From the 1990s the crisis deepened in research on otherness. With the rise of theoretical approaches poststructuralist, postcolonial and interactionist, truth produced by traditional ethnographies was put in check, and the problem of representation, authority and collaborative authorship. Political movements, indigenous and women's voices, deepened the gap between knowledge built from outside its membership and generated inside. Finally, the revelation at the latest that identities are multiple and unscented academic texts ended with the certainties they imagined the studies used to run over the other. However, one of the major problems facing researchers is the lack of guidelines to propose ways to implement these methodological and ethical considerations. This publication seeks to contribute to fill this gap by offering guidelines to consider when research is undertaken with the other, from planning, the approach to the field, techniques and producing results. The proposed horizontal methods of our own experiences and based on that theory and practice are part of the same process. It is symptomatic of scientific Eurocentrism that the theory is conceived as a separate data abstraction and that knowledge generated is incompatible with the production of knowledge from observation of non-Western and traditional everyday phenomena. This paper brings together texts from various academic disciplines (anthropology, communication, sociology, history) characterized by its combination of methodological reflections and empirical research. They are not intended to present "solutions" but want to clarify methodological and political problems and take the first steps for resolution