Methodological Reflections on Fieldwork in Sensitive Environmental Justice Research: Engaging Marginalized Communities in Ghana’s Large-Scale Gold Mining Regions

Abstract

This article provides a hands-on reflective account of fieldwork experiences involving marginalized communities hosting commercial large-scale gold mining activities. Drawing upon a project investigating the gendered dimensions and vulnerability contexts of environmental justice in Ghana’s extractive sector, the paper discusses the tensions and challenges in researching sensitive topics in marginalized communities. Drawing on my fieldwork experiences, I address some challenges and uncertainties in conducting fieldwork and producing knowledge in marginalized communities. At the heart of the discussion are issues about gaining introduction into a new research context, building relationships and trust with participants, research participation fatigue, community stakeholder engagement experiences, and navigating power inequalities between the researcher and the researched. For research to be mutually beneficial, the article argues for future researchers working with marginalized communities to produce user-friendly knowledge exchange products that non-academic stakeholders can easily adopt. By ensuring that knowledge produced in research is accessible and understandable, marginalized communities will be well-placed to access resources and opportunities.

Introduction

The paper provides a hands-on reflective account of my fieldwork experiences investigating the gendered dimensions and vulnerability context of environmental justice (EJ) in Ghana’s large-scale commercial gold mining communities. Specifically, the fieldwork was conducted in Ghana’s Asutifi North District (AND). The AND hosts Newmont Corporation, one of the world’s largest mining companies, serving as its African headquarters. As a doctoral student pursuing my PhD at a Canadian University, returning to my home country (Ghana) to collect empirical data for my dissertation project was an interesting escapade. Before the data collection, I was particularly excited to conduct fieldwork in my home country to help address pertinent local issues while contributing to knowledge advancement.

Additionally, I was optimistic that I could leverage my insider status to gain easy access to the communities and research participants. Nevertheless, field realities tend to diverge from the details researchers indicate in their tentative methodologies due to certain unforeseen circumstances, the limitations of pre-determined methodological approaches, and the complexities of real-world situations (Bandauko & Arku, 2023). These concerns underscore the need for flexibility, versatility, and adaptability during fieldwork.

This is more evident in large-scale commercial gold mining communities in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Large-scale commercial gold mining communities in SSA are primarily portrayed as vulnerable, disadvantaged, and marginalized because they are relatively low-income earners, exposed to mining’s negative socio-environmental impacts, are excluded from environment-related decision-making spaces, and live in precarious conditions (Bond & Kirsch, 2015; Kumah et al., 2020; Wan, 2014). Their populations are typified by rapid migration as the booming extractive activities attract active workforce from far and wide to take advantage of employment opportunities (Gough et al., 2019; Mkodzongi & Spiegel, 2020). Consequently, gold mining communities are characterized by a mix of people from different cultures and backgrounds. These communities are also characterized by excessive natural resource exploitation, leading to significant socio-environmental impacts and socio-economic challenges linked to inequality and displacement.

According to Pacheco-Vega & Parizeau (2018), researchers’ pursuit of more profound knowledge and perspectives from marginalized communities might end up entrenching further harm. Accordingly, researchers dealing with marginalized populations must meticulously design their research to address these challenges. Pacheco-Vega & Parizeau (2018) propose that researchers investigating marginalized communities and populations in the global south must engage in deeper conversations about how research subjects would like to be portrayed and treated.

Research focusing on commercial gold mining towns often prominently features participants such as community residents, key community stakeholders and opinion leaders, mine workers, environment-related non-governmental organizations (NGOs), civil society organizations (CSOs), and local government officials. These participants’ varied experiences and knowledge are shaped by their connections to the mining industry and the unique socio-historical context of the community. Populations in commercial mining communities are a unique typology of research participants because many residents are working-age individuals, indicating their quest to reap employment benefits from the booming extractive industry. Residents also experience diverse socio-economic conditions, ranging from those directly reaping employment benefits to those facing significant socio-environmental burdens such as poverty, inequality, and displacement. Commercial mining towns are also characterized by diverse socio-cultural backgrounds, including native residents, immigrants, and individuals with a long presence in the area. It is crucial to indicate that residents’ perceptions and views about mining diverge widely, influenced by interests, concerns, experiences, and perceived benefits and burdens of gold mining. Residents’ experiences with mining differ considerably; those working directly in the mining sector have direct experiences different from those with minimal involvement or exposure.

Research on environmental justice within extractive contexts in SSA has grown steadily, but much of the scholarship has traditionally emphasized the outcomes of extractive activities—such as socio-economic marginalization, health burdens, and ecological degradation (Essah, 2022; Mensah et al., 2015; Yeboah & Gyan, 2025), while paying limited attention to the methodological challenges of conducting fieldwork in such sensitive, high-risk contexts. Ghana’s large-scale gold mining regions provide a particularly critical site for such reflection, given their complex intersections of environmental dispossession, livelihood disruption, community displacement, and socio-economic inequalities. Engaging marginalized populations in these regions raises profound ethical and methodological dilemmas.

Communities affected by extractive activities often experience profound marginalization, making them vulnerable not only to environmental and socio-economic harms (Yeboah & Gyan, 2025) but also to the unintended consequences of research itself (Pacheco-Vega & Parizeau, 2018). Issues of trust, positionality, access, power asymmetries, cultural sensitivity, and researcher safety become central considerations in such settings. This paper, therefore, situates itself at the nexus of environmental justice scholarship and critical methodological inquiry, offering reflexive insights into conducting research with marginalized groups in environmentally sensitive contexts.

Research involving vulnerable and marginalized communities presents a complex set of challenges, including ethical issues, complexities in recruitment and gaining participants’ trust, privacy and confidentiality issues, and power inequalities between the researcher and participants (Bandauko & Arku, 2023; Green et al., 2024; Masud-All-Kamal et al., 2023; Pacheco-Vega & Parizeau, 2018). These complex challenges are existential, putting qualitative researchers in a dilemma. However, in the SSA context, researchers have paid limited attention to reflecting upon their fieldwork experiences working with marginalized communities and their complex challenges. The limited understanding of qualitative fieldwork experiences with this unique demographic in SSA might translate into poorer future research decision-making, mask opportunities, constrain problem-solving, significantly inhibit innovation in knowledge advancement, and result in research inefficiencies and errors. Bandauko & Arku (2023) reflect on their fieldwork experiences investigating street traders in Harare, Zimbabwe. Their study provides in-depth insights from a predominantly temporary and mobile vulnerable social group from the SSA context to inform future researchers. However, there is a dearth of scholarly research that pays attention to fieldwork experiences from the perspectives of other vulnerable social groups, such as residents in commercial gold mining towns, a more stable and permanent demographic.

This paper builds on the emerging body of methodological scholarship within the SSA context that foregrounds the ethical, political, and emotional complexities of conducting fieldwork in sensitive settings (Akondeng et al., 2022; Bandauko & Arku, 2023; Lesutis, 2018; Sowatey et al., 2021). These studies have critically examined methodological issues, including community mistrust, researcher positionality, and the politics of knowledge production among marginalized communities and populations. This work contributes to and extends the literature by offering situated methodological reflections from fieldwork conducted in the AND, a context shaped by mining-induced displacement, marginalization of community perspectives in environmental decisions, and environmental degradation associated with commercial gold mining operations. Specifically, I critically reflect on the adaptive strategies employed to navigate field access, connect with participants, build trust, and navigate power dynamics inherent in engagement with vulnerable communities. By documenting these methodological challenges and responses, I aim to provide practical insights for researchers conducting ethically informed fieldwork in similarly complex, marginalized contexts.

This study contributes to new knowledge in methodological scholarship by providing contextually grounded field insights from a Ghanaian setting, an area often underrepresented in existing literature. While much of the current methodological scholarship focuses on fieldwork conducted in the global north, my reflections from the AND in Ghana illustrate how distinct political, socio-cultural, and historical dynamics shape sensitive environmental justice fieldwork. The paper presents a nuanced account of the ethical and practical dimensions of fieldwork, highlighting the relational effort required to establish trust, recruit participants, navigate power imbalances, and manage community gatekeepers. In doing so, it not only enriches methodological discourse but also advances practical strategies for conducting socially responsive and ethically reflexive research in marginalized settings. This contribution is particularly valuable for scholars working in similarly complex settings, where methodological rigidity often fails to meet the demands of lived realities. Overall, by focusing on Ghana’s gold mining regions, the paper fills a critical gap in methodological scholarship by shifting attention from merely documenting injustices to interrogating how research itself can either challenge or perpetuate inequality. It underscores that methodological reflection is integral to advancing just, ethical, and context-sensitive scholarship in the global south and beyond.

The paper contributes to the existing body of knowledge by offering a detailed account of my field experiences, accompanied by thorough reflection, to advance scholarly discourse on qualitative fieldwork practices within the SSA context. Specifically, it addresses an underexplored area by presenting a comprehensive narrative of my engagements and challenges encountered while conducting fieldwork among marginalized communities in large-scale commercial gold mining towns in Ghana. Given the shared socio-economic and geo-political characteristics across mining communities in SSA, the insights presented here have broader applicability and relevance to similar contexts across the region. The paper further offers practical lessons and methodological insights intended to inform and support researchers navigating the complexities of conducting research with vulnerable populations. As Uddin (2022) posits, personal experiences constitute a critical and valuable dataset in qualitative inquiry; thus, this reflection serves as a valuable contribution to ongoing academic dialogue. In this paper, I highlight and thoroughly discuss the following methodological issues: gaining introduction in a new research context, connecting with research participants, research participation fatigue, firsthand experience of community stakeholder engagement, and navigating power dynamics between researchers and participants.

The paper is structured into five parts. The section that follows the introduction provides a brief overview of the researcher’s positionality. I then present the study context and methodology before presenting research experiences and key lessons. In the last section, I provide the closing remarks.

Researcher’s Positionality

This study is grounded in a pragmatist epistemological framework, which emphasizes practical relevance and actionable knowledge (Bryant, 2017; Kaushik & Walsh, 2019; Kelly & Cordeiro, 2020). Pragmatism offered a valuable foundation for navigating the complex and ethically sensitive terrain of EJ fieldwork in the AND, Ghana, where research conditions were shaped by community distrust and marginalization, extractive histories, and dynamic social and political tensions. As a Ghanaian with both cultural familiarity and institutional affiliation outside the community, I occupied an insider-outsider positionality, familiar with local languages and socio-cultural norms, yet also viewed through the lens of external academic authority and power. This positionality required a high degree of reflexivity and relational sensitivity, guiding methodological choices not only by theoretical commitments but by what was feasible, ethical, and meaningful in the field.

Accordingly, the study employed a combination of semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, informal conversations, and participant observation tailored to address emerging challenges and opportunities. This alignment with a pragmatist orientation not only allowed the research to remain grounded in the lived experiences of participants but also contributed meaningfully to the broader theoretical and practical debates in the methodological scholarship in SSA. The emphasis on actionability, ethical responsiveness, and continuous methodological adjustment is consistent with pragmatism’s core tenet: that knowledge should be evaluated in terms of its consequences and usefulness in addressing real-world problems.

According to Berger (2015), positionality describes a researcher’s social location (such as age, gender, race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, and socio-economic status), political and professional beliefs, and personal experiences about the context and setting of the research. Differently worded, positionality indicates the ‘stand’ a researcher has chosen to adopt within the context of a research study. In the view of Rowe (2014), the researchers’ positionality significantly influences the conduct of the research and its subsequent outcomes and implications. Accordingly, researchers must acknowledge their unique positionality as it may potentially influence all aspects of the research process (Wilson et al., 2022). Additionally, acknowledging positionality is a way for researchers to recognize that they are a part of the social world they are investigating (Holmes, 2020). Honest disclosure of positionality also indicates what a researcher ‘believes’ and how that might have influenced their research. Therefore, clarifying a researcher’s positionality in a study context can be considered a salient element of the research process (Holmes, 2020). By exploring my positionality in the research context, I am increasing my awareness of my biases, allowing me to explore actionable strategies to help me navigate them.

In my fieldwork with marginalized gold mining communities in Ghana, my positionality revolved mainly around my ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’ status. I was neither completely an insider nor an outsider but assumed different positions depending on the circumstances. While the fluid nature of my position offered rich and nuanced insights into the lived experiences and realities of participants, it also enabled me to acknowledge the potential influence of my biases and misconceptions on my research. I was an insider because I was fluent in the native Akan language, widely spoken in the study sites, and belonged to the same ethnic group as the mining communities, facilitating seamless communication and interaction with participants. I deliberately used local slang, colloquial Akan terms, native proverbs, and idioms to maintain my cultural identity and semblance with the researched. My insider status, therefore, enabled me to build rapport and trust with study participants, subsequently allowing me to obtain rich and insightful information from the communities.

I urge African researchers pursuing further studies abroad and returning home to conduct fieldwork with marginalized populations and communities not to distance themselves from their socio-cultural contexts or to alienate themselves from marginalized communities. Instead, future researchers can study research subjects more engagedly. This can be achieved through informal and formal conversations with potential participants by providing adequate information about their research, purpose, and study protocols (Pacheco-Vega & Parizeau, 2018).

During field engagements, I was cognizant of my ‘outsider’ status and socio-economic standing as a student researcher from a North American university. The wide socio-economic disparity between study participants and myself put us into class differentials, with the potential of marginalized participants treating me with a great deal of respect. Because power inequalities between researchers and participants constitute a significant challenge when researching marginalized populations (Pincock & Jones, 2020), I was particularly mindful of how this imbalance can further harm marginalized study participants. To bridge the power gap, I politely spoke with study participants by using ‘please’ intermittently in our interactions.

Additionally, I was an outsider because I was new to EJ considerations in the study communities. I did not understand the nuances of the main benefits and burdens of gold mining, how they are distributed, and the extent of inclusion of the communities’ views and interests in environmental policy frameworks. As an outsider, I lacked a comprehensive understanding of the cultural and social nuances of the communities, potentially leading to misconceptions and misrepresentations. I immersed myself in the communities throughout the fieldwork to overcome these challenges. By living in the communities, I could spend substantial time interacting with residents while purchasing food and other necessities from them. I also relied on local transport service providers to get around the communities. Essentially, this strategy was instrumental in bridging the class gap between community members and me. Through my constant and ‘everyday’ interaction with community members, I was considered a ‘stranger’ doing meaningful research with the potential to shape community development outcomes.

Study Context and Methodology

My firsthand experience investigating EJ issues in Ghana’s large-scale commercial gold mining contexts informs this paper. The study’s objectives were threefold: (a) to explore the gendered dimensions of EJ in the communities, (b) to understand the vulnerability context of EJ, and (c) to investigate the strategies, barriers, and facilitators for integrating EJ frameworks into community development practices. The study was conducted in five communities under the jurisdiction of the AND in Ghana: Wamahiniso, Gyedu, Ntotroso, Kenyasi no. 1, and Kenyasi no. 2. The AND is regarded as one of Ghana’s prominent gold mining areas as the vast gold deposits attract national and international investors. The mining concession in the AND yields an annual average of about 446,000 ounces of gold, and estimates indicate more than 9.7 million ounces of gold in reserves (Nsiah & Schaaf, 2019). The thriving commercial mining industry has resulted in a rise in artisanal illegal gold mining in the area, with profound detrimental environmental ramifications. A defining feature of the communities hosting commercial mining activities was that while they endured significant socio-environmental harm, the allocation of the benefits of mining accrued to the mining company. Additionally, marginalized community members’ views, concerns, and perspectives were excluded from environment-related decisions about gold mining due to their limited opportunities to participate in environmental policy frameworks.

I adopted a qualitative exploratory case study approach to enable me to understand the nuances of the gendered dimensions and vulnerability context of EJ in the study sites. Three primary data collection methods were employed to elicit relevant responses from research participants: in-depth qualitative interviews, focus group discussions (FGDs), and participant observations. Both purposive and snowball sampling techniques were employed to recruit participants for the study, ensuring a diverse range of perspectives, including those of women, men, youth groups, and community leaders. Data collection was conducted over three months period and employed multiple complementary methods.

To recruit participants for the study, I leveraged my network with a key community gatekeeper within the AND, whom I explained the purpose and procedures of the research. After this initial contact, he helped me identify knowledgeable and experienced potential participants who could provide valuable insights for the study. I then visited the homes of potential participants, during which the purpose of the research and study procedures was explained. The interview consent form was given to potential participants. I visited the homes of potential participants after a week to find out if they were happy and willing to participate. A date, time, and venue convenient for participants were agreed upon for those who agreed to participate in the research. Following the successful participation of the participants, I respectfully asked them to refer me to other knowledgeable community members who were uniquely positioned to contribute to the study. This process was followed until all responses were obtained for the study.

Together, 26 in-depth interviews were conducted with community members and key stakeholders in the study area to elicit rich and nuanced narratives on the gendered dimensions, vulnerability context, and strategic resilience of mining-impacted communities. All the interviews were conducted in the homes and workplaces of participants. A semi-structured interview guide was used to flexibly capture responses from participants while audio-recording the interviews with prior informed and written consent.

Three separate FGDs were held in the study communities. FGDs were helpful in the research context because the approach allowed for group dynamics, enabling participants to build on one another’s responses and generate novel and insightful ideas. All three separate FGDs were comprised of eight members. The number allowed participants adequate time to contribute to the discussion while making the sessions easier to manage. The FGDs were disaggregated into only women, both men and women (mixed-gender), and youth groups due to power imbalances in the Ghanaian context. The mixed-gender discussion was insightful as it provided diverse responses and opinions. More importantly, the mixed-gender discussion allowed me to observe how gender dynamics influenced participation in the discussion. All the FGDs took place in the conference hall of one of the CSOs operating in the study district.

Through observation, I could capture data about people, events, behaviors, physical features, and objects as they occurred in the natural setting of the study communities. This approach enabled me to listen, observe, and make notes on relevant events. It also enabled me to systematically capture nonverbal cues, community interactions, and environmental conditions that were not easily captured through in-depth interviews and FGDs. Field observations enabled me to capture rich, first-hand information on issues that were crucial to the study and could not have been captured through in-depth interviews and FGDs alone. By immersing myself in the study context, I was able to witness and document the physical manifestations of the impacts of extractive activities on the communities’ immediate environment, including land degradation, air pollution, and degraded landscapes. Field observations provided valuable insights into how environmental alterations directly affect community livelihoods, settlement patterns, and everyday activities of mining-impacted communities. This experiential engagement enriched the overall depth and validity of the research findings. I developed and used an observation checklist to capture these nonverbal cues and interactions.

Interviews and FGDs were conducted in Twi, the widely spoken language in the study communities, after which they were translated into English. Conducting the interviews and FGDs in the local language ensured accurate data collection as it allowed participants to clearly understand the questions while enabling them to express themselves freely. I audio-recorded all the interviews and FGDs with participants’ prior informed and written consent while making notes of significant field insights to foster a deeper understanding of the phenomenon of interest. Regarding the analytical framework, I applied thematic analysis to examine the rich textual data I obtained from my fieldwork.

Research Experiences and Main Takeaways

While researching EJ issues with vulnerable communities hosting commercial gold mining activities in Ghana’s AND, I gained useful field insights and valuable lessons. My experience spans gaining an introduction to a new research context, connecting with research participants, research participation fatigue, witnessing a community stakeholder engagement, and navigating power imbalances between the researcher and participants. The research process deepened my understanding of sensitive EJ issues in extractive contexts. It reinforced the importance for researchers dealing with marginalized communities and populations in SSA to exhibit flexibility, versatility, and adaptability. In this section, I aim to share these lessons and to provide a foundation for future researchers.

Gaining Introduction in a New Research Context

Gaining access to a research site and participants is a necessary first step in research, given that it enables researchers to ethically collect data and collaborate with participants to generate knowledge in addressing pertinent real-world challenges. The challenges related to gaining access to research sites and study populations have been highlighted in several studies (Dahlke, 2020; Scourfield, 2012; Vuban & Eta, 2019). The challenges include the complex negotiations required to obtain initial access and how to maintain the access throughout the entire data collection period (Okumus et al., 2007; Vuban & Eta, 2019). According to Clark (2011), accessing research sites and participants hinges on community gatekeepers who might facilitate or hinder the data collection. According to Høyland et al. (2015), gaining access to a research site and participants involves a multifaceted approach. This includes delineating the recruitment criteria, building relationships with gatekeepers and potential participants, and utilizing various recruitment strategies (Høyland et al., 2015). Merely obtaining ethical approval from an academic institution to conduct fieldwork does not justify a researcher gaining easy access to the research site and participants. This requires carefully considering the unique local context where data will be collected.

Conducting fieldwork in gold mining communities in Ghana can be challenging and demanding because of the political sensitivity surrounding extractive activities and the recent intensification of illegal mining activities, which have caused significant destruction to forest and water resources. The recent intensification of illegal artisanal and small-scale gold mining has been inextricably tied to political actors and their decisions, hence the considerable political sensitivity and controversy surrounding ‘extrativism’ in Ghana. Due to political sensitivity, I acted on both formal and informal networks and processes to gain community access.

Regarding formal networks and processes, I leveraged my network with a high-ranking public official of the district assembly (we belonged to the same professional association) to gain an official introduction to the communities. The official was an important stakeholder in the district’s development. He oversaw the preparation and implementation of development plans, managed development, and monitored and evaluated development projects in the study sites. Because of his crucial role in the district’s development, he had very close working relationships with community gatekeepers. Acting on his networks, he introduced me to community gatekeepers, including youth and women association leaders, local government representatives, traditional leaders, community development actors, and other interest groups in the study communities. According to Sowatey et al. (2021), the ‘status’ and ‘locus’ of a gatekeeper who introduces a researcher to potential participants influence how the researcher is perceived. Given the reputation and role of the public official in the district’s development, community gatekeepers welcomed, supported, and embraced me as a ‘legitimate’ researcher researching to drive meaningful changes.

Against this backdrop, I encourage future researchers seeking to explore sensitive community issues such as gold mining to leverage the networks of reputable community gatekeepers to gain introduction and build trust with study communities. Acting on this official network, I connected with knowledgeable and experienced individuals in the communities who provided rich and insightful perspectives for my research project. In fact, without the support of the public official, it would have been tough to access these knowledgeable and experienced participants. For example, some participants reiterated their fear and suspicion that the mining firm (Newmont) might have deployed spies to collect sensitive information and relay it to them. Participants were concerned about this issue as it could impact their employment opportunities and those of their significant others with Newmont. This observation and field reality departed significantly from my previous perception. I believed I could easily access research participants because I was a Ghanaian and shared a similar socio-cultural trait with them. The public official’s instrumental role in formally introducing me to community gatekeepers was vital in enhancing the participation of vulnerable and marginalized community members. As Bandauko & Arku (2023) highlight, researchers must understand the social structure of their study sites to appreciate the power and influence of gatekeepers in accessing study sites and potential research participants.

Regarding informal processes of gaining an introduction to research participants, I participated in a community stakeholder engagement between the mining company and the youth associations to learn more about the community. I interacted with the youth association executives during the stakeholder engagement and discussed my research. Through the interaction, I was regarded as an ‘outsider’ doing ‘legitimate’ research in the mining catchment area. I leveraged my networks with the youth executives to gain introduction to the youth members in the mining communities, which I capitalized on to recruit participants for the FGD with the youth groups. In the view of Usadolo & Caldwel (2016), for researchers to identify knowledgeable participants for their research, they must attend community meetings and engagements to understand who can meaningfully contribute. In the context of my fieldwork, attending the community stakeholder engagement allowed me to observe and identify community members who were influential and knowledgeable about gold mining and development-related issues in the study sites. Future researchers doing qualitative research in SSA must attend community events and meetings on issues related to their research to gain an introduction and to identify community stakeholders and members who are knowledgeable and experienced and can contribute valuable perspectives to their research. This can also allow researchers to gain valuable insights into the study sites, fostering a better understanding of contextual issues.

I meticulously selected youth participants because some youth leaders suggested who they wanted to represent the youth in the FGD. According to Bashir (2023), the powers of gatekeepers may manifest by controlling and influencing the selection of participants for research. This can lead to a biased selection of participants, potentially compromising data quality (Bashir, 2023). However, I did observe people who made substantial contributions at the community engagement and instead made initial contact with them and exchanged phone numbers. This enabled me to recruit knowledgeable youth members to participate in the FGD, enriching the shared perspectives.

Despite the critical role of gatekeepers in supporting researchers to gain introduction to study sites and participants, they might attempt to persuade researchers to select individuals and community groups more convenient to them and can represent their interests or perspectives (Kay, 2019; McFadyen & Rankin, 2016). This could compromise the quality and objectivity of research data. Future researchers must, therefore, devise effective strategies to navigate gatekeeper ‘manipulation’ and ‘influence’. A strategy I adopted to overcome gatekeeper influence in selecting participants and community groups was that after the gatekeepers introduced me to key informants/opinion leaders, I leveraged their networks to recruit people from the community they believed were also knowledgeable and experienced enough to provide rich data for the research. I conveniently referred to these people as ‘community collaborators’. These ‘community collaborators’ became conduits for gaining access and introduction to other potential research participants. While ‘community collaborators’ are useful in recruiting potential participants for qualitative studies, researchers must exercise circumspection regarding their suggestions as they might influence the biased selection of participants more convenient to them. For example, Masud-All-Kamal et al. (2023) note that when ‘community collaborators’ are chosen from influential and affluent families, they incentivize marginalized community segments not to trust researchers. While I had no practical strategy to overcome this limitation, I urge future researchers to reflect upon approaches to overcome ‘community collaborator’ influences and manipulations.

Connecting with Research Participants: Gaining Mutual Trust and Building Rapport

According to Masud-All-Kamal et al. (2023) and Zou (2025), the depth of knowledge produced in qualitative studies is contingent upon the relationships between the researcher and the researched. This underscores the need to build rapport and trust with marginalized communities with tremendous experiences and histories of oppression, trauma, and discrimination. Building trust and rapport with marginalized communities and populations becomes vital in research as it fosters effective working relationships, helps address systemic barriers, and ensures equitable access to opportunities and resources (Fernandez et al., 2022; McDavitt et al., 2016). As Henderson et al. (2024) note, robust connections based on trust and mutual respect between researchers and marginalized participants translate into better communication outcomes and remarkable community participation, ultimately driving sustainable and impactful research interventions. Building trust and rapport with marginalized populations also facilitates respectful dialogues and the exchange of ideas, feedback, and synergistic interventions. When dealing with marginalized populations such as communities hosting extractive activities, researchers must dedicate time to listen to their histories and stories and share their struggles. This also requires researchers to be open and supportive while respecting their social and cultural norms and practices.

My encounters with some participants during the initial days of my data collection underscored the complexity of working with marginalized populations. Two women in one of the study communities initially agreed to participate in the study but later declined (after a day). The women expressed skepticism about participating in the research, fearing that their views and perspectives might be communicated to Newmont. The women perceived me as a ‘spy’ or ‘undercover agent’ hired by the mining company to collect sensitive gold mining benefit and burden distribution information. The fear and suspicion were heightened because the economically active population in the communities was either working or potentially seeking employment at the mine. To avoid being targeted by the mining company to jeopardize their employment prospects and those of their significant others, the women declined to participate in the research, although they initially agreed. During my visit to one of the women a day after she had agreed to participate, she expressed the following sentiments:

In our community, if you decide to oppose or complain about Newmont, someone from among the community could report you to officials of the company. When this happens, you would be blacklisted by Newmont and you, and your dependants or family members may never secure a job at the mine. These are some of the internal obstacles we face as a community. I’m sorry that I cannot participate in the research study. I know you will be disappointed [because I had initially agreed], but please understand me.

Another participant also made the following remarks:

For those of the natives with leadership roles in the company, they are bound by the company’s ethics. They cannot disclose to outsiders what is happening internally. They use this to intimidate the locals working for the company. People know things are not happening right but cannot complain due to fear of dismissal. This is something they need to consider.

The sentiments expressed were legitimate because the nature of my research was sensitive. As Bowen et al. (2022) note, mistrust between researchers and participants may stem from various sources, including past inequities, perceived exploitation, lack of transparency, previous confidentiality and anonymity breaches, and poor communication. These issues of mistrust can result in participation hesitancy, potentially compromising data quality and significantly delaying study completion. In such situations, I urge researchers to improvise in gaining participants’ trust and confidence. For example, Bandauko & Arku (2023) recommend that sitting and having conversations with marginalized populations and coming down to their level can correct these misconceptions about researchers. Issues of ‘researcher mistrust’ underscore the need to prioritize anonymity and confidentiality issues in research. I urge future researchers to transparently and honestly explain anonymity and confidentiality issues to participants while addressing all their concerns. Demonstrating honesty and transparency on confidentiality and anonymity issues can make participants perceive that their privacy will be protected, ensuring the integrity of the research process.

An effective strategy I adopted in building relationships with participants was frequently visiting their work environments. This approach enabled me to gain community visibility while discussing their stories and life trajectories with participants. Throughout the research period, I lodged in commercial accommodations in the communities and relied on local transport service providers to get around the communities. I also bought breakfast, snacks, and fruits from local vendors to build robust relationships and gain their trust. In the view of Bandauko & Arku (2023), acts of empathy towards marginalized populations manifest in buying items from them. In the context of my fieldwork, these gestures and acts effectively proved that I prioritized residents’ socio-economic concerns and not just exploiting them for information. I consistently bought breakfast in a community market square during peak hours and had the opportunity to interact with community members. Eating and having conversations with people while discussing my research facilitated connections and building rapport. These informal ways of connecting with people proved effective in building relationships and trust. I encourage future researchers dealing with marginalized communities and populations in the SSA context to be deeply immersed in participants’ everyday lives to create stronger bonds while providing ample opportunities to discuss their research. Contrary to my previous perception that my insider status as a Ghanaian and sharing similar socio-cultural traits with the communities would allow me to build rapport and trust, field realities departed considerably. Instead, researchers must devise effective strategies to build connections and trust when dealing with marginalized populations.

During these informal interactions with community residents, I was mindful not to give ‘unrealistic hope’. I told them my research would not necessarily lead to fairer frameworks in distributing environmental burdens and benefits and enhancing their inclusion in environmental decisions. However, I assured participants that the findings and policy implications of the study might inform the (re)development of policies to improve EJ frameworks in the mining catchment area.

As an outsider, another approach I employed to build connections and foster familiarity with participants was attending a community stakeholder engagement between the youth associations and the mining company. I established familiarity with potential participants by attending the stakeholder engagement and introducing myself and my research to the attendees. My participation in the meeting was also an excellent opportunity to pay close attention to the study sites’ social, cultural, and power dynamics. The meeting taught me much about the communities’ dynamics and the nature of issues concerning allocating environmental benefits and burdens. During the meeting, I observed participants who contributed significantly based on their knowledge and experiences about gold mining and community development-related issues. Following the meeting, we exchanged contacts and discussed the possibility of recruiting them to participate in the FGD I organized for the youth groups in the study sites. On this basis, I urge future researchers dealing with marginalized populations to attend community meetings on issues related to their research topics. This will allow researchers to build familiarity with participants while observing knowledgeable and experienced community members who might benefit their study.

More importantly, my use of local jargon and slang was a helpful approach that facilitated rapport building and trust with participants. My fluency (oral and written) in the Twi language (a widely spoken language in Ghana) and my understanding of the Akan (dominant ethnic group in Ghana) socio-historical and cultural contexts helped me to build rapport with participants. For example, referring to a male adult as Papa (Father) and a female adult as Maame (Mother) is considered respectful. Referring to younger ladies as Sista (Sister) and younger males as Bra (Brother) is also respectful. My consistent use of these titles when engaging with research participants facilitated mutual respect and understanding. I also used Mepawokyew (Please) frequently in our conversations. Using ‘Mepawokyew’ consistently in conversations (especially with adults) in the Ghanaian context is cherished and regarded as a norm toward respect.

My fieldwork was conducted a few months before Ghana’s general elections to select Parliamentarians and a President. As such, many discussions surrounded the upcoming elections, and some participants tried to establish my political affiliation. I distanced myself from the political discussions without revealing my political affiliation. Due to the polarized nature of Ghana’s political landscape, disclosing your political identity as a local researcher might detrimentally impact the recruitment of potential participants and further entrench mistrust. It is important, therefore, for future researchers in SSA to remain politically neutral when collecting empirical data.

In summary, I encourage future researchers working with marginalized populations and communities in SSA to learn, understand, and immerse themselves in the socio-cultural norms of their study populations. This will allow researchers to build effective connections while avoiding cultural misconceptions. Additionally, understanding and appreciating the socio-cultural contexts of a study site is important for ensuring ethical and impactful research.

Research Participation Fatigue

According to Maiter (2008), reciprocal relationships between researchers and the researched manifest when study outcomes benefit the participating communities. As Jakimow (2022) observes, research is only beneficial if the information it generates helps the people who provide it. It is widely acknowledged that researchers tend to rely on the valuable and rich insights from participants for scholarly publications in advancing their academic trajectories (Bozeman et al., 2013). Regrettably, researchers tend to pay less/no attention to participants’ plights, vulnerabilities, and agony. Consequently, researchers associate themselves with their suffering while leaving respondents in their at-risk situations without tangible efforts to uplift them. Given this uneven relationship, Jakimow (2022) emphasizes the design of research that is mutually beneficial to researchers and the researched.

In my fieldwork, a significant frustration for participants was that their collaboration in research projects by providing information does not benefit their communities directly or indirectly. Some participants also expressed serious concerns about their collaboration’s proximate and distal benefits, such as connecting to external institutions to support the community and overcoming the disproportionate allocation of environmental benefits and burdens. Some participants expressed strong desires for their collaboration in my research study to deliver immediate outcomes or deliverables that would benefit their communities. More importantly, the lack of actionable measures on previous research conducted in the communities was increasingly leading to fatigue and dwindling interest in participating in future research studies. However, I exercised greater precautions in not raising unrealistic expectations. For instance, I was honest with study participants that my status as a researcher does not put me in a position to influence policy or the allocation of resources. The following sentiments expressed by a participant echo frustrations with research studies:

Now and then, researchers keep coming to our community to inquire about gold mining. Sometimes, the entire youth will be hauled to a public space to participate in a research study. There are times when Newmont can even recruit research consultancy firms to carry out these types of research. We do not see any actions taken or positive impacts after the research is conducted. In your case, I do not know if your school will use the data. However, if the study results are presented to appropriate quarters or authorities, they might act on it to effect desirable changes. So, as researchers, please act on your research evidence or results to effect desirable changes or let your study results and key findings get to policymakers or relevant external stakeholders. Once the research gets to policymakers, they might pressure Newmont to do the right thing. However, if we give you the information, and you use it solely for academic purposes without acting on the results and findings to improve our lives, it might get to a time when people will not be willing to participate in these kinds of studies. If improvements are based on research evidence in the community, people will always be willing to participate in future studies. You solicit our views regarding gold mining and development issues, and we do not hear from you again regarding salient findings and policy recommendations. First, researchers like you should widely disseminate the findings and the facts you find here to draw government and policymakers’ attention to our plights. You can highlight the problems of our community in your research output and make a case for the government to engage with Newmont to provide us with public amenities and employ our young people. This will make us satisfied. I know you are a student, but the findings or outputs must not remain on the shelf. Try to disseminate your findings and recommendations widely. Try to get us a copy or summary of the research output. That is the little I can say. Try to return to Ghana and engage the community to validate your findings.

These sentiments were valid because most researchers coerce participants to extract information. As Masud-All-Kamal et al. (2023) note, it is not uncommon for researchers to give marginalized populations ‘false hope’ in supporting them to overcome their challenges. Raising unrealistic expectations by researchers is a way to sway marginalized populations to provide valuable and reliable information. While unethical, it raises many questions about the reciprocity of relationships between researchers and the researched. Ultimately, this might result in research participation fatigue among marginalized populations.

While I acknowledge that there is less researchers can do to emancipate and empower marginalized communities due to ethical considerations, our outputs can be used as means of effecting desirable changes and standing in solidarity with them. In the view of Maiter (2008), throughout the research process, researchers can support marginalized communities by providing knowledge that can be leveraged to access resources. In this way, researchers must endeavor to provide knowledge and resources in a manner that is useful and accessible to marginalized populations. Regarding giving back, researchers can connect marginalized communities to relevant institutions (CSOs and NGOs) to access financial and technical support services to navigate their plights.

As part of researchers’ commitment to effect desirable changes among vulnerable communities, we must prioritize disseminating our research outputs through policy briefs, academic publications, and conference presentations to potential funders, policymakers, governments, and politicians. By making research outputs about vulnerable populations visible, policymakers and funders might be responsive to findings and recommendations to constitute the basis for effecting desirable changes.

I urge future researchers to leverage their social and political networks to connect marginalized communities to relevant local and international organizations for technical and financial support in improving their environments and livelihoods. Additionally, future researchers dealing with marginalized communities can endeavor to produce user-friendly knowledge exchange products that non-academic stakeholders can easily adopt. By ensuring that knowledge is accessible and understandable, marginalized populations will be well-equipped to access resources and opportunities, engage policymakers, and participate effectively in decision-making.

Firsthand Experience of a Community Stakeholder Engagement

On October 16, 2024, at the invitation of a community collaborator in my research, I participated in a quarterly stakeholder engagement between the mining company and the leadership of the community youth associations in the mining catchment area. During the engagement, the mining company’s external affairs and communication department briefed the youth leadership on their interventions and community development initiatives undertaken thus far. After the briefing, the floor was opened to questions, contributions, and counterarguments.

What struck me about the composition of the youth leadership was the dominance of males. Of the twenty-seven youth leaders who attended the community engagement, twenty-four were males, while the remaining three were females. No female contributed when the floor was opened to questions and comments; the males dominated the floor. This underscores the limited opportunities for women and other marginalized groups to participate in leadership roles in the SSA context. Additionally, in the SSA context, strict gender-assigned roles and patriarchal systems hinder women’s participation in decision-making spaces. Male dominance in decision-making spaces at the study sites was more likely to reflect in other community gatherings for research purposes such as FGD, further subjugating women’s unique perspectives and interests.

To mitigate male dominance and create opportunities for women to participate in my research project, I organized a separate FGD for women-only groups at the study site to capture their unique perspectives and opinions. Compared to the mixed-gender community engagement, the only women discussion created a safe space for them to contribute their lived experiences on gender-specific issues, leading to more nuanced insights. The separate discussion for only women allowed me to delve deeper into women’s specific challenges and vulnerabilities to mining’s externalities, which might not be revealed in a mixed-gender discussion.

I encourage future researchers working with marginalized communities to adopt inclusive research approaches that amplify women’s unique voices and perspectives. Researchers can continue to emulate engaging women separately to create a conducive and safe space to discuss and share their unique lived experiences and perspectives. This is particularly useful in marginalized communities when dealing with sensitive topics such as EJ, where women may feel hesitant to discuss women-specific issues during a mixed-gender discussion. Researchers can also tackle gender inequalities within research settings by devising strategies to ensure women have equal access to resources, power, and opportunities. This may include challenging gender stereotypes, emphasizing gender-sensitive research approaches, and promoting policies and programs consistent with women’s empowerment in research projects. More importantly, researchers can use communication methods to reach marginalized groups, such as women with varying education and technology access, to collect rich and insightful data for research projects. This may include photovoice, storytelling, and community-based communication strategies to ensure that women’s unique views and perspectives are adequately captured for research projects. These diverse communication strategies would ensure that research findings are accessible and relevant to women to drive impactful and sustainable livelihood improvements.

Navigating Power Dynamics Between Researcher and Participants

Power inequalities manifest between researchers and the researched, where researchers wield institutional authority and control resources, while participants lack the same power and authority as researchers (Frers & Meier, 2022). Researchers have the power because they initiate the research and frame questions, allowing them to influence how participants’ stories are told. Marginalized populations agreeing to participate in research studies can be regarded as submitting to the researchers’ power. The uneven power relationships can significantly influence how research projects are designed, conducted, analyzed, interpreted, and disseminated, potentially re (producing) existing social injustices (Mikkonen et al., 2017). It is important, however, to acknowledge instances where the researched may exercise some power and authority in a research setting. For example, a participant’s refusal to answer a question or withdrawal from an interview reflects the exertion of their power. Participants also wield power because they hold knowledge the researcher lacks but want. Despite these, there is a greater tendency for participants to perceive researchers as more powerful due to their educational and socio-economic status. It is erroneous for researchers to assume that the power differentials between them and marginalized communities can be masked. Therefore, it is important for researchers dealing with marginalized communities and populations to identify sources of power inequality and effectively address them.

Given my role, status, and origin (a doctoral candidate, educated elite, from a Canadian University), I overtly held more power than the marginalized research participants. These conspicuous differences between the participants and myself put me in a different position, where marginalized participants might accord me much respect. As Muhammad et al. (2015) suggest, scientists and academic researchers symbolize centers of authority, power, and status within their institutions and in the production of scientific knowledge. The authors add that by researchers’ status, education, and racial backgrounds, they may wield more power and privilege than the researched. In the context of my research project, these power sources were identified prior to the field research activities, and practical strategies were devised to mitigate them.

I employed participatory approaches that allowed participants to contribute their knowledge and lived experiences. I created opportunities to seek feedback from participants regarding the information they provided, potentially influencing the research process and empowering them. For example, after transcribing the interviews, participants who indicated their willingness to review their transcripts before the researcher finalized them were given the opportunity. While this created an opportunity for marginalized participants to wield power, it was also crucial for ensuring the accuracy and credibility of the initial research findings. Additionally, at the end of semi-structured interviews and FGDs, I asked participants if anything was missing from the questions. This allowed them to raise crucial questions, concerns, and closing remarks. This way, some powers were given to the respondents, bridging the power inequalities between the researcher and the researched. These participatory approaches empowered marginalized participants by giving them a voice, fostered research ownership, and enhanced their capacity to address their priorities and concerns. I urge future researchers dealing with marginalized populations to adopt participatory approaches to empower participants and lead to relevant and synergistic solutions.

I managed power imbalances by fostering open communication and collaboration with the participants. While communicating openly and culturally respectfully, I ensured that all views and perspectives expressed were listened to and valued. I remained open to learning from the participants by documenting salient issues raised while recording interviews and focus group sessions. This way, participants paused in their submissions intermittently while sharing their views and experiences to enable me to capture what was being said. This empowered participants, knowing their views and experiences were documented and taken seriously. Additionally, using non-technical jargon ensured that the information presented was accessible and easy for the participants to understand. All the semi-structured interview guides and FGD guides were translated from English to the local dialect (Twi), which removed technical jargon and facilitated the seamless presentation of information to the understanding of research participants.

I also created a safe and inclusive space where participants felt comfortable sharing their views and perspectives. For instance, interviews were held in the homes and workplaces of participants where they felt at ease and comfortable to discuss and share their experiences on sensitive EJ issues. FGDs were also held in a conference hall of one of the CSOs operating in the study site. This space was relatively quiet and free from distractions, allowing the participants to feel comfortable and at ease in contributing to the discussion. Before FGDs, I reminded participants that each view or perspective mattered and that there were no wrong or right responses to the questions. These strategies empowered participants to contribute their lived realities and experiences, enriching data for the research. There were also instances where participants responded to interview questions by indicating they had no idea. I respectfully told them there was no right or wrong answer to questions and that all their views and perspectives shared would be valuable to the research. This way, participants felt respected and their views valued, which empowered them. I urge future researchers to highlight these power dynamics in their writings and use their work to address power inequalities inherent in dealing with marginalized communities and populations.

Closing remarks

The paper demonstrates that qualitative researchers dealing with marginalized communities and populations encounter several challenges while conducting fieldwork. The challenges emerge from gaining an introduction into a new research context, building trust and rapport with vulnerable populations, research participation fatigue, and managing power inequalities between the researcher and the researched. Given the complexities of researching marginalized populations and communities, I urge future researchers dealing with this unique demographic to demonstrate flexibility, adaptability, and versatility. Future researchers exploring sensitive topics in marginalized communities must leverage community gatekeepers to gain an introduction and build rapport with knowledgeable participants for richer information. Researchers must also endeavor to learn, understand, and immerse themselves in the socio-cultural contexts of marginalized communities to build robust partnerships and trust while avoiding cultural misconceptions. Lastly, I urge future researchers to demonstrate reciprocity by producing user-friendly knowledge exchange products for marginalized communities to access resources and opportunities. I do not seek to find answers to all the challenges in the field but to provide firsthand insights into what future researchers investigating sensitive issues with marginalized communities might encounter. Future researchers may observe a similar pattern across different cultures, political, and social contexts in SSA, hence the utility of this reflexive piece. I urge researchers investigating marginalized communities and populations to critically reflect on their positionality, gaining introduction into the study sites, connecting with research participants, and addressing power inequalities.