Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Most literature on research ethics originates from the perspectives of international researchers and, to a lesser extent, research subjects. This article goes beyond the prevailing understanding of ethical misconduct as a failure to secure informed consent, data breaches, coercion, or misuse of data. Instead, it seeks to develop the notion of ‘mundane ethical harms’ in conflict- and disaster-affected research, which are rooted in and shaped by the systemic power inequalities between researchers across global Northern and global Southern institutions. This article centres on mundane ethical harms from the perspective of local researchers. Drawing on interviews and workshops from the Balkans, Colombia, and Nepal, we show that local researchers are caught between formal ethical frameworks – often biomedical in origin or defined in the global North – and local understandings of, and demands for, ethical practice. Acknowledging that regional and contextual experiences and understanding of ethics matter and may differ, we highlight commonalities of ethical harms that were consistent across the three regions to inform more context-sensitive procedural ethics across global North–South research collaborations. We argue that mundane ethical harms highlight the limits of procedural ethics that may be unintentional but tend to obscure the harms experienced by those caught in the middle of an unequal research environment.

Keywords

field ethics local researchers mundane ethical harms north-south research relations disaster ethics conflict-affected contexts

Introduction

Globally, people generally agree that democracy is positive and desirable. Yet, scholars asking people for definitions found ‘that democracy does not mean the “same thing”’ (Schaffer, 2014, 329), leading to legitimacy issues in its promotion. Much like democracy, research ethics are widely endorsed in principle but highly contested in practice. Researcher and researched alike agree on the need for ethical and responsible research conduct. Yet, in this article, we demonstrate that ethical research and ethical dilemmas are understood differently across different contexts and actors. In addition, prevalent global Northern institutional guidelines and ethics frameworks might even undermine what is considered ethical research conduct elsewhere. We particularly emphasise what we refer to as ‘mundane ethical harms’ in conflict- and disaster-impacted settings where ethical issues arise more frequently, and the research environment constitutes a different social and political context from what ethics boards typically consider (Cronin-Furman and Lake, 2018; Schwartz and Cronin-Furman, 2023; Vogel, 2025).

While most research on ethics focuses on the experiences and dilemmas of global Northern (gN) researchers (e.g. Mac Ginty et al., 2021), we focus on the lived experiences of local researchers, building on recent scholarly attention to the practical struggles they face in working under difficult circumstances (Abedi Dunia et al., 2023; Mwambari, 2019), while making a unique contribution by centring the ethical harms experienced by those in the ‘middle’.¹ Here we define ‘local researchers’ as individuals who are from, and based in, the global South (gS) settings in which they conduct research.² Local researchers are often caught between the regulations and demands of international actors such as funders and international partners, on one hand, and the expectations of local actors, such as research participants or crisis-affected communities, on the other. The situation is akin to what Bovens (2007: 455) terms ‘the problem of many eyes’: intense scrutiny from a range of actors within a complex and unequal research environment. Their potential contributions as ‘middle-out’ actors (Lederach, 1997) in defining ethical practice are underacknowledged.

Drawing on qualitative research in three heavily researched, crisis-affected contexts – the Balkans, Colombia, and Nepal – and following ideas of Horton (2008) and Hess (1994), we highlight that mundane ethical harms often go unacknowledged in formal ethics procedures. We know that contextual ethics debates run the risk of relativism. Instead, we focus on common unethical practices that are largely invisible in formal ethics applications and scholarship about ethical dilemmas. Thus, we understand mundane ethical harms as routine, often unremarkable breaches of ethical practice that occur within the everyday conduct of research, often while remaining compliant with formal procedural ethics frameworks. These harms do not generally result from overt malpractice but are instead embedded in normalised practices of the research system, shaped by global and local power asymmetries and hierarchies, and by extractive logics. Importantly, mundane ethical harms highlight the limits of procedural ethics; they are less about breaking rules and more about how the rules themselves can obscure harm. We find that such practices often sideline local researchers, and ignore contextual understandings of harm and fairness. Also, as Horton (2008: 374) argues “small, banal, everyday happenings and ‘failures’” have major importance for how knowledge is produced and perpetuate inequities in knowledge production.

The research is situated within the field of social science research ethics, and more specifically within the domain of social science research in conflict and disaster (C&D) settings. Moving beyond the prevailing biomedical approach to research ethics, which emphasises the need for universal procedures and guidelines, the perspective presented in this article advocates the development of more grounded and context-sensitive ethics and accountability standards for social science research. To do so, this paper adopts an approach to research ethics that accounts for both the risks of exploitation and marginalisation local researchers and participants face (Mwambari, 2019), and their agency to reimagine and reshape the epistemic orientation of the research ecosystem. To make the argument, we first discuss the universality of research ethics, contrasting with the specifics of ethical conduct in conflict and disaster research to highlight discrepancies between procedural ethics and ethics in practice.³ We then discuss our methodology and the three case studies, including procedural ethics processes in each context. Next, we compare these contexts, with a focus on the experiences of the ‘mid-level’ local researchers, to highlight three commonalities that underscore the everyday mundane ethical harms within conflict and disaster research: (1) contextual knowledge and hierarchies, (2) over-researched communities, and (3) the yearning for recognition. We conclude by proposing three corresponding avenues for redress and a greater role for ‘middle-out’ actors in defining ethical practice and standards.

Universality of research ethics versus specifics of conflict and disaster research

The academic sector has institutionalised mechanisms to promote ethical research, in part, prompted by a historical context of misconduct perpetuated under the guise of scientific advancement (Israel and Hay, 2006; Rawsthorne et al., 2023). Commonly known as ‘procedural ethics’, such measures range from ethics review committees (ERCs) or institutional review boards (IRBs) to national regulations, together with complaint handling systems to guide the behaviour of the researchers and hold them accountable for ethics transgressions. We collectively refer to these as ERs (ethics reviews). The procedural ethics landscape follows the principles of voluntary informed consent, the right to withdraw, along with data protection protocols and confidentiality guidelines, fundamentally grounded in the imperative to protect the welfare of research subjects, as encapsulated in the guiding principle of ‘doing no harm’ and even ‘doing some good’ to the research participants (Goodhand, 2000).

In conflict and disaster research, the prevailing assumption is that individuals and groups subject to research are ‘vulnerable’ to potential abuse or harm, including through research activities, necessitating the implementation of protective measures. In addition to safeguarding the research participants, ERs have sought to revisit ethics processes and oversight mechanisms to mitigate researcher risks and insecurity, particularly in politically sensitive environments (Tripp, 2018).⁴ As research in sensitive contexts continues to grow, the need to ensure that research efforts foster trust, integrity, and respect between researchers and vulnerable communities also grows. Scholarly efforts involve, for example, the development of a ‘manifesto’ to guide researchers working in disaster settings, to prevent harm to the communities and ensure equitable and accountable research partnerships (Disaster Research Manifesto, 2025).

However, risk-adverse and protection-oriented approaches that characterise formal ER processes have come under critical scholarly scrutiny (Fisher, 2021; Tapscott and Machón, 2025). Although conducting ethical research is a globally accepted norm, implementation may not only diverge from ethics standards but could also be contradictory in an unpredictable research environment. C&D researchers have demonstrated how formal ethics expectations and guidelines can conflict with the everyday research ethics (Dhungana, 2022; Dickson-Swift et al., 2007; Knott, 2019). For instance, while protecting communities already affected by conflict and disasters is a widely held research norm, questions such as who is deemed vulnerable in research and what constitutes vulnerability may have different contextual interpretations. In other words, perceived vulnerability of research participants (related to beneficence) in contexts that are considered ‘fragile’ and deviating from the norm (Desai et al., 2015) may conflict with their own agency and autonomy. Similarly, research participants’ expectations and priorities influence their (informed) consent and (voluntary) participation. Blanket application of procedural ethics, without consideration of local nuances, could lead not only to a misguided notion of ethical conduct but also to a risk of misrepresenting social reality.

Importantly, much existing scholarship views both procedural and practical ethics guidelines – usually stemming from Western academia – as dominant mechanisms to establish and promote the possibility for ‘good’ and ‘risk-sensitive’ scientific research (Kent et al., 2002). Yet, with notable exceptions (e.g. Abedi Dunia et al., 2023; Mwambari, 2019), how local researchers make sense of the ethical misconduct in C&D research is rarely investigated. This paper builds on debates that explore convergence and inconsistencies between procedural and practical ethics, and we extend these debates to address two key omissions in the C&D literature generally, and the ethics of research in difficult contexts specifically.

First, we suggest the topic of ethical harm in C&D research needs to be situated within ongoing debates about the politics of knowledge production, and more specifically, calls to rethink and challenge the dominance of Western/Eurocentric knowledge systems that have undermined and even displaced local epistemic priorities and concerns (Gaillard, 2019; Nyenyezi et al., 2020; Santos Sousa et al., 2008; Smith, 2021). Beyond the prevailing understanding of ethical misconduct as failures to secure informed consent or data breaches, coercion and misuse of data, we develop the concept of ‘mundane ethical harms’ based on the perspectives and experiences of local researchers. While ‘active reflexivity’ (Abasli et al., 2025; Soedirgo and Glas, 2020) in C&D research is welcome, such an approach tends to place ethics within the responsibilities of individual researchers. This removes the focus from the systemic drivers of ‘unethical research practice’, as experienced by those at the frontlines of doing research but whose voices are too often ignored in academic and policy discourse on ethics research. Thus, we seek to locate mundane ethical harms within demands to challenge and redress the colonial roots of knowledge disparities between gN and gS researchers (Bhambra et al., 2020; Macaspac, 2018) and in the context where local researchers’ claims for recognition are unacknowledged in research outputs (Nyenyezi et al., 2020). In C&D research, such collective reflections are even more urgent given the risk of exploitation and displacement of local research capacity under the impulse to generate quick and practical scientific knowledge (Gaillard and Gomez, 2015).

Second, and relatedly, the paper seeks to empirically investigate the relationship between research ethics and accountability (Goodhand, 2000), paying close attention to accountabilities as they relate to ‘testimonial injustices’ (Fricker, 2007) facing local researchers and benefits to participants. Fricker (2007) argues that testimonial injustice manifests itself through systemic denial of the knowers’ right to share their knowledge of being misrecognised. Our empirical focus builds on this insight to show how local researchers are often reduced to serve the dominant knowledge system, with little attention to their aspirations to democratise and decolonise knowledge on C&D (Dzuverovic, 2018; Mwambari, 2019). Although procedural ethics considers activities such as falsification, plagiarism, and fabrication of findings as unethical research conduct, the relationship between these activities and the unequal research ecosystem that disproportionately marginalises local researchers is not adequately examined. Furthermore, Rawsthorne et al. (2023) argue that even research purporting to promote social justice often overlooks the ethical harms originating in power imbalances between researchers and research participants. Equally important are accountability questions relating to the unfulfilled promises of research benefits to participants (Goodhand, 2000). Although complaint or grievance-handling mechanisms have been introduced to demand accountability from researchers, such mechanisms are usually designed and introduced internationally, or from the ‘top’, with little ‘bottom-up’ involvement of the research interlocutors. This casts major questions over the research participants’ ability to hold researchers accountable.

Methods: Data and cases

The article draws on a 2-year research project ‘Re-ordering Ethics and Knowledge Production in Conflict- and Disaster-Affected Contexts’, funded by The British Academy. We gathered data through two complementary methods: participatory workshops and semi-structured interviews. The project team ran four workshops in Belgrade (Serbia), Bogota (Colombia), Kathmandu (Nepal), and London (United Kingdom) between November 2023 and April 2025 with approximately 90 participants.⁵ Each workshop lasted 1–2 days and covered topics about knowledge production and research ethics, with a focus on the distinctions and connections between formal/procedural ethics and informal/everyday ethics. The workshop adopted a participatory approach, creating an open space for participants to exchange experiences, practices, and challenges. The core research team introduced each session, which featured a mix of methods including individual reflections, group discussions, and collaborative activities. This participatory emphasis was rooted in a shared commitment to challenging historical imbalances in knowledge production (Acharya and Buzan, 2007) and addressing well-documented power asymmetries between researchers in the gN and gS (Eun, 2023; Vogel et al., 2024). The workshop reflected the diverse yet interconnected academic and practical interests of interdisciplinary researchers from gN and gS institutions. Participants were diverse, reflecting a variety of career stages, sectors (peacebuilding, humanitarian, disaster), organisations (research, think tank, civil society), discipline (international relations, peace and conflict studies, gender studies, political science, anthropology, ethnography, history, development studies, disaster studies, and sociology). The diversity of the workshop participants also reflected the project team’s intention to examine research practices in both academic and policy communities engaged in C&D settings. In this respect, it was important that participants possessed extensive experience of engagement in these fields, rather than insisting on an academic/practitioner dichotomy.

Additionally, between August 2023 and mid-2024, the project team conducted 21 expert interviews with academics and practitioners across the three case regions to supplement workshop findings. In each case, ‘local researcher’ interviewees had significant in-country research background and most had experience collaborating with gN researchers or internationally-funded projects. In the Balkans, we conducted seven interviews (four online over Zoom and three in person), consisting of researchers working in peace and conflict studies and practitioners with experience in working in various conflict settings, including interlocutors from the entire region (Serbia, North Macedonia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo). In Colombia, we interviewed three experts online via Teams and four in person. Interviewees were practitioners, CSO members, and scholars with experience in different conflict regions within Colombia. Interviewees included participants working on the internal armed conflict, transitional justice, peacebuilding (drug trafficking, and social movements, among others. In Nepal, we conducted seven in-person interviews consisting of development practitioners, researchers, academics, and CSO members. These individuals worked directly in conflict or disaster settings across Nepal. We interviewed researchers from various caste, ethnic, and gender identities to capture different lived and professional experiences. Unless otherwise noted, all material below derives from the workshops or interviews.

The lead researcher for each country conducted the interviews, which were transcribed and translated into English for further analysis. The analysis followed a collaborative approach, with individual interviewers first reading the workshop notes and interview transcripts before developing thematic suggestions. These emerging or sub-themes were then discussed in a series of team meetings, which helped coalesce and consolidate these sub-themes into three findings identified here.

Case studies

Each case study location (the Balkans, Colombia, Nepal) is characterised by protracted conflict and varying scales of disaster, accompanied by significant academic research and ethical concerns related to being ‘over-researched’ (Kappler, 2013; Kelly, 2021). Layered into these three case studies are histories of direct and semi-colonisation: Colombia and the Balkans were directly ruled under the Spanish, and the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires, respectively. Although Nepal was not under direct colonial rule, it was nonetheless influenced by the British colonial regime in India and remained subject to a system of internal colonisation under a hereditary regime (1846–1941), followed by three decades of international isolation under an autocratic Monarchy (1960–1990; Whelpton, 2005). These histories and experiences of colonisation and authoritarianism have influenced ‘ways of knowing’ about these regions. In the Balkans, ethical concerns centre on external misrepresentation and epistemic domination; in Nepal, they are intertwined with the challenges of working in the contested environment of post-war and recurring disasters; and in Colombia, they relate to navigating active, complex, and often violent conflict. Collectively, these cases demonstrate that research ethics in conflict or disaster settings cannot be approached through universalised frameworks alone, but must be responsive to specific political, historical, and social dynamics that underpin each context. As such, the Balkans, Colombia and Nepal each offer distinct yet instructive contexts for examining research ethics in conflict-affected and post-war settings.

In particular, in the Balkans it is the violent dissolution of Yugoslavia in the 1990s that has shaped contemporary research dynamics, with a body of conflict and peacebuilding literature predominantly produced by Northern scholars (e.g., Belloni, 2020; Chandler, 2006), whose limited grasp of regional complexities often led to reductive and stereotypical portrayals (Kaplan, 1993). This underscores the ethical risks inherent in externally driven knowledge production. Nepal’s contemporary history presents a similar trajectory, with a peace and conflict literature focussed on the Nepalese Civil War (1996–2006), which sought to dismantle monarchical and centralised governance structures. Its exposure to recurrent disasters, notably the 2015 Nepal earthquakes that attracted international aid and academic attention, adds an additional layer of complexity that positions it as a crucial case for examining the ethics of research in environments shaped by both conflict and disaster.

Colombia’s internal armed conflict has been protracted, multifaceted, and deeply entangled with organised crime, gender-based violence, and structural inequalities (GMH, 2013; González González, 2014). Despite the 2016 peace agreement between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People’s Army (FARC-EP), violence persists and involves various non-state actors and emergent guerrilla groups. The country has experienced multiple disasters, such as the 1985 Nevado del Ruiz volcanic eruption and resulting mudslide that left 25,000 people dead. Colombia exemplifies the ethical challenges of conducting research in environments where peace is partial and violence persists in fragmented forms.

Procedural ethics in context

To better understand mundane harms, it is worth examining procedural ethics in these three contexts. As discussed above, procedural ethics serve as a means by which ethics norms are formalised and enforced, often reflecting the institutional logics and power structures of dominant research regimes. In creating a comprehensive dataset of global regulatory ethics frameworks, Tapscott and Machón (2025: 796) demonstrate that ‘countries worldwide have adopted versions of a regulatory structure designed for biomedical and clinical research, rather than the types of ethical considerations raised by social scientists and conflict researchers’. Further, they show how these regulations are adopted inconsistently. This is mirrored in our case studies since, as in other places, procedural ethics review does not guarantee ethical practice.

In the Balkans, developing and institutionalising ethical practices in the social sciences, especially in C&D research, is a relatively new and voluntary phenomenon and regulations vary across countries in the region. Bosnia and Herzegovina, for instance, has no mandated formal ethics review process (Tapscott and Machón, 2025). In Serbia, beginning in 2005, all health institutions are obliged to establish ethics committees, as prescribed in the Law on Health Care, while the social sciences continue to operate without mandatory ethics review (Petrović, 2015). Many academic institutions have established voluntary ethics committees, but they often remain performative. Until recently, it was common for researchers to write their own ethics approvals, and ER at universities and research institutions existed only on paper. In the last decade, however, this has changed for two reasons. First, mid-career scholars educated in the gN, mostly in the US and UK, attained management positions at domestic institutions and introduced practices similar to those of their alma maters. Additionally, after years of destruction and isolation, the region has slowly started to integrate into the European Higher Education Area. This has increased opportunities for international cooperation and research funding and means following the rules and procedures of research donors and partners, including ethics procedures. Thus, although the Balkan research context differs from that of gN institutions in terms of available resources, institutional support, and research traditions (Džuverović and Tepšić, 2020), the main approach in this process has been to copy-paste the practices and norms of gN institutions. Many researchers still see ER as a ‘Western invention’ or ‘necessary evil’ required to secure funding (see Kovačević, 2008), and in practice, fieldwork often differs from that proposed in ER applications, assuming no one will check. While this discrepancy can be attributed to a disconnect between standards and context, a full explanation must also consider researchers’ perceptions of ethics review and its necessity.

In Colombia, ethics guidelines are rooted in the health sector but have become more inclusive of various disciplines, including social sciences. Resolution 8430, issued by the Ministry of Health, established standards for health research and subsequently became the national benchmark (Ministerio de salud, 1993). Notably, this resolution defined protections for vulnerable groups within research protocols. The Colombian Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation currently serves as the primary regulatory body and leads the implementation of research ethics and scientific integrity policies across both public and private sectors. The ministry has issued regulations concerning specimen collection, biodiversity, access to genetic resources, and the protection of indigenous and local knowledge (Castañeda-Ruiz et al., 2020). A senior researcher with four decades of experience pointed out, however, that for most of her career, informed consent was nonexistent; instead, it was trust with communities that governed the research relationship (Interviewee C3). Despite better developed policy frameworks, a gap exists between these policies, ethics guidelines, and research practice, evidenced by the reduction of ethics standards to checklists and the lack of institutional support, funding, and training for university ERs. Consequently, ERs are often insufficient, highlighting the need for better regulation, and especially ER training about the protocols themselves and its follow up; participant protection, and community-based protocols.

In Nepal, as in the other two contexts, biomedical ethics regulations tend to dictate the ethical landscape, and social science ER is inadequate and hardly enforced. As one interviewee with extensive international disaster research experience said, ‘People take [research] ethics very casually here’ (Interviewee N5). A major policy institute report affirmed this statement, suggesting research misconduct in Nepal is increasing due to the lack of adequate and enforceable codes of conduct and associated oversight bodies (Policy Research Institute, 2024). Nepal’s Health Research Council is the primary formal ER board, recognised by the Forum for Ethical Review Committees in the Asian and Western Pacific Region (FERCAP) since 2019. Universities in Nepal have their own ethics boards but they predominantly focus on health-based research. In general, humanities and social science human subject research tends to undergo less comprehensive ER processes; sometimes it is fast-tracked or even sidelined. The University Grants Commission of Nepal, the body responsible for developing policies and monitoring and evaluation guidelines for universities, published a ‘Good academic research practices’ (University Grants Commission (Nepal), 2021), but it focuses on the ethics of publications, not research conduct. In some institutions with ER, the process is generic with regard to consent and maintaining anonymity. Other newer research institutes have developed more rigorous ER mechanisms. Overall, however, ER in Nepal’s academic sector remains inconsistent and underdeveloped.

Absent strong and consistent national ER in all three cases, foreign researchers continue to defer to their own ER since requirements vary between countries and universities. Clearly, the existence of regulations does not guarantee ethical practice, especially without effective accountability mechanisms. As one interviewee summarised: ‘If there is no cop, you don’t drive 50 miles [per hour]. In the last project they had an ethics committee which never met during the project. Not a single time. So, it is only about the form, not about the substance. No one really cares once you get the approval’ (Interviewee B3).

Mundane harms, structural patterns: Shared ethical fault lines in crisis research

Notwithstanding the deficiencies of procedural ER detailed above, our research identified three consistent ethical dilemmas across our C&D research cases that do not receive adequate consideration in procedural ethics debates. Each is an example of what we term ‘mundane ethical harms’, building on existing literature on often invisible and seemingly ordinary forms of ethical lapses in crisis contexts.

The dynamic ethics-context interface and knowledge hierarchies

‘Context’ emerged as a critical factor in local understandings of ethics and ethical misconduct. To avoid harm, ostensibly researchers should understand the social, political, and cultural context of the communities they research. Yet, the way scholars choose research sites and produce research outputs, and thus create knowledge, as promised in the procedural ethics, is rarely subject to the dynamic nature of the contextual realities. Instead of being viewed as a fixed and standard entity, our interviewees defined context as a dynamic force and sought to connect it with the ethics of knowledge production. In other words, the unequal context in which research and research partnerships occur is seen as capable of facilitating the exclusion and de-legitimisation of local research expertise. However, in some instances, context is viewed favourably, allowing local researchers to claim their expertise and legitimacy in knowledge generation over their international counterparts.

In our interviews, local researchers often found that their international counterparts displayed a ‘colonial way of thinking. [International researchers] think that [their] way of working and doing things . . . is the same everywhere else’ with regard to ethics and collaborations more generally (Interviewee B1). In Nepal, the broader aid-receiving context has led to much research being donor-driven, focussing on evaluating aid interventions. Such research typically adheres to predefined international aid standards instead of local norms. Moreover, our research suggests that commissioned research does not consistently respect ER principles, such as keeping informants safe and away from potential risks, avoiding re-traumatisation of victims or providing researchers to work free of donor influences, despite researching sensitive topics (e.g. violence and trauma among conflict-affected communities, discrimination in disaster relief distribution). One example given was that insufficient attention is paid to the consent of research participants in the publication and promotion of photographic evidence, widely favoured by aid agencies.⁶ Local researchers report obtaining ER approval does not guarantee sensitive conduct, nor do international researchers necessarily pick up on the hidden transcripts of interviews: ‘Local researchers understand social and human aspects and they are more sensitive in dealing with subjects (for example what kind of questions they should ask, when they ask, how they ask, and so on). Also, if you have witnessed some violent events, you are much more careful in conducting research’ (Interviewee N4). Others, however, warned against over-reliance on local researchers as if they are inherent experts about all cultural and linguistic realities: ‘Foreigners think that one Nepali will understand all of Nepal, but that is not true. We are not homogeneous’ (Interviewee N4). Researchers from the capital, Kathmandu, may be equally prone to misjudge local nuances as foreigners. As one stated, ‘We need to understand that all these international policies sometimes are not contextual – you cannot see Kathmandu from Geneva and you cannot see local communities from Kathmandu’ (Interviewee N4).

Colombian researchers found themselves caught between helping donors understand the context and the challenges of research in a context of violence. For instance, one interviewee reported that donors requested research findings after an escalation in violence, not understanding that research participants may be afraid to answer questions because of the violence (Interviewee C2). Donors want research reports and findings, but for local researchers, navigating the context can be as important as the results. This navigation requires familiarity with the visible and invisible community rules as well as respect for and safety of the communities (and researchers). Lacking this contextual knowledge can lead to different perceptions of ethical conduct. Following implementation of the 2016 Peace Agreement, some former combatants were elected to public office. Donors, however, refused to fund peacebuilding projects in those municipalities because they were unfamiliar with the legal status of these former combatants. One participant stated: ‘There is a significant difference between my work and my organisation’s vision. These tensions are very typical within such ethical processes’ (Workshop C participant).

Yet, when it comes to contextual factors of research, there was a clear sense amongst local researchers that ‘Most of the internationals do not fully understand the context, they cannot understand shades of grey and the nitty-gritty of problems. They are still colonising facts they acquire by interpreting data from their epistemological position and understanding of the context’ (Interviewee B4). This leads local researchers to assume international researchers possess only superficial regional or place-based contextual knowledge and, in the process, assert their authority over contextual dynamics. One stated, ‘They know a lot about the region from the literature, but they lack peculiarities that come from the lived experiences in the field’ (Interviewee B5). In Colombia, local researchers found themselves both translating and facilitating international counterparts’ understanding of the complexities of the country’s internal armed conflict: ‘more than the language barrier, these [international] researchers found themselves overwhelmed by the amount of information they didn’t understand. I remembered some researchers that wanted to visit a FARC dominated zone and they felt they didn’t have the instruments to understand the context’ (Interviewee C1).

There is also resentment of the dominance of English-language publications (Roth, 2019). As one stated, ‘There is a lot of local knowledge, but if it is not in English or not well written and they cannot publish internationally, the knowledge stays hidden’ (Interviewee B3). Even if well-known regionally, local researchers and their work are often not acknowledged externally. Additionally, local researchers often lack either the experience or language skills to publish in gN publications, and the incentive to do so, since their institutions do not necessarily reward publication in these venues.

The ethics of over-researched communities

A second type of mundane ethical harm in conflict and disaster-affected settings relates to repeated data collection about communities experiencing difficult circumstances. We identified two interconnected ethical issues here: first, the burden of repeated participation in data collection, related to time, repetition, and potential traumatisation for individuals who experience violence or disaster; and second, the expectation that participating in research would lead to tangible changes or increased services to the community. Workshop participants and interviewees across all three contexts consistently identified this as a major concern in their work.

As topics become popular and (different) researchers return to collect more data on existing problems, they collectively contribute to the problem of over-researched societies and communities (Kappler, 2013; Kelly, 2021). Although there are no established criteria for identifying an over-researched society, it is generally understood to refer to a context in which ‘too much fieldwork has been conducted, too much attention has been paid to a particular community or issue, and, by implication, some research could be deemed repetitive, unnecessary or redundant’ (Kelly, 2021, 49). In these instances, researchers ask questions of and listen to the same, often English-speaking, voices. This does not mean that being ‘over-researched’ is a consistent experience. Instead, it is a highly localised phenomenon that communities experience differently. For instance, Mostar and Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Vukovar in Croatia, the regions of Urabá and Montes de María in Colombia as well as other conflict-affected communities in Nepal, and also Northern Ireland, Cyprus and Rwanda, have experienced significant levels of ‘research fatigue’ (Workshop C) or ‘participant fatigue’ (Workshop B). This fatigue manifests in communities feeling exploited, exhausted by, or increasingly distrustful of researchers, largely due to the continuous influx of studies focussed on conflict, violence, aid, and transitions from war to peace or immediate relief and reconstruction efforts after disasters (Fast et al., 2025; Kappler, 2013; Kelly, 2021). The fact that qualitative researchers tend not to share their data from crisis-affected spaces (Vogel et al., 2024: 23–26) further intensifies the process of repeated data collection.

One factor here is attention to a few, high-profile topics that stimulates more research, but that may illustrate a lack of contextual knowledge that could identify other subjects deserving of more scholarly inquiry. One interviewee summarised it this way: ‘There is some kind of fetishisation of research because everybody wants to see the same things because they read books written by global Northern researchers; nobody wants to research something relevant and contextual [to us]’ (Interviewee B5). Importantly, participants stated that even ‘over-researched’ communities were not always opposed to research participation, showing enthusiasm for sharing other positive aspects of their culture, such as music, that researchers too often overlook in favour of the negatives, such as stereotypes or violence (Workshop B and N). This problem is not limited to academic research, since humanitarian and development organisations frequently conduct needs assessments, programme evaluations, and operational research in the same communities. These efforts, driven by different objectives, contribute to over-research, particularly when characterised by limited data-sharing (Workshop C).

Some, especially from CSO participants, lamented over-collecting data when the problems seemed obvious, suggesting instead that organisations should spend money on responses over more research. One participant described it as a drive to ‘over-scientificate’ problems in Bosnia-Herzegovina that are well known to policy makers (Workshop B). Another participant shared a post-disaster context example, where the acute deprivation of affected populations was immediately evident. Nevertheless, local evaluators were tasked with collecting data framed as ‘stories’ from affected populations, thereby positioning them in a complex ethical and professional dilemma (Workshop N). The frontline data collectors were required to justify both the rationale for, and the implications of, extracting narratives that merely confirmed the easily observable social realities of the community (Workshop N).

In other instances, local researchers are tasked with collecting photos of disaster victims as part of the growing international push for alternative ways of knowing, such as photo or video storytelling in disaster research. One interviewee with extensive experience of researching disaster-affected communities highlighted concerns about the lack of ethics guidelines surrounding the collection, ownership and dissemination of photos in Nepal. He shared his anxiety related to challenges from community members while taking photos: ‘They will say, you had taken pictures and what did you do with it’ (Interviewee N2). This illustrates the pressure local researchers face in justifying the use and value of alternative forms of knowledge production. As the literal face of the research process, local researchers confront challenges in navigating the tension between respecting the privacy of community members in contexts of hardship, and fulfilling external expectations tied to securing funding for relief interventions. The requirement to document and report on self-evident conditions not only strained their community relationships but also jeopardised the sustainability of future research and engagement activities in the same area. This raises the issue of how to ethically define questions, design research, and identify research locations in conflict or disaster contexts.

A second and related ethical issue of (over-)researching is the expectation of communities that their involvement should result in change or action by external actors. Speaking about a particular Nepali community, one local researcher (Interviewee N4) observed:

They have also been overly researched. The same person is interviewed over and over again. It is my personal ethical principal that I will not promise them anything that I cannot deliver in future.

Scholars usually consider knowledge production as their primary goal, with the potential to change future interventions as a secondary contribution. Accounting for multi-year projects and publication cycles, however, it is often impossible for communities to see a link between their participation and future change. Local researchers, who are connected to communities or return to them for (new) projects and data collection, directly face the expectations for change, regardless of whether their international partners are aware of them. As one participant stated, ‘Local researchers (. . .) are left to deal with the expectations, frustrations and resistance of the local communities long after foreign researchers are gone’ (Workshop N). One Nepali researcher changed their approach to research and communication to mitigate expectations: ‘My ethics is to tell people exactly what we are doing. Not even to talk about the future of what might happen’ (Interviewee N4).

The ethics of recognition

Our last point relates to the ethics of recognition. This came through in two ways: first, at the level of local researchers, and the all-too-common lack of acknowledgement of their contributions in (international) collaborations; and second, at the level of research participants, who object to the blanket approach of data anonymisation that can silence their voice and agency.

Across all three case studies, local researchers reported countless occasions of receiving only a ‘thank you note at the end of the page’ (Interviewee B5), and instances where researchers are not acknowledged in the final product (Workshop C and N). This was true ‘even though they [global Northern researcher] got the context, data, interviews all because of’ the local researchers (Interviewee B5). Some cynically reported that ‘They [international researchers] get together for a dinner, drink a lot of alcohol and in the morning, they say they will write the paper/book on my idea. They have natural advantage in writing [in English] but crippling disadvantage in knowing the context’ (Interviewee B5). This goes against academic convention to give credit based on contribution. Participants in Colombia also questioned the unequal relationship between foreign and local researchers, which even undermines local research. There seems to be a social order where the expert is the one who comes and goes, but not the local researcher who has all the information. ‘For foreigners, you are just one professional, nothing more’ (Workshop B).

In other cases, workshop participants reported that drafts they wrote were, slightly edited, published as journal articles by gN scholars. Fearing lost future employment, and therefore a vital income, or unsure where or how to report this type of plagiarism, local researchers have not challenged such unethical practice (Zapata Cancelado et al., 2025). While there might be instances where local researchers wish to remain anonymous because of national politics and repression, or a desire not to be associated with certain research projects and themes, ethical practice and academic convention suggests local researchers should retain agency and that these decisions should follow from an open conversation between all parties, ideally before the start of the research.

Second, and somewhat surprisingly, workshop participants pushed against the tendency to anonymise subjects in reporting research findings. Many ER processes encourage or even require anonymising research subjects, particularly in politically volatile situations, to protect them from harm. Many researchers, however, reported that participants demanded explicit acknowledgement as a condition of participation, as they felt this was one of the few areas of agency and advocacy left to them (Workshop C). In Colombia, one researcher reported that communities are growing more distrustful of researchers and research extractivism, as they see no tangible changes from these studies, saying ‘they are absolutely right to distrust us, since they don’t get something out of it’ (Interviewee C3). Thus, research can serve to build trust that extends beyond the scope of a specific project. Exerting a choice to be recognised implies a more equal relationship, an acknowledgement of the needs of the communities and a corresponding contribution from researchers in response to those needs. This contribution need not be limited to material resources; it could include offering expertise and professional support. In Colombia, for instance, one community chose to favour research processes that emphasised co-creation and capacity building. These approaches valued their active participation and produced tangible benefits for the community (e.g., works of art, public infrastructure, local expertise, local history book) that went beyond academic publications (Workshop C).

Conclusion

This article advances our understanding of research ethics, particularly in conflict- and disaster-affected settings, by highlighting a series of mundane ethical harms that local researchers experience as part of their engagement with the global knowledge production and research ecosystem. Following Hess (1994) argument from the field of business ethics, mundane ethical behaviour matters since it sets the standard of what is acceptable or tolerated. While major incidents of ethical misconduct are rare and atypical, they attract attention and reaction. Mundane ethics, on the other hand, refers to everyday actions and result from what is generally seen as acceptable, and therefore unchallenged, behaviour (Hess, 1994). With a focus on ensuring risk-sensitive and responsible research in C&D settings, we extend the concept of mundane ethical behaviour to provide empirically grounded and comparative insights into the harms that result, especially those encapsulated in the tensions between procedural ethics and the actual practice of research, and some contradictions between gN and local ethics. As our findings illustrate, the formal and procedural ethics review conducted prior to the start of the research does not capture the resulting mundane ethical harms. Instead, they occur throughout the research cycle and are disproportionately borne by local researchers. Local researchers bear the unequal burden of accountability demands stemming from communities who are over-researched and over-promised benefits for their participation. They hold vital contextual knowledge, which is too often undervalued and unrecognised in a research system dominated by gN publications, concepts, and theoretical frameworks. While our research was specific to C&D settings, we suggest these findings would resonate in related fields such as development studies, migration studies, international relations, and human geography, among others.

Following Lederach’s (1997) argument that mid-level actors – those positioned between top-level political leaders and grassroots communities – are crucial to effective peacebuilding and conflict transformation, we argue that the ethical understandings and concerns of local researchers (middle actors in the research space) should play a vital role in defining ethical research practice and setting standards. With reference to peacebuilding, Lederach argues that elite actors often miss local realities and lack legitimacy on the ground, while grassroots actors are better connected but lack resources and connections to elites. The same could be true for ‘middle researchers’.

Furthermore, while the principle of ethical research enjoys broad consensus – much like democracy – its meaning is neither fixed nor widely shared. Our study illustrates that ethical research practice in conflict- and disaster-affected settings is shaped by the interplay of local and international realities that diverge from, and at times conflict with, institutional frameworks rooted in gN paradigms. By centring the experiences of local researchers in the Balkans, Colombia, and Nepal, we highlight the structural tensions they face between the regulatory demands of international actors/donors and the expectations of crisis-affected communities. Rather than endorsing ethical relativism, we identify three cross-contextual commonalities – addressing inequalities in knowledge production, ensuring responsibility towards (over-researched) communities, and recognising the contributions of all participants in the research process. These, we suggest, offer a foundation for developing more grounded and context-sensitive ethics and accountability standards for research in conflict- and disaster-affected settings.

Our comparative findings also have implications for future research. We call for a more in-depth exploration of regional differences, investigating how historical, political, and socio-cultural factors shape local researchers’ perceptions of ethical responsibility, autonomy and accountability to research communities facing difficult circumstances. Such research would help in the development of regionally-grounded ethics frameworks that reflect the overlaps of and uniqueness between different crisis settings. Investigating how different power asymmetries play out across contexts – and how they are navigated or contested by local researchers – could broaden the scope of research ethics beyond universalist assumptions that are present at the moment. Otherwise, ethics might just be lost in the field.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-rea-10.1177_17470161251386531 – Supplemental material for Caught in the middle: Local researchers’ experience of mundane ethical harms in crisis settings

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-rea-10.1177_17470161251386531 for Caught in the middle: Local researchers’ experience of mundane ethical harms in crisis settings by Birte Vogel, Nimesh Dhungana, Nemanja Džuverović, Neeti Aryal Khanal, María Lucia Zapata and Larissa Fast in Research Ethics

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Birte Vogel

Nimesh Dhungana

Nemanja Džuverović

Neeti Aryal Khanal

Larissa Fast

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The British Academy generously funded this project through the Knowledge Frontiers grant programme (grant no. KF7100221).

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Abasli

El Assal

Hafez

(2025) Why are you not doing research in your home country? Dissecting expectations of southern researchers. Development in Practice. 1–13. DOI: 10.1080/09614524.2025.2481519.

Abedi Dunia

Toppo

AOM

Vincent

JBM

(2023) Facilitating Researchers in Insecure Zones: Towards a More Equitable Knowledge Production. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Acharya

Buzan

(2007) Why is there no non-western international relations theory? An introduction. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 7(3): 287–312.

Ansoms

(2024) Spaces for Stories: Passion and Vulnerability in Research. Presses Universitaires de Louvain.

Belloni

(2020) The Rise and Fall of Liberal Peacebuilding in the Balkans. Palgrave Macmillan.

Bhambra

Nişancıoğlu

Gebrial

(2020) Decolonising the university in 2020. Identities 27(4): 509–516.

Bovens

(2007) Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal 13(4): 447–468.

Castañeda-Ruiz

Gómez-Osorio

Londoño-Jaramillo

(2020) Reflexiones sobre la ética de la investigación en Colombia. El Ágora USB 20(2): 283–297.

Chandler

(2006) State-building in Bosnia: The limits of ‘informal trusteeship. International Journal of Peace Studies 11(1): 17–38.

10.

Cronin-Furman

Lake

(2018) Ethics abroad: Fieldwork in fragile and violent contexts. PS: Political Science & Politics 51(03): 607–614.

11.

Desai

Tapscott

Denney

, et al. (2015) Rethinking research: Systemic approaches to the ethics and politics of knowledge production in fragile states. Humanity Journal. https://humanityjournal.org/blog/symposium-on-research-ethics-and-global-knowledge-production/

12.

Dhungana

(2022) Aiming at a moving target: Methodological reflections on the study of politics of citizen-centric governance in post-earthquake Nepal. Disaster Prevention and Management An International Journal 31(1): 31–40.

13.

Dhungana

Khanal

Vogel

, et al. (2024) Unpacking ethical dilemmas and knowledge production processes in conflict and disaster research: Observations from Nepal. Available at: https://pure.manchester.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/347917263/Nepal_Final_Report_no_Annex.pdf (accessed 22 June 2025).

14.

Dickson-Swift

James

Kippen

, et al. (2007) Doing sensitive research: What challenges do qualitative researchers face? Qualitative Research 7(3): 327–353.

15.

Disaster Research Manifesto (2025) RADIX: Radical interpretations of disasters. Available at: https://www.radixonline.org/manifesto-accord (accessed 14 February 2025).

16.

Dzuverovic

(2018) Why local voices matter. Participation of local researchers in the liberal peace debate. Peacebuilding 6(2): 111–126.

17.

Džuverović

Tepšić

(2020) Neoliberal co-optation, power relations and informality in the Balkan International Relations profession. International Relations 34(1): 84–104.

18.

Džuverović

Vogel

Fast

, et al. (2025) Unpacking ethical dilemmas and knowledge production processes in conflict and disaster research: Observations from the Balkans. Available at: https://pure.manchester.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/357459746/Belgrade_Workshop_Report_published_No_Annexes.pdf (accessed 7 March 2025).

19.

Eun

(2023) Knowledge production beyond west-centrism in IR: Toward Global IR 2.0. International Studies Review 25(2): viad015.

20.

Fast

Dhungana

Džuverović

, et al. (2025) The ethics of research collaborations in conflict and disaster settings. HCRI Policy Brief Series 2: 25.

21.

Fisher

(2021) How I dealt with my ethics committee and survived. In: Mac

Brett

Vogel

(eds) The Companion to Peace and Conflict Fieldwork. Palgrave Macmillan, pp.17–33.

22.

Fricker

(2007) Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Clarendon Press.

23.

Gaillard

(2019) Disaster studies inside out. Disasters 43 Suppl 1(S1): S7–S17.

24.

Gaillard

Gomez

(2015) Post-disaster research: Is there gold worth the rush? Jamba: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies 7(1): 1–6.

25.

GMH (2013) Basta ya! Colombia: memorias de guerra y dignidad. Imprenta Nacional.

26.

González González

(2014) Poder y violencia en Colombia. Odecofi-Cinep.

27.

Goodhand

(2000) Research in conflict zones: Ethics and accountability. Forced Migration Review 8(4): 12–16.

28.

Hess

(1994) Business as usual: Ethics as mundane behaviour, and the case of target corporation. Communication Faculty Publications 14. https://ecommons.udayton.edu/cmm_fac_pub/14

29.

Horton

(2008) A ‘sense of failure’? Everydayness and research ethics. Children’s Geographies 6(4): 363–383.

30.

Israel

Hay

(2006) Research Ethics for Social Scientists. Sage Publications.

31.

Kaplan

(1993) Balkan Ghosts: A Journey Through History. St Martins Press.

32.

Kappler

(2013) Coping with research: Local tactics of resistance against (mis-) representation in academia. Peacebuilding 1(1): 125–140.

33.

Kelly

(2021) Researching over-researched societies. In: Mac

Brett

Vogel

(eds) The Companion to Peace and Conflict Fieldwork. Palgrave Macmillan, pp.47–63.

34.

Kent

Williamson

Goodenough

, et al. (2002) Social science gets the ethics treatment: Research governance and ethical review. Sociological Research Online 7(4): 1–15.

35.

Knott

(2019) Beyond the field: Ethics after fieldwork in politically dynamic contexts. Perspectives on Politics 17(1): 140–153.

36.

Kovačević

(2008) Odnos države prema humanističkim naukama u Srbiji početkom XXI veka. Etnoantropološki Problem 3(2): 27–43.

37.

Lederach

(1997) Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. United States Institute of Peace Press.

38.

Macaspac

(2018) Suspicion and ethnographic peace research (Notes from a local researcher). International Peacekeeping 25(5): 677–694.

39.

Mac Ginty

Brett

Vogel

(2021) The Companion to Peace and Conflict Fieldwork. Palgrave Macmillan.

40.

Ministerio de salud (1993) Resolucion 8430. Available at: https://www.minsalud.gov.co/sites/rid/lists/bibliotecadigital/ride/de/dij/resolucion-8430-de-1993.pdf (accessed 25 August 2025).

41.

Mwambari

(2019) Local positionality in the production of knowledge in northern Uganda. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 18: 1–12.

42.

Nyenyezi

Ansoms

Vlassenroot

, et al. (2020) The Bukavu Series: Toward a Decolonisation of Research. Presses Universitaires de Louvain.

43.

Petrović

(2015) Ethics assessment in different countries - Serbia: Satori project report. Available at: https://satoriproject.eu/media/4.h-Country-report-Serbia.pdf (accessed 5 April 2025).

44.

Policy Research Institute (2024) State of research ethics compliance in Nepal’s higher education institutions. Research Brief no. 13. Available at: https://pri.gov.np/content/272/state-of-research-ethics-compliance-in-nepals/

45.

Rawsthorne

Tseris

Howard

, et al. (2023) Using Social Research for Social Justice: An Introduction for Social Work and Human Services. Routledge.

46.

Roth

(2019) Linguistic capital and inequality in aid relations. Sociological Research Online 24(1): 38–54.

47.

Santos Sousa

Nunes

Meneses

(2008) Opening up the canon of knowledge and recognition of difference. In: Santos

SDB

Nunes

Meneses

(eds) Another Knowledge is Possible: Beyond Northern Epistemologies. Verso, pp.vii–xvix.

48.

Schaffer

(2014) Thin descriptions: The limits of survey research on the meaning of democracy. Polity 46(3): 303–330.

49.

Schwartz

Cronin-Furman

(2023) Ill-prepare: International field research methods training. Qualitative and Multi-Method Research 21(1): 1–9.

50.

Smith

(2021) Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Bloomsbury.

51.

Soedirgo

Glas

(2020) Toward active reflexivity: Positionality and practice in the production of knowledge. PS: Political Science & Politics 53(3): 527–531.

52.

Tapscott

Machón

(2025) Procedural ethics for social science research: Introducing the research ethics governance dataset. Journal of Peace Research 62(3): 789–798.

53.

Tripp

(2018) Transparency and integrity in conducting field research on politics in challenging contexts. Perspectives on Politics 16(3): 728–738.

54.

University Grants Commission (Nepal) (2021) Research Development and Innovation Programs Implementation Guidelines, 6th edn. University Grants Commission. Available at: https://ugcnepal.edu.np/uploads/web-uploadsfiles/Research%20Development%20and%20Innovation%20Programs%20Implementation%20Guidelines%2C%202021.pdf (accessed 21 June 2025).

55.

Vogel

(2025) Mind the ethics gap: Embedding research ethics into student fieldtrips to conflict and development settings. Politics. DOI: 10.1177/02633957251344550.

56.

Vogel

Džuverović

Tripathi

, et al. (2024) Upholding hierarchies of knowledge production: Mundane obstacles to global international relations. International Studies Perspectives. DOI: 10.1093/isp/ekae025.

57.

Vogel

Fast

Field

(2025) The Unethical Burden of Public Engagement and the ‘Alt-Output’ Problem. LSE Impact Blog. Available at: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2025/09/08/the-unethical-burden-of-public-engagement-and-the-alt-output-problem/ (accessed 09 September 2025).

58.

Whelpton

(2005) A History of Nepal. Cambridge University Press.

59.

Zapata Cancelado

Vogel

Fast

, et al. (2025) Unpacking ethical dilemmas and knowledge production processes in conflict and disaster research: Observations from Colombia. Available at: https://pure.manchester.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/359980039/Colombia_Workshop_Final_Report.pdf (accessed 17 May 2025).

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB