2.

Methodology
3.1. Study Areas
3.1.1. Introducing the Paiwan Nation

The Paiwan Nation is with aboutmade up of nearly 96000 people (APC Taiwan, 2016) making
it the third biggest indigenous Nation in Taiwan. The aroundJust under 200 Paiwan
communities are located in the South of Taiwan, in Pingdong and Taidong County. As in most
the majority of villages of in all other indigenous Nations, do many young Paiwanese move
out of their communities to cities for education and work. Consequently, mainly a majority
of senior citizens and children continue live living in the communities permanently. It isMany
believed that the mountain area Dawu (dàwŭ 大 武 ), a mountainous area, is the Paiwan
Nations original birthplace (Lau, 2008). A central element of the Paiwan culture and society
is a hierarchy which exists outconsisting of three different castes; the chief (mamazangilan),
the noble (rarasudjan) and the commoner (qatitan). Another important group, mostly
belonging to the noble caste, is the hunter group (cinunan) . In former earlier times, the
function and profession of a Paiwanese individual in a community was dependent on the
caste in which he or she belonged too. The hierarchy was relatively flexible because it was
possible that people could marry into a caste above thema higher caste (Rudolph, 2001).
The land mostly belonged to the mamazangilan, but the citizens of the other castes could
also cultivate on the land. The lower castes had towere required to pay tributes to the
mamazangilan, while he or shethose members had the duty of mediation and jurisdiction
(Rudolph, 2001). While these social orders do notno longer determine the occupation or
function in a community anymore, , many peoplemany caste members still know to which
caste they belong towhere they belong. The For example, the chief still has an important
status in the community. He or she still has the duty is responsible for selecting a traditional
Paiwanese name for each newborn member. During the masalut (xiăomĭshōuhuòjì 小米收
穫祭), all community members pay tribute to the chief in the form of food, beverage and
money. Furthermore, is the Paiwan Nation stands in contrast to most other Taiwanese
indigenous Nations in that it is not a patriarchal society. Women and men are have equal
status in relation to each other, with each having their determined tasks and functions in the
community. The For example, the firstborn child of the chief will take over the position ,
regardless if it is athe child is male or female. Due to the assimilation ofThese original
Paiwaniese, indigenous to the Han-Taiwananese societal traditions, however, are in conflict
with the dominant Chinese cultural practices. Paiwanese indigenous to the Han-Taiwanese
culture, these original society patterns are often in conflict with the dominant Chinese
culture. In a society which is constructed on the around a Confucianism philosophy, it is the
woman,women who has tomust marry into a new households. As a result, is that an
inclining increasing number of Paiwanese female chiefs (mamazangilan) want to discard
their authority , because many of them do not find a are unable to find a partner anymore,
who partner who agrees to marry into the woman’stheir family.

3.1.2. Main Study Site

This research is in cooperation with the Lalaolan community (Xīnxiānglán bùluò 新香蘭部
落) in Taidong, Taimali Township, which will be the main study site (Figure 4). In During the
Japanese occupation area period (1985 – 1945), people from the Paiwan and Amis Nations
have beenwere put togethercombined to set up establish this community. The Paiwan
population of Lalaolan had been inwere the minority , so that they and were forced to had
to adapt to the customs of the Amis Nation. Paiwanese people were not allowed to wear
their own traditional clothes or to celebrate their own festivals. They only were permitted to
participate in the Amis festivals and wear the traditional Amis dresses. . In the 1990s.
during thea time of national movements of indigenous people, the young Paiwanese
generation in Lalaolan began the slow process of cultural revitilization.slowly to revitalize
their own culture. One of the leading figures that of the time was Sakinu Tepiq (Dài
Míngxióng 戴明雄). Sakinu is also the a pastor of the Presbyterian Church in Lalaolan and
one of the shareholders of Lalaolan’ss well -famous known “Millet Work Shop”
(xiăomĭgōngfáng 小 米 工 坊 ). 1/3One-third of Taiwan's Christians are in the indigenous
community with the Presbyterian church being the biggest in the whole countryall of
Taiwan. The In fact, the Presbyterian Church played an important role in the national
movement of the indigenous people. With itsThe c omparatively more critical view and
democratic structure influenced pf the Presbyterian Church influenced the political
awareness of the indigenous Nations. The Presbyterian Church played also played a
significant role in the revival of the Paiwanse culture in Lalaolan community. Today there, in
the Lalaolan village, exist live aroundnearly 64 households of the Amis Nation and around
nearly 36 households of the Paiwan Nation in the Lalaolan village.

In the Millet workshop / restaurant, it is possible to buy some typical Taiwanese breakfasts,
coffee and cakes are served. At mMidday and evening, the dishes contain mainly mostly
traditional Paiwanese foods. In the year 2008, the people of Lalaolan started to re-cultivate
Djulis and experimented with this new ingredientit. The new products made out of this crop
, are sold in their millet shop. While a couple ofA few short years ago, only one or twoa
couple families planted Djulis, in 2015, already that number had grown to 7 households
who re-cultivated Djulis. This community is serves as an excellent example of how
indigenous people, with the help of traditional crops like millet, Djulis and cajan (shùdòu 樹
豆), are able to revive their own try to revival their own cultural practicese.

In former days, every indigenous community in Taiwan saw themselves as being

autonomous to other villages, even if the communities came from the same Nation and
spoke the same dialect. This lead to the fact, that cultural practices and beliefs could differ
from community to community. Considering this, I felt obliged to include Paiwanese
knowledge- holders from other areas and communities in my research. If I would have
concentrated only on knowledge- holders from the Lalaolan community, I would have not a
lot oflimited findings. As I mentioned before are not manypreviously mentioned,
knowledgeable persons in relation to Djulis have left in most communities. To get abetter
data larger picture and a frequentimportant statistical number of information about Djulis I
chose to expand my research on otherto additional areas too.
Figure 4, Taiwan Map –
Study sites

3.1.3. Other Study Sites

One of the otherAn additional community for interiews is ies I conducted my interviews is
Tjuabar ( Tŭbăn bùluò 土坂部落) (Figure 4). This village is located in Daren Township, in the
near ofnear Taimali Township. It is a Paiwanese community which was not mixed with any
other indigenous Nation. Due to the fact that the Tjuabar community is more located in the
mountain areaous, the Paiwanese people had a better chance to maintain theirof culture
cultural preservation than other Paiwanese communities in Taidong.

CIn consideringation of the fact that my research was being highly depended dependent on
others people's helpthe assistance of others to findfor the location of knowledge- holders, I
had to be flexible ility was key for the purposes of and betraveling to and able to visiting
other communities. At the beginning of myAs my research commenced, I planned to
concentrate only on the Paiwan Nation in Taidong county.

During conducting myAfter my first interviews, however, I found out that thediscovered that
plant Djulis crops probably originated from Pingdong. Therefore, I held somemoved to more
interviews in Pingdong to conduct more interviews , in the Piuma (pínghé 平和部落 ) and
Timur (dìmóér 地磨兒) community communities (Figure 4).

2.2. Conducting Field Trips with the Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)

This study collected knowledge about the Paiwanese native crop Djulis and analyses if this
plant has the potential to contribute to the cultural identity of the Paiwan Nation. To obtain
a general understanding of the current situation of re-cultivating Djulis in Paiwan
communities, I chose the Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) (Grenier, 1998). PRA is “one
way of documenting how people interact with their environment” (Martin, 2004). I selected
the PRA approach, because as Posey (2004) said is a good relationship with the community
or knowledge holder the basis for a good research work. Due to the time limits, I only could
use the PRA approach for my main study site in the Lalaolan community. For all the other
villages I visited to find knowledge holders, I usually made day trips and were introduced by
key people.

In the villages Tjuabar, Piuma and Timur I was not able to stay for long term. In total, I
carried out 7 field trips from July 2015 till May 2016. I made more than 60 field contacts,
interviewed 9 Paiwanese knowledge holders and had 5 additional important key informants.

2.2.1. Field Trips to the Lalaolan Community with the PRA – Approach

For my first field visit, I spent one month from the 6th of July till thethrough the 31st of July
2015 in the Lalaolan community, my priority . The major duty was to takinge part in daily
life activities to get to know thefamiliarize myself with the Paiwanese people from this the
village. I stayed at the Presbyterian Church where my Paiwan language teacher Sakinu Tepiq
(戴明雄) is working as theworks as pastor. Before Prior to July 2015, I visited Sakinu Tepiq’ss
Paiwanese language course for two semesters at Dong Hwa University for two semesters. .
The language I used Chinese to communicated with the people within the Lalaolan
community was Chinese, however, but if I hadgiven the chance, I would used some of
themy Paiwanese words language skillsI learned before. As Martin (2004) explained can
about the the use of the local dialect to add muadd ch value to the research. , hHe
mentioned that the local people will realize that thea researcher starts to understand the
indigenous people’s culture. I would add that this idea shows it might show the local people
an existing interest in their culture which, goinges beyond the interest of aof a particular
cultural object, in such as my case Djulis and its the surrounding traditional knowledge. In
additionAdditionally, I personally noticed that the use of simple daily phrases in the
northern Paiwanese dialect can breakbreaks down cultural walls. Moreover,For example,
people, who were more initially suspicious about of my presence me, , changed their
became suddenly more openattitude by communicating with a more open-minded and
welcoming towards meapproach.

During the first field tripOn my first field visit, I helped to prepare and take partparticipated
in the masalut, the a millet harvest festival, which is the most important festival for the
Paiwan Nation. In During this period, I had the chance opportunity to get become familiar
with some of the traditional Paiwanese food and and their preparation practices. Mostly I
was helpinged out in the millet workshop to pack and clean Djulis, millet and cajan. I learned
a fewnew ideas things aboutregarding the storage of Djulis and how timethe time necessary
intensive it is to to properly clean it before packing it upin the pre-packing period. The chef
of the millet workshop would shared some of her experience in preparing Djulis with me, ,
discussing its use in how to use it for making cakes or cookies. Short Just before the masalut
festival, some elder women taught me and some internsand others how to roll qinavu, a
traditionally Paiwanese dish usually usually made with millet and meat filling. I found other
avenues of cultural exchange as well. For example, for one week, While teaching theI
served as an English teacher children English iin the Church for a week Iwhere I had the
opportunity to communicate with got to know most many of their grandparents and
grandparents and therefore the Paiwanese citizens of the Lalaolan community.

My second and third field trip to thefollowing visits to the Lalaolan community was were
carried out from the 3rd of September till through the 12th of September and from the 19th
of October till the 27th ofthrough the 27th of October, respectively. During this period, time
the fields, which belonging to Sakinu were being used for sowing and transplanting the
Djulis plants. The Djulis plants growing onfrom his fields belong to the millet workshop ,and
they will be sold later at a later date in the shop. Other citizens from the Lalaolan
community, who growalso growing Djulis, too, are usinged their own fields. Due to the fact
thatBecause every each household , which is plantings Djulis decides on their own when
tomakes their own decisions about the time to plant, the time of all the intiming of the
Lalaolan planted Djulis harvest will differs. In my field trips, I only took part in the farming
process which was held on Sakinus fields. During this time, I had the opportunity to talk to
the indigenous farmers and get some ideas and information about the cultivating process of
Djulis. Additionally, I participated in the tasks of cleaning the field and sowing the Djulis
seeds during my field trip in September. In October, I came back to help the farmers in
transplanting the small Djulis seedlings.

I traveled from November 12 th through 15th and December 4th through 6th in Pingdong. My
goal was finding more knowledge-holders in the Paiwan communities. Several young
Paiwanese from Piuma, Timur and the Linali community introduced me to local elders having
traditional knowledge about Djulis. Furthermore, I made an additional trip to the Baihe
community where 2 years previously I had served as a volunteer. Unfortunately, these two
expeditions were not successful, because I did not discover potential knowledge-holders
from Pingdong. This failure during these two trips to Pingdong might be the effect of two
different causes, (editors Note: WHAT ARE THE CAUSES?) but I interpreted it as a
consequence of not being able to do the PRA-approach in this area. Nevertheless, another
reason might have resulted from my not having connections to relevant persons.
For this reason, I returned for a fourth time from December 12the through 21st to Pingdong
in the company of Gadu Masegeseg, dean of the College of Indigenous Studies at National
Dong Hwa University. A native of Piuma village, he helped me locate some knowledge
holders willing to be interviewed by me. His assistant, Vavauni, was another important key
person in my research. She introduced me to others in the Timur and Anpo communities.

In January 2016, I conducted my fifth field trip. From the 1st through the 4 th, I returned to
the Lalaolan community to take part in the harvest of Djulis. Unfortunately, the farmers had
made a decision to harvest Djulis earlier that normal, so no harvesting occurred during my
visit. I did, however, have the opportunity to conduct interviews in the Lalaolan community
and learned from one of the knowledge-holders the skills of threshing and drying Djulis.

My sixth field trip to Lalaolan occurred between the 30th of March and 2nd of April. During
this time, I conducted my final interview in the Lalaolan community. In March, many farmers
restarted the sowing of Djulis once again. Thus, my last interviewee showed me how he
cultivates Djulis on his field. His technique was different in comparison to those I witnessed
from other farmers in September and October of the previous year.
My seventh field trip occurred between May 18th and 22nd to Lalaolan. During this visit, I
eliminated all questions or uncertainties from my previous interviews with key persons. With
them, I discussed some of my research findings before completion. As my research drew to a
close, I translated the results and central points of my work and presented them additional
participants in my work.

2.2.2. Limitations of Field Trips with the PRA – Approach

Several limitations impacted the field trips and study. Consequently, the research might also
be impacted. These were as follows:

a) Time and financial resources limits

This study was a master research and was non-sponsored. Financial costs for repeated
travels to several communities were all self-funded. To travel to the Lalaolan community
from Hualian, 3 hours were necessary to reach the nearest train station. Additional time and
financial costs account for private vehicles being used to reach the communities.

The field trips occurred during the school semester when weekly classes in Hualian at
National Dong Hwa University were conducted. For these reasons, trips to the communities
allowed only limited time.
These limit potentially negatively impact the responsive feelings of trust and growing
personal connections with each person involved in this research.

a) Interacting with the correct key people

Several factors were a result of the local communities’ willingness to provide assistance. The
interpersonal relations of people within a community, the authority of my key persons, the
interest in my research, and additional factors contributed to peoples’ behavior as it
influenced my research process. As a researcher, understanding all interpersonal relations is
impossible. I was aware they exist and contribute to my research findings. My study
depends on locals’ willingness for assistance and contributions regarding Djulis. One
example of this effect occurred during the first trips to Pingdong at the end of the year 2015,
resulting in no significant outcome. The people I interacted with were, for several reasons,
unable to assist me. Later, during my third visit, I went in the company of a well-respected
local elder, and the outcome and progress were remarkably different.

2.3. Interviews

The ability to conduct valuable interviews was the most significant element of my research.
It is not possible to complete ethnobiological research based only on observations,
especially when it involves getting a deeper understanding of plants in relation to an ethnic
group.

From November 2015 through March 2016, I conducted 9 separate interviews during 7 field
trips. While most of my field trips were in my main research area of the Lalaolan community,
many interviews were held outside this village. I conducted 1 interview in Timur, 2
interviews in Piuma, 3 interviews in Tjuabar and 3 interviews in Lalaolan. Additionally, 3
more people from the Lalaolan community and 2 people from the Anpo village functioned as
important key informants. These five people were not interviewed by me, because their own
experience and relationship with Djulis were too narrow. However, they had some valuable
secondary knowledge and information about Djulis, which was useful and guided me
through my research.

2.3.1. Interview Design & Philosophy

In composing my interview questions, I chose a framework which is based on the “The Six
Faces of Traditional Ecological Knowledge” (Houde, 2007). I introduced the model in the
second chapter listed under “Models and Frameworks about Traditional Knowledge”. I
selected this structure because for the primary ethno-biological research about Djulis I
needed to cover a wide range of topics. While there are several frameworks to categorize
traditional knowledge, “The Six Faces of Traditional Ecological Knowledge” presented the
most definite and precise choice for native crop anylization. With the help of this framework,
I efficiently composed the interview questions and knew where to focus attention for better
observations.

The six elements include knowledge about factual observations, management practices, the
past and current uses, ethics and values, cultural identity and cosmology (Houde, 2007). It is
possible that these dimensions merge into one another. I used these six elements to create
research questions in relation to Djulis.

My interview questions were divided in three parts. The first block of questions was mainly
an introduction to get to know more about each person’s background in relation to Djulis.
The interviewee was asked how long he or she cultivated Djulis, if his or her family also
planted Djulis and if he or she is cultivating additional crops. Furthermore, there were other
questions, including important facts for the first dimension of the factual observations of
“The Six Faces of Traditional Ecological Knowledge”. Factual observations primarily focus on
“ecological changes” and “interrelationship with other species”. Therefore, if the interviewee
has experience of cultivating other crops, I asked him or her to compare the cultivation of
Djulis with these additional plants. Another important issue presented was asking if he or
she could remember or think why Djulis was not cultivated anymore in their community.
This question, if the interviewee is using the same Djulis planting methods as his/her
parents/ grandparents refers to the second dimension of the resource management system.

The second part of the interviews asked how Djulis use differed in the past versus modern
time. This part referred to the third dimension of past and current uses from “The Six Faces
of Traditional Ecological Knowledge”. Here, the priority objective was understanding how
Djulis was/is being used in Paiwan culinary dishes and beverages.

The final block of interviews covered the other three dimensions of “The Six Faces of
Traditional Ecological Knowledge”; ethics and values, cultural identity, and cosmology. These
dimensions often cross-reference, thus many questions covered more than one dimension.
These questions were the most important part of the interviews, because these unique facts
are the most unknown and endangered insights of traditional Paiwan knowledge. Asking
after traditional songs or stories in relation to Djulis was one of the main goals of this
research. As Martin (2004) refers to Claude Levis-Strauss exist songs or myths contain “often
an interaction between the natural and the human world”. This is another way to interpret
how some Paiwanese communities perceive Djulis in a traditional way. This imaging about
Djulis belongs to the cosmology and cultural identity dimension of “The Six Faces of
Traditional Ecological Knowledge”. Further questions which contribute to these dimensions
were the interviewee’s interpretation of Djulis as an important crop for the Paiwan Nation
and if the re-cultivation of Djulis can support the cultural identity. In this line of questioning,
direct opinions of the interviewee were demanded. Questions about the use of Djulis as
decoration or ornament covered four dimensions; the past and current uses, ethics and
values, cultural identity, and cosmology. In this case, it depended on the answer and
perception of the interviewee. Besides the mentioned classifiable questions above, I asked
some non-categorized questions. For instance, I asked why the respondent is cultivating
Djulis now, what kind of wishes the person had in relation to Djulis or what kind of feelings
and thoughts the person has when he or she sees a Djulis field. The answers obtained from
this line of questioning differed from the previous categorization. Afterwards, the response
might add an interesting viewpoint to some of the previous dimensions.

Furthermore, my Interview questions were held in a semi-structured way and consisted of

open-ended questions, which orientate from Louise Greniers researchers guideline “Working
with Indigenous Knowledge” and Gary Martins book “Ethnobotany – A Method Manual”.
Open-ended questions are important, because asking direct questions might pressure
people to express false beliefs (Martin, 2004). As an example, I asked first if there are any
traditional dishes made by Djulis. Based on the opportunity of the interviewee to express
yes or no, I could explicate on it and ask what kind of foods there are, etc.

These kind of categorization of interview questions are a typical “etic” approach, “the way
the researcher perceives and classifies the world” (Martin, 2004). This procedure might not
leave much space for indigenous people to explain their knowledge about Djulis in their own
concept. Therefore, a more so-called “emic” approach in ethnobiology studies are
increasingly desired. As Nabhan (2013) said, this approach is necessary to weaken the
colonial context in which ethnobiology research was originated. “The Six Faces of Traditional
Ecological Knowledge” framework already provides a more “emic” path with its dimensions
about cosmology, belief and ethics. However, it only a model and a prototype designed by
modern science to apply to different ethnic groups. Therefore, after I accomplished my first
interviews, I gave interviewees the opportunity to tell me about their own perception about
Djulis. The respondents were free to tell me what they wanted to tell me and how they
wanted to express it. I listened without asking questions. If there were still important
questions not met by the interviewee’s information, I asked them at the end. I particularly
used this approach in the later interviews. It also depended on the individual. Some felt
more comforted by answering the questions I asked them.

Previously, I was aware that many people would be skeptical my wanting to interview them
and answering questions about local knowledge. Research on traditional knowledge comes
mostly with a political background as Ellen (2000) mentioned. For this reason, I knew not
every knowledge holder would be willing to be interviewed by me. In regards to this conflict,
I tried to earn more trust from the participant so I could perform a more ethical research
approach. Therefore, I created a research agreement, which assured that sensitive
information about the participant would not be published in my thesis. This agreement was
written in Chinese and explained my research goals. If the participant had any concerns he
had the option to get in contact with Sakinu Tepiq, who is well known in the Paiwanese
society.

Besides the name of the participant, age, the language of the interviewee, and occupation,
no other personal data was collected. To not contaminate the interview, these questions
were asked in between, before or after.

2.3.2. Selection of interviewees

I took several aspects into consideration while I searching for knowledge-holders about
Djulis. Due to the fact that this research only focused on the knowledge of the Paiwan
Nation, the interviewee had to belong to this particular indigenous group. Additionally, the
respondent was required to have experience with the plant Djulis. Preferred were people of
an age older than 60 years, and who have grown up in a Paiwanese community and
cultivated Djulis on their own for several years. Nevertheless, only to look at these criteria
were not enough. Many Paiwan elders who fit this classification still were unable to answer
most interview questions. A lot of the Paiwanese elders I encountered had not seen Djulis
since their childhood and only recently started its cultivation.

To reach out to individuals in the much older generations, in their 80s or 90s was
challenging. Even when people introduced me, it was often unknown who actually has the
expertise on Djulis. It seemed that in younger years, these elders might not have shared
their own knowledge because Djulis was already not cultivated anymore or they were not
asked. During my search for suitable respondents, it was sometimes simply the case that the
physical conditions of the few very old Paiwanese, who knew a lot about Djulis, made it
impossible to interview them. In the Zhengxing community (zhèngxìngcūn 正 興 村 ) I was
introduced to a woman whose husband’s brother was assumed to have a lot of knowledge
about Djulis. Unfortunately, she told me that the man is not able to speak anymore. In
another situation, a Paiwanese man joked and told me I should have come 20 years earlier
to do research about Djulis, because most of the important knowledge holders might
already no longer be alive.

Another reason why it was problematic to get in contact with Paiwanese people, who were
in their 80s or 90s resulted from generational language barriers. In some cases, the younger
family members are not able to communicate with their very old relatives. One of my
Paiwanese friends from the Timur community, in his 30s, helped me to ask one of his elder
relatives about Djulis. After some time, he explained to me that, even in using the northern
Paiwan dialect, his grandparents were unnable to understand his questions. Thus, he
apologized for not being helpful.

While I spent time in the Lalaolan community during field trips, I slowly observed who has
fundamental knowledge about Djulis. In daily conversations, I talked to the Paiwan people
about Djulis. Sometimes, while gathering in groups, people would exchange knowledge or
memories about Djulis. This way, I realized who might know some details about Djulis and
who would be willing to share it with me. Sometimes when I mentioned that I was looking
for people I could interview, many people felt uncomfortable because they thought they
actually could not offer me the knowledge or information I was looking for. In the Lalaolan
community, people referred to mostly only one or two persons, whom I later interviewed.

In the other communities, I was mostly introduced to the interviewees by a key informant or
previous interview subject. People who understood my intentions helped me find suitable
knowledge holders. This way I was introduced to some very knowledgeable individuals, who
had expertise about Djulis in different domains.

3.3.3. Interview Procedure

The interviews were always made with people, who agreed to an interview by me. In every
case, I first introduced them to my research topic and I told them about the purpose and
goals of this study. I presented the participant with my research agreement and explained
each passage. For three of the agreements, I had an additional third person sign as well. In
these cases the third person was somebody I interviewed before or a friend and who
introduce me to the particular person. In these three cases due to my not knowing the new
interviewee, it was important to have a third person with me. The interviewee would trust
me and open up more in the conversation. Moreover, in one case the language barrier
between me and the interviewee was very high. Here, the third person helped to
communicate questions and answers in both directions between me and the interviewee.

Before starting the interview, I asked the respondent if it was acceptable to record the
conversation. This way I was free to interact more into the dialogue and had the opportunity
to review the whole interview later again. In most cases there were no difficulties in setting
up a recorder. In three cases, though, it was not possible to record while interviewing. In one
situation, the interviewee showed me how to plant Djulis on his field. In another setting, the
person taught me how to clean and prepare Djulis before cooking it. Within these
circumstances, it would have been troublesome to record while interacting with the
respondent. Every interview was conducted in Chinese. In the cases, where I needed the
third person, the interviewee would sometimes switch to the northern Paiwan dialect. The
style of language I used was casual but respectful, because most of my interviewees were of
a senior age. The length of the interviews took from 30 minutes to 90 minutes. Most of the
conversations took around one hour.

After every interview, I asked the person if I have their permission to mention their names in
my thesis and if there is any information they told me which should not be published. All the
respondents agreed that their names could be mentioned and some would insist on doing
so. In Figure 5 I listed all persons I interviewed, their relationship to Djulis, age and their
residential community.

Figure 5,

All Interviewees

3.3.4. Limitations of Interviews

Several limitations while conducting interviews may have had an impact on research results.
Some of them were as follows:
a.) Finding the right people
Finding potential knowledge-holders was very difficult. Profound knowledge of a traditional
indigenous food resource is hard to find, because as Kuhnlein (1991) said, many indigenous
people neglect their traditional diets for commercial marked foods. In most Taiwanese
communities, indigenous people have already adapted the Han-Chinese crops like rice for
decades. Furthermore, some of the potential knowledge holders were unwilling to
participate in an interview.

b.) Language barriers

If a knowledgeable Paiwanese elder did feel comfortable speaking the Chinese language, I
depended on a third person who was able to translate from Chinese to the Paiwanese
dialect during my interview. Many young Paiwanese are not able to fluently speak their
Paiwanese dialect. This might have affected some of my interviews. In addition my research
and my interviews were conducted in Chinese, which is not my native language.

c.) Hard to prove

While some of the knowledge about Djulis of a knowledge-holder is probably provable,
stories and lost customs might not be. Indigenous knowledge “is transmitted orally, it is
vulnerable to rapid change – especially when people are displaced or when […] people
acquire values and lifestyles different from those of their ancestors ” (Grenier, 1998).
Tradition can quickly change with time. Besides that happens with Paiwan customs differing
from village to village. Overall, the collected traditional knowledge might be only a small part
of the whole field of traditional knowledge in relation to Djulis.