This article is derived from the methodological experiences from a 1-year ethnographic study carried out at Chingwizi among the Tokwe Mukosi displaced persons in Zimbabwe. This followed the unexpected and ultimately contentious disarticulation of over 6,000 Chivi and Mushawasha families from their ancestral land, sources of livelihoods, and social well-being. This study was therefore carried out in the context of a volatile and unpalatable relationship between the state and its functionaries, on the one hand, and the Tokwe Mukosi residents, on the other hand. The protracted conflict between the said actors has unintentionally made the Chingwizi area a very sensitive and protected area in terms of academic research. In this article, we therefore reflect on the ethical and practical dilemmas in studying the marginalized and often traumatized ‘victims’ of this dam project and the subsequent displacement, albeit from an insider’s perspective. Central to our discussions are issues such as the politics of signing forms, gaining entry, informed consent suspicion, and balancing the insider–outsider dilemma in research. The article moves on to look at the practical solutions to the said ethical and practical impediments in studying the marginalized communities in conflict situations. We therefore place emphasis on the significance of reflexivity, identity, and the politics of belonging, which was engrained in the wematongo concept. In addition to a number of strategies used under reflexive ethnography is the significance of social capital.

No abstract