Skip to Content

Getting Consent Right

Why the consent process matters as much as your methodology

There's a persistent myth in evaluation, market research and social research that consent is administrative overhead, and something to 'get through' before the real work begins. However, the consent process isn't a hurdle between you and your data; it's the foundation upon which all meaningful research engagement is built.   

Good data collection cannot happen unless participants are appropriately informed and willing to engage with your evaluation or research. A participant who doesn't understand what they're being asked to do, or why, cannot give you quality data. A participant who feels pressured or confused will give you unreliable responses, withdraw partway through, or in the worst case lodge a complaint that halts your entire project.

The 2025 National Statement makes this point clear. Consent isn't just about legal protection. It's about creating the conditions for mutual understanding and genuine voluntary participation. Get this right, and everything else follows. Get it wrong, and you're building on sand.

We've made a checklist to help you navigate this. You can download it here, or at the end of this article.

The Core Principle: Voluntary, Informed and Understood

Chapter 2.2 of the National Statement establishes the guiding principle for consent: 

...a person’s decision to participate in research is to be voluntary, and based on sufficient information and adequate understanding of both the proposed research and the implications of participation in it.

Let's break these criteria down:

  • "Voluntary" means free from coercion, undue influence or pressure (a matter explored further at Chapter 4.4 of the National Statement);
  • "Sufficient information" means participants know what they need to know to make a decision; and
  • "Adequate understanding" means the information has been communicated in ways that participants can reasonably comprehend.

This can't be automatically satisfied by handing someone a dense five-page information sheet and asking them to tick a box. The National Statement explicitly states that the process: 

...should not be merely a matter of satisfying a formal requirement.

The aim is to facilitate a mutual understanding of the activities, the potential risks, and the likely benefits both to the participant and their communities.

How can evaluators and researchers balance information and accessibility?

This is where many practitioners struggle. You need to provide enough information for informed consent, but not so much that participants are overwhelmed or confused. The solution isn't to arbitrarily cut information but to be strategic about how you present it. There are two sets of information that form part of any consent process under the National Statement.

Essential Information (NS 2.2.2)

Every participant needs to understand:

  • Purpose: What is this research trying to find out?
  • Methods: What will I be asked to do?
  • Demands: How much time/effort is involved?
  • Risks: What could go wrong or be uncomfortable?
  • Potential benefits: What might come of this, if anything?

This is your baseline. Regardless of how you seek consent, whether in written form, verbal conversation, or return of a survey, participants need this core information.

Additional Required Information (NS 2.2.6)

The National Statement then lists thirteen additional matters that should also be communicated to participants. These include (see Paragraph 2.2.6 for the full list): 

  • Alternatives to participation
  • How privacy and confidentiality will be protected
  • The right to withdraw (and any limitations)
  • Funding sources and researcher/evaluator interests
  • How results will be disseminated
  • Expected benefits to the wider community

The key word here is "communicated". These elements must be accessible and clear to participants. Importantly, the National Statement notes these matters should be kept distinct from the essential information unless they're also essential to the participation decision itself.  

This approach provides a useful structure for information and consent forms. Lead with the essential information, then follow with the additional information.  

Tailoring the Process

The National Statement also provides explicit guidance  at Paragraph 5.3.6 on tailoring information presentation. You must consider:

  • Communication mode: Should you present information through speech, writing, visually, or some combination? A focus group with community members might warrant a group information session with Q&A. An online survey for professionals might need a clear written summary. A series of interviews with people with cognitive disability might require visual aids, Easy Read translations of materials, and verbal explanation.
  • Language and translation: If participants don't speak English as a first language, you need accurate written and/or oral translation. Machine and AI translation of consent information on its own (i.e. with no human verification of content) is rarely acceptable, and even where it is verified, disclosure of its use is best practice. 
  • Cultural context: A participant's cultural background affects how they receive and process information about research. Some cultures expect collective decision-making; others prioritise individual autonomy. Your consent process needs to accommodate this.
  • Education and literacy: You need to pitch information at the right level. This doesn't mean dumbing down content, but creating clarity. Avoid jargon. Use concrete examples. Check understanding the same way you would your data collection tools.
  • Age and maturity: Young people need age-appropriate information and consent processes (see Chapter 4.3 of the National Statement for more detail on approaches for children and young people). 
  • Disability: Participants with visual, hearing or communication impairments need accessible formats and processes.

Examples in Practice

We've developed a few examples to help guide your consent development process.

Market research survey (low risk): 

You're conducting an online survey about consumer preferences for a new product range. Your consent process might be:

  • A brief landing page explaining the purpose, that it takes 10 minutes, responses are anonymous, and participation is voluntary
  • Key information about privacy, withdrawal rights and contact details provided upfront
  • Consent indicated by clicking "Start Survey" (and explicitly noted that by starting the survey consent is given)
  • Additional detailed information available via links for those who want it (for example, full privacy policies)

This is proportionate to risk and participant context (time-poor consumers completing surveys online).

Evaluation interviews with disadvantaged communities (higher risk): 

You're interviewing people experiencing homelessness about service access. Your consent process might involve:

  • Initial face-to-face conversation with a peer worker present to explain the evaluation
  • Written information sheet in plain language with visual aids (such as flow charts, or if relevant, Easy Read versions)
  • Time for questions and discussion, including with others if the participant wishes
  • Written consent form, but with flexibility for verbal consent if literacy is an issue
  • Ongoing check-ins during the interview about willingness to continue
  • Clear information about what happens if sensitive disclosures are made

This reflects the higher risk context (sensitive topic, potentially vulnerable participants) and participant circumstances (possible literacy issues, need for trust-building).

Social research with culturally diverse participants: 

You're researching settlement experiences of newly arrived refugees through focus groups. Your consent process might include:

  • Information materials translated into relevant languages by accredited translators
  • Community liaison officers to facilitate initial discussions
  • Group information sessions where family members can attend
  • Recognition that some participants may prefer community endorsement before individual consent
  • Interpreters present at focus groups (not just for consent, but throughout)

This accounts for language barriers, cultural preferences for collective decision-making, and the complexity of group research.

Flexibility Within Boundaries

The National Statement explicitly allows consent to be expressed verbally, in writing, or by other means such as return of a survey or conduct implying consent. The determining factors are:

  • The nature, complexity and level of risk of the research
  • The participant's personal and cultural circumstances

However, flexibility in how consent is expressed doesn't mean flexibility about what information must be provided. The minimum requirements stand regardless of the mode of consent.

For lower-risk research like surveys or observations in public settings, implied consent (e.g., clicking "next" on a survey) can be appropriate. For higher-risk research involving sensitive topics or vulnerable participants, written consent with signature is usually warranted. The National Statement gives you the framework, but as the researcher/evaluator, you must exercise judgement based on your specific context and note your rationale (especially if you are seeking ethical review). 

A Note on Alternatives to Standard Consent

This resource focuses on standard consent processes. The National Statement does provide for opt-out approaches and waivers of consent (Chapter 2.3) in specific circumstances. These are legitimate tools, but they come with stringent conditions and in most cases require HREC approval either through a full review or a lower risk pathway. We'll address these alternatives in future resources. 

Summary

Getting consent right isn't about perfect paperwork. It's about respect, clarity and genuine engagement. It's about creating the conditions where participants can make informed, voluntary decisions and where you can collect meaningful, reliable data.

Ask yourself:

  • Would I understand what I was signing up for if I received this information?
  • Have I made it as easy as possible for participants to ask questions and get clarity?
  • Have I tailored my approach to the people I'm working with, not just followed a template?
  • Can I demonstrate that each participant made a clear, voluntary decision?

If you can answer yes to these questions, you're on the right track. The consent process isn't administrative, it's the foundation of high quality research and evaluation.

Checklist

We have created a checklist that you can complete that covers the requirements under the National Statement and is flexible for your projects. You can download it here: 


AI Disclosure:  Initial drafts of the content for this article 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.

​