On the Necessity of Reflexivity in Global Research
By Pablo Vega and Gustavo Hernández
Lima, Peru · September 2026
At the Sixteenth International Conference on Religion and Spirituality in Society, held in Lima in June 2026, RelEX presented reflections on their research progress concerning the interplay between religion and social exclusion. Drawing on fieldwork experience in the northern Peruvian Amazon region, the presentation emphasized that conceptual, cosmological, and social differences among groups require a critical reading of research instruments. In the case of the Awajún Indigenous peoples, rigid research methods proved insufficient. Adaptability was therefore essential to ensuring data quality, and, more importantly, building trust emerged as a crucial prerequisite for advancing research and fostering genuine local participation.
Several research difficulties were also discussed. Many technical and academic (abstract) terms were unfamiliar to participants in their everyday experience. For instance, research instruments —both qualitative and quantitative— implicitly assumed an individualistic notion of the “subject,” which some local participants found difficult to grasp. Concepts such as “identity,” “rights,” or “inclusion/exclusion” carried meanings different from those anticipated by the study design. ¿Is it always appropriate to be included? ¿In what terms? Awajún young women faced additional barriers to understanding and participation, stemming from limited prior exposure to formal academic languages and settings.
Best practices for research were likewise emphasized. First, collaboration among young people proved crucial in resolving doubts in real time and in reducing anxiety during the implementation of research instruments. Second, the involvement of local teachers was vital for facilitating cultural mediation and fostering a climate of trust among participants. Finally, dialogue spaces following surveys (i.e., focus groups) and FQS (i.e., interviews) were essential for amplifying perspectives not fully captured by formal research instruments. It is important to underscore that quantitative methods primarily contribute to consolidating and extending what is already known, whereas qualitative methods deepen our understanding of what remains unknown. Put it in other words, quantitative approaches tend to reinforce established knowledge, while qualitative inquiry opens pathways into uncharted epistemic domains.
The presentation concluded that research instruments should be continually (re)designed to reflect participants’ vocabulary, conceptual frameworks, and cultural dynamics, thereby enabling quantitative and qualitative methods to be more effectively aligned and fully contextualized. In this regard, and given the complex dynamics of relationships among actors—including those within academia—(inter)cultural research requires not only technical rigor but also a sustained willingness to critically reassess methodological assumptions. This is a challenge the team will continue to embrace until the conclusion of the investigation.
It was also emphasized that the very structures enabling research often resist “locally embodied” forms of thinking. This resistance is not incidental but systemic, embedded within institutional logics that privilege universality and “neutrality” while obscuring positionality. As one of the principal Finnish RelEx investigators noted, what this situation calls for is both honesty and an ongoing, institutionally embedded practice of critical reflexivity. In light of reflections on the epistemic conditions under which international research is made possible—as articulated in Peter Nynäs’s blog post Decolonizing International Research — a Catch-22? —we stress that there is no idealized blueprint capable of resolving this contradiction. From the Global South, however, we propose not only a commitment to keeping contradictions visible rather than smoothing them over, but also a move toward more active and constructive engagement—deepening our work precisely through these contradictions.
Donna Haraway’s insistence on situated knowledges underscores that partial perspectives are sources of accountability and richness. Taken together, insights from both the Global South and the Global North suggest that the way forward is not to seek a universal resolution but to further cultivate such practices. Our intention is to advance dialogue at epistemological, methodological, and practical levels of research. We call for unexpected and uncertain research results to be recognized as integral to a fruitful research experience. This is, in turn, a call for embedded and integrated knowledge as the outcome of ongoing dialogue. Partial knowledge explicitly acknowledges the limits of human inquiry and fosters continued dialogue, offering epistemologies both beyond and within Western rationalism. It is dynamic, situated, and, most importantly, open to transformation.
Moving toward more active and constructive local engagement is of critical importance, especially in times of AI implosion. From this perspective, human knowledge—and science—is inseparable from affect, memory, and community. This vision, often rooted in Southern epistemologies, reminds us that knowledge is a lived practice, embedded in everyday forms of life and resistance. Some scholars have described these perspectives as “partial,” underscoring their legitimacy as sources of accountability, diversity, and richness. Hence, we firmly contend that the way forward lies in cultivating practices that honor partiality, relationality, and intercultural dialogue.
