This blog is part of a series highlighting the work of teams funded by IPA’s Displaced Livelihoods Initiative to ensure that research maintains the highest ethical standards in fragile contexts. It was written by Center for Effective Action’s (CEGA) Research Manager, Mansi Kalra, who reflects on how they created and implemented a plan to return results to study participants.

When Syrian refugees in Jordan participated in a multi-year study on housing support, they expressed a desire to see the results. Years later, the research team faced a question few development economists ask: should we return results, and if so, how?

The Syrian Refugee Life Study (S-RLS) is a longitudinal panel study and randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a housing subsidy program for refugees in Jordan. Upon completion of the study, the team decided to share findings directly with participants to empower them as end users of data and to build trust with the community. But it came with challenges: the results were nuanced and carried potential implications for refugee-host relations.

Engaging Study Participants as End Users of Research

Though randomized evaluations have been widely adopted in the social sciences over the last decade, few conversations have explored the role of study participants as end users. There is no consensus on whether researchers should share results with them. While RCTs typically produce papers and policy briefs, tailored outputs for participants are not a standard practice.

The S-RLS team shared results with participants following completion of the study to engage participants as genuine end users and demonstrate the value of this approach.

The team conducted a randomized evaluation of a subsidized housing assistance program for refugees in Jordan. Researchers assessed the program’s impact on economic outcomes, psychological well-being, long-term migration decisions, and social integration into host communities.

The findings were largely negative or null. The research team was concerned how participants would react to a program that did not improve their lives, and which even appeared to fuel tensions between refugees and host communities. One of the primary struggles in disclosing the results was the fear of worsening the existing divide–or that in a charged geopolitical environment, the findings could be exploited against aid efforts.

To mitigate these risks, the team proceeded carefully. The study’s working paper contextualized the findings and provided evidence that making minimal programmatic adjustments could help avoid negative outcomes in the future. Throughout the process of returning results responsibly, the S-RLS team consulted closely with local Jordanian experts and Syrian members of the project team. This ensured that the language was clear but not accusatory, requiring multiple rounds of Arabic translation and close coordination with local experts on dialects and language subtleties.

The Process of Returning Results

During the 2022 round of data collection, participants were asked: “Though it may take time (possibly even years), would you like to eventually see some of the results of this study when they are available?” Seventy-four percent of respondents answered yes.

Following the completion of the study in 2025, the team delivered on that request. Working with Jordanian data firm Mindset, the team created an accessible summary and shared it with participants via WhatsApp, a platform widely used by them. Mindset provided local expertise on how best to deliver the results.

“By providing thoughtful, context-sensitive translations and audio recordings, we aimed to make the study results accessible and resonant—allowing participants to connect with the findings in a way that reflected their lived experiences.” shared Feryal Ghazi, Technical Project Coordinator at Mindset

The results were shared in clear, non-academic Arabic to ensure broad understanding. All participants received a short text message thanking them for their participation, and informing them that a voice message would follow with a summary of the main findings. Soon after, they received the audio summary, along with an invitation to reply with any questions. The responses were modest but meaningful. Most participants replied with simple notes of thanks or asked if anything else was needed. None followed up on technical details.

Consulting Experts on the Ethics of RCTs

What seemed straightforward was anything but simple, and was shaped by extensive discussions with experts including Melissa Graboyes and Alfredo Burlando from the University of Oregon, and Amy Shipow, a Program Manager at CEGA. These experts support the CEGA initiative, “The Ethics of Sharing Results with Research Participants: Establishing Best Practices for Development Economics.” This project advances new norms around local dissemination of research results and ethical standards for sharing research results with participants. The project is funded by the National Science Foundation's “Ethical and Responsible Research Program Area”. The project is developing new ethical guidelines and practical recommendations for returning results to participants. The team is also gathering feedback from African study participants and North American development economists.

Key Lessons

A key takeaway from this experience is that sharing results is neither straightforward nor universal. Each RCT requires unique considerations when choosing to return results. For researchers, complications can include negative findings, potential backlash, or friction with the implementation partner. Participants can face potential privacy concerns or newfound issues with community members or implementing organization members.
There is a range of options that research teams can evaluate, from disclosing all results to only disclosing partial results, and this spectrum of possibilities should be evaluated for its merits specific to the RCT in question.

In the case of S-RLS, sharing study results allowed the team to build trust with the participants and deliver on the offer of sharing results that was previously made to the participants. In the future, it will be important to gather feedback from the participants on their opinions of this process and whether they found the results informative. It is also important to discuss with participants how to make the results-sharing process more engaging, and whether this method of sharing meets the expressed desire to stay informed about the study.