Introduction
Imagine having to leave home because of conflict or disaster. Along the way, perhaps you lose someone you love, your belongings, or even your sense of safety. Then, in the middle of all this uncertainty, a stranger asks you to tell them what happened. Would you give them your name? Would you allow them to record you? Would you trust them with your story?
For people living through crises and displacement, participating in research is rarely a simple decision. And for researchers, ethical practice cannot simply mean securing an approval letter before entering the field. It means continually asking whether the way we seek information respects and protects the people who entrust us with their experiences.
For most researchers, obtaining ethics approval is a critical step before data collection begins and is often a mandatory requirement for research involving human participants. Ethics review helps ensure that studies are designed and implemented in ways that protect participants, minimise harm, and uphold research ethical principles such as respect, beneficence, and justice throughout the research process.
Ethical approval is typically sought from accredited ethics review committees. Depending on the study design, geographic scope, and institutional partnerships involved, researchers may be required to obtain approval from multiple committees at national and international levels.
The primary role of these committees is to ensure that research is conducted in a manner that protects participants and minimises potential risks while maximising societal and scientific benefits. Ethics review also provides additional input and guidance to ensure that the studies being conducted have methodologically sound with an aim to build confidence on the research findings generated for each study.
This approval is usually documented through an ethics approval letter that specifies the approved study period and any review conditions that need to be met by the study teams. In many settings, ethics approval letters are also required to secure research permits, institutional permissions, and community-level buy-in before data collection can begin. However, ethical practice should not begin or end with an approval letter. Rather, this should be a continuous process this requires researchers to make thoughtful decisions throughout the research lifecycle.
Despite the importance of formal ethics review, humanitarian and displacement settings often present circumstances where obtaining conventional ethics approval may be challenging, delayed, or, in rare cases, not feasible. These challenges should not be interpreted as a justification for bypassing ethical standards. Instead, they highlight the need for context-sensitive approaches that keep people safe while responding to the realities on the ground. The central question therefore is not whether ethics should be applied, but how ethical principles can be upheld in environments characterised by instability, urgency, and uncertainty.
Where Ethics Gets Complicated
Humanitarian settings are often characterised by insecurity, displacement, political sensitivities, and rapidly changing circumstances. In such environments, lengthy review processes may delay urgently needed evidence generation that could inform humanitarian response and decision-making. In particularly sensitive settings, requests for documentation, formal approvals, or institutional affiliations may raise concerns among research related stakeholders such as community leaders and officials, and among the affected communities themselves, especially where trust in public institutions is low or where participants fear surveillance, discrimination, or repercussions associated with their legal or political status.
In conflict-affected and fragile settings, local ethics review structures may be limited or absent altogether because of weakened institutions, lack of resources, or prolonged insecurity. Even where ethics committees exist, requirements such as institutional affiliation, local sponsorship, or lengthy review timelines may create challenges for rapid assessments and operational research intended to support immediate humanitarian action.
Working with Vulnerable and Mobile Populations
Refugees, asylum seekers, internally displaced persons, and migrants often experience heightened vulnerabilities linked to displacement, trauma, insecurity, legal uncertainty, and social exclusion. As a result, conventional research procedures may require adaptation to ensure they remain ethical, practical, and responsive to participant needs. Procedures commonly used in research, such as written consent forms, audio recording, or detailed note-taking, may be perceived as intrusive or risky by participants. A woman who has just crossed a border from her home country in search for safety as a result of war in her home country for example, may express fears that any documentation with her signature can be used to identify her and trace her in her home country. In such situations, verbal consent procedures may better protect participant safety while still respecting informed consent principles. For instance, ethics review boards working in such settings have recommended oral consent in place of written consent, precisely to limit the documentation held on participants and reduce the risks that written records can create for them.
Additional challenges arise when working with highly mobile populations or groups whose legal status may place them at heightened risk. In such situations, any perceived association with government authorities or formal institutions may discourage participation and undermine trust between researchers and participants. Participants may also be experiencing trauma, illness, fatigue, or acute humanitarian needs. Researchers must continuously assess whether participation could impose an additional burden and adapt study procedures accordingly. Further, longitudinal research, which involves follow-up of some categories of participants in these settings e.g., migrants over a specified period say months or years will potentially present certain ethical challenges related to collection of identifiable information to facilitate follow up or methodological challenges related to the highly mobile nature of these populations. High mobility, changing legal status, and linguistic diversity can complicate participant follow-up, communication, and informed consent processes. Power imbalances between researchers and participants require careful consideration, particularly when research is conducted by or in partnership with humanitarian organisations. Participants may perceive researchers as decision-makers, aid providers, or individuals with influence over access to assistance, creating real or perceived pressure to participate. Practical steps can help reduce this pressure, such as training field teams to recognise and navigate these dynamics, and holding reflexivity sessions after data collection, where teams step back and reflect on their positionality through the research process and also reflect on participants’ responses account for this in the analysis.
Further, while maintaining confidentiality is key for any research study, it should not be confused with secrecy. During active data collection, participants should understand the limits of confidentiality from the outset, including the circumstances under which it may need to be broken and why any such action would be taken in their best interests.
Putting Ethics into Practice
Ethical research should be viewed as a continuous process rather than a one-time administrative requirement. Further, researchers should incorporate ethical principles throughout the research process; from training of the study team, adaptive informed consent process, data protection and community engagement including with host communities. Greater collaboration between researchers, ethics committees, humanitarian actors, and policymakers can help strengthen ethical oversight while ensuring that critical evidence is available when it is needed most. Ethical responsibility does not end when data collection is complete. Findings must be communicated carefully so that they inform action and decision-making without causing unintended harm to the people and communities represented in the research.
Conclusion
Ultimately, research is not just about collecting information. It is about people who have trusted us with their experiences. Formal ethics review remains an essential safeguard, but ethical practice goes further. It lives in the decisions we make about how we listen, what we record, what we choose not to collect, how we protect information, and how we use what people tell us. Protecting that trust is what ethical research looks like when ethics meets reality.
Discussion
Leave a comment