Local authority research governance and ethics scoping report

It presents findings from a local authority research governance and ethics scoping exercise which took place between June 2024 and February 2025. Results from a prioritisation exercise with local authorities (in May and June 2025) are also included.

The report is for people working in, or with, local authorities on research, or activities which may be regarded as ‘research-like’ (for example evidence gathering or data generating projects). This includes those who develop, or manage, research governance and ethics processes.

This report explains why and how this work happened. It presents the findings from the scoping and prioritisation exercises, alongside recommendations. These include work the NIHR Research Support Service Specialist Centre for Public Health (SCPH) is undertaking, or planning. Existing resources and sources of research governance and ethics support are also included.

Thank you to everyone who shared their experience and expertise as part of this scoping and prioritisation work.

What is the aim of this report?

The report intends to:

inform local authorities about the current research governance and ethics landscape
provide reassurance that the challenges faced are not unique, nor insurmountable
highlight key enablers for developing robust research governance and ethics processes
signpost to existing sources of advice, guidance and support

3 key takeaways

enthusiasm, expertise and good practice in local authority research governance and ethics exist
a ‘one-size-fits all’ local authority research governance and ethics approach will not work - flexible, pragmatic and proportionate approaches, that align with local decision-making routes, will
assessing and managing risk is familiar to local authorities. General governance structures and processes are already present - these are good building blocks for research governance and ethics systems

Why might local authorities want to use this information?

to start, or add to, internal conversations about research governance and ethics processes
to benchmark their processes or systems against other existing processes
to inform the development or extension of their research strategy and research governance and ethics processes

If you have any questions or feedback about this report, or about research governance or research ethics in local authorities, you can contact the Specialist Centre for Public Health directly. Please email nihr.rss.publichealth@newcastle.ac.uk.

Getting started with local authority research governance and ethics

As outlined in this report, research governance and ethics in local authorities is not always straightforward. As professionals looking to implement or update research governance and ethics processes, this can be daunting.

You may find the information in section 4 of this report a helpful starting point.

Further information and resources relating to research governance and research ethics are available via the NIHR Research Support Service Specialist Centre for Public Health research governance and ethics pages.

You may wish to start with defining research in local authorities: guidance and decision tool. This document builds on the recent consensus exercise to define research in a local authority setting.

Other sources of information and support include:

the NIHR RSS Specialist Centres for Public Health and Social Care
colleagues with research experience, such as Local Authority Research Practitioners, Public Health Engagement Leads, Embedded Researchers, Consultants in Public Health, and Directors of Public Health, colleagues within Data and Insights teams
colleagues in your Information Governance/Data Protection, Legal, Finance and HR teams
NIHR Health Determinants Research Collaboration colleagues
research governance and ethics support teams within the NHS or university sector

Section 1: Background

Currently, there are no national standards for most* local authority research activities and no accepted definition of what ‘research’ in a local authority actually means.

*Some adult social care research may fall under the Research Policy Framework for Health and Social Care .

Research governance or ethical review requirements within individual local authorities (including which activities are within scope as research) are decided locally. Capacity to support research governance and ethics processes is limited, especially in comparison to other research settings.

As a result of this:

a variety of approaches and processes are utilised - often these are not formalised
it is not always evident what processes are needed, or what they aim to achieve
there is uncertainty for local authority officers involved in, or overseeing, research
there is confusion for researchers (local authority-based and external) working across local authority areas

To further explore these challenges, a scoping exercise with local authorities was undertaken by the SCPH as part of its remit to support local authority research that impacts on the wider determinants of health, and to better understand local authority research governance and ethics processes.

The exercise looked at research governance and ethics processes in use, or planned, within local authorities. It also sought to identify gaps and challenges that the SCPH can help address. The results of the scoping exercise will inform the SCPH’s aims in relation to research governance and ethics that include:

developing a repository of useful research governance and ethics resources
developing recommendations for research governance and ethics processes in local authorities
showcasing the breadth and depth of local authority research governance and ethics frameworks (for example via showcase webinars)

NOTE: The use of ‘research’ and ‘researcher’ in this report are used in a broad sense to reflect the full range of quantitative, qualitative, evaluation and evidence gathering activities that could be considered research in a local authority. Researcher is also used as a general and broad term to reflect local authority officers and external colleagues involved in local authority research (we recognise that this includes officers who may not use the term researcher to identify their role).

About the scoping exercise

Between June 2024 and February 2025, information was collected via informal conversations with local authority officers and other stakeholders. The purpose of these conversations was to scope existing local authority research governance and ethics processes and identify gaps, issues and support needs.

Sixty-one local authorities (59 in England, one in Scotland, one in Wales) participated in these conversations. A selection process was not used. Details of the scoping exercise were circulated via the Specialist Centre for Public Health’s networks and communication channels and anyone who was willing to be involved was included in a conversation.

Figure 1 shows the locations, by region, of the local authorities involved in the scoping conversations. This included 27 local authorities with Health Determinants Research Collaboration (HDRC) funding.

Figure 1: Regions of local authorities involved in the scoping conversations

Roles of the people spoken with and level of seniority were not systematically collected. However, a range of job roles, levels of seniority, and local authority departments were featured. These included Public Health Officers, Principals and Consultants; Local Authority Research Practitioners; HDRC Directors; Research and Research Governance Managers; HDRC Programme and Project Managers; Senior Information Governance Officers; Intelligence and Data Specialists; and Evaluation and Insights Leads. Representatives from departments including Public Health, Adult Social Care, Data and Insights, Transformation and Corporate teams were involved.

Based on the conversations, and identified gaps, a list of potential research governance and ethics projects to take forward was developed by the SCPH. These projects are in addition to ongoing SCPH work to develop a repository of local authority research governance and ethics resources.

Limitations of the scoping approach

This was not a formal piece of research. A framework for analysing the information gained was not considered at the outset therefore data collection has not been undertaken in a format or at a standard to enable formal thematic analysis.

All conversations were summarised and were not recorded or transcribed verbatim.

Conversations were detailed but not all potential issues or scenarios were explored in detail. Just because something wasn’t mentioned, it doesn’t mean it wasn’t an issue it just means that it wasn’t covered.

Attempts were made to follow a consistent set of questions, however as the conversations were informal, they were at times, interviewee led - as a result, questions were not always asked in the same way.

emerging themes were raised in subsequent conversations meaning that some things asked in later conversations were not asked in earlier conversations
it was not always evident who the most appropriate person within an organisation to speak to would be - sometimes this led to follow-up conversations with different people
many local authorities were in the process of developing and updating their research governance and ethics processes at the time of the scoping conversation, therefore there may have been developments since the conversations

Complexity of the landscape

Talking about, and scoping, research governance and ethics processes in local authorities is not straightforward.

It is important to recognise that although pockets of research (in various iterations) have been happening in or with local authorities for some time, a focus and investment in research activity in local authorities at a national level is still new and underdeveloped. This means as a sector, a culture of formalised research, and the attitudes, infrastructure and research governance expertise to go with this, are still developing.

Local authorities are large and complex organisations with a range of different structures and priorities. As a research setting, they are unlike other settings (e.g. NHS or universities) in terms of language, organisational culture and decision-making approaches. They are also political environments.

At the same time, local authorities do not stand in complete isolation from the wider research landscape:

some research activities happening within this setting fall within the remit of the Health Research Authority (e.g. certain types of adult social care research) - yet other research activity, even within a local authority public health or social care setting, falls outside of this
some local authority research activity may involve a university partner, or university lead (these organisations have their own processes and expectations around research governance and ethics
some local authority research may involve other organisations such as those in the voluntary, community or social enterprise sector

This means that when thinking about research governance and research ethics, local authorities face some unique challenges:

The lack of a consistent and agreed definition of what constitutes research in a local authority setting and a lack of clear or consistent, sector-specific research governance and ethics guidelines. Guidance that currently exists around research governance and research ethics tends to have been developed for, and is focused on, narrowly defined health research which typically falls within the remit of the HRA or universities. As noted above, organisational culture, language and decision-making processes within councils are very different to these other settings. Therefore, guidance aimed at these settings is not necessarily relevant, or appropriate for, local authorities.
The need to balance local authority needs and processes with the requirements of other organisations (e.g. HRA, universities) where relevant. Key to this is identifying what the roles and responsibilities of each organisation involved are, and how these will be fulfilled. However, when dealing with organisations with a different language, culture or understanding of certain concepts, this is not always straightforward.
Local authorities are political environments. This means that research priorities, local strategy, culture and values regarding research may be directly or indirectly influenced by the local, or national, political climate. The need for rapidly generated evidence to inform decisions within the political landscape of local government has been highlighted previously . It is likely therefore that processes around research governance and decision making will need to account for this aspect of organisational culture.
Many local authorities have undergone, and are undergoing, reorganisations and restructures. This causes uncertainty for the workforce and can lead to delays in setting up processes for research. This is a feature of local government that needs to be considered when thinking about research governance and ethics processes, how these work within this setting and how they can be sustained longer-term.

To add to this picture, we need to think about the different ways that a local authority may ‘engage’ in research:

as initiator and lead (or co-lead) for research (e.g. ‘homegrown research’- devised and delivered by the local authority)
as a host for research e.g. hosting and (if applicable) delivering or co-delivering (usually) academically-led research projects
as a commissioner of research e.g. employing an external party/organisation to do research on their behalf (often also ‘hosting’ the research or evaluation activity they have commissioned)
as potential ‘consumers’ of research and evidence generated elsewhere (e.g. using research to inform practice or decision-making)

The principles of ethical research and good research governance will apply regardless of the way that the council is engaging with research. However, the process, and extent of systems and oversight needed may vary depending on the engagement type.

Section 2: The current local authority research governance and ethics landscape

Research governance processes

A large proportion of local authorities have some form of research governance process. These are a mixture of formal or informal processes. Of those that do not have a process, the majority are developing, or intending to develop, one.

Formal processes tend to involve a research governance framework or policy, and/or research application and review process. The scope, format and content of these and the underpinning procedures varies.

Informal processes tend to involve department agreement (generally involving sign-off by a senior officer) for an activity. Sometimes extra considerations such as Data Protection Impact Assessment are included.

Existing processes mainly relate to public health and/or social care only. It is often perceived that processes are not well known or utilised across the organisation. Most local authorities would prefer a council-wide approach. This is in recognition of the fact that research into the wider determinants of health spans a range of directorates and services. Avoiding duplication and multiple processes within the organisation is another consideration.

Using a risk assessment to inform the research governance process or level of scrutiny is a common approach. This offers a level of review that is proportionate to the risk.

There is not always a consistent view, or agreement, on:

what research governance in a local authority means
what a local authority research governance process aims to achieve, what it should include, and who it aims to assure

This is particularly the case for research involving local authorities and other organisations.

Lack of research governance processes is seen as a risk to local authorities for several reasons. These include:

the potential risk of harm arising from activities happening without oversight, his also includes concerns around legal and reputational risks
- inability to comply with requirements of research funders or partner organisations who may have expectations around research governance processes
- individual staff members, or the organisation as a whole, choosing not to become involved in research due to uncertainty about the process or lack of mechanisms for organisational sign-off

Research ethics processes

The majority of local authorities rely on university ethical review for research activities.

This appears to be sufficient in many of the cases where it is an available option for local authorities However, there is no straightforward mechanism for local authorities who are not working with a university partner to obtain an external ethical review.

There are also questions about how suitable university ethics processes are for local authority research. This is because of:

timelines
- there is a concern that the processes are too lengthy - local authority research needs to be implemented quickly, therefore lengthy review processes are a barrier to this
the level of expertise, or understanding, within university ethics committees of local authorities and the way they work
capacity and sustainability
- there are concerns as to whether the university ethics system will have sufficient capacity for increasing amounts of local authority research.
approach or understanding of risk
- universities and local authorities may have different perceptions of the risks associated with a research activity
- for example, a local authority team may be highly experienced in working with a particular population and may consider research involving this group as a lower risk than a university would
- alternatively, a university may be more comfortable with certain approaches to using and sharing data than a local authority
suitability of the specific ethics committee within a university that a project goes to
- for example, projects tend to go the department in which the lead university researcher is based - this is not always the most suitable committee for certain areas of local authority research

A number of local authorities utilise an internal ethical review process (as outlined in a recent paper). These include models based around ethical peer review and advice, rather than ‘approval’.

Although research governance and research ethics can be seen as separate but interconnected features of research, in the absence of separate and defined mechanisms for research governance and research ethics, some local authorities are developing combined research governance and ethical review processes.

Use of existing ethical review checklists (e.g. Government Social Research Ethics checklist, UK Statistics Authority Ethics Self-Assessment Tool) to do an initial ethical triage of a project, is another model being used. Activities which are not flagged as high risk, are not subject to further ethical scrutiny. UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) also have a number of checklists for researchers and ethical reviewers which may be relevant for this purpose.

There is an acknowledgement that local authority led ethics processes require knowledge and training in ethical review. Relevant and accessible training in this area has been identified as a need.

Some local authorities are investigating the possibility of paying a university partner to undertake ethical review of projects (where there is no university collaboration). However, this has raised questions about what responsibility for the research the university would be taking on if they issue a decision in their usual way.

There is interest in a mechanism for local-authority specific ethical review (e.g. outside of a university or internal council process).

Awareness and definition of research activities

Most local authorities report a lack of overall awareness across the organisation (e.g. lack of a central record or log) of research or ‘research-like’ activities:

this means that it is not clear how much research is taking place within the organisation
opportunities to identify and reduce duplication are limited
there is no central point to log activity, share findings and store research data for further reference and re-use

Work is ongoing within many local authorities to identify and log research activities.

As outlined in recently published work3, there is variation in how research is defined within a local authority setting. As a result, there is inconsistency across local authorities on which activities fall within scope for research governance and ethics processes.

There is considerable uncertainty and a range of opinions on which activities should be subject to ethical review or research governance processes and which should be excluded. Recently published work indicates that this issue is not just a local authority one. Scoping discussions acknowledged that some activities falling outside 'traditional' definitions of research, still have ethical and governance implications:

some local authorities are proposing to take a more holistic approach to research governance and ethics - his involves focussing on who the activity is with and what it involves rather than how it is defined
capturing all activities involving people or data, rather than a narrowly defined set of activities, may be beneficial - this may help reduce duplication, burden, and the risk of over approaching certain populations or topics
however, this does come with additional resourcing considerations. It may also be a challenge to get colleagues to support a research process model for activities which have historically been out of scope

Differences in corporate structures within local authorities mean that it is not always clear where a research governance function should ‘sit’. Recent work by HDRC North Yorkshire found research governance functions sitting within various local authority directorates. These range from Public Health or Adult Social Care through to Data, Information or Corporate directorates. This reflects what was also found in the scoping conversations. Where a research governance function ‘sits’ may be important for practical purposes and to get widespread ‘buy-in’ across the organisation.

Pragmatic and proportionate approaches

The need for research governance and ethics processes that are robust but also proportionate and pragmatic was a strong feature throughout the scoping conversations. It is essential to ensure that research governance and ethics processes are not seen as overly burdensome or onerous and do not stifle research activity as a result.

A better understanding of, or guidance around, how good research or evidence in a local authority setting needs to be to be useful for practice and decision making was also frequently discussed. Some references were made to the hierarchy of evidence however the need to be pragmatic in this respect, as well as with respect to research governance and ethics processes, was seen as important.

Challenges

Figure 2: Most reported challenges

Figure 2 shows the most commonly reported challenges during the scoping conversations.

Research costing and finance. Including: calculating direct costs for research (staff time, materials and other resources)

calculating and justifying, indirect costs (overheads, support department costs, infrastructure and capacity building)
managing research funding - local authority financial systems don’t always align with systems used by academic partners or research funders
accessing suitable external funding for research - rather than larger grants which involve a longer timeline, smaller, rapid funding opportunities may be preferable

Research costing and finance. Including:

calculating direct costs for research (staff time, materials and other resources)
calculating and justifying, indirect costs (overheads, support department costs, infrastructure and capacity building)
managing research funding - local authority financial systems don’t always align with systems used by academic partners or research funders
accessing suitable external funding for research - rather than larger grants which involve a longer timeline, smaller, rapid funding opportunities may be preferable

Lack of a clear way-in for research. Requests to involve local authorities in research activity come in a variety of ways to a variety of people. Often this is based on existing relationships. This makes it challenging for researchers (internal and external) to identify who they need to go to for approval/authorisation.
Language-barriers (lack of common language within local authorities about research). This makes communication about research in general, and specifically about research governance and ethics, an issue. This includes communication internally, but also communication with external partners (e.g. universities).
Capacity for research governance and research ethics activities. It requires staff resource and time to run a research governance and ethics process. Often processes are implemented or managed by individuals with an interest in research. However, these processes are put at risk when staff leave or change role.
Timelines and additional workload associated with research governance and ethics processes. The need to generate evidence in a timely manner within a local authority setting does not always lend itself to academic research timelines or established models for research governance and ethics processes. There is also a concern that bringing additional layers of governance and ‘red-tape’ into the local authority environment (which already has a lot of bureaucracy) will stifle willingness and an ability to do research.
Building effective and timely collaborations with external partners (e.g. universities). Language barriers and differences in priorities can make establishing effective collaborations a time-consuming process. Local authority research needs and approaches do not always align with academic priorities or expectations.
Access to academic infrastructure to support research activities and dissemination of research. Local authorities sometimes struggle to access academic literature, statistical or other software to support research, or resources to support dissemination routes (academic publication or other).
Management of data for research. Including data sharing and access to, or use of, routine council data for research purposes.

Gaps identified

The main gaps or support needs identified during the scoping conversations were:

Guidance and standards for research governance and research ethics in local authorities. Having consistent, national guidelines on what research governance and ethics processes within local authorities should cover and achieve.
Advice and guidance on communication, influencing, visibility and culture change (for both local authorities and the organisations with which they work on research):

to promote and achieve support (both internally and externally) for robust research governance and ethics processes
to facilitate collaboration with external partners and promote understanding and recognition of the priorities, goals, processes and expertise of each partner

Central repositories of research activity (either at a local or national level) so that there is a wider awareness (within and between organisations) of research activities that are happening, and of research findings.
Case studies and practical examples of how local authorities are approaching different aspects of research governance and ethics.
Training that is relevant to a local authority audience, not just in research skills but also in research governance and ethics.
Clarity on how research in local authorities is defined and which activities within this setting require ethical review and research governance scrutiny (with associated decision tools).
A mechanism to allow local authorities to identify and link with other local authorities and academics with similar research interests or needs.

Section 3: Prioritisation survey

Based on the scoping conversations and the themes that emerged, the SCPH identified a list of projects that could be taken forward to address some of the research governance and ethics gaps.

6 themes, or categories, of project were identified:

Local authority research landscape and language: Projects to explore research and evidence use in local authorities. Including ways that local authorities engage with and use research and what research governance, and research ethics, actually mean.

Managing data for research, education and working with local information governance teams: Projects to support data management and data-sharing for local authority - based research activities.

Large datasets, shared research environments, and use of existing datasets for research: Projects exploring shared research environments and how local authorities can use and link existing datasets for research.

Publications and local authority research infrastructure access: Projects exploring how to support local authorities in publishing their research activities (e.g. in academic journals) and accessing research infrastructure (e.g. journal access, statistical software, reference management tools).

Areas of research interest and collaborations: Projects to support local authorities identify research priorities and to find and work with other local authorities, researchers and organisations, on research.

Research costings and research finance: Projects to support local authorities around costing for research activities (direct and indirect costs), communicating with partners around research costing and finance and exploring options for research funding.

To ensure that the projects and themes taken forward reflected the priorities of local authority colleagues, an online prioritisation survey was circulated between May and June 2025.

This survey was aimed at local authority officers and those working with local authorities on research.

A total of 84 responses were received, these included 65 responses from individuals and 19 responses on behalf of a wider team. Eighty-nine percent of respondents were employed by a local authority, four percent were university employees who were embedded within a local authority, six percent were working with a local authority but employed elsewhere and one percent were previous local authority employees.

Respondents were asked to rank the 6 project themes from most to least important.

Figure 3: Overall ranking of project themes

Priority areas that emerged are:
research language and landscape
areas of research interest and collaborations
managing data for research, education and working with local information governance teams

The majority of comments received related to disseminating findings and research finance and funding. Although these aspects did not score as well in ranking, and may not always be assumed to be associated with research governance and ethics, they are clearly still important.

Also clear from responses and comments was a desire for practical tools alongside, or instead of, guidance. This includes templates, checklists, worked examples and case studies.

Survey engagement and responses showed that nothing was 'low priority'. This reflects the enthusiasm of the workforce and the many opportunities we have to make useful change. It is also daunting given the scale, breadth and depth of the things we are all looking to achieve.

High priority projects that the SCPH will be taking forward (in addition to the repository of research governance and ethics resources) in the short term include:

Project

Draft timeline

Developing more understanding of what research governance means in a local authority setting, with the aim of developing some agreed principles for local authority research governance.

Late 2025

Case studies and examples of local authority research data management approaches. Signposting to existing tools and guidance.

Late 2025/early 2026

Tools and opportunities for local authorities to link with those with similar research interests. For example, via an interactive map tool.

Early 2026

Template local authority costing tools and calculators. To make costing for local authority research activities easier, more transparent and consistent.

Late 2025/early 2026

Longer-term projects that will be taken forward include:

Project

Draft timeline

Case studies and tips on how to get local authority access to research tools (e.g. journals, statistical software etc.).

Spring 2026

Explainers and guidance on research dissemination routes and publication.

Spring 2026

Exploring how local authorities use research and evidence. Including guidance on the most effective ways to present these.

Autumn 2026

Templates and tools to allow local authorities to share their research findings and data.

Early 2027

Guidance on large datasets and sharing/linking local authority data for research.

Early 2027

Section 4: Addressing the challenges and gaps, and sources of further information

In the following section of this report, the main themes emerging from the research governance and ethics scoping conversations are listed. These are presented alongside considerations for local authorities and ongoing or planned work by the SCPH to address them. This includes links to relevant resources.

The final part of this report consists of:

a glossary of commonly used research governance and ethics-related terms
a list of further reading about local authority research governance and ethics, and local authority research capacity building

Table 1: Considerations and work to address the challenges and gaps

Challenge/gap or observation

Clarity on the purpose and scope of local authority research governance is needed.

Autonomy is important. Local authorities need to be the ultimate decision makers on whether a piece of research is appropriate in their setting.

Mechanisms for reviewing and authorising research activities needs to fit local decision- making structures and processes.

Processes for research governance within local authorities should be council- wide and 'cross cutting' (not just restricted to public health or social care teams).

Considerations for local authorities

Thinking about the scope of a research governance process and where it sits within the council (e.g. is it council-wide or directorate specific?), which department will ‘own’ the process?
Is there a process to identify and agree responsibilities for research activities (including where the research involves external partners)? Are there processes to ensure any identified responsibilities are met?
Which core functions may need to be involved (e.g. legal, finance, information governance)? Are there colleagues in these departments who can provide specialist support?
How would research governance and ethics mechanisms fit within the wider council decision making pathways? How do the framework and associated processes fit in with existing statutory and other responsibilities?
Is there, or should there be, consideration of, or alignment with, local priorities or strategies, and consideration of local resources?
Are there existing processes in some directorates? Could these be widened out to other departments?
Are there benefits to building on existing processes in terms of staff buy-in, communication and acceptance?

Relevant SCPH work

SCPH are planning to work with local authority colleagues to explore what research governance in a local authority means and what it should include. The intention is to develop a set of local authority research governance principles.

These principles can then be used by local authorities to develop research governance processes that fit their local governance structures.

This work is scheduled to take place in late 2025/early 2026.

Explainer documents about research governance and example local authority ethical review frameworks will be made available via the planned SCPH resources repository and via events such as the Local Authority Research Governance Framework Showcase .

Challenge/gap or observation

Ability for local authorities to identify research priorities and find other organisations or researchers to work with them.

Considerations for local authorities

Does the council have existing priorities for research? These may be in the form of research questions or areas of research interest or may be part of more general strategies or needs assessments.
Are you, or could you be, communicating about these and priorities with external partners?
Have the public and local community been involved in identifying these priorities?

Relevant SCPH work

SCPH are working on a local authority research interests match-making facility via an interactive map.

The map will show local authority research priorities and academic research interests.

We are aiming for release of this resource in late 2025/early 2026.

We have provided examples of public involvement in priority setting and on areas of research interest setting via our learning stories.

Longer term plans include:

Tools, guidance and resources to support public and community involvement in research priority setting in local authorities.
Tools, guidance and resources to support local authorities in working together and sharing research with each other and the wider community.

Challenge/gap or observation

Lack of organisation-wide awareness of what research activities are happening.

Considerations for local authorities

Is there, or could there be, a process or project to capture or log research or research-like activities?
Are there tools, methods or contacts within the organisation which can help with this?
Which activities should/could be in scope?

Relevant SCPH work

SCPH are in the process of scoping options for a registry for public health research outside of the NHS.

Many members of our Local Authority Research Practitioner (LARP) network have been involved in doing an audit or stocktake of their local authority’s research activity.

If you would like further information about this and about the tools used, please see our repository of learning stories or email nihr.rss.publichealth@newcastle.ac.uk

Challenge/gap or observation

Language barriers and guidance on communication, influencing, visibility and culture change.

Considerations for local authorities

As a council, how do you talk about research?
Does the term ‘research’ resonate with colleagues or is it off-putting? Is it clear what you mean when you use the word research?
Are there other ways to talk about research that would have more impact (e.g. some councils use the term gathering evidence)?

Relevant SCPH work

SCPH have recently been involved in work to define research in a local authority setting.

This has resulted in a consensus definition and accompanying guidance document and decision tool.

We have created brief animations on research and the wider determinants of health. These aim to explain these in an understandable and relatable way.

Examples of local authority communication and engagement approaches are available via our repository of learning stories.

We have collated a suite of training resources around communication and will be run training webinars on storytelling for researchers and making research engaging.

Longer term plans include:

• guidance and tools to bridge the language barrier between local authorities and external

Challenge/gap or observation

Limited capacity for research governance and ethics processes within local authorities.

Lack of single way in for research requests.

Considerations for local authorities

Is there a way to minimise administrative burden without comprising on a robust system? e.g. toolkits, standardised templates, self-assessment checklists
Could support be shared across directorates (or potentially organisations)?
Is there scope to build capacity building or research governance costs into any applications for funding or via other costing or cost recovery mechanisms?
Is there the option to build research governance into job descriptions or job roles?
Avoid reliance on individuals wherever possible.
Mapping the different ways the council engages in research. How is this research involvement ‘instigated’?
How is the process communicated and promoted (locally and externally)?
Are there a number of frequently used routes and key contacts that can champion the approach?

Relevant SCPH work

SCPH provide direct funding and support to local authorities via Local Authority Research Practitioner (LARP) roles and associated network.

We are planning to develop research costing tools, templates and worked examples (which will include indirect and support costing considerations).

We are aiming for release of these resources in late 2025/early 2026.

Challenge/gap or observation

Data management and information governance challenges.

Considerations for local authorities

What are the existing council processes or policies around information governance and data?
Are these suitable for research, or could they be suitable with minor updates?
Are there colleagues within the data or information team who can provide expert advice and support?
Are there standard documents such as privacy notices which could be updated to enable sharing or use of data for research.

Relevant SCPH work

SCPH have examples of local authority research data management approaches via our repository of learning stories.

Guidance on research data management is in development via SCPH Southampton.

Longer-term plans include:

guidance and information about the use of routine data for research, trusted research environments and data linkage

Challenge/gap or observation

Finance and costings challenges.

Considerations for local authorities

Are there colleagues within the finance team who can provide expert advice and support?
Is there an existing process or previous examples of preparing costs (including overheads) for external funding bids?

Relevant SCPH work

SCPH are planning to develop research costing tools, templates and worked examples (which will include indirect and support costing considerations).

We are aiming for release of these resources in late 2025/early 2026.

We are also planning to publish examples of local authority research finance and costing approaches as part of our repository of learning stories.

Longer-term plans include:

review of funding landscape for local authority research and recommendations to funders

Challenge/gap or observation

Options for ethical review of local authority research.

Considerations for local authorities

Which activities might benefit from or need ethical review?
Is there a need for an internal process within the council or are there options to work with partner organisations (e.g. universities)?
What would an ethical review aim to offer/achieve?
Are there ways to routinely embed ethical practices in research activities and utilise existing ethical tools or checklists?
Where would an ethics process sit in relation to research governance checks?

Relevant SCPH work

SCPH Southampton are currently operating a pilot local authority public health research ethics committee within their region.

Examples of local authority research ethics approaches are available in our repository of learning stories.

Explainer documents about research ethics and example local authority ethical review frameworks will be made available via the SCPH repository of resources.

Challenge/gap or observation

Local authority access to research infrastructure (e.g. academic literature, and statistical and other software).

Routes to dissemination (including academic publication of local authority research).

Considerations for local authorities

What access to academic literature is currently available within the council and to whom (e.g. Open Athens)?
Are other resources (free or paid-for) available to support research?
Is access available through any partner organisations e.g. universities?
Are there any IT issues or information governance requirements to be overcome to enable access to research software on council computers?

Relevant SCPH work

Examples of mechanisms and routes to access via SCPH learning stories.

Information on finding and using evidence in local authorities is also available via our LARP network. Please email nihr.rss.publichealth@newcastle.ac.uk for further information.

Longer-term plans include:

lists of free resources to support research activities
explainers and comparisons of different dissemination routes for local authority research
hints and tips documents around academic publication (including costs, resources and supports)
exploration of ethical review and academic publication and what the expectations for local authority research are

Glossary of key research governance and ethics terms

Chief Investigator

Often this term is used for NHS-based research and refers to the researcher who is responsible for the overall conduct of a research project across all research sites.

This term is sometimes used interchangeably with Principal Investigator although there are differences in context (see Principal Investigator definition below).

Costings Tools/Templates

Tools to assist with calculating the costs of research activities in a standardised way.

Data Controller

The organisation responsible for the management and oversight of the data from a research activity.

Data Owner

A data owner is an individual who is accountable for the meaning, content, quality and distribution of a given set of data.

Data Management Plan

A Data Management Plan (DMP) is a written plan for management of data in a research project.

It should consider aspects such as collection, storage, analyses and long-term management (including sharing, retention and destruction) of the data.

Data Processor

An individual or organisation who processes data on behalf of a data controller.

Data Sharing Agreement

A contract, or agreement, between parties who will be sharing data, especially personal data or confidential information. May also be called an information sharing agreement; a data or information sharing protocol or contract; a personal information sharing agreement. Further information on data sharing is available from the Information Commissioners Office (ICO).

Good Clinical Practice (GCP)

GCP is an international quality standard for the conduct of clinical research. For certain types of research (e.g. involving medicines) researchers are legally required to follow the principles of GCP. For research involving the NHS, following the principles of GCP is a requirement under the UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care Research.

Health Research Authority (HRA)

The Health Research Authority oversee health and social care research that is taking place within the NHS and adult social care settings in England and Wales. They are responsible for managing NHS Research Ethics Committees and for undertaking study-wide research governance reviews for research projects within their remit.

Human Tissue Act

The Human Tissue Act 2004 is the law which applies to the storage and use of human tissue within the UK. It includes provisions relating to the use of tissue for research activities.

Indemnity

Research activities, especially those involving participants, should be adequately insured. Indemnity should cover the design, conduct and management of a research project.

Informed Consent

When a person involved in a research activity gives permission for their involvement, knowing they have all the information necessary and are aware of the benefits and consequences of taking part. The person must have been given sufficient information and have fully understood it, to make an informed decision about agreeing to take part.

There are different ways that consent may be provided including verbally or in writing. The method used to take and record consent will depend upon the type of activity, the people involved and the requirements of the organisations leading on the research.

Integrated Research Application System (IRAS)

IRAS is an online system used to apply for approvals for certain types of health and social care research in the UK. This system is currently used for applications to the HRA/NHS RECs, MHRA and a number of other bodies.

Mental Capacity Act (MCA)

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 is a law in the UK which protects vulnerable adults (over 16) in relation to decision making. The MCA has a number of provisions and requirements for research activities involving adults who are unable to provide informed consent.

Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)

The MHRA are the regulator for medicines, medical devices and blood components for transfusion within the UK. The MHRA review and approve research projects involving medicines and medical devices.

Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

This is the law which governs research projects involving medicines within the UK. It will come into force in April 2026 when it will replace the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004

National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR)

The NIHR receive funding from the Department of Health and Social Care to enable health and social care research. The NIHR provide funding, research infrastructure and support for health and social care research activities.

Open Research

The idea behind open research is that the process and sharing of knowledge from research should be as open as possible. In practice this meets making any results freely available and, if possible, sharing the data collected during the research.

Participant Information Sheet

A participant information sheet is written information which is provided to people who are invited to take part in a research project. The information sheet should provide sufficient information about the project to allow the potential participant to make an informed decision about whether or not to take part. Sometimes referred to as a Study Information Sheet.

Principal Investigator

For research outside of the NHS, the term Principal Investigator is often used instead of Chief Investigator and refers to the researcher who is responsible for the overall conduct of the research.

In NHS research terms, a Principal Investigator is the lead researcher for a project at an individual research site but may not be the overall lead for the conduct of the research across all sites.

Privacy Notice

A privacy notice is provided by an organisation that holds personal information. It explains why the data are collected, what will be done with the data, how long the data will be kept and whether the data will be shared with anyone else. A privacy notices is sometimes called ‘fair processing information’ or ‘privacy information’.

R&D Office

Research and Development Office. Some organisations (e.g. NHS Trusts, universities) have departments dedicated to research set-up and management. These are often referred to as R&D offices.

Research

Different organisations have different definitions of research. The definition of research you use depends upon the context in which your activity is taking place.

For local authorities, a consensus definition of local authority research is now available.

For research involving the NHS, or within the remit of the HRA, the definition of research outlined in the UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care Research applies.

Researcher

Someone who conducts research activities.

Research Contracts

Agreements that govern collaborative research between organisations. These can include funding contracts, collaboration agreements, research site agreements. Contracts generally describe the expectation and requirements of each party; ensures those involved know what is expected from them; protects the interests of those involved.

Research Ethics

Research ethics are the moral standards that apply to the conduct of research activities. They ensure that the rights, dignity and wellbeing of participants, researchers and the public are protected.

Research Ethics Committee

Research Ethics Committees are groups of individuals who review research proposals and give an opinion about whether the research is ethical. For research happening within the NHS (and some Adult Social Care research) the HRA provides NHS RECs. Universities also have their own Research Ethics Committees who review research activities happening within the university or led by the university and which don't involve the NHS.

Research Governance

Research governance refers to the systems, processes and checks that ensure that research activities are safe (for participants and staff), appropriate, legal, adequately insured and in-line with organisational policies, processes and values.

Research Integrity

Research integrity is about the behaviours of individuals and organisations in relation to their research activities and practices.

Research Participant

A person who is taking part in a research study.

Research Protocol

A research protocol is a full description of a research study that acts as a manual for the research team. It is a document that describes the objective(s), design, methodology, analyses (including statistical considerations if applicable), and organisation of the research project.

Research Site

A research site is the location of a research activity, or the organisation with responsibility for the location of an activity (for example if an activity is happening at a local authority managed venue, the local authority would be seen as the research site).

Research Sponsor/Sponsorship

A research sponsor is an organisation that is legally responsible for a research project. The sponsor takes overall responsibility for the conduct and quality of the research. Some types of research project (for example research happening with the NHS, or research funded by certain bodies) require a research sponsor to be formally identified.

Risk

Risk refers to the potential for harm or negative effects arising as a result of a research activity.

Risk-adapted Approach

An approach to research governance and management that is proportionate to the level of risk associated with the activity. Activities assessed as higher risk are subject to more detailed governance and management processes then activities assessed as lower risk.

Study Set-up

All the processes that need to take place to get a research project to the point of recruiting participants or collecting data. This includes obtaining the relevant permissions, contracting and financial set-up and the practical steps involved in preparing researchers and research sites for the activity.

UK Clinical Trials Regulations

The Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 is the law which applies to research projects involving medicines within the UK. It replaces The Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004. Projects to which the clinical trials regulations apply fall under the regulation of the MHRA.

UK Health Departments Governance Arrangements for Research Ethics Committees (GafREC)

This is a policy document which outlines how NHS RECs should function and what is within their remit.

UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care Research

This framework outlines how research activities involving the NHS or adult social care should be conducted and managed. Researchers working within NHS settings are required to follow this framework.

UK Research and Innovation (UKRI)

UKRI are a major funder of research in the UK. They also provide support, resources and guidance to researchers and research activities on research, research integrity and research culture.

UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO)

UKRIO are a charity who provide advice and support to research organisations in the UK on research integrity, ethics and research culture.

Acknowledgements

Thank you to the many local authority colleagues who have been involved in scoping conversations and in reviewing and advising on this report.

Particular thanks to Alison Janes for her suggestions for the content of this report and its format.

How to cite this report

Please cite this report as:

NIHR Research Support Service Specialist Centre for Public Health delivered by Newcastle University and Partners (2025). Local authority research governance and ethics scoping report. Available at: https://doi.org/10.57711/fx1m-kp22

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse