Paper short abstract:

This paper explores the emotional dimensions of fieldwork, focusing on women researchers navigating patriarchal contexts. Drawing on my PhD fieldwork in Pakistan, I highlight the insufficient preparation for emotional challenges and advocate for gender-aware mentorship to enhance researcher support.

Paper long abstract:

In this presentation, I explore the emotional dimensions of fieldwork, particularly as a woman researcher navigating themes of patriarchy within a deeply patriarchal context. While protecting participants from emotional risks is widely emphasized (Taquette et al., 2022; Allmark et al., 2009), researchers’ own emotional challenges are rarely addressed in methodological literature (Hubbard et al., 2001). Development literature critiques Western researchers for constructing narratives that reinforce Western authority while sidelining local perspectives (Escobar, 1995) and for "romanticizing" local voices through a cultural relativist lens (Smith, 2014). Yet, limited attention is paid to women researchers from the Global South, trained in the Global North, conducting research in their regions.

This presentation reflects on my PhD fieldwork in Pakistan and examines the complexities of navigating power dynamics and emotional labour in research settings (Hubbard et al., 2001; Hochschild, 2019). While my dissertation examined local interpretations of global gender equality goals in girls' education, this presentation addresses the inadequate preparation provided by Global North institutions for researchers to navigate emotional challenges, particularly within gendered power dynamics.

I recount two incidents where male participants, while discussing girls' empowerment policies, delivered lengthy, emotionally charged monologues about gender, religion, and feminism. These raised ethical dilemmas about whether to correct misconceptions or prioritize centering local voices, leaving lingering emotional effects.

I propose comprehensive fieldwork preparation that includes mentorship from experienced, gender-aware researchers to help manage the intellectual and emotional complexities of research in patriarchal contexts.

Paper short abstract:

The chapter critiques development and disaster management frameworks for perpetuating inequality and capitalism’s unequal distribution of the future. Using the 2024 floods in Porto Alegre, we explore transnational grief and solidarity as pathways to epistemic justice and reimagined development.

Paper long abstract:

This chapter examines the limitations of mainstream disaster management and development frameworks in addressing structural drivers of vulnerability and inequality. Using the 2024 floods in Porto Alegre, Brazil, and their reverberations in London as a case study, we explore the unequal distribution of the future shaped by capitalism and climate collapse. By critiquing international efforts such as the UN-led Sustainable Development Goals and Disaster Risk Reduction frameworks, we highlight how these approaches impose Eurocentric visions of progress on the Global South, perpetuating a temporal disconnect between the promises of development and the immediate realities of climate catastrophe.

Drawing on ethnographic field notes, we recount how the floods materialized global discourses of development and climate crises in local contexts, raising critical questions about international solidarity and epistemic justice. Contrasting our experiences — Matheus, displaced in Porto Alegre, a city once hailed as a model for the future, and Luisa, based in London and disconnected from family in Eldorado do Sul, an impoverished town submerged due to Porto Alegre's anti-flood infrastructure — we complicate binaries such as local/global and specific/universal. Crucially, through the lens of transnational grief, we propose a shift from individual positionality towards a broader understanding of shared global vulnerabilities.

The chapter contributes to debates on the future of development studies by calling for a reimagined approach that addresses climate coloniality, neoliberal governance, and the maldistribution of futurity. Emphasizing transnational solidarity and epistemic justice, we argue that recognizing these inequalities is crucial for global social emancipation.

Paper short abstract:

I aim to bring a reflexive perspective on navigating complex researcher positionalities in culturally and geopolitically sensitive contexts. My paper unpacks hybrid identities and presents ethical fieldwork practices and approaches for challenging addressing the insider-outsider spectrum.

Paper long abstract:

The discourse on decolonising global health and development studies underscores the importance of reflexively examining researcher positionality. Researchers often navigate fluid, hybrid identities that challenge the insider-outsider dichotomy, shaped by ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and professional background markers. This paper critically engages with these dynamics through a reflexive analysis of my doctoral research experience as an Egyptian researcher in the Kurdistan region of Iraq. Drawing on Cunliffe and Karunanayake's "four hyphen-spaces" framework—Personal-Professional, Professional-Political, Political-Personal, and Personal-Epistemological—I explore the intersections of identity and their implications for fieldwork.

By interrogating the tension between perceived and self-realised positionality, including dimensions of gender, professional identity, religious beliefs and ethnic origin, I analyse how my identity influenced interactions with participants, data collection, and research framing. The analysis reveals the limitations of binary positionality frameworks, instead advocating for a dynamic spectrum that accounts for the complexity of context-specific identities. The findings highlight the strategic management of positionality as critical for fostering credibility, approachability, and ethical engagement with research participants.

This paper contributes to the broader debate on researcher positionality by providing a nuanced account of conducting research in a geopolitically complex, culturally diverse, and historically fraught context. It offers valuable insights for researchers navigating hybrid identities in the global South, encouraging a more reflexive and contextually grounded approach to global health and development studies.

Paper short abstract:

In an era of socio-ecological crisis, the authors - Joseph Edward Alegado and Justin Lau - argue that the cases, “global south rooted” does not necessarily advance de-colonialism if one fails to see how existing epistemological frameworks are, too, reproduced and embraced by local actors.

Paper long abstract:

Reflecting on this research on communities prefiguring solutions to the plastic pollution crisis, Alegado explores how solutions that are being proposed in the Global South often push narratives that perpetuate colonialism and do not address the root cause of the waste crisis. Alegado unpacks how voices of impacted communities are missing in these concepts. Reflecting on his research with local waste entrepreneurs and experts, Lau shows how these so-called ‘local’ actors, trained by international NGOs, often indirectly replicate and introduce ‘foreign’ environmental models to the community. Lau suggests the need for a new ‘studying-up’ approach in the Global South to understand how specific development knowledge is co-created and/or co-opted by intelligentsia, and who gets to define ‘epistemic justice’ and for whom.

Trained in the Euro-American intellectual milieu, we critically re-examine our positionality in relation to the existing Global North-based development paradigms (e.g. zero-waste and the circular economy) that have taken root in our respective field sites in Southeast Asia. In the process, we will engage in a dialogue to nuance the notion of colonialism. Alegado suggests that colonialism manifests as plastic pollution in the context of the Philippines, as pollution is often externalized from the Global North to Global South. At the moment, the more mainstream zero-waste framework does not take colonial history into account and may perpetuate colonialism. In contrast, Lau argues that while this may be the case, pollution is always multiple and understood differently. Its complexity cannot be reduced to colonialism writ large.

Paper short abstract:

The paper explores positionality as a Southern scholar in Northern participatory institutions, addressing socio-spatial constraints and epistemic possibilities. Using a 'negotiated spaces' lens, it reflects on shifting positionings, intersectional challenges, and methods to reveal counter-narratives

Paper long abstract:

In autumn 2023, I entered the first national citizens’ assembly hosted by the German parliament as part of my ethnographic research. Navigating access protocols and embodying an in-between research role as a Southern scholar in a Northern institutional space involved moments of disorientation and negotiation. This paper reflects on the relational processes shaping my research positionings, highlighting socio-spatial constraints and epistemic possibilities.

Building on a ‘negotiated spaces’ theoretical framing developed during my research, I explore three interconnected dimensions—material, embodied, and epistemic—drawing from a fieldwork sketchbook and a ‘social identity map.’ Inspired by Martina Löw’s relational concept of space, Patricia Hill Collins’ intersectional experiencing, and Sarah Ahmed’s disorientation, this multidimensional lens examines three acts of negotiation.

The first, “Self-positioning in-between,” highlights the ambiguity of insider-outsider dynamics while adapting institutional spaces to conduct research. The second, “Sensitizing differences,” unpacks the challenges of fostering intersectional analyses in relation to GDPR-based restrictions on sensitive data and hierarchical institutional norms. Finally, “Speaking beyond words” illustrates how a visual grounded theory approach captured gestures and silences, fostering counter-narratives that challenged normative inclusion.

By addressing asymmetries and opacities in participatory processes, this paper contributes to development studies by critically reflecting on conventional expectations placed on Southern scholars, offering pathways to navigate dominant systems.

Paper short abstract:

The presentation shares an auto-ethnography of a Japanese scholar whose positionalities are complex for being non-western, non-English-speaking, and female. She revisits her experiences of conducting research, introducing Japanese experiences in English, and translating academic books into Japanese.

Paper long abstract:

Knowledge production is strongly concentrated in Western and English-speaking countries in Development Studies (DS). Japan is categorized into the Global North but has complex positionalities, as being non-western, non-English speaking, and an “ex-quasi-developing country” at the end of WWII. Besides, It has some “Global South-like” gender situations, which still ranks at the 118th out of 146 countries (Global Gender Gap Report 2024). Thus, Japanese researchers also navigate multilayer complex positionalities, especially when they are female. As a non-Western female development anthropologist/activist having studied/worked abroad both in the Global South and North, the presenter shares her own “academic auto-ethnography” on her research experiences and struggles to open some possible locations of knowledge decolonisation.

The presenter particularly discusses the following academic experiences: 1)Conducting research to represent local knowledge/realities and make policy recommendations on gender and reproductive health issues in Nicaragua and Pakistan (Sato 2008, 2014, 2022), where her positionalities are split, 2)Sharing Japanese post-war “recovering” experiences as “good practices” for the Global South (Sato 2014), where she senses “Twisted Orientalism” and “Instant Nationalism”, and 3)Translating academic books by non-western scholars into Japanese (Sato et al., forthcoming), where she is confronted by while-male-author-dominant translation publication politics and struggles to translate “untranslatable concepts” into Japanese. The presentation is made with intentions of making DS more global/ethical (Sumner and Tribe 2008) from the standpoint of making some dialogues between Post-development DS and Global DS (Sumner 2024), through a non-western scholar’s lenses.

Paper long abstract:

The international development landscape has been moving toward a partnership featuring equality and mutual benefits with the rise of the Global South. "Knowledge sharing" starts to center the new narratives on South-South Cooperation with the argument that southern countries share similar historical experiences, closer development phases and common development challenges. However, what constitutes development knowledge and how this knowledge influencing the development practices has yet been articulated and expounded. In this article, development knowledge is defined as "knowledge for development" and "knowledge in development". Based on field observations on three Chinese agricultural investment projects in Mozambique, Tanzania and Madagascar since 2013, the paper tried to answer the following questions: 1) What happens on the ground when different development knowledge encounters in China-Africa cooperation? 2) What influences the effective knowledge transfer between Chinese and African Stakeholders? 3) How do these developing knowledge encounters affect the outcomes of China-Africa agricultural cooperation? The study found that encounters in technical, institutional and cultural knowledge between China and African implementers affects the efficiency and effectiveness of China-Africa cooperation projects in Africa. Post-colonial perspectives on hybridity, imitation and ambiguity may provide a plausible explanation for this interface.

Paper short abstract:

Through the application of 'orientalism' vs 'reverse orientalism' regarding veiling, I would contribute to the idea of 'reversing the gaze'; locating it to a postcolonial Bangladesh where 'modernity', 'feminism', and 'Islamic extremism' all three interplay in complicating the practice of veiling.

Paper long abstract:

The veil ─ identified by the West as a barrier to “modernity” and “freedom”, compartmentalizes it to represent the ‘oppressed’ and ‘submissive’ Muslim women. Such discourses did not remain static, rather upheld by the ‘secularists’, ‘modernists’, and some feminists and opposed by the ‘religious extremists’─ the simple piece of cloth has submerged into the greatest puzzle of all time. The question of the right to not veil is equally significant as the right to veil, especially in a neoliberal context, where women no longer can sit at home to practice purdah, but rather have to participate in waged work or compete in the market economy. ‘Veil’ as a concept does not only ‘cover’ one’s body part, it places a cover too, on the many gazes or looks with the judgments that make one bound to veil or stop veiling. Under mounting pressure, a personal choice becomes an obligation, and a woman has to traverse a tough journey for whatever choice they make. Using social and online evidence and a systematic review of existing literature to trace the multiple and also discerning practices of veiling, in this paper I attempt to showcase how in a postcolonial Bangladesh 'modernity' and/or ‘secularism’, 'feminism', and 'Islamic extremism' interplay in complicating the practice of veiling. I employ Said’s (1978) ‘Orientalism’, Abu-Lughod’s (1991) ‘reverse Orientalism’, and Scott’s (2007) ‘Clash of civilizations’, to understand the politics behind these rigid positions of different groups and attempt to create a decolonized account of the practices of veiling in Bangladesh

Paper short abstract:

This paper employs critical decolonial lens to expand on ongoing discussions on methodological turn in Internationa Relations brought by the COVID-19 pandemic. It argues that COVID-19 accelerated localisation of fieldwork should afford us critical tool to investigate local research relationships.

Paper long abstract:

The COVID-19 pandemic and international travel restrictions accelerated localisation of peacebuilding research. As a PhD student during COVID-19, I had to rescope my research design to work remotely with local researchers to conduct fieldwork in Uganda. The local researchers made invaluable contributions to the knowledge production processes and became the ‘eye’ through which I saw the ‘field’ and data gathered. This offered a decolonial opportunity where local researchers as hidden figures in fieldwork migrated to the methodological front stage. Informed by the local turn in peacebuilding and the associated ethical responsibility to localise knowledge production in conflict-affected environments, this article frames remote fieldwork conducted during COVID-19 as an epistemic opening to revisit two recurring moral, ethical questions on knowledge production in Africa: who and what approaches are best suited for studying the continent. In revisiting these questions, the article employs critical decolonial theory (CDT) or perspective to expand/nuance an ongoing discussion about a methodological turn in IR/peace and conflict studies brought by the pandemic. It is argued that the sustained interest in the localisation of knowledge production post-pandemic should afford us the critical tools to be attentive to all forms of power relations beyond the Global North versus South framing of research power relationships. I demonstrate that using Africa-based sources should invite critical lens because there are power dynamics in who gets to speak.

Paper short abstract:

Development professionals in a cross-border organisation sensemake autonomy amid global-local tensions. Power, position, culture, age and gender affect shape autonomy and knowledge sharing. Rigid (western) control hinders collaboration, advocating a holistic, decolonized approach for future studies.

Paper long abstract:

This paper examines how professionals in a cross-border development organization navigate the interplay of autonomy and control, emphasizing the influence of culture, power, and positionality on sensemaking. Using a social constructivist approach with interviews, surveys, and field observations in Ghana and the Netherlands, the study reveals that age and gender also shape perceptions of autonomy and challenges traditional Western-centric dichotomies.

Findings show that strong western oriented managerial control may suppress local knowledge development and global knowledge sharing, suggesting a need for more holistic, inclusive frameworks. Decolonizing management concepts and knowledge production emerge as crucial: rather than imposing top-down directives, fostering trust, belonging and dialogue can enable diverse stakeholders to co-create solutions that reflect local realities. This highlights a shift away from static autonomy-control paradigms toward an approach that values different viewpoints through participatory research and practice.

By integrating mixed methods—combining qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys—researchers capture the nuanced ways professionals make sense of their roles in global settings. Such participatory and appreciative techniques empower local voices and help balance global objectives with regional priorities. The resulting insights align with the broader #ShiftThePower movement, advocating a reconfiguration of power dynamics in development.

In looking toward the future of development studies, this paper underscores the importance of decolonizing science and embracing more holistic perspectives. Moving beyond rigid polarities can foster innovation, mutual learning, and genuinely collaborative relationships, ultimately shaping a more equitable and context-responsive field of international development.

Paper short abstract:

This paper examines the positionality of a minority researcher, exploring power dynamics between INGOs and local NGOs in Sri Lanka. It highlights the impact of intersecting identities , integrating reflexivity and epistemic justice to challenge power structures in Global South development.

Paper long abstract:

This paper critically examines the positionality of a minority Global South researcher exploring the power dynamics between International Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOs) and local NGOs in post-conflict Sri Lanka. Growing up in Sri Lanka during the civil war and later migrating to the UK amidst economic recession and political instability, I have lived a life of oppression, shaped by displacement, cultural norms, and gendered expectations. These intersecting identities influence my research approach, the way I engage with participants, and my interpretation of data.

As a first-year PhD student with over five years of hands-on experience in the NGO sector, I critically analyse the structural power imbalances between INGOs and local NGOs, blending insider knowledge with academic frameworks. Central to my research is how my ethnic, gendered, and historical identities inform the research process. My lived experiences of marginalisation complicate my ability to challenge power structures, making me hyper-aware of my positionality and its impact on the production of knowledge. This is particularly significant in understanding the historical mistrust between INGOs and local NGOs, shaped by nationalistic critiques and concerns over exploitation.

By adopting an epistemic justice framework, my research advocates for the recognition of local knowledge, often overlooked in Global North-dominated development frameworks. I aim to decolonise knowledge systems by amplifying the voices of the marginalised and challenging traditional power hierarchies. My work aspires to contribute to more inclusive, contextually relevant, and decolonised approaches to development that respect the rich heritage of local knowledge and experiences.

Paper short abstract:

This presentation aims to contribute to the discussion on the questions regarding Positionality and the politics of knowledge production between the Global North and South within criminological research, specifically when conducting research under authoritarian conditions

Paper long abstract:

The inequality between the Global North and Global South in academic research is well documented. From cultural biases to orientalism to lack of representation, there is a pressing need to reassess and reevaluate the knowledge production process. This presentation aims to engage critically with questions of positionality and the politics of knowledge production between the Global North and South within criminological research. It focuses on the different challenges and considerations that arise when conducting research under authoritarian conditions. By examining controversial issues from the literature, this presentation underscores how perspectives from the Global South can challenge and enrich existing criminological paradigms.