A Participant Information Sheet, Displayed
What a participant receives is not what a committee receives, and the difference has never been visible in this library until now. Two pages, 621 words, eleven jobs done — and two silences that this study's own recruitment method makes pressing.
What the document is, and what it is not
This sheet belongs to one examined master's project — a survey of entrepreneurs on change management — supplied with its instrument, its data and its workbook. Its own file records 621 words across two pages, created three days after the questionnaire document and revised eight times. It carries an institutional logo, and it was distributed alongside the survey link.
It is a participant-facing document. That distinction runs through everything below: an ethics application argues a case to a committee, while an information sheet gives a person enough to decide with. The library has been able to describe the first for a long time and has never been able to show the second.
The sheet, transcribed in full
In the source's own paragraph order, with names, addresses, the institution, the protocol number and the country scrubbed. Nothing else is changed.
The eleven things it does
Enumerated because no other document in the library enumerates them, and because the list is the practical checklist a reader wants. Each element is present in this sheet.
ELEVEN ELEMENTS, IN THE ORDER THE SHEET SUPPLIES THEM
| # | Element | How this sheet does it |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Invitation and how you were identified | Names the route: a colleague's recommendation, and contact details obtained from colleagues |
| 2 | What the document is for | One paragraph explaining that the sheet exists to support a decision |
| 3 | An instruction to ask and to consult | Invites questions and suggests talking to a relative, friend or local worker first |
| 4 | The time burden | "approximately five minutes" |
| 5 | The purpose of the research | One sentence, in the same words as the survey's own header |
| 6 | Voluntariness | Stated twice, with three explicit consent propositions |
| 7 | Right to withdraw, and its limit | Withdrawal during completion; impossible after submission, with the reason given |
| 8 | Benefit and risk | No benefit guaranteed; risk no greater than everyday life |
| 9 | Anonymity and confidentiality, with a limit | Intended to be anonymous, identifying material removed, and internet transfer expressly not guaranteed |
| 10 | Storage and retention | A named secure server, five years, following publication, in a non-identifiable format |
| 11 | Contacts and approval | Researcher, supervisor, committee, approval reference, national statement, complaints route, offer of a findings summary |
Eleven elements, counted for this library; the sheet itself numbers nothing.
Mapped against what an ethics application must demonstrate
The library records an eight-part ethics application structure, described by its own source as an example rather than a universal form. That structure and a real consent document have never met. The mapping below is this library's, part by part.
THE EIGHT-PART APPLICATION STRUCTURE AGAINST THIS SHEET
| Part | What it requires | What this sheet does |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Research aims | State aims; explain need and value; list key references | Partly. One sentence of purpose. No need, no value, no references — and a sheet is not where references belong. Record the mismatch of document type, not a failure |
| 2. Research methodology | List research questions; outline the design; state whether this is one stage of a larger project | No. Names the method only as "an online survey". Does not give the research question, and does not say that the study is Part A of a two-part project, which the thesis title page does state |
| 3. Research participants | Who is approached; selection and exclusion criteria; how volunteers are recruited; how information is provided | Yes, and unusually frankly. States recruitment by colleagues' recommendation and that contact details came from colleagues. States no exclusion criteria — and none is testable by the instrument |
| 4. Consent and dependent groups | How consent is obtained; dependent groups and unequal power; how confidentiality is preserved | Partly. Consent and confidentiality: yes, with limits stated. Dependent groups: silent |
| 5. Risks | Risks beyond everyday life and how they are managed; researcher safety | Partly. Risk not anticipated beyond everyday life. Researcher safety: silent — consistent with a no-risk determination |
| 6. Data recording and storage | How recorded; what happens after analysis; minimum five years; how, where and in what form; identifiability | Yes — the fullest part. Secure institutional server, five years, following publication, non-identifiable format. All four sub-requirements addressed, using one of the three identifiability terms the code names |
| 7. Recordings and transcripts | Applies where audio or video is recorded | Not applicable. Nothing is recorded. Correctly absent |
| 8. Access and ownership | Who else has access and on what conditions; who owns the data and results | Partly. Access is covered — nothing identifying released unless required by law. Ownership: silent |
This library's mapping, not the source's. Some parts belong in an application and not in a sheet: see the caution below.
Against the seven participant protections
The library's ethics stream also records a set of protections owed to a participant. Checked one by one against this document, the picture is better than the application mapping suggests, because these are the things a sheet exists to deliver.
SEVEN PROTECTIONS, CHECKED
| Protection | In this sheet |
|---|---|
| Voluntary participation | Yes, stated twice |
| Informed consent | Yes, three explicit propositions |
| Risk of harm | Yes — "no risks beyond those encountered during everyday life" |
| Confidentiality | Yes, with an internet-transfer caveat |
| Anonymity | Yes — "intended to be anonymous", with the same caveat |
| Right to service or a no-treatment control | Not applicable — there is no intervention |
| Review panel | Yes — committee named, approval referenced, complaints route given |
Six of seven applicable protections present in one two-page document. The rights to volunteer without coercion and to privacy are both present as well.
The two silences that matter
The first is dependent groups and unequal power. The sheet states, frankly, that participants were invited on colleagues' recommendations and that their contact details came from those colleagues. That is precisely the situation the dependent-groups requirement exists to address: a person approached through a professional relationship may find declining harder than a stranger would. The sheet does address the related risk — it says participation will not affect the relationship with the researchers or the university — but it never names the referral relationship itself. The general problem is at dependent groups and unequal power.
The second is data ownership. The sheet is strong on storage, retention, format and access, and says nothing about who owns the data or the results. The library records that student researchers normally own the data they collect; this document does not tell a participant that, and ownership is the one part of the storage question the sheet leaves open. See research data storage, retention and ownership.
What to add for your own study
Use the eleven elements as the spine and the two silences as the additions. The supplied teaching material does not prescribe this list; it is assembled here from one real document checked against the library's own requirements.
Before your sheet goes out with your instrument
- Every one of the eleven elements above is present, in language a participant will read once and understand.
- The limit on withdrawal is stated, with its reason. An anonymous survey cannot honour a later withdrawal request, and saying so is more honest than promising one.
- The limit on confidentiality is stated. This sheet's caveat about material transferred over the internet is a model of the kind.
- Retention is a number of years you have checked against your own institution's rule, not a number copied from an example.
- If anyone was approached through a colleague, an employer, a supervisor or a client relationship, say so and say what protects them from feeling obliged.
- State who owns the data and the results, and what happens to both after the retention period.
- Give the participant a route that is not you: a committee, an officer, a contact for complaints.
One point of register, because it governs how this artefact should be used. Every gap noted here is a gap in the document, visible only because the whole apparatus of this project survived alongside its thesis — not a judgement about a researcher whose work passed examination. This is one sheet from one project: it is a good worked example, not a standard, and nothing here is evidence about consent documents in general. Read it beside voluntary participation and informed consent and confidentiality and anonymity, which set out what the obligations are before any document expresses them.
What to carry forward
- A participant information sheet is a decision aid, not an application. Judge it on whether a person can decide from it, then check the application separately.
- The two elements most often missing are the limits: what withdrawal cannot undo, and what confidentiality cannot guarantee. This sheet states both.
- Storage, retention period, format and access belong in the sheet. So does ownership, which this one omits.
- If your recruitment runs through a relationship, name the relationship. It is the part an ethics reviewer will look for and the part a participant feels.
- A good sheet still fails if it is not reachable from the instrument at the moment consent is given.
Frequently asked questions
Is this sheet a template I can adapt?
It is a good worked example and it is one document from one project, so treat it as a structure rather than a text. The eleven elements transfer; the specifics — five minutes, five years, the named committee, the risk determination — belong to that study and its institution. Your retention period, contacts and risk statement must come from your own approval.
Why does it matter that the sheet limits the right to withdraw?
Because an anonymous survey cannot identify a submitted response, so a promise to withdraw one after submission could not be honoured. The sheet says this plainly and gives the reason. Stating the limit is what makes the consent informed; a general promise of withdrawal would have been easier to write and impossible to keep.
What is the difference between what goes in the sheet and what goes in the ethics application?
The application argues a case to a committee: aims, need and value, design, risks including researcher safety, recruitment, storage, access and ownership, supported by references. The sheet gives a participant what they need to decide: what is being asked, how long it takes, what is voluntary, what happens to their data, and who to contact. Several application requirements would be noise in a sheet, which is why the mapping on this page is not a score.
Is the five-year retention period a standard I should apply?
It is the minimum this project's institution applied, quoted from a national code, and it appears independently in three documents supplied with this batch. That makes it the best-evidenced requirement in this library, and it still is not automatically yours. Check the period your own institution and jurisdiction require, and state the one you will actually meet.
What should the sheet say if participants were recruited through colleagues?
Name the route, as this one does, and then address the pressure it creates: state that declining has no consequence for any relationship, and say who the participant can talk to instead of the researcher. This sheet does the first and the second in part, and never names the referral relationship as a source of pressure.
Does the thesis's silence about ethics approval matter if the sheet carries it?
It matters for the reader of the thesis, which is the document that gets examined, cited and stored. The approval, the protocol number and the national statement exist here only in a document no examiner necessarily sees. A method chapter that names the approval and its reference costs one sentence.
References and source attribution
- A complete research dataset supplied as student work: one examined master's thesis with its participant information sheet (two pages, 621 words, transcribed here in full), its survey instrument, raw response file and analysis workbook. Researcher, supervisor, institution, server, ethics office contacts and protocol number scrubbed. Used as observed practice, not as a model answer.
- National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2007 (updated 2018), named by the sheet itself as the basis of its approval and retention claims.
- A completed research-ethics project completion report supplied with the same batch, belonging to a different project by a different researcher; cited here only for its independent statement of the five-year retention requirement.
- The supplied teaching source: weekly study notes, slide decks and assessment activities for a master's-level research methods subject in project management, including the ethics material that sets out an eight-part application structure and a set of participant protections. Author, institution and year not stated in the supplied files.
Suggested questions for Ask KEVOS
- What must a participant information sheet contain for an online survey?
- How do I word the limit on withdrawal for an anonymous survey?
- What is the difference between a participant information sheet and an ethics application?
- How should I describe recruitment when participants were referred by colleagues?
- What do I need to say about data storage, retention and ownership?
- How do I connect a consent document to an online form so consent is recorded?