By Emeritus Professor Gloria Laycock. Published 25 September 2025.
I’m embarking on my research application to a UK Research Council. I’m excited; I know my project is a brilliant one, and I think everyone else should be able to see that too. But first I’ve got to get it through the University (and perhaps Departmental) Ethics Committee. What a bore; it’s obviously ‘ethical’. But never mind, once I get the funding and start the project, I can put all this bureaucracy in the back drawer.
I suspect this is a familiar tale; it is not intended as a criticism. For researchers who genuinely believe that they have the ethical bases covered, the form filling and box ticking can seem like an unnecessary extra chore. But one of the several things I have learned from the Vulnerability & Policing Futures Research Centre (VPRC) is that thinking more deeply about the ethics of research exposes a depth and complexity that is not always obvious.
Background
In 2022 I was invited to become a member of VPRC’s Ethical Oversight Panel (EOP). The Panel was established to advise on ethical issues that arise in the Centre’s work. The EOP is co-chaired by Professor Stephen Holland (University of York) and Professor Iyiola Solanke (University of Oxford). Read more about the EOP membership.
I have no formal qualifications in ethics, but I had worked as an academic for over 20 years following a lengthy period as a Home Office researcher. I accepted the invitation enthusiastically, based on the draft terms of reference (PDF, 106kb), although I was slightly sceptical that we could add sufficient value to justify the bureaucratic cost. That scepticism has now gone, partly because of the way in which the EOP worked with the support of what was a large and complex Centre.
First, we agreed a statement of the values and principles which were to govern the work of the Centre. These fell under eight headings as briefly summarised below.
- Integrity: Upholding our values and principles.
- Inclusive: Equality, diversity and inclusion through all our work.
- Collaborative: A safe space for diverse perspectives to be shared and reflected upon, working toward solutions.
- Open: Transparent decision-making and effective communication.
- Solution-focused: Using evidence to drive social change and generate new ideas.
- Responsible innovation: Challenging conventional practice or wisdom where necessary, always making sure we ‘do no harm’.
- Independent interdependence: Relations with partners which recognise collaboration and connectedness, whilst retaining critical independence as an academic centre of excellence.
- Reciprocity: Commitment to these values and principles in our work with each other and all our partners, expecting everyone connected to the Centre to do the same.
These concepts were to underpin all the Centre’s work, and it was for the EOP to ensure that this happened. This attempt to introduce ‘ethics’ into all aspects of the Centre’s work was in my experience novel. Issues around equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) were constant themes throughout meetings. They arose, for example, at the time of recruitment and grant awards, and the Panel was specifically expected to champion EDI values and help ensure anti-discriminatory practices.
In what follows I give a personal commentary on some of the issues that emerged during the work of the EOP. They range from important and difficult to what might seem relatively trivial (but isn’t).
Selected issues – and their potential solutions
1. A structure for reporting to the EOP
A starting point was that there is too much bureaucracy in the world, so we needed to avoid adding to it. We made sure that all those involved in the Centre were aware of the statement of values and principles. We then worked closely with the Centre’s Leadership Team (LT) and Core Academic Team (CAT) rather than trying to engage with all the many ongoing projects. That said, all researchers were invited to contact the EOP regarding any ethical issues encountered. It was also agreed that the EOP would address big picture challenges at our regular meetings, rather than ethical approval processes or risk management.
2. Paying research participants
Working with people with lived experience raised several complex issues. One was whether and how to remunerate them for their participation. Again, many of the various universities involved had local policies and the Centre’s policy reflected this. Issues included how much could be paid without the risk of HMRC thresholds being breached, which method of payment to use (cash, bank transfer, vouchers), and the need to maintain records of payments for auditing purposes.
3. Unintended consequences of research
Research can sometimes have unintended consequences, one of which can arise from bias in data input. This can lead to spurious correlations particularly when, for example, historical police data sets are involved which have embedded socio-cultural biases. Being alert to this possibility was an essential element involved in the data science projects sponsored by the Centre.
4. Gaining access to data
Delay in accessing data sets, particularly from the police, was a persistent problem arose across several projects. Implicit was an element of risk aversion – all the potential problems that might arise, including those related to confidentiality of data and potential leakage. When the data were eventually provided it was sometimes too late for the specific needs of the project, for example if a dissertation deadline had passed or the research contract had tended. The cost of not providing data in a timely manner was seldom a factor. An excellent paper was presented to the EOP entitled ‘Access Denied – Why Unlocking Data is Critical to the Future of Crime and Policing Research’ which was written by Professor Dan Birks and which invited thoughts on how best to address the problem. It remains an ongoing issue.
5. Researcher stress and vulnerability in doing sensitive research
It was appreciated early in the project that listening to accounts of painful experiences might prove distressing for the research staff. They were regularly reminded that their project leads, peers, and line managers were always available, as was access to a range of formal support services across participating universities. Fieldwork safety guidelines were also provided for those working with vulnerable people in marginalised communities.
6. Who comes first on a publication?
Related to limiting stress on researchers, the EOP asked what the Centre’s policy on co-authorship of publications was. Working across 12 universities increased the complexity with a variety of approaches being possible. Essentially the question of co-authorship, and who was to be named as first author, was to be raised by a project lead at an early stage, should be agreed jointly, and reviewed regularly as a project progressed.
7. Cultural conflicts
Tensions between being seen as supporting a powerful agency (the police) whist maintaining independence, was a challenge. At one of the PhD summer schools Centre Co-Investigator Professor Ben Bradford (UCL) suggested that police power operates on a macro (structural ideologies), meso (institutional practices), and micro (interpersonal dynamics) level. All of which can lead to unexpected outcomes, institutional defensiveness, and a discomfort with academic work. Suspicion of police powers were also sometimes mentioned in community-based projects when a voluntary organisation might be asked to facilitate access to their clients. As with working with the police, this frequently came down to trust – hard won and easily lost.
8. Impact – necessary or not?
It was axiomatic that the work of the Centre should have both policy and practical implications. Research teams were encouraged to create policy briefs or short blogs at interim points throughout projects and to pair researchers with a serving police officer to act as a sounding board for findings. There were also regular meetings, seminars, public lectures, CPD events and conferences to share the wide range of research conclusions.
9. Defining vulnerability
I mentioned at the start of this piece that I had learned a lot from the project, particularly from a keynote speech presented at one of the Centre’s several conferences. I should not have been surprised to hear that seeing ‘vulnerability’ as a characteristic of the individual was rather like my long-held view that emphasising blame when trying to find an offender was not going to reduce crime. Yes, we need to detect crime and find offenders, but if we want to reduce crime, then we need to address the context, the environment, and the opportunity structure within which we (and they) live and which facilitates offending. It is much easier to reduce opportunities than to change people. Similarly, as Darren McGarvey said in his keynote speech:
Vulnerability is not an essence; it’s an exposure. Change the environment—income, housing, education, safety—and you change the vulnerability. Which makes vulnerability political, situational, and in so many cases, solvable.
(McGarvey, 2025).
10. The range of ethical considerations
I end with a short observation on the extent to which ethical considerations permeate all research deeply and fundamentally. As researchers we need to concern ourselves with the unbiased, defensible source of our conclusions. But doing ‘ethical research’ is more than defending its veracity, it is carrying it out ethically, with as much awareness as possible of what can go wrong; anticipating and, if possible, avoiding unintended consequences; being sensitive to the social culture(s) within which we are working; respecting the views of colleagues and others, and thinking carefully about the language we use to define ‘problems’ and their potential ‘solutions’.
End note
The role of the Ethical Oversight Panel was, inter alia, to ensure that the Centre’s work met ethical standards. A major element of this was to ask how the Centre was dealing with any of the many issues that we felt might be ethically relevant and important. In so many cases the Leadership Team and Core Academic Team were ahead of the game. They were able to provide papers and guidance that anticipated the issues about which we were concerned. So, did they need an Ethical Oversight Panel? Who knows… maybe without it they wouldn’t have been so good at their jobs!
Acknowledgement
In addition to the EOP chairs and members, we must recognise the work of Centre Co-Director Professor Kate Brown and Centre Coordinator Emma Williams who were integral to the EOP’s smooth running and success.
Contact
If you would like to hear more about the Ethical Oversight Panel or view the Centre’s guidance on paying research participants, undertaking emotionally demanding research, and approach to co-authorship, please email Kate Brown ([email protected]) or Emma Williams ([email protected]).