
This policy brief examines how research ethics governance at Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR) can better support the university’s ambition to become an engaged university. Drawing on an action learning study conducted between 2023 and 2025, including policy review, interviews, and cross-faculty workshops with Research Ethics Review Committee members and related actors, the brief identifies key tensions in current ethics governance, including the limits of one-off procedural review, the need for ongoing ethical judgement, and the challenge of cultivating shared responsibility across researchers, institutions, and societal partners. It calls for a focused portfolio of institutional experiments, including proportionate and staged review, community and data ethics protocols, cross-faculty learning, and ethics coaching or embedded facilitation. The brief contributes to wider discussions on research integrity, engaged research, open science, and the governance of ethical responsibility in participatory and transformation-oriented research.
Research Ethics Review Committees, ethical stewardship, CARE Principles, ethics review, transdisciplinary research, research integrity, societal impact, institutional experimentation, Research ethics governance, engaged research, community data ethics, transformative research, science-society relations, open science, participatory research, ethics coaching, engaged university
Research Ethics Review Committees, ethical stewardship, CARE Principles, ethics review, transdisciplinary research, research integrity, societal impact, institutional experimentation, Research ethics governance, engaged research, community data ethics, transformative research, science-society relations, open science, participatory research, ethics coaching, engaged university
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
