Identifying and developing inclusive policy and practice responses to health and social inequities in gender and sexually diverse persons require inclusive research ethics and methods in order to develop sound data. This article articulates 12 ethical principles for researchers undertaking gender and sexually diverse social, health, and related research. We have called these the ‘Montréal Ethical Principles for Inclusive Research.’ While writing from an international social work perspective, our aim is to promote ethical research that benefits people being researched by all disciplines. This paper targets four groups of interest: 1. Cisgender and heterosexual researchers; 2. Researchers who research ‘general’ populations; 3. and sexually diverse researchers; 4. Human ethics committees. This article was stimulated by the 2018 Global Social Work Statement of Ethical Principles, which positions human dignity at its core. It is critically important to understand and account for the intersectionality of gender and sexuality with discourses of race, ethnicity, colonialism, dis/ability, age, etc. Taking this intersectionality into consideration, this article draws on scholarship that underpins ethical principles developed for other minoritized communities, to ensure that research addresses the autonomy of these participants at every stage. Research that positions inclusive research ethics at its foundation can provide a solid basis for policy and practice responses to health and social inequities in gender and sexually diverse persons.

The approval of the 2014 joint Global Definition of Social Work required that international social work associations review the associated ethical principles of social work. The Global Social Work Statement of Ethical Principles (GSWSEP) was approved by international social work bodies in Dublin in July 2018. While the previous Statement of Ethics emphasized liberal humanist values common in the European–North American axis, the GSWSEP recognizes the global nature of the social work profession and locates human dignity at the core of social work ethics. The GSWSEP problematizes the core principles of social work, and responds to calls to decolonize social work in the context of the increasing regulation of social work.

This fast-moving global COVID-19 pandemic caught many nations unprepared and has exposed numerous flaws in global health, public health, and economic and social welfare infrastructures. It may seem premature to write about responses, but there are lessons to be learned from the response of Aotearoa New Zealand. Although its geopolitical situation as an island nation meant that it had late exposure to COVID-19, NZ has been commended because it closed its borders (to non-nationals); lockdown; traced; tested contacts; told people to pick a ‘bubble’ (immediate and usual family or household) and stay within that bubble; and promoted clear public messages. Government assistance was available for employers to retain staff, and additional support was provided for businesses and individuals. A strong and empathetic prime minister communicated regularly with the public and developed a sense of common national purpose. However, COVID-19 still exposed the impact of social inequalities. Implications for the next steps of recovery are considered in the paper.

Lavender Islands: Portrait of the Whole Family is the first national strengths-based study of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people in New Zealand. The 133-item survey was made available both by website and paper copy from April to July 2004. Multidisciplinary interest areas were developed by a community reference group, and included identity and self-definition, families of origin, relationships and sexuality, families of choice, immigration and internal migration, well-being, politics, income and spending, education, careers and leisure, community connections, challenges, and spirituality. A four-axis model of sexual identity was also tested; 2,269 responses were received. Of these 83% were from the website; 45% of responses were from women and 54% from men. Responses identified a robust, highly educated, relatively high-income, politically active LGB community. Male and female respondents experienced same-sex relationships and identity in significantly different ways.