Research ethics and integrity · Lesson 1 of 3

What you owe the people in your research

Consent is about comprehension and freedom, not a signature. Promise only the confidentiality you can keep.

9 min read · Free — no account needed to read

Informed consent means a person agrees knowing what they are agreeing to: what the research is about, what participation involves, how long it takes, what happens to their data, that they may withdraw, and how to reach you. A signature on a form somebody did not read is not consent; the comprehension is the substance.

Withdrawal has to be real. People need to know they can stop, and what happens to data already collected if they do — and they need to be able to do it without awkwardness, which means saying so more than once.

Privacy and confidentiality are distinct. Privacy is the person's right to control information about themselves; confidentiality is your obligation not to disclose what they shared. You can only promise confidentiality you can actually deliver — and if disclosure could be legally compelled, or if you are obliged to report certain disclosures, say so up front rather than promising more than you can keep.

Anonymisation is harder than removing names. Deductive disclosure is the real risk: a combination of role, location, age and detail can identify somebody even with the name gone, especially in small communities and organisations. The practical checks are to aggregate small categories, alter non-essential identifying details and say that you have, and where a quote remains identifying, go back and ask.

Vulnerable participants — children, patients, prisoners, employees of the researcher, anyone dependent on a service you are connected to — need additional care, usually additional approval, and particular attention to whether refusal is genuinely free. The core question is always whether saying no carries a cost.

Data protection is a legal question as well as an ethical one, and it varies by jurisdiction. Know what applies to you before collecting anything.

See it happen

You are interviewing employees about management, with the manager's permission and support.

The read that arrives on its own

The manager supports the study and has encouraged people to take part, so recruitment will be easy.

The same situation, with this idea

You notice the manager's support is the problem. If people believe their manager knows who participated or what was said, refusal has a cost and honesty has a cost. So consent has to be sought privately, the manager must not learn who took part, findings must be reported so individuals cannot be identified, and you have to say all of that plainly — including that you will not report back on individuals even if asked.

After this, you can

ask whether saying no, or saying something uncomfortable, carries a cost for the participant.

The takeaway

Consent is about comprehension and freedom, not a signature. Promise only the confidentiality you can keep.

Easy to take the wrong way

That approval settles it. Approval covers your plan; the decisions that matter mostly arrive during fieldwork and analysis.

Try this

Write what you would tell a participant in plain language, in under 150 words. If it cannot be said plainly, the design may need changing.