Women and Fieldwork: Towards the Creation of Methodological Tools

Foreword

We wish to express our profound gratitude to all the speakers, discussants and participants who contributed to the seminar series Women and Fieldwork: Towards the Creation of Methodological Tools. Through their experiences, analyses, and the generosity with which they shared them, they made possible the collective elaboration of a situated body of knowledge, essential to understanding the realities of fieldwork today.

Our thanks go to: Perla Abou Sleiman, Amélie Chalivet, Charlotte Escorne, Coline Maestracci, Sophia Mahroug, Karen Sandoval and Binazirbonu Yusupova, whose contributions enriched this guide through the breadth and diversity of their trajectories, encompassing war-zone, politicised, securitised, digital, ethnographic and strategic fieldwork contexts.

We also warmly thank the discussants: Divya Leducq, Sonia Le Gouriellec, Claire Marynower, Irène Mestre, Anastasiya Shapochkina, Alina Surubaru and Wendy Ramadan, for the depth of their insights, their critical feedback, and their support for early-career researchers.

We also extend our thanks to those who supported us throughout this journey: Tristan Chapelle for the design and development of the website, and to Christine, Hélène, Juliette, Maël, Maela, Mélanie and Sarah for their careful proofreading. We likewise wish to thank the Laboratoire Territoires, Villes, Environnement & Société (TVES) and the Institut de Recherche Stratégique de l’École Militaire, IRSEM Europe, for their support.

This guide is the result of a deeply collaborative effort, and we hope that it will serve as a resource, a preparation aid, and an expression of solidarity for researchers engaging with sensitive fieldwork. This first edition, produced between 2024 and 2026, reflects a situated approach, oriented around questions of gender and informed by a conscious engagement with matters of intersectionality.

As this guide came into being through the work and participation of women, the organising committee made the decision to write it in the feminine. Our aim is also to counter the invisibilisation of women’s contributions and to foreground the specific characteristics of research conducted by women.

This guide does not aspire to be exhaustive. It is intended to evolve and grow over time, incorporating new themes, experiences and profiles. We therefore invite you to send us your questions and suggestions by contacting us via the following website: terraininclusif@gmail.com

Introduction

Many social science researchers work in sensitive, unstable or politically complex field contexts, yet the methodological resources available to them remain fragmented, often informal and circulated in restricted circles. The experience of undertaking sensitive fieldwork continues to be silenced and is rarely integrated into academic trainings or institutional supervision frameworks. This guide arises precisely from that gap: from the absence of a structured space in which experiences can be transmitted, shared, discussed and transformed into accessible methodological tools.

It is with this in mind that the seminar series “Women and Fieldwork: Towards the Creation of Methodological Tools” was created — conceived as a space for exchange between situated knowledge, experiential feedback, reflexivity and academic rigour. The sessions brought together women researchers working in a range of environments, and the discussions highlighted recurring, though not universal, challenges: risk exposure, power relations, state surveillance, emotional vulnerabilities, academic asymmetries, tensions between personal life and fieldwork, protection strategies, methodological adaptations, and ethical dilemmas. This guide is thus organised around the notion of the “red line” — a dynamic, personal marker that allows the researcher to navigate environments shaped by this plurality of challenges. The red line is established in advance, adjusted in the field, and clarified on return. Far from constituting an admission of failure, it represents a research skill in sensitive contexts: a decision-making tool that helps protect the researcher, the research participants, and the quality of the scientific work.

A research field is, above all, an intellectually stimulating experience. A so-called “sensitive” field is neither necessarily difficult, nor a fortiori impossible. In many cases, fieldwork proves to be rich and proceeds without major difficulties. The aim of this guide is therefore not to alarm early-career researchers before their first fieldwork, but to offer a toolkit that can be mobilised according to their need. Some will only draw on it occasionally; others may turn to these recommendations after the fact, or dwell at greater length on particular issues raised throughout the guide. In other words, this guide is less a warning against some supposed inherent dangerousness of fieldwork than a set of resources to be activated when needed.

Although the fieldwork contexts discussed are primarily non-European, the issues raised are not confined to them. The mechanisms and degrees of violence identified during the seminar series also appear in the findings of research conducted in Europe, even if their expression may vary according to context. The methodological advice and reflections presented here thus have broader applicability, offering a categorisation of experiences encountered by researchers when conducting work in sensitive environments of any kind.

The Red Line and Good Practice

The seminar sessions highlighted the diversity of situations encountered by researchers, as well as the recurrence of common societal structures: the gendered reading of bodies, social asymmetries, underestimated risks and constant methodological adjustments. This synthesis proposes a framework drawn directly from empirical observation, without fixing fieldwork into geographical categories: the aim is to understand how researchers’ experiences are configured, regardless of the region under study.

Our reflection has also been guided by the concept of the “red line” — a dynamic threshold from which the researcher can interrupt, leave or redirect a research situation when her physical, mental or scientific safety is no longer assured. This threshold is specific to each researcher but is grounded in several shared indicators. Far from being a failure, we wish to recognise this concept as a skill, as a research method in sensitive contexts. The red line does not aim to restrict women’s access to certain fields, but rather to recognise their capacity to evaluate and assume risks in a thoughtful and situated manner. The sessions demonstrated that all researchers encounter these situations, often without prior training. In this guide, we therefore present it as both a framework for vigilance, a reflexive competence, and an institutional development tool for training and supporting researchers.

This notion is translated into operational frameworks in the tools provided in the annexes. For an initial formulation of your red line and perceived vulnerabilities, see Tool 1. For a joint definition of thresholds and compulsory stopping points with your supervisor, see Tool 2.

One of the key challenges in producing this guide was transforming a diversity of individual experiences into a robust analytical framework. We have therefore chosen to present both the recurring elements shared across multiple field contexts and isolated experiences that nonetheless reveal structural mechanisms. This approach is consistent with a commitment to inclusivity and acknowledges that minority experiences are not anecdotal: they make visible the conditions that make certain fields possible, others impossible, and certain researchers more vulnerable than others.

Positionality and Power Relations

Who is the researcher in the field, how is she read, what social structures shape her experience?

This reflection can be formalised before departure using Tool 1.

Positionality is neither a fixed attribute nor a simple “context”, but a shifting relation shaped by visible markers (gender, age, appearance, accent), social ascriptions (Western, journalist, activist, student), and the political structures that frame interactions.

Being a woman researcher produces different effects depending on the field: increased accessibility in male-dominated environments, de-eroticisation in certain authoritarian contexts, complete invisibilisation when accompanied by a man, or heightened suspicion in politicised spaces. Nationality functions as either resource or stigma: Western researchers benefit from a “social passport” unavailable to local women but may also be associated with geopolitical agendas (espionage, propaganda, interference). Perceived ethnicity modulates sexualisation, surveillance or trust. Language acts as a marker of class and proximity: it facilitates access but creates vulnerability in dangerous situations. Disciplinary positioning also influences legitimacy and how interlocutors respond, with paternalism playing a key role, especially in technological or strategic environments. Finally, family and marital status transforms relational dynamics, sometimes opening unexpected spaces of solidarity or reinforcing vulnerability. The researcher thus exists within a set of fluctuating identities, the constant adjustment of which conditions access, trust and the production of knowledge.

Good practice identified

Knowing how to present oneself in a situated manner: making one’s role, institutional framework and its limits explicit, without overstating expertise. Adjusting this self-presentation according to context (disciplinary, security, national, professional). In some cases, limiting academic connotations while maintaining transparency about one’s institutional affiliation — by emphasising one’s student or teaching status, for instance.
Observing how one is perceived and using these contextual interpretations as analytical material rather than as a norm to embody.
Anticipating the effects of language and accent: choosing the language that offers distance or proximity depending on the moment. Remaining attentive to misunderstandings, which are often sources of vulnerability.
Analysing power structures: identifying hierarchies of gender, class, social group, ethnicity and nationality, and how these condition access to information and spaces.
Mobilising situated strategies: de-eroticising the relationship when necessary, drawing on local solidarities (women, colleagues, protective figures). For instance, wearing a wedding ring is often sufficient to create distance from persistent individuals.
Integrating familial and social dimensions: recognising that parenthood, age or family obligations may shape fieldwork pace.
Making positionality a reflexive tool: documenting identity adjustments rather than striving for artificial coherence. Noting what changes between first impressions and retrospective interpretations.

Risks, Vulnerabilities & Emotions

What puts her at risk, what affects her body and emotions, and how she adapts.

The risks identified unfold along a continuum, from the visible (bombardments, weapons, political surveillance) to the subtle (intrusive paternalism, interactional shifts, emotional exhaustion). The sessions show that most critical shifts occur in ordinary contexts — informal moments, spaces of sociability, or unforeseen situations.

Vulnerability is reinforced by the absence of institutional preparation: no training on Gender-Based and Sexual Violence (GBSV), on early warning signs, on withdrawal from fieldwork, or on the emotional processing needed after the field. Researchers describe risks of automatic heterosexualisation, harassment, physical or symbolic assault, as well as psychosocial risks: hypervigilance, anxiety, loneliness, guilt, and tension between scientific commitment and self-protection. Authoritarian or militarised contexts add surveillance, censorship, suspicion, internet blackouts, the presence of weapons and sudden instability. Health is a risk on its own: serious illness, environmental pollution, insanitary conditions, extreme climate, exhausting mobility. Emotions play a central methodological role: they signal danger, asymmetry and boundary violations, and require a space for processing that is often absent.

The “red line” emerges as a variable but inescapable threshold: as soon as control of the context disappears, the research must be suspended or redirected. Researchers deploy self-protective strategies (anticipation, boundaries, working in pairs, restraint, withdrawal), but emphasise that emotion is both a reflexive material and a factor of vulnerability.

Good practice identified

Identifying visible and invisible risks: mapping physical, environmental, political, social, digital and emotional risks. Including ‘low-level’ risks: intimidation, rumours, escalations linked to alcohol.

This mapping is proposed in Tool 1 (Risk Identification) and discussed jointly in Tool 2.

Continuously evaluating the “red line” and monitoring early warning signs: changes in tone, the arrival of unidentified third parties, movement towards a closed space. Withdrawing as soon as control of the context slips, even if the interview seems productive.
Securing interactions: preferring open public spaces. Suggesting meeting places to interviewees while making sure not to impose them. Avoiding evenings out, bars or after-work settings if the dynamic is unpredictable. Limiting or refusing alcohol; maintaining an accessible exit strategy.
Protecting data and communications: exercising caution with USB drives, informal transfers and connected devices in authoritarian contexts. Setting up a dedicated communication line for fieldwork (local SIM card, secondary number).
Taking care of one’s body: anticipating health risks (vector-borne diseases, heat, water quality). Accepting the need to suspend fieldwork in cases of exhaustion, illness or psychological overload. Finding out about available medical facilities near the fieldwork location if needed.
Making emotion a methodological resource: documenting fear, unease, dissonance, and stupefaction — these are indicators of asymmetries. Planning a regular space for emotional release (peers, writing, supervision).
Breaking the silence: allowing oneself the right to name an incident; using peer networks or institutional mechanisms. Recognising that some realisations can be delayed.

Research Practices, Adaptations & Ethics

How she produces knowledge, despite or through constraints.

The research practices observed during the sessions reveal a pragmatic, situated and inventive methodology, far removed from classical prescriptions. Researchers constantly adjust their approaches: careful choice of locations (open cafes, neutral spaces), refusal of evening interviews, management of movement and communication.

Dangerous or closed field contexts lead to methodological reorientations: shifting to digital methods, analysis of visual archives, semiotics of commemorative objects, mobilising diaspora networks, prolonged observation when interviews become risky or unproductive. Rigorous attention to ethics is crucial: this is less about ticking institutional boxes than negotiating the protection of research participants, one’s own security, and local social expectations.

Researchers develop framing and distancing techniques (performed neutrality, deliberate de-eroticisation, use of neutral attire, institutional positioning), while acknowledging the effects these adjustments have on the nature of the data collected. Economic development asymmetries require vigilance regarding the co-production of knowledge, the attitude vis-à-vis requests for assistance, the impact of academic statuses and the circulation of sensitive information. Analysis also shows that adaptation is not a methodological deviation but a core scientific competence: knowing when to abandon, redirect, slow down, or make the limitations encountered explicit is fully part of knowledge production. This capacity for adaptation and the strategies it entails are an inherent part of any research project: it is essential to document them in scientific outputs, especially in methodological sections.

Methodological alternatives in the event of a site, country or interlocutor becoming inaccessible can be explored with one's supervisor using Tool 2.

Good practice identified

Adjusting methods to local configurations: reducing formal interviews when they produce scripted or evasive responses. Drawing on prolonged observation, material traces, semiotics, digital sources.
Choosing locations and timing with intention: prioritising open spaces, managing movement, planning for the return journey. Avoiding late-evening interviews, noisy or unstable environments.
Developing presentation strategies: varying dress, language and posture according to the degree of sexualisation or suspicion. Foregrounding the institution or collective where it can enhance protection.
Managing the professional/personal boundary: a separate professional number; managing out-of-hours messages. Being alert to financial, affective or personal solicitations.
Adapting to authoritarian or sensitive contexts: oral consent when a formal framework is inappropriate or risky. Documentation through triangulation when data is filtered or censored.
Practising relational ethics: not imposing an inappropriate approach on research participants. Making explicit the limits of what can be shared or recorded.
Knowing when to withdraw or redirect: an inaccessible field is not a failure — archives, diaspora and digital methods are legitimate alternatives. Justifying and documenting withdrawal decisions as an integral part of the scientific process.

Before You Leave

Concrete preparation steps are set out in Tools 1 to 3: self-positioning and risk identification (Tool 1), joint assessment with the supervisor (Tool 2), logistical preparation and checklist (Tool 3).

Fieldwork begins before departure, sometimes several months before first physical presence on site. This preparatory phase constitutes a fully-fledged period of work — scientific, logistical and personal. Yet it remains largely invisible within academic trajectories and poorly supported by institutions. Researchers describe a lack of concrete information, the absence of specific training, and a strong tendency towards individual responsibilisation, even as the stakes around security, ethics and health are central.

In many disciplines, fieldwork retains a quasi-sacred dimension. It is sometimes perceived as a rite of passage — a foundational trial that would attest to one’s scientific legitimacy. This representation is rooted in an imaginary inherited from the figure of the explorer: a male researcher, autonomous, courageous, venturing where no one has gone before. Fieldwork advice passed on informally tends to be constructed around this implicit model, with no consideration given to gender inequalities or the differentiated constraints they produce.

Fieldwork preparation also reveals structural inequalities in the distribution of research topics, fields and methodological approaches. Some fields — linked to the military sector, natural sciences, or cyber contexts — remain highly male-dominated, both in terms of representation and academic analysis. These dynamics reflect patriarchal power relations that can be exacerbated depending on the studied contexts.

While awareness of positionality and gendered power relations is essential, it should not lead to systematic self-restriction. Several researchers emphasise the importance of not denying oneself practices that male colleagues would adopt without question. The challenge lies rather in identifying one’s red line, which is neither fixed nor universal and may shift during the preparation process, once in the field, and again on return.

On a scientific level, the preparatory work involves developing the literature review, defining the fieldwork and research questions precisely, establishing contact with local actors, partner institutions or intermediaries, and determining the duration of the stay. This work also includes methodological preparation. Engaging with existing literature on methods in fieldwork contexts with similar configurations can provide both academic and practical entry points. In some cases, ethical approval may be required before fieldwork begins. Approval procedures can be lengthy and complex, with timeframes varying according to the level of risk identified. Anticipating these processes is essential to prevent delays from impeding the project.

This intellectual work is accompanied by considerable organisational effort: finding accommodation, administrative procedures, insurance, health coverage, banking arrangements, language learning or consolidation, and anticipating material living conditions. In certain contexts, applying for a visa may raise ethical dilemmas — notably when researchers opt for a tourist visa to facilitate field access — placing them, even before departure, in close proximity to their red line.

This accumulation of tasks takes place within a context of intense academic pressure. Between teaching obligations, participation in academic events, grants applications and administrative deadlines, fieldwork preparation adds to an already considerable mental load. Departure often crystallises significant expectations — both institutional and personal — reinforcing a demand for performance that weighs particularly heavily on women researchers. Equally, it is important to remember that every fieldwork experience is unique, and preparation is specific to everyone. While it is valuable to discuss preparation with colleagues, direct comparison can sometimes have the opposite effect. It is therefore essential to listen to and trust oneself, to avoid unnecessary frustration or anxiety.

And Your Loved Ones?

Inform your loved ones of your itinerary, key dates and main steps of the fieldwork.
Ask for the support of your loved ones for certain stages of preparation where possible (accommodation, administrative procedures, logistics): there is no obligation to do everything alone, especially when it comes to preparing for fieldwork.
Set limits in the face of excessive worry from loved ones, so as not to carry an additional emotional burden before departure.
Plan communication arrangements in advance (frequency and channels) to avoid constant demands for contact.

And Your Health?

Anticipate needs relating to menstrual health, particularly in contexts where access to sanitary products is limited.
Find out about local regulations concerning your medications and, if necessary, have prescriptions translated by certified translators. These verifications can be carried out with the support of health centres specialising in, or experienced with, international contexts, to provide informed advice and comprehensive information (necessary vaccinations, guidance on medications or local hospitals, etc.).
Check the terms of your health coverage before departure (insurance, mutual health fund) and ensure you have sufficient funds in case of medical expenses in the field.
Allow yourself to release pressure before departure and accept that not everything will be perfectly finalised — and that some adjustments, particularly methodological ones, will only be possible once in the field.
Take time for yourself before leaving: rest and slow down to preserve your physical and mental wellbeing.

Recommendations for Institutions

Institutions have a central role to play in supporting researchers before fieldwork. Offering specific training, spaces for sharing good practice, and awareness-raising activities on GBSV and discrimination appears to be a necessity. First aid training also seems essential, particularly for isolated fieldwork contexts. Researchers express a need for concrete information: knowing who to turn to in the event of difficulty, identifying points of contact, and being assured that they are neither alone nor left to fend for themselves.

Thesis supervisors play a key role in these measures. Attentive supervision, openness to discussions about possible violence and discrimination, sharing trusted contacts on the ground, and early awareness on the concept of the red line all serve to legitimise limits and prevent risk situations. In certain cases, the presence of supervisors in the field constitutes important support, both scientifically and symbolically.

In the Field

Fieldwork begins well before the first interview or formal point of contact. Getting settled, learning local codes, navigating the city, managing accommodation and informal exchanges already constitute research material. The various experiences collected show that the constraints and difficulties encountered contribute to redefining the researcher’s posture. Depending on the context, these initial stages shape invisible power relations while also altering the way in which the researcher is perceived.

For daily self-monitoring of warning signs, see Tool 4.

In the field, the capacity to interpret the dynamics of a given space is central. In a militarised environment, the circulation of weapons or the presence of armed forces structures interactions; in a politicised neighbourhood, forms of surveillance or gatekeeping are more subtle. In a market, continuous flows, physical positioning and commercial pressure transform the very possibility of creating a relational bubble. In an elite setting, control comes more from hierarchies, statuses and professional codes. Contextual vigilance is not an attitude of permanent suspicion, but a form of situated attention that allows practices to be adjusted as situations unfold.

This vigilance is accompanied by practices of management and anticipation. The choice of location for conducting interviews conditions both scientific quality and safety. Semi-open public spaces (cafes, hotel lobbies, parks) often help to prevent situations from tipping, offering a possibility of withdrawal and limiting ambiguities. Festive venues and bars carry higher risks when alcohol is present, as dynamics can shift abruptly. Private spaces require a very careful assessment of the context and the individuals involved. In certain environments, the presence of weapons or the interweaving of political powers makes closed spaces particularly sensitive. One methodological approach consists of prioritising, wherever possible, configurations that allow a visible exit and a minimal degree of control over one’s immediate surroundings.

During interviews, or even simple fieldwork observations, interactions are shaped by gender, age, class, nationality, language and race. Several researchers describe paternalistic, infantilising exchanges or seduction attempts, which produce recurrent forms of asymmetry. Some resort at times to a gender performance: neutralising feminine markers, adopting technical language and a confident posture as a protective strategy. Others draw instead on complete transparency or the display of a foreign identity to avoid misunderstandings. A first step is to recognise the routine nature of these dynamics in order to be better prepared for them. The key is to recognise these dynamics without essentialising them, and to adjust one’s self-presentation to maintain a coherent and intelligible framework for interaction.

Digital tools structure exchanges in a fundamental way, particularly via online messaging platforms used as professional interfaces in many contexts. Depending on the setting, these may vary: WhatsApp, Telegram, WeChat, KakaoTalk, Signal, or other local applications. It is advisable to find out which communication tools are preferred in the fieldwork context. This centrality produces a strong porosity between the private sphere and research: messages at all hours, requests for access, the sending of images or documents. A cautious approach involves preserving moments of disconnection, avoiding unsecured transfers, and refusing to handle physical media (USB drives, unknown devices). The protection of sensitive data begins at collection, even before archiving.

The reported experiences show that certain situations can escalate quickly: unexpected alcohol use, the arrival of unidentified third parties, political intimidation, intrusive behaviour or harassment, and sudden shifts in the tone of an interview. Recognising these early warning signs is an essential skill. Withdrawal may be necessary to preserve one’s physical and emotional safety, as well as to maintain research ethics. The red line is never an admission of failure: it is a reflexive competence.

These challenges underline the importance of building, both in advance and on the ground, a reliable local network in the field. Friendships, contacts and colleagues within local institutions all constitute valuable resources for navigating what may sometimes be a completely unfamiliar environment. These connections can also be communicated to loved ones, helping to reassure them about the support available to the researcher in the event of difficulties. Such resource persons are indispensable when it comes to understanding local norms and can prove decisive in the event of difficulties with local authorities. More than mere local contacts, these relationships can ultimately evolve into lasting friendships, which are worth nurturing.

And Your Loved Ones?

Communicate major changes (travel, timetables, sensitive areas) without conveying excessive anxiety.
Explain why you cannot respond immediately.
Preserve moments of disconnection — for yourself and for them.
Do not feel obliged to “constantly reassure”: this can become an additional emotional burden, and where possible, avoid exposing loved ones to the anxiety of fieldwork (do not share everything in real time).

And Your Health?

Recognise signs of physical or mental exhaustion and accept the need for true breaks: allowing yourself a few days of rest, tourism or simple recovery is entirely acceptable and encouraged in cases of exhaustion.
Keep an emotional diary to track changes in your state of mind.
Seek support quickly following an incident, even one that appears minor.
Identify symptoms of secondary shock and do not remain isolated.

Symptoms of Secondary Shock or Vicarious Trauma: Warning Signs

Vicarious trauma refers to the experience of someone exposed to the traumatic experiences of others: prolonged exposure to accounts, observations or analyses of situations involving violence, conflict or extreme suffering. It can affect anyone working with traumatised individuals. These symptoms do not indicate a lack of professionalism but reflect an overwhelm of emotional integrative capacity. A single isolated symptom is not alarming, but a combination of symptoms, or their persistence over time, should be considered as a warning sign. If in doubt, contact a healthcare professional or the national emergency services number of the country where you are based.

Recommendations for Institutions

Researchers describe a constant need for genuine rather than symbolic institutional support. One option would be to make available a safety contact person, reachable at any time in the event of an ambiguous or dangerous situation. This safety contact must have a thorough command of risk analysis and be able to support the researcher before, during and after fieldwork in assessing the risks to which she may have been exposed. This person can also serve as a point of contact available in emergencies, able to coordinate, wherever possible, any type of assistance required. An explicit and institutionally supported emergency withdrawal protocol would help prevent the guilt that researchers often feel about leaving. Comprehensive health coverage — medical, psychological and logistical — is a prerequisite for any sensitive fieldwork.

Supervisors — thesis directors as well as members of monitoring committees — play a decisive role in legitimising limits and one’s own red line. They can contribute to deconstructing the heroic imaginaries associated with fieldwork and remind researchers that stopping or redirecting is part of the scientific process. Supervision does not consist of pushing researchers to carry on at all costs, but of supporting a reflexive and realistic approach, and helping to reformulate the research topic when certain areas or actors become inaccessible or dangerous.

We wish to emphasise the importance of regular check-ins, however brief, which allow micro-decisions to be analysed, recurring situations to be defused, and the delayed effects of fieldwork to be identified. Facilitated access to mental health professionals, as well as to peer discussion spaces, constitutes an essential resource for the safety and scientific continuity of the project.

On Return

Fieldwork continues actively upon the researcher’s return to her home country. An essential step on return is engaging in a genuine exercise of reflexivity and evaluation of the experiences lived through, and of the researcher’s own red line. The lessons drawn are paramount to the continuation of academic work, especially in the case of multi-year projects such as PhDs. While a period of rest is recommended following what may have been a prolonged immersion in the field, this exercise allows one to revisit lived experiences to better adapt future fieldwork.

The post-fieldwork debrief and data security are addressed in a dedicated section of Tool 2 (RETEX section) and in specific points of vigilance in Tool 3 (On Return: anonymisation and security).

Identifying the difficulties and obstacles encountered and reflecting on whether one’s personal red line was crossed, constitutes an obvious first step in this evaluative process. The diversity of risks encountered (health-related, political, security-related, etc.) must be identified and articulated to be consciously acknowledged — and above all shared with the research supervisor and the relevant institutions. The difficulties encountered can lead to the development of risk mitigation strategies, which can be elaborated with the research supervisor or academic institutions. These experiences can also be shared with colleagues, with the aim of identifying common challenges, sharing feedback, and offering moral and academic support. In these strategies and exchanges, good practice and positive experiences should not be overlooked: they represent personal and academic strengths to be drawn upon in the future.

Adaptability thus emerges as an essential component of this exercise, particularly in preparing for future fieldwork. At this stage, an effort to renegotiate the scope of research may be undertaken to reframe overall feasibility. Beyond adapting the methodology (the profile of research participants, number of interviews, methodological tools, etc.), the very nature of the fieldwork and its scope must be subject to a thorough evaluation, particularly for rapidly evolving fields prone to a risk of closure (unstable political contexts, armed conflicts, pandemics, administrative difficulties). With the rise of digital tools, a multitude of adaptive strategies are now available to researchers. Such tools — web surveys, online interviews — can also be complemented by alternative methodologies, such as the analysis of memorial productions (iconography, museums), or the mobilisation of transnational professional communities. In this sense, these digital and alternative methodological tools also help to deconstruct the orientalising lens of fieldwork. The image of the researcher arriving from abroad to study distant lands is thus, to some degree, called into question by the range of possibilities and alternative methodological tools now available.

Furthermore, whilst data processing is important, so too is the sorting of contacts established on the ground. Unwanted contacts can simply be deleted or blocked but may also be reported to relevant authorities in cases of harassment or persistent contact following departure from the field. Conversely, relevant contacts can be registered in a separate, secure document to prevent loss of contact or the dissemination of personal data. These contacts should also be maintained so that they can be mobilised again in future fieldwork. Depending on the sensitivity of the context and the research, the relationship with research participants can be particularly fragile, and may be embedded in interpersonal dynamics based on trust. While it is not required to form deep personal friendships, in the perspective of a return to the studied field, recontacting and meeting again with certain research participants can enrich future data collection while strengthening the existing network of relationships. In this sense, it is important not to “dispose of” research participants once fieldwork is over, at the risk of making them feel used. Maintaining respectful contact — for instance, during important holidays or on birthdays — is encouraged.

It is essential to reflect on how the researcher’s approach to fieldwork has evolved. Has the overall relationship with the field changed? Have apprehensions faded or, conversely, been confirmed? Does the researcher feel capable of returning to the field? If so, when, for how long and under what conditions? It is vital at this point to review still missing data for the research, and by extension the need to return to the field, along with assessing the researcher’s mental and physical capacity to repeat the experience under improved and appropriate conditions. Finally, return can carry a certain emotional weight: nostalgia, a sense of loss for the people and places left behind. Although rarely mentioned, a longing for the field also exists, and it can be precisely this that drives the desire to plan the next fieldwork abroad in a calmer and more enthusiastic approach.

And Your Loved Ones?

Being met by familiar faces after a period of absence can facilitate a calm return: being picked up at the station or airport by loved ones can ease the mental load and help with the transition back home.
Talking and sharing one’s experience of fieldwork is essential — whether to help loved ones understand the difficulties encountered, or to “reassure” those who perceived the fieldwork negatively. This process will facilitate their support and help with future goodbyes.

And Your Health?

Allow yourself the time to “settle back” in your home location: a period of academic break is strongly recommended before immersing yourself again in fieldwork assessment and the data processing.
Take the time to understand what health risks you were exposed to during your fieldwork (GBSV, physical or psychological violence, trauma, pollution, infections, poisoning).
An appointment with your general practitioner (or a specialist, if needed) may be considered: whether for a routine check-up or to address a specific issue arising from an incident that occurred during fieldwork.

Recommendations for Institutions

The discussions during the sessions brought to light a recurring form of institutional hypocrisy regarding the valorisation of research. While institutions benefit from the remarkable nature of research conducted in non-European and sometimes considered dangerous field contexts, the research conditions and institutional support provided to researchers in those very settings remain severely inadequate.

We therefore call, first and foremost, on institutions to recognise and consider the exposure to violence experienced by researchers. While physical violence is more easily identifiable, psychological forms of violence — such as separation from loved ones, confrontation with the unknown (particularly for younger researchers), trauma and GBSV — must be recognised and their acknowledgement institutionalised. We therefore suggest the introduction of internal procedures and documentation for the monitoring of researchers on their return, the creation of a space for dialogue, and the provision of a medical appointment (general and specialist) covered by the institution. The aim is not to glorify or reward risk-taking in dangerous fields, but to put in place mechanisms for exchange that hold institutions accountable.

We also recommend thorough engagement with the research supervisor. Beyond the development of risk mitigation strategies tailored to the researcher and her work, the integration of questions of positionality, relationship to the field and gender must feature in the academic process, to prevent any form of silencing of potential experiences of violence. As highlighted during the sessions, the professional framework can lead to a delayed awareness of violence experienced, and therefore to a more difficult management of trauma. Accordingly, their full recognition constitutes an imperative that is both personal — in terms of respect for the researcher’s integrity — and academic, by foregrounding the ethical reflections and methodological adaptations that have taken place.

Non-Conclusion

This guide is the first edition. It emerged from a seminar series, from discussions that were at times difficult and often very concrete, and from a shared observation: too many things are still transmitted in hushed tones, in moments of urgency, or after the fact. We wanted to gather these experiences together, organise them, and transform them into usable tools — without setting them in stone or claiming to speak for everyone.

What you will read here is not intended to be applied as a norm. It is a toolkit: you can pick and choose from it, adapt it, skip sections, come back to it later. The aim is not to create yet another injunction, nor to transform every departure into a worst-case scenario. Fieldwork can go well. It can even be joyful, stimulating, formative — shaped by precious encounters and unexpected solidarities. But fieldwork can also turn. And in those moments, having points of reference, words, protocols and identified contact persons makes all the difference.

That is why the notion of the red line runs throughout the guide. It is neither fixed, nor universal, nor shameful. It is personal, situated and evolving. It is built in preparation, reassessed in the field, and sometimes only fully understood on return. The red line is not an admission of failure: it is a research competence in sensitive contexts, a decision-making tool, and a means of protecting the researcher, the research participants, and the scientific quality of the work produced.

We therefore issue a call for contributions. We want this guide to grow: new field contexts, new profiles, minority experiences, inventive methodological practices, institutional resources, support mechanisms, example formulations, legal or administrative tools. If you wish to share feedback, a recommendation, a resource or a critique, we invite you to contact us via the email address provided: terraininclusif@gmail.com.

This guide is not a conclusion. It is an opening: a collective point of departure, designed to circulate, be discussed, be corrected — and above all, to support those who go out into the field.

Who Are We?

This guide was conceived and coordinated by Marie Hiliquin, Eugénie Masclef and Anastasia Protassov, on the initiative of the seminar series “Women and Fieldwork: Towards the Creation of Methodological Tools”.

We are social science researchers engaged in fieldwork in international and sensitive contexts, and have each encountered, at different stages of our careers, the methodological, ethical and personal challenges this guide addresses.

This project emerged from a dual observation: on the one hand, the lack of formalised resources on women’s fieldwork experiences; on the other, the richness of the knowledge produced informally, often transmitted between peers in fragmented or belated ways.

Our role in this guide is not to suggest a normative framework, but to shape, structure, and make accessible the experiences and practices collectively shared during the seminar series. This document reflects a collaborative approach, informed by a plurality of trajectories, disciplines and fieldwork contexts.

Women and Fieldwork

Women and Fieldwork: Towards the Creation of Methodological Tools

Women and Fieldwork: Towards the Creation of Methodological Tools

Foreword

Introduction

The Red Line and Good Practice

Positionality and Power Relations

Good practice identified

Risks, Vulnerabilities & Emotions

Good practice identified

Research Practices, Adaptations & Ethics

Good practice identified

Before You Leave

And Your Loved Ones?

And Your Health?

Recommendations for Institutions

In the Field

And Your Loved Ones?

And Your Health?

Symptoms of Secondary Shock or Vicarious Trauma: Warning Signs

Recommendations for Institutions

On Return

And Your Loved Ones?

And Your Health?

Recommendations for Institutions

Non-Conclusion

Further Reading

Country-Specific Resources for Field Preparation

Who Are We?