Many independent researchers and evaluators work in applied settings where formal ethics review isn’t readily available. This post reflects on why ethical reflection still matters – and introduces a protocol developed to support collaborative, peer-based review and shared learning. It draws on long practice and recent updates to a resource that’s freely available for others to adapt and use.
Ethics in research and evaluation is about balance – of roles, responsibilities, and relationships. The complex issues we increasingly work on – climate change, biodiversity loss, public health, and social inequality – require responses that take account of interconnections and interdependencies. Projects in these spaces often bring together diverse perspectives, work across disciplines, and require meaningful engagement with communities and place-based knowledge. Ethics in these settings is not just about permissions and protocols – it’s about how we collaborate, who we involve, and how we work with care and integrity.
Downloadable protocols are available from the Learning for Sustainability ethics protocols page, with additional frameworks and readings on the companion resources page.
This post explores what ethical reflection can look like in applied research and evaluation, particularly for independent practitioners and collaborative teams working without institutional ethics support. It introduces two practical tools—developed to support ethical thinking as part of collaborative project planning and peer discussion – and shares ideas for how they can be used in practice.
Ethics as a practical part of practice
Ethics in social research and evaluation are sometimes seen as abstract or academic, but they’re better understood as a practical part of project planning. At their core, ethics are about how we work well with others: fairly, transparently, and with respect – including attention to gender equity, cultural safety, and Indigenous protocols where relevant. This includes ensuring informed consent, protecting confidentiality, recognising contributions, and being thoughtful about where power sits, and how it can be shared.
These aren’t just tick-box exercises; they’re part of doing good work, especially in settings where relationships and community engagement matter.
David Resnik’s recent post for the U.S. National Institutes of Health highlights how ethics support trust, accountability, and respect in research – not just for compliance, but for responsible practice. Similarly, Vanclay, Baines, and Taylor’s widely cited paper on ethical professional practice in impact assessment sets out 18 guiding principles grounded in respect, consent, and the responsible use of power. Their work reinforces the idea that ethics is not a checklist, but a professional commitment to context, integrity, and the wellbeing of participants. Together, these perspectives remind us that ethical reflection is not separate from practice, it is central to doing meaningful, credible work.
Changing roles for research and evaluation
Across the social sciences and evaluation practice, the roles of researchers and evaluators are evolving in response to more complex, interconnected problems, and a growing emphasis on collaboration, learning, and change. In participatory action research, community-led evaluation, or co-designed initiatives, knowledge is not simply collected – it is co-created.
At the same time, ethical considerations have broadened. Beyond informed consent or risk mitigation, researchers and evaluators are asked to reflect on fairness, positionality, justice, and power. Who defines success? Who is included or left out? Who benefits from the work, and how are those benefits shared?
As discussed in Jensen et al.’s 2025 paper on responsible research impact, ethical practice must now address both the process and outcomes of research, not just what we do, but how our work shapes futures. Nicole Brown’s 2023 paper, Research ethics in a changing social sciences landscape, also highlights how institutional systems often struggle to accommodate more relational or co-produced approaches. A growing number of researchers and practitioners now work outside these systems altogether.
A growing role for independent researchers—and a gap in support
Many independent researchers, evaluators, and teams working in applied settings are committed to ethical practice. But they often do so without access to formal ethics committees or review systems. This can leave important questions unexamined or unrecorded. Without documentation, ethical reasoning often remains implicit. As a result, potential risks or responsibilities may be overlooked.
This is not a new issue. In 2006, I helped develop a collaborative peer review ethics process for one of New Zealand’s Crown Research Institutes. This included both a structured ethics protocol and a facilitated review conversation – designed for projects operating outside formal university ethics systems but still needing a structured and credible way to support ethical review and reflection. Since then, the protocol has been adapted by other mission-oriented research organisations and used in a range of independent research and evaluation settings.
Over time, the protocol has evolved through use, while remaining recognisable in its core structure and questions. Ethical considerations in applied research are relatively stable, but the prompts have been refined, some questions clarified or separated, and new areas such as the use of AI tools incorporated as practice has changed. The format continues to support self-reflection and peer review, and it is freely available for reuse and adaptation.
Introducing the protocols
These protocols are designed for independent researchers, evaluators, and community-based teams – particularly those working without access to university ethics committees or formal institutional systems. They are not intended to replace existing university processes or forms, which typically follow a different set of requirements.
Instead, the protocols offer an alternative: a structured way to engage with ethical reflection when formal routes are not available. They are especially useful in applied, participatory, or emergent work, where ethics is embedded in relationships, process, and use – not just in compliance steps.
To support this broader conversation, the updated Learning for Sustainability ethics resource page offers two open-access downloadable tools – alongside background readings and guidance.
- A social research ethics protocol – especially relevant for participatory, community-based, and action research.
- An evaluation ethics protocol – for evaluative work, including developmental and applied evaluation settings with additional emphasis on judgement criteria, use of findings, and evaluator independence.
Both protocols are available as fillable Word documents that can be adapted to suit different contexts. They are designed to be flexible – usable as self-check tools or as the basis for a collaborative, peer-facilitated ethics reflection. Prompts guide discussion across a range of themes, from participant involvement and data handling to gender equity, cultural safety, Indigenous protocols, stakeholder engagement, and use of findings.
By supporting transparency and shared dialogue, the protocols help ensure that ethical principles are embedded into project design and delivery – even in the absence of formal review. Users are welcome to adapt these formats to suit their own needs – for example, by adding new questions, rewording existing ones, or embedding the content within tailored formats for a specific organisation or setting.
While one emphasis is on collaborative reflection, a completed protocol, particularly when developed through a peer-facilitated discussion, provides a documented record of ethical reasoning and peer discussion in contexts where no institutional review pathway applies. It can be cited in publications, funding applications, or reports as evidence of ethical due process.
Collaborative peer review as a team conversation
A key feature of how these protocols are used is through collaborative peer review – a facilitated conversation with one or two experienced peers, involving the wider team where possible. This isn’t about one-way critique, but about supporting the team to reflect together on their draft responses.
Experience suggests that these reviews offer benefits well beyond ethical assurance. They encourage wider team ownership of the research or evaluation process, help clarify roles and responsibilities, and give colleagues from different disciplines – such as biophysical researchers – a practical appreciation of what social ethics means in practice. In this way, reviewers contribute their expertise while facilitating reflection, helping the team to appreciate and embed a consideration of ethics more deeply in how the work is done.
Collaborative peer reviews are most helpful when:
- the whole team is involved – including researchers, evaluators, facilitators, project staff, and where appropriate, funders or partners,
- the discussion is held early in the project, before key decisions are locked in,
- reviewers are chosen for their ethical insight, not institutional status.
The review itself is not about ticking boxes. Instead, it invites a shared conversation about how principles like respect, inclusion, and accountability are being upheld in practice. It’s also a valuable opportunity for teams to align on purpose and process, and for funders to better understand how ethics are being considered. Reviews typically take 60–90 minutes and can be held online or in person. Reviewers should have experience in research or evaluation ethics, as well as familiarity with participatory or practice-based work. Ideally, they also bring skills in group facilitation.
As with any project planning process, it’s helpful to set aside time to revise the protocol after the review. Someone from the team should take notes and update the document to reflect the discussion.
Supporting wider access to ethical tools
The ethics protocols are available for download from the Learning for Sustainability ethics resource page. The tools are offered freely for reuse, adaptation, and translation. The accompanying resources and readings page provides further frameworks and background materials for those wanting to explore ethical practice in more depth. As professional bodies such as the British Psychological Society recognise, a flexible ethics template can offer useful guidance for independent researchers working outside institutions. The goal is not to impose a new system, but to support reflection, transparency, and ethical collaboration—especially in spaces where formal structures are lacking.
Ethical practice doesn’t start with a form, but it can be strengthened by one. These protocols help surface conversations that might otherwise remain implicit. They support inclusive, context-sensitive approaches to research and evaluation – and provide a structure for thinking about not just what we do, but how we do it together.
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 talk through what might be helpful in your context – whether that’s by email or through a quick videoconference.
[* Photo by Alex P via Pexels]
