3. Producción
Browse
3 results
Search Results
- Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Burning witches: the moral dilemmas of Ashaninka leaders(Florida Gulf Coast University, 2021-01-01)This paper focuses on the moral reasoning of Ashaninka leaders about the burning of witches, a cultural practice that has received scant attention from intercultural scholars. We first contextualize burning witches as a cultural practice of the Ashaninka people. Then, based on qualitative interviews, we present the experience of six Ashaninka leaders with witchcraft and witchcraft accusations, as well as their moral reasoning about the social mechanisms that the Ashaninka people have traditionally used to control evil sorcery. The participants are three men and three women from the Ucayali and Junín regions in Peru’s Amazon basin. Finally, we discuss intercultural moral education and the need to analyze the reasons behind cultural practices in order to understand the rationality and reasonableness of others. - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Economic knowledge of a group of adults from the Ashaninka and Shipibo-Konibo Indigenous Peoples(Universidade Estadual Paulista, 2024-01-08)This psychological study explores the level of economic thought among 16 adults from the Shipibo-Konibo and Asháninka Amazonian indigenous groups, in Peru. A constructivist-informed qualitative interview based on the Psychogenesis Model of Economic Thought (Denegri, 1995) was used in this study. Following the Piagetian cognitive stages, this interview proposes a three-level model for the psychogenesis of economic thought to account for the process of construction of explanations of the economic world. The results show the participants' particular modes of using formal logic tools to formulate a systematic understanding of economic processes, which possibly compromise their ability to make adaptive economic decisions and may encourage irrational economic behaviors such as thoughtless consumption and over-indebtedness. None of the participants displayed Level III inferential economic thinking, which requires the use of formal logic to understand economic processes in a systematic way. We discuss the implications of these findings for the development and fulfillment of indigenous people’s rights, especially the right to achieve human development that responds to their own complex cultural characteristics. - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Reviewing the reviewers: a critical autoethnography of two global South psychologists on bias and inequity in peer review(Emerald Publishing Limited, 2025-12-16)In this article, the authors examine several challenges faced by the peer review process, especially when evaluating the work of authors from minority groups, particularly those from the Global South. Design/methodology/approach Using a critical autoethnography and drawing on concrete examples from their own experience as psychologists, researchers and university professors in Peru, they identify and analyze three key tensions: (1) biases and stereotypes related to the authors' backgrounds, (2) disciplinary mismatches between authors and reviewers and (3) the reviewers' failure to distinguish between essential revisions and incidental stylistic preferences. Building on these examples, the article examines key factors behind problematic peer review practices, especially editorial malpractice such as bias based on an author's identity or affiliation and unjustified delays in manuscript processing. It also considers potential strategies for promoting a more equitable and transparent review system, highlighting good practices adopted by editors who are attentive to common biases and who actively work to counteract them in order to ensure greater fairness toward authors. Findings Despite the structural constraints imposed by academic capitalism – particularly in indexed journals such as those listed in WoS or Scopus – we propose a set of measures aimed at mitigating bias and fostering a more just and inclusive evaluation process for all scholars. Drawing from our own experiences, we encourage authors to critically reflect on their encounters with the peer review process. Such reflection can contribute to a more nuanced understanding of review practices and aid in identifying systemic problems and forms of malpractice – within this framework. Originality/value The originality of this article lies in the way the authors start from their own concrete experiences to illuminate broader, systemic issues in peer review. Drawing on firsthand encounters, they identify the mechanisms that often lead to problematic editorial practices—such as identity- or affiliation-based bias and unwarranted delays in manuscript handling. By situating personal observations within a wider academic context, the article shows how these individual experiences reflect patterns that affect many scholars. It also explores practical ways to foster a more equitable and transparent review culture, highlighting exemplary editorial practices that consciously address common biases and work proactively to promote fairness for all authors.1