Published March 31, 2025 | Version 1
Journal article Open

Responsible research impact: Ethics for making a difference

  • 1. Institute for Methods Innovation, Dublin, D02 XE80, Ireland
  • 2. Natural Capital Challenge Centre, Scotland's Rural College (SRUC), Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK
  • 3. Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Business, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK
  • 4. Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, NE1 8ST, UK
  • 5. Spanish Institute of Oceanography (IEO-CSIC), Madrid, 28002, Spain
  • 6. Centre for Applied Health and Social Care Research, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, England, UK
  • 7. Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, WY 82071, USA
  • 8. University of Oxford, Oxford, England, OX1 2JD, UK
  • 9. Plymouth Marjon University, Plymouth, England, PL6 8BH, UK
  • 10. Collaborative Capacities, Exeter, EX2 4DG, UK
  • 11. SGH Warsaw School of Economics, Warsaw, Poland
  • 12. Maynooth University, Maynooth, County Kildare, Ireland
  • 13. Manaaki Whenua - Landcare Research, Lincoln, New Zealand
  • 14. Bibliometrics, Evidence Evaluation and Systematic Review Group (BEERS), Human Medicine Career, Universidad Cientifica del Sur, Lima, Peru
  • 15. Healthy and Sustainable Settings Unit, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, England, PR1 2HE, UK
  • 16. Swansea University, Swansea, Wales, UK
  • 17. York Environmental Sustainability Institute, University of York, York, England, UK
  • 18. AngelWings Ltd, Dunedin, New Zealand
  • 19. Pace University, New York, New York, USA
  • 20. College of the Redwoods, Eureka, California, CA 95501, USA
  • 21. Bangkok University International, Bangkok, 12120, Thailand

Description

The need for ethical guidelines that support and empower researchers who aim to enhance the societal impact of research has become critical. Recognizing the growing emphasis on research impact by governments and funding bodies worldwide, this article investigates the often overlooked ethical dimensions of generating and evaluating research impact. We focus on ethical issues and practices that are specific to the process of intentionally working to develop societal impacts from research. We highlight the complexities and ethical dilemmas encountered when researchers engage with non-academic groups, such as policymakers, industries, and local communities. Through a combination of literature review and insights from participatory workshops, the article identifies key issues and offers a new ethical framework for responsible research impact. This framework aims to guide researchers and institutions through the process of limiting potential harm while delivering societal benefits in a way that is realistic and balanced. The aim is to establish ethical practices for engagement and impact, without making the process so onerous that researchers are less likely to undertake such activities. The article concludes with actionable recommendations for policymakers, research funders, research performing organizations, institutional review boards and/or ethics committees, and individual researchers. Making use of such recommendations can foster an ethically responsible approach to research impact across academic disciplines.

Researchers are increasingly expected to produce work that benefits society. However, when trying to make research useful for the broader public—by working with policymakers, industries, or communities—there can be complex ethical challenges. This article argues that we need guidelines to help researchers handle these challenges in a responsible and ethical way. Drawing on both existing scholarship and hands-on discussions with researchers, the article identifies key ethical issues involved in creating and evaluating social impact from research. These include questions about fairness (who benefits and who might be harmed), consent (whether all participants are fully informed and agree), transparency (how and why research is shared), and accountability (making sure any negative impacts are minimized). To help improve ethical practices aimed at benefiting society, the authors propose a new framework. This framework is designed to help researchers and the institutions that support them think through potential ethical problems in their efforts to create positive change. It also offers practical recommendations for policymakers, research ethics boards and individual researchers. By following these guidelines, researchers can better protect the interests of the people they work with and ensure that their research has a meaningful and responsible impact on society.

Files

openreseurope-5-21255.pdf

Files (975.6 kB)

Name Size Download all
md5:f8787e7abe42c1fddf09178ae04df9ad
975.6 kB Preview Download

Additional details

References

  • Alcoff L (1988). Cultural feminism versus post-structuralism: the identity crisis in feminist theory. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. doi:10.1086/494426
  • (2023). The European code of conduct for research integrity – Revised edition 2023. doi:10.26356/ECOC
  • Antoni S, Beer J (2019). Ethics of care: research impact through empathetic engagement. J Appl Ethics.
  • Asase A, Kemeze FH, Matebore F (2022). Ethical considerations in botanical research. J Bot.
  • Ashton P, Kean H (2009). People and their pasts: public history today. doi:10.1057/9780230234468
  • Bærøe K, Bringedal B, Aakre O (2022). The ethics of research impact: a critical perspective. Research Ethics Review.
  • Balestra C, Fleischer L (2018). Diversity statistics in the OECD: how do OECD countries collect data on ethnic, racial and indigenous identity?. doi:10.1787/89bae654-en
  • Ballesteros M, Dickey-Collas M (2023). Managing participation across boundaries: a typology for stakeholder engagement in the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Mar Policy. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105389
  • Baumeister RF, Leary MR (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews. Rev Gen Psychol. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.1.3.311
  • Bayley J, Phipps D (2023). Extending the concept of research impact literacy: levels of literacy, institutional role and ethical considerations. Emerald Open Res. doi:10.1108/EOR-03-2023-0005
  • Bennett J, Brunton M, Bryant-Tokalau J (2013). Pacific research protocols from the University of Otago. Contemp Pac. doi:10.1353/cp.2013.0013
  • Bernstein MJ, Nielsen MW, Alnor E (2022). The societal readiness thinking tool: a practical resource for maturing the societal readiness of research projects. Sci Eng Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-021-00360-3
  • Bilgen A, Nasir A, Schöneberg J (2021). Why positionalities matter: reflections on power, hierarchy, and knowledges in "development" research. Rev Can Etudes Dev. doi:10.1080/02255189.2021.1871593
  • Bornmann L (2012). Measuring the societal impact of research: research is less and less assessed on scientific impact alone--we should aim to quantify the increasingly important contributions of science to society. EMBO Rep. doi:10.1038/embor.2012.99
  • Bornmann L, Haunschild R (2019). Bibliometrics in research evaluation: a comprehensive overview.
  • Broder ED, Merkle BG, Balgopal MM (2024). Use your power for good: collective action for overcoming institutional injustices impeding ethical science communication in the academy. BioScience. doi:10.1093/biosci/biae080
  • Brugha R, Varvasovszky Z (2000). Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health Policy Plan. doi:10.1093/heapol/15.3.239
  • Burns D, Hyde P, Killett A (2021). Participatory monitoring and evaluation in practice. Development Studies Review.
  • Canfield M, Angeli C, Gillis R (2020). Ethics in collaborative research: best practices for cross-institutional projects. Journal of Collaborative Research.
  • (2017). Ethics assessment for research and innovation – Part 2: Ethical impact assessment framework.
  • Chapman CA (2020). Using the UN Sustainable Development Goals to evaluate research impact. Research Evaluation.
  • Chatfield K, Biernacki O, Schroeder D (2018). Research with, not about, communities - Ethical guidance towards empowerment in collaborative research. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.17926.47686
  • Chin A, Baje L, Donaldson T (2019). The scientist abroad: maximising research impact and effectiveness when working as a visiting scientist. Biol Cons. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108231
  • Chubb J, Watermeyer R (2017). Articulating impact: the role of public engagement in the REF.
  • Collyer FM (2018). Global patterns in the publishing of academic knowledge: global North, global South. Curr Sociol. doi:10.1177/0011392116680020
  • (2019). Responsible innovation self-check tool.
  • Cooke B, Kothari U (2001). Participation: the new tyranny?.
  • Cordaro M (2020). Pouring from an empty cup: the case for compassion fatigue in higher education. Build Healthy Acad Communities J. doi:10.18061/bhac.v4i2.7618
  • Craney M (2020). Elite capture in participatory processes: risks and solutions. Public Policy Review.
  • Crawford E (2020). Research impact and public engagement: insights from the UK REF. Journal of Research Administration.
  • Dahlstrom MF, Ho SS (2012). Ethical considerations in communicating science. Communication Research Trends.
  • Dantas C, Hoogendoorn P, Kryspin-Exner I (2019). AAL guidelines for Ethics, data privacy and security.
  • Darby R (2017). Ethical implications of participatory research methods. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics.
  • Dawson E, Jensen E (2011). Towards a "contextual turn" in visitor research: evaluating visitor segmentation and identity-related motivations. Visit Stud. doi:10.1080/10645578.2011.608001
  • Derrick G, Faria R, Benneworth P (2018). Towards characterising negative impact: introducing grimpact.
  • Donovan C (2019). Assessing the broader impacts of publicly funded research. doi:10.4337/9781784715946.00036
  • (2019). Consequence scanning: an agile event for responsible innovators.
  • Earl S, Carden F, Smutylo T (2001). Outcome mapping.
  • Espig M, Provost S, Russell AW (2024). On intersecting modes of responsibility in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand: a case for reimagining responsible innovation. J Responsible Innov. doi:10.1080/23299460.2024.2331274
  • (2019). Guidance: how to complete your ethics self-assessment for EU Grants.
  • (2020). Standardised key social variables: implementing guidelines.
  • (2021). Guidance note: potential misuse of research.
  • (2024). EU Code of practice on citizen-engagement for knowledge valorisation.
  • (2022). ESS Round 11 source questionnaire.
  • Farkas L (2017). Analysis and comparative review of equality data collection practices in the European Union: data collection in the field of ethnicity. doi:10.2838/447194
  • Francis B, Brey P, Richardson R (2023). D5.6 Ethical sensitivity tools: societal readiness tool and ethical role-playing tool.
  • Greenhalgh T (2018). How to implement evidence-based healthcare.
  • Greenhalgh T (2016). Realist evaluation to assess complex health interventions. British Medical Journal.
  • Guijt I, Gaventa J (1998). Participatory monitoring and evaluation: learning from change.
  • Hauge AM (2020). How to take sides: on the challenges of managing positionality. Journal of Organizational Ethnography. doi:10.1108/JOE-06-2019-0023
  • (2021). Guidance note on the collection and use of equality data based on racial or ethnic origin. doi:10.2838/06180
  • (2023). Guidance note on the collection and use of data for LGBTIQ equality. doi:10.2838/398439
  • (2022). The Inclusive Design Guide.
  • (2018). Ethical OS toolkit – a guide to anticipating the future impact of today's technology.
  • (2024). How to (majorly) boost your communications and content with ChatGPT.
  • (2022). Engaged research principles and good practices.
  • Jackson KF, Goodkind S, Diaz M (2023). Positionality in critical feminist scholarship: situating social locations and power within knowledge production. Affilia. doi:10.1177/08861099231219848
  • Jensen EA (2014). The problems with science communication evaluation. J Sci Commun. doi:10.22323/2.13010304
  • Jensen EA (2015). Highlighting the value of impact evaluation: enhancing informal science learning and public engagement theory and practice. J Sci Commun. doi:10.22323/2.14030405
  • Jensen EA (2020). Why impact evaluation matters in science communication: or, advancing the science of science communication. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3557213
  • Jensen EA (2022). Developing open, reflexive and socially responsible science communication research and practice. J Sci Commun. doi:10.22323/2.21040304
  • Jensen EA, Borkiewicz K, Naiman JP (2024). Picture perfect science communication: how public audiences respond to informational labels in cinematic-style 3D data visualization. PLoS One. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0307733
  • Jensen EA, Gerber A (2020). Evidence-based science communication. Front Commun. doi:10.3389/fcomm.2019.00078
  • Jensen EA, Gray D (2025). Doing research in the real world (6 ed.).
  • Jensen EA, Holliman R (2016). Norms and values in UK science engagement practice. Int J Sci Educ. doi:10.1080/21548455.2014.995743
  • Jensen E, Laurie C (2016). Doing real research: a practical guide to social research.
  • Jensen AM, Jensen EA, Duca E (2021). Investigating diversity in European audiences for public engagement with research: who attends European Researchers' Night in Ireland, the UK and Malta?. PLoS One. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0252854
  • Jensen AM, Jensen EA, Duca E (2022a). How does moving public engagement with research online change audience diversity? Comparing inclusion indicators for 2019 & 2020 European Researchers' Night events. PLoS One. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0262834
  • Jensen EA, Reed M, Jensen AM (2023). Evidence-based research impact praxis: integrating scholarship and practice to ensure research benefits society [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations]. Open Res Eur. doi:10.12688/openreseurope.14205.2
  • Jensen EA, Reed MS, Wong P (2022b). How research data delivers non-academic impacts: a secondary analysis of UK Research Excellence Framework impact case studies. PLoS One. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0264914
  • Jiang X, Topps AK, Suzuki R (2021). A systematic review of self-care measures for professionals and trainees. Train Educ Prof Psychol. doi:10.1037/tep0000318
  • Kennedy EB, Jensen EA, Verbeke M (2018). Preaching to the scientifically converted: evaluating inclusivity in science festival audiences. Int J Sci Educ Part B. doi:10.1080/21548455.2017.1371356
  • Kimmerer RW, Artelle KA (2024). Indigenous approaches to environmental ethics in research. Environ Res Lett.
  • King J, Wate D, Namukasa E (2023). Assessing value for money: the Oxford policy management approach (2 Edition).
  • Kuhn R, Konrad W, Wist SK (2021). Co-creation toolkit: a guidance on the design, development and implementation of effective co-creation in industry-citizen collaboration settings.
  • Kumar S, Cavallaro L (2018). Researcher self-care in emotionally demanding research: a proposed conceptual framework. Qual Health Res. doi:10.1177/1049732317746377
  • Lakshmin P (2023). Real self-care: a transformative program for redefining wellness.
  • (2024). Being Manuhiri: resources for environment and recreation organisations.
  • Majumder MS, Mandl KD (2020). COVID-19 research: pandemic "paperdemic", integrity, values and risks of the "speed science". Forensic Sci Res.
  • Martin J, Desing R, Borrego M (2022). Positionality statements are just the tip of the iceberg: moving towards a reflexive process. J Women Minor Sci Eng. doi:10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2022044277
  • Medvecky F, Leach J (2019). An ethics of science communication. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-32116-1
  • Merkle BG, Bayer S, Shukla P (2022). Sharing science through shared values, goals, and stories: an evidence-based approach to making science matter. Hum Wildl Interact. doi:10.26077/9wss-av78
  • Monmonier M (2018). How to lie with maps.
  • Moosavi L (2020). The decolonial bandwagon and the dangers of intellectual decolonisation. International Review of Sociology. doi:10.1080/03906701.2020.1776919
  • Muller R (2020). New public management in higher education: impact on research and academic practice.
  • Munshi D, Kurian P, Cretney R (2020). Centering culture in public engagement on climate change. Environ Commun. doi:10.1080/17524032.2020.1746680
  • Nabi G (2018). The current state of behavioral insights: exploring applications, opportunities, and challenges.
  • Naepi S (2024). Pacific research methodologies and the ethics of care. Journal of Indigenous Research.
  • (2022). Measuring sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation. doi:10.17226/26424
  • (2023). Trusted research: guidance for academia.
  • (2024). Broader impacts.
  • (2024). Introducing public engagement.
  • (2023). High quality engagement framework.
  • Nicol DJ, Yee JA (2017). 'Reclaiming our time': women of color faculty and radical self-care in the academy. Feminist Teacher. doi:10.5406/femteacher.27.2-3.0133
  • (2023). Research impact privacy notice.
  • Oancea A (2019). Research governance and the ethics of impact.
  • Oliver K, Kothari A, Mays N (2019). The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?. Health Res Policy Syst. doi:10.1186/s12961-019-0432-3
  • Onyango EO (2018). Participatory monitoring and evaluation in practice: insights from the field. Development in Practice.
  • Polfus JL, Simmons D, Neyelle M (2017). Creative convergence: exploring biocultural diversity through art. Ecol Soc. doi:10.5751/ES-08711-220204
  • Porter C (2018). Triple-rigorous storytelling: a PI's reflections on devising case study methods with five community-based food justice organizations. J Agric Food Syst Community Dev. doi:10.5304/jafscd.2018.08A.008
  • Posner S, Cvitanovic C (2019). Evaluating the impact of research on policy and practice. Res Evaluat.
  • Razai MS, Osama T, McKechnie DG (2021). COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among ethnic minority groups. BMJ. doi:10.1136/bmj.n513
  • Reed MS (2018). The research impact handbook.
  • Reed MS (2025). The researcher's guide to influencing policy.
  • Reed MS (2023). What is good practice engagement and impact?.
  • Reed MS (2022). Impact culture.
  • Reed MS, Curzon R (2015). Stakeholder mapping for the governance of biosecurity: a literature review. J Integr Environ Sci. doi:10.1080/1943815X.2014.975723
  • Reed MS, Fazey I (2021). Impact culture: transforming how universities tackle 21 century challenges. Front Sustain. doi:10.3389/frsus.2021.662296
  • Reed MS, Ferré M, Martin-Ortega J (2021). Evaluating impact from research: a methodological framework. Res Policy. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2020.104147
  • Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N (2009). Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J Environ Manage. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001
  • Reed MS, Jensen EA, Noles S (2025). Analyzing who is relevant to engage in environmental decision-making processes by interests, influence and impact: the 3i framework. J Environ Manag. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.123437
  • Reed MS, Merkle BG, Cook EJ (2024). Reimagining the language of engagement in a post-stakeholder world. Sustain Sci. doi:10.1007/s11625-024-01496-4
  • Reed MS, Rudman H (2023). Re-thinking research impact: voice, context and power at the interface of science, policy and practice. Sustain Sci. doi:10.1007/s11625-022-01216-w
  • Redpath SM, Gutiérrez RJ, Wood KA (2015). An introduction to conservation conflicts. Conflicts in conservation: Navigation towards solutions. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139084574.002
  • Reigersberg M (2011). Engaging with impact: research for social change. Action Res.
  • Richard AA, Shea K (2011). Delineation of self-care and associated concepts. J Nurs Scholarsh. doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.2011.01404.x
  • Robson-Williams M (2024). Integrated research toolkit: a hands-on guide to integrated research concepts and techniques.
  • Rosenbaum DP (2002). Evaluating multi-agency anti-crime partnerships: theory, design, and measurement issues. Crime prev studies.
  • (2006). Science communication: a guide for scientists.
  • (2024). Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) self-reflection tool.
  • (2017). Outline of an ethics assessment framework, V.3.0.
  • Secules S, McCall C, Mejia JA (2021). Positionality practices and dimensions of impact on equity research: a collaborative inquiry and call to the community. J Eng Educ. doi:10.1002/jee.20377
  • (2022). SIENNA ethics guidelines for human enhancement R&D.
  • Smith LT (2021). Decolonizing methodologies: research and indigenous peoples.
  • Smith BK, Jensen E, Wagoner B (2015). Quantification. doi:10.1002/9781118766804.wbiect201
  • Smith E, Smith G (2020a). The ethics of research impact: ensuring responsibility in the research process. Journal of Responsible Research.
  • Smith E, Smith G (2020b). Conversations and tools for ethical research impact. Journal of Applied Research.
  • (2014). Society of professional journalists code of ethics.
  • (2022). Toolbox for research integrity.
  • Spec EC, Schwartz ML (2020). Speed science and the rise of preprints. Journal of Scientific Publishing.
  • Tarabochia SL, Brugar KA, Ward JA (2022). Running, writing, resilience: a self-study of collaborative self-care among women faculty.
  • Tharani A, Jarmai K, Schönherr N (2020). The COMPASS self-check tool.
  • Toomey AH (2024). Science with impact: how to engage people, change practice and influence policy.
  • (2018). The TRUST code: a global code of conduct for equitable research partnerships.
  • Tsey K, Onnis LA, Whiteside M (2019). Assessing research impact: Australian Research Council criteria and the case of Family Wellbeing research. Eval Program Plann. doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2019.01.004
  • (2003). Guidelines for good practice in evaluation.
  • (2021). Ethical research in fragile and conflict-affected contexts: guidelines for applicants.
  • (2020). Poverty measurement – guide to data disaggregation.
  • (2020). Minimum quality standards and indicators in community engagement.
  • (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Resolution A/RES/70/1).
  • (2020). Knowledge exchange concordat.
  • (2024). Ethical knowledge exchange and impact practices.
  • Velez-Cruz RJ (2020). Burnout, compassion satisfaction, and secondary traumatic stress among higher education faculty members.
  • Verbeek PP, Tijink D (2020). Guidance ethics approach: an ethical dialogue about technology with perspective on actions.
  • (2020). Ethics and impact: guidelines for researchers.
  • Wagoner B (2017). The constructive mind: Bartlett's psychology in reconstruction.
  • Warren RC, Forrow L, Hodge DA (2020). Trustworthiness before trust: Covid-19 vaccine trials and the black community. New Engl J Med. doi:10.1056/NEJMp2030033
  • Watermeyer R (2022). The impact agenda in the UK: culture, consequences, and challenges. Research Evaluation.
  • Watermeyer R (2019). Competitive accountability in academic life: the struggle for social impact and public legitimacy.
  • Williams O (2013). Research ethics and the Global South: an analysis of compliance and cultural barriers. Journal of Global Health.
  • Williams O, Sarre S, Papoulias SC (2020). Lost in the shadows: reflections on the dark side of co-production. Health Res Policy Syst. doi:10.1186/s12961-020-00558-0
  • Wyatt JP, Ampadu GG (2022). Reclaiming self-care: self-care as a social justice tool for Black wellness. Community Ment Health J. doi:10.1007/s10597-021-00884-9
  • Zaratin P, Bertorello D, Guglielmino R (2022). The MULTI-ACT model: the path forward for participatory and anticipatory governance in health research and care. Health Res Policy Syst. doi:10.1186/s12961-022-00825-2