Field research in non-democratic contexts is challenging. Even prior to the Arab uprisings the clustering of autocratic regimes in the MENA region held great obstacles regarding access to the field, access to data and archives, and identification of potential interview partners or participants for survey research. In most cases, research played out within legal "grey zones" in terms of official permissions to conduct research. International scholars were granted access to the field via tourist visas and fieldwork was conducted with the implicit toleration of the security apparatus. Even so, there is a tacit knowledge among the research community regarding the unvoiced but clearly defined "red lines" that limit the scope and possibilities of research and movement in the field.The Arab uprisings were more than a turning point for the social and political configuration of the region. The newly evolving political map impacts research on and in the region. The reasons for this are manifold, but three related aspects stand out: First, in times of popular upheavals narratives of alleged clandestine interventions by external actors lent cause to ruling regimes to identify actors from abroad purportedly responsible for instability and turmoil (also referred to as "the third hand", Wessel 2018). This led to a tremendous increase in suspicion toward foreign researchers, who are increasingly considered agents of external intelligence or other external parties. Second, the security apparatus in most MENA countries invested a lot in domestic surveillance techniques, both in offline and online, making it even more difficult to acquire the consent of potential interviewees. And third, in times of changing makeup of political power and not fully established top-down capacities, competing security/police branches may lead to diverging interpretations of what is allowed and lawful and what is not. Experiences of arbitrary arrests and misuse of power have been the consequence for many researchers in the MENA region. This fundamental change has led to a thriving literature in the field of how to do research in authoritarian contexts, which was long overdue (Glasius et al. 2018; Grimm et al. 2020). Based on these context factors, our research was driven by several methodological premises, benchmarks, and tools.