Justice is a principle that often evokes ideas of fairness, equity, and impartiality. In the context of human research ethics, it demands that researchers consider not only what is done, but to whom, how, and with what consequences. Sections 1.4 and 1.5 of the NHMRC National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research articulate justice as a multifaceted commitment to fairness in the design, conduct, and dissemination of research.

But what does justice look like in practice—especially in policy and program evaluation, social research, and market research?

Let’s take a closer look.

Introduction

Ethical review, whether by a full committee or lower risk review must ensure that the activities uphold the principles of the National Statement:

• Research merit and integrity;
• Justice
• Beneficence
• Respect

When preparing a submission for ethical review, we ask you to identify how your proposed work has considered each of these principles in the design process. You can do this either by written response or by reference to documents such as your project plan. But it is important regardless to consider each of the principles and how they are met because it is an opportunity to ensure that your work is of value to all stakeholders.

This article is the second in a series of pieces designed to unpack each of the principles and support you in identifying how your project addresses them. 

Our first article took a look at research merit, our second looked at integrity, and this resource moves to the next principle: justice. 

Defining Justice in the National Statement

According to Section 1.4 of the National Statement, justice in research and evaluation is about ensuring fairness across all stages of the process. This includes: 

• fair selection, inclusion, and exclusion of participants (and accurate descriptions of this in findings and reporting); 
• fair recruitment processes; 
• avoiding unfair burdens on particular groups; 
• distributing the benefits of participation fairly; 
• preventing exploitation; and 
• ensuring fair access to the benefits of research. 

Section 1.5 further emphasises that research and evaluation outcomes should be made accessible to participants in a way that is timely and clear. 

Together, these provisions frame justice as a principle that is both procedural and distributive: concerned with how research and evaluation are done, and how its impacts are shared.

How do I demonstrate justice in my application? 

Given the above considerations, you can consider each of these points as questions you must address in the design process, and incorporate your responses in your application. 

How do I demonstrate fair selection, inclusion and exclusion?

Justice begins with the selection and inclusion of participants. Exclusion from participation is in its own way an injustice, yet all too often this occurs in practice. As an example from policy evaluation, researchers assessing a national youth employment program must ensure that participants from both urban and regional areas are represented. Excluding regional youth due to logistical challenges may result in findings that fail to capture the full spectrum of experiences and needs. 

Similarly, studies on digital inclusion that only involve English-speaking participants risk overlooking the barriers faced by culturally and linguistically diverse communities. In market research, excluding older adults from product testing based on assumptions about digital literacy can lead to biased insights and missed opportunities for inclusive design.

This principle has been a driver behind the development of Iris Ethics, drawing upon experiences of committee members in developing inclusive methods and in balancing the need for fairness in selection with ensuring that risks of burdens or harm are minimised. These are not always either-or propositions; some methods (such as inclusive design and omnichannel methods) that improve fairness of access also reduce the burden of participation.

What is fair recruitment?

Recruitment practices also reflect the principle of justice. In social research and program evaluation, recruiting participants through service providers can inadvertently create pressure, especially if those providers are also responsible for delivering essential support. Participants may feel obliged to take part, fearing consequences if they decline. It is important for researchers and evaluators to consider and where required mitigate risks around real or perceived coercion and incentives in the recruitment process. This is not to say that recruiting participants through service providers should be avoided as this is often not practical, but we do need to consider the power dynamics at play and how we can ensure informed and empowered consent and choice from participants.

Ethical recruitment can be delivered through clear communication, voluntary participation, and safeguards against perceived coercion. In market research where incentives are a core part of many projects, the nature and size of incentives such as gift cards must be carefully considered to ensure that participation is genuinely voluntary and not unduly influenced by financial need. In practice, and especially when working with panels, incentive structures should be balanced with monitoring of responses to ensure that response behaviours such as “straightlining” are identified and excluded, as these are often the result of a respondent seeking the incentive rather than a commitment to participation.

However, this does not mean that incentives should be avoided, only that they should be proportionate and avoid incentivising the wrong behaviours. A lack of fair compensation and follow-up for participation can be exploitative and disrespectful.

Is my team avoiding unfair burdens?

Justice also demands that researchers avoid placing an unfair burden on particular groups. In program evaluation, First Nations communities are often asked to participate in multiple studies, sometimes without seeing tangible benefits. This can lead to research fatigue and a sense of being over-consulted but under-served. 

Researchers and evaluators must consider whether their work adds to this burden and seek ways to mitigate it, such as through genuine partnerships, co-creation, and shared decision-making. Similarly, asking vulnerable populations to recount traumatic experiences without adequate support creates a serious risk of harm. Justice requires trauma-informed approaches, sensitivity, and access to appropriate care.

Are the benefits of this work being distributed fairly?

The distribution of benefits is another key aspect of justice. In program evaluation, findings should ideally inform improvements that benefit all stakeholders, and not just the commissioner of the evaluation. Sometimes the control of benefit distribution is beyond the reach of the evaluator or researcher, especially where there is client-consultant relationship. 

However, evaluators and researchers should consider how they can work with the client to encourage fair distribution of benefits and being transparent about when benefits may not be directly given to participants (e.g. where research or evaluation benefits future participants). 

This discussion of benefit distribution can also be integrated into the design of projects, for example, co-designing interventions with participants helps ensure that benefits such as enhanced services or community resources are equitably shared. From a customer/commissioner perspective, there is a strategic imperative to make use of findings in a way that distributes benefits, such as across programs and products and avoiding “silos” of knowledge. 

Are we preventing exploitation?

Exploitation occurs when researchers and evaluators take more than they give. In evaluation, using participant stories to build compelling narratives for funders without consent or recognition is exploitative. Adherence to the principle of justice requires transparency, respect, and reciprocity. Collecting data from stakeholders without offering feedback or follow-up can feel extractive and has the added effect of suppressing future participation by stakeholders due to prior negative experiences. Ethical practice includes sharing findings, acknowledging contributions, and supporting advocacy where appropriate. 

Are we providing fair access to benefits?

Finally, justice means making research outcomes accessible. In evaluation, this might involve presenting results in community forums, translating reports into plain language, or creating visual summaries that are easy to understand. In social research, publishing findings in open-access formats or community newsletters ensures that participants and stakeholders can engage with the outcomes. In market research, companies can demonstrate justice by using insights to improve accessibility, affordability, or usability of products for the communities that contributed to the research, as well as celebrating the participation of these communities.

Of course, in practice there is a need to balance sensitivity of some findings (where there is information in reports that is not publicly available, or that could lead to harms for certain stakeholders), and one way of navigating this is by making available summary or tailored findings reports that can be distributed to participants after participation. 

As a real-world and recent example, the creation of the ACE Evaluation Library at the Analysis & Policy Observatory has enabled access to a range of policy insights that were previously fragmented across a range of sites or unpublished. An example of balancing sensitivity and scope is this report on the 2019-2020 bushfire response in New South Wales which summarises a 300+ page report to government that presented highly sensitive findings, creating a shorter, accessible version for public distribution which retains key insights while protecting stakeholders.*

Summary

Justice is a lens through which every aspect of research and evaluation should be viewed. From who is included, to how they are treated, to what they gain, justice challenges us to think deeply about fairness. In policy and program evaluation, social research, and market research, we regularly engage with vulnerable populations, influence public decisions, and shape societal narratives. Upholding justice ensures that research and evaluation serves not just knowledge, but equity.

* Disclosure: The Managing Director and some members of the Iris Ethics HREC were involved in the development and review of the reports cited. It is presented as an example here because we have knowledge of the evaluation and the sensitivities that had to be navigated to create the public-facing report.