Methodological Reflections on Researching Civil Society in Restrictive Environments
Author: Dr. Anna Neya Kazanskaia
Publisher: NEYA Global Publishing
Article | NEYA Global Journal of Non-Profit Studies
Year: 2025
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-5669-1676
DOI: https://doi.org/10.64357/neya-gjnps-cvscunprrsenv-08
This material forms part of the NEYA Global knowledge architecture. Institutional, organizational, professional, training, consulting, curriculum, program design, or implementation use requires an active license from NEYA Global
Explore Architecture →
Module Overview →
Request Institutional Access →
About the Article
Research on civil society in restrictive environments presents distinctive ethical, methodological, and security challenges. This article examines how scholars can conduct responsible, reflexive, and secure research amid surveillance, censorship, and repression. It focuses on three critical dimensions: ethics, digital security, and researcher positionality. Ethical practice extends beyond procedural consent to include contextual judgment, anonymization, and, at times, strategic abstention from fieldwork. Digital security is reframed as a methodological foundation, requiring encrypted tools, risk-aware design, and adaptive data management. Reflexivity regarding researcher identity and power dynamics is essential for equitable collaboration between local and foreign scholars. Through this synthesis, the article argues that ethical sensitivity and digital literacy are integral to methodological rigor. By embedding care and caution into research design, scholars can generate knowledge that advances understanding of civil society under pressure while prioritizing participant safety and agency.
Key Topics
- Ethical research under repression
- Digital security as methodology
- Researcher positionality and reflexivity
- Participatory and co-authored research
- Civil society scholarship in authoritarian contexts
- Responsible knowledge production
Suggested Citation
Kazanskaia, A. N. (2025). Methodological Reflections on Researching Civil Society in Restrictive Environments. NEYA Global Journal of Non-Profit Studies. NEYA Global Publishing. https://doi.org/10.64357/neya-gjnps-cvscunprrsenv-08
References
Clark-Kazak, C. (2017). Ethical considerations: Research with people in situations of forced migration. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 36(3), 1-23.
Kazanskaia, A. N. (2025). Civil Society Under Pressure: Restrictive Environments. NEYA Global Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.64357/civil-society-under-pressure-2025
Kazanskaia, A. N. (2025). Ethical Decision-Making. NEYA Global Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.64357/ethical-decision-making-2025
Kazanskaia, A. N. (2025). Board-Executive Relation. NEYA Global Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.64357/board-executive-relations-2025
Milan, S., & Treré, E. (2019). Big data from the South(s): Beyond data universalism. Television & New Media, 20(4), 319-335.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476419837739
Narayan, K. (1993). How native is a "native" anthropologist? American Anthropologist, 95(3), 671-686.
https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1993.95.3.02a00070
Schedler, A. (2013). The politics of uncertainty: Sustaining and subverting electoral authoritarianism. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199680320.001.0001
Kazanskaia, A. N. (2025). Strategic Planning for Social Impact. NEYA Global Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.64357/strategic-planning-2025
