Let's walk through how we might handle a possible "incident." We observe a man making a blowgun, a rather simple act in that there is only one actor, making one object. As we observe this incident we take down some on-the-spot notes which we will fill in with more detail later. (It is suggested that you carry a small pocket notebook at all times for this purpose.)

The actor is a man named Tabivo. The time of day is mid-afternoon. He has a scraping tool of what appears to be bone or shell, and a knife used to carve the bore. He is wearing a woven armband above his biceps on his left arm, and a loincloth held on by a woven waist band. He takes two half-cylindrical pieces of wood about 6-7 feet long and carves half the bore in each of them. All the time he is working he is singing or chanting. After he ties the two halves together he heats the blowgun over a fire and pushes it against the ground until it maintains a certain curve... still chanting as he works. The process from beginning to end took several evenings of work around the fire.

As we observed the incident we quickly jotted down important details. Next we rewrite our "story" in our field notes, this time filling in all the actual detail we can recall without becoming subjective (that is, we try to recreate the scene on paper without adding our opinions). As we work with the "incident," we note down questions to self that occur in the interview section of our process and planning notes. The final write up is then filed in the culture file under the appropriate universal, and satellite cards are filed if necessary.

Next we would interview several people who seem likely to be familiar with making blowguns, basing our interview on questions to self and on what we have observed (so we avoid concluding from a limited perspective). Some example questions might be:

"Tabivo, I was interested in the way you made that blowgun. Could you explain some things for me?

• "What kind of wood did you use for the barrel?
• "What is the name of the vine you tied it with?
• "When you make another, what will happen to this one?
• "Will it be the same type of wood/vine?
• "What other kind could you use?

Ask the same questions of Agena. (similar questions could be worded about the tools; his clothing, the song, etc.)

That additional information is then filed and cross referenced, additional people interviewed, and so the cycle continues until we seem to be getting the same information repeatedly. At that point we can at least tentatively conclude on the information. (A conclusion needs to say more than "blowguns are used in hunting monkeys.")

We need to see place of the blowgun in society. We should describe its production, how it's used in hunting, who is allowed to use it, what assures its accuracy in the hunt, when it's considered worn out, and how it's disposed of. We need to know enough to confidently talk with natives about blowguns.

Even if we learn that the "blowgun" information isn't the key to some redemptive analogy, or probably doesn't relate directly to planting a church, we should gain a practical understanding of how the tribal person perceives that tool for hunting. For example, what kinds of wood work best for splitting, the purpose of the song-chant (in this case, that's how the tribesman assures that the dart flies accurately to its mark. He performs the song-chant to ancestral spirits while making the blowgun.) We want Christianity to become a way of life for the tribe. The blowgun is an important tool involved in that way of life, and by investigating its place we gain understanding of how it will and will not fit into a new life style.

Part of the learning process is coming to know if the information we are gathering is going to help us in our goal of planting a church. At the start of our investigation that is not known. A wise student of culture will develop a sensitivity to what may yield a wealth of information and what will probably be a fruitless topic.

Here is an example of something which would seem very ordinary to most missionaries, which turned out to be more important than you might have imagined.

The investigation of a man making a stone axe among the Yir Yiront of northern Africa would yield floods of knowledge in just about every other area of the culture. Only artistic specialists were able to make them, and being a master axe maker held great prestige. The axe was directly connected to social organization and control as the owner could withhold permission to use it from his family. The trading for the axe heads was a huge annual social get-together.

At first it seems to be "just an axe," but was actually so important in the culture that when it was ignorantly replaced by the steel axe led to social and economic collapse for the Yir Yiront. A careful investigation of even the simplest forms in a society will often open more complex and abstract areas of the culture.

However, we need to take care lest we fall into the trap of studying simply for sake of knowledge itself. Our purpose is not necessarily a doctoral thesis, or even to have our material printed in such prestigious documents as Outreach. Our goal is to reach a practical understanding of the culture for the sake of minimizing syncretism in the church. The result of our file should ultimately be the "indigenousness" of the church.

Conclusion write-ups can take on several forms. They can be in "story form" and be a description of that area of information.

Remember, culture is NOT the possession of an individual, or even a sub-group. In order to arrive at a legitimate conclusion regarding a topic, we will need to follow the same line of questioning with several natives in order to get the entire picture. By asking several individuals about the same subject, we can arrive at a clear understanding of what are the generalities ("norms") of the culture, and what are the result of idiosyncrasies, sub-cultures and specialty groups.

The body of the conclusion is a statement explaining what you know to be true about subject. References to evidence that backs the conclusion needs to be listed. The references should be to information already filed but could be to information still in the field notes. The example above is of a final conclusion in that we feel we fully understand the issue. It's also legitimate to write up a tentative conclusion or one that you still have questions about. A reference card should follow it referring the reader to unanswered questions in the Process and Planning notebook. In either case, the cross reference margin should include references to other material in the file where data is filed substantiating the conclusion.

One of the difficulties encountered in writing conclusions is organizing the material so you can see the "common denominator." The charting method of interviewing can also be used to help organize your information into a more meaningful format. Organization of the data can be 90% of the job of analyzing it.