Beyond the survey questionnaire: Local field guides and enumerators as anchors of fieldwork in India’s precarious contexts

By Dr. Neha Adsul, Country Coordinator, GEMMS India

One of the most powerful lessons I have learned as the Country Coordinator for the GEMMS India is that survey data collection is not just about field work; it is about building trust, navigating uncertainty, and staying grounded in the everyday realities of people’s lives. Nowhere was this more evident than in the indispensable role played by our field guides and locally recruited enumerators throughout the survey process.

We, as researchers, knew from the outset that working with precarious migrant communities would require more than standard protocols that surveys usually need. But it was only in the field that these realities were palpable. Enumerators who came from the same or nearby areas as our study sites brought not only linguistic fluency but also cultural sensitivity. Their familiarity with local idioms and tensions enabled them to ask difficult questions on violence, mental health, and migration with sensitivity in many ways. Many respondents opened up not just because the enumerators were well-trained in approaching them empathetically, but also because they felt close to the field guides, who were familiar to them in many ways. This sense of belonging was extended by someone who spoke their language & had shared lived experiences, which in itself laid the foundation for trust, resulting in the opening up of many doors (literally & figuratively).

Participants would welcome us with a smile and open doors upon seeing the field guide. It was often through the presence of our field guides that we were first seen and felt welcomed. Despite the cramped living conditions, they would make space for us; stacking bedding and belongings in a corner, dusting the room, and offering us a clean place to sit. Many offered tea, and others sent their children to fetch cold drinks (usually offered only to special guests). These gestures, though small, were deeply moving and a reminder of the trust that participants extended to the field guides; it was that very trust that was transferred to us, making even the most unfamiliar settings feel safe and respectful. As we sat down, respondents often began talking directly to the field guide, thanking them for past help, sometimes resolving a community issue, other times supporting a child’s school admission, or just talking about shared challenges during Covid and the help they received.

Our field guides, both male and female, played equally transformative roles. They weren’t just logistical supports; they were the first point of contact for the enumerators in times of resistance pockets to de-escalate fear and foster a sense of safety. Their knowledge of which households to avoid due to safety risks, or which lanes were politically sensitive, became crucial in shaping our field routes and sampling adjustments. These were not ‘deviations’ from the research plan, but rather refinements and necessities born out of emergent field realities, and to be ethically sound.

One of my most unforgettable moments came during our brief pause in data collection in late April. News had just broken of a violent death in one of our field sites. The enumerators, especially the women, were visibly shaken. As we decided to halt the survey for a week to support their mental wellbeing, I realized this: field teams do not just observe trauma; they absorb it. The enumerators and field guides’ physical and emotional labour requires a separate acknowledgement. It requires considerable mental strength to navigate such a field full of uncertainties and emotional strain. It takes on the enumerators navigating fields, as poverty appears in multiple visible forms on a spectrum.

If I had one message for researchers planning fieldwork in complex urban settings, it would be to build the team from the community. Local field guides and enumerators not only influence effective data collection; they are often the only face of the research that participants will remember and thereby act as an entry point into difficult-to-navigate communities.

Although I would also like to caution that in such vulnerable population groups, there can often be instances where field guides have an allegiance towards particular groups/communities. Collaborating with local NGO partners working in the community and mobilizing field guides through their suggestions and contacts can be particularly helpful in intervening in cases where such issues arise, which may have implications for sampling and research findings. Local NGOs often operate based on long-standing trust established with community leaders and representatives, and their endorsement can carry significant weight in resolving matters related to community allegiance and participation.

As we now turn to analysis and dissemination, I carry with me the voices and experiences of those who walked the narrow lanes of M-East ward not as outsiders, but as trusted insiders. The GEMMS India survey data remains meaningful and ethical as we continue to acknowledge throughout our work, the relentless spirit of our field guides and survey enumerators. 

My sincere thanks to Sivakami M. (WS2 lead GEMMS), a colleague, mentor, and friend, for generously reviewing this piece at short notice and offering insightful suggestions that helped strengthen its framing.

This research was funded by the NIHR (NIHR Global Health Research; grant nihr134629) using UK aid from the UK Government to support global health research. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the UK government.