Developing local authority specific research governance principles

In February and March 2026, 51 people, representing 23 different local authorities took part in online workshops to develop a set of local authority specific research governance principles. 

This report presents the final research governance principles and provides an overview of the steps undertaken to develop them.

Acknowledgements:

We are very grateful to colleagues and public contributors from local authorities, universities and research infrastructure organisations who have helped to develop and revise these research governance principles.

Introducing the final local authority specific research governance principles

Local authorities will always need to be flexible to local circumstances and to develop research governance processes in line with their unique context. These six principles should be viewed as guidelines that local authorities can use to focus or guide the development of research governance processes. They may also be helpful to communicate to internal and external audiences the measures that have been put in place to protect all those involved in research activities.  

These principles align with research governance principles used in other settings (e.g. UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care Research). 

Each principle is presented alongside a set of (non-exhaustive) questions that you may find helpful when thinking through practical ways to respond to each principle in your research governance processes. 

During development of these principles, it became apparent that ethical considerations needed to span all principles rather than a sitting as a standalone principle within a local authority research governance approach. The need to ensure that high ethical standards are maintained at all stages is therefore an aspect of all these principles and the accompanying questions.

We welcome feedback on these principles. Please email feedback to NIHR.RSS.PublicHealth@newcastle.ac.uk.

Developing the research governance principles 

From June 2024 – February 2025, the NIHR Specialist Centre for Public Health (SCPH) (Newcastle and Partners) undertook scoping conversations with 61 local authorities around research governance and ethics. The findings from these conversations identified the need for consistent, national guidelines on what research governance and ethics processes within local authorities should cover and achieve.  

In May and June 2025, local authority colleagues were invited to prioritise research and governance projects. 84 colleagues responded to the prioritisation survey and the development of local authority specific research governance principles was identified as a high priority project.  

SCPH (Newcastle and Partners) developed an initial list of potential principles by reviewing existing national frameworks and research governance processes that are currently in place in local authorities. The key messages, principles and questions in these frameworks were used to create an initial set of 11 draft principles for discussion. 

Online workshops were held in February and March 2026 to review and discuss the principles. 51 people took part, representing 23 different local authorities as well as university partners and colleagues from the NIHR RSS Specialist Centre for Social Care and the NIHR RSS Specialist Centre for Public Health (Southampton and Partners).  

Participants were asked to consider the following questions in relation to each of the principles:  

• What do you think of this principle? Do you agree this is an important principle? 

• What do you think of the language used? Do you feel it is clear, appropriate and relevant? 

Participants were also asked if they felt there were any important principles missing that should be added. 

Each discussion was facilitated by a member of SCPH staff and notes were collated on RREAL sheets. Following the workshop, the RREAL sheets were analysed to identify key themes.  

A set of revised principles were shared with all workshop participants, alongside key points from the workshop discussions, providing the opportunity for any final feedback.

Summary of discussions on draft principles 

1. The safety, welfare and rights of all individuals involved in the activity are identified, prioritised and protected. Risks and benefits have been assessed, balanced and made clear to all. 

• The idea/ethos behind this principle is very important.  

• There seems to be some duplication between this principle and principle 4 (focused on ethical practice) 

• There also needs to be a focus on protecting researchers and organisations overseeing research. 

• It is important to note the political context that local authorities are working in and how this can feed into local perceptions around potential risks and benefits of research.   

• Artificial intelligence and new technologies impact on the trust in communities.  

• Two important concepts are included here – protecting people and assessing risks and benefits. These may need to be separated out.  

• Simpler language such as ‘do no harm’ could be more effective.  

• ‘Balancing’ risks might not be the right language as the benefits of research should outweigh the risks.  

• The duty of care on local authorities should be clear – beyond recognising/ an awareness of potential risks, steps must be taken to mitigate them. This could involve using trauma informed practice. The wording ‘made clear’ doesn’t currently capture this.  

• It is important to balance potential risks with inclusion, ensuring that groups are not excluded from research due to concerns about those risks. 

• Safety and welfare should be considered separately to rights as these are different concepts.  

• Rights should be linked to principle 2. It is not clear which rights this refers to.  

• The safety of the individual should be paramount.  The current wording feels like a balancing act rather than giving the right emphasis. 

2. People, communities and colleagues are meaningfully involved throughout the process. 

• The term ‘meaningful involvement’ is vague and can be interpreted in different ways. It needs to be clearer what good practice looks like, the need to avoid tokenism and the importance of valuing and recompensing community involvement. Alternative wording could be ‘early and active’ involvement. 

• This principle needs to capture that individuals and communities that will be impacted from the research outcomes are represented in the research. 

• There needs to be stronger emphasis on priority groups and seldom heard individuals.  

• ‘People, communities, colleagues’ these are different groups which might need to be involved in different ways.   

• Importance of co-production with the population that will be affected by the activity. 

• It might not be appropriate to involve the whole community in all research – perhaps this principle should include a recognition that involvement needs to be appropriate to the research taking place. 

• The word ‘process’ is unclear – does this mean research activity or something else?  

• It is difficult to see how you would assess this principle when reviewing a research application due to the differences in methodologies that could be used.  

3. Roles and responsibilities of the organisations and individuals involved are agreed (via contracts and agreements where necessary), clear and appropriate. Mechanisms to manage, communicate and insure/indemnify any liabilities relating to the activity are in place. 

• There is too much in this principle. It needs breaking down and simplifying.  

• Suggestion that the second sentence could be removed as the reference to ‘mechanisms’ duplicates reference to risks in principle 1.  Alternative view that this refers to project risks rather than risks to the individual and that both need to be captured in the principles.  

• There is some overlap between this principle and principle 6.  

• The word ‘liability’ may cause concern for some local authority colleagues.  

• Contracts and clearly defined responsibilities and roles are important – but there are different risks to different organisations within any contracting arrangement. For example, small voluntary and community sector organisations are unlikely to have a legal department and have less power in the relationship. Contracts need to be proportionate to the activity.   

• There should be risk-based review with faster pathways for low-risk projects 

• Suggested alternative wording ‘agreements (where necessary), clear and appropriate mechanisms to manage, communicate and …’  

• ‘Clear and appropriate’ is also wording that can be interpreted in several different ways.  

4. High ethical standards are maintained at all stages. When required by legislation, contractual requirements, or local policy, appropriate ethical review arrangements are in place. 

• This is an important principle. 

• What are ‘high ethical standards?’ – what does good practice look like? 

• Definitions are needed for key terms. This term wouldn’t be familiar to most local authority colleagues and can be interpreted as ethical considerations more generally (e.g. compassion in all aspects of research governance) than in specific research activities.  

• The reference to ‘local policy’ is vague. 

• Suggested addition of ‘high ethical standards relevant to research project and/or discipline’ as ethical standards may be different.   

• The wording ‘when required by’ currently makes ethical review seem optional which could be problematic. 

• The reference to legislation feels more appropriate for principle 6, but it is useful when there are specific requirements around ethics.  

• The language here should be simplified – this is primarily about protecting people at all stages. There is overlap with principle 1. 

• Should data management and confidentiality be included in this principle as these are elements of ethical practice? 

5. The approach to, and design of, the activity is clear and appropriate (clear question that can be answered using the methods proposed) and is locally feasible. 

• The term ‘locally feasible’ resonates with some local authority colleagues as all research should be aware of the local landscape (including cultural considerations, availability of services etc.) 

• Some further explanation of what ‘locally feasible’ means might be needed – is it that the right people are around the table or that there are sufficient resources to carry out the research?  

• It is critical here to ensure the question that needs to be answered is the right question and the one that is relevant to the problem. This requires working with stakeholders to establish what the problem is, the identified need for the research and ensuring no-one has answered the question before.  

• There should be a reference to co-production here. 

6. Any legal requirements as well as statutory and professional responsibilities (including duty of care) have been identified and adhered to. 

• Suggested rewording: Any legal requirements as well as statutory and professional responsibilities (including duty of care) have been identified and will be adhered to.  

• There is complexity around the dual roles that local authority colleagues and others fulfil. It needs to be clear that people wear multiple hats, and they shouldn’t be put into conflict. Examples of potential conflicts of interest include:

  1. • Embedded researcher and interns or students working in local authorities – where does the responsibility sit for research undertaken by these individuals?  

     • Local authority colleagues who are both researchers and practitioners

     • Local authority colleagues who are part of research governance arrangements but may also submit research proposals to be reviewed.  

• How can this be operationalised? Who will check that legal requirements have been adhered to?  

7. Any national, local or organisational policies which are relevant to the proposed activity have been identified and complied with. 

• This is an important principle and is not necessarily something that would be considered prior to a research application.   

• There is a lot of overlap between principles 7 and principle 8 – could these two principles be combined?  

• Perhaps the reference to national policies could be removed as local policies already take these into consideration.  

• Alignment with local policies is important, this might be a better word than ‘compliance’, or a caveat that compliance is as far as is ‘reasonably possible’ 

• This principle could refer to a lot of different policies; will any further guidance be given on policies to consider as it can be quite difficult to know what policies might be relevant and should be complied with? 

8. The activity aligns with, or does not contradict, local strategy, priorities or values. 

• This principle is considered important.  

• It is good that it includes a reference to values.  

• The language is more accessible than that used for other principles. 

• Suggestion that the addition of ‘does not contradict’ is removed as ‘aligns with’ sufficient.  

• There is a difference between being in alignment with values, strategies and policies. You wouldn’t want to undertake research that contradicts a local authority’s core values, and you want research that is relevant to the local area but part of the purpose of research is to challenge and improve local policy.  

• Recognition that there will not always be perfect alignment because of the unique nature of the local authority environment and political sensitivities. Potential rewording could be that research activity ‘is sensitive to’ local strategy, priorities or values or to add ‘in so far as possible’. Important to acknowledge that in a political environment, this principle will be challenged on a regular basis and research activities may conflict with the political context.  

• Community priorities for research may be different to internal local authority priorities; it is important to allow for this within this principle. 

• Senior leaders may also request research that was not previously prioritised, and some flexibility needs to be built into research governance processes.  

• It is important for local authorities to be clear about their research priorities for scrutiny of how resources are being used and to give authority to local authorities when working with academic partners (who may have other priorities). Local authorities need to be able to justify why they are undertaking individual pieces of research.  

• It is important to consider a situation whereby research shows that things are not working as well as they could be – this needs to be handled sensitively. Controversial findings and academic independence could be at odds with this principle.  

• It’s important that local authorities are assessing who is proposing which research and for what purpose (example of British Tobacco).  

• More specific examples e.g. aligning with the council’s constitution could be helpful.  

• It is important that the findings of research are also being fed into local policy.  

9. Sufficient financial and other resource is available to cover the activity. Any financial/resourcing implications or risks have been considered and, where necessary, mitigated. 

• This is an important principle, but it can be difficult to operationalise: 

• Sometimes research needs to be done regardless of whether you have appropriate resources 

• It can be difficult to assess the resourcing required  

• Universities have standardised costs, but local authorities don’t have that. 

• Resourcing depends a lot on the activities involved, and the specific expertise needed for undertaking certain types of research. 

• Question whether this principle is necessary in a professional system – is this too specific and operational? This is about the feasibility and quality of planning and avoiding the misuse of resources (feasibility also recognised as a word which can be open to interpretation).  

• Local authorities need to justify their use of resources. A detailed application process can help identify whose time needs to be costed in.  

10. The activity is conducted and managed with integrity and transparency. Clear, auditable data and records are maintained and appropriately protected. Results are reported openly and responsibly. Mechanisms are in place to monitor progress, identify issues and escalate these for resolution. 

• The wording of this principle needs to be simplified. It would not make sense to local authority colleagues in its current form. Words like ‘integrity’ and ‘transparency ‘in research are not widely understood. 

• The first part of the principle is high level; the second part is operational – it feels like a switch in audience way through and is confusing (also noted that having examples of how to operationalise the principle can be helpful).  

• Suggested the second, third and fourth sentences are bullet points that sit below the principle. Responsibilities for these might sit with different departments.  

• This explains good research practice but difficult to summarise in two sentences. It could be that further important elements are missed (such as participant wellbeing). It would be helpful to link to external frameworks that explore this in more depth.  

• A separate principle might be needed around the reporting of results, including reporting findings in plain English and feeding back to participants. Results need to be reported openly and responsibly.  

• Clearer guidance is needed on whose responsibility research integrity is – is it an internal committee, the researchers? 

• This principle needs accompanying guidance so that local authority colleagues can develop a deeper understanding of what’s needed (including what escalation could involve and where it would go, what is meant by ‘auditable data’?)  

• Reporting results: 

• Local authorities need to be able to sign off on research findings before dissemination because of potential reputational risk.  

• It’s not always easy for local authorities to say when things have not worked 

• It’s important to ensure open and responsible reporting  

• Participants should also be told when studies get dropped and why 

• A specific principle on reporting results would be helpful 

• This principle should mention duplication of research and the need for a mechanism/repository to keep track of what research is already being done.  

• This principle needs to relate to public good and that open access means open and relevant access to information.  

11. Where services are changed, or interventions introduced, altered or withdrawn as part of the activity, evidence should be available to justify the proposed change; mechanisms should be in place to adequately monitor and address unintended consequences; and a clear and acceptable approach to continuation or stopping of the intervention at the end of the project should have been agreed at the outset and made clear to all involved. 

• This principle doesn’t fit well with the other principles as it is less high level. 

• It is too wordy and difficult to understand. It potentially needs to be separated out as four different aspects are covered.  

• Local authorities already do equality impact assessments on all changes to services so perhaps this language should be used to demonstrate this relates to an existing process and that research activity should be included in these assessments. Important to emphasise that research isn’t an excuse to negate need to adhere to good practice and policy. Suggestion that this is part of the core work of the council already and should be self-evident. Equality impact assessments provide the evidence that all consequences have been considered.  

• Services do need to be changed, what matters is that these are reported transparently – this is a link to principle 10.  

• This is an important concept but very specific to service development.  

• The most important thing is making it clear the circumstances in which decisions will be made about interventions and ensuring this is agreed at the outset. Crucial that there is transparency around who has made the decision to change the service and that this decision hasn’t been made in the context of an individual with power and influence biasing the decision. 

• It’s unclear which part of the research process this refers to – is this about stopping services after research has been completed?  

• Councils have different priorities to academics in that they have to deliver for their communities.   

• Staff need to receive suitable training to ensure competence in making these decisions.  

• Communities should be included equitably in decisions about changes to services. 

• Concern that research could be used as an excuse not to provide something universally as a comparator group is needed.  

• Is it a conflict if it is agreed that a decision will be taken to continue or stop an intervention according to the research findings?  

• It should be agreed at the outset that if an intervention is causing harm, it should be stopped, even if the original research protocol was that the evaluation would continue for 12 months.  

General overall comments for all principles  

• There is some overlap between the principles and some places where they could be condensed into fewer principles.  

• Some of the language is impenetrable and needs to be simplified with clear terminology.  

• Council staff are looking for information on ‘what do I need to do? How can I do it?’ – they wouldn’t read the principles in their current format.  

• Advice, guidance and practical examples are needed on how to operationalise the principles, including linking to external guidance. Template documents are also helpful.  

• More clarity is needed on who the audience is and the purpose of the principles.  

• Need to think about internal and external audiences and how to communicate the principles. 

• The principles need to speak to local authorities who are at different stages in their research journeys. It’s important that these are not too daunting for those at the beginning of this journey.  

• The principles also need to speak to the different roles local authorities take on within research (host, commissioner, partner/collaborator etc). 

• Local authorities will always need flexibility to respond to their local circumstances. Perhaps these should be called ‘provocations’ or ‘prompts’ as this will make it easier to sell them to colleagues. 

• It might be helpful to group different principles under themes.  

Are there any important principles missing? 

• Inclusiveness, equality and equity – worries about consent with vulnerable groups (e.g. people with dementia or learning disabilities) can mean they get excluded from research 

• Trauma informed practice and the duty of care to research participants and researchers 

• Accountability - Importance of feeding back research findings to the communities and how they are being used to improve things. Importance of research making a tangible difference. Avoiding over researching communities. 

• Data – data protection, confidentiality, data ownership/intellectual property, informed consent and privacy. Questions around Technology and Artificial Intelligence. 

• Intersectionality – how do we ensure we are not blind to this and are responsive to what it means to different parties? 

Of all the principles discussed – which are the most important? 

• Some principles are more foundational, others more directive. Some overarching (e.g. principle 4).  

• Local authorities need to prioritise them differently so they should not be ordered. Numbering brings in a perception of hierarchy. 

• Protecting all those involved in research is the most important principle overall.