Writing an Ethics Application
The supplied source reproduces one government department's form and says plainly that many such examples are publicly available. Worked through part by part, it turns out not to be a compliance document at all — it is a design review, and every question asks for a decision you should already have made.
What this form is, and what it is not
That framing matters, because the material on this form is of two kinds and mixing them up produces confident errors in both directions.
WHAT IS A REQUIREMENT AND WHAT IS THAT FORM'S CONVENTION
| Item | Status | How to treat it |
|---|---|---|
| 50–100 words for the aims; 100–300 for need and value | That form's convention | A signal of expected depth — a short paragraph, not a chapter. Never quote as a standard |
| Not more than 10 key references at appendix 1 | That form's convention | A cap on that form's appendix. Your body may set a different one |
| Risk categories: physical, emotional, social, legal | That form's wording | A well-built prompt. Use it as a checklist even where another form asks one open question |
| Minimum five years' secure storage, or seven where a state government department is involved | Requirement of a named national code | Plan for it as a requirement. Establish which period applies to you |
| Individually identifiable / re-identifiable (coded) / non-identifiable | Required declaration under the same code | Decide the class before collection, and declare it |
| Students own data they collect; the university owns staff research data | Stated as the normal position | The word is "normally". Check your own arrangement before assuming |
The distinction follows the source's own framing: it presents the form as one publicly available example, while attributing the retention, identifiability and code-compliance requirements to a national code for the responsible conduct of research.
The eight parts at a glance
- Aims
- Methodology
- Participants
- Consent
- Risks
- Data storage
- Recordings
- Access and ownership
Read in order, the parts trace the life of a piece of information: why it is collected, how, from whom, with what permission, at what cost, where it then lives, and who may reach it afterwards.
THE EIGHT PARTS AND WHAT EACH ONE IS REALLY TESTING
| Part | Core ask | What it is testing |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Research aims | Aims, need and value, key references | Whether the study is worth imposing on anyone at all |
| 2. Research methodology | Questions, design, first-stage status | Whether the design can answer the questions |
| 3. Research participants | Who, criteria, recruitment, information | Whether recruitment is a mechanism or an intention |
| 4. Consent and dependent groups | Consent, obligation, confidentiality | Whether consent is free, and whether confidentiality survives all three stages |
| 5. Risks | Four risk categories, mitigation, your safety | Whether you have read your instrument as a participant would |
| 6. Data recording and storage | Medium, retention, storage form, identifiability | Whether the data has a life-cycle plan, not just a collection plan |
| 7. Recordings and transcripts | Tape retention, access disclosure, reuse terms | Whether participants were told what will happen to their recording |
| 8. Access and ownership | Access conditions, ownership | Whether the questions that cause later disputes are settled now |
Parts 1 and 2: aims and methodology
Part 1 — Research aims
Three requests. State the aims, in 50–100 words. Explain the need for, and value of, your research, placing the aims in the context of existing research or practice, in 100–300 words. Include not more than 10 key references at appendix 1.
Those lengths are that form's, and treating them as a standard is the commonest misreading of this material. What they convey is register: an aim in a short paragraph, a justification on part of a page. Neither is a literature review.
The phrase doing the work is existing research or practice. The disjunction is unusually accommodating for a practitioner: a study can be justified against professional practice, not only against a published gap. That is a lower bar than a thesis introduction sets, and the right one for a panel.
Part 2 — Research methodology
List your research questions. Outline your research design and methodology. Indicate whether your research is the first stage of a larger project — and if it is, briefly explain your intentions for the development of the study, to facilitate further ethics approval if you extend it.
That last clause is a benefit rather than a burden. Declaring a possible second stage now makes a later extension an amendment to something already contemplated rather than a fresh application. For a study that might grow into a programme evaluation, that costs three sentences and buys real optionality.
Parts 3 and 4: participants and consent
Part 3 — Research participants
Four questions: who will be approached or recruited; the selection and, where appropriate, exclusion criteria; how you will recruit volunteers; and how you will provide detailed information about your study to potential participants.
Exclusion criteria are the item most often skipped, and the one that shows you have thought about who should not be in the study. Someone in a grievance process, on performance management, or reporting directly to you may need excluding for ethical rather than methodological reasons — and saying so is the evidence a panel wants.
The fourth question is a document question in disguise: detailed information means a participant information sheet that exists in writing before the first approach, not a verbal summary at the door. Its contents are treated in Voluntary Participation and Informed Consent.
Part 4 — Consent and dependent groups
Three obligations sit here and are commonly answered as one. Consent is a mechanism — what is signed or recorded, by whom, when. Removing obligation for a dependent group is a different mechanism, and the verb is detail, an evidentiary demand. Confidentiality is a third, required at three named moments: collection, analysis, reporting.
Those moments each fail differently — the distinction is worked through in Confidentiality and Anonymity, and the power problem in Dependent Groups and Unequal Power.
Part 5: risks to participants and to you
Two questions of identical shape. The first asks about potential risks — physical, emotional, social or legal — to participants' wellbeing beyond those normally encountered in everyday life, and requires you to detail the steps that will address, manage or minimise them, including support facilities such as counselling, debriefings or referrals. The second asks the same about you.
How to answer part 5 without overclaiming or leaving it blank
The four categories, the threshold and the control-group problem are treated in Protecting Participants from Harm.
Parts 6 and 7: recording, storage and transcripts
Part 6 asks first how the research data will be recorded — audiotape, videotape, or written notes. That answer drives everything after, because a recording creates obligations written notes do not.
Part 7 sets out those obligations, and the first catches people who thought they had finished.
What part 7 requires once you have recorded anything
The tape is the raw data and is retained
Where data was recorded on audio or video and a certified transcript will be made, the tape must be retained as the raw data to be stored at completion of the project. The transcript may also be stored. Transcribing does not release you from keeping the tape.
The information sheet explains storage and access
It should be clearly explained on the participant information sheet where and how the taped material will be stored, who will have access, and whether access will be unavailable for any period.
Any embargo is stated up front
You may retain exclusive access for research purposes for a specified period, or the tapes might not be public for a time. Either way it belongs on the information sheet, before consent.
The consent form carries the conditions of use
Where tapes are retained for any purpose, the consent form should incorporate the conditions under which the material can be used, while releasing the University from any obligation to reimburse participants.
The retention periods, the three identifiability classes and what each forecloses are treated in Research Data Storage, Retention and Ownership.
Part 8: access and ownership
The access question defines a default boundary — you and your supervisors — and treats everyone else as requiring naming and conditions. Transcribers, translators, second coders, workplace sponsors and co-authors sit outside it until you put them in.
The ownership answer is a default with a qualifier. Normally is not always, and a practitioner studying their own workplace is the case where it may not hold: an employment contract or an intellectual property policy can say otherwise. The source states the default and does not address the conflict.
Writing it: verbs, evidence and what gets it sent back
The form is consistent about how much it wants, and it signals it through the verb of each instruction. Reading the verbs is the fastest way to calibrate an answer.
THE FORM'S VERBS AND WHAT EACH ONE DEMANDS
| Verb | Where it is used | What a sufficient answer looks like |
|---|---|---|
| State / List | Aims; research questions; selection and exclusion criteria | A short, closed answer. No argument, no hedging |
| Explain | Need for and value of the research | A reason with a warrant, placed against existing research or practice |
| Outline / Indicate | Design and methodology; first-stage status; researcher safety | The shape of the thing, in a few sentences. Enough to be checked |
| Describe | Consent; confidentiality; how data is recorded and stored | A mechanism with actors and sequence — who does what, when, to what |
| Detail | Dependent-group obligation; risk steps; ownership | The strongest demand on the form. Specific arrangements, not intentions. This is where applications are sent back |
| Specify | Who has access to data and results, and any conditions | Named parties and named conditions. A category is not a specification |
The verbs are the form's own; the calibration is added here.
Before submission
- Every part answered, including those assessed as not applicable, each with a one-line reason
- Aims and justification kept to the register the form signals, not turned into a literature review
- Exclusion criteria stated, including anyone excluded for ethical rather than methodological reasons
- Consent, dependent-group obligation and confidentiality answered as three separate mechanisms
- Confidentiality described separately for collection, analysis and reporting
- All four risk categories addressed, plus researcher safety, with the threshold comparison shown
- Retention period identified and one identifiability class declared, both decided before collection
- Storage, access and embargo for recordings written into the information sheet and consent form
- Everyone outside you and your supervisors named in the access section, with conditions
- Ownership checked against any workplace agreement that may override the default
How the completed application is routed, reviewed and approved — and why collecting anything before that point is unrecoverable — is in Ethics Review and Approval Processes.
What to carry forward
- The eight parts trace a piece of information from justification to ownership. Nothing on the form is administrative.
- Separate the form's conventions from the code-backed requirements: word counts are local, retention and identifiability are not.
- Declare now if this might be stage one of something larger — it turns a future application into an amendment.
- Exclusion criteria are where you show you thought about who should not be in the study.
- Detail is the form's strongest verb, and it lands on dependent groups, risk steps and ownership — where applications get sent back.
- The tape is retained as raw data even when a certified transcript is made, and storage, access and embargo belong on the information sheet.
- If you cannot answer a question in one sentence without inventing something, you have a missing decision rather than a writing problem.
Frequently asked questions
Are the word counts on this form a standard?
No. The supplied source presents the whole structure as an example sourced from a government department, noting that many such examples are publicly available. The 50–100 words for aims, 100–300 for need and value, and the cap of ten key references are that form's conventions. Use them as a guide to expected depth and take the actual limits from the form you are filling in.
Which parts of the form are genuine requirements?
The retention periods, the three-way identifiability declaration, and the obligation to follow the named national code in relation to responsible research practice, misconduct, authorship and data retention are stated as requirements flowing from that code rather than as the form's preferences. The code itself is not reproduced in the supplied material, so confirm the current position with your approving body.
Do I have to keep the recording if I have a transcript?
Yes, on the form's own terms. Where data was recorded on audio or video and a certified transcript will be made, the tape must be retained as the raw data to be stored at the completion of the project; the transcript may also be made and stored. Transcription is an addition to the raw data, not a replacement for it.
What should I write if my study has no risks?
Write that assessment down for each of the four categories with a one-line reason, rather than leaving the section blank. The threshold is risk beyond that normally encountered in everyday life, so a study can honestly clear it — but a panel is assessing whether you considered the question, and an empty field looks identical to an unconsidered one.
Should I write the ethics application or the research proposal first?
The proposal. The supplied source notes that a proposal helps you prepare for the ethics committee, and the overlap is close to total: the application's aims, methodology and participants sections are compressed versions of proposal sections, and the proposal's design section already asks for the procedures you will use to ensure ethical practice.
Who owns the data I collect for my project?
The form states the normal positions: student researchers normally own the data they collect, and the university normally owns the data and results of research undertaken by staff. Normally is doing work in both sentences. If you are a staff member studying your own workplace, or your employment contract addresses research outputs, establish the position before you answer.
References and source attribution
- Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2007) — named in the supplied source as the instrument behind the data storage, retention, identifiability and responsible-practice requirements reproduced on this page. The code itself is not supplied in the dataset.
- Cooper, D. & Schindler, P. 2008, Business Research Methods, 10th ed., McGraw-Hill — the text the supplied source draws on for its treatment of research ethics.
- 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 (http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/probform.php) — the source of the excerpt on ethical protections that underlies the consent, confidentiality and risk requirements the form operationalises.
- The supplied teaching source: consolidated weekly teaching notes and slide material on research ethics, which reproduces the eight-part application structure as an example sourced from a government department.
Suggested questions for Ask KEVOS
- Turn my research proposal into draft answers for the eight parts of an ethics application.
- Write my exclusion criteria, including anyone I should exclude for ethical rather than methodological reasons.
- Draft part 5 for a study of my own project team, covering all four risk categories and my own safety.
- My interviews will be audio recorded. What must appear on the information sheet and the consent form?
- Check my draft application for questions I have answered with intentions rather than mechanisms.