Abstract
The international research community is paying increasing attention to inequities related to academic fieldwork in the global South. Globalisation, technological advancements, travel carbon footprint concerns and COVID-19 ramifications have made online fieldwork more viable. This has led to the rise of ‘remote collaborative fieldwork’, where Northern researchers participate online whilst Southern researchers are physically in the field. The equity implications of this model are yet to be explored. We employ a conceptual framework to assess equity dynamics associated with remote collaborative fieldwork in social sciences for Northern researchers, Southern researchers and Southern participants. We use qualitative fieldwork with Ghanaian smallholder farmers as a case study, analysing reflexive field notes and semi-structured interviews. We find that remote fieldwork does not change fundamental inequities between researchers and participants, such as extractive power dynamics, and involves various trade-offs, but may encourage the redistribution of research experience, budget allocation and decision-making towards Southern researchers.
Introduction
‘We are now in a global world, things can be done here as if you were here yourself’
– Ghanaian field scientist colleague, 2020
Remote work is becoming increasingly feasible with technological advancements, improved global internet access and work patterns shifting following the coronavirus pandemic (Braesemann et al., 2022). Along with this increased feasibility, challenges posed by the pandemic and climate change have also made remote work increasingly compelling, even indispensable. In response to COVID-19 restrictions, many qualitative social scientists had to rapidly switch to online methods as an alternative to field-based data collection. Furthermore, the climate crisis is pushing academic institutions, organisers and individuals to consider reducing travel for fieldwork (Fox et al., 2009; Grant, 2018; Whitmarsh et al., 2020). Online research presents challenges, such as slower relationship-building, lack of immersion in a place, and loss of spontaneous and face-to-face interactions with participants (Howlett, 2021; Hynes, 2023; Johnson et al., 2021; Singh et al., 2021). However, many researchers have argued for the benefits of online fieldwork methods such as video interviews (Archibald et al., 2019; Cabalquinto and Ahlin, 2023), participatory video production (Marzi, 2023), phone surveys (Etang and Himelein, 2020) and photo diaries (Svašek, 2023), and have questioned the necessity of being physically present in the field for certain types of research (Eggeling, 2023; Howlett, 2021).
For researchers studying areas with limited internet connectivity or without ready access to digitally connected devices, virtual research methods are not possible and alternative ways of conducting face-to-face research were needed during COVID-19. In some cases, research teams shifted from working together in-person to collaborating online, with some colleagues in the field while others participated from their homes or research institutions. We refer to this as ‘remote collaborative fieldwork’, in which online communication facilitates some research partners participating in fieldwork remotely while other research partners 1 are physically present in the field (Burrell, 2016). There are precedents in qualitative research for collaborations taking place online, for example, when conflicts have affected travel plans (Mead and Métraux, 2000; Moss and Hajj, 2020), and COVID-19 has put remote collaboration on the table as a first-line way of working (Nguyen et al., 2022). Furthermore, it is common in some natural science disciplines, such as long-term ecological monitoring (Şekercioğlu, 2012), for Northern researchers to only visit field sites on short trips, with much of the data collected by Southern field-based colleagues through remote collaborations. This article assesses the equity implications of these types of field research models, especially the degree to which remote collaborations require or facilitate a transfer of power and benefits in the process of conducting research. While we recognise that the content of research projects can have profound impacts on equity, this study focuses specifically on how we conduct fieldwork, rather than what the fieldwork is on.
A long-standing body of literature related to global North–South 2 fieldwork collaborations has focused on the dynamics of researchers working in the field together, and their interactions with participants (Ahmed et al., 2023; Binka, 2005; Gaillard, 1994; Hammett et al., 2022; Katz, 1994; Landau, 2012; Sibai et al., 2019; Yorke et al., 2023). Recent discussions of equity have addressed the virtual fieldwork methods necessitated by COVID-19, considering aspects such as knowledge exchange and power relations (Konken and Howlett, 2023; MacLean et al., 2021; Marzi, 2023), while a growing body of work examines how the pandemic shaped North–South research collaborations more broadly. Nguyen et al. (2022) have written from their experience of conducting remote collaborative fieldwork in upland Vietnam during COVID-19, focusing on the relationship between remote researchers and ‘research assistants’ in the field. Their paper considers the different ways in which remote fieldwork can contribute to overcoming power hierarchies between Northern and Southern team research members, help Southern researchers improve their research skills and confidence, and strengthen knowledge production. Bolin et al. (2024) use the thought experiment of ‘a day without Global North researchers’ to argue for structural changes that enable Southern-led research. Rudling et al. (2024) demonstrate how crises expose the invisible labour and complex positionality of local researchers, and Ansoms et al. (2024) present case studies showing mixed outcomes: some collaborations shifted meaningfully while others reverted to familiar patterns. These contributions underscore the need for systematic analysis of how remote working arrangements affect equity across different groups of actors. However, this literature has not yet examined the equity implications of remote collaborative fieldwork for all three groups of actors involved: Northern researchers, Southern researchers and participants.
In this article, we analyse the equity implications of remote collaborative fieldwork for three key groups: Northern researchers, Southern researchers and Southern participants. We use an equity framework that considers contextual, distributive, procedural and recognitional dimensions (Pascual et al., 2014) to facilitate the systematic analysis of different aspects of equity and how they apply to those involved in remote collaborative fieldwork. Using our field research as a case study, we aim to address the following questions. First, how does conducting fieldwork through remote collaborations contribute to shaping equity outcomes for Northern researchers, Southern researchers and participants? Second, how can equity be strengthened within remote collaborative fieldwork?
The equity framework
Social equity is concerned with fairness and justice in people's treatment in society and their rights (Guy and McCandless, 2012). Unlike equality, which implies equal shares of a given ‘pie’, equity is a more flexible and comparative measure that considers relative circumstances and the social differences between individuals and groups (Grasso, 2007; Guy and McCandless, 2012; Leach et al., 2018). In other words, a ‘fair share … is not necessarily an equal share’ (McDermott et al., 2013: 418). Interpretations of fairness and what is equitable vary according to different situations and cultures (Fisher, 1989). In this article, we take the view that equity means that treating people differently to overcome their respective barriers can lead to fairer outcomes (Fisher et al., 2019; Guy and McCandless, 2012). Definitions of social equity vary from a narrow focus on the distribution of outcomes to broader, more procedural and contextual conceptions of justice (Fisher et al., 2019). We adopt the multiple-dimensional social equity framework initially proposed by McDermott et al. (2013) and redrawn by Pascual et al. (2014). The framework consists of four widely accepted social dimensions: contextual, distributive, procedural and recognitional equity (Figure 1).
Framework for assessing social equity of fieldwork (adapted from Pascual et al. (2014): the original layout of the framework is maintained while the four dimensions are slightly redefined to fit our research context, according to the following text).
Contextual equity considers the broad political, social, cultural and economic conditions that shape people's abilities to gain recognition and benefits or participate in decision-making (McDermott et al., 2013; Pascual et al., 2014). It acknowledges that historical and colonial processes shape differences in capabilities, access and power (Fraser, 2009; Leichenko et al., 2023). Distributive equity focuses on the allocation of costs, benefits and risks among stakeholders, often with particular attention to economic resources (McDermott et al., 2013). Procedural equity focuses on actors’ involvement in making decisions and the processes that govern the allocation of resources and benefits (Fraser, 2009; Schlosberg, 2007). The dimension emphasises factors such as recognition, inclusion and representation in decision-making. Finally, recognitional equity refers to respect for different actors’ interests, values, rights, social norms and knowledge systems (Schlosberg, 2007; Sikor et al., 2014; Wells et al., 2021).
In connecting these four dimensions, the equity framework allows consideration of how a given process can improve equity outcomes in some aspects but not others. For example, promoting procedural equity through fairer decision-making processes may not necessarily result in a more equitable distribution of benefits (McDermott et al., 2013). Furthermore, equity outcomes may differ greatly across groups of people, depending on their relative vulnerabilities. We use the framework to assess social equity dimensions and tensions related to our remote collaborative fieldwork, considering implications for Northern researchers, Southern researchers and participants.
Fieldwork equity issues and the equity framework dimensions
Multi-dimensional social equity frameworks have been widely applied to a variety of contexts, including to studies of environmental justice (Schlosberg, 2004, 2007), energy justice (Sovacool et al., 2017) and gender equity (Wong, 2016). While myriad equity concerns are under lively debate in discussions of international fieldwork, this article is the first to apply a multi-dimensional social equity framework to considerations of the processes and outcomes of fieldwork. In this section, we review the literature on equity issues in fieldwork and match the current relevant debates to the four dimensions of the equity framework. By sorting the different concerns related to in-person fieldwork into the framework, we create a map of fieldwork equity issues in the equity framework. In the fifth section, we then follow this same thematic mapping and use our case study to examine how these equity issues are affected by conducting fieldwork through remote collaborations.
Applying an equity framework allows comprehensive assessment of social equity issues across the different groups involved in fieldwork and facilitates ‘affirmative efforts to represent and amplify marginalised voices’ (McDermott et al., 2013: 425). As a comparative tool, the equity framework lends itself to considering the effects of a given change or intervention (McDermott et al., 2013), which in this case is Northern researchers conducting collaborative fieldwork remotely, rather than in-person. By systematically analysing the social equity implications of remote collaborative fieldwork, we contribute to current thinking about ways to enhance equity in fieldwork, going beyond the ‘do no harm’ mandates often seen in fieldwork guidelines to evaluate to what extent remote ways of working might contribute to more socially equitable fieldwork (Hammett et al., 2022; Picot and Grasham, 2022). Below, we review the relevant literature related to inequities in international collaborative field research conducted in the global South and outline how they relate to the four dimensions of the social equity framework.
Contextual equity in fieldwork
The social equity framework considers how the root causes of disparities and vulnerabilities result in an ‘uneven playing field’ between stakeholder groups, taking into account both the past and present (Larson and Ribot, 2007; Wells et al., 2021). In field research, the politics of the broader social, economic and institutional context are played out at a micro-scale (Richmond et al., 2015). Contextual inequities may be particularly pronounced in global North–South research collaborations. Due to pre-existing uneven resource and funding access afforded to researchers based in Northern institutions, deep power asymmetries are common, with Northern partners controlling projects (Flint et al., 2022; Weir et al., 2019). This dynamic is frequently entrenched by Northern epistemologies which prioritise Northern theories and educational backgrounds, placing knowledgeable Southern researchers in roles related to data collection, rather than analysis or writing (Nyamnjoh, 2004). In daily fieldwork, there may also remain an inescapable power dynamic of Northern researchers being the Southern researchers’ employer and source of income (LaRocco et al., 2019; Molony and Hammett, 2007). Many scholars have also highlighted the importance of paying attention to context when considering researcher–participant interactions, in order to avoid exploitation and perpetuating controlling power dynamics (England, 1994; Katz, 1994; Nagar, 2002; Weiss, 2013). Inequities may be particularly evident when Northern researchers conduct fieldwork in the global South; yet, class and educational privileges can also situate a Southern researcher as an outsider in how they are perceived by participants, even when conducting research in their home country (Anwar and Viqar, 2017; Biswas, 2023; Lal, 1996; Mandiyanike, 2009; Mullings, 1999; Nagar, 2002; Oriola and Haggerty, 2012).
Distributive equity in fieldwork
Distributive equity tends to refer to economic costs and benefits (McDermott et al., 2013). For Northern researchers in qualitative disciplines, fieldwork is often a prerequisite for academic progression or the award of degrees such as doctorates (Ballamingie and Johnson, 2014). Gaining experience which then leads to career advancement is, therefore, a driving motivation and key benefit of field research, alongside other motivations of research impact (Chacko, 2004). For Southern research team members, fieldwork also provides opportunities to gain experience, skills and confidence which can aid career progression, as well as immediate income and employment (LaRocco et al., 2019). However, in North–South field research partnerships, there is often a disparity in benefits between research partners, as Northern partners are more likely to benefit from first-author publications and academic positions as a result of the shared fieldwork experience (Boshoff, 2009; LaRocco et al., 2019).
There is also often a ‘benefit gap’ between researchers and participants as researchers gain information but can offer little in terms of concrete benefits for participants’ time and expertise (Hemming, 2009; Mitchell, 2013). There is an ongoing debate about the ethics of compensating participants through cash payments or other ‘tokens of appreciation’ (Gupta and Kelly, 2014; Hammett and Sporton, 2012; Head, 2009; Huisman, 2008; Molyneux et al., 2012; Surmiak, 2020). There are extremely important equity implications regarding the dynamic of participants contributing to researchers’ career advancement without also receiving economic benefits (Fisher, 2011; Gupta, 2014; Huisman, 2008; Langellier, 1994). However, we do not address these issues in the Distributive equity section as our approach to compensating participants remained the same whether our research was a remote or in-person collaboration. Instead, we examine the allocation of financial resources, risks and career benefits that accrue to Northern and Southern researchers through remote work.
Procedural equity in fieldwork
A common model of research across disciplines such as health, development, conservation and geography is for scientists from global North-based institutions to travel to regions in the global South to conduct research in the field alongside Southern partners. However, such North–South field research collaborations can engender a number of procedural equity issues and have long been criticised for the structural inequalities and power imbalances that can exist between the partners (Crawford, 2003; Landau, 2012; Voller et al., 2022). There is a wealth of literature critiquing the dominance of research projects in which Northern scientists make decisions that determine the research objectives, data collection process and how data is used, mirroring historical patterns of inequity and exploitation (Binka, 2005; Nhemachena et al., 2016). Between North–South research partners, it is typical for directives issued by Northern partners to be enacted by Southern field researchers, with Northern representatives visiting to lead projects and ‘build capacity’ or ‘offer technical expertise’ (Eichbaum et al., 2021; Khan et al., 2021; Naidu, 2021). This power dynamic is described by Mawere and van Stam (2019: 169) as ‘foreign researchers waltz in and impose what they want Africans to do’ and is a key form of procedural inequity in field research. Recent efforts to conduct more equitable research across fieldwork disciplines have suggested steps such as co-establishing the research agenda, joint decision-making, and careful consideration of data ownership (Asare et al., 2022; Grieve and Mitchell, 2020; Ramírez-Castañeda et al., 2022; Voller et al., 2022).
Participants have sometimes been characterised as vulnerable and lacking agency in research decision-making processes. However, there is a strong counter-narrative asserting that participants can exert their power and agency in refusing to participate in research or choosing how to respond to interview questions, going against models of top-down hierarchies (Ali, 2015; Blakeslee et al., 1996; Sultana, 2007; Thapar-Björkert and Henry, 2004). Calls for more equity in research highlight the importance of dynamic decision-making and co-designing research, for example, through participatory processes (Author and others, 2022; Garrett, 2025; Hammett et al., 2022). However, as McDermott et al. (2013) state, procedural justice cannot be achieved if those involved have vastly different capabilities to participate, as is often the case between researchers and participants.
Recognitional equity in fieldwork
The potential for participants to be exploited during field research, for example, through their interests being inadequately represented, their knowledge systems not being respected, or their rights to gain from involvement in research being overlooked, has led to a long and rich literature about extractive relationships between researchers and participants (Chilisa, 2012; Jones et al., 1997; LaRocco et al., 2019; Smith, 1999). In global North–South research collaborations, dynamics of ‘parachute’ research can also occur. Here, scientists from higher-income countries travel to conduct fieldwork in lower-income countries, before returning to their home (or institution's) country to complete the research with little or no engagement with, or recognition of, local researchers or communities (Asase et al., 2022; Stefanoudis et al., 2021). Furthermore, research can lead to participants expecting certain outcomes, such as help gaining influence with governmental bodies, that researchers do not recognise or are unable to provide (Gallaher, 2009). To address imbalances in international field research contexts, researchers are encouraged to pay attention to positionality and power relations in the production of knowledge (Sultana, 2007) and not to overpromise on the beneficial outcomes of research (LaRocco et al., 2019). Researchers themselves can also be vulnerable to manipulation or exploitation during research processes, jeopardising their interests in rigorous research outcomes. For example, if participants exaggerate information or respond in ways intended to subvert the research process, giving answers that further a particular perspective for political or other reasons (Ballamingie and Johnson, 2014; Kirsch, 1999). Having mapped these fieldwork equity issues to the four dimensions of the framework, we now turn to our case study methods before examining, in the fifth section, how each of these equity dynamics is affected when fieldwork is conducted remotely.
Methods
Case study fieldwork and actors
This article draws on the case study of a doctoral research project undertaken at the University of Oxford. The project aimed to understand the vulnerability of smallholder cocoa farmers and their ability to adapt to climate change and other interacting shocks in Central Region, Ghana. The research team was composed of a UK-based researcher [henceforth referred to as LP] and Ghana-based scientists [BS, AO, FM, KA and RA]. Fieldwork took place in seven rural farming villages with limited or no internet access or mobile phone signal.
Following a scoping visit in 2019, LP had initially planned a series of in-person field visits to conduct interviews and focus group discussions herself, with the aid of an English-Twi interpreter. However, the global outbreak of COVID-19 forced her to find ways of collecting data while remaining in the United Kingdom, as international travel between the United Kingdom and Ghana was banned for 18 months. Through a series of connections, LP was put in touch with Ghanaian scientists from the Forestry Research Institute of Ghana (FORIG). Over the following 2 years, the project pivoted to remote collaborative fieldwork in which LP collaborated online and BS, AO, FM, KA and RA collectively conducted focus group discussions and surveys through a series of in-person field visits.
Based in the United Kingdom, LP prepared research materials and led remote team training sessions via WhatsApp calls. The team had daily or weekly check-ins and updates via messages, calls and voice messages. We shared survey data using Kobo Toolbox software and written focus group discussion notes via WhatsApp. Researchers and participants took additional health and safety precautions, including social distancing, use of face masks and careful hand-cleaning, per Ghanaian and UK government guidance, and the study area maintained a low COVID-19 case count. Once travel restrictions had lifted, LP returned to Ghana to conduct semi-structured interviews in the field herself, accompanied by BS, the lead Ghanaian remote field researcher. LP was keen to spend time in the field to gain further contextual understanding and flexibly explore themes that had arisen in the survey and focus groups through in-depth interviews. Table 1 outlines the combination of remote and in-person collaborative fieldwork conducted for the project. The comparison of the research team's experiences and the equity issues that arose from the case study of this article.
Remote and in-person fieldwork timeline and team members.
FORIG: Forestry Research Institute of Ghana.
It is important to note the positionality of the actors involved in fieldwork, as characteristics such as gender, class and educational level affect power dynamics in research (LaRocco et al., 2019; Sultana, 2007). LP is a British female doctoral researcher, who travelled to Ghana for the first time to conduct a project scoping visit in 2019. BS, AO, FM, KA and RA are Ghanaian researchers from the Forestry Research Institute of Ghana (FORIG) who are educated to Bachelor's or Master's level and speak both English and Twi fluently. BS is female and the other four scientists are male. At the time of this study, they were ordinarily based in Kumasi, but, when permitted according to COVID-19 restrictions, travelled to stay in Assin Foso, a town near the study villages, to conduct daily research visits. Most of the participants in the field research were smallholder farmers, with an approximately equal proportion of male and female interviewees and focus group discussants. Educational levels among adults in the area are low and only 54% of household heads are reported to be literate (Hirons et al., 2018).
Methods and data for equity analysis
For the analysis presented in this article, several forms of data are employed (see Table 2). First, we use fieldwork diaries and notes which were recorded by LP throughout the research process, a practice that can serve as a critical tool to aid reflexive and ethical research (Burgess, 1982; Maharaj, 2016; Thompson, 2014). In collaborative research, structured reflexive practices such as journaling and memo-writing are valuable tools for interrogating power dynamics and positionality within research teams (Linabary et al., 2021), and researcher-generated reflexive notes can serve as qualitative data in their own right (Cook and Woodman, 2026). LP's written notes included accounts of her and her colleagues’ in-person daily fieldwork activities, and remote telephone conversations and training sessions with the field team (LaRocco et al., 2019). Notes written by the Ghanaian researchers reflecting in-field experiences and perspectives were captured with daily or weekly reflexive writing exercises in Google Forms. These were responses to specific prompts such as challenges faced, lessons learnt, things enjoyed and how teamwork was (Meyer and Willis, 2019). Like Nguyen et al. (2022), in gathering feedback from Southern team members, LP was conscious of responses potentially being shaped by the power dynamics of the employer–employee relationship. BS, AO, FM, KA and RA were therefore encouraged to be honest and frank in their responses and LP reiterated that even negative responses would not affect the employment relationship. LP also conducted an in-person semi-structured interview with BS, the Ghanaian team leader, at the culmination of all the data collection in 2023. This allowed us both to discuss our relative experiences of working together remotely and in-person at different stages of the research project and the benefits and disadvantages of the two approaches. Finally, we draw on questions posed to approximately 50 smallholder participants during in-person semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions. These related to the experience of participating in the research and expectations of outcomes.
Summary of data used for equity analysis.
These data were analysed in the following steps. First, the reflexive accounts and fieldwork notes were coded, allowing for key themes to emerge (Chambers, 2020; Pascucci, 2017; Thompson, 2014). Second, interviews audio-recorded with permission were transcribed using Sonix AI software and then coded using NVivo software (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Third, the coded data were collated and the findings were triangulated across the different sources, according to each theme. We focused our analysis on equity issues that emerged due to our remote way of working, rather than all fieldwork concerns identified. We grouped these results into the four dimensions of the social equity framework.
Case study analysis and discussion
In the following sections, we present our analysis of how conducting fieldwork through remote collaboration affects equity outcomes for researchers and participants. Mirroring the mapping of equity issues to the social equity framework in the third section, our analysis here is disaggregated into four dimensions and explores how each of the themes presented in the third section are affected by remote ways of working. We contextualise and discuss our findings with reference to other studies that have found similar or contrasting results. By tracing how each equity dimension is affected by the shift from in-person to remote fieldwork, we show how the framework reveals trade-offs that would not be visible if equity were treated as a single concept, and how these trade-offs differ across the groups of actors involved.
Contextual equity
Our fieldwork was a British–Ghanaian collaboration and therefore took place against the backdrop of deep inequities resulting from colonialism, development and globalisation (Sultana, 2007). We found that various forms of contextual inequity between the groups of actors persisted whether the research was conducted remotely or in-person. As a Northern partner, whether conducting remote or in-person fieldwork, LP benefitted from the abundant privilege disparities which are often endemic to Northern–Southern research collaborations (Weir et al., 2019). Compared to her Southern colleagues, she came to the project with significantly more access to information, training and publishing opportunities in the global North-centric academia (Bradley, 2006; Nhemachena et al., 2016). These aspects, combined with being the headline recipient of grant funding, meant that financial allocations on the project were controlled by LP from a distance and gave her disproportionate influence in determining the project agenda and administration from the start (Bradley, 2006).
Contextual inequities were apparent in the interpersonal dynamics of our remote collaboration. When working side-by-side during long days in the field, researchers often have the opportunity to develop friendships and close relationships that go beyond research team hierarchies (LaRocco et al., 2019). When conducting research remotely, however, there are fewer opportunities to build trust and strengthen relationships outside of work-related interactions. Although the team deliberately dedicated time on phone and video calls to relationship-building and discussing non-work matters throughout the project, these conversations could not replace the liminal time spent together in-person travelling to and from field sites, sharing meals in the evenings, and facing daily fieldwork challenges. Towards the start of the project, BS, the lead Ghanaian field researcher, expressed surprise that ‘[LP is] approachable, which makes it easy for me. It's not a master-worker dynamic’ [BS, training session, 7 May 2021]. However, despite our collective efforts LP still felt a sense of separation and a hierarchical dynamic with her in-field colleagues several months later, describing finding it ‘hard to connect with the team remotely, especially when you’re working with people you’ve never met’ [LP, field notes, 14 September 2021]. This softened when LP later returned to Ghana and worked with team members in-person, noting that ‘meal-time chats’ and ‘working in the field together’ meant that she and BS ‘connect[ed] more as a team’ [LP, field notes, 10 January 2022].
On the other hand, by always being distanced, remote work mediates the uneven dynamics in international collaborations in which Northern researchers will ‘always eventually leave again’ to return to their home countries or institutions (LaRocco et al., 2019: 858). LP's absence during remote fieldwork also meant that she and the smallholder researcher participants were not directly confronted by their vast contextual differences, such as educational level and wealth, as they did not meet. Remote fieldwork did not change the existence of these inequities, but they were the backdrop against which the research took place. Instead, differences between researchers and participants were embodied by smallholder interactions with Ghanaian research team members. The context between the Southern researchers and participants is similar whether the Northern researcher is physically present or not, although LP's absence mediated how the project was perceived (see Recognitional equity section). The Ghanaian researchers’ positionality and level of privilege differed greatly from the participants’, despite being of the same nationality. As Sultana (2007) describes, being from an educated background and proficient in English can play into a hierarchy in which rural people exhibit deference towards urban, educated elites. In our fieldwork, one researcher described having to ‘bring [him]self to [participants’] level’ when conducting surveys because community members ‘consider [him] higher than them’ [FM, phone call, 30 November 2021]. Another researcher summarised: ‘I’m one of them, but I’m not one of them’ [BS, interview, 29 March 2023]. Because of their status as highly educated, relatively wealthy city-dwellers, the Ghanaian researchers perceived a gulf of lived experience: ‘To their issues, their challenges, and their sort of livelihoods, I'm an outsider’ [BS, interview, 29 March 2023]. The feeling of being an outsider has been well-documented in research projects where researchers working in Northern institutions return to their home country to conduct fieldwork (Mandiyanike, 2009; Oriola and Haggerty, 2012; Sultana, 2007). As Mwambari (2019) demonstrates, local researchers’ positionality in knowledge production is shaped by dynamics of power and fatigue that are frequently invisible to external partners, and these layered insider/outsider dynamics resist binary categorisation (Trundle et al., 2025). In the case of our project, Ghanaian team members were visiting from a Ghanaian research organisation but with the power, resources and financial backing of a distant Northern institution and the contextual advantages that conferred.
Distributive equity
In conducting fieldwork remotely, we found that the benefits and risks of field research were distributed differently between Northern and Southern research partners. The tangible benefits for Northern researchers of conducting in-person fieldwork have been discussed in the literature and these advantages were moderated for LP in doing remote work. For Northern researchers across several disciplines, first-hand experience of conducting fieldwork is a requirement for career progression (Ballamingie and Johnson, 2014). Other studies found that when field plans were disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers missed out on these opportunities, which was a particular concern for doctoral researchers, who, lacking a career track record, are arguably the most vulnerable group among researchers at institutions (Jackman et al., 2022; Paula, 2020). In our remote research project, LP also forwent this first-hand field experience, which was a driving motivation for her return to Ghana to conduct interviews in-person once pandemic restrictions had lifted. LP found that working remotely disconnected her from the research process and participants, affecting her lived experience of the research and the richness of her understanding. This echoed Postill's (2017: 66) ‘twin anxieties’ of ethnographic fear of missing out and aversion to thin descriptions when studying culture remotely. LP wrote that she ‘missed the human connections’ and, upon hearing about the lively discussions held in the focus groups and seeing photographs sent by the team, ‘wished [she] could have been there’ [LP, field notes, 9 June 2021].
Without her oversight, LP initially had concerns about the inexperience of the field team and, specifically, how the surveys and focus group discussions were being conducted and noted down: ‘Is the team sending me field notes a barrier to them making comprehensive but scrawling, messy notes?’ [LP, field notes, 9 April 2021]. Any decline in the quality of data collected during the remote collaboration would have ramifications for the whole team as publication co-authors, but would especially be a risk for LP's doctoral thesis. Moreover, LP felt that her own understanding of the research context and data was impacted by her absence. In relying on written reports and second-hand descriptions, she missed the richness and rigour that come from immersion in a field site and witnessing people's body language in communications (Howlett, 2021; Johnson et al., 2021). As BS described at the end of the focus group discussions, ‘you can't really get the picture, because you're not here’ [BS, phone call, 20 June 2021]. LP's notes also reflect this disconnect: ‘I feel quite out of touch with the lives of farmers having not been to Ghana for two years. It's hard for me to tell the reality [of the research topic] on the ground’ [LP, field notes, 14 September 2021]. This reflects the experiences of Burrell (2016) who, compared to her experiences of in-person fieldwork, found that relying on notes, videos and photos shared by partners in remote collaborations removed the sensory experience of fieldwork and reduced her memory of the research and ability to uncover meaning. In a positive outcome during a global health project in Kenya and Tanzania, Willows et al. (2023) found that the remote research partners were insufficiently familiar with the field research to justifiably interpret the qualitative findings on their own, leaving more room for their Southern colleagues to contribute to data analysis and lead publications.
For the Ghanaian research partners in our project, remote work provided benefits in the form of increased field experience and budget allocation. By default, LP would typically have led the fieldwork as both the funding provider and the person whose doctorate was being collected for. Whilst LP was in the United Kingdom, however, lack of phone or internet connection in the study villages rendered it impossible to be involved in the fieldwork in ‘real-time’, limiting her input to debriefs at the end of the day and suggestions for future field days. Leadership roles were therefore adopted by Ghanaian partners, one of whom noticed that, through remote work, her communication skills, team management and coordination, and self-confidence had improved [BS, interview, 29 March 2023]. BS further said that the role provided an opportunity that ‘raised the bar’ for her, boosting her experience to a level that would have been unlikely if LP had been present the whole time [BS, interview, 29 March 2023]. Our findings therefore concur with Nguyen et al. (2022) who argue that, when adequate support is provided, remote collaborations can empower Southern research partners to take on more substantial roles.
In our case study, remote work also provided opportunities to shift the financial distribution such that the Ghanaian researchers benefitted from a higher share of the research budget allocation. Money that would otherwise have been spent on LP's flights and accommodation was instead allocated to the salaries and subsistence of the in-person research team, allowing more Ghanaian researchers to be hired than would otherwise have been. On the other hand, being absent from physical fieldwork meant the risks of fieldwork and daily travel discomforts (Kaplan et al., 2020, 2023) were borne only by the Ghanaian team members. In debriefs, team members cited issues such as headaches and dirty clothes caused by road dust, fatigue during hot afternoons and uncomfortable interactions with some community members [AO, phone call, 14 November 2021; BS, phone call, 14 November 2021; FM, phone call, 14 November 2021; KA, phone call, 15 November 2021]. Our remote ways of working did not significantly affect the costs and benefits borne by research participants, as the researchers provided the same ‘tokens of appreciation’ to survey interviewees and focus group discussion members whether LP was present in the field or not. However, LP's absence did mediate some participants’ expectations and interests related to project benefits and outcomes, as discussed in the Recognitional equity section.
Procedural equity
Remote fieldwork led to increased decision-making capacity for the Ghanaian researchers in our case study but did not substantially affect procedural equity between researchers and participants. Like others who shifted to remote collaborative fieldwork, our ‘chain of command’ changed, shifting daily decision-making and redistributing power to Southern scientists (Willows et al., 2023). LP's field notes reflect how, when conducting interviews in-person, she was ‘making decisions on the fly about [who] we [spoke] to’ [LP, field notes, 4 January 2022] and described feeling the weight of having the final say in day-to-day decision-making, even though she was less familiar with the landscape and research context. By contrast, when working remotely, it was not possible for LP to be involved in daily decisions as they arose during fieldwork due to limited internet connectivity in the study villages. Instead, Ghanaian research team members made decisions about, for example, who to include in focus groups, between themselves and informed LP afterwards when they had returned to their hotel at the end of the day. LP reflected on this in her field notes: ‘[Team members] are making field decisions without me. It sounds like these were the right calls but I wasn't consulted … But maybe this kind of decision delegating and trusting my team is exactly the kind of non-colonial approach I'm trying to foster?’ [LP, field notes, 10 April 2021]. As with Vietnamese researchers on a remote project described by Nguyen et al. (2022), the Ghanaian researchers in the team were empowered to adopt a larger role in the production of knowledge, including selecting research participants, working with community gatekeepers, solving unexpected issues, deciding how to conduct focus group discussions and determining what was relevant to record and transcribe. The field team decision-making was also rather more egalitarian in LP's absence, a dynamic we had aimed to engender during training. One team member relayed that the pilot survey had been a ‘great team effort’ in which the researchers had ‘combined ideas and all brainstormed as a team’ [FM, phone call, 27 October 2021]. Although some hierarchies remained, due to LP appointing BS as the ‘lead field researcher’, or the team defaulting to the relative seniority in their FORIG roles, they were somewhat flattened in LP's absence. This seemed largely driven by the absence of any Northern researchers, who often have the de facto final say due to their role as the employer and headline recipient of fieldwork funding. However, although remote working resulted in Southern researchers leading the daily decision-making in the field, it did not address the overall shaping of the research agenda or how collected data was used, as these decisions were largely made in between field visits.
Whilst remote work can empower Southern researchers to take on more leadership and daily decision-making roles, such collaborations can still perpetuate dynamics of Northern institutions limiting Southern researchers to roles related to gathering data rather than project ideation and data interpretation (Nhemachena et al., 2016). Doing fieldwork remotely or in-person also did not alter the fundamental dynamic of researchers, rather than participants or affected communities, setting agendas, whether they were Northern or Southern researchers. Despite our efforts to take smallholders’ views and guidance into account, ultimately, the research team had the final call on the research direction, who was interviewed, and how. We discuss below how participants reported disappointment in their interests not being carried through to tangible, timely outcomes.
Recognitional equity
Recognitional equity is the dimension in which participants were most impacted by remote fieldwork, as it refers to their rights to having wishes and expectations met and recognition of their interests in research processes and outcomes. In particular, we found that LP's absence from the field affected what participants wanted and expected from fieldwork outcomes. During our remote survey interviews, many participants requested some kind of assistance as an outcome of the research, most commonly related to help accessing farm inputs or financial assistance. One survey team member reflected that he thought farmers were willing to participate ‘because they expect some help to come for them’ [field notes, FM, 20 October 2021]. Participants’ expectations of help as a direct outcome of fieldwork seemed to amplify when LP was present in the field, due to her positionality as a Northern researcher. The expectation that foreign researchers may provide financial assistance has been long documented, with other researchers noting that their whiteness was read by potential respondents as an indication of wealth and potential to provide monetary contributions (LaRocco et al., 2019; Twyman et al., 1999). When LP conducted interviews in-person, her travelling to Ghana seemed to signal to participants a greater ability for the project to meet and represent their interests. This was indicated by smallholders saying, for example, ‘You’ve come all the way from the UK to speak to us. I feel like you sympathise with our issues and want to help find ways to make things easier for us’ [smallholder farmer, interview, 29 March 2023]. The Ghanaian colleagues also noticed a difference between the surveys and focus group discussions for which LP was absent, and the interviews when she was physically present: ‘The moment they see you, [those expectations of help] are already there’ [BS, interview, 29 March 2023].
As well as requests for financial or material assistance, participants frequently asked that LP represent their interests to those in positions of power, expecting that she might have some link to figures of influence. This echoes the experiences of LaRocco and Shinn, who found that, in contrast to their Motswana colleague, the colour of their skin and their American nationality consistently ‘allowed people to assume that our presence might benefit them in some way, including providing a conduit through which to speak to their government’ (LaRocco et al., 2019: 859). Like these authors, LP was careful to make no guarantees or promises that people's lives would change as a result of the work and made efforts to set realistic expectations of LP's relative lack of power or influence, especially given her student status. However, as evidenced in her field notes, when in the field, LP became ‘tired of letting people down’ [LP, field notes, 6 January 2022] and struggled with the inequity of participants’ expectations not being met and the risk of field research being extractive. Participants’ expectations for help also seemed to affect the responses that people gave when LP was present in the field. The field team noted: ‘With you being here, there's a tendency for people to over-exaggerate, especially when it comes to the challenges that they face … They try to modify in a way that seems like they need more to be done … Because they think you will directly help them’ [BS, interview, 29 March 2023]. This dynamic not only ties in with equity issues related to participants’ expectations for help not being met, but also with researchers’ own vulnerability to manipulation or exploitation if participants distort or exaggerate information to further certain interests (Ballamingie and Johnson, 2014; Kirsch, 1999).
On the other hand, LP travelling to visit Ghana from the United Kingdom made some participants feel valued and met Ghanaian cultural norms around the importance of face-to-face visits: ‘We’re encouraged by this conversation and the fact you’ve come all the way from wherever you came from’ [smallholder farmer, interview, 29 March 2023]. Furthermore, LP visiting in-person and asking open questions through interviews and focus group discussions gave participants an opportunity to represent their interests directly to the project leader and levy critiques of the research process. In speaking directly to smallholders, LP was held to account by participants as she was asked to ‘lend [her] voice’ and advocate at her university for more tangible outcomes from Northern-led research [smallholder farmer, focus group discussion, 20 March 2023]. These sorts of challenging exchanges contributed to LP agitating in her department and university for changes to fieldwork practices (Author and others, 2022).
LP's visits also risked creating expectations of future visits and establishing relationships which would come to an abrupt end once LP had finished with her planned data collection (Kirsch, 1999). For example, when LP travelled again to the study villages in 2022 and 2023, having explained her absence was necessitated by pandemic travel restrictions, one participant noted LP's return with approval: ‘You always come to check on us, how things are going, and you’ve continued your work. It's not like others who just come one time and never come again. So we are really appreciative of the fact that you keep coming’ [smallholder farmer, interview, 21 March 2023]. While the Ghanaian colleagues were also frequently asked about follow-up visits during the survey, their visits did not have the additional expectations that can be induced by the presence of foreign researchers. However, regardless of who conducted the research, some participants expressed frustration and feeling ‘cheated’ at having been involved in various research projects, including ours, without tangible beneficial results: ‘People always come here, pick our knowledge, pick our minds, and then they go, and nothing comes out of it’ [smallholder farmer, focus group discussion, 21 March 2023]. In this regard, the lead Ghanaian field researcher surmised, ‘If the approach is right, it doesn't matter who does it’ [BS, interview, 29 March 2023]. Remote work can therefore affect inequities related to participants’ expectations for benefits, but does not fundamentally alter dynamics of extractive research as long as the distribution of beneficial outcomes remains unchanged. As Mwambari et al. (2024) suggest, COVID-19 may have been a ‘micro-interruption’ rather than a fundamental reshaping of research inequities, and Ansoms et al. (2024) find that while some collaborations shifted meaningfully, others reverted to familiar patterns. Our research is consistent with this mixed picture, finding that remote fieldwork creates openings for redistribution but does not, on its own, disrupt the structural conditions that produce inequity.
Conclusion
This research examined how four dimensions of social equity relate to conducting fieldwork in the global South through remote collaborations between Northern and Southern researchers. Drawing on a case study of doctoral research of smallholder farming communities in Ghana, we consider three key groups of actors: researchers based in the global North, researchers based in the global South, and participants in the global South. Table 3 summarises the key equity trade-offs identified across the four dimensions.
Summary of equity trade-offs in remote collaborative fieldwork.
Overall, remote international fieldwork collaborations provide some unique opportunities to improve the social equity between Northern and Southern researchers but do not substantially improve equity outcomes for participants. Fundamentally, remote fieldwork conducted by Northern researchers in the global South occurs within the same North-dominated international research systems that have been critiqued. Remote fieldwork does not change the underlying inequity of Northern scientists setting research agendas and employing Southern researchers to collect ‘raw data’ to process back in Northern institutions (Nhemachena et al., 2016). Despite it providing more career experience and employment for Southern partners, remote fieldwork still provides the most benefits for Northern researchers as it sits within this established Northern-dominated research control setting. In remote work, Northern research may still be the scientists setting agendas, theorising and writing up results, a model commonly seen in North–South fieldwork collaborations, where Southern co-authors’ most frequent role in collaboration with foreign researchers is the fieldwork and collecting data for analysis and knowledge generation elsewhere (Boshoff, 2009; Nhemachena et al., 2016; Nyamnjoh, 2004). Furthermore, due to funding flowing through Northern grants, foreign researchers often position themselves as the main actors and funding bodies demand Western partners be the leaders (Mawere and van Stam, 2019). Whilst these differences in access to resources and funding persist, asymmetries will continue and North–South research partnerships will not be equitable (Flint et al., 2022). For participants, remote research can also perpetuate dynamics of inequity as it does not intrinsically promote equitable practices, such as engaging participants throughout the research process and building knowledge-sharing processes (Chilisa, 2012; Polk, 2015; Smith, 1999). Whilst recommended equitable research approaches are possible within the remit of remote fieldwork, remote methods are not necessarily intrinsically more equitable.
The analysis presented in this article was inevitably shaped by our cultural contexts as researchers and our perceptions of fairness (Di Gregorio et al., 2013), but we have tried to accurately represent the perspectives of participants through interviews and focus group discussions. Further research could be carried out to explore the extent to which project control and benefits can be shifted to meet the interests of Southern researchers and could also examine how remote collaborative fieldwork might fit in with participatory approaches that enhance equity outcomes for participants. Recent scholarship has called for research models that foster local connections and funnel resources towards enabling local researchers to lead their own inquiries (Weatherill, 2025). Our analysis suggests that remote collaborative fieldwork, while not a solution to structural inequity, represents one such model that deserves further critical attention.
Whilst remote fieldwork can contribute to more equitable fieldwork in some aspects for North–South research collaborators, it does not, in its underlying structure, meet the goal of Southern-led research (Mawere and van Stam, 2019; Nhemachena et al., 2016), nor does it help with issues related to participants. There are also some practical limitations to conducting remote work. It relies on good internet connectivity and researchers having access to connected devices, which may require additional funding. It can also be harder to establish relationships between research team members who miss out on time spent together in the field sharing meals and transportation. Remote collaborations, therefore, require deliberate effort to build trust and establish relationships. To conclude, remote fieldwork can have some positive equity implications for Southern researchers and participants, but does not address fundamental inequities in the status quo of Northern researchers leading fieldwork in the global South.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge Stephen Tei and Herith Enyan who contributed to the fieldwork described in this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by a Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) Doctoral Training Partnership (Grant Code NE/S007474/1), the Frank Jackson Foundation and a Royal Geographical Society (with IBG) Postgraduate Award.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Descriptive captions for figures
Figure 1 shows four dimensions of our framework for assessing the social equity of fieldwork. Three points of a triangle are labelled ‘Procedure’, ‘Recognition’ and ‘Distribution’. A box labelled ‘Context’ surrounds these three dimensions.