This article formulates field relationships in terms of a “partial trust” dynamic. This is particularly relevant for conflict and postconflict settings in which respondents are secretive because they are embedded in uncertain and highly threatening social and political contexts. Reciprocal, delicate yet stable, partially trusting relationships open up opportunities for accessing hidden worlds of thought and behaviors. Based on field research on the grassroots genocide tribunals (gacaca courts) in Rwanda, this article posits three specific types of opportunities for insider access: the incremental, accidental, and the contrived. While the partial trust dynamic also constrains the extent to which the researcher can probe these openings, fieldwork under these conditions can nevertheless produce a rich and diverse array of insights.
AdlerP.AdlerP.. 1987. Membership roles in field research. Qualitative research methods series #6. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
2.
AgarM.1996. The professional stranger. 2nd ed. New York: Academic Press.
3.
Argenti-PillenA.2002. Masking terror: How women contain violence in southern Sri Lanka. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
4.
BoskC.2004. The ethnographer and the IRB. Qualitative Sociology27:417–20.
5.
BrownL. D.KaplanR. E.. 1981. Participatory research in a factory. In Human inquiry: A sourcebook for new paradigm research, eds. ReasonP.RowanJ.. London: Wiley.
6.
CalveyD.2008. The art and politics of covert research: Doing “situated ethics” in the field. Sociology42:905–18.
7.
ChakravartyA.2006. State power, human rights, and the rule of law in post-genocide Rwanda. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association annual meeting, Philadelphia, August 31–September3.
8.
CorneliusW. A.1982. Interviewing undocumented immigrants: Methodological reflections based on fieldwork in Mexico and the U.S. International Migration Review16:378–411.
9.
De LameD.2005. A hill among a thousand. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
10.
DouglasJ. D.1976. Investigative social research: Individual and team field research. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
11.
ErgunA.ErdemirA.. 2010. Negotiating insider and outsider identities in the field: “Insider” in a foreign land; “outsider” in one’s own land. Field Methods22:16–38.
12.
FennoR. F.1986. Observation, context, and sequence in the study of politics. American Political Science Review80:3–15.
13.
FettermanD. M.1991. A walk through the wilderness: Learning to find your way. In Experiencing fieldwork: An inside view of qualitative research, eds.
ShaffirW. B.StebbinsR. A., 87–96. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
14.
FujiiL. A.2010. Shades of truth and lies: Interpreting testimonies of war and violence. Journal of Peace Research47:231–41.
15.
GreenL.1999. Fear as a way of life: Mayan widows in rural Guatemala. New York: Columbia University Press.
16.
HayanoD.1983. Poker faces: The life and work of professional card players. Berkeley: University of California Press.
17.
HowellN.1990. Surviving fieldwork: A report of the advisory panel on health and safety in fieldwork. American Anthropological Association special report, no. 26.
HumphreysL.1970. Tearoom trade: Impersonal sex in public places. Chicago: Aldine.
22.
IngelaereB.2010. Do we understand life after genocide?Center and periphery in the construction of knowledge in post-genocide Rwanda. African Studies Review53:41–59.
23.
JohnsonJ. C.AvenariusC.WeatherfordJ.. 2006. The active participant-observer: Applying social role analysis to participant observation. Field Methods18:111–34.
24.
KingE.2009. From data problems to data points: Challenges and opportunities of research in post-genocide Rwanda. African Studies Review52:127–48.
25.
Kovats-BernatJ. C.2002. Negotiating dangerous fields: Pragmatic strategies for fieldwork amid violence and terror. American Anthropologist104:208–22.
26.
KriegerS.1983. The mirror dance: Identity in a women’s community. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
LoflandJ.LoflandL. H.. 1995. Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
29.
MaginnP. J.2007. Negotiating and securing access: Reflections from a study into urban regeneration and community participation in ethnically diverse neighborhoods in London, England. Field Methods19:425–40.
30.
MagoldaP. M.2000. Accessing, waiting, plunging in, wondering, and writing: Retrospective sense-making of fieldwork. Field Methods12:209–34.
31.
MarcusGeorge E.1997. The uses of complicity in the changing mise-en-scène of anthropological fieldwork. Representations59:85–108.
NewburyC.1988. The cohesion of oppression: Clientship and ethnicity in Rwanda 1860–1960. New York: Columbia University Press.
34.
NilanP.2002. “Dangerous Fieldwork” re-examined: The question of researcher subject position. Qualitative Research2:363–86.
35.
PeritoreN. P.1990. Reflections on dangerous fieldwork. American Sociologist21:359–72.
36.
RettigM.2008. Gacaca: Truth, justice, and reconciliation in post-conflict Rwanda?African Studies Review51:25–50.
37.
ReyntjensF.2004. Rwanda, Ten years on: From genocide to dictatorship. African Affairs103:177–210.
38.
RobbenA. C. G. M.SlukaJ., eds. 2007. Ethnographic fieldwork: An anthropological reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
39.
RowlerL.2001. The four square laundry: Participant observation in a war zone. Geographical Review91:414–22.
40.
SlukaJ., ed. 2000. Death squad: The anthropology of state terror. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
41.
SpringwoodC. F.KingC. R.. 2001. Unsettling engagements: On the ends of rapport in critical ethnography. Qualitative Inquiry7:403–17.
42.
SriramC. L.KingJ. C.MertusJ. A.Martin-OrtegaO.HermanJ., eds. 2009. Surviving field research: Working in violent and difficult situations. London: Routledge.
43.
StoeckerR.BeckwithD.. 1992. Advancing Toledo’s neighborhood movement through participatory action research: Integrating activist and academic approaches. Clinical Sociology Review10:198–213.
44.
StrausS.2006. The order of genocide. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
45.
ThomsonS.2010. Getting close to Rwandans since the genocide: Studying everyday life in highly politicized research settings. African Studies Review53:19–34.
46.
Van MaanenJ.1988. Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
47.
VenkateshS.2008. Gang leader for a day. New York: Penguin Press.
48.
WaldorfL.2006. Mass justice for mass atrocity: Rethinking local justice as transitional justice. Temple Law Review79:1–87.
49.
WedeenL.1999. Ambiguities of domination: Politics, rhetoric and symbols in contemporary Syria. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
50.
WoltersS.2005. The gacaca process: Eradicating the culture of impunity in Rwanda?Institute for Security Studies-Situation Report. http://www.issafrica.org/AF/current/2005/050805rwanda.pdf (accessed March3, 2012).
51.
WoodE.2006. The ethical challenges of field research in conflict zones. Qualitative Sociology29:307–41.
