intent of 

development interventions in the same way as 

implementing actors partly due to linguistic difficulties. 

By entering that same murky netherworld of linguistic 

imprecision that ADRA Philippines and other 

international development agencies dwell in on a 

constant basis, we could conduct a sort of participant-

observation on how this affects communication and the 

sharing of perceptions and ideals pertaining to 

“development.” 

One might wonder why we chose to enter into this 

linguistic quagmire in the first place; why not interview 

all Filipino study participants in their local language? 

The reason is that Cebuano and Waray-Waray are only 

two of many languages spoken in the Philippines, and 

they are not spoken by many ADRA employees, who 

hail from all regions of the Philippines and speak a 

variety of mother tongues. Thus, conducting research 

in English, Cebuano, and Waray-Waray was the 

minimum number of languages possible to accomplish 

this study as designed. 

 

Qualitative Methods 

In order to generate descriptions of what 

development looks like in each stakeholder’s mind, 

semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions 

were held with respondents from each of three 

stakeholder groups: 

 

1. ADRA Philippines employees; 

2. Local government officials who directly liaised 

with ADRA projects; and 

 
2

 A barangay is a local government unit below the level of province, akin to counties or townships in North America. 
3

 Although barangay health workers are technically government employees, these respondents were also beneficiaries 

of the ADRA project, and so were included in the focus group. 

3. Development beneficiaries in communities 

where ADRA was working. 

Interviews of beneficiaries and government 

officials took place within the communities where 

ADRA was working, while interviews of ADRA 

employees took place within ADRA offices. 

Eleven ADRA employees, one government 

official, and eighteen beneficiaries were interviewed 

one-on-one. Across the thirty individuals interviewed, 

twenty were female and ten were male. Professions of 

respondents varied from positions within ADRA to 

occupations within the communities, such as 

nutritionist, farmer, fisherman, nurse, housewife, and 

small business owner. The average years of education 

for beneficiaries was 7.8 years, for ADRA employees 

15.2 years, and for all respondents 10.7 years. 

Of particular concern was the low number of 

representatives from the local government. It was 

difficult to find them in the communities where 

ADRA was working because they frequently circulated 

within their jurisdiction, some of which fell outside 

ADRA project areas. Thus, a focus group was 

convened in conjunction with a regularly-scheduled 

meeting of government officials as a way to boost the 

number of respondents from this category. This focus 

group consisted of seven individuals, all female. The 

professions within this group included barangay 

councilors
2

, government-employed nurses, and experts 

on agriculture and nutrition. The average years of 

education were 11.9. 

Finally, although the overall number of 

beneficiaries who participated in individual interviews 

was adequate for our purposes, we conducted a focus 

group discussion with beneficiaries. The format of a 

focus group is such that it can elicit different kinds of 

information than would be generated during an 

interview. Consequently, we convened a focus group 

of 10 beneficiaries in order to discuss what they 

perceive “development” to mean. All participants were 

female. The majority identified as housewives, while 

the others were seamstresses, single parents, and 

barangay health workers
3

. This group averaged 9.8 

years of education. 

Given that the interviews and focus group 

discussions were semi-structured, all respondents were 

asked the same initial questions, but were allowed to 

diverge as necessary in order to give a more complete 

picture of their perceptions. Research assistants were 

also allowed to ask follow-up questions that were not 

part of the initial list in order to explore answers 

further. The starter questions were as follows: 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 1(2), Winter 2020  

 
Kiš, Cabus, Romo, and Welch, “We are poor, but we are developed”  98
   

 

 

1. When you hear the word “development,” what 

images/descriptions come to your mind? 

2. Describe for me what you think a developed 

country or society looks like. 

3. Describe for me what you think a developed 

community looks like. 

4. Describe for me what you think a developed 

person looks like. 

5. Do you consider yourself to be a developed 

person? Why, or why not? 

The first question was intended to elicit free lists 

of association with the specific term “development.” It 

was also meant to get the respondents’ minds thinking 

about development generally before delving into more 

and more specific questions. Questions 2 through 4 

asked respondents to think about development at 

three successively narrower levels: large (country or 

society), medium (community), and small (individual). 

Once the focus was on the individual, it set the stage 

for question 5, which asked about development on a 

personal level. 

 

Qualitative Results 
The primary purpose of the qualitative phase was 

to develop a list of terms that could be used to 

describe the meaning of “development” to various 

stakeholders. We were also interested in illustrative 

quotes that could expound upon those short 

descriptors. But in terms of qualitative analysis, we 

initially restricted ourselves to extracting specific terms 

from interviews and focus group discussions and then 

merging terms that were synonymic. For example, if 

one respondent said “cell phones” and another said 

“mobile phones”, we would consider that an identical 

response. We were not creating categories so much as 

standardizing terms. That being said, some 

respondents listed discrete items (i.e. “cell phones”) 

whereas others spoke in categories (i.e. “technology”). 

Thus, our list of terms derived from respondents 

includes a mix of specific items and general categories. 

In all, we identified 75 discrete responses from 

across our sample, though not all were mentioned with 

the same frequency. Some were mentioned by nearly 

all respondents, whereas others were mentioned by 

only one or two. Table 2 lists those responses that 

recurred with relative frequency
4

. Because we were 

particularly interested in comparing stakeholders’ 

perceptions, we listed each stakeholder group 

separately. Responses from all five starter questions are 

collapsed in Table 2, because the questions were all 

 
4

 Relative frequency was subjectively defined, but in most cases, there was a clear threshold. For example, some terms 

elicited from one group might have two or three mentions, and then the next closest cluster had seven or eight. All 

inclusion decisions were made as a research team, and do not reflect the bias of a single person. 

designed to elicit different dimensions of the same 

concept. 

 

 

B
e
n

ef
ic

ia
ri

es
 

G
o

ve
rn

m
en

t 

A
D

R
A

 

Employment/Livelihood 

Opportunities 

X X X 

Good Infrastructure X X X 

Financial Security X X X 

Good Transportation X X X 

Support from the 

Government/NGOs 

X X X 

Peace and Security (Crime-Free) X X X 

Improved Living X X  

Well-Dressed People X X  

Organized/Clean Society with 

Working Systems 

X  X 

Happiness/Good Attitude X   

Hard-Working Citizens X   

Community/Family Unity X   

Self-Control X   

Good Health Knowledge and 

Systems 

 X X 

Good Governance  X X 

Progress/Improvement  X X 

Technology/Communication  X  

Success  X  

High-Quality People  X  

Polite/Well-Mannered People   X 

Intelligence/Knowledgeable 

People 

  X 

Independent People   X 

Table 2: Development is… 

 

Response extraction of beneficiary data yielded 39 

distinct terms; 14 were recurring and appear in Table 2. 

Response extraction of government data yielded 31 

distinct terms; again, 14 were recurring and appear in 

Table 2. Response extraction of ADRA employee data 

yielded 52 distinct terms; coincidentally, exactly 14 were 

also recurring and appear in Table 2. 

Looking at the table, one notices some overlap 

among the three stakeholder groups. But there is also 

some difference. Figure 1 is a Venn Diagram of how 

much overlap there is between stakeholder groups on 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 1(2), Winter 2020  

 
Kiš, Cabus, Romo, and Welch, “We are poor, but we are developed”  99
   

 

the meaning of “development.” It is based upon the 

data presented in Table 2. 

 
Figure 1: Venn Diagram of Overlap Between 

Stakeholder Perceptions 

(A = Beneficiaries; B = Government; C = ADRA) 

 

From Figure 1, it becomes clear that slightly less 

than half (6 out of 14) of the perceptions of 

“development” are shared in common across all three 

stakeholder groups (ABC). If one compares any two 

stakeholder groups (AB + ABC, for example), slightly 

more than half of the perceptions are held in common. 

Thus, for each stakeholder group, slightly less than half 

of their perceptions are completely unique. Given that 

this was not a representative sample, however, one must 

be cautious about making overly extensive conclusions 

about any overlap in the general population’s 

perceptions on the meaning of the word 

“development.” Such confidence is better suited to the 

quantitative analysis which took place during the latter 

phase of this study (see “Quantitative Results” below). 

It should be noted that exclusion of certain terms 

that were hardly mentioned by a particular stakeholder 

group does not mean that nobody from that group 

mentioned it at all. Only that it was not a major 

recurring term. Thus, for example, one should not read 

Table 2 to say that nobody from the beneficiary group 

mentioned anything about good governance at all, only 

that it was not a major recurring term for beneficiaries, 

whereas it was for government workers and ADRA 

employees. 

 
Digging Deeper 

Having completed our primary task of distilling 

vast amounts of information into discrete terms, we 

looked again at the narrative descriptions our 

respondents provided during interviews and focus 

group discussions. Some illustrative quotes help place 

responses in context, and understand where 

respondents are coming from when they mention 

certain key terms. For example, when expounding 

upon her response that Employment (one of the terms 

listed in Table 2) is a key component of her definition 

of “development,” a 29-year-old female nutritionist 

officer from ADRA said that a developed person is 

someone “with a source of income, with a stable job, 

one who is independent and can provide for the people 

who are dependent on him without outside help or 

forces.” This also touches upon the themes of Financial 

Security and Independent People. Good 

Infrastructure, on the other hand, means “good 

highways, a nice [taxi] terminal, a baywalk, [public] 

comfort rooms, and a good marketplace.” according to 

a 27-year-old beneficiary housewife. “Many big houses, 

basketball courts, gymnasium, school buildings, and 

public comfort rooms,” added a 33-year-old beneficiary 

housewife. For one 33-year-old male ADRA employee, 

good infrastructure took a very specific shape: 

“Uniformity of houses.” 

The concept of support from the 

Government/NGOs, while being shared across all three 

stakeholder groups, appears to be perceived differently, 

even if it was mentioned in common. Many 

beneficiaries listed some form of external care as a sign 

of development, such as government projects to help 

poor people, ongoing support from international 

organizations, or remittances sent from relatives 

abroad. A 38-year-old beneficiary housewife said that, 

to her, development means getting “support from the 

government, many programs, and help from the 

president, especially during disasters.” Note that 

beneficiaries did not speak of outside support as a 

means to attain development, but rather as a sign of 

being a developed society, community, or individual. 

Developed people, in this conception, are those who 

are well-cared for on a long-term basis by benevolent 

external agencies. Contrary to Western conceptions of 

development bringing independence and self-

sufficiency (see the following paragraph), many 

beneficiaries saw development as bringing ongoing 

dependence. Although this study did not set out to 

establish whether or not the Philippines is a clientelistic 

society, the belief that permanent dependence upon a 

wealthy benefactor is a marker of success is one 

hallmark of patron-client relationships, which is well-

documented in the literature (Kiš 2014; Hutchcroft 

1997; Auyero 2000; Sun, Zhu, and Wu 2014; 

Szwarcberg 2013). 

In contrast to the beneficiary view of social support, 

ADRA employees stressed that it was only to be a safety 

net for the poorest of the poor. A 35-year-old male 

ADRA employee emphasized that in a developed 

society, the government “supports those who are not 

well off,” but that such a society still “has poor people 

who haven’t taken full advantage of the opportunities 

afforded to them.” In other words, government support 

is a stop-gap measure, not a permanent fixture. Many 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 1(2), Winter 2020  

 
Kiš, Cabus, Romo, and Welch, “We are poor, but we are developed”  100
   

 

ADRA employees mentioned the closely related theme 

of independence, stating that it is a necessary criterion 

for development. A 29-year-old female nutritionist 

officer said that “education is not a criterion because 

some are graduates but not developed because they are 

dependent.” Social support and independence are not 

contradictory in this view; those who are developed are 

independent and don’t need social support; but social 

support exists to take care of those who are not 

developed yet. 

Elaborating upon the idea of improved living, a 41-

year-old beneficiary housewife said, “Development 

means there is hope to have a better life.” Well-dressed 

people, according to a 24-year-old beneficiary 

housewife, means, “clothing, jewelry, accessories, 

physical appearance or grooming, having an education, 

being fluent in conversation, and having a good 

attitude.” Happiness/good attitude was expressed by 

one 19-year-old female beneficiary student as “bundles 

of joy shared.” 

Not only did beneficiaries view dependence upon 

wealthy benefactors as a positive marker for 

development, they also favored dependence upon each 

other as a sign of good development. Many 

beneficiaries spoke of a developed society as being 

characterized by unity, sharing, cooperation, and caring 

within families and communities. A 52-year-old male 

farmer said that development means “being able to help 

others financially when needed, being able to easily 

lend money.” 

A 23-year-old female nutritionist officer described 

development as Good Health, saying that a developed 

person is “tall or the right height (or standard normal 

height), normal weight, has pimple-free skin, is 

knowledgeable about nutrition facts, has a complete set 

of teeth, and has clear vision.” 

Good governance was described by a 27-year-old 

male ADRA nutritionist as “commitment and 

involvement of community leaders to any program, 

even though it’s not profitable to them.” A 25-year-old 

female social worker said that in a developed society, 

you have “visible government officials.” When asked to 

elaborate, she said that meant that they were out in the 

community doing their jobs, rather than holing up in an 

office somewhere refusing to mingle with their 

constituents. And a 32-year-old male accountant said 

that in a developed society, people “trust local 

government officials; they can see where their taxes go, 

and there is less corruption, more peace, and more 

security.” 

One member of the government focus group 

alluded to Technology/Communication as “having nice 

gadgets,” which she elaborated to mean cell phones, 

computers, and tablets. This idea was reinforced by the 

other members of the focus group; throughout the 

discussion, reference to technology and 

communication came up repeatedly. 

The government group also talked about 

development being associated with high-quality people, 

or “good-looking people”, as one respondent put it. A 

developed person is one with “good looks and gains 

weight,” said another. Finally, when talking about 

Intelligence/Knowledgeable People, a 23-year-old 

female ADRA nutritionist officer said, “developed 

people are knowledgeable, living in reality.” 

 
Self-Perceptions of Development 

Given the wide range of definitions of 

“development,” it is perhaps not surprising that 

beneficiary answers to the final starter question – “Do 

you consider yourself to be a developed person? Why, 

or why not?” – were split almost equally three ways 

between “Yes,” “Partially,” and “No” (Yes = 7 

respondents; Partially = 5; No = 6). Of those who 

answered “Yes” or “Partially,” they frequently cited 

having achieved a satisfactory level on one or more 

dimensions of development that had already been 

identified. For example, “We are poor, but we are 

developed,” declared a 62-year-old beneficiary 

housewife. “My children managed to find good work 

and to give an example to others; they respect us very 

well. We are poor in money, but rich in manners.” This 

response acknowledged her poverty in one sense – 

financial – while affirming her wealth in another – 

having good manners and respect. “Finding extra 

income is easy,” said a 35-year-old female small 

business owner. “Many people are coming and asking 

for help, I have a good source of income, I am able to 

pay my debts and shop for clothes, and I am able to 

provide for the needs of my children.” And a 36-year-

old male fisherman stated that he is developed because 

“I am doing my best to improve so I can be able to buy 

the things I want; I am happy because I have a fishing 

boat.” 

Among ADRA employees, answers to the final 

question about personal development were mostly 

spread between “Yes” and “Partially” (Yes = 5 

respondents; Partially = 4; No = 2). Reasons given for 

being developed included “Because I am 

independent,” “I have a good source of income,” and 

“I have (material possessions).” Those who were more 

tentative about their personal development status 

equivocated that “Development never stops; it’s 

continuous,” “I’m still learning and developing skills,” 

and “I’m still not developed enough.” 

 

Quantitative Methods 
The qualitative phase produced rich information 

that gave us insights into how development is perceived 

by the stakeholders under investigation. It also gave us 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 1(2), Winter 2020  

 
Kiš, Cabus, Romo, and Welch, “We are poor, but we are developed”  101
   

 

a list of terms to be used to illustrate perceptions of 

“development.” But it cannot tell us the extent of any 

differences in perception, nor even confirm whether 

there is any difference at all. Since the respondents for 

the qualitative phase were not drawn using a probability 

sample, we cannot rule out that any apparent 

differences between groups are actually the result of 

sampling bias and not any real underlying variation. For 

that, we need a quantitative survey using an unbiased 

probability sample. That is the focus of phase two of 

this study. 

In order to test our hypotheses, we required a 

structured survey instrument that could be 

administered to each of the stakeholder groups, and 

that would detect similarities or differences of 

perception in the meaning of “development.” 

Moreover, we wanted a locally relevant instrument 

which referenced ideas and artifacts from everyday 

Filipino life. Finally, we wanted our survey prompts to 

be standardized. For these reasons, we decided upon a 

pictorial survey. With words (“Let me describe a 

scenario, and you rate how developed that image seems 

to be”), everyone would evaluate a different mental 

picture. With photographs, everyone would have the 

same image and would be evaluating the same survey 

prompt. 

Because a survey of this kind has never been done 

before in the same way and same place, we developed 

a pictorial survey of our own. In the qualitative phase, 

respondents had converted the images in their heads 

into words; for the quantitative phase, we converted 

those words back into images. First, we took all 75 

responses – including those that did not recur – and 

grouped them into categories. As described in the 

beginning of the “Qualitative Results”, we noted that 

some of the responses were discrete items (such as “cell 

phones”) and others were categories (such as 

“technology”). For clarity, we categorized all responses; 

those that were already categories remained so, and 

those that were discrete items were classified into 

categories. This was conducted through pile sorting of 

the 75 responses written out on index cards and was a 

team effort. After we had pile sorted all responses, we 

ended up with 22 categories, some containing as few as 

one item, others containing as many as eight. This 

process guided us when developing the pictorial survey. 

We ultimately depicted discrete items and images in 

our survey, rather than abstract categories. But we 

selected the items in such a way that they represented 

the full spectrum of categories. This way, we could 

avoid having, for example, ten survey prompts about 

technology and none about health. 

After selecting the items for the pictorial survey, we 

staged a series of photographs with props and local 

volunteers (who gave their informed consent, as did all 

interview and survey participants) in order to depict the 

selected terms. For example, Figure 2 is the survey 

prompt for Category 6 (Technology/Communication), 

Item g. (Cell phones); Figure 3 is the survey prompt for 

Category 15 (Organized/Clean Society with Working 

Systems), Item a. (Garbage segregation). 

 

 
Figure 2: Survey Prompt 6g 
 

 
Figure 3: Survey Prompt 15a 
 

In some cases, we used several images to represent 

a category, such as 6.a. (Computers) and 6.g. (Cell 

phones), which both represented Category 6 

(Technology/Communication). Notice also how the 

image in Figure 3 is local in origin; recycling and 

garbage bins around the world look very different from 

those in Leyte province. If we had simply used a word-

based survey, differences in mental image might mean 

that respondents weren’t evaluating the same thing. 

In all, forty pictures were produced that depicted 

terms derived from the qualitative phase. We did not 

want the survey to be too short to detect significant 

differences in perceptions, nor too long to maintain 

respondents’ attention. When administering the survey, 

we showed each of the pictures (printed on large photo 

paper) to respondents one at a time (Figure 4), read the 

caption (such as “Cell phones” or “Garbage 

segregation”), and asked respondents, “On a scale of 1-

5, with 1 being very underdeveloped and 5 being very 

developed, how developed does this image appear to 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 1(2), Winter 2020  

 
Kiš, Cabus, Romo, and Welch, “We are poor, but we are developed”  102
   

 

you? Why?” The “why” was a way of triangulating back 

to the first phase of the study to see if a new set of 

respondents picked up on the same themes that the 

qualitative respondents had identified. It was also a way 

of validating the survey itself; if respondents regularly 

identified other elements in the images unrelated to the 

caption that influenced their responses, we could know 

that the images were not good depictions of their 

underlying themes. In practice, this never took place. 

This confirmed the face validity of our survey 

instrument. In addition, five of the survey questions 

were reversed; that is, they depicted scenes that we 

expected to be rated as not developed (such as slums or 

street beggars). Inclusion of some reversed questions 

usually helps to increase the validity and reliability of a 

survey instrument because it measures the same 

concept from different angles. 

 

 
Figure 4: Survey Data Collection 

 

Finally, we shuffled the stack of pictures among 

respondents to eliminate ordering bias, which can occur 

when survey prompts are always given in the same 

order. People may be influenced to answer questions in 

specific ways if they are preceded by certain other 

questions; shuffling the order of question 

administration canceled out this ordering effect. 

Our initial Cronbach alpha reliability 

measurement was .896, which is exceptionally good. 

However, all five reversed items presented problems; 

four of them had negative item-total correlations, and 

one of them had a very low positive item-total 

correlation (.069). Our survey reliability analysis also 

indicated that the Cronbach alpha could be significantly 

improved by deleting these five items from the 

questionnaire. Having done so, we ended up with a 

Cronbach alpha of .924 and no remaining problematic 

items. What this means in practical terms is that survey 

respondents didn't consistently understand reversed 

questions. Far from improving the reliability of the 

survey, adding reversed items only muddled its 

comprehensibility. Thus, our final survey questionnaire 

contained 35 items that were reliably understood by 

respondents. 

As with the qualitative phase, quantitative surveys 

were administered to each of the three different 

stakeholder groups: 

Surveys of beneficiaries and government officials 

took place within the communities where ADRA was 

working, while surveys of ADRA employees took place 

at ADRA offices. The geographical separation of the 

primary locations of qualitative data collection (Bato) 

and quantitative data collection (Tacloban) minimized 

potential data contamination between the two groupings 

of respondents, as the two areas are approximately 150 

km apart.  

The survey was administered to 249 ADRA project 

beneficiaries, fifteen local government officials, and 

thirteen ADRA employees. This represented the 

totality of ADRA employees not interviewed in the 

qualitative phase, the majority of local government 

officials liaising with ADRA projects in the area, and 

approximately 10% of the beneficiary population in the 

area (2,500 people were targeted by the ERL project in 

the vicinity of Tacloban). The sex ratio (female/male) 

for beneficiaries was 69.5/30.5, for ADRA employees 

was 35.7/64.3, and for local government officials was 

73.3/26.7. As with the qualitative phase, professions of 

respondents varied from positions within ADRA to 

occupations within the communities, such as farmer, 

student, laborer, housekeeper, and small business 

owner. The average years of education for beneficiaries 

was 7.5 years, 14.5 for ADRA employees, and 9.1 for 

government officials. 

 

Quantitative Results 
After administering the surveys, we ran ANOVA 

in SPSS to compare mean responses across stakeholder 

groups on each of the 35 questions (see Appendix 1 for 

details). Out of 35 survey questions, there were 11 

(31.4%) with significant differences between at least 

some of the groups under comparison, which 

represents nearly a third of the survey questions. Table 

3 lists those variables with significant group differences, 

and also indicates which groups had significantly 

different means from the others. 

As can be seen from the table, question 6a was an 

anomaly; its test statistic indicated that there would be a 

significant difference in means between at least two 

groups, but its post-hoc test did not find any group 

differences. Nevertheless, for the remainder of the 

group differences, it is clear that the ADRA group 

always differed with at least one of the other groups, and 

nearly always differed from both groups. The 

beneficiary and government groups, however, never 

differed significantly from each other. ADRA was 

clearly the standout group. 

 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 1(2), Winter 2020  

 
Kiš, Cabus, Romo, and Welch, “We are poor, but we are developed”  103
   

 

Q
u
e
st

io
n

 

C
ap

ti
o

n
 

G
ro

u
p
 

D
if

fe
re

n
ce

s5

 

2a Getting Support from 

Different Organizations 

 
3a(2) Having Public Comfort 

Rooms 

 
3e Having a Nice House 

 
3h Having a Public Market 

 
5c Owning a Business 

 
6a 

 

Having Computer Access ??? 

8e Having Basic Furniture 

 
12a Studying Well for School 

 
14a(2) Having a Hospital Nearby 

 
20a Having Bus Service 

 
22a Owning Land 

 
Table 3: Significant Differences Between Groups 

 

Recall that the hypotheses under investigation were 

as follows: 

 

H0: There is no significant difference between 

stakeholder groups on perceptions of the 

meaning of “development.” 

H1: There is a significant difference between 

stakeholder groups on perceptions of the 

meaning of “development.” 

 

Thus, Table 3 is not a measure of agreement, but 

of difference. The remaining 24 out of 35 questions that 

do not appear on Table 3 were those for which no 

significant differences appeared. The ANOVA results 

 
5

 B = Beneficiaries; A = ADRA; G = Government. If groups are listed with a line between them, that means there was a 

significant mean difference between those groups. 

for each of the 35 questions could be viewed as testing 

35 distinct sub-hypotheses; for some questions, the null 

hypothesis was rejected, whereas for others, the null 

hypothesis failed to be rejected. In order to make a 

determination on the overall hypothesis, we needed to 

look at the 35 questions collectively. For this, we ran 

MANOVA (see Appendix 1 for details). The 

MANOVA test was highly significant. This means that 

when considered collectively, we can answer our overall 

research question: There is a significant difference 

between stakeholder groups on perceptions of the 

meaning of “development.” We reject the null 

hypothesis. As we saw with ANOVA, about a third of 

the survey questions were responsible for this overall 

significant result. Thus, stating that there is a significant 

difference between stakeholder groups on perceptions 

of the meaning of “development” does not mean that 

their perceptions differed in all cases, or that they always 

disagreed. It simply means that their perceptions 

differed often enough to be statistically significant. 

 

Discussion and Conclusions 
The qualitative phase provided useful terms for 

quantitative survey elaboration, as well as demonstrating 

the nature of differences in perceptions on key terms 

associated with the meaning of “development.” The 

quantitative phase confirmed that significant differences 

in perception about the meaning of “development” do 

exist between stakeholder groups, and those differences 

were always manifested between the ADRA group and 

the others. Two particularly noteworthy findings are 

that beneficiary respondents focused on personal 

attributes (rather than structural ones) when defining 

“development,” and beneficiaries perceived 

“development” as meaning greater dependence on a 

benefactor (be it ADRA or the government) rather than 

greater independence. The reasons for these 

noteworthy findings could be varied. Although we did 

not measure the wider population during this study, the 

default assumption is that ADRA beneficiaries do not 

significantly differ from the general population in their 

values and perceptions, meaning that these ideas and 

attitudes are widespread. Indeed, the fact that the 

beneficiary group never differed from the government 

group (who were not ADRA beneficiaries) suggests that 

beneficiary perceptions are not solely a function of 

being recipients of ADRA’s aid. 

Further evidence of ADRA’s significantly different 

perception of what “development” means is the fact 

(already noted) that two-thirds of beneficiary 

respondents answered “yes” or “partially” when asked 

if they themselves were developed persons. One can 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 1(2), Winter 2020  

 
Kiš, Cabus, Romo, and Welch, “We are poor, but we are developed”  104
   

 

presume that if ADRA is a development agency and it 

has selected those individuals as beneficiaries, then 

ADRA probably does not share the view that they are 

developed. What could account for those differences in 

perception? Some possible explanations: 

 

1. ADRA employees’ level of education is much 

higher than the average population. This is by 

virtue of the fact that ADRA jobs require 

minimum levels of education that exceed the 

average in the Philippines. In school, ADRA 

employees may have been exposed to more 

new ideas. 

2. Once a person is employed by a development 

agency, much effort is typically expended to 

train them to see the world through the 

organization’s lens. ADRA employees may 

have simply learned to see things differently 

than their compatriots through explicit training. 

3. Finally, the ADRA group reported significantly 

more exposure to developed contexts than 

either of the other two groups.
6

 Perhaps 

exposure to developed countries alters one’s 

perception of what is possible, and what a 

developing country should aspire to. 

 

Regardless of how one explains the differences in 

perception between ADRA and the other groups, an 

additional important question centers around what 

those differences mean for ADRA’s programs. How 

can ADRA’s means and ends reflect that the 

organization takes the perspectives of other 

stakeholders seriously? Without being privy to the 

internal workings of ADRA Philippines, we (the 

authors) do not presume to say whether or not ADRA 

Philippines already does this, but we do suggest that 

development organizations working anywhere in the 

world should at least consider the possibility that their 

perceptions of “development” may differ from those of 

their fellow stakeholders. Responses that take those 

differences seriously could include confirming 

stakeholder perceptions via a study (much like ours) 

and then crafting means and ends in such a way that 

they satisfy multiple stakeholder priorities. As a 

practical example, if ADRA Philippines aims to 

diversify livelihoods for the sake of disaster resilience 

whereas beneficiaries desire to diversify benefactors 

that they can depend upon, then both ends can 

potentially be met by not only training beneficiaries in 

new professions (e.g. training some farmers how to run 

small businesses) but also by plugging them into existing 

 
6

 One demographic question asked respondents to indicate if they had ever been to what they would consider a 

developed country. Although a few beneficiaries and government employees responded in the affirmative, the vast 

majority had not, whereas about half of ADRA employees had. 

professional networks (potential benefactors) which 

support those professions (e.g. a local small business 

association). In other words, taking beneficiary 

perspectives seriously doesn’t have to mean completely 

revamping programs and abandoning development 

agency goals. It can mean simply expanding program 

objectives to include goals that matter to beneficiaries as 

well. 

Beyond explaining differences and considering 

how to take those differences seriously in programmatic 

terms, a third dimension is what those differences mean 

for evaluation. Supposing one studies whether any 

differences in perception exist among stakeholders on 

the meaning of “development,” and supposing an 

organization adjusts its programs to satisfy multiple 

stakeholders, what will be the measures of success? 

Will the organization focus merely on those aspects of 

development that interest its donors, or will the 

organization also hold itself accountable to beneficiary 

expectations? Much has been written about how 

development agencies run the risk of feeling beholden 

only to their donors, as that is the source of continued 

financing and existence (see Easterly 2007). Faith-based 

NGOs such as ADRA are not immune from these 

pressures, but we suggest that this is an area where faith-

based NGOs can take the lead in promoting and 

demonstrating an ethical treatment of fellow 

stakeholders than is greater than the norm. This is one 

way that a faith-based orientation can add value – 

integrating beneficiary community concerns into all 

phases of the development cycle (including evaluation) 

instead of simply going through the motions as a sort of 

tokenism just to please donors. 

This threefold approach to addressing differences 

in perception when they are discovered – explaining 

them, integrating them into development programs, 

and allowing them to inform and expand measures of 

success – can be applied at multiple levels. The most 

immediate level, of course, is the organization that 

participated in this investigation, ADRA Philippines. 

Next, the worldwide ADRA network may consider how 

to apply this approach elsewhere. Finally, other 

agencies (particularly faith-based ones) may 

contemplate whether this is an appropriate model for 

them to follow as well. 

This study was noteworthy not only for its findings, 

but also for what it didn’t find. Specifically, it is curious 

that spirituality did not appear significantly in 

respondent answers about what “development” means 

to them. ADRA is a faith-based NGO and the 

Philippines is an overwhelmingly Christian country (the 

only Christian-majority nation in all of Asia). While 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 1(2), Winter 2020  

 
Kiš, Cabus, Romo, and Welch, “We are poor, but we are developed”  105
   

 

spirituality did register in respondents’ answers, it did 

not register significantly, as one would expect. Table 2 

included only those items that had recurring mentions 

when voluntarily freelisted by respondents. And Table 

3 reported only those items for which there were 

statistically significant differences between groups. 

During freelisting, at least one respondent did mention 

that developed people are those who pray more often 

and are more faithful in going to church; but this was a 

rare mention, and therefore didn’t make the cut for 

Table 2. Nevertheless, the research team thought it 

might still be worthwhile to include at least one spiritual 

item on the quantitative survey, so we included an 

image of a woman praying as one of our survey prompts 

for respondents to evaluate on a scale of 1-5 (very 

undeveloped to very developed). This spiritual item did 

not make it onto Table 3 either as being one of the 

items that differs between groups, but this does not 

mean that it wasn’t rated as highly developed. In fact, all 

three groups rated “prayer” as a 4 or above on average, 

meaning that they considered it an aspect that was either 

“developed” or “very developed.” Since Table 3 was 

looking for significant differences, and all stakeholders 

rated spirituality similarly, it didn’t appear on Table 3, 

but this does not mean that it wasn’t considered 

important. 

It is not unprecedented that an item that was so 

rarely mentioned during freelisting scored so highly 

when presented as a fixed survey option. People do not 

always immediately think of things that are important to 

them when asked to freelist. For example, if one were 

to ask respondents who the most important people are 

in their lives, few respondents might list their boss, but 

if one presented respondents with fixed response 

options which included “boss,” more respondents 

might rate their boss as highly important. Another 

explanation is also plausible: given ADRA’s non-

(religiously)-discriminatory stance in programming and 

hiring and its non-proselytizing orientation, 

respondents may have been initially reflecting what they 

thought ADRA wanted to hear. In fact, given that many 

NGOs operating in the Philippines are non-sectarian, 

perhaps the default assumption on the part of 

beneficiaries is that their benefactor is secular in nature 

and not interested in hearing about (or addressing) 

respondents’ spiritual welfare. Only when the door is 

opened to the spiritual dimension by the benefactor do 

beneficiaries feel comfortable to go there themselves. 

This has implications for faith-based NGOs. If 

they desire to address beneficiaries’ spiritual needs as 

well their physical ones, they must be explicit about 

their openness to address spirituality. If, on the other 

hand, faith-based NGOs wish to focus primarily on the 

physical, leaving the spiritual aspect in the realm of 

motivations, then beneficiaries may perceive them as 

secular. Clear communication in this area may help in 

better aligning understandings of “development.” 

In conclusion, definitions and understandings of 

what it means to be developed differ significantly 

between stakeholder groups, specifically between 

NGOs and the others (beneficiaries and government 

liaisons). Recognizing and addressing these differences 

is a stepping-stone to more ethical humanitarian efforts. 

 

References 
 

Arndt, H. W. 1981. “Economic Development: A 

Semantic History.” Economic Development and 

Cultural Change, 29(3):457—466. 

Auyero, J. 2000. “The Logic of Clientelism in 

Argentina: An Ethnographic Account.” Latin 

American Research Review 35(3):55—81. 

Bell, Simon, and Stephen Morse. 2011. “Sustainable 

Development Indicators: The Tyranny of 

Methodology Revisited.” Consilience, 6(1):222—

239. 

Blowfield, Michael. 2005. “Corporate Social 

Responsibility: Reinventing the Meaning of 

Development?” International Affairs (Royal 

Institute of International Affairs 1944-), 

81(3):515—524. 

Bräutigam, Deborah. 2011. “Aid ‘With Chinese 

Characteristics’: Chinese Foreign Aid and 

Development Finance Meet the OECD-DAC Aid 

Regime.” Journal of International Development, 

23(5):752—764. 

Campbell, Lisa M., and Arja Vainio-Mattila. 2003. 

“Participatory Development and Community-

Based Conservation: Opportunities Missed for 

Lessons Learned?” Human Ecology, 31(3):417—

437. 

Carroll-Bell, Sam. 2015. “Development Alternatives in 

Timor-Leste: Recasting Modes of Local 

Engagement.” Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en 

Volkenkunde, 171(2/3):312—345. 

Cavalcanti, Joabe G. 2007. “Development versus 

Enjoyment of Life: A Post-Development Critique 

of the Developmentalist Worldview.” 

Development in Practice, 17(1):85—92. 

Chandy, Laurence, and Homi Kharas. 2011. “Why 

Can't We All Just Get Along? The Practical 

Limits to International Development 

Cooperation.” Journal of International 

Development, 23(5):739—751. 

Cornwall, Andrea, and Karen Brock. 2005. “What Do 

Buzzwords Do for Development Policy? A 

Critical Look at 'Participation', 'Empowerment' 

and 'Poverty Reduction'.” Third World Quarterly, 

26(7):1043—1060. 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 1(2), Winter 2020  

 
Kiš, Cabus, Romo, and Welch, “We are poor, but we are developed”  106
   

 

Creswell, John W., and Vicki L. Plano Clark. 2006. 

Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods 

Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Diallo, Amadou, and Denis Thuillier. 2004. “The 

Success Dimensions of International 

Development Projects: The Perceptions of 

African Project Coordinators.” International 

Journal of Project Management, 22:19—31. 

Easterly, William. 2007. The White Man's Burden: 

Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have 

Done So Much Ill and So Little Good. New 

York: Penguin Books. 

Eyben, Rosalind, and Rebecca Napier-Moore. 2009. 

“Choosing Words with Care? Shifting meanings 

of women's empowerment in international 

development.” Third World Quarterly, 

30(2):285—300. 

Gallie, W. B. 1956. “Art as an Essentially Contested 

Concept.” The Philosophical Quarterly (1950-), 

6(23):97—114. 

Heryanto, Ariel, and Nancy Lutz. 1988. “The 

Development of ‘Development’.” Indonesia, 

46:1—24. 

Holmberg, J., and R. Sandbrook. 1992. “Sustainable 

Development: What Is to Be Done?” In Making 

Development Sustainable: Redefining Institutions, 

Policy, and Economics. Edited by Johan 

Holmberg. Washington: Island Press. 19—38. 

Horn, Philipp, and Jean Grugel. 2018. “The SDGs in 

Middle-Income Countries: Setting or Serving 

Domestic Development Agendas? Evidence from 

Ecuador.” World Development, 109:73—84. 

Hutchcroft, P. D. 1997. “The Politics of Privilege: 

Assessing the Impact of Rents, Corruption, and 

Clientelism on Third World Development.” 

Political Studies 45(3):639—658. 

Ingham, Barbara. 1993. “The Meaning of 

Development: Interactions Between ‘New’ and 

‘Old’ Ideas.” World Development, 21(11):1803—

1821. 

Kiš, Adam D. 2014. “Non-Political Clientelism: A 

Lesson in Confusion for Sustainability.” OIDA 

International Journal of Sustainable Development 

7(7):75—80. 

Lewis, David, and David Mosse. 2006. “Theoretical 

Approaches to Brokerage and Translation in 

Development.” In Development Brokers and 

Translators: The Ethnography of Aid and 

Agencies. Edited by David Lewis and David 

Mosse, West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press. 1—

26. 

Lipi, Rahima K. 2016. “Dignity and Empowerment: 

An Exploration of the Microcredit Experiences of 

Women in Rural Bangladesh.” Journal of 

International Women's Studies, 18(1):230—259. 

Marcus, Richard R. 2001. “Seeing the Forest for the 

Trees: Integrated Conservation and Development 

Projects and Local Perceptions of Conservation in 

Madagascar.” Human Ecology, 29(4):381—397. 

Offutt, Stephen, and Amy Reynolds. 2019. “Christian 

Ideas of Development: Understanding the 

Current Theories, Networks, and Priorities of 

Accord Organizations.” Christian Relief, 

Development, and Advocacy 1(1):1—14. 

Parkinson, Sarah. 2009. “Power and Perceptions in 

Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation.” 

Evaluation and Program Planning, 32:229—237. 

Quinn, Claire H., Meg Huby, Hilda Kiwasila, and Jon 

C. Lovett. 2003. “Local Perceptions of Risk to 

Livelihood in Semi-Arid Tanzania.” Journal of 

Environmental Management, 68:111—119. 

Scheld, Patrick. 2018. “Who Controls Haiti's Destiny? 

An Examination of Haiti's Underdevelopment, 

Endless Poverty, and the Role Played by NGOs.” 

Master’s thesis: The University of Vermont. 

Seers, Dudley. 2010 [1979]. “The Meaning of 

Development.” In Development Theory: Four 

Critical Studies, edited by David Lehmann. New 

York: Routledge. 

Sen, Amartya. 1999. Development as Freedom. New 

York: Oxford University Press. 

Sun, X., J. Zhu, and Y. Wu. 2014. “Organizational 

Clientelism: An Analysis of Private Entrepreneurs 

in Chinese Local Legislatures.” Journal of East 

Asian Studies 14:1—29. 

Szwarcberg, M. 2013. “The Microfoundations of 

Political Clientelism: Lessons from the Argentine 

Case.” Latin American Research Review 

48(2):32—54. 

Tipple, Graham, and Suzanne Speak. 2005. 

“Definitions of Homelessness in Developing 

Countries.” Habitat International, 29:337—352. 

Zimmerman, Felix, and Kimberly Smith. 2011. “More 

Actors, More Money, More Ideas for 

International Development Co-operation.” 

Journal of International Development, 

23(5):722—738. 
 

 

 

Adam D. Kiš is an Associate Professor of 

Anthropology at Burman University in Canada. Dr. 

Kiš has also lived in Benin, Guinea, Sao Tome and 

Principe, Madagascar, the Philippines, and the United 

States. He worked for ADRA for six years. 

 

Author email: adamkis@gmail.com  

 

Jovy Conde Cabus is an independent consultant who 

has worked with a variety of organizations over the 

years, including ADRA Philippines. She is currently a 

mailto:adamkis@gmail.com


Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 1(2), Winter 2020  

 
Kiš, Cabus, Romo, and Welch, “We are poor, but we are developed”  107
   

 

tutor at RareJob, Inc., an organization that teaches the 

English language to Japanese clients. 

 

Author email: cabusjovy26@gmail.com  

 

Tzaddi Romo is an independent research consultant 

in the Philippines. He holds degrees in Secondary 

Education and Theology. He has worked in the 

Marshall Islands and has served on the editorial staff 

of the Research Journal of Mountain View College. 

 

Author email: romotzaddi7@gmail.com  

  

Cheyanne Welch is a recent graduate of Burman 

University’s International Studies program. She is a 

freelance journalist who has lived in Egypt, the 

Marshall Islands, and the United States. She has 

worked for A Better World Canada as an intern. 

 

Author email: cheyannewelch@burmanu.ca   
 

mailto:cabusjovy26@gmail.com
mailto:romotzaddi7@gmail.com
mailto:cheyannewelch@burmanu.ca


Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 1(2), Winter 2020  

 
Kiš, Cabus, Romo, and Welch, “We are poor, but we are developed”  108
   

 

Appendix 
 

ANOVA Details 
Because sample sizes were not equal among the 

three groups, we had to be careful about which 

procedures we used. Levene’s test told us whether each 

question violated the assumption of homogeneity of 

variance. If it did not, then we used the usual F-test to 

any significant differences among groups, and we used 

Hochberg’s GT2 post-hoc test – which is 

recommended for different group sample sizes when 

equal variances are assumed – to identify which groups 

were different from each other. If Levene’s test did 

indicate that a particular question had violated the 

assumption of homogeneity of variance, we then used 

Welch’s F to identify significant differences among 

groups, and we used the Games-Howell post-hoc test to 

identify which groups were different from each other. 

Both Welch’s F and the Games-Howell post-hoc test 

are robust to violations of the assumption of equal 

variances. Ultimately, however, all the ANOVA tests 

measured the same thing. 

 

MANOVA Details 
Rather than a single F-statistic as in ANOVA, 

MANOVA has four tests: Pillai’s Trace, Wilks’ 

Lambda, Hotelling’s Trace, and Roy’s Largest Root. 

These all test a single hypothesis which has multiple 

components. Significant debate continues over which 

test statistic is most appropriate to apply in various 

situations, but these are irrelevant to our particular case, 

as all four test statistics were highly statistically 

significant (p<.000). 


