This article is part of the Iris Ethics Knowledge Base; you can find a directory of all articles here.
Overview
Accessible consultation means designing engagement with people with disability, communication support needs, or reduced literacy so that they can take part in research and evaluation, and in the consultation that shapes it, on equal terms with other participants. It applies at two points:
- Consultation that happens before a project is designed, to understand the needs and priorities of a community or population; and
- The accessible design of information, consent, and data collection processes.
Why early consultation matters
The National Statement asks researchers planning work with people who may be at increased risk, including people with disability or ill-health, to develop processes for engaging with the views and experience of those whose perspectives are relevant, and, where feasible, to include members of the participant group as co-researchers or in a reference group (NS 4.1.1). Consultation and engagement with communities, advocacy or support groups, professionals, carers, or peers is described as an optimal way to inform project design (NS 4.1). This pre-design consultation and engagement typically does not require ethics review in its own right (NS 4.1); the requirement to seek ethical review attaches to the research or evaluation project itself, not to the consultation that informs its design.
Chapter 4.5 reinforces this for people with disability or ill-health specifically: researchers should consider consulting with people with disability, individuals who support them such as carers or family members, or relevant representative organisations, both in planning the research and in developing information materials (NS 4.5.2, NS 4.5.29, NS 4.5.30). See People with disability or illness (NS 4.5) for the full requirements of that chapter.
Designing accessible information and consent processes
Consent and information materials should be adapted to participants' communication needs. The National Statement gives examples including short videos, illustrations, and written material with easy readability, such as simple vocabulary and syntax and larger text (NS 4.5.33). Some people may have impaired capacity for verbal or written communication, and provision should be made for them to receive information tailored to their abilities, including Easy Read versions of information and consent materials (NS 4.5.14). See People with disability or illness (NS 4.5) for detailed guidance on choosing and producing these formats.
Accessible consultation extends beyond the document itself to how it is delivered: whether Auslan interpretation, captioning, or augmentative and alternative communication supports are needed, and whether the timing, location, and format of a consultation session or interview allow the person to participate on equal terms.
Accommodating participation
Researchers should adapt the process and timing of obtaining consent to any restrictions imposed by a participant's disability, and use data collection methods, research spaces, and schedules that are accessible, adapted to participants' capacity, and that accommodate requirements such as rest breaks (NS 4.5.28). Additional strategies include home-based assessment before recruitment or the start of research, appropriate modifications to research procedures, and providing or arranging transport to the research site (NS 4.5.33).
Application in evaluation, social research and market research
As examples, a service evaluation consulting people with cognitive disability about their experience of a program should budget time for accessible formats and supported decision-making, rather than defaulting to a written survey that only a subset of the cohort can complete unaided. Social research recruiting participants through a disability service should consult that service and, where appropriate, disability representative organisations, on the design of information materials before recruitment begins. Market research panels seeking the views of people with disability should offer accessible response formats as standard, rather than treating an accessibility request as an exception to be handled case by case.
What reviewers look for
- Evidence of consultation with people with disability, representative organisations, or supporting individuals during project design (NS 4.5.29, NS 4.5.30)
- Accessible information and consent materials matched to the communication needs of the cohort (NS 4.5.14, 4.5.33)
- Practical accommodations for participation, such as accessible venues, schedules allowing for rest breaks, and transport where needed (NS 4.5.28)
- A distinction, where relevant, between pre-design consultation, which typically does not itself require ethics review, and the research or evaluation activities that follow it
Related resources
See Plain language, Easy English and Easy Read and People with disability or illness (NS 4.5) for detailed requirements, and Co-design for guidance on co-design processes.
Still have questions? Let us know - we're always happy to help!
*Our Managing Director has published an article on one approach to barrier removal, as part of his ongoing work applying Universal Design principles in research and evaluation contexts.
** We note that this language is a departure from other parts of the National Statement which apply the term “likely” instead of “potential”. We recommend that applicants interpret this condition as “likely” as this applies a higher but nonetheless proportionate threshold.
This page was last updated on 10 September 2026.
Was this helpful? We'd appreciate your feedback!
This article makes reference to the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025. It is intended as practical guidance and does not constitute legal advice.
AI Disclosure: Resources in this library were prepared using Large Language Models with input from Iris Ethics staff who guided the scope and design. Subsequent revisions and final versions were developed and approved by Iris Ethics staff.