Issues Surrounding Research Ethics for Group Analytic Researchers in Britain & What Could be Done about Them
Dr Susanne Vosmer
DClinPsych, MA, PGCAP, PgDip, BScHons, CPsychol, AFBPsS, UKCP/HPCP registered
s.vosmer@gmail.com
Authors note:
The author declares that Artificial intelligence (ChatGPT, OpenAI GPT-5.6 Luna) was used during the preparation of this article as a tool to support verification and refinement of the wording. All theoretical ideas are the sole work of the author. The author accepts full responsibility for the content of this article.
Abstract
Several research ethics issues relevant to group analytic psychotherapists/researchers in Britain are discussed. In addition to describing ethics and contextualizing research ethics historically, a brief overview and comparison of different (research) ethics codes across the world, fundamental aspects of these codes, legal matters, ethics committees, and artificial intelligence (AI) are provided. Although research ethics is crucial to group analytic research, the Institute of Group Analysis (IGA) in Britain has not developed a research ethics code. Its guidance on research ethics is minimal, which is also addressed in this theoretical paper. Several suggestions are made to develop an IGA research ethics code. These include developing guidance on AI, advice on making ethical decisions and on (social) responsibility, providing practical examples, as well as moving toward relational ethics. Together with colleagues across the world, the IGA could produce a comprehensive research ethics code.
Keywords: ethics, research ethics, IGA, research ethics code, relational ethics
- Introduction
Ethics is an area of philosophy that seeks to investigate, systematize, and propose standards of right and wrong behavior (Tauginienė & Foltýnek, 2024). Also called ‘moral philosophy’, this discipline covers morals and specific choices that people make (Varkey, 2020). As such, ethics is divided into branches (see Dittmer, n.d.): normative ethics (addresses criteria/norms in relation to right/wrong conduct), applied ethics (concerns itself with concrete ethical/moral problems of daily life by using principles/theories), descriptive ethics (study of people’s beliefs about morality), and meta-ethics (aims to understand the meaning/nature of ethics/morality itself) (Pojman & Fieser, 2017).
Furthermore, ethics has a broad and multifaceted meaning. While some definitions may describe what is considered ethical, or what should be considered as ethical, other definitions refer to a specific field/context and include principles, i.e., a set of ethical values and concepts for guiding behavior (Tauginienė & Foltýnek, 2024).
Etymologically, the word ‘ethics’ stems from ἦθος (character), which evolved into ἠθικός (of/for morals), and is related to the Latin ‘mores’ (customs, manners, morals) (Walker & Lovat, 2014). Although ethics and morality are closely related (see BBC, 2014), several philosophers (e.g., Kant) have distinguished between ethics and morality. Others have argued that the original difference between these two terms was linguistic, so, they should not be regarded as separate (see Harper, 2009). Simplistically put, while morality concerns what we believe is right or wrong, ethics concerns the reasoned examination of those beliefs and how we ought to act (Deigh, 2018).
Varkey (2020) notes that the four principles of Western ethics (beneficence; non-maleficence; autonomy; justice) can be traced to Hippocrates. They are also important for research and psychotherapy ethics. And so are ethical theories. The ESRC (Economic and Social Research Council, UKRI, 2025, 12 May) suggests that consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics are found in research ethics (see Roby, 2018): considering the consequences (benefits, risks, harm) of conducting research is related to consequentialist ethics (the best overall outcome of an action is morally right); the rule-governed research practice, which can serve to fulfil moral obligations, is linked to deontological ethics (ethics based on duty); all aspects of a researcher’s professional behavior relate to virtue ethics (character of the person acting; virtues expressed through actions are of primary importance) (Pojman & Fieser, 2012).
Most ethics codes tend to focus on the obligations the researcher has toward the participant(s) rather than on the wider social context and on relationships. The group analyst Anderson (2019, 2021), therefore, suggests that the integration of Foulkesian thinking into research ethics codes could be more beneficial than relying mainly on traditional ethics frameworks that treat research as a dyadic relationship between two separate individuals (researcher-participant). Foulkes’ group analysis is a form of psychotherapy by and of the group, including its conductor (Lumsden, 2023, p. 310). Foulkes (1964, 1975; Foulkes & Antony, 1957) believed that the entire group needs to be considered alongside individual members, as well as their relationships toward each other, and toward the conductor (Foulkes, 1990). The relational Foulkesian model also assumes that people are influenced by historical, cultural, and socio-political contexts.
Ethical considerations are complex in therapy groups and in the research of such groups due to the inherent characteristics of group psychotherapy (e.g., Goodrich & Luke, 2017). Several ethical dilemmas arise that are not encountered when researching individual psychotherapy (e.g., confidentiality could be more challenging). Guidelines are, therefore, important. However, to the best of my knowledge, there are currently no specific and comprehensive practice guidelines in Britain dedicated solely to group work and group psychotherapy comparable to those published in the United States by the Association for Specialists in Group Work (ASGW; Thomas & Pender, 2008) and the American Group Psychotherapy Association (AGPA; Bernard et al., 2008). Similarly, I could not find comprehensive guidelines for group analytic psychotherapy research. Hence, it is possible that group analytic practitioner-researchers in Britain might encounter ethical dilemmas for which specific guidance is unavailable, unless these issues are addressed within the wider research ethics literature. They may also have limited opportunities to develop knowledge of research ethics more broadly, including its historical development and the ethical issues arising from the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in research. Similar considerations may apply to trainees and novice researchers, who may have less experience of navigating ethical issues in research.
Due to this precarious situation, I would argue that it is particularly important that the research ethics code of the Institute of Group Analysis (IGA), which is the primary training organization for Foulkes’ group analysis in Britain, included detailed information. Unfortunately, this is not the case, as I will show.
One purpose of this theoretical paper is to provide a brief overview of the historical development of research ethics and comparison of different (research) ethics codes across the world, fundamental aspects of these codes, legal matters, ethics committees, and arising ethical considerations associated with AI. A second purpose is to point to ‘cracks’ (gaps) in existing research ethics guidance in relation to group analytic research and to consider the extent to which the IGA’s ethics code adequately addresses the ethical issues arising in research. Due to space, the provision of practical examples and case discussions are beyond the scope of this article.
After describing and contextualizing clinical and research ethics codes historically, I will provide a short comparative overview of different ethics codes and their fundamental aspects, of AI, legal matters, and ethics committees. These are all issues that impact on group (analytic) researchers. Additionally, I will illuminate very briefly the extent to which the IGA’s ethics code in Britain addresses contemporary ethical requirements, make suggestions for improvement, and consider the potential of a relational ethics approach as an alternative to the predominantly dyadic approach to research ethics.
- Brief Overview of Ethics Codes & Historical Contexts
2.1. Ethics Codes
Even though ethics codes have become increasingly popular since the 1970s, the meaning of ethics codes is not straightforward. Also referred to as code of conduct, professional code, credo, or value statements, ethics codes are typically treated in the academic literature as discreet types (e.g., professional, medical, business ethics) (O’Rourke, 2018). Generally, a code of ethics expresses the principles, values, rules, protocols, behaviors, courtesies, or laws that purportedly guide the manner of organizations, O’Rourke (2018) clarifies. Bewilderingly, there are no universally agreed criteria for code of ethics.
Ethics codes tend to be binding, spelling out the fundamental standards and rules of ethical conduct that professionals are expected to adhere to (Tauginienė & Foltýnek, 2024). Many organizations, government agencies, and universities have adopted specific codes, policies, and frameworks pertaining to research ethics. Given that ethics codes are usually issued by a professional body that oversees the registration of a specific profession (e.g., psychotherapy, psychology), ethics codes are powerful.
2.2. Clinical & Research Ethics Codes
Several similarities exist between clinical and research ethics codes/guidelines. Hecker and Kalpokas (2026) highlight that confidentiality and privacy are essential ethical considerations. From this follows that researchers must ensure anonymization (see ICO, 2026a) so that the dissemination of (sensitive) information does not harm participants. Balancing privacy and confidentiality with collecting meaningful data can nonetheless be challenging. The complexity of confidentiality, along with informed consent and multiple relationships, is further affected by culture, politics, religion, history, and the law (Akhurst & Leach, 2023). Hence, understanding these ethical principles in psychotherapy (Barnett, 2019; Gerke et al., 2023; McKean et al., 2021) is anything but straightforward.
Primarily, confidentiality is based on the moral values of autonomy (right to self-determination) and fidelity (integrity), and secondarily on beneficence (do good) and non-maleficence (do no harm) (see Lasky & Riva, 2006). Autonomy entails that a person is entitled to own beliefs, choices, and actions, based on personal values (Beauchamp & Childress, 2001). The right to privacy follows from the assumption that autonomous individuals have the right to make decisions about their own lives and that they can decide to whom information is confided (Kitchener, 2000, p. 26). Fidelity relates to the honesty and trustworthiness of psychotherapists, who do not disclose what clients reveal to them (unless clients disclose illegal activities or someone could get hurt). Thus, confidentiality rests on respecting people’s decision what they wish to disclose (Lasky & Riva, 2006). It should be noted that autonomy is a Western value (Brabender, 2021).
2.3. Historical Context & Implications for Psychotherapy
Yonatan-Leus and Shefler (2026, p. 1173) summarized the evolution of psychotherapy research ethics. It can be traced to historical events, such as the Nuremberg trials, the Helsinki Declaration (World Medical Association, 2013), guidelines from international medical organizations (CIOMS, 2016), and biomedical research frameworks. Frameworks differentiate between medical practice (aimed at benefiting individual patients) and research (designed to generate generalizable knowledge; more rigorous ethical scrutiny is required due to the experimental nature of research) (Yonaton-Leus & Shefler, 2026, p. 1173). This means that psychotherapy/research ethics originates in medical ethics. Both the American Psychological Association (APA, 2018) and the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP, 2018a) have adopted guidelines from medical research (Yonatan-Leus & Shefler, 2026).
2.3.1. Similarities between Ethics Codes
When comparing research codes/guidelines related to psychotherapies (e.g., APA; guidelines by the American Group Psychotherapy Association, AGPA, Bernard et al., 2008, see also Leiderman, 2025; AIATSIS, 2020, the Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research; BACP, 2018; British Psychological Society, BPS, 2021a,b,c; European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity by All European Academies, ALLEA, 2023; International Association of Psychoanalysis, IPA, 2015, 2025), one notices that informed consent, multiple relationships, and confidentiality feature in different guidelines and ethics codes. There is also some similarity regarding the ethical use of AI in research (see Hosseini et al., 2024). So, despite slight variations across the world, the published European (e.g. ALLEA, 2023), world-wide ethical frameworks (e.g., WMA, 1964, 2024), and the ethical considerations for research (e.g., HHS, 2024; TRUST, 2018) overlap. Aimed essentially to protect people, beneficence (researchers act to promote the well-being of their participants), non-maleficence (not doing harm), justice (fair, equitable, appropriate treatment of participants; the research should benefit them/their community), and autonomy (respecting the client’s/research participant’s right to make own decisions about their treatment/participation in research) are important principles in many codes (e.g., Barrow et al., 2022).
2.4. Misconduct
The World Health Organization (WHO) has issued various codes, including a research integrity framework, consisting of a Code of Conduct for Responsible Research (WHO, 2017a) and Misconduct in Research (WHO, 2017b). Serious deviations from research integrity are commonly labeled as misconduct in the literature (Kuroki, 2018). Misconduct involves falsification of results/data, plagiarism (Muthanna et al., 2024, p. 1), fabrication (Zietman, 2011), failing to meet legal/ethical requirements (see MHHRI, 2025), and not disclosing the use of AI tools (Hosseini et al., 2023). However, the rules on crediting another person’s work differ across countries (Heitman & Litewka, 2011).
2.5. Some ‘Cracks’ (Gaps) in Ethics Codes & Relational Ethics as Alternative
It is noteworthy that many ethics codes tend to adopt principles from biomedical ethics and moral philosophy, often prioritizing rationality, objectivity, and cognition (see Schaer & Steinlin, 2021). If institutions and policymakers believe that the arising ethical problems can only be solved by experts, and that the best ethical decisions are rational, objective, and cognitive in nature (Shaw, 2015), relational ethics with its focus on subjectivity, and the notion that context-dependent problems are best resolved discursively in the encounter with each other (Gabriel & Casemore, 2009), will be regarded as inferior or might even be dismissed. First-order morality (individual values) might then assert its power over second-order morality (relational responsibility). Individualism might then prevail over collectivism (the group), and prescriptive ethics (obligations/duties) over relational ethics.
Shaw (2011) described relational ethics as encompassing the territory in which people come to reflect on, think about, and decide on their obligations and responsibilities to self and others. Additionally, these reflections consider personal and community values, morals, and preferences. It is a process of ethical reflection that requires not only rationality but attunement to feelings and intuitions, and attention to care-in-relationships (p. 2).
I would argue that there is an affinity between Shaw and Foulkesian thinking. Foulkesians have moved away from treating the individual as an isolated psychological unit. Instead, they view the individual as a nodal point within a network of relationships. Importantly, the group is the basic psychological context in which individual experience becomes meaningful, because the individual is embedded in the ‘matrix’, a social and communicational network. The concept of the matrix (network in which individual mental processes meet, communicate and interact) (Birchmore, 2014) seems particularly relevant to relational ethics. For Foulkesians, communication and relationships are not peripheral to, but constitutive of, psychological life. Hence, Foulkesian thinking lends itself to formulating relational ethics, where the relationships between the researcher and participants (group members) are key. It would encourage a ‘researcher ↔ participant ↔ group ↔ wider relational context’ ethical framework.
- Ethical Issues Surrounding AI & Legislation/Regulation
Ethical concerns about data security, privacy, confidentiality, and human-AI interaction in psychotherapy have been identified (e.g., Beg et al., 2024). Additionally, ethical issues pertaining to equality, racism, discrimination (Fourie, 2020), racial biases (Benjamin, 2019; Zembylas, 2023), accountability, responsibility (Adams, 2021), and trust in AI (Murphy et al., 2021) have been raised. Therefore, adequate regulation is important. Unfortunately, integrating digital developments within AI into legislation, guidelines, and guidance is ethically challenging. According to Rough (2026), Britain does not have any AI-specific regulation/legislation covering AI as a technology. Other countries (e.g., India, ICMR, 2023) and international organizations (e.g., Council of Europe, 2024; GPAI, 2024; OECD, 2024; have either developed, or are in the process of developing, national AI strategies, policies, or guidelines to promote ethical research in the development and adoption of AI tools/methods/technologies (e.g., EU AI Act 2024; US Policy Team, 2024; WHO, 2024). Whilst the EU GDPR remains in force, the Digital Omnibus, with policy direction set by the European Commission moved through the EU legislative process on June 29, 2026. The Omnibus provides greater legal certainty, ensures a more harmonized implementation of AI rules across the EU (Council of the EU, 2026), and an improved consistency of enforcement across different digital legislations (Vinciworks, 2025, December 15).
So, in contrast to the European Union, there is currently no statutory AI Act in Britain. Alas, the Artificial Intelligence (Regulation) Bill [HL] has not become law, having fallen without progressing beyond its First Reading in the House of Lords (UK Parliament, 2026). The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) only provides guidance on AI and data protection (ICO, 2026b). AI is somewhat regulated in the context in which it is used through existing legal frameworks. Some regulators have oversight of the development, implementation, and use of AI more broadly (e.g., ICO, the UK’s independent body established to uphold information rights). Rough (2026) notes that Britain also uses non‑statutory principles for AI governance and targeted legislation. This includes the Online Safety Act 2023, which empowers the regulator Ofcom to assess and enforce online services’ compliance with this Act (GOV UK, 2025), including AI chatbots (see Ofcom, 2025; discussion papers on AI can be found on Ofcom’s website). Importantly, any AI-generated content that is shared by users on a user-to-user service is classed as user-generated content and regulated in the same way as content generated by humans (e.g., a social media post that includes harmful imagery produced by AI). However, not all chatbots are regulated. Some chatbots fall outside the scope of regulation where they only allow users to interact with the chatbot itself rather than with other users, do not search multiple websites or databases when generating responses, and cannot generate pornographic content (Ofcom, 2025).
3.1 Use of AI Tools in Psychotherapy (Research)
Session notes might be used in research. As more (group) psychotherapists across the mental health field use AI software to record and/or transcribe session notes, because it reduces documentation time, and improves the structure of notes (Batkhina, 2025), they ought to be aware that transcription software carries risks, especially, when it comes to protecting patient data.AI software relies on advanced speech recognition algorithms that identifies words/phrases from spoken content but can make mistakes (see Wang et al., 2022). AI note-taking tools often involve transcription services or cloud storage, which could expose sensitive client information with their consent. Since AI tools also depend on the implementation skill of the therapist, there are risks of inaccuracy (due to biased or missing information) and unauthorized access leading to a breach of confidentiality (see Özden, 2024). So, researchers need to be aware of the ethical risks when using AI (see Sulkowski et al., 2026 for more detail). When researching online groups psychoanalytically and using Generative AI as a tool, some understanding of internet, cyber, and digital ethics seems beneficial. Books by Floridi and Taddeo (2025), Spinello (2026), and Burnham (2018) could provide psychotherapists with some insight.
- Legislation & Legal Matters Related to Confidentiality
In many countries (e.g., the US; Britain), researchers must abide by the legal legislation (Hulkower et al., 2020). In Britian, researchers must adhere to Common Law, the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR), along with the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) (see UKRI, 2020, December 18), and the Data Use and Access Act 2025 (DUAA) (see ICO, 2026, June 19). This legislation sets out how personal data and privacy should be handled. It applies to any research project that processes personal information in the UK. If research is conducted by university students/staff outside Britain, those researchers must nonetheless adhere to UK legislation, including the DPA 2018, even if the university/institution is involved in projects outside the UK. Data protection legislation demands that confidentiality is ensured, which means that a living person should not be identifiable. So, researchers must not disclose participants’ identities in their reports and use anonymization, which refers to the complete and irreversible removal of any information that could lead to an individual being identified. Unless the information has been fully anonymized (see UKRI, 2019, April 10), it is personal data and, therefore, falls under the DPA (see UKRI, 2025, April 7).
Some confidentiality restrictions exist. Typically, they pertain to child abuse and illegal, harmful activities that researchers become aware of (Hulkower et al., 2020). Otherwise, privacy should be protected and many countries across the world have privacy laws. Unlike the UK and EU, the US does not have a single comprehensive federal data protection law. Federal data protection is addressed through a range of sector-specific laws and laws concerning particular types of data (ICLG, 2026, July 20).
Legal matters surrounding confidentiality are more complicated in group than in individual psychotherapy. Personal information is not only disclosed to the psychotherapist but also to other group members, with no guarantee that those others will keep that information private (confidential) (Davis & Meara, 1982; Rapin, 2004). In the US, group workers have the responsibility to inform all group participants of the need for confidentiality, potential consequences of breaching confidentiality, and that legal privilege does not apply to group discussions (unless provided by State Statute) (McCarthy et al., 2022, p. 16).
Interestingly, the group analyst Dalal (2014) argued that the legal system has split itself off from the problematic layer of ethics per se. The courts reside in the layer below that of ethics and their task is to establish whether the law has been complied with. In this sense, the law concerns itself with compliance and not with ethics (p. 76). Nevertheless, practitioner-researchers have a moral duty to comply with legislation when carrying out group analytic research projects. This means that group analytic psychotherapists/researchers in Britain need to make their clients aware of the issues surrounding confidentiality. Asking clients to sign a therapy contract (see Brabender, 2021) is one solution to potential breaches of confidentiality by group members, even though contracts are not specifically mentioned in the IGA’s ethics code pertaining to research ethics. Also, whilst these contracts are legally binding in Britain, this is not the case in every country (BPC, 2025), which has implications if online groups with international membership are conducted. Furthermore, the rules around confidential and privileged communication are not only different for individual and group psychotherapy but also vary across the world.
In the UK, confidentiality refers to the protection of information shared in circumstances where there is an expectation that it will remain private. It is an important ethical and legal obligation for psychotherapists (BACP, 2018b). However, this obligation is not absolute and may be overridden in certain circumstances, such as where disclosure is required (or authorized) by law or is justifiable in the Public interest.
Confidentiality should be distinguished from legal privilege, which protects certain communications from disclosure in legal proceedings and is principally associated with communications between legal professionals and their clients, although in may also apply to psychotherapy (see upcounsel, 2025). In some jurisdictions in the United States, the third-party disclosure rule applies to group psychotherapy, as Lasky and Riva (2006) note. Hence, since information disclosed by one group member is heard by others, group members should not assume that their communications will receive the same legal protection as privileged communications.
- Research Ethics Committees
In addition to research ethics codes from organizations, and legal legislation, researchers must also adhere to the directives of ethics committees (Hulkower et al., 2020). Ethics review boards, also known as institutional review boards, or as research ethics committees (RECs), have gained an increasingly central place in academic practice and in the discourse surrounding ethics (Peled-Raz et al., 2021). Examining the rise of RECs between 1967 and 1972 in Britain, Hedgecoe (2009) argued that their informal status aimed to dissociate RECs from the professional bodies of the National Health Service, thereby preserving the notion of clinical autonomy (p. 350). Furthermore, Peled-Raz et al. (2024) note that RECs are a modern development and Hedgecoe et al. (2006) have discussed how RECs differ in Europe. Often, RECs operate through institutional policies and professional norms in the social sciences.
Critical of their inflexibility, Swauger (2011) highlighted that scholars lose opportunities to acknowledge, discuss, and confront the real ethical issues that they face in their research, inviting them to move toward a deeper understanding of the arising ethical conundrums than feeling defiant. This is easier said than done due to power imbalances. RECs, ethics codes, and the institutions (e.g., IGA) that produce ethics codes are more powerful than researchers/clinicians, because these codes do not merely protect, but they also prescribe by detailing what is permissible. According to Le and Pham (2026), complex power dynamics are at play, because ethics codes often obscure relational and political complexities.
- The Missing IGA Research Ethics Code & Implications
The Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct issued by the IGA does not offer much guidance on research. In contrast to other professional codes, the IGA has not developed a separate research ethics code. Obligations regarding research ethics consist of one paragraph, which are found in Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct:
3.4 Members conducting research must inform clients of the nature and purpose of the research, must obtain their written informed consent for their involvement, and must be told of their right to withdraw during the process. No pressure should be put on clients, and those who decline consent to involvement in research should be treated no differently from those who do consent. The conditions for replaying any video or audio recording which is part of research should be clearly specified and consented to (IGA, 2025-26, p. 62).
Due to its basic nature, this paragraph does neither offer researchers any information on moral philosophy and principles of research ethics, nor practical guidance on ethical decision-making, risk assessment, participants’ safety, and on how to resolve ethical dilemmas. It does not say on which ethical principles it is based (e.g., biomedical ethics) and which ethical behaviors researchers should adopt (e.g., promoting well-being of research participants; demonstrating respect, integrity, trustworthiness, beneficence, research integrity, including honesty, transparency, competence, presenting findings without falsification, fabrication, and no selective reporting; respecting participants’ autonomy). Steps involved in the process of informed consent, the difference between confidentiality and privacy, how to safeguard vulnerable people, how to manage researcher-participant relationships, multiple roles such as trainee-research participants and trainee/student researchers, and details of research ethics review and governance, are also not outlined.
However, it should be noted that group analysts/researchers, who are registered with the UKCP, must also adhere to its Code and guidelines, which are more comprehensive (see UKCP, 2019a).
6.1 Trainees as Research Participants & Ethics Codes across the World
When therapists serve as research participants, they are typically considered solely as research participants under social science research ethics frameworks. Yonatan-Leus and Shefler (2026) note that the BACP’s (2018a) code of ethics only provides general statements about relationships involving authority or hierarchy. It does not address the unique position of the therapist (trainee) being a research participant. Neither does the IGA’s Code (IGA, 2025-26). Similarly, the BPS (2021a) does not appear to provide specific guidance on the particular ethical position of a therapist-trainee who participates in research concerning his/her own professional training or therapeutic role. The same could be said for the Health & Care Professions Council (HCPC, 2024), the UKCP (2019 a, b), the British Psychoanalytic Council (BPC, 2024), the International Association for Psychoanalysis (IPA, 2015, 2025), and the American Psychoanalytic Association (APsA, 2024). Although the APsA Code of Ethics explicitly applies to members in training and to research and academic work, it does not appear to provide specific guidance on the particular dual position of a therapist-trainee participating as a research participant.
6.2 Discrimination?
Problems may arise when group analytic researchers in Britain need the ethical approval of more than one institution and their ethics codes differ. For example, the IGA does not require that clients give their informed consent to receive treatment, but other ethics codes do. Hence, it seems to me that the IGA’s Code, albeit inadvertently, disadvantages group analysts who are registered with other organizations. Members of the IGA would only have to obtain written informed consent when offering treatment. Group analytic psychotherapists, who are qualified psychiatrists, social workers, or psychologists, and registered with their professional/regulatory bodies, must adhere to these codes of ethics. For example, psychologists must adhere to the BPS codes. Respect for the autonomy, privacy, and dignity of individuals, groups and communities; scientific integrity, social responsibility; maximizing benefit and minimizing harm are emphasized (BPS, 2021a, p. 7). Additionally, the BPS (2021b) has published guidelines for internet-mediated research, which are a supplement to the Code of Human Research Ethics (2021a), and the overarching Code of Ethics and Conduct (BPS, 2021c). The internet-mediated research guidelines emphasize respect for autonomy, scientific integrity, social responsibility, as well as maximizing benefits and minimizing harm (p. 3). Psychologists in the UK must also adhere to the HCPC (2024).
While these ethics codes are much more comprehensive than the IGA’s, they are also more restrictive. Disconcertingly, this could result in a paradoxical situation where group analysts would have to adhere to more stringent criteria, if they are a member of other organizations. The IGA’s code only requires consent of clients before providing therapy, but other codes (e.g., BPS, HCPC) demand informed consent. So, a group analyst who is also registered with the BPS would need to obtain informed consent. This appears to be contrary to the ethical principle of justice (fairness, equality, serving the needs of all involved) and seems utterly absurd.
- Suggestions for the IGA to Develop a Research Ethics Code
Specific guidelines on legal privilege (including disclosure norms; limits on third‑party rule), and digital/AI‑mediated practice seem important. Although AI is increasingly used in research, concerns about its empirical accuracy have been voiced (e.g., Jones et al., 2023). So, it is necessary to highlight this in guidelines. The UKCP, which accredits the IGA training, has not yet produced a formal policy on AI, or practice guidance, but only published a position statement (see UKCP, n.d.). Nevertheless, the IGA could incorporate main points into its current research ethics codes, and elaborate these (e.g., AI should not replace the human relationship; psychotherapists/researchers remain accountable; confidentiality and data protection must be ensured; compliance with the GDPR; obtaining informed consent; clarifying where data is stored, ensuring that research materials and analyses are stored securely, specifying storage requirements; clarifying how uploaded information from AI is used).
Other organizations have issued codes/guidelines, whose principles could be considered (e.g., ethical responsibility, transparency in selection of AI tools, informed consent, accountability, governance and professional responsibility, professional competence and AI evidence base, human oversight and professional judgement, psychological safety and harm prevention, access bias and inclusion with AI, validation and scientific evidence, algorithmic bias and fairness, access, equity and inclusion; see GPA, 2026).
Of interest could be The President’s Commission on Artificial Intelligence, The CAI Report, published by the American Psychoanalytic Association (https://apsa.org/thecaireport/). These publications aim to meaningfully contribute to global conversations about the human and social dimensions of AI. They could provide an impetus for reflection.
In 2026, the Professional Standards Authority held a workshop in collaboration with researchers regarding professional ethical guidance and regulation for users of AI in Britain. Smith et al. (2026) note in their report that AI cannot currently operate without human initiation, direction, and oversight. They point out that AI entities are not professionally regulated individuals. Their presence and contribution could disrupt the usual decision-making processes of those who use them. The deployment of AI could potentially be disruptive. Provoking excitement but also fear and anxiety, specific professional, ethical, and legal questions were raised (e.g., to what extent professionals can/should rely on, question, or entirely ignore an AI-generated recommendation; when something goes wrong, who would be held ethically and legally responsible, if a wrong AI recommendation led to harm). Similar questions and issue are also relevant for group analytic researchers and could be explored by the IGA through deliberative group discussions and with the aid of a series of real-world scenarios. AI safety, bias, transparency, and accountability could be discussed. Findings could be integrated into the research ethics code.
Obviously, the IGA Code ought to consider benefits, risks, and harm to everybody who is connected with, or affected by, a research project. But this also includes the researcher’s social responsibilities and the responsible use of research results, known as research integrity, i.e., processes ensuring the honesty and reliability of the research (Hosseini et al. 2024).
Responsibility has become a highly influential ethical concept in moral philosophy and researchers can no longer claim that they were not responsible for the consequences of their research, Yu (2026, p. 314) writes. Since it is nowadays a key concept to solving modern societal risks in ethics, researchers must recognize, face, and not ignore responsibility. Decolonial, feminist, Black, Indigenous, and queer researchers hold that research is never ethically neutral, Le and Pham (2026) note. Instead, knowledge is always situated, entangled with histories of racism, colonialism, gendered violence, and dispossession. For them, ethics not compliance but a response-ability, an ongoing, embodied practice of being in relation with others, with texts, and with the conditions that make research possible (Le & Pham, 2026).
In addition to providing a definition of responsibility (as obligation, duty, attribution, or response), the IGA could provide more comprehensive ethical guidelines/guidance for researchers on (social) responsibility, because this concept does not preclude group researchers from having a self-interest in their research endeavors (Swauger, 2011). It is a slippery road between self-interest and exploitation of communities, when participants do not receive anything in return for their participation in research projects.
Yonatan-Leus and Shefler (2026) argue that protecting the privacy and confidentiality of therapists-as-researchers requires careful consideration beyond standard ethical protocols. This argument could be extended to group analytic research. Some group analytic trainees (who must receive treatment as part of their training) might simultaneously serve as research participants. Power may affect research relationships and the research itself. If the researcher is a supervisor, this power differential would be high. Safeguards would need to be put in place to protect trainees. Not allowing trainees to serve as research participants in projects which are carried out by their supervisors appears to be the easiest option to circumvent this ethical conundrum. The IGA’s ethics code could consider this.
Additionally, it could offer some guidance for researching therapy groups in non-Western contexts and for studying online groups with international membership.
Together with colleagues across the world, the IGA could develop a more comprehensive research ethics code and ethical guidance. It could include case discussions, practical examples, and advice on making ethical decisions on which ethical principle to prioritize when principles conflict (e.g., beneficence with autonomy). Such process could be regarded as response-ability. It could arrange proximity, decide who is centered or sidelined, whose voice is preserved or paraphrased, which epistemologies are treated as foundational or viewed as contextual.
Alternatively, it could also explore how specific methodologies (participatory, heuristic, autoethnographic) might inform a group analytic ethics of research, particularly, by emphasizing reflexivity, shared meaning-making, and relational responsibility (e.g., see Phillips et al., 2022; Ellis (2007)). An ongoing dialogue with staff and group analytic psychotherapists across the world could identify the most suitable ethics. The IGA could explicitly engage with the relational ethics scholarship, including ethics of care, relational autonomy, feminist ethics, and dialogical ethics. In collaboration with the IGA’s Ethics Committee, staff from other training courses, and international colleagues, the IGA could develop a relational ethical position that it implicitly points toward, in my reading of the IGA Code. Schaer and Steinlin (2021, p. 655) clarify that relational ethics involves a space where people come to think about, reflect on, and decide on their responsibilities and obligations to self and the other. Personal and community values, morals, preferences, attunement to both feelings and intuitions, attending to care in the relationships, as well as rationality would be considered.
- Summary & Conclusion
In this article, I have outlined the many issues that group analytic therapists/researchers in Britain face with regard to research ethics and offered some suggestions to address these. Of course, research ethics are not static. They arose as a solution to sanctioned experiments on vulnerable populations in Europe (Shuster, 1997, 1998) and in the United States, during the 20th century (Faden et al., 1986). The ESRC in Britain explains that research ethics in the social sciences initially drew on the patient protection model of medical research (UKRI, 2025, May 12). Hence, it comes as no surprise that many research ethics codes stress protection. Over time, psychotherapy ethics codes have become more comprehensive, and some contemporary codes or guidelines tend to emphasize the social responsibility of the researcher. Despite their differences, codes of ethics for (psychotherapy) research share guiding principles (Hickey et al., 2024). This includes beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, and autonomy. Hence, many ethics codes have adopted similar values regarding human rights and welfare (e.g., UKCP, 2019a, b). Even though the IGA’s Code adopts the same values, it may inadvertently contribute to disparity amongst group analysts, who belong to other professional organizations. They need to comply with more stringent requirements, such as obtaining informed consent for treatment, than those group analysts who are only members of the IGA. This does seem unfair. Alignment with other ethics codes would be one solution to this conundrum. But which organizations are prepared to align with each other? The answer to this question may arise through dialogue. Thus, I advocate that conversations and global collaboration between group analytic psychotherapy organizations and its members take place. Until this happens, the IGA could consider my suggestions for developing a research ethics code: developing guidance on AI, offering advice on making ethical decisions and (social) responsibility, providing practical examples, as well as moving toward relational ethics. Interestingly, the relational Foulkesian model with its emphasis on the matrix, and the notion that people are influenced by historical, cultural, and socio-political contexts points to the interrelatedness of researchers, patients, and ethics codes. However, this model has neither been developed to inform ethics nor to provide researchers with concrete ethical guidance. Even though I have argued that relational ethics would be more advantageous than the dominant dyadic ethics (Anderson, 2019, 2021), scholars would need to elaborate Foulkes’ model first, before it could inform group analytic research ethics. This does not mean that a relational, instead of a prescriptive (dogmatic), approach toward group research ethics, which includes continual negotiation rather than compliance, cannot be developed in the meantime. On the contrary. Relational ethics might even reduce power imbalances due to its emphasis on co-presence (Le & Pham, 2026). Admittedly, power is a tricky issue, and several barriers would need to be overcome. RECs are but one obstacle. They are powerful and researchers must adhere to their stipulations to gain ethical approval for their research projects. At the same time, RECs rely on research ethics codes, which are another barrier. If ethics codes were more relational than prescriptive, RECs would have more leverage in making decisions. Potentially, research ethics would become a matter of ongoing response-ability instead of pre-emptive risk management. Perhaps it is idealistic to think that unequal power dynamics would disappear if research ethics were no longer ‘owned’ by the ethics code and ethics committees but practiced through the lens of a relational ethics of care. Allow me to dream. Even if power differentials remain, a shift away from ethics codes that locate all responsibility and knowledge in the researcher makes little sense, particularly, when researching (online) therapy groups with international membership, who believe in other knowledge systems. Regardless as to whether the IGA will develop a relational ethical framework or not, I contend that a research ethics code would be beneficial for group analysts. Together with colleagues across the world, the IGA could develop a comprehensive research ethics code from a position of care and relationality. Perhaps it is illusory to think that such code could support researchers in dwelling within ethical tensions as they arise rather than serving mainly as an instrument of compliance (Le & Pham, 2026). Only time will tell, if it is.
References
Adams, R. (2021). Can artificial intelligence be decolonized? Interdisciplinary Science Review, 46(1-2), 76-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2020.1840225
AIATSIS. (2020). A guide to applying the AIATSIS Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. https://healthinfonet.ecu.edu.au/key-resources/publications/41980/
Akhurst, J.E., & Leach, M.M. (2023). Confidentiality, informed consent, and multiple relationships in four emerging regions. Ethics & Behavior, 33(3), 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2022.2152339
ALLEA. (2023). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Revised Edition. Allea. https://allea.org/research-integrity-and-research-ethics/
Anderson, D. (2019). Group analysis as a research method: Reflexivity, discourse, textuality and ethics. Special Issue on Group Psychotherapy, 64, 57-77. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpspsr.2019.1.64.57.
Anderson, D. (2021). The Body of the Group. Sexuality and Gender in Group Analysis. London: Karnac.
APA. (2018). Rules and procedures of the Ethics Committee. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/ethics/committee-rules-procedures-pdf
APsA. (2022). Code of Ethics. American Psychoanalytic Association. https://apsa.org/about-apsa/code-of-ethics/
APsA. (2024). APsA code of ethics. American Psychoanalytic Association. https://apsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/APsA-Code-of-Ethics_Feb-2024.pdf
Beg, M.J., Verma, M.M., & Verma, M.K. (2024). Artificial Intelligence for Psychotherapy: A Review of the Current State and Future Directions. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 47(4), 314-325. https://doi.org/10.1177/02537176241260819
BACP. (2018a). Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions. https://www.bacp.co.uk/events-and-resources/ethics-and-standards/ethical-framework-for-the-counselling-professions/developing-the-new-ethical-framework/
BACP. (2018b). Glossary. Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions. https://www.bacp.co.uk/events-and-resources/ethics-and-standards/ethical-framework-for-the-counselling-professions/glossary/
Barnett, J.E. (2019). The ethical practice of psychotherapy: Clearly within our reach. Psychotherapy, 56(4), 431–440. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000272
Barrow, J.M., Brannan, G.D., & Khandhar, P.B. (2022). Research Ethics. In StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459281
Batkhina, A. (2025). Evaluating AI-Powered Automation of Therapy Session Notes: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. Psychology, 16(6), 789-800. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2025.166044
BBC. (2014). Ethics Guide. Ethics: A General Introduction. https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/intro_1.shtml
Beauchamp, T.L, & Childress, J.F. (2001). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. (5th Edition.). Oxford. Oxford University Press.
Benjamin, R. (2019). Race After Technology. Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code. London: Polity Press.
Bernard, H., Burlingame, G., Flores, P., Greene, L., Joyce, A., Kobos, J.C., Leszcz, M., Semands, R.R., Piper, W.E., Slocum, W., McEneaney, A.M., & Feirman, D. (2008). Clinical practice guidelines for group psychotherapy. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 58(4), 455–542. https://doi.org/10.1521/ijgp.2008.58.4.455
Birchmore, T. (2014). Group Analytic Concepts: The Matrix. Group Analysis, 47(1_suppl), 40-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0533316414521345h
BPC. (2024). Standards of Conduct, Practice and Ethics and Guidance. https://www.bpc.org.uk/professionals/registrants-hub/requirements/standards-of-conduct-practice-and-ethics/
BPC. (2025). BPC Guidance. Working Remotely Internationally. https://www.bpc.org.uk/professionals/registrants-hub/guidance/online_guidance/
BPS. (2021a). BPS Guide to Human Research Ethics. https://www.bps.org.uk/guideline/bps-code-human-research-ethics
BPS. (2021b). BPS Guidelines for Internet-mediated Research. https://www.bps.org.uk/guideline/ethics-guidelines-internet-mediated-research
BPS. (2021c). Code of Ethics and Conduct. https://bps.org.uk/guideline/code-ethics-and-conduct
Brabender, V.M. (2021). Identifying and resolving ethical dilemmas in group psychotherapy. In M. Trachsel, N. Biller-Andorno, J. Gaab, J. Sadler & Ş. Tekin (Eds.), Oxford handbook of psychotherapy ethics. (pp. 621-641). Oxford. Oxford University Press.
British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy. (2018). Ethical guidelines for research in the counselling professions. https://www.bacp.co.uk/events-and-resources/research/publications/ethical-guidelines-for-research-in-the-counselling-professions/
Burnham, C. (2018). Does the Internet have an unconscious? Slavoj Zizek and Digital Culture. London: Bloomsbury.
CIOMS. (2016). International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans. (4th Edition). Geneva: CIOMS in collaboration with the WHO. https://cioms.ch/publications/product/international-ethical-guidelines-for-health-related-research-involving-humans/
Council of Europe. (2024). Council of Europe adopts first international treaty on artificial intelligence. May 17, 2024. https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/council-of-europe-adopts-first-international-treaty-on-artificial-intelligence
Council of Europe. (2026). Artificial Intelligence: Council gives final green light to simplify and streamline rules. Press Release June 29, 2026. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2026/06/29/artificial-intelligence-council-gives-final-green-light-to-simplify-and-streamline-rules/
Dalal, F. (2014). Ethics versus Compliance. The Institution, Ethical Psychotherapy Practice, (and Me). Group Analysis, 47(1), 62-81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0533316413520528
Davis. K., & Meara, N.M, (1982). So you think it is a secret. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 7(3), 149–153.
Deigh, J. (2018). Ethics, Morals, and Ethical Theory. In J. Kovac (Ed.), The Ethical Chemist: Professionalism and Ethics in Science. 2nd edition. (pp. 5-14). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dittmer, J. (n.d.). Applied Ethics. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://iep.utm.edu/applied-ethics/
Ellis, C. (2007). Telling secrets, revealing lives: Relational ethics in research with intimate others. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800406294947
EU AI Act. (2024). The EU Artificial Intelligence Act. https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/
Faden, R.R., & Beauchamp, T.L. (1986). A history and theory of informed consent. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Floridi, L., & Taddeo, M. (Eds.) (2025). A companion to digital ethics. London: John Wiley & Sons.
Foulkes, S.H. (1964). Therapeutic Group Analysis. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.
Foulkes, S.H. (1975). Group Analytic Psychotherapy: Methods and Principles. London: Maresfield.
Foulkes, S.H. (1990). The leader in the group. In E. Foulkes (Ed.), Selected Papers of S. H. Foulkes. Psychoanalysis and Group Analysis. (pp. 285-296). London: Karnac.
Foulkes, S.H., & Anthony, E.J. (1957). Group Psychotherapy. The Psychoanalytic Approach. London: Penguin.
Fourie, L. (2020). Technology and theology. Finding the real God. In J. Van Den Berg (Ed.), Engaging the fourth industrial revolution. Perspectives from theology, philosophy and education. (pp. 11-44). New York: Sun Media.
Gabriel, L., & Casemore, R. (Eds.) (2009). Relational Ethics in Practice. Narratives from Counseling and Psychotherapy. New York: Routledge.
Gerke, L., Meyrose, A.K., & Nestoriuc, Y. (2023). Informed consent for psychotherapy: Ethical illusion or clinical reality? A survey about psychotherapists’ attitudes and practices in Germany. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 30(1), 166–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.2790
Goodrich, K.M. & Luke, M. (2017). Ethical Issues in the Research of Group Work. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 42(1), 108–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/01933922.2016.1267826
GOV UK. (2025). Guidance: Online Safety Act explainer. Updated April, 24, 2025. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer
GPA. (2026). New guidance sets out principles for understanding artificial intelligence in psychology. Global Psychology Alliance. https://www.bps.org.uk/news/new-guidance-sets-out-principles-understanding-artificial-intelligence-psychology
GPAI. (2024). Global Partnership in Artificial Intelligence. https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/global-partnership-on-artificial-intelligence.html
Harper, S. J. (2009). Ethics versus morality: A problematic divide: A problematic divide. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 35(9), 1063-1077. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453709343388
HCPC. (2024). Standards of conduct, performance and ethics. https://www.hcpc-uk.org/standards/standards-of-conduct-performance-and-ethics/revised-standards/
Hecker, J., & Kalpokas, N. (2026). Qualitative Research Guide. Part 1. Atlasti Guides. https://atlasti.com/guides/qualitative-research-guide-part-1/confidentiality-privacy-research
Hedgecoe, A. (2009). “A form of practical machinery”: The origins of research ethics committees in the UK, 1967-1972. Medical History, 53(3), 331–350. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025727300000211
Hedgecoe, A., Carvalho, F., Lobmayer, P., & Raka, F. (2006). Research ethics committees in Europe: Implementing the directive, respecting diversity. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32(8), 483–486. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2005.013888
Heitman, E., & Litewka, S. (2011). International perspectives on plagiarism and considerations for teaching international trainees. Urologic Oncology, 29(1), 104–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2010.09.014
HHS. (2024). The International Compilation of Human Research Standards. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/international/compilation-human-research-standards/index.html
Hickey, A., Davis, S., Farmer, W., Dawidowicz, J., Moloney, C., Lamont-Mills, A., Carniel, J., Pillay, Y., Akenson, D., Brömdal, A., Gehrmann, R., Mills, D., Kolbe-Alexander, T., Machin, T., Reich, S., Southey, K., Crowley-Cyr, L., Watanabe, T., Davenport, J. & Maxwell, J. (2022). Beyond criticism of ethics review boards: Strategies for engaging research communities and enhancing ethical review processes. Journal of Academic Ethics, 20(4), 549–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09430-4
Hosseini, M., Resnik, D.B., & Holmes, K. (2023). The ethics of disclosing the use of artificial intelligence tools in writing scholarly manuscripts. Research Ethics, 19(4), 449-465. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231180449
Hosseini, M., Rasmussen, L.K., & Resnik, D.B. (2024). Using AI to write scholarly publications. Accountability in Research, 31(7), 715-723. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2168535
Hulkower, R., Penn, M., & Schmit, C. (2020). Privacy and confidentiality of public health information. In J. Magnuson & B. Dixon (Eds.), Public Health Informatics and Information Systems. (pp. 147-166). New York: Springer International Publishing.
ICO. (2026a). How do we ensure anonymisation is effective? https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/data-sharing/anonymisation/how-do-we-ensure-anonymisation-is-effective/#anonymisationprocessachieve
ICO. (2026b). Artificial Intelligence. https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/artificial-intelligence/
ICO. (2026, June 19). The Data Use and Access Act 2025 (DUAA) – what does it mean for organisations? https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/what-we-do/legislation-we-cover/data-use-and-access-act-2025/the-data-use-and-access-act-2025-what-does-it-mean-for-organisations/
ICLG. (2026, July 20). USA – Data Protection Laws and Regulations 2026. https://iclg.com/practice-areas/data-protection-laws-and-regulations/usa
ICMR. (2023). Ethical guidelines for application of artificial intelligence in biomedical research and healthcare. https://www.icmr.gov.in/ethical-guidelines-for-application-of-artificial-intelligence-in-biomedical-research-and-healthcare
IGA. (2025-26). Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. In the IGA London Qualifying Course National Handbook. (pp. 58-63). London:The Institute of Group Analysis. https://members.groupanalysis.org/MembersStudentsAreas/StudentsArea/StudentsArea/London/QualifyingCourse.aspx
IPA. (2015). Ethics Code. International Psychoanalytic Association. https://www.ipa.world/IPA/IPA_Docs/IPA_Ethics_Code_English.pdf
IPA. (2025). Guidance Document on Confidentiality. https://www.ipa.world/IPA/Dev/Our_Org/Committees/CONFIDENTIAL/Resources_Confidentiality_Committee.aspx
Jones, C., Thornton, J., & Wyatt, J.C. (2023). Artificial intelligence and clinical decision support: clinicians’ perspectives on trust, trustworthiness, and liability. Medical Law Review, 31(4), 501–520. https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwad013
Kitchener, K.S. (2000). Foundations of ethical practice, research, and teaching in psychology. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kuroki, T. (2018). New classification of research misconduct from the viewpoint of truth, trust, and risk. Accountability in Research. Ethics, Integrity and Policy, 25(7–8), 404–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2018.1548283
Lasky, G.B. & Riva, M.T. (2006). Confidentiality and privileged communication in group psychotherapy. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 56(4), 455–476. https://doi.org/10.1521/ijgp.2006.56.4.455
Le, T.T., & Pham, T.T. (2026). Writing-With integrity: Reimagining research ethics through relational practice. Research Ethics, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161261419550
Leiderman, L.M. (2025). A Commentary on “Clinical Practice Guidelines for Group Psychotherapy.” International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 75(1), 235–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207284.2024.2429382
Louch, A.R. (1966). Explanation and Human Action. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Lumsden, A. (2023). Group Analysis and its Application. In P. Graham (Series Ed.), Cambridge Guide to Psychodynamic Psychotherapy. Cambridge Guides To The Psychological Therapies. (pp. 310-321). Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, C.J., Bauman, S., Choudhuri, D.D., Coker, A., Justice, C., Kraus, K.L., Luke, M., Rubel, D., & Shaw, L. (2022). Association for Specialists in Group Work Guiding Principles for Group Work. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work. 47(1), 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/01933922.2021.1950882
McKean, A.J., Trachsel, M., & Croarkin, P.E. (2021). The ethics of informed consent for psychotherapy. In M. Trachsel, N. Biller-Andorno, J. Gaab, J. Sadler & Ş. Tekin (Eds.), Oxford handbook of psychotherapy ethics. (pp. 258-270). Oxford. Oxford University Press.
MHHRI. (2025). Ethics in Psychosocial Work. Mental Health and Human Rights Info (MHHRI). https://www.hhri.org/thematic-pages-overview/ethics
Murphy, K., Di Ruggiero, E., Upshur, R., Willison, D.J., Malhotra, N., Cai, J.C., Malhotra, N., Lui, V., & Gibson, J. (2021). Artificial intelligence for good health: a scoping review of the ethics literature. BMC Medical Ethics. 22, Article 14. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12910-021-00577-8
Muthanna, A., Chaaban, Y., & Qadhi, S. (2024). A model of the interrelationship between research ethics and research integrity. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 19(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2023.2295151
OECD. (2024). AI Principles. https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/ai-principles.html
Ofcom. (2025). AI chatbots and online regulation – what you need to know. December 18, 2025. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/ai-chatbots-and-online-regulation-what-you-need-to-know
Özden, H.C. (2024). The use of Artificial Intelligence in Psychotherapy: Practical and Ethical Aspects. Turkish Journal of Psychiatry, 35(4), 336–339. https://doi.org/10.5080/u27603
O’Rourke, K.J. (2018). The Ethics of Codes of Ethics. (Doctoral Thesis). Australian National University. Open Research Repository.http://hdl.handle.net/1885/143528
Peled-Raz, M., Tzafrir, S.S., Enosh, G., Efron, Y., & Doron, I. (2021). Ethics review boards for research with human participants: Past, present, and future. Qualitative Health Research, 31(3), 590–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732320972333
Peled-Raz, M., Efron, Y., Tzafrir, S.S., Doron, I., & Enosh, G. (2024). The development and evolution of ethics review boards. Israel as a case study. Research Ethics, 20(3), 490-513. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241240594
Phillips, L., Christensen-Strynø, M.B., & Frølunde, L. (2022). Thinking with autoethnography in collaborative research: A critical, reflexive approach to relational ethics. Qualitative Research, 22(5), 761–776. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941211033446
Pojman, L. P., & Fieser, J. (2017). Ethics: Discovering right and wrong (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Rapin, L.S. (2004). Guidelines for ethical and legal practice in counseling and psychotherapy groups. In J.L. DeLucia–Waack, D.A. Gerrity, C.R. Kalodner & M.T. Riva (Eds.), Handbook of group counseling and psychotherapy. (pp. 151-165). New York: Sage.
Resneck., J.S (2024). Revisions to the Declaration of Helsinki on Its 60th Anniversary. A Modernized Set of Ethical Principles to Promote and Ensue Respect for Participants in a Rapidly Innovative Research Ecosystem. JAMA, 333(1), 15-17. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2024.21902
Roby, B. (2018). Virtue Ethics, Deontology, and Consequentialism. (Departmental Honors & Graduate Capstone Projects. 292.) University of Mary Washington. Eagle Scholar Repository. https://scholar.umw.edu/student_research/292/
Schaer, M., & Steinlin, C. (2021). Ethics in Couple and Family Psychotherapy. In M. Trachsel, J. Gaab, N. Biller-Adorno, S. Tekin & J.Z. Sadler (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Psychotherapy Ethics. (pp. 642-659). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shaw, E. (2011). Relational Ethics and Moral Imagination in Contemporary Systemic Practice. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 32(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1375/anft.32.1.1
Shaw, E. (2015). Ethical Practice in Couple and Family Therapy. Negotiating Rocky Terrain. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 36(4). 504-517. https://doi.org/10.1002/anzf.1129
Shuster, E. (1997). Fifty years later: the significance of the Nuremberg Code. The New England Journal of Medicine, 337(20), 1436–1440. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199711133372006
Shuster, E. (1998). The Nuremberg code: Hippocratic ethics and human rights. The Lancet, 351(9107), 974–977. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)60641-1
Smith, H., Yves, J., Murphy, P., & Venables, M. (2026). How to guide and regulate for health and social care professionals who use AI.Workshop report. University of Bristol, Centre for Ethics and Medicine and the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care. https://www.professionalstandards.org.uk/publications/artificial-intelligence-how-guide-and-regulate-health-and-social-care-professionals
Sulkowski, L., Ratajczak, S., & Szczepańska-Woszczyna, K. (2026). Research Ethics, Integrity, and Transparency. Volume 2. Routledge.
Swauger, M. (2011). Afterword: The ethics of risk, power, and representation. Qualitative Sociology, 34(3), 497-502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-011-9201-5
Tauginienė, L., & Foltýnek, T. (2024). Glossary of Terms Related to Ethics and Integrity in Education. Council of Europe. https://www.coe.int/en/web/education/-/glossary-of-terms-related-to-ethics-and-integrity-in-education
Thomas, R.V., & Pender, D.A. (2008). Association for specialists in group work: Best practice guidelines 2007 revisions. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 33(2), 111–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/01933920801971184
TRUST. (2018). The TRUST Code. A Global Code of Conduct for Equitable Research Partnership. https://doi.org/10.48508/GCC/2018.05
UKCP. (2019a). Brief Guide to Research Ethics. https://www.psychotherapy.org.uk/policy-and-research/research/research-resources/
UKCP. (2019b). Ethical Code of Practice. https://www.psychotherapy.org.uk/about-ukcp/how-we-are-structured/ukcp-committees/ethics-committee/code-of-ethics/
UKCP. (n.d.). Artificial Intelligence and Psychotherapy. https://www.psychotherapy.org.uk/news/artificial-intelligence-and-psychotherapy/
UK Parliament. (2026). Artificial Intelligence (Regulation) Bill [HL]. https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3942
Rough, E. (2026). AI Regulation in the UK. Research Briefing. June 10, 2026. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10003/
UKRI. (2019, 10 April). Guidance Identifiability, anonymisation and pseudonymisation. https://www.ukri.org/publications/gdpr-best-practice-for-keeping-data-anonymous/
UKRI. (2020, 18 December). Guidance GDPR: lawful basis, research consent and confidentiality. https://www.ukri.org/publications/gdpr-lawful-basis-research-consent-and-confidentiality/
UKRI. (2025, April 7). Using Data about people in research. Medical Research Council. https://www.ukri.org/councils/mrc/facilities-and-resources/find-an-mrc-facility-or-resource/mrc-regulatory-support-centre/using-data-about-people-in-research/
UKRI. (2025, May 12). Risk and benefit. Economic and Social Research Council. https://www.ukri.org/councils/esrc/guidance-for-applicants/research-ethics-guidance/risk-and-benefit/
Upcounsel. (2025). Privileged and confidential: legal meaning explained. https://www.upcounsel.com/privileged-and-confidential
US Policy Team. (2024). Turning Vision into Action: Implementing the Senate AI Roadmap. https://futureoflife.org/document/vision-into-action-senate-ai-roadmap/
Varkey, B. (2020). Principles of Clinical Ethics and Their Application to Practice. Medical Principles and Practice, 30(1), 17-28. https://doi.org/10.1159/000509119
Vinciworks (2025, December 15). What to expect in 2026 for GDPR and data protection. https://vinciworks.com/blog/what-to-expect-in-2026-for-gdpr-and-data-protection/
Walker, P., & Lovat, T. (2014). You say morals, I say ethics. What’s the difference? The Conversation, September 18. https://theconversation.com/you-say-morals-i-say-ethics-whats-the-difference-30913
Wang, J., Yang, J., Zhang, H., Lu, H., Skreta, M., Husić, M., Arbabi, A., Sultanum, N., & Brudno, M. (2022). PhenoPad: Building AI enabled note-taking interfaces for patient encounters. NPJ Digital Medicine, 5(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-021-00555-9
World Medical Association. (2013). World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA, 310(20), 2191–2194. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053
WHO. (2017a). Code of Conduct for Responsible Research. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/about/ethics/code-of-conduct-for-responsible-research
WHO. (2017b). Misconduct in Research. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/about/ethics/code-of-conduct-for-responsible-research
WHO. (2024). Ethics and governance of artificial intelligence for health. Guidance on large multiple-modal models. World Health Organization.
WMA. (1964). Declaration of Helsinki. World Medical Association. https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/doh-jun1964/
WMA. (2024). WMA Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical Principles For Medical Research Involving Human Participants. World Medical Association. https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki/
Yonatan-Leus, R., & Shefler, G. (2026). The complexities of research ethics when therapists become research subjects: power, privacy, and professional boundaries in psychotherapy research. Psychotherapy Research, 36(7), 1171-1178. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2025.2569828
Yu, Y. (2026). Beyond Traditional «Responsibility»: «Responsibility» as a Relational Concept. An Attempt at Responsibility Ethics. Claridades. Revista de Filosofía, 18(1). 311-344. https://doi.org/10.24310/crf.18.1.2026.21398
Zembylas, M. (2023). A decolonial approach to AI in higher education teaching and learning: Strategies for undoing the ethics of digital neocolonialism. Learning, Media and Technology, 48(1), 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2021.2010094.
Zietman, A.L. (2013). Falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism: the unholy trinity of scientific writing. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 87(2), 225-227.