Professor Colin Clark (University of the West of Scotland) and Professor Alessio D’Angelo (University of Derby)
Ethics is not what happens before the research begins. It is about the values underpinning research and what happens throughout it. This is the core message that permeates the Social Policy Association’s new Code of Ethics and Academic Integrity in Social Policy Research.
For most of us, the word itself – ‘ethics’ – will bring to mind application forms, institutional committees, information sheets, consent procedures, and much more. These all matter. However, the new SPA Code asks us to think more broadly about what ethical social policy research involves nowadays.
Published in Summer 2026, the new code is concerned with how we conduct our research, the questions we ask, whose voices are heard, and unheard, the technologies we embrace, the funding we accept, the colleagues we work alongside and the contribution our research makes to wider society.
This wider perspective is necessary and timely. Social policy research is taking place in a world increasingly sculpted by vast and rapid technological change, widening socio-economic inequalities, political polarisation, and diverse and complex relationships between researchers and a range of stakeholders and constituencies.
As such, the new Code attempts to respond to these realities by offering a broad ethics framework, structured around a set of key responsibilities: to society and the public good; to research participants and communities; to research sponsors and funders; and to colleagues, collaborators and the wider disciplines. These are all grounded in themes of integrity, inclusion, transparency and respect for individuals, communities and societies.
Social policy research is about more than just research
Arguably, the Code’s strongest starting point is its emphasis on the public value and ‘good’ of social policy research. Social policy is, after all, concerned with some of the most burning questions facing contemporary societies: how welfare and well-being are organized and catered for, how resources are distributed, and how inequalities are created, sustained or challenged. In order words, social policy is inextricably connected to ethics.
As such, the Code asks researchers to consider how their work contributes to issues of social justice, inclusion and well-being. This includes paying attention to structural inequalities, creating meaningful opportunities for marginalised communities to shape research, and challenging stigmatising and damaging narratives.
However, this does not mean, by definition, that every piece of social policy research must become an exercise in what is sometimes termed ‘advocacy scholarship’. Academic independence remains important, as does recognising that research has ‘real-world’ consequences.
Indeed, the concepts we use, the questions we ask, and the ways in which we communicate findings all potentially shape public and policy debates. The Code asks us to reflect on those responsibilities rather than assuming that research is somehow entirely separate from the social and political world it seeks to understand.
AI can change the questions we need to ask
Perhaps the starkest difference between this 2026 Code and the SPA’s earlier guidance in 2009 is the space devoted to digital research and artificial intelligence, whose significant and potential paradigm shifting has emerged only very recently. AI and digital tools are already changing the ways in which researchers collect, analyse, and communicate data. They create new opportunities, but they also pose complex ethical risks.
The Code shines a light on issues around bias, transparency, accountability, and consent. Social policy researchers are encouraged to understand the limitations of AI systems, remain alert to the ways in which algorithms may reproduce or amplify existing inequalities, and ensure meaningful human oversight. This is important in social policy research as decisions and predictions involving welfare, child protection, sexuality, disability, migration, or other sensitive areas can have serious consequences for individuals and communities.
The Code also addresses the use of generative AI. Researchers may use tools in activities including drafting, coding, translation, or visualisation, but they remain responsible for the accuracy and integrity of their work. AI use should be appropriately disclosed, outputs must be checked, and AI must never be used to fabricate evidence, quotations or references.
Perhaps most importantly, the Code is clear that AI cannot replace human interpretation and ethical judgement. Social policy research requires context, understanding, and engagement with lived experience and these cannot be reduced to a series of prompts and automated responses.
Consent is more than a signature
The Code also invites us to review assumptions about what constitutes informed consent. Consent is the foundation of ethical research. However, in a world of digital data, data linkage, administrative datasets, and longitudinal research, a signature obtained at the start of a project does not always answer every ethical question that follows.
The Code asks researchers to view consent as a continuing dialogue rather than a one-off event. Participants might require opportunities to revisit decisions about how their information is used. Researchers need to be open about issues including data re-use, linking datasets, automated analysis, and long-term storage. Where individual consent is difficult or impractical, such as some forms of administrative data research, transparency and careful ethical judgement remain essential. In sum, consent should be meaningful, not just procedural.
Participation without tokenism
Social policy has an important tradition of participation and engagement with people whose lives and experiences are directly connected to the issues being researched. The Code reinforces this commitment as well as acknowledging that co-production is not automatically ethical simply because it is described as ‘participatory’.
Indeed, meaningful involvement in research requires resources, accessibility, fair compensation, and real opportunities to influence research. It also requires researchers to acknowledge and address, rather than ignore, differences in power between academics, communities, and co-researchers.
To be sure, this is a critical challenge. Asking people to participate after fundamental decisions have already been agreed and taken is not, in any sense, meaningful co-production. It is not enough to seek ‘lived experience’ input without recognising the knowledge, labour, and emotional demands involved. As such, the Code underlines the importance of meaningful power-sharing, sustained relationships, and support for those involved in research.
Ethical research also depends on how we treat each other
One of the most important features of the Code is its recognition that ethics does not apply only to research participants. Social policy researchers often work with difficult and emotionally demanding issues, including poverty, violence, sexism, exclusion, racism, homophobia, and structural injustice. At the same time, in 2026, academic work involves high workloads, precarious employment, and considerable pressure.
As such, the Code suggests that researchers’ well-being and self-care should be understood as ethical issues. Sustainable, high-quality research depends upon researchers having the capacity to show reflection, awareness and critical judgement.
There is also something here about the wider research culture. The Code calls for collegiality, respectful and timely peer review, constructive mentoring, and support for early career and precariously employed researchers. It also encourages researchers to actively challenge bullying, harassment, and discrimination where it is witnessed.
So, there is a crucial message here for social policy researchers: a discipline committed to social justice in its research should also be attentive to justice, care, and inclusion within its own institutions and professional relationships.
Moving beyond the ethics form
A central theme of the new Code is the point that ethics is not simply about compliance. Ethics approval remains essential. Legal and institutional requirements, of course, matter. However, receiving approval at the start of a project does not bring ethical reflection to a neat conclusion.
Research can and does change during the life cycle of a project. Unexpected dilemmas will emerge. Relationships can emerge and develop. Technologies will absolutely evolve. Sometimes difficult decisions need to be revisited, and occasionally a research design may need to be changed or abandoned.
So, the Code encourages researchers to see ethics as an ongoing practice of reflection, dialogue, care, and accountability. Perhaps that is the challenge, and the opportunity, at the core of the new SPA Code. Ethical social policy research is not about finding a rule for every possible situation. It is about developing the skills and judgement to ask better questions when there is no easy answer. In a changing world, that may be one of the most important responsibilities and strengths of social policy research.
About the new SPA Code
The 2026 Social Policy Association ‘Code of Ethics and Academic Integrity in Social Policy Research’ represents a thorough update, expansion and reorganisation of the earlier 2009 ‘Guidelines on Research Ethics’. This was undertaken by the SPA Executive Committee, with two members of the Committee – Prof. Colin Clark and Prof. Alessio D’Angelo – leading on the process. The new Code was first presented at the SPA Annual Conference 2026 and is now available for download from the SPA website: https://social-policy.org.uk/social-policy-guidelines-on-research-ethics/