2. The San Code of Research Ethics 

This code of research ethics was launched in 2017 by the San indigenous group from South Africa, in reaction to their experiences of being over-researched, and to instances of exploitation and extraction of their knowledge by researchers. For example, the code explains how the San peoples’ traditional knowledge of indigenous plant varieties has been used commercially by companies who have profited globally from using this knowledge, but failed to acknowledge and to set up benefit-sharing agreements with the San. 

The code highlights principles of respect, honesty, care, justice and fairness, and describes how these principles have been violated by researchers in the past. The code requires interested researchers to approach the San in order to begin a process in which research ideas will be collectively discussed. Research must be approved by the community before it can commence. The code invites researchers to “enter through the door,” because “the door stands for the San processes. When researchers respect the door, the San can have research that is positive for us.”

3. The Global Code of Conduct for Research in Resource-Poor Settings 

This Code was published in 2018 as one of the outputs of TRUST – a collaborative EU-funded project, led by Professor Doris Schroeder, head of The Centre for Professional Ethics at the University of Central Lancashire in the UK. The TRUST consortium included partners from institutes across the world, who developed the Code collectively over four years. The code aims to put an end to the export of unethical research practices to low and middle-income countries, and is directed at all research disciplines. It focuses on research partnerships involving significant imbalances of power, resources and knowledge. The code stresses the need for close collaboration between partners in the global north and south through all stages of research, based on the values of fairness, respect, care and honesty. 

5. Accountable Now: Code of Conduct 

Accountable Now is a cross-sector global platform of civil society organisations and networks, which focus on development, humanitarian, environmental, rights-based and advocacy work. It was founded in 2008 and currently has 27 member organisations active in over 150 countries. Accountable Now supports CSOs to be transparent and responsive in delivering impact. 

The Accountable Now: Code of Conduct was published in 2018. It defines five key organisational and team values: openness, horizontality, respect, being self-critical and working in partnership. The code highlights integrity and commitment as core expectations from staff members. Individual and collective responsibilities towards colleagues, external partners and other stakeholders are also highlighted. These include, for example, instructing staff to “Listen to others respectfully and deal with disagreements professionally; Value and welcome diversity of all kinds; Pay due respect to the customs, habits, religious beliefs of the country you are visiting or working in; Pay due respect and value the cultural differences of people from other countries with whom we work; Use language that welcomes and does not offend, alienate or patronise others.”

The code also lists various forms of misconduct, including the abuse of power, discrimination, fraud and corruption, conflicts of interest and security breaches. Disciplinary measures are detailed in a Disciplinary Policy and Procedure publication.

6. TBI Code of Conduct for Working with Indigenous and Local Communities 

This code of conduct was published in 2011 by Tropenbos International (TBI), a network of independent member organisations promoting sustainable use of forests and trees in the tropics, in support of inclusive sustainable development. Each member organisation operates a national programme tailored to the specific local context and related conditions. There are member organisations in Indonesia, Vietnam, Ghana, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Suriname, Colombia and the Netherlands.

The code addresses ethical issues that come up in forest-related research, which is conducted in territories occupied by indigenous and forest-based communities that have local knowledge about ecological issues, such as the use of plants and animals, conditions of the soil, water and forests. TBI developed the code of conduct in order to provide guidelines for researchers in their fieldwork and publications regarding indigenous or local knowledge.

A central principle in the code is the right to free, prior and informed consent, as a way ‘to put an end to a long history of land grabbing, cultural suppression, encroachment and bio-piracy.’ The detailed analysis of the principle of consent includes discussing many other ethical values, such as respect for the cultural and intellectual heritage of indigenous and local communities, building genuine partnership with local and indigenous communities, and ensuring mutually beneficial relationships. The code stresses that local indigenous knowledge or traditional knowledge can only be obtained and made public with the explicit approval of the knowledge holders, which will remain the only rightful owners, and that commercial use of this knowledge necessitates the direct permission of the local and indigenous communities from which it was derived.

2. British Sociological Association – Statement of Ethical Practice

The Statement of Ethical Practice contains helpful sections on covert research, consent, research with vulnerable people and groups, anonymity and confidentiality. The BSA also publish a set of Guidelines on Ethical Research, Ethics Guidelines and Collated Resources for Digital Research, an online forum, and six Digital Research Case Studies.

“This statement forms part of a set of guidelines which relate to a variety of important aspects of professional sociology.

The British Sociological Association gratefully acknowledges the use made of the generic ethics principles produced by the Academy of Social Sciences. We also acknowledge the ethical codes and statements of the Social Research Association, the American Sociological Association, the Association of Social Anthropologists of the UK and the Commonwealth, and the British Psychological Society.

1. The purpose of the statement is to make both BSA members and other sociologists aware of the ethical issues that may arise as they fulfil their varied professional obligations as sociologists and to encourage them to take responsibility throughout for their own ethical practice.

2. The statement does not, therefore, provide a set of recipes for resolving ethical choices or dilemmas (in the context of potentially conflicting interests of the various parties involved), but recognizes that it may be necessary to make such choices, drawing on fundamental principles (congruent with those set out by AcSS).

3. Sociologists work within a wide range of settings (not just in academic sociology departments, but in a variety of adjacent disciplinary departments and research centres, with many sociologists also working outside academia).”

3. International Visual Sociology Association – Code of Research Ethics

This Code of Research Ethics sets out five core principles: Principle A: Professional Competence; Principle B: Integrity; Principle C: Professional and Scientific Responsibility; Principle D: Respect for People’s Rights, Dignity, and Diversity; and Principle E: Social Responsibility; followed by a list of Ethical Standards: Professional Standards, Competence, Professional Responsibilities, Public Communications, Confidentiality, Informed Consent, Plagiarism, Publication Process, Education and Training, and Adherence to the Code of Research Ethics.

“The International Visual Sociology Association (IVSA) Code of Research Ethics and Guidelines sets forth the principles and ethical standards that underlie professional responsibilities doing visual research from a diversity of cultures, disciplinary orientations and methodological approaches, including but not limited to multi-national professions: sociology, anthropology, communications, art, history. These principles and standards should be used as guidelines for research activities in the conduct of professional work. As a guideline this document is intended to aid IVSA members to be aware of ethical issues in the research process, to encourage individual responsibility for ethical practice, and to provide a supportive document for visual researchers pursuing formal approvals from ethics review boards, academic institutions, and prospective sponsors. The document may be included with proposals to raise awareness of the field and to aid interpreters of ethics standards with additional information that supports visual research.”

The IVSA Code of Research Ethics and Guidelines was published as Diana Papademas and the International Visual Sociology Association, “IVSA Code of Research Ethics and Guidelines,” Visual Studies 24, no. 3 (2009): 250–7, DOI: 10.1080/14725860903309187

5. Association of Social Anthropologists of the UK and the Commonwealth (ASA) – Ethical Guidelines for Good Research Practice

The ASA guidance highlights the location of research being undertaken, making a distinction between research that is carried out “at home” and research carried out in places that are “foreign.” The guidance underscores the importance of considering those that researchers encounter when conducting fieldwork, including individuals and groups, as well as colleagues, collaborating researchers, sponsors, funders, employers, gatekeepers, and governments. ASA focuses on the role of the “ethical dilemma” as a feature of current research practice, and the competing duties, obligations, and conflicts of interest experienced by the researcher, suggesting the need to anticipate problems in advance, and providing a set of principles for navigating ethical dilemmas.

“Social anthropologists carry out their professional research in many places around the world; some where they are ‘at home’ and others where they are in some way ‘foreign.’ Anthropological scholarship occurs within a variety of economic, cultural, legal and political settings. As professionals and as citizens, they need to consider the effects of their involvement with, and consequences of their work for; the individuals and groups among whom they do their fieldwork (their research participants or ‘subjects’); their colleagues and the discipline, and collaborating researchers; sponsors, funders, employers and gatekeepers; their own and host governments; and other interest groups and the wider society in the countries in which they work.

Anthropologists, like other social researchers, are faced increasingly with competing duties, obligations and conflicts of interest, with the need to make implicit or explicit choices between values and between the interests of different individuals and groups. Ethical and legal dilemmas occur at all stages of research – in the selection of topic, area or population, choice of sponsor and source of funding, in negotiating access, making ‘research bargains’ and during the research itself conducting fieldwork, in the interpretation and analysis of results and in the publication of findings and the disposal of data.

Anthropologists have a responsibility to anticipate problems and insofar as is possible to resolve them without harming the research participants or the scholarly community. They should do their utmost to ensure that they leave a research field in a state which permits future access by other researchers. As members of a discipline committed to the pursuit of knowledge and the public disclosure of findings, they should strive to maintain integrity in the conduct of anthropological research.

To these ends the Association has adopted the following set of ethical guidelines to which individual ASA Members should subscribe. They follow the educational model for professional codes, aiming to alert researchers to issues that raise ethical concerns or to potential problems and conflicts of interests that might arise in the research process. They are intended to provide a practical framework for Members to make informed decisions about their own behaviour and involvement, and to help them communicate their professional positions more clearly to the other parties involved in or affected by their research activities.

1. Relations With and Responsibilities Towards Research Participants

2. Relations With and Responsibilities Towards Sponsors, Funders and Employers

3. Relations With, and Responsibilities Towards, Colleagues and the Discipline

4. Relations With Own and Host Governments”

6. British Educational Research Association – Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research (4th Editions, 2018).

The BERA Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research highlights the responsibilities of the researcher by dividing the guide into responsibilities for participants (including consent, transparency, right to withdraw, incentives, harm arising from participation in research, privacy and data storage, and disclosure); responsibilities to sponsors, clients and stakeholders in researchers (methods); responsibilities to the community of educational researchers; responsibilities for publication and disseminations (authorship, scope and format); responsibilities for researchers’ wellbeing and development. The BERA Ethical Guidelines follow the process of research practice, tie the advice given into the BERA Code of Conduct, and link this to a set of Research Ethics Case Studies(2019).

“The intended audience for these guidelines is anyone undertaking educational research – be they people whose job description includes research, or others who, for a variety of reasons (including studying for a qualification or with the intention of improving practice), conduct research within the field. This includes both independent researchers and those based in educational institutions of any kind (including but not limited to early years settings, schools, colleges and universities).

The Association expects its members to conduct themselves in a way that reflects its vision, aims and ethical values (as stipulated in the BERA code of conduct).

… We recommend that at all stages of a project – from planning through conduct to reporting – educational researchers undertake wide consultation to identify relevant ethical issues, including listening to those in the research context/site(s), stakeholders and sponsors. This means that ethical decision-making becomes an actively deliberative, ongoing and iterative process of assessing and reassessing the situation and issues as they arise.

BERA recommends that researchers bring these guidelines to the attention of those they work with – including, for example, participants, stakeholders, sponsors and commissioners of research, schools and other organisations – and encourage and support those contacts to engage with them.

… The guidelines are intended to promote active and concrete responses following from a deliberation of the issues. Researchers and their students and collaborators should – in their research proposals, reports, funding applications, work with schools and so on – explicitly indicate how they are adhering to those points included in these guidelines that are salient to their work.”

8. Association of Internet Researchers, Internet Research: Ethical Guidelines 3.0

These ethical guidelines note at the outset that they are collaborative, and built out of, and related to, previous guidelines, and intended for students, researchers and technical developers. They clearly state the principles to which they are committed and the approach they seek to take. For their “Primary Ethical Norms,” these ethical guidelines note that they are rooted in the Belmont Report (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979), and the three principles of respect for persons, beneficence and justice. The “Basic Ethical Approach” is identified as a “ ‘process approach,’ one that aims to develop guidelines from the bottom up in a case-by-case based approach without making a priori judgements …” This approach is reflective, dialogical, context-orientated, and develops the point that “ethics is method” (Annette Markham, 2006). The Guidelines “presume ethical pluralism and cross-cultural awareness,” commenting on the different legal and ethical frameworks, norms, practices, and traditional adopted in different places, for example, deontological approaches in Europe and Scandinavian – “emphasis[ing] first a central imperative to protect the rights basic to human beings as autonomous citizens in democratic societies,” and so focusing on – “dignity, freedom, autonomy, solidarity, equality, democracy and trust.” In contrast it is noted that the UK and the US take a more utilitarian-based approach, considering the greater good for the collective and society in general. These ethical guidelines introduce a set of core ethical concepts, such as selfhood, ethical pluralism, and judgement calls – through which it is argued that ambiguity, uncertainty, and disagreement are inevitable, before moving on to talk through ethical issues at different stages of the research – initial research design, initial research processes, analyses, dissemination, and close of project.

“The AoIR guidelines 2019 (Internet Research Ethics 3.0) are a collaborative document that builds on the previous guidelines (IRE 1.0, 2002; IRE 2.0, 2012) and should be read in conjunction with those. IRE 3.0 is written especially for researchers, students, IRB members or technical developers who face ethical concerns during their research or are generally interested in Internet Research Ethics. As with the previous two AoIR documents, IRE 3.0 is premised on primary commitments to ethical pluralism and cross-cultural awareness, coupled with the experientially-grounded view that ethics starts by asking and answering critical questions rather than taking a more deductive, rule-oriented approach. In particular, long experience with both numerous real-world examples and critical reflection now shows us that each context and stage of research is different and provokes distinct questions. This Preview seeks to guide you through the most relevant issues by asking for your research phase and context. In doing so, the Preview provides an initial starting point and points towards further resources.”

9. iDARE – innovation, design, art, research, ethics

The iDare project was undertaken between October 2015–2017 by a group of researchers based at the University of Melbourne, and involving a number of other Australian universities. It was funded by Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching, and aimed to gather information on the ethical issues facing creative practitioners doing research in Australian universities, through online surveys, focus groups, interviews, and case studies, as well as through a series of events, and workshops, and a conference. iDare produced a set of research papers, and provided guidance on ethical issues for creative researchers via a website containing a list of resources and a toolkit of case studies, and a book – Kate MacNeill and Barbara Bolt (eds), The Meeting of Aesthetics and Ethics in the Academy: Challenges for Creative Practice Researchers in Higher Education (London: Routledge, 2020).

“iDARE stems from the project: Developing new approaches to ethics and research integrity training through challenges posed by Creative Practice Research, investigating new ways of supporting ethical know-how and creative practice research for higher degree research candidates, supervisors, academics and ethics administrators.

We are focusing on developing this website to gather together:

• Best practice resources to assist in the negotiation of ethical concerns within the ethics approval process.

• Best practice resources to facilitate the acquisition of ethical know-how as an ongoing practice embedded in creative research.

The aim of this research is to develop a robust and innovative ethics culture in creative arts and design practices within University research settings. It will examine how the ethics experience in the University setting can best accommodate research in creative practice and design; best prepare PhD/HDR candidates and academic researchers for a professional practice outside the academy and engender the acquisition of ‘ethical know-how’ that will enable graduates to negotiate ethical challenges in their careers.”

11. Just Space – Protocol on research collaboration between community/activist groups and university staff and students on housing and planning issues.

These protocols on research collaboration into urban issues around housing and planning, put forward by the Just Space group, have been developed out of interactions between researchers and local action groups in London over many years. They are intended, in particular, to help researchers better understand the contexts experienced by many of the community and action groups that they might be conducting research for and with, and to take into account these group’s vulnerabilities, including lack of resource, when planning, conducting, and producing research.

“This draft document grows out of experiences of interactions between researchers and local action groups in London, and out of the strongly-felt need that these collaborations should be more extensive, but also that they should be more productive for both parties than they often are. While such collaborations can be very positive, there are pitfalls to be avoided. We offer some hints here for ensuring that there are good outcomes.

This document aims to encourage and assist in the formulation of research and fieldwork projects which answer to the needs of the whole society and in particular of economically weaker groups, whose experiences often have little impact on research agendas. In addition, as research and teaching are under increasing pressure to align with business interests, we felt it important to set out some alternative criteria for good research partnerships.

Relevant projects can range from major university research programmes through dissertations by individual students to field visits as well as class exercises which form part of the education and training of students in social sciences, engineering and built environment professions.

These suggestions are work in progress, initiated by some academics working with the Just Space Network on London Plans and with comments by some activist groups. It is aimed at researchers, students and community groups and tries to use language which will mean the same to all these users. Further comments can be read online and more contributions are welcome at the bottom (go to https://justspace.org.uk/history/research-protocol/ if you are reading off-line)”

12. The Precarious Workers Brigade – Ethics Code (2014)

The Precarious Workers Brigade’s Ethics Code was developed collectively to help its members orient themselves. Based on the shared principle of “putting an end to precarity,” the work of the PWB also includes on their website practical suggestions and tools for making this happen, such as Surviving Internships: A Counter-Guide to Free Labour in the Arts, and Payback Campaigns.

“The document below is our code of ethics, a kind of collectively edited compass that helps us orient, define and do our work as a group and network. This is a document that will always be in draft form, since our considerations on ethics evolve with time and different experiences. This is not law but rather constitutes an attempt at instituting our practice/s with view to consistency, and generate a space for reflection on our collective processes.”

“The PWB’s praxis springs from a shared commitment to developing research and actions that are practical, relevant and easily shared and applied. If putting an end to precarity is the social justice we seek, our political project involves developing tactics, strategies, formats, practices, dispositions, knowledges and tools for making this happen.”

14. A Framework for Making Ethical Decisions – Brown University.

This framework for making ethical decisions, developed at Brown University, gives a theoretical background to ethical theory followed by suggestions set in a decision-making framework concerning how to apply key ethical concepts in practice. The ethical theories put forward include consequentialist theories of ethics, concerned with the ethical consequences of particular actions (utilitarian, egoistic, common good); non-consequentialist theories of ethics, concerned with the intentions of the person making ethical decisions about particular actions (duty-based, fairness or justice, divine command); and agent-centred theories of ethics, concerned with the overall ethical status of individuals, or agents (virtue and feminist). This is followed by a list of the key terms used in applied ethics – obligatory, impermissible, permissible, and supererogatory. Three frameworks for ethical decision-making are then introduced – Consequentialist, which focuses on the future effects of possible courses of action; Duty, which focuses on the obligations of a particular situation; and Virtue, which focuses on character traits around motivation. Each of these approaches are then contrasted in four ways: first, in terms of deliberative process; second, in terms of focus; third, in terms of how ethical conduct is defined; and finally, in terms of motivation. Finally the recommendation is given that when applying the framework to a particular case it is important to follow this process: first, to recognize an ethical issue; second, to consider the parties involved and gather all of the relevant information; third, to formulate actions and consider alternatives; fourth, to make a decision and consider it; fifth, to act; and finally, to reflect on the outcome. The framework is summarised in a useful PDF, which also notes the input of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University, the Ethical Framework developed by the Center for Ethical Deliberation at the University of Northern Colorado, as well as the Ethical Frameworks for Academic Decision-Making on the Faculty Focus.

Six other relevant Protocols/Codes for Ethical Research Practice developed by UK and EU-based institutions related to research:

15. UK Research and Innovation – Professional ethics codes and guidelines – a resource containing a list of relevant research ethics codes, and a key terms glossary.

16. Arts Council England – What Next? Meeting Ethical and Reputational Challenges Guidance

17. The British Academy – Code of Practice

18. BASW (The Professional Association for Social Work and Social Workers) – The Research Ethics Guidebook: a resource for social scientists

19. An EU Code of Ethics for Socio-Economic Research

20. UK Government – Rigour, Respect, Responsibility: A Universal Ethical Code for Scientists

2. American Institute of Certified Planners, Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct, 2016.

The AICP affirms a “special responsibility of our profession to serve the public interest with compassion for the welfare of all people.” The code takes an active stance on social responsibility to address inequalities of opportunity and resources, imploring members to: “seek social justice by working to expand choice and opportunity for all persons, recognizing a special responsibility to plan for the needs of the disadvantaged and to promote racial and economic integration; We shall urge the alteration of policies, institutions, and decisions that oppose such needs; We shall increase the opportunities for members of underrepresented groups to become professional planners and help them advance in the profession; We shall contribute time and effort to groups lacking in adequate planning resources and to voluntary professional activities.”

3. UNESCO Education for Sustainable Development Goals, 2017.

To achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals, UNESCO recommend developing a series of competencies as attributes required for action and self-organisation in complex situations including “systems thinking,” “collaboration,” and “critical thinking.” They state: “As societies around the world struggle to keep pace with the progress of technology and globalization, they encounter many new challenges. These include increasing complexity and uncertainty; more individualization and social diversity; expanding economic and cultural uniformity; degradation of the ecosystem services upon which they depend; and greater vulnerability and exposure to natural and technological hazards. A rapidly proliferating amount of information is available to them. All these conditions require creative and self-organized action because the complexity of the situation surpasses basic problem-solving processes that go strictly according to plan. People must learn to understand the complex world in which they live. They need to be able to collaborate, speak up and act for positive change.”

5. Convention on the Use of Space, 2015.

The Convention on the Use of Space is a legal instrument to support the use value of housing and occupied space over vacancy and speculation, written through a series of public drafting assemblies as “a response to the housing crisis: the lack of affordable homes, absence of provisions for those without legal right to stay, rising rents, and the criminalization of squatting.”

It states that: “certain uses of space create values that cannot be quantified by the market, and that ‘empty’ spaces (abandoned or used for speculation), should be occupied to produce non-marketable uses. Non-marketable uses cover a wide range of activities: living, sharing knowledge and skills, occupying space in protest, running cooperative systems of wealth and labour distribution, providing mental and physical support, or the taking of space in order to protect it from environmental destruction.”

6. Architects Declare, 2019; Architecture Education Declares, 2019; Architects Climate Action Network, 2020.

In 2019, 600 UK architecture practices and 1700 UK architecture academics and students declared a climate and ecological emergency. These landmark declarations urge a “paradigm shift in behaviour” to transform an industry that accounts for “nearly 40% of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions,” insist we “recognise ecological breakdown and global inequality are intimately linked by decolonising alongside decarbonising in order to recognise how threats of ecological breakdown vary in intensity depending on class, race, gender and geography.” ACAN builds on this, calling on practitioners “DECARBONIZE NOW!, ECOLOGICAL REGENERATION! And CULTURAL TRANSFORMATION! to challenge and redefine the value systems at the heart of our industry, creating an open network to share resources and knowledge to aid in this transition.”

8. Architecture Lobby, Manifesto, 2014.

The Architecture Lobby is “an organization of architectural workers advocating for the value of architecture in the general public and for architectural work within the discipline. It believes that the work architects do – aesthetic, technical, social, organizational, environmental, administrative, fiduciary – needs structural change to be more rewarding and more socially relevant. As long as architecture tolerates abusive practices in the office and the construction site, it cannot insist on its role in and for the public good.”

Their manifesto states “We are precarious workers,” demanding wage transparency, research into labour rights, democratic alternatives to the free market and an end to unpaid internships, unpaid overtime and unpaid competitions.

9. Feminist Art and Architecture Collaborative, To Manifest, 2018.

FAAC is an intersectional feminist research group that works to produce new pedagogies for art and architecture. Their collectively written, intertextual manifesto intertwines quotes from works of Sara Ahmed, Tithi Bhattacharya, bell hooks and more to articulate an “intersectional feminist approach to the way we teach, live, and work.”

It includes a demand: “from our institutions (teacher working conditions are student learning conditions. Education should resist the rules and conditions of capital. Institutions should conceive of themselves as ethical and political agents of change – Angela Dimitrakiki) time (for us to transform teaching and for our students to transform learning), space (both physical and metaphorical, to act, think, work, experiment, perform, produce, change, and disrupt in, without being penalized or prosecuted), stability (as a form of respect for our labor, our care, and our rigor; job precarity is immoral) and critical representation (against tokenism and, for underrepresented or overlooked groups, offering a set at any institutional ‘table,’ not just when diversity committees are due).”