This is the fourth and final publication in a series exploring the ways scholars can balance methodology, budgeting, and fieldwork when 
completing a research project in the African peacebuilding landscape.

Introduction

Budgeting for fieldwork should not be only understood as a technical exercise undertaken after primary methodological decisions have been made. As Fajobi[1] notes, budgeting must be viewed as an integral component of methodological planning rather than an administrative task performed after completing the research design. For postgraduate researchers and doctoral candidates operating within resource-constrained African higher education contexts, financial constraints directly dictate where, how, and with whom empirical research is conducted. Consequently, a research design requires a more expansive understanding of resources that encompasses material capital alongside social networks, community relationships, and digital technologies. However, scholars must avoid treating relational and technological resources simply as inexpensive substitutes for conventional fieldwork. Drawing on experiences in peacebuilding research conducted with limited funding, this article examines the methodological and ethical challenges that researchers navigate when aligning fieldwork design with available resources or funding.

Structural Constraints and the Political Economy of Fieldwork 

Fieldwork can be costly, as noted by Freund,[2] and very few researchers have access to opportunities like the African Peacebuilding Doctoral Fellowship (APDD) Awards that help cover these expenses. Unfortunately, many students are not lucky enough to receive such support. Noxolo[3] pointed out that student protests across the world, including South Africa’s #RhodesMustFall and #FeesMustFall movements, have underscored the urgent need to widen access to higher education and rearrange available opportunities. The expense of fieldwork itself poses an additional barrier to students’ research efforts. As a result, many PhD candidates end up seeking jobs to finance their research.

When fieldwork costs act as a financial barrier, they restrict who can speak, whose stories are documented, and what knowledge is ultimately produced. Examining the political economy of field research, Baines et al., [4] highlight how structural constraints surrounding funding, time, and physical presence shape qualitative inquiry, forcing researchers to navigate complex trade-offs between physical engagement and financial viability. Without adequate financial backing, early-career researchers are often forced to shorten their time in the field, reduce the number of participants, or alter their research questions altogether. This creates a disparity where well-funded institutional research dominates the peacebuilding landscape, while local voices and underfunded student researchers face immense hurdles in bringing their empirical research to light.

Digital Technologies: Possibilities and Ethical Friction

Digital platforms provide some relief by lowering operational costs and making field research more practical. Tools like WhatsApp, Zoom, and Microsoft Teams are increasingly being integrated into qualitative research methodologies for communicating with participants. According to Clark et al.,[5] these technologies are transforming the research landscape by introducing new methods for data collection and creating innovative opportunities. However, Clark et al.,[6] note that this technological mediation introduces unfamiliar ethical and methodological friction. Key challenges surround informed consent, digital privacy, data confidentiality, ownership, and authorship. As Van Baalen[7] warns, the widespread use of digital technologies generates automated data trails and location tracking, which can expose both researchers and participants to significant ethical and security risks, especially in politically unstable environments. For some researchers, relying on these digital technologies can take away from the research experience and contribute to hindering genuine understanding of the participants lived experiences. Online interactions often lack the nuanced non-verbal cues, trust-building dynamics, taking away from the rich context that in-person engagement offers. Additionally, researchers need to consider whether participants have access to technology, digital literacy, and reliable internet connectivity to engage with these resources in the research process, ensuring that technology does not inadvertently exclude the most vulnerable voices.

Starting Where You Are: Mentorship, Wisdom, and Deep Listening as Peacebuilding Research and Practice

When budgeting for fieldwork, researchers often focus solely on financial considerations and may overlook the importance of networks and communities as valuable resources to help mitigate costs. For example, living with friends and community members while conducting research can significantly reduce expenses. It is essential to start with the resources available to us. By re-conceptualising our methodology to prioritise these resources, we can transform fieldwork from an expensive, top-down extraction model into a sustainable, community-anchored practice. By engaging with and utilising our immediate environment, we can enhance the research experience while also building stronger community ties.

Grounded in the Isixhosa proverb Inyathi ibuzwa kwabaphambili (“wisdom is sought from those who have walked the path before”), Magoqwana, Magadla, and Masola,[8] emphasise the epistemic value of seeking guidance and survival strategies from experienced elders. Within the context of fieldwork methodology and budgeting for African peacebuilding research, this principle entails consulting supervisors, mentors, and peers who have previously navigated field constraints. These experienced scholars offer critical guidance on navigating local research dynamics while providing vital guidance on navigating the research process while identifying hidden data collection expenses that might otherwise go unnoticed.

Beyond financial and material assets, peacebuilding researchers must adequately budget their time. Time is an essential methodological requirement for allowing participants to fully articulate their stories, truths, and realities, as well as for accurately capturing the local environment. For qualitative researchers, this requires practising what Bam-Hutchison conceptualises as deep listening,[9] situating oneself within host communities to discover

alternative ways of knowing and doing. Deep listening represents an act of profound appreciation and respect for the time participants share and the journeys they have walked. As a peacebuilding practice, deep listening demands reciprocal, relational research wherein knowledge is co-created with local communities. Applied to African peacebuilding, listening reveals how ordinary citizens define safety, peace, and reconciliation on their own terms. Moving away from extractive data collection requires viewing participants as active agents and “keepers of stories” who shape their own realities. In doing so, researchers demonstrate an equal commitment to lending a hand in co-creating solutions.

Budgeting for peacebuilding fieldwork demands a comprehensive approach that extends far beyond monetary balance sheets. While financial deficits remain a pervasive challenge for early-career scholars, researchers must budget their time, lean into community networks, and seek counsel from those who have walked the path before. As an early career research scholar who faced such constraints, I had to budget fieldwork time around my work schedule which I was doing and paying for the fieldwork. Also, community and networks of peers assisted me in the different places where I was doing fieldwork as my research participants are scattered throughout South Africa. Thus when I travel to a different place, I have had to lean on my community to assist with housing, transport and this has helped with saving costs in the field. It is important for early career researchers to also know that while leaning on our communities for support, fieldwork budgeting is inseparable from research integrity. By grounding methodology in relational care, ethical awareness, and deep listening, African peacebuilding scholars can produce rigorous research that reflects community realities and advances peace on local terms.

Endnotes

  1. Fajobi, Michael Ayobami. 2026. “Aligning Research Methods with Budgeting for Fieldwork in African Peacebuilding Research Landscape – Article (2).” Kujenga Amani,  September 18, 2026. https://kujenga-amani.ssrc.org/2026/09/18/aligning-research-methods-with-budgeting-for-fieldwork-in-african-peacebuilding-research-landscape-article-2/.
  2. Freund, Cassie. 2017. “The Hidden Costs of Fieldwork Are Making Science Less Diverse.” Massive Science, November 14, 2017. https://massivesci.com/articles/science-fieldwork-funding-system-reform/.
  3. Noxolo, Patricia. 2017. “Decolonial Theory in a Time of the Re-Colonisation of UK Research.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 42 (3): 342–344.
  4. Baines, Donna, Susan Braedley, Tamara Daly, Gudmund Ågotnes, Albert Banerjee, Elias Chaccour, Karine Côté-Boucher, et al. 2025. “But Where’s the Body? Bodies, Time, Money, and the Political Economy of Post-Pandemic Field Research.” Qualitative Research 25 (3): 752–763.
  5. Clark, Karin, et al. 2019. “Advancing the Ethical Use of Digital Data in Human Research: Challenges and Strategies to Promote Ethical Practice.” Ethics and Information Technology 21 (1): 59–73.
  6.  Ibid
  7. Van Baalen, Sebastian. 2018. “‘Google Wants to Know Your Location’: The Ethical Challenges of Fieldwork in the Digital Age.” Research Ethics 14 (4): 1–17.
  8. Magoqwana, Babalwa, Siphokazi Magadla, and Athambile Masola. 2024. Inyathi Ibuzwa Kwabaphambili: Theorising South African Women’s Intellectual Legacies. Gqeberha: Mandela University Press.
  9. Bam-Hutchison, June. 2023. “The 37th South African Society for History Teaching (SASHT) Conference 03–04 October 2023 Keynote Address.” Yesterday and Today 30: 231–242.