Why research ethics matters in RDI
RDI projects are in many ways similar to research communities. As project coordinators and partners, we may not always realise how often ethically significant questions arise in everyday work. These may concern, for example, data collection methods such as surveys or interviews, fair attribution of work, responsible use of data, or stakeholder representation. Being aware of ethical principles such as autonomy, integrity, accountability and justice strengthens the quality, credibility, and societal impact of our projects and helps us act responsibly when challenges occur. Anticipating problems is always easier, and also more ethical than reacting after the damage has already been done.
The ethical landscape becomes even more nuanced in international cooperation. This challenge has been discussed in an article by Haaga-Helia UAS and University of Vaasa (Turkulainen & Wikstedt, 2025), which highlights that for researchers, teachers or research management and administration professionals from Finland, collaboration with partners from the Global South may already be the norm. In such cases, ethical reflections on equality, inclusion and research integrity are often framed through Western standards, which do not necessarily account for diverse cultural, epistemological and institutional contexts encountered in the Global South, and therefore require more context-sensitive, pluralistic approaches in practice.
The landscape of RDI is evolving rapidly. The increasing emphasis on impact, innovation, and co-creation makes the application of ethical principles more complex. Questions that were once reserved for academic research settings now arise in collaborative, applied and practice-based study contexts, such as living labs and public-private partnerships.
In Universities of Applied Sciences in particular, companies are among important collaboration partners. However, such cooperation also introduces new ethical and practical challenges that may emerge already in the planning phase of a project. Companies are not necessarily accustomed to openly sharing background information or research results, which may conflict with principles of transparency and openness in research. For this reason, a well-prepared Data Management Plan (DMP) is an essential tool already at the project design stage, helping to clarify expectations regarding data ownership, access, confidentiality, and dissemination. (Päällysaho et al., 2021).
In this sense, research ethics can be understood as an evolving set of principles and practices that guide how we treat participants, data and collaborations responsibly, particularly in increasingly digital and networked research environments. It is important to remember that the responsibility for research integrity, ethical sustainability, and compliance with existing legislation always primarily lies with the experts of RDI activities (Kokko, 2025).
Key principles of research ethics in RDI
From my experience working in RDI projects, I have observed that certain ethical principles repeatedly emerge as particularly significant in applied research contexts. While ethical guidelines provide a formal framework, their practical implications often become visible only in everyday project work. In the following sections, I highlight some of the key principles and recurring challenges, drawing both on established theory and practical experience, that are essential for ensuring responsible and trustworthy RDI activities.
Cooperation and data governance
At Metropolia UAS, a good practice has been to agree on cooperation principles early in the project through a written agreement. This can and should include responsibilities related to research tasks, data management, and authorship. In some cases, especially when partners handle personal data, a Joint Controller Agreement may also be required.
Pre-made, clear agreements are particularly important when company partners are involved, since the data may carry commercial value. Decisions about data storage, ownership, and openness should be made at the beginning of the project. If data is to be shared with third parties or opened publicly later, this must be agreed upon and communicated transparently in a data management plan.
In such cases, anonymisation of data becomes essential, either by anonymising all data or by saving identifiable and anonymous data separately. Participants must be informed, and consent must be obtained when research data is to be shared. Importantly, the possibility of opening anonymised data under certain conditions can also be stated in the research permit or participant information in advance. This reduces the need to inform participants of every minor change afterwards and ensures transparency from the outset.
Common ethical challenges in RDI contexts
Despite good intentions and clearly defined cooperation agreements made at the start of the project, ethical considerations in research are often overlooked in practice when the actual work begins. Agreements may specify responsibilities, data use, and authorship, but in the rush of implementation, these documents are easily forgotten. As a result, ethically important details may slip through the cracks, not necessarily due to ill intent, but simply due to time pressure, oversight, or assumptions. However, according to the principles of good research practice, time constraints are not a valid excuse. Negligence in protecting data and research participants’ rights is a breach of responsible conduct of research.
Below are some typical challenges that often arise in real-life RDI project contexts:
1. Data protection gaps
One of the most critical issues is the failure to protect data properly. For example, surveys may be sent out without proper information about the nature of the project being a research activity, and it might even lack a link to the Privacy Policy. It is essential that participants are explicitly informed that they are taking part in research. In some cases, a review by an ethics committee may be required. If data is collected for internal learning or development purposes and not stored or published, a separate ethical assessment may not be necessary.
→ Practical recommendation: Even if responsibilities have been agreed upon in written agreements, their implementation must be actively monitored. Continuous attention from the project manager or coordinator is needed to ensure that ethical obligations are not overlooked once the project is underway. It is also important to remember that clear agreements and ethical documentation protect not only the research participants but also the researcher, should a participant, client, or student later raise concerns about unethical conduct.
2. Data access and ownership
In many projects, research data is handled like any other project material, stored in the same cloud drives, shared via internal channels, and not treated as a separate category of potentially sensitive information. Often, there is no clear distinction between public and personal data. Data may be informally passed between partners, including via email or tools that are not suitable for storing personal data securely. This is especially problematic if the data contains identifiers or company-confidential information.
→ Practical recommendation: Special care must be taken when handling personal or sensitive data. This includes defining access rights (access monitoring), encrypting files when needed, and selecting secure tools and platforms according to confidentiality needs. Responsibilities for data handling should be explicitly assigned and communicated to all partners involved.
3. Secondary use of data
Another recurring issue is the temptation to re-use collected data for additional purposes beyond the original scope, without informing the participants. A classic example is using contact information collected for a survey to send invitations to events, newsletters, or new projects. Even when well-intentioned, this kind of secondary use crosses ethical and sometimes legal boundaries.
→ Practical recommendation: In practice, this is a tricky area. It is often difficult to remember where and when a certain email address was collected. However, this relates directly to the management of personal data and privacy policies. There must always be clarity about why personal data is collected, and organisations should have privacy policies tailored to different use purposes.
4. Informed consent and voluntary participation
In co-creation workshops or living labs, participants may not realise their input is being used as research data. These settings often involve real-life environments or stakeholder collaboration to develop or test new solutions, which may blur the line between development and research.
→ Practical recommendation: This requires clear, transparent communication to inform the participants. Special attention must be paid when working with vulnerable or underrepresented groups. Participation must be genuinely voluntary and based on informed consent, not driven by institutional or social pressure.
5. Funding pressure and selective reporting
When external funding is involved, as it always is in RDI, we must be aware of how it may unintentionally steer research outcomes. Even when funding comes from public sources, there is pressure to deliver visible results and demonstrate impact. This may create a bias toward publishing positive findings or overstating the effectiveness of project interventions. In academic publications, this is recognised as “a file drawer problem,” where a vast majority of the studies that show non-significant results are never published (Rosenthal, 1979).
→ Practical recommendation: To mitigate bias caused by funding pressures, projects should define clear reporting principles early on, emphasising transparency and the responsible communication of both positive and non-significant results.
The examples above show how research ethics is not limited to major moral questions, it also involves the practical decisions made daily in a project team. A common feature in all these challenges is that they can be avoided with early planning, good documentation, and shared awareness, preferably even before the project has started. If an ethical review is required, the project cannot commence before approval has been granted.
Navigating research ethics in RDI: Tools and frameworks
Not all RDI projects fall under the formal ethical review processes, but many benefit from having internal ethical protocols. Fortunately, many tools exist that support ethical project work, such as the following:
- TENK guidelines (Finland) (TENK 2023) and in particular the version tailored for Universities of Applied Sciences (Näreaho, 2020)
- European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (Allea, 2023)
- Ethical review boards, where applicable (especially in projects involving sensitive data or human participants), see e.g. Selesniemi et al. (2021)
- Institutional data protection officers and legal advisors — At Metropolia, we have an ethical expert and two research integrity advisers in this field who can assist with defining agreements and addressing ethical questions. More information about the research integrity adviser system is found on TENK’s website.
- Funding programme ethics requirements, such as those in Horizon Europe or Erasmus+. The Grant Agreement provides basic guidelines, but consortium agreements are also needed to clarify responsibilities between partners.
Not all of these tools are needed in every RDI project, but being aware of them helps project teams select the most suitable ones for their needs. Making informed choices strengthens both ethical integrity and the practical quality of the work.
Towards a culture of research ethical awareness
RDI work is rarely neutral by its nature; it affects people, institutions, and sometimes entire ecosystems. Embedding ethical thinking into our daily practices strengthens the trustworthiness, sustainability, and long-term impact of our projects. It also supports mutual respect across disciplines, sectors and geographical borders.
Too often, ethical considerations are treated as an afterthought; addressed only once issues have already arisen and sometimes when it is too late to mitigate the consequences. Research ethics should not be seen as a barrier, but as a driver of quality and collaboration that is embedded in project planning from the outset. By fostering a culture of ethical awareness, project work becomes not only more compliant, but also more meaningful.
References
ALLEA, 2023. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity: Revised Edition 2023. Berlin: ALLEA.
Kokko, M. 2025. Mihin tutkimusetiikan tukihenkilöä tarvitaan? Tutkimusetiikka muuttuvassa maailmassa. Jamk Arena Public.
Päällysaho, S., Latvanen, J., Lehto, A., Riihimaa, J., Lahti, P., Kärki, A. & Puhakka-Tarvainen, H. 2021. Key aspects of open data in Finnish RDI cooperation between higher education and businesses. Data Intelligence, 3(1), pp. 176–188.
Rosenthal, R. 1979. The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), pp. 638–641.
Selesniemi, H.; Kettunen, J. ja Näreaho, S. 2021. Tarvitseeko tutkimus eettisen ennakkoarvioinnin ja kuka sen tekee? Vastuullinen tiede – tutkimusetiikka ja tiedeviestintä Suomessa, Tieteellisten seurain valtuuskunta.
TENK. 2023. Hyvä tieteellinen käytäntö ja sen loukkausepäilyjen käsitteleminen Suomessa.
Turkulainen, V. and Wikstedt, M. 2025. RDI activities in the Global South – with a pluralistic worldview towards a sustainable future. eSignals PRO.
Author
-
Saija Heinonen
Project Manager, Creative Industry TeamSaija Heinonen works as a project manager in Metropolia’s Creative Industries team. She has been piloting projects at Metropolia for over a decade and is currently leading the European Gamebadges project. Saija holds a Master’s degree in educational sciences and is passionate about psychology, behavioral sciences, sports, photography, and lifelong learning.
About the author
