It is important for researchers, evaluators, and organisations to check that their projects meet ethical expectations – particularly when work involves social or human dimensions.
This page curates additional resources, frameworks, and reflective papers on ethics in research and evaluation. It complements the Human ethics for independent research and evaluation hub, which introduces how ethics is approached across this site and links to practical guidance and reflective material.
The resources listed here provide background knowledge and professional guidance to support ethical reflection, especially for independent practitioners and those working in applied, community-based, or collaborative settings. If you are looking for practical ethics protocols and templates, start with the Human ethics hub page, which also links to downloadable protocols and guidance for independent research and evaluation.
To explore how ethical reflection and peer-based review work in practice, see the related blog post Working with care: supporting reflection for independent and collaborative researchers. This post reflects on why collaborative ethics processes matter in applied work and how protocols can support shared judgement and learning.
The resources on this page are intended to sit alongside those tools. They offer examples, frameworks, and readings that can help strengthen ethical practice over time. They may be particularly useful when designing or adapting ethics protocols, preparing funding or publication materials, supporting peer review discussions, or deepening reflective practice in applied research and evaluation.
Reflections on ethics in practice
These papers explore some of the challenges faced in real-world ethics processes, particularly in applied, community-based, or collaborative settings.
Responsible research impact: Ethics for making a difference
This 2025 paper by Jensen et al. explores how ethics should guide not just data collection, but the wider impacts of research on society, participants, and future generations. It advocates for flexible, inclusive, and context-aware approaches to ethics—particularly for independent and participatory research. A valuable read for those seeking to embed ethical reflection across the research lifecycle, especially in projects aiming to create meaningful, equitable, and sustainable change.
Experiences of ethical review in social science and humanities research
Based on group interviews with Swedish researchers, this 2025 study explores perceived strengths and limitations of formal ethical review systems. Participants report both appreciation for external oversight and frustration with bureaucratic processes, limited support, and fear-driven compliance cultures. The paper highlights tensions between regulation and self-governance, and raises questions about how ethical review can better accommodate relational, qualitative, and context-sensitive research practices.
Advice for independent researchers and small charities
This 2024 UKRIO advice from Nicola Sainsbury outlines the responsibilities of independent researchers and small charities working without access to institutional sponsorship or ethics review. It emphasises the need for ethical reflection, research governance, and clear accountability—even when working outside formal systems. The guidance discusses sponsorship, risk, insurance, and the distinction between research and other types of activity. It also provides suggestions for seeking independent ethics opinions and managing associated responsibilities.
Research ethics in a changing social sciences landscape
Nicole Brown (2022) explores how shifting research practices—especially in participatory and independent contexts—are straining the fit of traditional ethics review systems. She highlights how fixed institutional processes often fail to accommodate the fluid, co-constructed nature of much contemporary research. Brown calls for “approval in principle” mechanisms, more contextual expertise in review, and ethics pathways accessible to non-affiliated researchers. A strong case for more flexible, reflective, and inclusive approaches to research ethics.
Ethics in evaluation
This 2016 journal editorial by Barnett and Camfield explores how evaluation ethics must go beyond protecting individual participants to consider broader stakeholder relationships and responsibilities to society. Drawing on international development practice, the authors argue for shifting from a “do no harm” approach to one that also aims to “do good.” The paper highlights the need for greater transparency, inclusion, and deliberation about whose voices are heard—and whose are not—throughout the evaluation process.
Ethical issues in participatory research: balancing knowledge and practice
This paper by Wallerstein and Duran explores the ethical tensions and responsibilities that arise in participatory and community-based research. It examines the balance between academic rigour and community relevance, with particular attention to power-sharing, co-learning, and cultural humility. The authors offer principles and case reflections that help clarify how participatory research can remain ethically grounded while producing meaningful outcomes. This is a thoughtful and widely cited contribution to the ethics of collaborative research practice.
Innovation as ethical practice
This 2019 blog post by Gamble, Hagen, McKegg and West explores what ethical practice means for evaluators and co-designers working in developmental, participatory, and systems change settings. It examines the limitations of conventional ethics structures for emergent and adaptive work, and considers what more contextually responsive approaches might look like. A rich and practically grounded contribution from experienced Aotearoa New Zealand and Australian practitioners.
Ethics frameworks and guiding principles
These links provide general frameworks and statements of ethical principles, often developed by professional bodies or advisory committees.
The Royal Society of New Zealand
This 2019 Code of Professional Standards and Ethics in Science, Technology, and the Humanitiessets out the ethical values, principles, and professional standards expected of Royal Society Te Apārangi members. Grounded in both established research ethics principles and Māori values including tika, mana, manaakitanga, and kaitiakitanga, it provides a bicultural framework for ethical practice across all research disciplines. While primarily a membership obligations document, its principles are widely relevant for researchers and evaluators working in Aotearoa New Zealand.
ESRC framework for research ethics (FRE)
The ESRC’s Framework for Research Ethics (2010) sets out principles for social science research involving people, focusing on the dignity, rights, and welfare of participants. It offers practical guidance for researchers and ethics reviewers, covering issues such as consent, risk, and data use. The framework is particularly useful for projects operating under UK standards, but its principles are widely relevant. It includes supporting information sheets and examples to help guide ethical decision-making throughout the research process.
Data Ethics Project: cultivating an ethical mindset in research and evaluation
Developed by Informing Change in partnership with the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, this project offers a freely available Data Ethics Guidebook and Toolkit for practitioners working outside formal academic settings. The resources support evaluators, funders, and nonprofits to strengthen ethical reflection through practical questions, field stories, and a continuum of practices that move from “do no harm” toward actively adding care and value for participants.
Community-based Participatory Research: Ethical Challenges
This briefing from Durham University explores the ethical complexities of community-based participatory research (CBPR). It addresses issues such as power imbalances, informed consent, and meaningful participation, while offering practical strategies for building trust and sustaining collaborative relationships. Emphasising the need for ongoing reflexivity, it encourages shared decision-making and ethical accountability throughout the research journey. This is a valuable resource for researchers working in co-designed, participatory, or community-led projects.
UNEG Ethical Guidelines for evaluation
The UNEG guidelines outline ethical principles for evaluators working across diverse cultural and institutional settings. They emphasise responsible use of power, credible and transparent processes, and sensitivity to the rights and dignity of participants. These guidelines provide a practical framework for ethical decision-making in evaluation practice, particularly within international development and humanitarian contexts. They are intended to guide both individual evaluators and organisations in strengthening accountability and upholding professional standards.
Guiding principles for evaluators
Developed by the American Evaluation Association, these principles set out expectations for ethical and professional evaluation practice. They highlight key areas such as integrity, respect for people, cultural competence, and clarity of purpose. The document is widely used as a foundational reference by evaluators and commissioning agencies. The Australasian Evaluation Society also provides useful guidelines for the ethical conduct of evaluations. These principles can inform both formal evaluation planning and day-to-day decisions in the field.
Gender and evaluation: strengthening inclusion and equity
This updated 2024 UNEG guidance builds on the earlier 2014/2015 handbook and was revised by the Working Group on Gender Equality, Disability Inclusion and Human Rights. It offers practical tools for embedding gender equality, human rights, and disability inclusion throughout the evaluation process. Emphasising participation, cultural competence, and non-discrimination, it reflects evolving practice and aligns with the “Leave No One Behind” principle.
Aotearoa Research Ethics Committee (AREC)
AREC provides independent ethics review for researchers and evaluators working outside academic or clinical settings in Aotearoa New Zealand. It offers a responsive and accessible committee-based review pathway for social research and evaluation projects that lack institutional ethics support. A useful resource for independent practitioners seeking external oversight, and an example of how ethics review infrastructure is evolving to better serve those working outside formal institutional systems.
Indigenous research ethics frameworks
The AIATSIS Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research (2020) provides detailed guidance for culturally respectful research, emphasising Indigenous self-determination, leadership, reciprocity, and benefit-sharing.
The Te Ara Tika Guidelines for Māori Research Ethics (2010, revised 2019) outline a tikanga-based framework grounded in values such as whakapapa, mana, tika, and manaakitanga, offering practical prompts for research and evaluation with Māori communities.
Together, these frameworks highlight the importance of Indigenous leadership, cultural values, and collective rights. While developed in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, their principles are widely relevant across applied research and evaluation contexts.
Health, safety, and well-being in research
These guides focus on safety planning and researcher well-being — particularly relevant for fieldwork and emotionally demanding topics.
Safety in Social Research
This early overview by Gary Craig highlights growing recognition of safety concerns in social research—for both participants and researchers. It outlines the risks involved in fieldwork, especially when dealing with sensitive topics or marginalised communities. The article discusses cultural awareness, institutional responsibilities, and practical steps researchers can take to reduce harm. It also offers ideas for shaping a code of practice that supports ethical and safe working conditions in social research environments.
Health and safety guidance for research undertaken in the community
This 2012 guidance from the University of Bristol focuses on reducing risks in research involving direct engagement with people in community or private settings. It offers a structure for assessing risks associated with interviews, surveys, and observational fieldwork. While the document is written for university researchers, the principles are broadly applicable. It promotes careful planning and proportionate risk management, recognising that no single approach fits all scenarios. The guidance is not prescriptive, but designed to be adaptable.
If you’re working independently or as part of a collaborative team and would like to discuss your approach to ethical reflection or explore a collaborative peer review, feel free to contact me. I’m always happy to explore what might be helpful in your context—whether that’s by email or through a quick videoconference.
If you’ve found this page helpful, consider sharing it with others who might benefit too. You can also sign up for occasional site updates to hear about new tools, guides, and key resources.
[* Photo by Alex P via Pexels]