Real ethics has dirty feet - data collector perspectives on risk exposure during data collection in conflict-affected Eastern DRC.

Abstract

Background: Conducting research in humanitarian crisis settings poses multiple logistical and ethical challenges. We studied a community-based intervention called 'Living Peace Initiative', collecting household-based data in conflict-affected Eastern DRC, inevitably exposing data collectors and trial participants to risk.

Objective: This study explores the perceptions of local study implementers on the ethics of collecting data in a humanitarian crisis setting.

Methods: We used a grounded theory qualitative research Approach. Structured individual interviews were conducted with data collectors (n = 19) and local data supervisors (n = 7). Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis, combining deductive and inductive coding. The analysis was structured around six predefined themes drawn from prior literature, field experiences, and discussions with research team members: motivation, personal safety, trial participant safety, accessibility and working conditions, emotional challenges, and field navigation.

Results: Several subthemes emerged. Motivation was reflected in scientific curiosity, professional growth, financial benefits, among others. Personal safety concerns included exposure to armed groups, road inaccessibility, harassment, and illness. Trial participant safety risks included armed conflict, IPV, stigma among others. Accessibility and working conditions were affected by harsh weather, poor infrastructure, network issues, and others. Emotional challenges included exposure to distressing narratives and secondary trauma. Field navigation strategies involved teamwork, and adaptation to local norms. Despite these challenges, data collectors and local data supervisors expressed that the risks were justified and worth taking.

Conclusion: Even when fully implementing international ethical guidelines, some risks in humanitarian crisis settings cannot be entirely foreseen or avoided. Local data supervisors and data collectors recognize these risks and take partial ownership in managing them as active agents and contributors to the research. In this sense, real ethics has dirty feet: Data collection in such settings cannot be entirely risk-free; but it still might be important to do the research. The decision to accept such risks however should not solely be made by external researchers who follow international ethical guidelines. It should also be informed by the local data collectors and supervisors who understand the risks within context and culture; and include their judgment on whether the research effort is worth doing.