Introduction: Research in the Shadow of Insecurity
What happens when the documents that prove you are a legitimate researcher in one place make you look suspicious in another? In insecure and unstable settings, questions of identity, trust and access can quickly become part of the research itself. This is particularly relevant for my research on climate change and local communities, which takes place in environments marked by insecurity and instability (Mena R, Hilhorst D 2022; Ferguson, P. 2019; Mena, R. 2018). Whereas a researcher is never a simple observer but always takes part in the research scene, this is even more poignant in contexts of insecurity and instability. Military constraints, mistrust, power relations and ethical dilemmas become part of the research process itself and impact on the way in which researchers (can) position themselves and gain access.
Drawing on exploratory fieldwork in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), I argue that research access in insecure settings is never simply granted: it is continuously negotiated through the researcher’s identity, relationships and position. Yet this creates a paradox: the very strategies used to create safety and maintain access - adapting one’s self-presentation, documents, movements or intermediaries - may themselves generate new suspicions.
This blog is based on exploratory fieldwork which I conducted for my doctoral research. My research investigates how artisanal fishers in the Great Lakes region navigate changing access to fishery resources and markets under conditions of climate change, a volatile security situation and fragmented governance. For my fieldwork I had to travel from an M23-controlled area into territory controlled by the FARDC (the Congolese Army). Upon arrival, I was asked about my identity. Normally, you than show official documents which testify of your research permission. In my case however, my official documents were stamped by the M23-authorities from the area I was coming from and these documents could be interpreted as evidence of collusion. What established my legitimacy as a researcher in one place could be interpreted as evidence of collusion in another.
Instead of presenting myself as researcher, I therefore sometimes presented myself as a student, as this was less risky. Access was never secured once and for all; it depended on how my presence was interpreted, by whom, and in which context. This underlines that a researcher’s position in the field is never completely fixed, but relational and context-dependent (Erard, L. O. (2003) and Olivier de Sardan (2004). In instable situations, this becomes particularly visible, The way I was perceived changed depending on the location, the person I was speaking to, the documents I carried, and the power relations at play.
On the researcher’s journey: vigilance, improvisation, and daily survival
Security monitoring by the Angaza Institute of ISDR Bukavu helped me to plan my travels, field sites, and perceived threats throughout the fieldwork. However, once on the ground, security plans confronted a fluid reality, marked by military checkpoints, disputed areas, the presence of the Wazalendo (self-defence groups) or the M23, administrative difficulties, and unforeseen logistical challenges.
Practical security considerations sometimes prevailed over scientific considerations. For instance, means of transport were sometimes difficult to find, while available boats could be requisitioned by the army to transport prisoners or military equipment. It made me to explore a possible alternative field site, which is located in an area that is less contested by different armed stakeholders. Throughout my fieldwork, I adjusted my movements, my interactions, and - at times - what I revealed about my work. Caution was therefore not simply an external constraint on the research; it became part of how access to the field was produced and maintained.
Identity, trust and the negotiation of access
One of the most difficult aspects of this experience concerned self-presentation. In an environment where a document, an accent, a relationship, or one’s origin can be interpreted politically, clearly explaining who you are is not always enough to gain trust. My access depended not only on what I said about myself, but also on how others interpreted the relationships surrounding me.
This question of identity was closely linked to the choice of intermediaries, who often acted as gatekeepers. The person who introduced me to the communities mattered almost as much as how I presented myself. Their reputation, their relationships with the authorities, and their ties to the community could facilitate access or, conversely, increase the risks. This applies to fieldwork anywhere, but is an even more pertinent issue in contexts where distrust and the wrong contacts can be a matter of life and death.
The literature has long highlighted the ethical difficulties associated with self-presentation in environments characterized by insecurity, suspicion, and power dynamics (Nordstrom & Robben , 1995; Boumaza & Campana, 2007). E. Mudinga (2016) emphasizes the importance of self-presentation and research practices in mitigating incidents in violent conflict settings.
My experience suggests that, in critical contexts, transparency must be negotiated alongside security imperatives. I travelled with the necessary documents, while avoiding unnecessarily displaying those that might raise questions. Presenting myself as a normal student rather than a researcher, limiting certain information about my travels, or lightening my bag were not theoretical choices. They were daily practices intended to reduce risks and preserve access.
Yet these adaptations contained a paradox. what made me safer or facilitated access in one encounter could generate suspicion in another. As Mutabesha (2026) points out, in a critical context, multiple self-presentations do not necessarily produce trust and can lead some interlocutors to associate variations in identity with suspicious practices.
This is one of the main lessons I take away: the challenge is not simply to choose between transparency and concealment. it’s to recognize that self-presentation is context-dependent, situated, interpreted, and potentially politicized. It is about choosing the right positionality at the right time and place. The same strategy that protects a researcher in one setting may create uncertainty in another.
What the field ultimately taught me
My exploratory fieldwork underlined that research in insecure areas is a practice of continuous negotiation and adaptation. Every move, interaction, and self-presentation could affect my safety and the possibility of maintaining access to the field.
Conducting research in a context of insecurity is not simply about collecting data, nor can it be learned through textbooks. It requires learning in practice how to position oneself, how to negotiate one’s presence, how to assess risks, and adapt research approaches while remaining attentive to ethical responsibilities. Security becomes part of the relational work through which fieldwork remains possible.
Science is not only about learning the extraordinary, it is also learning of the ordinary. Learning when to speak, what to show, how to move , and whom to trust. Attention to everyday practices, norms, and codes matters in any empirical research, but in unstable contexts these norms and codes are even more negotiated and renegotiated. Knowing how to navigate them can become essential to the safety of both researcher and participants. This is the lesson I take with me for my next fieldwork and which I will continue to practice: access is never simply given; it is continuously negotiated.