By Gharad Bryan (London School of Economics and Political Science), Christian Meyer (University of Oxford), Tsegay Tekleselassie (Wellesley College), Sarah Winton (LSE), and Emanuele Brancati (World Bank)

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 a grantee as part of an ongoing project evaluating the impact of work permits in Ethiopia. The project is a partnership between the University of Oxford, the London School of Economics, the World Bank, and the Ethiopian government’s Refugees and Returnees Service (RRS).

Conducting research involving vulnerable populations such as refugees requires careful attention to additional ethical considerations. Protecting refugees’ rights, anticipating and mitigating any potential adverse effects from participation, and safeguarding confidentiality and privacy must all be thoroughly evaluated and addressed to ensure no harm comes to participants throughout the research.

The standard practice for ensuring ethical integrity in research involving human subjects requires an independent review of the research proposal, typically performed by specific Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). These committees, established by academic, governmental, and independent institutions, grant formal approval for projects when they confirm that the research meets ethical and responsible standards. However, IRBs alone may not always be sufficient to uphold the highest ethical standards, particularly in fragile contexts. As part of a pioneering research project, led by academic researchers from the University of Oxford, the London School of Economics, and Wellesley College, supported by the World Bank and working in collaboration with the Ethiopian government’s Refugees and Returnees Service (RRS), we took an additional step. After securing approval from local and international IRBs, we went a step further to ensure that local ethical considerations were identified and appropriately addressed, convening a separate, ad hoc research ethics advisory committee, composed of Ethiopian researchers, policymakers, and experts in the field of refugee protection. Their support ensured that we maintained the highest ethical standards as we explored the impact of issuing work permits and business licenses on the socioeconomic well-being of refugees and the resulting spillover effects on host communities. 

Selecting the Panel

One key element that made the ad hoc ethics advisory committee effective included the careful selection of panel members with relevant expertise in refugee issues, ethics, and local contexts. First, we identified key institutions involved in policymaking in Ethiopia. We chose the Refugees and Returnees Service (the main government agency responsible for refugees and returnees), Addis Ababa University (the country’s leading research and education institution), the Policy Studies Institute (the federal government's research arm), and the Ethiopia country office of the International Growth Centre. Within these organizations, we invited experts in labor markets, refugee issues, and social protection to serve as members of the ad hoc ethics review committee. We emphasized the unique value of their local knowledge and subject-matter expertise, given the specific vulnerabilities of refugee populations and the importance of adding a local lens to ethical review. 

The Review Process

We provided each committee member with the relevant materials, including the research proposal, methodologies, questionnaires, and consent forms, for their thorough review and consideration. We then convened the panel to discuss key ethical issues, propose solutions, and make recommendations.

The panel discussion focused on several critical ethical aspects of the project, including the research design, questionnaires and informed consent, the randomization strategy, and the communication material used for awareness campaigns. The panel highlighted the project’s strengths, such as:

• A clear well-structured consent form that outlined the purpose, procedures, benefits, risks, and the voluntary nature of participation;
• A randomization strategy that ensured fairness and transparency; and
• Communication materials that aligned with relevant regulations, enhancing credibility

The panel also recommended immediate improvements. Based on their feedback, we:

• Strengthened consent form language to clearly state that participation would not affect refugees’ benefits or legal status
• Adopted less restrictive participation criteria to avoid unintentional discrimination, using data from the listing phase
• Enhanced communication materials to ensure refugees and host communities have accurate information on the right-to-work legislation, including eligibility and procedures

Our outreach strategy now combines mass communication (flyers, posters, loudspeakers, social media) with workshops and information sessions. We are also establishing grievance mechanisms to address any concerns.

Why Local Expertise Matters

The committee's local perspective on ethical matters was invaluable in refining our research protocols to better protect participants and address identified risks. Their recommendations led to more stringent ethical standards, and ensured that the research is conducted responsibly and ethically.

While formal IRB institutions remain essential for addressing the main ethical aspects and ensuring that international standards are respected, the involvement of local experts has been crucial in providing a comprehensive understanding of the context and ensuring the protection of refugees throughout the research process. This practice can be adapted to other contexts by tailoring the approach to fit the specific needs and challenges of different populations. By combining formal IRB review with local ethical advisory input, the broader research community and implementing agencies can learn from our approach to ethical integrity and establish similar structures to ensure a thorough ethical review of their projects, making adjustments based on feedback and recommendations received.