Data Collection Done Right: Ethics and Suggested Practices
Imagine participating in a survey, only to later realize that your responses were used in ways you never agreed to. In the rush to collect data, ethical considerations are often overlooked—but they shouldn’t be.
A key part of all research and evaluation work is data collection. While we spend a lot of time thinking about methodologies and sampling, we often treat the ethics of our data collection like it is an after-thought. However, it should be a priority, starting in the planning phase of a project, especially in development and humanitarian spaces. The ethics of data collection is a vast field in and of itself, but this blog offers some suggested practices:
Don’t take informed consent lightly.
Informed consent is the cornerstone of ethical data collection. When creating informed consent forms, ensure that they are simplified and not overwhelming. This ensures that the respondent fully understands what is expected of them and gives truly informed consent. An INTEGRATED team member shared that in contexts where respondents might distrust data collectors, complicated informed consents can further fuel nervousness. Relatedly, ensure compliance with child safeguarding rules when collecting data from minors. This usually entails seeking parental consent for data collection.
Only ask for information that you need, not information that you “would like to know."
In other words, collect the minimum information needed to answer a question. When designing data collection tools, it can be tempting to ask for information that “might be useful at some point in the future” or “would be interesting to know.” Burdening the respondents with a longer survey and having to share more data than necessary is not ethical. Go through each of your survey questions and ask yourself the following two questions:
- What information is this question giving me that the other questions are not?
- How does this information contribute to answering my research questions?
If you find that you already have a question that provides this information or that the data you would collect from this question are not directly relevant to your research questions, you should get rid of it.
Relatedly, be very careful when asking for sensitive data.
The work we do sometimes requires us to ask about information that could be considered to be sensitive. Therefore, enumerators and data collectors should be trained on how to appropriately support the respondent if sensitive data questions lead to feeling overwhelmed or upset. In some cases, the respondents run the risk of re-traumatization. The data collectors should be appreciative of the respondents’ emotional labor when they are answering sensitive questions.
Furthermore, it is essential that data protection is prioritized.
Data should be stored securely. When possible, anonymize and de-identify data to protect respondents’ identities. Also, make sure the storage and transfer methods are secure. If the data are stored physically, ensure that the storage is locked and inaccessible to anyone who enters the office. If it travels with you, keep it on your person and not in a checked bag, for example. If it is on the cloud, choose a platform with appropriate security features, such as encryption and password protection. Set clear guidelines for who can access the data you collect: access should be minimized to just those who need it.
Prioritize the comfort of the respondents.
Think about how to make the data collection process as comfortable as possible for respondents. For example, if a respondent would prefer to speak to a data collector or enumerator of the same gender, ensure you respect those requests. When applicable you should consider hiring local enumerators who would understand the local culture best. Another INTEGRATED team member cautioned that, based on their experience, we should not ask for pictures in communities where respondents might not feel comfortable – especially if photography is unnecessary. People might consent to pictures out of politeness even if they are uncomfortable.
Similarly, be respectful of respondents’ time and effort.
The choice of time and place for data collection should be culturally appropriate and not require too much effort from the respondents. You should accommodate them rather than expecting them to accommodate you. Convey appreciation for them coming in and giving you time—this can be in the form of monetary compensation, refreshments, and/or transportation support, especially if respondents have traveled a significant distance. Offer fair compensation for their work.
Finally, consider power dynamics.
Think about how power dynamics might make the respondents feel, as this can influence the quality of your data. Consider your own positionality. For example, if you are collecting data on service quality on behalf of the organization providing that service, respondents may hesitate to give negative feedback out of concern that it could affect their future access to services.
These are just a few of the many ethical considerations in data collection. Prioritizing ethics not only upholds the integrity of your work but also fosters trust, ensures participant safety, and ultimately results in more reliable and meaningful data.
Breaking the Imbalance: Participatory Action Research as a Decolonial Practice
In 2022, approximately 86% of research articles published worldwide originated from high-income and upper-middle-income countries. Similarly, most international development research is funded by bilateral and multilateral agencies based in the West, reinforcing existing power dynamics in knowledge production.
There has long been a power imbalance between the Global North and Majority World, with the former controlling research funding, resources, narratives, and discourse. These asymmetries limit the research potential of the Global South and allow the Global North to perpetuate false or reductive narratives about the South and its people.
Decolonizing Research
To challenge this imbalance, the concept of “decolonizing research” has gained traction. Decolonial research prioritizes the needs, beliefs, cultures, and contexts of local communities, positioning them as equal partners rather than passive subjects—an approach that combats exploitation.
While there is no singular framework defining decolonial research, several core themes emerge in practice, such as adopting a participatory and engaged approach. This is where Participatory Action Research (PAR) enters the equation.
What is PAR?
PAR is a methodology that empowers local communities by actively involving them in the research process. Rather than being subjects of study, community members are trained in research skills and become co-researchers. This inclusive approach ensures that voices historically excluded from research are centered in the narrative.
At INTEGRATED, we conducted a PAR study across Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, and Tunisia to amplify the voices of women experiencing economic gender-based violence (GBV). Each country team collaborated with a group of co-researchers who were trained in research methodologies and then conducted data collection within their own communities. In total, we worked with 18 local co-researchers across the 4 countries.
As a member of the research team, I participated in an introductory workshop on PAR with country researchers. We shared our personal experiences with economic GBV and reflected on how these shaped our roles in the project. A key focus of our training was shifting our perception of participants from “subjects” to “collaborators.”
Following this, we led multiple workshops to train co-researchers on how to document women’s stories of economic GBV with accuracy and sensitivity. They were also given the opportunity to share their own experiences as part of the research process.
Through these workshops, we formed connections, sharing our personal and professional experiences. In our final session, we played a game called “String Web.” One person started with a ball of string, threw it to another participant, and shared something they had learned from them. The process continued until a web of string stretched across the room—a representation of our collaboration, shared learning, and storytelling.
Shifting the Narrative
By utilizing the PAR methodology, our study presented Arab women’s experiences with economic GBV through a decolonial lens, countering the dominant Western narrative that attributes GBV in Arab and Muslim communities to “backward” cultural or religious beliefs. This stereotype—often framed as the "savage-victim-savior" complex—portrays Arab and Muslim women as victims of their own culture who need saving by the West. Our research challenged this narrative by centering local voices and experiences. It allowed for women to tell their stories of resilience and transformation, a narrative that is rarely captured by the Global North, despite being critical to addressing GBV and finding a way forward.
In the last decade, research publication output from lower-income countries has nearly doubled. Yet, the West continues to dominate funding and knowledge production. Now is the time for researchers in the Majority World to actively embrace decolonial practices and reimagine research production in a way that amplifies historically-silenced voices—ensuring that the “researched” becomes the “researcher.” Voice and agency are indeed heard and activated within the institutions and structures that shape knowledge production.
Check out Hidden Voices: Arabic Women's Stories of Economic Survival.
From Intent to Impact: How Businesses Can Measure Their Contributions to Sustainable Development Goals
Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) financing gaps are estimated to be between 2.5 and 4 trillion US dollars per year. Over the past decade, my work in the development sector has focused on designing and evaluating projects across various sectors to identify what works, what does not, and where successful practices can be scaled for greater socio-economic impact. While much of this work has been donor funded and implemented by development actors, the private sector is increasingly stepping into the spotlight, with investment flows—both public and private—being redirected toward global development challenges framed around the SDGs.
This shift has revealed an emerging collaboration between development practitioners and the private sector, as both share a common goal of addressing global challenges through sustainable and impactful approaches. However, an obstacle remains: while many businesses are increasingly aware of the importance of contributing to social good, they often struggle to measure and demonstrate how their efforts are directly contributing to global development outcomes.
The Challenge of Measuring Impact
As SDG practices gain momentum, one question consistently arises: If we have a strategy that clearly articulates the type of change we seek to elicit, how can we accurately attribute SDG-related outcomes to our specific interventions and work?
This is no small task. In fact, it is a challenge made even more daunting by the rise of "impact washing," a phenomenon gaining prominence in the West. Many companies have mastered the art of crafting polished Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) strategies and SDG goals, often using metrics that prioritize optics over substance. These efforts can make environmentally, or socially harmful practices appear palatable, rather than driving real, measurable change.
While this trend has already taken root in Western markets, the MENA region is at a unique inflection point. ESG and SDG-focused alignment are only beginning to gain traction here, presenting a rare opportunity. Unlike their Western counterparts, MENA countries have a chance to sidestep the pitfalls of superficial metrics and impact washing. Instead, they can leapfrog directly to developing frameworks that prioritize tangible, measurable impact.
The Power of Evidence-Based Methods and Impact Measurement
This is where we bring in Impact Measurement and Management (IMM): a structured approach that helps organizations not only track their contributions to social and environmental outcomes but integrate these insights into decision-making to maximize impact. At INTEGRATED, we have seen how IMM has the potential to provide businesses with the frameworks and tools they need to move beyond broad ESG narratives and toward concrete, evidence-based outcomes tied to the SDGs.
Moving beyond IMM frameworks, to what extent can its principles credibly attribute outcomes to specific interventions, while accurately capturing the true effects of corporate decisions, operations, and investments on communities and the environment?
Credibly linking an intervention to observed changes normally requires rigorous, evidence-based methodologies, with Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) standing out as a gold standard in the development sector. In the Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) world we frequently use RCTs in impact evaluations when organizations seek concrete proof that their programs are making a measurable difference. But there are simpler approaches to demonstrate impact, such as benchmarks, which enable measurement of real change vis a vis a “business as usual” approach.
How would this work in practice?
Consider a telecommunications company launching a digital literacy program aimed at improving employment opportunities in underserved communities. If job placements increase after the program, how can the company be certain that its intervention caused the improvement? By comparing outcomes between a control group (those not exposed to the program) and a treatment group (those who participated), an impact measurement reveals the counterfactual—what would have happened without the program.
This approach and others can be applied to the private sector, enabling businesses to confidently demonstrate their impact. It also adds a crucial layer of credibility, especially for investors who are focused on and care about measurable social and environmental returns. A simple tracer study and benchmarking against national standards can demonstrate an impact level change with clear evidence of causality.
What is to Come?
Many businesses lack the frameworks, tools, and expertise needed to measure and communicate their contributions effectively. This transition requires simple but effective tools in telling the story of impact and accountability. Businesses familiar with Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) can easily transition to this mindset of impact measurement so that we are all able to engage in a private sector world that is able to focus on people, planet, and profit.
