Many applied research and evaluation projects operate outside formal institutional ethics systems. Over time, a collaborative peer review protocol developed in applied science and evaluation work has supported a range of projects and published work. This post reflects on how that approach has evolved through use, and what is involved in running a good collaborative peer review.
Many applied research and evaluation projects involving people or communities do not have a clearly structured ethics review process. Independent practitioners, multi-actor partnerships, and cross-institutional projects often do not have access to a university committee or an alternative recognised review pathway.
In this space, teams still need to demonstrate that ethical risks have been considered and responsibilities addressed. The question is not whether ethics applies, but how ethical judgement is exercised and made visible in applied contexts.
The collaborative peer review process and protocols on this site were shaped in response to that practical gap. Over time, they have proved to be a credible and practical way to exercise ethical judgement where institutional systems do not cover the work. In this way, they have been shaped through use in applied settings, with a consistent focus on making ethical reflection structured, explicit, and shared.
Formal institutional ethics committees play a vital role in safeguarding research practice. The collaborative peer review process described here is intended to complement those systems in settings where they are not available or do not cover the work.
Developing a collaborative peer review process
For many years, this social research ethics protocol and collaborative peer review process have been used in applied science and evaluation settings. The earliest version was developed within a New Zealand Crown Research Institute for projects operating outside university systems but still requiring a credible and transparent approach to human ethics review.
Over nearly twenty years of use, the protocol has evolved incrementally while remaining recognisable in its core questions. The ethical domains themselves are relatively stable, but the prompts have been refined, some questions separated for clarity, and new considerations such as the use of AI tools incorporated as practice has changed.
As the approach has circulated through professional networks, others have adapted it to suit their organisational contexts and purposes. I have worked with colleagues to refine the protocol within the applied settings where we have used it. Lessons from these collaborations have been incorporated over time, bringing new areas into clearer ethical focus.
The most recent work has placed particular emphasis on better describing what is involved in managing the process itself, helping teams define responsibilities, convene and facilitate collaborative peer discussions, and document ethical reasoning in ways that strengthen both accountability and learning.
This history reflects a wider shift in applied research practice. Collaborative and multi-actor work is becoming more common, and ethical reflection needs to travel with the work.
Human ethics in multi-disciplinary applied teams
In multi-disciplinary teams, one consistent benefit of collaborative peer review has been demystifying human ethics. Whole teams are encouraged to take part in the review discussion, including biophysical and technical researchers. When they do, the tone shifts. Ethics moves from being seen as an external requirement to being recognised as part of everyday applied work.
This is where ethics becomes real for the whole team, not only for the social practitioners. For example, biophysical researchers who engage with landholders, community groups, or industry partners quickly see that issues of consent, representation, and responsibility are already embedded in their practice. The protocol provides, often for the first time, language and structure for discussing those realities.
In practice, the conversation becomes concrete. Who is being engaged? How are decisions made? How is data collected and shared? Where do risks sit, and what responsibilities follow? Ethics becomes a way of examining the design of the work itself.
For many practitioners, this is where the shift occurs. They have seen how poorly handled engagement can undermine credibility. In a facilitated discussion, that experience is surfaced. It is then translated into practical mitigations grounded in context. Ethics stops being a separate concern and becomes part of how applied work is designed and conducted.
Use a structured protocol to prompt ethical reflection early in a project and use it as the basis for a collaborative discussion that feels like a reflective peer conversation rather than compliance. The agreed protocol is then retained and used as a reference point as the work unfolds. In those settings, confidence in ethical practice emerges through dialogue and shared accountability rather than paperwork alone.
Ethics at programme level
This approach has also proved valuable at programme level.
In another multi-institutional initiative bringing together several projects under one new programme, each project held its own ethics approval. Some were developed through collaborative peer review, and others through more conventional institutional systems.
The peer review created space to consider the programme as a whole. This helped reveal whether there were issues beyond the sum of its parts. How did data flow across workstreams? How were communities represented across different strands of research? Were cumulative burdens or responsibilities being overlooked?
The process did not replace existing approvals. Instead, it provided a coherent framing for understanding human ethics at programme level. It also helped the team recognise that responsibility sits in how projects connect.
This kind of reflection becomes especially important in cross-sector partnerships, where multiple ethical cultures intersect and projects are often reviewed separately within their respective organisations. Bringing those perspectives together creates space to consider how responsibilities connect across the wider programme.
Collaborative peer review provides a structured pathway for that conversation. It offers a way to explore coherence, reciprocity, and shared responsibility across the wider system of work.
Making facilitation and shared learning explicit
The recent refinements have made the facilitative dimension more explicit. They clarify how the review should be convened, who should be involved, and how responsibility is held. The aim is not to formalise the process unnecessarily. It is to make the strengths that have proved effective in practice easier for others to reproduce.
The updated guidance also explains why at least one reviewer should have experience facilitating reflective group discussion. That experience makes it easier to reproduce the depth of conversation that has proved valuable in practice.
The emphasis remains on learning and shared responsibility. Documentation matters, particularly where funders, partners, or publishers expect evidence of ethical review. But the primary purpose is to strengthen practice.
For many practitioners, ethical reflection is inseparable from professional integrity. It is one of the quiet tasks that helps build trust among collaborators and credibility with the wider community.
Clear and collaborative human ethics processes signal that commitment. They show a willingness to examine practice openly, to learn from experience, and to design work that others can trust and build on. This is where questions of governance come into clearer view.
Supporting ethical practice through learning
Over time, this approach has been used in many independent and collaborative research and evaluation contexts to support structured and shared ethical reflection. It does so while recognising that responsibility ultimately sits with the sponsoring organisations and teams. Where formal institutional committees are unavailable to independent teams, a documented collaborative peer review can provide a clear and well-reasoned record of ethical reflection, and a reference point for revisiting commitments over time.
Collaborative peer review, in effect, supports responsible practice through learning. It builds confidence grounded in care, conversation, and documentation. It fits well with adaptive practice and complexity-aware evaluation. In those settings, reflection, iteration, and context-sensitive reasoning are central to quality.
Ethical practice does not begin with a form. It begins with care, attention, and judgement. A well-facilitated peer discussion, supported by a clear and adaptable protocol, can deepen that practice.
Research and evaluation increasingly take place across organisational boundaries, often involving independent practitioners and multi-actor collaborations. In these kinds of settings, ethical accountability cannot rest only on institutional systems. Independent practitioners also need shared tools and credible processes that fit their scale and context.
The updated protocols are designed to support that work. They make it easier for independent and applied teams to integrate ethics into project design, management, and ongoing learning cycles. In doing so, they respond to a persistent gap in independent and collaborative work. They offer a practical way to support both transparent documentation and stronger team practice.
Downloadable protocols
The updated ethics protocols are freely available for download and adaptation. They provide both structured ethics questions and guidance on how to introduce them, including how to run the review as a facilitated and shared learning process. The signed protocol can then be used as a reference point for ongoing reflection and follow-up as the work unfolds. They are designed to support clarity, reflection, and accountability in real-world research and evaluation across different organisational and jurisdictional contexts.
The Human ethics hub page acts as a structured entry point, linking to the protocols, an overview of the collaborative ethics review approach, reflective writing on practice, and curated external resources. Together, these pages provide independent and collaborative teams with a practical and transparent way to exercise human ethics judgement outside institutional systems.
These resources are intended to help teams sustain ethical reflection as a shared practice. They are offered to strengthen capability, not to replace formal committee systems. Users are invited to adapt, improve, and share back their experiences, helping keep this practice ecology alive and evolving.
If you are working independently or as part of a collaborative team and would like to explore how this approach might fit your setting, you are welcome to get in touch.
[* Photo by Alex P via Pexels]
