Research Ethics Quick Reference
One page to keep open while you work. Three status labels run through it, because the two commonest ways this material gets misread are quoting one form's word counts as a standard and one case's five months as a timeline.
How to read this page
The three status labels used throughout
- Requirement
- Stated by the source as a rule you must satisfy — either attributed to a named code, or framed as a condition of being allowed to proceed. Plan against it.
- Source example
- Reproduced by the source as one organisation's form, one text's list or one author's framing. Transferable in shape, not binding in detail. Word counts, categories and headings in this class belong to that document, not to you.
- Illustration
- A case, prompt or figure the source offers to make a point. Never a standard, a benchmark, an average or a rate. Numbers in this class describe one instance.
What ethics are, and the rule that decides your schedule
DEFINITIONS AND DISTINCTIONS
| Item | As the source states it | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Ethics | Norms or standards of behaviour that guide moral choices about our behaviour and our relationship with others | Source example — one text's definition, attributed |
| Ethics, second definition | The science of morals in human conduct | Source example — a dictionary entry, attributed |
| Aim of research ethics | To ensure that no one is harmed or suffers adverse consequences from the research activity | Requirement — stated as the purpose the rest serves |
| Where ethics live in an organisation | Overarching principles and rules governing behaviour, normally documented in a value statement and reflected in procedures, policies and expected behaviours | Source example |
| Morals | An unwritten set of values providing a frame of reference used to help decision-making and regulate behaviour | Source example — a distinction attributed to one author |
| Ethics, as distinguished from morals | A written code of value principles used in a particular context | Source example — same attribution |
| Research ethics | The principles we use to make decisions about what is acceptable practice in any research project | Source example |
The source states that the two terms tend to be used interchangeably, and offers the written/unwritten distinction as one author's. Treated in full on What Research Ethics Are and Why They Matter.
DUAL APPROVAL WHEN YOUR WORKPLACE HOSTS THE STUDY
| What the source states | Status |
|---|---|
| Where your project is hosted by your workplace or a related organisation it becomes part of that organisation's business ethics, and you need clearance from there as well as from the university | Requirement |
| The university will accept another organisation's ethics approval when attached to your application | Requirement, as stated by the source |
| Each organisation has different processes. Check what the application form requires, whether the process is on-line or through a committee, and the timelines that apply | Requirement — an instruction to you |
| Before commencing any research proposal, become familiar with the codes of ethics in your organisation and/or your university | Requirement — an instruction to you |
Sequencing, routing and what a panel is for are covered on Ethics Review and Approval Processes.
Unethical behaviour, and the issues at each stage
Status: source example. The list is introduced with "things such as", so the source makes no claim to completeness — and plagiarism, which the same material calls a most serious offence, is not on it. Worked through on Unethical Behaviour in Research.
ETHICAL ISSUES BY RESEARCH STAGE — ELEVEN ITEMS, TWO STAGES
| Stage | Issue, as the source states it | Whose right | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proposal | Disclosure of who is financing your research (the slide adds "if relevant") | Not stated | Source example |
| Proposal | Sponsor's right to quality research and your effort to provide it | Sponsor | Source example |
| Proposal | Sponsor's right to nondisclosure of your findings | Sponsor | Source example — slide deck only, absent from the study notes |
| Proposal | Your right to be free from coercion from the sponsor in undertaking your study and determining your results | Researcher | Source example |
| Proposal | Your right to honest dealings with the sponsor | Researcher | Source example |
| Design | Participants' right of informed consent | Participant | Source example |
| Design | Researcher's right to safety | Researcher | Source example |
| Design | Participants' right to privacy | Participant | Source example |
| Design | Participants' right to volunteer and not to be coerced | Participant | Source example |
| Design | Participants' right to confidentiality | Participant | Source example |
| Design | Sponsor's right to have unbiased and quality research | Sponsor | Source example — the only item listed at both stages |
The list is introduced with "for example". Right-holders are analysis added here. Full treatment on Ethical Issues at Each Research Stage.
The four principles and the five design considerations
The source calls the principles universal and concerned with two things — honesty, and the rights of the individuals — then says "typically they include", which places the list in the source-example class.
THE FOUR ETHICAL PRINCIPLES
| Principle | What the source says about it | Status |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Do no harm | "Harm is most likely to arise… from use of data collected by the researcher and issues around privacy and confidentiality of information" | Source example — the accompanying data-breach case study is a prompt, with no answer supplied |
| 2. Free choice | "Participants should not be coerced… Coercion may occur because participants feel they are not in a position to refuse… or they are given a penalty if they do not" | Source example — the accompanying national-census case study poses a question that is not answered |
| 3. Plagiarism | "The use and/or presentation of somebody else's work or ideas as your own. It is a most serious offence." Avoided by "properly referencing everything you take from any and every source" | Source example — the only principle of the four with a stated remedy |
| 4. Reporting research and collecting data (slides: "Validity") | Four questions to ponder, below. The slides add: "When you have collected the data is your interpretation of the results appropriate?" | Source example — and none of the four questions is answered anywhere in the material |
Full treatment on The Four Ethical Principles; the third principle on Plagiarism and Research Integrity.
The five ethical considerations to incorporate as the research is designed
- Protecting the rights of the participant or subject
- Ensuring the sponsor receives ethically conducted and reported research
- Following ethical standards when designing research
- Protecting the safety of the researcher and the team
- Ensuring the research team follows the developed proposal — the study notes say "approved" where the slide says "developed"
Status: source example. Both wordings supplied. Item four is the one most often skipped, and it reappears as a question in the application's risk part.
The protections vocabulary
The source reproduces an excerpt describing "the system of ethical protections that the contemporary social and medical research establishment have created to try to protect better the rights of their research participants". Six key phrases, in the source's own words.
The six protection standards, as the source defines them
- Voluntary participation
- Requires that people not be coerced into participating in research. Especially relevant where researchers had previously relied on captive audiences for their subjects — prisons, universities, and places like that.
- Informed consent
- Prospective research participants must be fully informed about the procedures and risks involved in research and must give their consent to participate. Closely related to voluntary participation.
- Risk of harm
- Researchers must not put participants in a situation where they might be at risk of harm as a result of their participation. Harm can be defined as both physical and psychological.
- Confidentiality
- The first of two privacy standards. Participants are assured that identifying information will not be made available to anyone who is not directly involved in the study.
- Anonymity
- The stricter standard: the participant remains anonymous throughout the study, even to the researchers themselves. A stronger guarantee of privacy, but sometimes difficult to accomplish — especially where participants must be measured at multiple time points.
- Right to service
- Good research practice often requires a no-treatment control group. Where the treatment or program may have beneficial effects, those assigned to the control may feel their rights to equal access to services are being curtailed.
Status: source example — an excerpt from a research methods reference, reproduced by the teaching material. Consent and voluntariness are worked through on Voluntary Participation and Informed Consent; the two privacy standards on Confidentiality and Anonymity; harm and the control-group problem on Protecting Participants from Harm.
The eight-part application, and the requirements inside it
- Aims
- Methodology
- Participants
- Consent
- Risks
- Data storage
- Recordings
- Access and ownership
APPLICATION PARTS 1–5, WITH STATUS
| Part | What it asks | Status |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Research aims | State the aims (50–100 words). Explain the need for, and value of, the research, placing the aims in the context of existing research or practice (100–300 words). Include not more than 10 key references at appendix 1 | Source example — the word counts and the reference cap are that form's |
| 2. Research methodology | List your research questions. Outline your research design and methodology. Indicate whether this is the first stage of a larger project — and if so, explain your intentions, to facilitate further approval if you extend it | Source example |
| 3. Research participants | Who will be approached or recruited. Selection and, where appropriate, exclusion criteria. How you will recruit volunteers, and how you will provide detailed information about the study to them | Source example |
| 4. Consent and dependent groups | Describe how you will obtain consent. Where participants are drawn from a dependent group, detail how you will ensure they do not feel under any obligation. Describe how you will preserve confidentiality at collection, analysis and reporting | Source example — the dependent-group definition is the source's own |
| 5. Risks | Where there are potential risks — physical, emotional, social or legal — to participants' wellbeing beyond those normally encountered in everyday life, detail the steps to address, manage or minimise them, including support such as counselling, debriefings or referrals. Indicate how safety implications for you as researcher will be addressed | Source example — the four categories and the everyday-life threshold are that form's |
Written part by part on Writing an Ethics Application.
Parts 6 to 8 — the only hard requirements in the whole form
APPLICATION PARTS 6–8, WITH STATUS
| Item | What the source states | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Recording medium | Describe briefly how the research data will be recorded — for example, audiotape, videotape, or written notes | Source example |
| Retention period | A minimum of five years, stored securely in a safe environment | Requirement — attributed to a named national code |
| Retention variation | A minimum of seven years where the project involves a South Australian government department | Requirement — the source's stated variation |
| Identifiability declaration | Individually identifiable; re-identifiable (coded) data; or non-identifiable data | Requirement — a declaration the application must carry |
| Retention of recordings | Where data was recorded on tape and a certified transcript will be made, the tape must be retained as the raw data at the completion of the project. The transcript may also be stored | Requirement, as stated on the form |
| Disclosure about recordings | The information sheet should explain where and how taped material will be stored, who will have access, and whether access will be unavailable for any period | Source example — but it governs a document participants read before consenting |
| Conditions of reuse | Where tapes are retained, the consent form should incorporate the conditions of use while releasing the University from any obligation to reimburse participants | Source example |
| Access | Specify who, apart from yourself and your supervisors, will have access to the research data and results, and any conditions on that access | Source example |
| Ownership | Student researchers normally own the data they collect; the University normally owns data and results of research undertaken by staff | Stated as the normal position — check your own arrangement |
| Code compliance | Follow the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2007) in relation to responsible research practice, research misconduct, authorship, data storage and retention and related issues | Requirement — attributed to the code |
The slides add of the ownership provision: "This provision protects you as the researcher should there be any questions raised about the validity of your research data." Full treatment on Research Data Storage, Retention and Ownership.
Three cases, and what each cost
The source states: "The following case studies are based on fact; names are fictitious." Names are removed entirely here. Status: illustration — all three, and no figure in them is a benchmark.
THE THREE CASE STUDIES
| Case | What happened | Cost |
|---|---|---|
| The skipped training video | A required training video was skipped and the confirmation email sent anyway. The application was completed without reading the detailed information, and a question about indigenous community involvement answered by inference. Submission routed it automatically to a higher-level committee whose requirements were unaddressed | Rejected weeks later; major amendments on lengthy timescales; the thesis could not proceed and the student withdrew |
| The wrong submission route | A student on schedule chose to submit as a researcher rather than a student. Student applications route automatically to the supervisor for authorisation; this one bypassed the supervisor entirely | Delay of a number of weeks; the ability to finish on time was affected |
| The dependent group | An evaluative study inside the researcher's own workplace, on the same team as the participants. The director required approaches to be made individually by the university supervisor, an information sheet sent first, and the director notified before the researcher when a colleague agreed | Five rounds of amendment before approval; more than five months |
Set out in full, with the common mechanism drawn out, on Ethics Application Failures: What Goes Wrong.
Where the material stops
The source names one support role: research ethics advisors, who provide advice and assistance to applicants, advise staff and students about ethics policies and guidelines, conduct workshops, and review a class of application alongside a committee chair or deputy chair.
The working sequence, assembled from the source's own instructions
Read both codes of ethics
Your organisation's and your university's, before you commence any research proposal. Establish which forms apply, whether each process is online or through a committee, and the timelines.
Settle the sponsor terms
Financing disclosed, the managerial question recorded, who determines the results agreed in writing, and any confidentiality term distinguishing the sponsor's identity from the findings.
Design the ethics in, not on
Run the five design considerations and the eleven stage issues while the method is still movable. Consent, refusal and confidentiality are design decisions.
Decide the identifiability class before collection
Individually identifiable, re-identifiable or non-identifiable. It can be lowered later but not raised, and the application must declare it.
Write the application against your proposal
Parts 1 to 3 are compressed proposal sections. A question you cannot answer without inventing something is a decision you have not made.
Check the routing before you submit
Know which answers change where the application goes, and have your supervisor see it whichever route the form claims. Two of the three cases failed here.
Wait, then collect
Data gathered before clearance cannot be used for your findings, so there is no version of starting early that helps.
What to carry forward
- Most of this material is source example, not requirement. The word counts and headings on the application form belong to that form.
- One cluster is binding: minimum five years' secure storage, seven where a state government department is involved, a declared identifiability class, and the responsible-practice obligations attributed to a named code.
- Data gathered before clearance cannot be used. Approval delay is not recoverable by working ahead.
- The seven unethical behaviours are introduced with "things such as", and plagiarism is not among them.
- Confidentiality and anonymity are two standards, not two words: anonymity means even you cannot identify the participant.
- Five rounds and more than five months describes one dependent-group case. It is the only timing figure in the material and it is not a benchmark.
- Where the material stops, your approving body's own documents take over — not inference.
Frequently asked questions
Which parts of this material are actually binding?
The retention periods, the three-way identifiability declaration and the responsible-practice obligations, all attributed to a named national code, plus the rule that you cannot proceed or use data without ethics clearance. Everything else in the supplied material is a definition, an example form, a quoted excerpt or an illustration. The status column on each table marks which is which.
How long must I keep my research data?
A minimum of five years, stored securely in a safe environment, with a minimum of seven years where the project involves a South Australian government department. Both are stated as requirements flowing from the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research. The code itself is not reproduced in the supplied material, so confirm the current position and which period applies to you.
What is the difference between confidentiality and anonymity?
Confidentiality means identifying information will not be made available to anyone not directly involved in the study — you know who said what, and you protect it. Anonymity is the stricter standard: the participant remains anonymous even to the researchers. The source notes anonymity is sometimes difficult to accomplish, particularly where participants must be measured at multiple time points.
Can I use data I collected before approval came through?
No. The supplied material states it explicitly: even if you have gathered data before you have ethics clearance, you are not able to use it for your findings. That single clause is why an approval delay is a schedule failure rather than an administrative one — there is no way to work ahead of it.
Do the word counts on the application form apply to my application?
Almost certainly not. The source presents the whole eight-part structure as an example sourced from a government department, and notes that many such examples are publicly available. The 50–100 words for aims, 100–300 for need and value, and the ten-reference cap are that form's conventions. Use them as a signal of expected depth and take actual limits from your own form.
Why does this page mark things as source example rather than just listing them?
Because the same material contains items of three different kinds, and the difference determines what you can rely on. An illustrative duration quoted as a benchmark, or one form's word count quoted as a standard, are the two commonest ways this material gets misread. The status labels are there so a list can be used without being over-claimed.
References and source attribution
- Cooper, D. & Schindler, P. 2008, Business Research Methods, 10th ed., McGraw-Hill — the source of the definition of ethics quoted here and of the sponsor and stage material.
- Quinlan, C. 2011, Business Research Methods, 1st ed., Cengage Publishing, Chapter 3 — the prescribed reading accompanying the ethics material.
- Trochim, W. M. K. 2006, Research Methods Knowledge Base — the source of the excerpt on the system of ethical protections and the rationale for review panels reproduced here.
- Swinton, J. 2009, 'Why bother with research ethics?', Journal of Community Nursing, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 25–27.
- Whiteman, N. 2012, Undoing Ethics: Rethinking Practice in Online Research.
- Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2007) — named in the supplied source as the instrument behind the retention, identifiability and responsible-practice requirements. The code itself is not reproduced in the supplied material.
- The supplied teaching source: consolidated weekly teaching notes and slide material on research ethics, from which every list, definition, application part and case study on this page is drawn.
Suggested questions for Ask KEVOS
- Go through my ethics application and tell me which of its requirements are code-backed and which are that form's conventions.
- Build me an ethics approval plan covering both my workplace and my university, in the right order.
- Check my design against the eleven stage issues and the five design considerations in one pass.
- Which identifiability class should my study declare, and what does each one prevent me doing later?
- Summarise everything the supplied ethics material does not cover, so I know what to get from my approving body.