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

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.