Respect is one of the core principles that underpin ethical human research, alongside beneficence, justice, and research merit and integrity. It refers to the recognition of the intrinsic value of human beings, and the obligation to uphold their dignity, autonomy, and cultural identity throughout the research process.

In policy and program evaluation, market research, and social research, respect plays a central role. These activities often involve engaging with people’s lived experiences, beliefs, and identities. This is often done in contexts and on topics that are sensitive or complex. Respect provides a framework for ensuring that this engagement is ethically sound, ensuring:

• that participants are treated as people, not just data sources;
• that their autonomy and decision-making are supported;
• and that their cultural and personal contexts are acknowledged and honoured.

Let’s take a closer look at how this is applied in practice.

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 fifth and final a 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, our third looked at justice, the fourth looked at beneficence, and this resource moves to the next principle: respect. 

Defining respect in the National Statement

Sections 1.10 to 1.13 of the NHMRC National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research  set out how respect should be applied in practice. These sections highlight four key responsibilities for researchers and evaluators:

• Recognising the intrinsic value of participants, including their welfare, beliefs, customs, and cultural heritage.
• Respect participants’ privacy, confidentiality, and cultural sensitivities, and honour any specific agreements made.
• Supporting participants’ autonomy and decision-making throughout the research process.
• Where participants have diminished capacity to make their own decisions, respect involves empowering them where possible and protecting them where necessary.

How do I demonstrate respect in my project? 

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. 

Are we recognising participants as people, not just data?

Respect begins with a simple but powerful idea: participants are people. They have values, beliefs, and lived experiences that matter. This means designing research that acknowledges and honours those experiences.

In practice, this might include:

• engaging with communities before data collection begin, to identify potential sensitivities and ensure data collection tools are appropriate;
• designing questions that are sensitive to cultural or personal contexts; and,
• avoiding assumptions about participants’ beliefs or behaviours.

Respect also means recognising collective identities. For example, the cultural heritage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is both a collective and individual system. Ensuring that research is conducted in ways that are culturally safe and appropriate involves recognition of this collective nature, and in some situations this means engaging with cultural knowledge holders and leaders to ensure that proposed activities are acceptable.

Are we honouring privacy, confidentiality, and cultural sensitivities?

Respect also includes practical responsibilities around privacy and confidentiality. Stakeholders must be able to trust that their information will be handled with care. In practice this means:

• being transparent about how data will be used and stored;
• avoiding unnecessary collection of sensitive information; and,
• fulfilling any specific agreements made with participants or communities.

Cultural sensitivities must also be considered. What is appropriate in one cultural context may not be in another. Researchers should seek guidance, consult with communities, and adapt their methods accordingly.

Are we supporting autonomy and informed decision-making?

Respect is closely tied to autonomy, and the presumption of participant competence as a starting point in the engagement process.

Participants must be given the opportunity to make informed decisions about their involvement in research. This means:

• Providing clear, accessible information about the research;
• Ensuring participants understand what they’re consenting to; and,
• Creating space for questions, withdrawal, or refusal without pressure.

Importantly, autonomy is not a one-time event. It must be supported throughout the research and evaluation process — from recruitment to reporting.

Are we protecting participants with limited decision-making capacity?

Not all participants can make decisions for themselves. For example, children, people with cognitive impairment (whether permanent, temporary, or situational), or those in certain situations may have diminished capacity to make fully informed judgements on their participation. Our deep dive on Section 4 of the National Statement explores some of these situations, and while the above examples are some cases, we should remember that all participants and stakeholders may be limited in their decision-making capacity depending on the context.

Respect in these cases means:

• Empowering participants where possible. For example, by using adapted consent processes and materials or involving support persons;
• Protecting participants from harm or exploitation, such as by ensuring that incentives for participation are proportionate to the required involvement, appropriate to the context, and unlikely to act as an inducement to participation.
• Ensuring that participation is both voluntary and ongoing, for example by having affirmation of consent at the beginning and end of an activity.

This is especially important in research involving sensitive topics or taking place with groups who may be at higher risk of harm or distress. In such cases the ethical bar is higher, and the design must reflect that. 

What will we do if circumstances change?

Respect is not static. If the research or evaluation context changes (for example, if new risks emerge or participants express discomfort) researchers and evaluators must respond. This might involve: 

• pausing or modifying the research;
• consulting with ethics review bodies or community representatives; or,
• communicating transparently with participants.

Making clear how you will identify and manage such changes as part of your project plan is useful planning, as well as a clear demonstration of respectful intent. After all, respect means being responsive, not just compliant.

Summary

The principle of respect reminds us that ethical research is not just about rules — it’s about relationships. It’s about recognising the humanity of participants, supporting their autonomy, and honouring their cultural and personal contexts.

Respect is a continual practice. It shapes how we design research, how we engage with participants, and how we reflect on our work. When respect is present, research becomes not just ethical, but meaningful.