# Why did not all studies conducted during Darfur’s armed conflict obtain ethics approval? Insights from a qualitative study

## TL;DR

This study explores why some research in Darfur during the armed conflict did not obtain ethics approval, identifying factors like inconsistent definitions and perceived urgency.

## Contribution

The paper introduces a qualitative analysis of ethical oversight challenges in humanitarian research during armed conflict.

## Key findings

- Inconsistent definitions of research and perceptions of low risk contributed to lack of ethics approval.
- Urgency in emergency contexts and prior study approvals were also key factors.
- Gaps in humanitarian governance structures were identified, suggesting the need for specialized ethics oversight.

## Abstract

Armed conflicts are associated with multiple factors that may deem applying the ethical standards of research conducted in war-affected areas hard to achieve, compared to research conducted in peace time.

Using the example of studies conducted by the humanitarian agencies in the war-troubled region of Darfur, west Sudan between 2004 and 2012, a qualitative study was pursued to have a deeper understanding of the factors that affected the reporting of gaining the ethical approval in the published reports of these studies.

A qualitative study was used that involved conducting interviews and focus groups with the relevant stakeholders, namely the representatives of the national and international non-governmental organizations, UN agencies, and the national humanitarian and research governance bodies in Sudan.

38 participants were involved (5 interviewees and 33 participants in the focus groups). The participants expressed a consensus on the need for an ethical oversight for research in the humanitarian settings in Sudan and particularly Darfur. Following a thematic analysis, four main themes were identified to explain why the humanitarian studies in Darfur were not submitted to formal ethical approval. These are (1) Inconsistent definitions of research, (2) Perceptions of low-risk, (3) Perceived urgency due to emergency context, (4) Prior study or tool approval, and (5) Lack of knowledge about ethics review procedures.

Institutional gaps in humanitarian governance structures are identified, urging the need for specialized ethics oversight mechanisms. The dynamic nature of humanitarian crises prompts nuanced approaches to ethical scrutiny, emphasizing policy initiatives to harmonize research and humanitarian governance frameworks and learning lessons from research ethics oversight in public health emergencies.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-025-01194-5.