The Researcher’s Role in Strengthening Ethical Research Practice in EiE

This is the first blog in a series focused on how EiE stakeholders can play a part in strengthening ethical research practice in the sector. See the introduction to the blog series here.

Researchers in Education in Emergencies (EiE) have a crucial role to play in how the research project engages with ethical dilemmas. Working in crisis and conflict settings, researchers must anticipate ethical challenges that are complicated by concerns around safety of researchers and participants, navigate logistical barriers, and ensure ethical data collection amid logistical complexities. They also carry responsibility for shaping collaborations with local research groups, addressing the current as well as future risks to and wellbeing of participants, and engagement with local knowledge systems.

Balancing these decision-making responsibilities with the demands of academic publications or funder requests can often be difficult, as highlighted in this series of vignettes describing ethical dilemmas in EiE. In many cases, existing guidelines for research ethics simply fall short of providing context-specific support - or may even reinforce a Global North-centric perspective on ethics. 

In response, organisations such as UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and the Pūtaiora Writing Group in New Zealand have proposed frameworks, key questions, and checklists to guide researchers working in emergency contexts through these challenges. These guidelines join a broader body of resources from organizations like UNICEF Innocenti, which has provided extensive guidance on child-friendly and ethical data collection practices.

Building on these resources and recent work from the ERICC programme, this blog summarises the recurring themes and recommendations emerging from the literature and presents them as key reflection questions for researchers as they design research studies, engage in fieldwork and disseminate research findings for wider uptake of the knowledge produced. 

Six Considerations for Researchers in EiE

1. Anticipating Ethical Challenges: Acknowledging that ethical challenges in emergency situations are often unexpected, researchers can still anticipate and account for concerns around informed consent, selection bias, or potential risks to participants in the research plan. Depending on the project, mitigation measures could range from incorporating "silent listening" as an interviewing strategy to counteract power dynamics in the interview, to checking for selection bias when using local "fixers" or interlocutors to find participants for the research study. Frameworks such as the UKRI guidelines enable structured reflection across seven key criteria, offering an essential starting point to reflect on whether and how the research design includes ethical considerations.

2. Peer Support and Structured Reflection: There are no easy answers to ethical dilemmas in EiE research. While ethical guidelines provide a useful starting point, crises evolve and bring with them new methodological challenges. In such cases, the way forward may be collective learning and embracing the notion of culturally sensitive ethical responsibility beyond the standardised guidelines. In this sense, scholars emphasize that true ethical practice is dynamic—a continuous, living process rather than a one-time checklist. Such continuous learning most effectively occurs in shared spaces such as peer networks, where researchers can share their experiences, reflections, successes and failures in dealing with ethical challenges. By drawing upon the knowledge and experiences in peer networks and structured reflection into the research process, researchers can build accumulated shared knowledge, contribute to the improvement of existing frameworks, and more flexibly deal with new situations in the field—especially when researchers with lived experience of crisis and conflict are part of the conversation.

3. Genuine research collaborations:  Scholars from the Global South often experience unfair and inequitable positions as the “local” members of a research partnership, exploited as translators, restricted to being data collectors, and expected to work without the same benefits or credit as the global team. It is essential that researchers, particularly from the Global North, build strong, mutually trusting working relationships with researchers from affected communities and that they seek all opportunities to create meaningful space for and leadership from researchers in crisis contexts. While funding agencies have an important role to play here, researchers have the power to create the space for all partners in the project to contribute. This includes formally recognizing their contribution and expertise, through authorship or otherwise, and creating pathways for their leadership in the analysis and dissemination of the final product. Guidelines already exist on what co-produced research with refugees and other people with lived experience of displacement need to consider.  And, existing analyses of equitable partnerships in EiE provide several key reflection questions, including: Is expertise and knowledge flowing multi-directionally? Are all partners willing to self-reflect and recognize their respective privileges and positions of power?  

4. Engagement with local knowledge systems and contexts: Building on strong collaborations with research partners in the affected communities, researchers can also situate their research more meaningfully in existing scholarship and knowledge in their focal geography and culture.  For example, how might new research make connections with existing literature in the local language(s)? How could research priorities be shaped so that they center and respond to ongoing knowledge generation in the community? What kinds of frameworks might best enable a wider, more inclusive perspective on the research topic? Guidelines produced by communities that are often the subject of research, such as the Māori-authored Te Ara Tika guidelines, can offer valuable insight into developing research processes that work in partnership with affected communities’ cultural frameworks, existing knowledge systems, and ways of knowing and working.

5. Transparency: Although researchers typically highlight methodology and limitations in the final report, the extent to which these details are genuinely informative varies with the type of publication. Researchers should ensure that all relevant information on the methodology, partnerships, ethical considerations, limitations, and research process is documented in the final research report, with as much clarity as possible. This ensures that the reader can interpret the findings of the study with more awareness and clearer framing. It is also worthwhile for researchers to explore providing information about their research at the start of and throughout the research process, particularly to key stakeholders who may be working in the same space. This kind of proactive information-sharing can reduce duplication and encourage useful collaborations as the project progresses. 

6. Dissemination and Uptake: Researchers should consider how the platform, context, and language of dissemination may affect the researchers and participants living in the crisis-affected context. There may be political sensitivities about revealing the perspectives of some local participants, which may in turn jeopardise their ability to continue their educational work, safety and wellbeing. In addition, researchers could explore how participants could be more meaningfully involved in the uptake of research: could the findings be presented to the affected community for validation? Could participants' feedback and reflections be included as part of the final report to provide readers with a full picture of how the findings interact with the reality of study participants? Could the findings be translated, shared, and workshopped with local academics to further meaningful academic collaboration across contexts? Do the research reports provide ways of using the research findings in policy and practice? Is there a critical reflection on the political economy environment within which the suggested reforms and change are being suggested?