COVID-19 Induced Ethnographic Distance: Remote Fieldwork, Ethical Challenges and Knowledge Production in Conflict-Affected Environments

Abstract

Post-conflict ethnographic research thrives on bodily immersion in a field site to interact and observe how conflict-affected people navigate and make sense of their world. Therefore, ethnography and distance or ethnographic distance is an oxymoron. Physical immersion in the field has the advantage of generating situated knowledge as the researcher comes to know his situation/location in the field in relation to the social location, conditions, and identities of the researched and all those involved in the knowledge production. Hence, physical presence is desirable for the study of conflict-affected populations. However, when being in the field is dangerous or impossible, the researcher can adapt without losing the key insights that physical immersion provides. COVID-19 research travel restrictions made it impossible for me to travel to Uganda, a post-conflict setting, to conduct fieldwork for my doctoral studies. I had to re-scope my original research design to conduct remote fieldwork. This raised additional ethical challenges associated with fieldwork in such settings. This article reflects on my experience collaborating with two local research assistants (RAs) to conduct remote fieldwork in Northern Uganda. First, my overall ethical responsibility was based on a commitment not to transfer all the risks to the RAs. I formulated my ethical decisions around payment, workload, and the wellbeing of the RAs. Second, remote fieldwork meant that the RAs were the brokers, interviewers, interpreters, transcribers, and translators. These expanded roles significantly impacted the knowledge production processes. To account for this, I asked the RAs to write reflexive statements to situate themselves in the research. I discussed their reflexive statements around their roles as brokers, interviewers and language translators/interpreters and how each impacted knowledge production. The analysis shows that COVID-19 accelerated the localisation of peacebuilding research and provided an opportunity to re-think issues of power relations, local capacity, and gatekeeping.