Turning the tables or business as usual? COVID-19 as a catalyst in North–South research collaborations

Abstract

Since February 2020, we have witnessed COVID-19 profoundly disturb ongoing research dynamics – including research collaborations between the Global North and the Global South. Reduced international and regional mobility obliged research collaborations to reinvent their modalities. The role of field-based researchers (those physically ‘there’) has never been more crucial. This article draws on the testimonies of researchers from the African Great Lakes region to reflect on the positionality of field-based researchers in North–South research collaborations throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Their embeddedness in the field foregrounded their complementary strengths in interactions with scholars from the Global North. We also illustrate how vulnerabilities – both unstable employment and field-related risks – were unevenly shared by partners in the Global South and the Global North. In conclusion, the COVID-19 experience inspired us to adhere to new collaboration modalities that move beyond post-colonial dynamics in North–South research collaborations.

Full text

Turning the tables or business
as usual? COVID-19 as a
catalyst in North–South
research collaborations
An Ansoms
Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium
Anuarite Bashizi
Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium
Romuald Adili Amani
Independent Researcher, Congo
Joel Baraka Akilimali
Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium
Lionel Bisimwa Matabaro
Institut supérieur du développement rural de Bukavu, Congo
Parfait Kaningu Bushenyula
Institut supérieur du développement rural de Bukavu, Congo
David Mutabesha
Institut supérieur du développement rural de Bukavu, Congo
Sylvie Bashizi Nabintu
Institut supérieur du développement rural de Bukavu, Congo
Guillaume Ndayikengurutse
Université du Burundi, Burundi
Joseph Nsabimana
Independent Researcher, Rwanda
Corresponding author:
An Ansoms, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Montesquieu 1, L2.08.03, 1348 Louvain-la-
Neuve, Belgium.
Email: an.ansoms@uclouvain.be
Article
Qualitative Research
2024, Vol. 24(6) 1331–1352
© The Author(s) 2024
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/14687941241264658
journals.sagepub.com/home/qrj

Patient Polepole
Institut supérieur du développement rural de Bukavu, Congo
Abstract
Since February 2020, we have witnessed COVID-19 profoundly disturb ongoing research dynam-
ics –including research collaborations between the Global North and the Global South. Reduced
international and regional mobility obliged research collaborations to reinvent their modalities.
The role of field-based researchers (those physically ‘there’) has never been more crucial. This
article draws on the testimonies of researchers from the African Great Lakes region to reflect
on the positionality of field-based researchers in North–South research collaborations throughout
the COVID-19 pandemic. Their embeddedness in the field foregrounded their complementary
strengths in interactions with scholars from the Global North. We also illustrate how vulner-
abilities –both unstable employment and field-related risks –were unevenly shared by part-
ners in the Global South and the Global North. In conclusion, the COVID-19 experience
inspired us to adhere to new collaboration modalities that move beyond post-colonial dynamics
in North–South research collaborations.
Keywords
COVID19, research ethics, decolonisation of knowledge production, Great Lakes of Africa,
North–South research collaborations
Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic generated profound societal upheavals, including its human
toll, significant economic losses, and social fragmentation. The pandemic also led to sig-
nificant changes in work practices, particularly in relation to mobility. The academic
world adapted, and scholars increasingly worked through online encounters. However,
these new practices brought significant challenges for social sciences qualitative research,
which is primarily based on social interactions and physical encounters with actors and
practices. Creating deep understandings of social phenomena often requires an assiduous
presence in the field (Olivier de Sardan, 2008). The omnipresent quarantines, travel sus-
pensions, border closures and social distancing measures forced many researchers to
reinvent their research methods (Okech et al., 2021; Wood et al., 2020).
For some, the travel restrictions incited experimentation with technological innova-
tions (Howlett, 2021). Even before the pandemic, there was growing acceptance that
face-to-face interactions were no longer “the gold standard against which the perform-
ance of computer-mediated interaction is judged”(Hine, 2005: 4; see also Fielding
et al., 2008; Jenner and Myers, 2018). However, for several authors, remote forms of
research remain a ‘second choice’(Deakin and Wakefield, 2014; see also Johnson
et al., 2019). Some cite technical (Jowett et al., 2011) and ethical challenges (Schatz
and Volo, 2004); others note the difficulties in establishing trust from a distance
(Abidin and De Seta, 2020), particularly in situations where violence and conflict may
impede interviewees’safety (Okech et al., 2021).
Other research teams leaned intensely on their researchers ‘on the ground’since remote
partners were obliged to (indefinitely) function ‘from a distance’.InmanyNorth–South
1332 Qualitative Research 24(6)

research collaborations, the ‘object’of research is located in the Global South, while the
funding and decision-making about research management happen in the Global North.
1
These collaborations are often characterised by skewed power relations anchored in
neo-colonial structures and normative frameworks that inherently push researchers
from the Global South to the periphery of knowledge generation (Bradley, 2007;
McKenzie, 2019). Researchers from the Global South (especially those who are
locally embedded in the field) have limited opportunities to participate in the entire
cycle of research –from conception to valorisation of research results. Instead, they
are mobilised as human capital in the margins –data gatherers, research assistants,
and research brokers working on temporary contracts (Nyenyezi et al., 2020).
However, the global pandemic restricted the researcher movement, thereby reshaping
positionality and the broader power relations characterising these North–South collabora-
tions. This article illustrates how the COVID-19 crisis provided a moment of catharsis in
the organisation of North–South research collaborations. We focus on research collabora-
tions between Belgium and the Great Lakes Region of Africa to highlight how research-
ers of diverse positionalities were affected. Embeddedness in the field allowed
researchers in the South to foreground their complementary strengths in interactions
with scholars from the Global North. Yet, we also illustrate how vulnerabilities –
namely, unstable employment and field-related risks –were unevenly shared by partners
in the Global South and the Global North.
These findings have relevance for the post-COVID-19 period since restrictions on
international mobility will continue to determine our working conditions. For example,
mobility restrictions in the DRC are far from exceptional (e.g., the 2018–2020 Ebola
crisis in Eastern DRC, see Nyenyezi et al., 2021) and security problems regularly
impede access for outsiders. At a more global scale, climate change should make us ques-
tion the ecological footprint of our travels.
2
Alternatively, scholars from the Global South
have long faced many restrictions on their international mobility due to increasingly strict
Northern migration laws. Organising physical encounters with people from various con-
tinents will likely remain a challenging endeavour.
Power relations in collaborative North–South research
Over the past two decades, a growing cross-disciplinary literature has reflected upon
ethical challenges in field research (Adenaike and Vansina, 1996; Ansoms et al., 2021;
Lee-Treweek and Linkogle, 2000; Legrand and Gutron, 2016; Nordstrom and Robben,
1995; Sanford and Angel-Ajani, 2006; Thomson et al., 2012; Wall and Mollinga,
2008). Questions about research collaborations between the Global South and the
Global North are frequently raised, though often in a peripheral way. This section directly
reflects on the achievements and challenges of such collaborative South–North research,
including the post-colonial legacies and power relations that characterise such initiatives.
Collaborative research is based on the principle of establishing links and partner-
ships between different actors with a common goal in the research process
(Smulyan, 1987). In North–South collaborative research, these partnerships involve
scientific institutions (research organisations, universities, science academies) or
researchers from countries in both the Global South and the Global North. Also
framed as North–South research partnerships, these collaborative research initiatives
Ansoms et al. 1333

are key to enhancing opportunities for researchers from the Global South in knowl-
edge production systems (Baud, 2002).
North–South research partnerships were first encouraged by the 1979 United Nations
Conference on Science and Technology for Development (Gaillard, 1996). At this con-
ference, the concept was strongly supported by the representatives of Global South coun-
tries (ibid.). Bilateral cooperation agreements were later established between research
institutions from the North and the South, specifying the objectives, methods, means
and duration of projects (Barré and Chabbal, 1996). In 1999, the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development in Vienna determined specific characteristics
of North–South cooperative research (UNCTAD 1999, see also Gaillard, 1996).
According to these principles, North–South collaborative research should favour
Southern countries’development priorities, guarantee the participation of Southern part-
ners as much as possible, involve joint follow-up, and provide a training component
(ibid.).
Despite good intentions, the inherent assumptions of North–South collaboration often
situate the Global North as the holder of the knowledge and the Global South as an
apprentice (Bradley, 2007). Northern institutions are said to bring theoretical and meth-
odological knowledge, while the South institutions are agents who generate and deliver
the data. Many programmes assume the need to reinforce Global South research institu-
tions’local capacities as a starting point (Carbonnier and Kontinen, 2015; Mwambari
et al., 2022). The transfer of knowledge and technology is said to develop local capacity
to produce ‘objective’knowledge to counterbalance traditional forms of knowledge
(Gaillard, 1996).
These assumptions were called into question over 20 years ago (Engelhard and Box,
1999; De la Rive Box 2001), and have only garnered increasing criticism since. For
example, Ogden and Porter (2000) have noted the high-quality research (from
various fields) produced by researchers in countries like Brazil, India and China.
Others have highlighted how North–South collaborations also offer Global North part-
ners the opportunities to learn (e.g., how to complexify theory and historical-framed
ways of thinking (Bhambra et al., 2020) or navigate complex research environments
and adapt research tools (Jentsch, 2004). However, persistent discriminatory mechan-
isms continue to push African scholars to the background. Briggs and Weathers (2016)
illustrated how Africa-based scholars –who, on average, opt for a deeper more locally
specific focus in contrast to the more generalising cross-country preferences of journals
–are less likely to publish or be cited in top-ranked journals on African dynamics.
Today, mainstream discourse seems to acknowledge that North–South research part-
nerships strengthen the research capacities of everyone involved. Each partner should be
recognised for how their expertise complemented the research team (Cole and Knowle,
1993). The mutual strengthening of capacities (Jentsch, 2004), the production of scientif-
ically relevant knowledge, and the translation of research results into policy interventions
are all important achievements that can be expected from a North–South research partner-
ship (Droz and Mayor, 2009; Vidal, 2017). At the same time, North–South collaborative
research is confronted with numerous challenges. Asymmetrical power relations favour
the Global North (Anderson, 2002; McKenzie, 2019), resulting in inequitable access to
information, training, funding, exchange, and publication possibilities (Bradley, 2007;
Jentsch and Pilley, 2003). Northern institutions and their researchers also have more
1334 Qualitative Research 24(6)

control over the project design and management since most research funding is managed
in the Global North (Maina-Ahlberg et al., 1997).
North–South partnerships tend to revolve around the Global North, while “discon-
nected peripheries …follow more than they collaborate”(McKenzie, 2019: 427).
Structural inequalities and colonial legacies result in situations where the North is con-
sidered as a provider and the South as a receiver (Jentsh and Pilly, 2003). Both sides
often have an interest in perpetuating this imagination: the partner in the Global
South depends on the resources this architecture provides, while the partner in the
Global North bolsters its scientific (and cooperation) legitimacy by generating a percep-
tion of quality (McKenzie, 2019).
The evaluations of North–South research partnerships are generally coordinated by
Northern institutions or Northern-based consultants. Thus, Southern reflections on
North–South research partnerships (and their everyday implications) are quite rare
(Bradley, 2007; Vidal, 2017). An interesting exception is the ‘Bukavu Series’, a series
of blogs written by researchers from the Global South and North, reflecting on the real-
ities of North–South collaborative research. The “Bukavu”authors reveal how research-
ers from the Global South are pushed to the periphery of knowledge production. They
reflect on the challenges facing locally embedded researchers and the deeper mechanisms
that define the power relations in North–South research collaborations (Nyenyezi et al.,
2020). They criticise how researchers from the Global South remain invisible in collab-
orative projects; their specific ethical and emotional challenges often remain unaddressed
(Mwambari and Owor, 2019).
Effective partnerships jointly pursue research questions, methodologies, field
research, and analysis (Ansoms et al., 2021; Patel, 2001). Although many authors
believe that collaboration should serve mutual interests and benefit all partners equally
(see, e.g., White, 2020), this ideal is not simple to enact in practice. Even in cases
where North–South interests are compatible, they are rarely identical (Bradley, 2007;
Gunasekara, 2020). Asymmetries in power relations within North–South research part-
nerships have deep roots and are often unconsciously (sometimes consciously) reasserted
and prolonged by new collaborations (see also Vogel and Musamba, 2022).
Exploring the ‘potential to equalize inequalities in research’(Monson, 2020) in North–
South research partnerships is therefore crucial for understanding how power relations
work and evolve. This article takes such an approach to explore how power relations
in our own South–North research group –and other North–South partnerships –have
evolved throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. We are aware that each of our positional-
ities affects how our team members and interlocutors express themselves. This article fits
within a long history of joint discussions on ethical dilemmas, emotional challenges, and
power relations in our own South–North collaborations.
Collaborative research during the COVID-19 pandemic: A case
study
The COVID-19 period has impacted almost everyone’s research trajectories, regardless
of whether they are embedded in the Global South or the Global North. However, the
wider power relations of scientific knowledge production influenced the scope of
Ansoms et al. 1335

individual researchers’coping strategies. For some, COVID-19 brought new opportun-
ities; for others, the pandemic presented a huge obstacle to their research activities.
This section analyses how researchers working in and on the African Great Lakes
Region have experienced their profession over the 2020–2022 period. We reflect on
how the crisis provided an opportunity to explore North–South research collaborations
and individual contributions therein in new ways. We also consider the unevenly distrib-
uted risks and vulnerabilities that researchers were exposed to throughout the pandemic.
The inspiration for this article initially emerged from a collaboration between the
authors –eight of whom were based in the South (Rwanda, Burundi and the DRC)
during COVID-19 and three in the North (in Belgium). Together, we have conducted
research on political governance of the COVID-19 pandemic and forms of local resilience
in the context of crises. Our team includes diverse backgrounds and positionalities; some
are PhD students, post-doc researchers, or professors at a Belgian university, while others
hold positions at universities in Burundi, Rwanda or the DRC. Others are engaged with
civil society organisations or research institutes (on longer-term or very short-term tem-
porary contracts). All researchers in our team were somehow connected through a joint
network prior to the COVID-19 crisis, and several of us had already collaborated in
joint research.
At the outbreak of the pandemic, we decided to collaboratively analyse how the
COVID-19 crisis was interconnected with other societal crises in the Great Lakes
Region. We had people on the ground in Kinshasa, Bukavu, and Goma (DRC),
Bujumbura (Burundi), Kigali (Rwanda); three others were based in Belgium. In the
initial phases of the research, we worked with very limited funds (only covering local
transportation costs); we later managed to secure funding from the Fonds National de
la Recherche Scientifique (based in Belgium). This funding pushed us to refocus the
scope of our project (to the border dynamics of Rwanda, Burundi and the DRC), with
some team members leaving the project and others joining. The funding also improved
our team’s working conditions and expanded the scope of our project from urban to
rural settings.
The qualitative data for this article were collected in different phases of research. In the
first phase, we held monthly or bi-monthly online discussions to work out the analytical,
methodological, ethical and emotional challenges of our research. These discussions were
often informal –something in between reflections on findings and analysis. They took the
form of unstructured talks about how we experienced our professions and our collabor-
ation during the COVID-19 period. The first two authors used these reflections to write a
preliminary analysis that was shared with the entire team.
In the second phase, the entire team commented on and enriched this draft during an
online meeting in May 2021. Many oral comments were added, including detailed testi-
monies from our team’s researchers. We also reflected on broader research experiences
during the pandemic, as almost all of us were also engaged with other research projects.
Three researchers from our own team formalised their reactions to the May 2021 report in
written form (July/August 2021). We collectively determined that more information was
needed from people outside our team to cross-check our analysis.
In the third phase, four members of our team conducted online and face-to-face inter-
views with 18 other social sciences researchers (four women and 14 men) in May and
September 2021. Each of these locally embedded researchers works for universities,
1336 Qualitative Research 24(6)

research institutions or non-governmental organisations; they all depend on temporary
contracts to fund their role in research projects. These semi-structured interviews consid-
ered three key questions: (1) How did COVID-19 affect them in their research profes-
sion? (2) How did COVID-19 affect the methodological, ethical and emotional
challenges of field research? (3) How did COVID-19 affect their positionality in
North–South research collaborations? Some replied orally (and their responses were tran-
scribed); others responded with written statements. We asked for explicit consent from
each respondent and guaranteed them anonymity.
The final phase consisted of two team meetings in April and September 2022. We used
innovative tools (applied theatre and a game) to collectively reflect on the ethical chal-
lenges of our own North–South research collaboration during the COVID-19 period.
During the first meeting, 10 team members engaged in non-verbal sketch improvisations
on ethical dilemmas of research during COVID-19. These sketches were discussed col-
lectively. During a second meeting, six old and two new team members (not among the
authors) engaged in a serious game, named EDICO, which facilitates discussion on
ethical dilemmas in contemporary organisations.
3
Detailed written reports of both meet-
ings were shared with the team members present for comments.
Our collaboration for this article began informally in March 2020. Therefore, we did
not immediately engage in a formal ethical clearance procedure. However, when we
obtained funding for a four-year project from the Fonds National de la Recherche
Scientifique (Belgium) by the end of 2020, we applied for official ethical approval. In
February 2021, we obtained ethical approval from the IACCHOS social sciences
ethics committee based at UCLouvain in Belgium. This committee engages the
researcher in a thorough reflection on ethical practices but accepts that practices on the
ground may require moving beyond standardised protocols (we return to this below).
4
Different positionalities –different opportunities
Several recent contributions highlight how power relations mark North–South research
collaborations and determine the positionalities of researchers embedded in such initia-
tives (see, e.g., Mwambari, 2019; Nyenyezi et al., 2020). Positionality plays an important
role in determining a researcher’s working conditions. The COVID-19 crisis illustrated
how researchers’positionality before the crisis affected the challenges they experienced
throughout it.
At the start of the pandemic, researchers in the Global North were blocked from acces-
sing the field due to restrictions on global mobility. While this was frustrating for every-
one, there were clear divergences in how different researchers experienced it. In our team,
the only non-African researcher, who works with a permanent contract as a professor at a
Belgian university, testified:
I’m very frustrated with the fact that I will probably not be able to go to Central Africa for
months to come. It’sasifI’m cut off from half of my life. However, I do realise that I’m
very privileged in comparison to other colleagues who don’t have permanent contracts. In
my case, the pandemic is not affecting my financial situation. For many others, COVID-19 is
undermining their capacity to develop their career, and even to secure the livelihoods of their
families. (Personal testimony of our team member, June 2020, Phase 1)
Ansoms et al. 1337

Other researchers working on longer-term contracts in the Global North wondered how
confinement would affect their research careers. An African PhD researcher on a schol-
arship in a North–South partnership testified:
I’m working on a sandwich scholarship.
5
I only have 24 months of research funding in the
Global North. Now that I’m“stuck”here (in Belgium), I wonder how this will affect the
course of my research. Courses are suspended, the library is closed. And I can’t do any fieldwork
either. I’m basically stuck in my room 24/7, in total isolation, living on a scholarship that I
should normally use in one or two years in order to finalise my PhD. (Personal testimony of
our team member, June 2020, Phase 1)
An African researcher residing in Belgium during the pandemic added:
I wondered how I was going to continue my research as I could no longer go into the field.
Fortunately, I managed to organise Zoom meetings with people in the field, and virtual discus-
sion sessions around results, analysis and information processing with other researchers on site.
Somehow, thanks to Zoom, Skype and WhatsApp, I was able to continue my field research
while being in Belgium. But I must admit that this can in no way replace the physical interac-
tions, which are warmer and livelier, especially for the sociological studies that we carry out. We
must admit that everything was not perfect, with poor connections from partners in the south.
Several times, unpleasant hiccups impeded the smooth running of the discussions. (Personal tes-
timony of our team member, July 2021, Phase 2)
Others faced many difficulties in reaching the field. An African researcher who was
stuck in Kenya at the start of COVID-19 testified:
The pandemic was a very difficult period. Because of the context, I postponed my work schedule
and this meant that I faced a lot of delay in the collection of the data for my research. Also, given
the sanitary measures, the cost of data collection hugely increased because it was necessary to
include expenses related to the purchase of masks, disinfectants, private transport, etc.
Furthermore, (finding the appropriate) means of transport was a real headache. Travelling
from Nairobi to my research areas was difficult because the airports were closed, and when
they opened, the plane tickets had doubled in price due to the shortage of flights and travellers
at that time. (Testimony of a Congolese researcher working in Kenya, September 2021, Phase 3)
In the Great Lakes Region, the political response to COVID-19 greatly differed
between countries. Throughout 2020 and parts of 2021, the Rwandan government
imposed very strict COVID-19 measures, while the DRC adopted highly pragmatic
stances on banning mobility and gatherings. The Burundian government chose to
ignore the COVID-19 crisis for quite some time (Bashizi et al., 2021). These measures
did have some impact on researchers’ability to access the field; however, the bigger
problem for locally embedded researchers was the lack of research funding (testimonies
from our joint team meeting in May 2021, Phase 2).
The research agenda in the African Great Lakes region is largely determined by
international institutions, non-governmental organisations, and foreign universities
(due to a lack of local research funding). Many Western-based organisations halted
1338 Qualitative Research 24(6)

their research programmes since the ‘international’staff could no longer travel. While
the Great Lakes Region soon returned to more flexible working and travelling condi-
tions (see Bashizi et al., 2021), ongoing research initiatives were slow to return. The
suspension of internationally funded research projects plunged some locally based
researchers into unemployment. While funding organisations’international staff are
generally on long-term contracts, this is often not the case for the African researchers
hired to conduct fieldwork. Three researchers mentioned the difficult economic situ-
ation created by COVID-19. A female researcher based in Bukavu testified:
The COVID-19 pandemic affected us in a negative way because we had fewer and fewer
requests from partners to continue ongoing research or to launch new research projects that
we were expecting. Several donors or research partners had closed their doors and suspended
their agendas. However, some partners kept in touch with us. We had regular online meetings
where they asked about the local situation, but when we asked when we would resume the
research, no one could tell us exactly when, all promising to resume after COVID-19. So we
found ourselves unemployed until the pandemic was over. (Personal testimony of a
Congolese researcher, September 2021, Phase 2)
However, other researchers (in our team as well as three of the eighteen researchers we
interviewed) used their proximity to the field as an advantage. Researchers stuck in the
Global North (and detached from the field) depended on local informants to keep
up-to-date. After the first few challenging months, the major societal upheavals as a
result of COVID-19 inspired some international research teams to begin new research
initiatives. These initiatives required the intensive involvement of locally embedded
researchers, who were the only ones who could provide on-the-ground insights.
Those with already strong international networks capitalised on such opportunities.
One of the researchers in our team explained how his embeddedness in the field, along-
side his previously constructed networks in the Global North, resulted in many well-
paid research opportunities (personal testimony of a Burundian researcher, team
meeting May 2021). At the same time, it were still the Northern institutions who
pulled the strings.
6
In short, our discussions revealed major differences in researchers’preoccupations
during the COVID-19 pandemic, depending upon their positionalities in North-South
collaborations. Researchers ‘stuck’in the Global North were frustrated by the lack of
access to the field. Those working on temporary PhD contracts were worried about
how ‘lost time’spent in confinement would impact their research careers. The
researchers in the Global South all depended on short-term research contracts, so
when internationally funded research initiatives were suspended, they experienced
harsh economic challenges. However, those with pre-existing international research
networks could mobilise when new research initiatives on COVID-19 challenges
were launched.
The relevance of voices from the Global South
Soon after the outbreak, numerous (semi-)scientific voices began speculating about
COVID-19’s potential impact in sub-Saharan Africa. The opinions ranged from rather
Ansoms et al. 1339

moderate reflections on COVID-19 as yet-another-crisis to apocalyptic prospects predict-
ing millions of victims. What united many of these accounts was that they came from
‘African specialists’based in the West who, at that point, were physically banned from
much of Africa (CNUCED, 2020; UNECA, 2020).
Most pieces warned that if Western health systems were largely deficient in coping
with the health challenges, the world should not forget about Africa, where access to
health services is far worse. There seemed to be little space for more nuanced accounts.
A Congolese researcher based in Belgium during the pandemic noted,
We have observed the disenchantment of scientific imagination with this pandemic. Faced with
all the uncertainties, some knowledge was absorbed by the public opinion as “legitimate”
knowledge, while other voices were very strongly discredited by the establishment. It raises
questions about the place of research and knowledge in contemporary societies; (and of
non-Western perspectives in that knowledge). (Team member, joint meeting May 2021)
Many of the highly publicised voices did not have deep knowledge of what was happen-
ing on the ground (Pailey, 2020). Furthermore, they ignored the already existing human
capital on the continent (Happi and Nkengasong, 2022). This inspired our team to estab-
lish an initially modest research initiative to document the impact of the COVID-19 crisis.
We soon confirmed the non-negligible health crisis; however, most societal problems ori-
ginated in how preventative measures affected people’s livelihoods and social lives.
People who depended on daily mobility for income lacked access to food; farmers
were blocked from their fields; cities were disconnected from food chain provisions;
regions were disconnected from each other and deprived of the benefits of mutual inter-
dependency. While Western-inspired governance responses were implemented (particu-
larly in Rwanda and, to a lesser extent, in the DRC), authorities on the ground had to
strike a balance between the danger of virus propagation and people’s need to survive.
Citizens developed coping strategies like those mobilised in response to other crises
(Bashizi et al., 2021). Our findings clearly illustrated what should always have been
evident –in the analysis of crises, field research and on-the-ground expertise are key.
The importance of researchers on the ground also became evident in our own team.
While the researchers in Belgium secured (initially very modest) funding and set up
the necessary mechanisms to coordinate and communicate, those in the Great Lakes
region provided indispensable expertise for this project. Our locally embedded research-
ers could clearly discern which research questions were relevant and which hypotheses
were beyond the scope of possibility. Ours was not the only research initiative that
emerged. Two of our interviewees explained how the pandemic brought several new
requests to collaborate from researchers ‘stuck’in the Global North (interviews May–
September 2021). Our own team members also confirmed this, with our collaborator
in Burundi stating:
The context of COVID-19 has greatly increased the volume of my research this year. We have
been solicited a lot by researchers from the (Global) North. They needed us more than ever
because they can’t do (the research) without us. (Personal testimony of our team member,
July 2021, Phase 2)
1340 Qualitative Research 24(6)

Another researcher from Congo said:
This year I had the opportunity to be integrated into a research team with researchers from the
(Global) North and the (Global) South and to access a series of dynamics in connection to this
team. The (COVID-19) crisis has widened the fields of reflection on societies and on crisis man-
agement. I’ve found it very interesting to discover the links between cities and countryside zones
in crisis management, and to analyse the key role of rural areas in food supplies to the town.
(Personal testimony of our team member, July 2021, Phase 2)
The role of locally embedded researchers could not be pushed to the periphery of
knowledge production in these new initiatives. Researchers in the Global North were
extremely dependent upon locally embedded expertise. Such new working modalities
made new ways of collaborating possible (or reinforced pre-existing innovative collab-
orative approaches). These modalities emerged in the field of communication and coord-
ination, of valorisation of local know-how in fieldwork, and of recognising the key role of
locally embedded researchers in data analysis.
Firstly, North–South research teams working through the pandemic reinvented their
communication tactics, mainly by integrating electronic platforms. These modalities con-
nected the distant North with the field and also helped researchers within the region inter-
act. Within our team, a researcher in the DRC explained how ‘these technological means
of communication have really opened up the world to us’(Personal testimony of our team
member, July 2021, Phase 2).
Another researcher in Burundi said:
The pandemic crisis has been accompanied by the opening of new avenues of connection. The
use of modern tools has made it possible to better bring together actors from the North and the
South. During this year, I was able to attend conferences and thesis defences held elsewhere
while I was in Burundi. This would not have been possible before. Moreover, we now realise
that the system before where meetings were held face-to-face, excluded actors from the
South for nothing. For once, we were aware that access to scientific networks for researchers
from the South is easier and more equal. COVID-19 has put us all around the same table,
facing the same communication conditions. (Personal testimony of our team member, July
2021, Phase 2)
Other team members however highlighted that the quality of networks was still very dif-
ferent; and the regular connection problems were a source of frustration during several of
our joint meetings.
Secondly, South–North research teams had to continuously adapt when ideas were not
possible on the ground. They relied almost exclusively on the know-how of locally
embedded researchers to trace the trajectories of possibilities. Our team was frequently
confronted with a mismatch between the assumptions made by researchers in Belgium
and the (im-)possibilities in the field, as experienced by locally embedded researchers.
Researchers operating from a distance often underestimated the diverse fieldwork condi-
tions and speed with which conditions could change. For example, our Burundian
researcher could move freely, while researchers in Rwanda faced strict confinement.
Researchers in Belgium also insisted on following official policy instructions, while
Ansoms et al. 1341

researchers in the region pointed to their many incoherencies and navigated based on
what was feasible on the ground.
An interesting moment in our collaboration occurred when we obtained research
funding from the Belgian National Research Fund, and the team coordinators had to
solicit ethical clearance from an ethical committee based in Belgium. The team had to
guarantee a minimised risk of virus propagation among research participants in accord-
ance with the do-no-harm principle. However, several of our locally embedded team
members noted the impossibility of using masks or disinfectant in the field (various infor-
mal discussions during Phase 1). They relayed that rural populations might interpret the
appearance of a researcher with a mask as ‘completely ridiculous’or even as ‘an insult’.
Many rural populations were deeply unhappy with the anti-COVID measures that ‘the
city’(referring to national politicians) or ‘the West’(referring to international guidelines)
had imposed. During a joint discussion in 2020, one researcher mentioned that they
risked being sent away if they appeared with a mask. Another added that he could
even be attacked by the research participants. These experiences on the ground were
extensively cited throughout the ethical clearance procedure and helped the research
team work out an ethical protocol that could reconcile standard ethical guidelines with
the complexities on the ground. We also used a WhatsApp group to provide instant feed-
back when any of our team members were confronted with ethical dilemmas in the field.
Finally, locally embedded researchers’voices were indispensable in enriching the data
analyses. Indeed, relevant data are not limited to the words people share –they also
include the broader context in which they are shared and the body language people
employ while talking (Fujii, 2017). Our team often realised how, despite very frequent
exchanges on research data, the team members based in Belgium had missed crucial
aspects of the analysis. A continuous back and forth between the researchers was essential
to develop sound interpretations of complex field material. As one researcher who was
located in both Belgium and the Congo during the pandemic explained:
I think the bulk of the work has been done by the local researchers and that should be visible in
the deliverables. This crisis has further demonstrated that local researchers are important actors
in research. Rightly recognising their role can only be beneficial for research. Personally, having
been on both sides of the spectrum allowed me to understand the pivotal role of local researchers
and the limits of research from a distance (by proxy). (Personal testimony of our team member,
July 2021, Phase 2)
We invited all the research collaborators to participate as authors in joint publications to
honour the entire team’s commitment and complementary roles. We also guaranteed each
locally embedded researcher ownership over their collected research data. We agree with
Bouka (2018) that ‘the failure to acknowledge the intellectual property of non-Western
scholars during collaborative research is not only unethical, but it also constitutes a
violent act’.
Vulnerability
Locally embedded researchers in the region are used to working under harsh circum-
stances. Crises –geopolitical conflict and war, climatic instability with drought, flooding,
1342 Qualitative Research 24(6)

volcanic eruptions, and sanitary problems resulting in outbreaks of Ebola, cholera, and
malaria –are part of everyday life. Our research participants indicated that
COVID-19’s effects did not outpace other crises; on the contrary, it allowed for research
on the multiple and interconnected nature of crises (see, e.g., Nyenyezi et al., 2021).
However, the gathered testimonies also revealed how the risks and vulnerabilities were
not evenly distributed among partners from the Global South and North.
First of all, even though field research was possible, it was far from easy. Ethical,
methodological and emotional challenges presented themselves to those working on
the ground. For example, a locally embedded researcher-journalist from the DRC
declared:
The meetings on the ground had to gather several people. COVID pushed us to split up meetings
into small groups of 5 or 6 persons instead of 20. This exercise required the mobilisation of a lot
of energy, financial means and time. Ethical principles were certainly not affected (not brea-
ched), but the methodology was (affected and continuously adapted). From an emotional
point of view, human interactions with certain community members and interviewees were
amputated. I couldn’t embrace or greet them (appropriately) when we met. (Personal testimony
of a Congolese researcher, July 2021)
Another respondent explained:
Research in the context of COVID-19 has (presented us with particular challenges) in compari-
son to (previous situations in which we navigated through) contexts of war, communal conflict,
poverty and other epidemics. Data collection was very difficult because of the social distancing
measures. Limiting the number of participants in group meetings meant that the number of dis-
cussion sessions had to be multiplied. The consequences of this measure had an impact on our
budget, on the timing of the research, but also on the physical exhaustion of the researcher.
Similarly, the wearing of masks negatively affected our comprehension of research participants
and greatly affected the fluidity of our exchanges. Likewise, the closure of public services and
certain institutions –or a reduction in their operational modus –made it difficult to access certain
resource persons. (Personal testimony of a Congolese researcher working in Kenya, June 2021)
Researchers are worried about the health risks of navigating in the field. As one of our
interlocutors highlighted:
We often found ourselves in situations where we were forced to expose ourselves to the risk of
contamination with the COVID-19 disease by ignoring sanitary measures. Often, when we went
to the villages wearing a mask, we were very badly perceived. Some peasants suspected us of
being ill and of bringing the disease from the city to the countryside. Others, looking at us (while
we were wearing our masks), thought that we suspected them of being sick and that as a pre-
caution we covered ourselves out of fear of being contaminated. So we met people who
(were very suspicious of us) and refused to approach us or talk to us. It was later that we under-
stood that they were suspicious of people wearing masks. In order to avoid causing controversy,
we had to ignore the sanitary measures and act as if nothing was happening. (And so, we) con-
ducted interviews without a mask, we shook hands with research participants to say hello or
Ansoms et al. 1343

goodbye, etc. We were aware of the risks we were running, but for research we could not do
otherwise. (Personal testimony of our team member, September 2021)
Moreover, the COVID-19 crisis could not be isolated from the other ongoing crises
and risks that locally embedded researchers face (see also Nyenyezi, 2020). In fact, as
one researcher in the DRC pointed out, ‘in a context where security, economic, political
and environmental crises coexist; COVID-19 only (further) complicated the problems of
research’(joint team meeting, April 2022, Phase 4). Locally embedded researchers testi-
fied to how COVID-19 interacted with other crises, and intensified problems of poverty,
conflicts over resources, and pre-existing conflicts. Some were frustrated that COVID-19
absorbed so much global attention worldwide, while many other crises were ignored.
When reflecting on what it meant to be a researcher, one of our team researchers
explained,
This period also illustrated the disconnection between the worlds of the elites and the rural
world. The mobility cut between town and country has, for example, limited the possibilities
of contact. This can generate the impression for people living in the countryside that the
elites (including scientists) only come when everything is ok; and that if not, they hide in
their ivory tower. Being present as a researcher in the field –also in times of crisis –is very
important in committed research projects. (joint team meeting, April 2022)
In some South–North collaborations, locally embedded researchers perceive little or
no space to discuss the complex challenges faced in the field with their partners in the
Global North. As a Congolese researcher explained,
During (the) COVID (pandemic), I worked on research on (topic) in Eastern DRC. I had to
travel and meet people for interviews and focus groups. Mobility was very difficult, and once
on the ground, the restrictions imposed by social distancing measures made logistics compli-
cated. The methodology had to be adapted, the number of people taking part in the focus
groups was reduced, and some interviews were carried out by telephone. We faced difficulties
to meet up with the heads of the international NGOs and (international) agencies (who had
commissioned the research), given that most had been repatriated to their homes due to
COVID. At the same time, there was a gap between the members of the team, (as we) did
not have the same understanding of the research object since the main researcher was in
Europe and only two local researchers were able to do the field. It must also be said that
beyond the stress in relation to deadlines and difficulties of meeting interview respondents,
the uncertain health situation and demoralising information found on social networks played
a major role in the emotional and psychological state of the researchers and thus affected the
proper conduct of the research. (Personal testimony of a Congolese researcher, September 2021)
The (perceived) lack of space to discuss personal or contextual complications during
field research even pushed some researchers to go into the field while being contaminated
with COVID.
7
After one researcher tested positive, he took some rest but still had COVID
symptoms when he had to take up research again. Before going into the field, he decided
to take another test at the Congolese border. However, on that day, the test centre did not
dispose of the necessary reagent fluid, and everyone tested negative. He did not feel
1344 Qualitative Research 24(6)

empowered to inform the research contractor about the impossibility of going into the
field without the documentation of a positive test result. He conducted the research
while struggling with fatigue and COVID symptoms (Personal testimony of a
Congolese researcher, joint team meeting, April 2022).
Another researcher went into the field after being diagnosed with COVID because he
did not feel like he could explain this to the (distant) project coordinator:
Especially when you’re new. (The coordinator) doesn’t know me. He can google me and find
out what I do. But then, (when I fall sick), I imagine how he’ll think “was he unable to do
this job?”(…) If you’re already further along (in the collaboration), he’ll know, “ah, his
work is about that. That’s his thing. And besides, he has a good reputation. He’s worked
with (person A) and with (person B)’But that’s what junior researchers don’t have. (…)
There is so much talent that exists. Real talent. But if you (referring to researchers from the
Global North) come across this guy who by misfortune came, and from the first activity, baf,
sick, five months? Serious? It ruins everything. It’s easy when people know each other. But
when people don’t know each other, it’s a disaster for the guy who got sick. And that was
my fear. (Personal testimony of a Congolese researcher, joint team meeting, April 2022)
Even in our own project, some of the researchers did not share COVID-19-related health
challenges with the research coordinators. Our researchers did not go into the field while
sick, but at least two of them were sick while analysing the results. They only felt com-
fortable enough to openly discuss this during our joint face-to-face team meeting addres-
sing the challenges of research during COVID-19 in April 2022. One of them shared:
I also got sick. I couldn’t even use my computer. And I had two articles that I had to hand in so
that by the time you (addressing the project coordinator) would come, there would be some-
thing. Fortunately, the deadline was rescheduled (actually as the result of health problems of
the projects’coordinators), and allowed me to recover a bit. He continued explaining how
worried he was about not having delivered an analysis of good quality, adding how “I think
that this is a reality, especially for junior researchers”. Junior researchers don’t have this possi-
bility of negotiating agendas (with project coordinators in the North). (Personal testimony of a
Congolese researcher, joint team meeting, April 2022, Phase 4)
During this meeting in April 2022, we realised that certain dimensions had remained
unstated in our collective encounters. With time and many discussions, we collectively
developed more space to talk about ethical and emotional challenges. All the team
members believed these were crucial in developing the individual and collective resili-
ence needed to respond to the many challenges of research. Four researchers also men-
tioned that the ‘rather horizontal, less hierarchical’relationship with the coordinators
located in the Global North was an important aspect of the collaboration. The researchers
felt supported as a team through the WhatsApp and online discussions, the many shared
jokes, and the friendships that developed through the professional lines of collaboration
(Joint team meeting, April 2022, Phase 4). Yet, we also realised that, despite our efforts,
the power imbalance between researchers in the Global North and the Global South as
well as among researchers from the Global South continued to influence the (perceived)
space to talk openly about health problems within our team. We collectively reflected on
Ansoms et al. 1345

how we might move beyond such constraints (and the challenges of doing so). Three ele-
ments were highlighted as key in doing so.
First, we identified the importance of continually creating spaces to talk about the
ethical and emotional challenges of research, including informal and formal opportunities
to interact in the group and one-on-one. Secondly, three members of the group reiterated
that we must never underestimate the impact of power relations on what group members
feel free to share or not share, regardless of any initiatives to create space for discussion.
The terms of collaboration are anchored in a colonial heritage that continues to shape our
imaginaries of what is possible. Recognising this is key. Thirdly, the researchers emphat-
ically noted the importance of long-term collaborations. A long-term perspective helps to
build the trust needed for team members to share their vulnerabilities, including chal-
lenges they encounter in their research.
Conclusion: Turning the tables or business as usual?
The COVID-19 period deeply influenced the evolution of North–South research partner-
ships. This article considered how locally embedded scholars reflect on their research
experiences and involvement with North–South collaborations throughout the
COVID-19 pandemic. In this conclusion, we review the four main lessons for North–
South collaborations.
The first important lesson is that Western reference patterns still dominate the condi-
tions of international knowledge production. In the early phases of the pandemic, numer-
ous Western voices (nearly all distanced from the field) warned of disaster in sub-Saharan
Africa. There was little recognition of African voices who were actually embedded within
the field. In most Western societies, the crisis remains an exceptional situation; many
opinion makers simply failed to grasp the possibility that a global health crisis could
hit the Western world harder than ‘poor’countries in the Global South. The spectacular
reorienting of research funding towards health topics and the centrality of COVID-19 in
many global research initiatives often neglected the importance of other interconnected
crises that were more damaging to countries in the Global South. It is crucial to question
the centrality of Western reference frames in the architecture of global funding and meth-
odological research standards. We must adopt procedures to equalise these power rela-
tions in favour of Southern-based scholarship.
Second, the COVID-19 pandemic clearly illustrated how a global crisis hits regions,
countries and continents in diverse ways. Locally embedded research is key to under-
standing on-the-ground dynamics. Only researchers with physical access to the field
can elucidate complexities in the data collection phase. In fact, the presence of locally
embedded researchers is key in every phase of research, from conception to analysis
and restitution. They must be equal partners and should be invited ‘to the table’through-
out any North–South partnership research cycle.
As the testimonies illustrated, researchers’vulnerability is largely dependent on their
positionality within North–South partnerships. Most researchers in the Global North have
formal contracts and a multiple-year perspective, while researchers in the Global South
often work on temporary contracts. They also face more pronounced risks than their
Northern counterparts, given that they often navigate in potentially unstable settings.
Many of the researchers who provided testimonies for this paper had to find the right
1346 Qualitative Research 24(6)

balance between exposing themselves to health risks (alongside other calamities due to
increased poverty and frustration) and having access to an income opportunity. North–
South research collaborations should explicitly create space for scholars from the
Global South to voice their concerns about these dilemmas. There should also be
safety nets to give locally embedded researchers the option to (temporarily) halt their
fieldwork.
Fourth, the international scientific community has shown great resilience in coping
with the reduced mobility of scholars worldwide. Interestingly, this brought new oppor-
tunities for scholars in the Global South who could fully participate in online seminars,
conferences, and research platforms. Now, as mobility options increase, the scientific
community should remember that scholars from the Global South still face huge barriers
to international mobility. While mobility from the Global North to the Global South is
again self-evident, the other direction is marked by complex procedures and invasive
immigration laws. Thus, researchers from the Global North often travel to the South to
‘kick-start’,‘coordinate’,‘wrap up’or ‘evaluate’a research project. As a result, the posi-
tionality of locally embedded researchers is predetermined by the agendas and availabil-
ity of those who come from the Global North (Alom, 2018; Parker and Kingori, 2016).
The global scientific community should lobby to remove these barriers. And, regardless
of whether they can travel, researchers from the Global South must be allowed to partici-
pate in global scientific life.
These four recommendations help us to explicitly acknowledge and move beyond the
neo-colonial heritage embedded within the normative frameworks and organisational
modalities of the academic world. They help guide us in creating more equitable research
partnerships that allow North–South and South–North perspectives to be mutually
exchanged.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article: This work was supported by the Fonds national de la Recherche
Scientifique (Grant No. 40003202), Prix Bauchau (2020).
ORCID iD
An Ansoms https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9553-0263
Notes
1. The terms "Global North" and "Global South" are used to describe two broad socio-economic
and geopolitical divisions. Countries from the global North are generally located in North
America and Europe; whereas countries in the global South are predominantly located in
Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean. In this article, we particularly focus on the
relationships between Western Europe and Central Africa.
Ansoms et al. 1347

2. See for example the mobility charter of UCLouvain, the Belgian university that hosts the
project in which the authors of this article collaborate: https://uclouvain.be/fr/decouvrir/
universite-transition/mobilite-internationale.html.
3. All materials are available through open access on https://oer.uclouvain.be/jspui/handle/20.
500.12279/646.
4. All citations in the text below have left out any element (name and context) that could lead to
the identification of the research respondent. None of the interviews were recorded.
5. A sandwich scholarship is a term used in Belgian inter-university cooperation to refer to a prin-
ciple of co-funding for PhD trajectories of candidates from the global South. In many cases,
the scholar in question receives a Belgian PhD scholarship of two to three years instead of the
standard four years; whereas the partner institution is assumed to cover for the remaining
period. However, in practice, many partner institutions in the Global South do not dispose
of similar scholarship systems. In that case, the scholar is obliged to cover his salary
through teaching or consultancy work; which limits time for research activities.
6. This was also the case in our own team. Regardless of how much we tried to equilibrate power
relations within the team, the inherent injustice of offering short-term contracts to locally
embedded researchers could not be avoided due to a lack of funding for longer-term perspec-
tives. Also the reorganisation within the team between the first phase (concentrating on cities
in all three countries) and the second phase (focusing upon the countryside, but only in regions
around the lakes), with the exit of some and the entry of other team members, illustrated how
power relations remained skewed.
7. The following two testimonies refer to other research projects that involved certain members
of our team.
References
Abidin C and De Seta G (2020) Private messages from the field: confessions on digital ethnography
and its discomforts. Journal of Digital Social Research 2(1): 1–19.
Adenaike CK and Vansina J (eds) (1996) In Pursuit of History: Fieldwork in Africa. Portsmouth:
Heinemann.
Alom Bartoli M (2018) Les stratégies d’acteurs dans les collaborations scientifiques avec le Sud.
Chercheurs et agences de financement dans les sciences sociales. Thèse de doctorat en socio-
logie, Université Paris Descartes, France.
Anderson W (2002) Introduction: postcolonial technoscience. Social Studies of Science. 32(5–6):
643–658.
Ansoms A, Nyenyezi BA and Thomson S. (éds.) (2021) Field Research in Africa: The Ethics of
Researcher Vulnerabilities. Oxford: James Currey.
Barré R and Chabbal D (1996) Les coopérations scientifiques Nord-Sud: caractérisation et dynami-
que d’ensemble. In: Moulin AM and Waast R (eds) Les sciences hors d’Occident au XX
ème
siècle. Colloque Paris: Orstom, 25–38.
Bashizi A, Ansoms A, Adili Amani R, et al. (2021) Real governance of the COVID-19 crisis in the
Great Lakes Region of Africa. Journal of Eastern African Studies 15(2): 190–213.
Baud I (2002) North-South research partnerships: an institutions approach. In: Bouma J and
Opschoor H (eds) North-South Research Co-operation: Comprehensives Approach to
Development and Innovation. Amsterdam: KNAW, 51–90.
Bhambra G, Bouka Y, Persaud R, et al. (2020) Why is mainstream international relations blind to
racism? Ignoring the central role of race and colonialism in world affairs precludes an accurate
understanding of the modern state system. Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/
03/why-is-mainstream-international-relations-ir-blind-to-racism-colonialism/ (accessed 20
October 2022).
1348 Qualitative Research 24(6)

Bouka Y (2018) Collaborative research as structural violence. Blog post in Political Violence@ a
Glance. https://politicalviolenceataglance.org/2018/07/12/collaborative-research-as-structural-
violence (accessed 20 October 2022).
Bradley M (2007), North-south research partnerships: challenges, responses and trends—a litera-
ture review and annotated bibliography. Working Paper 1, IDRC Canadian Partnerships
Working Paper Series. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 1–66.
Briggs RC and Weathers S (2016) Gender and location in African politics scholarship: the other
white man’s burden? African Affairs 115 (460): 466–489; a correction was published in
2018. African Affairs 117(466): 168–169.
Carbonnier G and Kontinen T (2015) Institutional learning in north-south research partnerships.
Revue Tiers Monde 1(221): 149–162.
CNUCED. (2020) Global Investment Trends. Genève: CNUCED.
Cole AL and Knowles JG (1993) Teacher development partnership research: a focus on methods
and issues. American Education Research Journal. 30(3): 473–495.
Deakin H and Wakefield K (2014) Skype interviewing: reflections of two PhD researchers.
De la Rive Box L (2001) To and Fro: International Cooperation in Research and Research on
International Cooperation. Maastricht: University of Maastricht. Available at: (accessed 20
October 2022).
Droz Y and Mayor A (eds) (2009) Partenariats scientifiques avec l’Afrique. Réflexions critiques de
Suisse et d’ailleurs. Paris: Karthala.
Engelhard RJ and Box L (1999) Making north-south research networks work: a contribution to the
work on a common vision for the future e of science and technology for development by the
United Nations Commission for Science and Technology, UNCTAD, online at: https://
digitallibrary.un.org/record/405063 (accessed 25 May 2023).
Fielding N, Lee R and Blank G (2008) The SAGE Handbook of Online Research Methods. London:
Sage Publications.
Fujii LA (2017) Interviewing in Social Science Research: A Relational Approach. New York:
Routledge.
Gaillard J (1996) les collaborations scientifiques Nord-Sud: un examen critique de huit programme
d’aide à la recherche. In: Moulin AM and Waast R (eds) Les sciences hors d’Occident au
XXème siècle. Colloque Paris: Orstom, 219–253.
Gunasekara V (2020) (Un)packing baggage: a reflection on the ‘battle over Ideas’and labour hierarchies
in collaborative north–south research. Europena Journal for Development Research 32: 503–513.
Happi CT and Nkengasong JN (2022) Two years of COVID-19 in Africa: lessons for the world.
Nature 601: 22–25.
Hine C (2005) Virtual Methods: Issues in Social Research on the Internet. Oxford: Berg.
Howlett M (2021) Looking at the ‘field’through a zoom lens: methodological reflections on con-
ducting online research during a global pandemic. Qualitative Research 22: 387–402.
Jenner B and Myers K (2018) Intimacy, rapport, and exceptional disclosure: a comparison on
in-person and mediated interview contexts. International Journal of Social Research
Methodology 22(2): 165–177.
Jentsch B (2004) Making southern realities count: research agendas and design in north-south col-
laborations. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 7(3): 259–269.
Jentsch B and Pilley C (2003) Research relationships between the south and the north: Cinderella
and the ugly sisters? Social Science & Medicine. 57 (10): 1957–1967.
Johnson D, Scheitle C and Ecklund E (2019) Beyond the In-Person Interview? How Interview
Quality Varies across In-Person, Telephone, and Skype Interviews. Social Science
Computer Review 39(6): 1142–1158.
Jowett A, Peel E and Shaw R (2011) Online interviewing in psychology: reflections on the process.
Qualitative Research in Psychology 8(4): 354–369.
Ansoms et al. 1349

Lee-Treweek G and Linkogle S (eds) (2000) Danger in the Field: Risk and Ethics in Social
Research. Londres: Routledge.
Legrand V and Gutron C (2016) Éprouver l’altérité: Les défisdel’enquête de terrain.
Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaire de Louvain.
Maina-Ahlberg BE, Nordberg E and Tomson G (1997) North-South health research collaboration:
challenges in institutional interaction. Social Science and Medicine. 44(8): 1229–1238.
McKenzie T (2019) Ethnographier un projet de recherche nord-sud. Entre différences épistémologiques,
enjeux éthiques et rapports de pouvoir. Revue D’anthropologie des Connaissances 13(2): 425–454.
Monson J (2020) Ethics of transregional research and the COVID-19 pandemic. Covid-19 in Africa.
Blog series of the Social Science Research Council. https://items.ssrc.org/covid-19-and-the-
social-sciences/social-research-and-insecurity/ethics-of-transregional-research-and-the-covid-
19-pandemic/ (accessed 20 October 2022).
Mwambari D (2019) Local positionality in the production of knowledge in northern Uganda.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods 18: 1–12.
Mwambari D, Ahmed F and Barak C (2022) The impact of open access on knowledge production,
consumption and dissemination in Kenya’s higher education system. Third World Quarterly
43(6): 1–17.
Mwambari D and Owor A (2019) The black market of knowledge production. Governance inconflict
network - silent voices series. https://www.gicnetwork.be/the-black-market-of-knowledge-
production/ (accessed on 20 October 2022).
Mwambari D, Purdeková A and Bisoka AN (2022B) Covid-19 and research in conflict-affected
contexts: distanced methods and the digitalisation of suffering. Qualitative Research 22(6):
969–978.
Nordstrom C and Robben A (eds) (1995) Fieldwork under Fire: Contemporary Studies of Violence
and Survival. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Nyenyezi BA (2020) Disturbing the aesthetics of power: why COVID-19 is not an “event”for
fieldwork-based social scientists. Covid and the social sciences. Blog series of the Social
Science Research Council. https://items.ssrc.org/covid-19-and-the-social-sciences/social-
research-and-insecurity/disturbing-the-aesthetics-of-power-why-covid-19-is-not-an-event-
for-fieldwork-based-social-scientists/ (accessed 20 October 2022).
Nyenyezi BA, Ansoms A, Vlassenroot K, et al. (2020) The Bukavu Series: Toward a
Decolonisation of Research. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.
Nyenyezi BA, Vlassenroot K and Ramazani L (2021) What explains popular resistance to Ebola
humanitarian responses in the DRC? London School of Economics blog series. https://blogs.
lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/2021/06/11/what-explains-popular-resistance-to-ebola-humanitarian-responses-
drc-congo/ (accessed 20 October 2022).
Ogden J and Porter J (2000) The politics of partnership in tropical health: researching tuberculosis
control in India. Social Policy and Administration 34(4): 377–391.
Okech A, Mwambari D and Olonisakin F (2021) COVID-19 responses and human rights in selected
African countries. Australian Journal of Human Rights 26(3): 549–555.
Olivier De Sardan JP (2008) La rigueur du qualitatif. Les contraintes empiriques de l’interprétation
socio-anthropologique. Louvain-la-Neuve, Academia-Bruylant, 368p.
Pailey RN (2020) Africa does not need saving during this pandemic. Al Jazeera. 13 April 2020.
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/africa-saving-pandemic-200408180254152.html
(accessed 20 October 2022).
Parker M and Kingori P (2016) Good and bad research collaborations: researchers’views on
science and ethics. Global Health Research. PLoS ONE 11(10): e0163579.
Patel S (2001) International collaboration in social science research: lessons from IDPAD.
Economic and Political Weekly. 37(3). https://www.academia.edu/63160829/International_
Collaboration_in_Social_Science_Research (accessed 20 October 2022).
1350 Qualitative Research 24(6)

Sanford V and Angel-Ajani A (eds) (2006) Engaged Observer: Anthropology, Advocacy, and
Activism. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Schatz E and de Volo LB (2004) From the inside out: ethnographic methods in political research.
Political Science and Politics. 37(2): 267–271.
Smulyan L (1987) Collaboration action research: acritical analysis. Peabody Journal of Education
64(3): 57–70.
Thomson S, Ansoms A and Murison J (eds) (2012) Emotional and Ethical Challenges for Field
Research in Africa. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
UNECA (2020) Coronovirus. La CEA estime des milliards de pertes en Afrique en raison de l’impact
du COVID-19. Afrique Renouveau. 16 mars 2020. https://www.un.org/africarenewal/news/
coronavirus/eca-estimates-billions-worth-losses-africa-due-COVID-19-impact (accessed 20
October 2022).
United Nations Commission for Science and Technology for Development (1999) Making
North-South Research Networks Work: A Contribution to the Work on A Common Vision
for the Future of Science and Technology for Development. Geneva: UNCTAD. https://
unctad.org/system/files/official-document/poiteedsd7.en.pdf (accessed 20 October 2022).
Vidal L (ed) (2017) Expériences du partenariat au Sud: le regard des sciences sociales. Marseille:
IRD Éditions.
Vogel C and Musamba J (2022) Towards a politics of collaborative worldmaking: ethics, epistem-
ologies and mutual positionalities in conflict research. Ethnography. Accessed 20 October
2022.0(0): 1–21.
Wall CRL and Mollinga PP (eds) (2008) Fieldwork in Difficult Environments: Methodology as
Boundary Work in Development Research. Vienne: LIT.
White SC (2020) A space for unlearning? A relational perspective on north–south development
research. European Journal for Development Research 32: 483–502.
Wood EJ, Rogers D, Sivaramakrishnan K, et al. (2020) Resuming field research in pandemic times.
Covid and the social sciences. Blog series of the Social Science Research Council. https://
items.ssrc.org/covid-19-and-the-social-sciences/social-research-and-insecurity/resuming-
field-research-in-pandemic-times/ (accessed 20 October 2022).
Author biographies
An Ansoms is Professor in Social Sciences at UCLouvain (Belgium). She coordinates a research
group on rural transformations in Central and Eastern Africa, involved in interdisciplinary research
on climate change and natural resource conflicts. She is also an expert on ethical and emotional
dilemmas in difficult research fields.
Anuarite Bashizi is a postdoctoral researcher at UCLouvain at the University of Antwerp (Belgium).
An economist and PhD in political and social sciences, she specializes in ecological transition and
environmental and territorial conflicts in the mining sector in the DRC. She also works com-
pounded crises in rural areas of the Great Lakes region in Africa.
Romuald Adili Amani is an independent researcher who works for local and international organiza-
tions based in Goma, in the eastern North Kivu province of the Democratic Republic of Congo. He
has studied philosophy and public health. Romuald’s research interests concentrate on peace-build-
ing, public health and contemplative practices.
Joel Baraka Akilimali is a post-doctoral researcher at UCLouvain (Belgium). He holds a PhD in pol-
itical and social sciences (UCLouvain), and various degrees in Development Studies,
Administration, and Law. His current research focuses on Governance of hybrid religious
patrimonies.
Ansoms et al. 1351

Lionel Bisimwa Matabaro is a PhD student at the University of Mons, in Belgium. He holds a Master
on Biodiversity Sustainable Management from the University of Kisangani (DRC). His research
focuses on the polycrisis context, nature conservation and environmental autochthonous justice
in the DRC.
Parfait Kaningu Bushenyula is a Master student in Transitions and social innovation at the University
of Mons (Belgium). He received his Bachelor in rural development from the Institute of Rural
Development of Bukavu (DRC). His research focuses on peasantry, conflicts over natural
resources, especially water, and armed conflict.
David Mutabesha is a researcher at ISDR-Bukavu, and currently undertaking a Master in socio-
anthropology at UCLouvain (Belgium). He received his Bachelor in rural development from the
Institute of Rural Development of Bukavu (DRC). His research focuses on political ecology, envir-
onmental justice and development cooperation in Africa’s great lakes.
Sylvie Bashizi Nabintu is a Master student in the Department of Gender and Territorial Governance
at the Institute of Rural Development of Bukavu (DRC). Her research focuses on gender, conflicts
and climate change.
Guillaume Ndayikengurutse is Professor in the Department of Political Science and International
Relations at the University of Burundi. He holds a PhD in Political and Social Sciences from the
University of Namur (Belgium). His research focuses on issues of governance, civil society, dem-
ocratisation and peace-building in post-conflict contexts.
Joseph Nsabimana is a specialist in irrigation schemes and water management, with extensive
experience in agricultural development projects in Rwanda. He holds a Master in Development,
Environment and Society from UCLouvain (Belgium) and a Bachelor in Agricultural Sciences
from the University of Rwanda.
Patient Polepole is a researcher at ISDR-Bukavu, and currently a PhD student at UCLouvain
(Belgium). He holds a Master in environmental assessment and audit from the University of
Yaoundé 1 (Cameroun) and a Bachelor from the Institute of Rural Development of Bukavu
(DRC). His research focuses on land governance, gender, masculinity, customary power, and trans-
formations to sustainability.
1352 Qualitative Research 24(6)