The Practice of Research Ethics in Lebanon and Qatar: Perspectives of Researchers on Informed Consent
Abstract
Informed consent requirements for conducting research with human participants are set by institutional review boards (IRBs) following established guidelines. Despite this, researchers continue to face challenges in seeking and obtaining informed consent. This study discusses researchers’ views of such problems in Lebanon and Qatar, which vary in research regulation. We conducted in-depth interviews with 52 academic researchers from various fields of research in both countries and analyzed them using thematic analysis. Important disjunctions emerged between IRB requirements and actual practice. Variations in obtaining informed consent were affected by the research context, type of research, and the prevalent cultural norms and values. Regulatory systems and guidelines for informed consent do not necessarily ensure ethical research conduct. Implications for improvement are presented.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Participants may be suspicious when asked to sign an Informed Consent Form, fearing it could link back to the government and expose personal details.
“Riesmann (2005) and Nakkash, et al (2017) both give the example of suspicion being giving by participants when asked to sign the Informed Consent Form (ICF).The concern of the participants related to being asked to sign an official form, that they thought could link back to the government of that country, thereby exposing personal details to government officials.”
From A GROUNDED THEORY EXPLORATION OF WELLBEING FOR WOMEN WHO HAVE BEEN FORCIBLY DISPLACED AS A RESULT OF TRAUMA CAUSED BY CONFLICT, BASED ON THE EXPERIENCE OF PARTICIPANTS LIVING IN UGANDA (2025) · cites this paper as Nakkash, et al (2017)
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 39 · Cited by 18
- Authors
- Nakkash, R., Qutteina, Y., Nasrallah, C., Wright, K., El-Alti, L., Makhoul, J., & Al-Ali, K.
- Affiliations
- American University of Beirut (LB)
- Qatar University (QA)
- Nuffield Council on Bioethics (GB)
- University of Gothenburg (SE)
- Qatar University, Doha, Qatar
- Corresponding author
- Makhoul, Jihad
- Venue
- Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2017-09-14
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 352-362
- ISSN
- 1556-2646 (ISSN-L)
- 1556-2654
- OpenAlex
- W2756318640
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 1.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Lirias (submittedVersion)
- Qatar University QSpace (Qatar University) (submittedVersion)
- Edinburgh Napier Research Repository (Edinburgh Napier University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- American University of Beirut
- Fonds National de la Recherche Luxembourg
- Qatar University
- Economic Research Institute
- Qatar National Research Fund
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Keywords
- informed consent, research ethics, research ethics committees, research regulation, researcher perspectives, Lebanon, Qatar, ethical conduct of research
- MeSH terms
- Attitude, Culture, Humans, Informed Consent, Lebanon, Qatar, Research Personnel, Ethics Committees, Research, Ethics, Research, Biomedical Research, Qualitative Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
