For many researchers engaged in social science research involving dimensions of religion and spirituality, the range of methodologies available to them in a Western context are often inadequate for, or unable to allow, the respectful analysis of data that include aspects of the religious or the spiritual. Researchers who wish to pursue such analyses have been forced to reflect critically on the ways in which social scientific tools of analysis have been constructed to marginalise religion and spirituality. For instance, Leslie J. Francis's contribution to this Part (Chapter Eleven) explores how quantitative social science research has downplayed the importance of self-assigned religious affiliation in favour of the more independently verifiable category of ‘religious practice’. Francis's work demonstrates that the neglect of self-assigned religious affiliation in social science research has reduced the understandings of subtle and nuanced differences and similarities within and between religious groups. His contribution emphasises the importance of exploring individuals’ expressions and experiences of faith within quantitative studies as these provide a richer portrait of social contexts.

In their important contribution to this Part, Miguel Farias and Elisabeth Hense (Chapter Twelve) agree with Francis's position that social science methodologies have largely ignored the importance of religion and spirituality, but they also argue that social science research has not paid due attention to the distinctions between ‘religion’ and ‘spirituality’.

The third chapter in this Part explores how specific religious traditions (in this instance, Islam) can offer crucial tools for the analysis of the life experiences of adherents. Muzammil Quraishi, in Chapter Thirteen, provides a number of important examples that demonstrate that social science methodologies across a number of disciplines are able to elicit richer data when faith perspectives are embedded in the research frameworks and procedures. For Quraishi, the hegemonic urge to expunge religious identity from the research relationship is impossible to fulfil and, furthermore, is unhelpful in understanding the importance of religion and spirituality in particular social contexts.

While Quraishi draws on his own religious identities to reflect on his engagements with social science research, Maree Gruppetta, in Chapter Fourteen, argues that those involved in researching religious identities must be cognisant of individualised interpretations of religiosity so as not to cause offence.

All contributions in this Part argue that mainstream social science methodologies should heed the call from critical researchers to widen the lens of analysis to include religion and spirituality.