Introduction

Field research in development studies must balance knowledge production with the
protection of human dignity and community welfare; this imperative is particularly
strong in Zimbabwe, where political sensitivities, livelihood fragility and close-knit
social networks raise the stakes for every methodological choice (Bain, 2022;
Akondeng et al., 2022). Ethical practice is therefore not an add-on but the organizing
principle of study design, field operations and dissemination: it influences who is
approached, how consent is obtained, what data are recorded and how findings are
returned to participants and local stakeholders (Bain, 2022; Omutoko et al., 2024).

Core ethical principles and local meaning

The classical principles respect for persons (autonomy), beneficence and non-
maleficence (do good / avoid harm), and justice (fair distribution of burdens and
benefits) — require context-sensitive translation in Zimbabwean field settings
(Resnik, 2021; Appiah, 2024). Respect for persons means that consent processes must
account for multilingualism and variable literacy; beneficence demands risk-mapping
and referral plans for foreseeable harms; justice compels equitable selection of
participants and attention to power asymmetries that can marginalise women, youth or
minority groups (Resnik, 2021; Appiah, 2024; Omutoko et al., 2024). These
principles only become meaningful when operationalised through concrete protocols
for example, simplified consent scripts, private interview settings, and a community
advisory mechanism rather than only a signed form in a file (Omutoko et al., 2024;
Bain, 2022).

Practical example: studying livelihoods of informal cross-border traders in

Beitbridge

Imagine a mixed-methods study that investigates how informal cross-border traders

and market women in Beitbridge rebuilt livelihoods after pandemic and border
disruptions. This setting raises a cluster of ethical challenges: respondents may
disclose unlawful trading practices or immigration irregularities, household members
may exert pressure about participation, and interviews conducted in busy markets risk
breaches of confidentiality and social harm (Nyahunda, 2022; Musarandega, 2023).
Designing ethically sound fieldwork here requires tailoring consent, data security and
power-sensitive procedures to the realities of the market, including flexible times for
private interviews, clear assurances about the legal limits of confidentiality, and active
measures to avoid linking individuals to sensitive disclosures in outputs (Nyahunda,
2022; Musarandega, 2023).

Informed consent that is truly informed

In practice, meaningful consent in Zimbabwean fieldwork must go beyond a lengthy

information sheet and a signature; it should be a staged, multimodal conversation
adapted to language, literacy and social norms (Mwaturura et al., 2025; Akondeng et
al., 2022). For the Beitbridge study, the research team would use short spoken scripts
in preferred local languages, a very brief pictorial handout, and consent conversations
conducted privately at times when respondents are not under surveillance by market
bosses or family members. When legal risk is real (e.g., admission of illicit trading),
the consent process must explain limits to confidentiality and the researchers’ duty to
report imminent harm, while offering options to decline answering specific items
(Omutoko et al., 2024; Mwaturura et al., 2025). Empirical reviews show that
audiovisual and simplified consent materials improve comprehension in low-literacy
contexts, which strengthens respect for autonomy without undermining recruitment
(Mwaturura et al., 2025; Afolabi et al., 2024).

Confidentiality, anonymity and data protection on the ground

Maintaining confidentiality in tight social settings like border towns requires

procedural and technical measures: private interview slots, pseudonymisation at first
capture, separation of identifying information from analytic datasets, encrypted
storage and clear limits on who may access raw data (ClinRegs; Cyber and Data
Protection Act). For the Beitbridge project, enumerators would collect identifying
contact details only when necessary, store the key file offline and encrypted, and
aggregate location data in any public reporting to avoid exposing traders who might
face fines or confiscation (ClinRegs, 2024; Cyber and Data Protection Act, 2021).
Moreover, when using phones or tablets for data capture, the team must plan for
device loss, shared phones in households, and the possible interception of messages;
project SOPs should include immediate device-encryption, remote-wipe capability
where possible, and a written data-management plan submitted to the institutional
REC (ClinRegs, 2024; Cyber and Data Protection Act, 2021).

Negotiating gatekeepers and protecting voluntariness

In many Zimbabwean communities, access to respondents is mediated by gatekeepers

(village heads, market associations, or municipal officials), and their involvement can
both facilitate and compromise voluntariness (Bain, 2022; Akondeng et al., 2022).
Ethical field practice therefore uses a two-stage approach: respectful community or
gatekeeper engagement to explain the study and its voluntary nature, followed by
private individual consent obtained away from gatekeeper presence so that each
person can refuse without social penalty (Bain, 2022). In Beitbridge, the research
team would request that market leadership publicly state that participation is
voluntary, but interviewers would then meet traders privately at times of the trader’s
choosing; simple voluntariness checks (e.g., “Do you feel free to refuse?”) should be
recorded to document authentic consent (Makumbi et al., 2024; Bain, 2022).

Power relations inside households and workplaces

Power operates not only between researchers and communities but within households
and workplaces: women or young helpers in markets may lack the freedom to speak
candidly if a husband, senior relative or supervisor is nearby (Koricha et al., 2024).
Ethically robust designs mitigate intrahousehold and intra-workplace power
imbalances through interviewer selection (matching gender when appropriate),
scheduling private interview times, and offering safe, neutral spaces for interviews
(Koricha et al., 2024). Additionally, forming a small, diverse advisory panel of market
representatives, female traders and youth can surface hidden power dynamics and
help the team refine questions that might otherwise produce harm or social stigma
(Hickey et al., 2022).

Institutional ethics procedures and local regulations

Researchers working in Zimbabwe must comply with national and institutional

oversight: registration with the national bodies, completion of MRCZ application
forms where appropriate, and alignment with national data rules such as the Cyber
and Data Protection Act (MRCZ SOPs; ClinRegs; Cyber Act). Institutional review
should therefore include concrete attachments: a community engagement plan, data-
protection measures, audio-consent scripts if oral consent is used, referral mechanisms
for social harms, and budgets reflecting translation and community feedback activities
(ClinRegs, 2024; MRCZ SOPs). Submitting these practical attachments helps RECs
assess real-world feasibility and signals the research team’s commitment to more than
procedural compliance (ClinRegs, 2024; UZ SOPs).

Responding to sensitive disclosures and creating referral pathways

Field researchers are likely to encounter distressing disclosures: intimate partner

violence, extortion by officials, or acute food insecurity. Ethical practice requires
prearranged referral pathways agreed with local NGOs, health centres and social
welfare providers before fieldwork begins, and interviewer training in psychological
first aid and safe disclosure techniques (Zamudio-Haas et al., 2024). In the Beitbridge
example, the team would compile and distribute (verbally and on a simple card) the
contacts for local legal aid, health services and market support groups; interviewers
would be trained to stop probing and activate referrals when participants show signs
of acute distress (Zamudio-Haas et al., 2024; Nyahunda, 2022).

Digital methods and remote data collection: additional ethics checks

Remote or hybrid methods (phone interviews, SMS follow-ups, or app-based surveys)

offer reach but generate distinct ethical risks: lack of privacy at home, shared phones,
and uncertain network security (Bhanye, 2024; Mackworth-Young et al., 2021).
Where remote contact is used with Beitbridge traders, the consent script should
discuss digital risks explicitly, and interviewers should confirm safe moments to talk
(e.g., when no supervisor or spouse is present). Teams must also consider whether
phone contact itself may mark someone as part of a study and thereby expose them;
hence, discrete messaging conventions and opt-out procedures are essential (Bhanye,
2024).

Researcher reflexivity, team welfare and ongoing monitoring

Ethical conduct extends to the research team: fieldworkers face exposure to stressful
narratives and may experience secondary trauma or role conflicts, and so require
protection, supervision and debriefing (Steinert et al., 2021). The lead researcher’s
role includes building a culture of reflexivity daily debriefs, an accessible ethics focal
person, and routine spot-checks of consent practice so that ethical issues are surfaced
early and addressed adaptively rather than only at the end of the study (Steinert et al.,
2021; Essack, 2025). Funders and institutions should accept the budgetary
implications of these supports as core research costs rather than optional extras
(Steinert et al., 2021).

Dissemination, reciprocity and benefit-sharing

Justice in research requires researchers to return findings in accessible formats and to

consider short-term benefits that respond to community priorities (Bain, 2022). For
Beitbridge traders, dissemination might include a succinct market-focused brief, a
one-page flyer in local languages about legal aid options, and a stakeholder meeting
with market associations that discusses practical recommendations (Bain, 2022).
Thoughtful reciprocity demonstrates that research is not extractive and builds local
trust for future work (Bain, 2022; FAO, 2022).

Trade-offs, transparency and ethics documentation

There are inevitable trade-offs: overly strict anonymisation may blunt the utility of
geospatially precise findings; intensive community engagement may delay timelines
and increase costs; and in some politically sensitive situations anonymisation and
withholding of site names may be necessary even if it reduces replicability (Jecker et
al., 2022). Ethical practice therefore requires transparent documentation of such trade-
offs in REC submissions and final reports so that readers and oversight committees
understand why particular decisions were made and how participant protection was
prioritised (Essack, 2025; ClinRegs, 2024).

Conclusion

In Zimbabwean development research, ethical principles must shape every research

decision from question formation to dissemination; practical application involves
multimodal, culturally adapted consent, strong confidentiality and technical
protections, proactive management of gatekeepers and intrahousehold power,
prearranged referral systems, and explicit researcher reflexivity and team welfare
measures (Bain, 2022; Omutoko et al., 2024). The Beitbridge cross-border traders
example shows how robust operational measures private, language-appropriate
consent, encrypted data practices, community advisory input, and active
dissemination and referral plans can protect participants and improve the validity and
social value of research. Ethical research is not only morally required but instrumental
to producing trustworthy evidence that can inform policy and practice in Zimbabwe’s
complex development landscape

References
Akondeng, C., et al. (2022). Community engagement in research in sub-Saharan
Africa: approaches, barriers, facilitators, ethical considerations and the role of gender.
BMJ Open, 12(5), e057922. BMJ Open

Afolabi, A., et al. (2024). Short-form video informed consent compared with written
consent: A randomized study. JMIR Formative Research. ResearchGate

Bain, L. E., et al. (2022). Community engagement in research in sub-Saharan Africa:

current practices, barriers, facilitators, ethical considerations and the role of gender.
Pan African Medical Journal, 43, 152. PubMed

ClinRegs (NIAID). (2024). Clinical research regulation: Zimbabwe (updated profile

and MRCZ form links). National Institutes of Health. ClinRegs+1

Cyber and Data Protection Act, Republic of Zimbabwe (Act 5 of 2021). (2022).
(Compiled text; Law). [Link]

Essack, Z. (2025). Health research ethics in Southern Africa: Building capacity and
practice. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics. SAGE Journals

Mavhura, E., et al. (2022). An adaptation of a macroscale methodology to assess the

direct economic losses induced by Tropical Cyclone Idai in Zimbabwe. International
Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 72, Article 102785. PMC

Makumbi, S., et al. (2024). Voluntariness of consent in paediatric HIV clinical trials:
A mixed-methods cross-sectional study. BMJ Open, 14(3), e077546. BMJ Open

Mwaturura, T. C., et al. (2025). Acceptability and effectiveness of a study information

video in improving the research consent process for youth in Zimbabwe: A non-
inferiority trial. Trials / BMJ Global Health (preprint/PMC). PMC+1

Nyahunda, L., & Pradham, A. (2022). Challenges faced by humanitarian

organisations in delivering disaster management services after Cyclone Idai. Cogent
Social Sciences, 8(1). Taylor & Francis Online

Omutoko, L., Chingarande, G. R., Botes, M., et al. (2024). Understanding and
processing informed consent during data-intensive health research in sub-Saharan
Africa: Challenges and opportunities from a multilingual perspective. Research Ethics
(Epub 26 Sept 2024). SAGE Journals

U. of Zimbabwe — SOP for managing and documenting regulatory communication;

MRCZ forms (SOP v8, 2021; MRCZ consent templates 2022). (2021–2023).
ClinRegs+1

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2022). Foundations for rebuilding seed
systems post-Cyclone Idai