Researching conflicts as they unfold is challenging and usually necessitates the reliance on local contacts, researchers and fixers. As a member of the community of globally mobile conflict researchers— those who mostly live in Europe or North America— I depend a lot on these persons. This is particularly true for my research in the Sahel, where independent access to conflict-affected areas has become almost impossible due to high levels of insecurity, which turn the question of trust in local brokers into an essential one that relates not only to academic careers but importantly also to personal security (Bøås et al, 2006). In a highly insecure context, who can we trust regarding data and information? Who can we trust for sound security advice? And how does money influence our research relationships?

These questions are a constant part of the daily negotiation of fieldwork-based conflict and intervention research, and I also grappled with them in earlier research in insecure places, such as the Mano River Basin, northern Uganda and the DR Congo (DRC). Yet they have never felt as acute as when I started working in Mali and the Sahel in 2007. The reasons for this lie in the deep uncertainties and fears that are brought about by a combination of insecurity and the near impossibility of accessing the most research-relevant parts of these territories. While the research situation was also highly insecure at times in the other conflict zones I worked in, my research teams and I were never the direct target of attacks. This is different in the Sahel, where jihadist insurgencies attack hotels to create spectacular dramas for international media coverage, and international hostages are much sought after, leading to a severe decrease of fieldwork-based research in these areas. This situation is concerning because we are in danger of losing a grounded understanding of the social landscape of these areas based on independent third-party empirical observations in the field. Some of the security concerns causing this retreat from the field are very real, while others are motivated by risk-averse universities and funders (see Russo and Strazzari, and Heathershaw and Mullojonov, in this volume). While we can possibly do something about the institutional risk averseness, conducting research in high-risk contexts is something we need to become better at dealing with.