Ethical research landscapes in fragile and conflict-affected contexts: Understanding the challenges

The paper critiques ethical guidelines for research in conflict and fragile contexts, exploring systemic injustices and advocating for comprehensive ethical practices across all phases of the research lifecycle, from design to dissemination.

This paper by Shanks and Paulson (2022) addresses the rising prevalence of conflict and fragility and critiques current ethical guidelines for research in these contexts as overly abstract and detached from realities in the Global South. The authors highlight challenges such as material and epistemic injustices in research structures and relationships. Drawing on their experiences and workshop discussions in Amman, Bogotá, and Dhaka, they argue that ethical research in fragile contexts depends on decisions made throughout the research project, from funding and design to dissemination and ethical gatekeeping. The paper calls for improved guidance, support, and accountability to ensure ethical research practices.

Key content

Key takeaways from the resource include:

Reflections from a fragile research context: Mosul

This section reflects on the research practices in Mosul post-2017 liberation from ISIL. It discusses the influx of international researchers and the ethical challenges, such as the lack of local collaboration, informed consent, and safeguarding, resulting in exploitative research practices.

Background

The paper outlines the rising prevalence of conflict and fragility worldwide and the increased funding for research in these contexts. It highlights the ethical complexities of conducting research in fragile environments, emphasizing the need for equitable practices and local involvement.

Methodology

The study is based on the authors’ extensive experience in conflict-affected areas and workshop discussions with researchers from Amman, Bogotá, and Dhaka. It focuses on unpacking ethical research practices through qualitative observations and participant feedback.

The ethics of knowledge production

Ethical funding mechanisms? The paper critiques the dominance of international funding in setting research agendas, often sidelining local needs and priorities. It calls for more inclusive funding models that consider local contexts and inputs.

Ethical research partnerships?

• Structural limitations: The paper identifies structural limitations in current research partnerships, where power imbalances favor institutions from the Global North. These partnerships often marginalize local researchers, limiting their influence and engagement in the research process.
• Capacity building: ‘Capacity Building’ is frequently cited as a solution to ethical research partnerships. However, the paper argues that capacity-building initiatives are often superficial and do not address the deeper issues of power imbalances and resource inequities that hinder true partnership.
• Northern incentive structures: Northern institutions are driven by incentive structures that prioritize publication and funding acquisition over equitable research practices. These structures can perpetuate exploitative partnerships, as the primary goal becomes meeting institutional requirements rather than fostering genuine collaboration.
• Unequal burdens: The burden of research often falls disproportionately on local researchers and communities, who face greater risks and receive fewer benefits. The paper emphasizes the need to recognize and address these unequal burdens to create more equitable research partnerships.
• Incentive structures driven by fragility: The incentive structures in fragile contexts are shaped by the urgency and complexity of the situations, which can lead to rushed and poorly designed research initiatives. These structures often prioritize rapid data collection and reporting over ethical considerations and sustainable partnerships.
• Partnerships and positionality: Understanding the positionality of both Northern and Southern partners is crucial for ethical research. The paper stresses the importance of reflexivity and mutual respect in partnerships, recognizing the unique contributions and perspectives of all parties involved.

Research design

• Research topics: The selection of research topics in fragile contexts can be politically sensitive and potentially harmful. Ethical research must carefully consider the impact of research topics on local tensions and grievances.
• Selection bias and positionality: Security concerns and restricted mobility often lead to selection bias. Researchers must critically reflect on their own and local partners' positionality to avoid reinforcing existing power dynamics and biases.
• Research methods: While surveys and interviews are common, the paper advocates for less extractive methods like qualitative and creative approaches that build trust and avoid retraumatization.
• Data collection: Key ethical challenges in data collection include ensuring informed consent and safeguarding participants from harm. The paper emphasizes the need for context-specific risk assessments and ethical practices.

Dissemination - who benefits from the findings?

• What is disseminated: The paper highlights the importance of considering what information is shared and how it is presented. It argues that dissemination should prioritize the needs and safety of local communities, avoiding sensitive or harmful details that could exacerbate local tensions.
• How research is disseminated: The paper discusses various dissemination methods, emphasizing the need for accessible formats and local languages. It calls for collaborative dissemination strategies that involve local stakeholders, ensuring they benefit from the research findings and are part of the communication process.

Ethical guidance and gatekeeping

• Guidelines: The paper examines existing ethical guidelines, noting that many are too abstract and not tailored to the specific challenges of fragile and conflict-affected contexts. It calls for more practical, context-specific guidelines that can be effectively implemented.
• Application for funding: Ethical considerations should be integral to the funding application process. The paper suggests that funders require detailed ethical plans and support applicants in developing robust ethical frameworks tailored to the context of their research.
• Research ethics committees: Research Ethics Committees (RECs) play a crucial role in ensuring ethical research practices. The paper advocates for RECs to include members with expertise in conflict-affected and fragile contexts and to provide ongoing support and oversight throughout the research process.

Conclusions and ways forward

The paper concludes with a call for systemic changes in the research landscape to ensure ethical practices across the entire research process. It emphasizes the need for guidance, support, and accountability, especially for actors in the Global North, to foster equitable and ethical research practices in conflict-affected and fragile contexts. The conclusion also discusses the importance of sustainable funding models that prioritize ethical considerations and local involvement.