{"id":2080,"date":"2026-01-13T10:47:47","date_gmt":"2026-01-13T10:47:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/community-based-research\/?p=2080"},"modified":"2026-01-13T14:04:45","modified_gmt":"2026-01-13T14:04:45","slug":"what-does-good-ethical-practice-look-like-navigating-everyday-ethics-in-par-community-led-research","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/community-based-research\/what-does-good-ethical-practice-look-like-navigating-everyday-ethics-in-par-community-led-research\/","title":{"rendered":"What does ‘Good’ Ethical Practice look like? Navigating everyday ethics in PAR & Community Led Research"},"content":{"rendered":"

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Background<\/strong><\/p>\n

Participatory Action Research (PAR) has been delivered and developed at the University of Reading for more than 10 years. Through a dedicated team of academic and community researchers, PAR projects have delivered wide-ranging impacts both internally at the University and across Reading\u2019s diverse but seldom heard, minoritised communities. We aim to address social inequalities and drive change through co-created evidence-based research and advocacy.1<\/sup><\/p>\n

As part of a series of reflective pieces, and with a particular focus on the Community Led Research Pilot (CLRP) with British Science Association and UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), Dr Alice Mpofu-Coles<\/em> and Dr Sally Lloyd-Evans<\/em> share their experiences of navigating the everyday ethical practices that arise from working with interdisciplinary teams of academics, community organisations and community researchers.<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

The need for more equitable and inclusive practices in community engaged research is a frequently discussed issue among communities, funders, organisations, and researchers, yet the pace of change within institutions remains slow. Working ethically and equitably are central principles that shape participatory research approaches but there remains a gap in researchers\u2019 skills and capabilities, particularly outside the arts, humanities and social sciences. A useful starting point for this\u00a0discussion is a report produced by The Institute of Community Studies and Young Foundation\u2019s on Ethics in Citizen Science<\/a> that identified two overlapping ethical processes that we have found helpful in navigating this topic \u2013 the procedural<\/em><\/strong> processes that govern the institutional ethics approval systems and the practices<\/em><\/strong> that need to be embedded in the everyday working relationships, collaborations and power relations that underpin engaged research. This report, and others, have long been advocating for a focus on everyday practices.<\/em> However, in many research institutions, ethics is still viewed through the lens of institutional governance and formal approval procedures that can unintentionally maintain inequitable, extractive processes in knowledge production and dissemination. When engaging with communities\u2014especially those from marginalised and seldom-heard backgrounds\u2014we know that ethics must extend far beyond mere compliance, but there is often little training or support. Everyday ethical practice is a living, relational process<\/strong>, rooted in humility, responsiveness, care, safety, transparency, and accountability. It is not static; it is reflexive, dynamic, and contextually grounded, and it must start with the everyday.[\/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”1966″ img_size=”large” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]Everyday ethics: Beyond procedural norms<\/strong><\/p>\n

Everyday ethics focuses on developing research practices that pay attention to a set of values and principles around power, inclusion, care, safety, value,<\/em> and trust,<\/em> which form the basis for developing equitable partnerships. Understanding what we mean by \u2018ethics\u2019 is important, as academic researchers often associate it with formal institutional processes that happen towards the start of a research project rather than a dynamic, everyday code of conduct that should be co-designed, critical, and constantly reflected upon and revisited. From valuing communities and those with lived experiences as \u2018experts\u2019, to paying communities fairly for their research contributions and crediting them equally in outputs and intellectual property (IP), being \u2018ethical\u2019 begins with acknowledging that researching with communities requires considerable investment of time, training, skill and reflection to co-create an equitable research programme, which feels safe and inclusive, respectful and mutually beneficial.<\/p>\n

Community researchers and organisations tell us that formal procedures (like university ethical review boards) may not fully capture the real-world complexities<\/strong> of engaging with people\u2019s lives, and academic researchers can also be impacted by the \u2018tightrope\u2019 they walk in the interest of maintaining integrity, ethical responsibility and governance via institutional procedures, which does not prepare them for the reality of practice2<\/sup>. Researchers and community groups alike talk about the tension between \u201cacademia vs the real world\u201d<\/em> as the realities of lived experience and inequity, historical mistrust, positionality, and power dynamics often fall outside formal ethical procedures. Many community groups had experienced a form of extraction when working with universities, which they described as a one-way harvest of information, data, and knowledge used for academic impact rather than a shared journey of mutual collaboration.<\/p>\n

When researching with communities, we would advocate that consideration of ethics should be co-created with organisations and partners from the start. \u00a0Researchers should consider co-creating a \u201cdaily ethics\u201d approach<\/strong>\u2014asking not only “is this compliant?”<\/em> but also “is this just, kind, and respectful?”.<\/em> This often involves:<\/p>\n