Multi-year evaluation/research projects don't run with the same team from start to finish. People change roles, organisations restructure, new analysts come on board, specialists complete their contribution and move on. This is simply the reality of commissioned evaluation/research, and it creates a genuine tension for ethics compliance.
On one hand, Section 1.1(e) of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2025) is clear that research must be "conducted or supervised by people or teams with experience, qualifications and competence that are appropriate for the research." Ethics approval is, in part, a judgement about whether the team has what it takes to deliver the work safely and rigorously. On the other hand, the National Statement also acknowledges proportionality throughout. The level of scrutiny applied to any decision should reflect the actual risks involved.
What the Ethics Committee Actually Approved
When a Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) or similar body reviews an application, it isn't just signing off on the research design or the participant consent process. It is also making a judgement about the people who will carry out the work. Typically, this is supported by CVs or capability statements for key team members, demonstrating that the team collectively has the experience, qualifications, and methodological competence the project demands.
Note the word collectively. The National Statement refers to "people or teams." This is a deliberate acknowledgement that no single individual needs to possess every relevant capability, but the assembled team must. This is how panel-based research, consortium delivery models, and multi-site evaluations can work ethically: the lead applicant may not have complete visibility over every subcontractor's staffing, but the collective team's credentials are what matters.
This has a direct implication for how you should think about team changes: the question isn't just "is this person being replaced?" It's "does the team, after this change, still meet the threshold that justified approval in the first place?"
When a Change Matters
The National Statement (5.4.10) establishes that continuing ethics approval is contingent on researchers submitting amendments for changes that "significantly affect the conduct of the research." A team change can qualify, but not every team change will.
The key variable is the nature of the role being vacated and whether the replacement materially alters the team's collective competence.
High likelihood of requiring amendment:
Consider a government program evaluation involving a mixed-methods design that combines qualitative depth interviews with a statistical analysis of administrative data. If the statistician responsible for the quantitative component, someone whose expertise was cited in the original application, leaves the project and is replaced by someone with or without equivalent capability in the specific methods being used, that is a material change. The ethics committee approved a team that could credibly execute that design. The team can no longer make the same claim without demonstrating that the new team has the collective capability to deliver what has been approved.
Similarly, if a project involves a specialist facilitator with experience conducting focus groups with vulnerable populations, people experiencing housing insecurity for example, their departure and replacement with someone who lacks that specific experience is ethically significant. The original approval was premised, at least in part, on that capability being present in the team. Amendment would be necessary, not only to reflect the updated team, but potentially to reflect a change in methodology that comes about because of the loss of that key competency.
Lower likelihood of requiring amendment:
A large-scale social research project is in fieldwork phase. The project requires ten interviewers to conduct structured interviews over a three-month period. Two interviewers need to be replaced mid-way through. The lead researcher responsible for interviewer training, quality oversight, and methodological consistency remains unchanged. In this case, the collective competence of the team, and particularly its supervisory capacity, has not changed in any meaningful way. The ethics committee would have been primarily focused on whether the team had robust oversight and consistent protocols in place, not the identity of individual fieldworkers. Updating the committee is a courtesy, but at the same time that update would not materially impact the original approval.
Or take a market research project running a series of consumer co-design workshops. A junior analyst who was listed as supporting data processing is transferred to another project and replaced by a colleague at the same level. Nothing about this change touches the methodological or ethical foundations of the project.
A Purposive Approach
The practical reality, particularly in consulting environments, is that updating the ethics committee every time a junior team member changes would generate enormous administrative overhead with negligible benefit to research integrity or participant protection. The National Statement does not demand this; it demands that the research continues to be conducted by people with appropriate competence.
A sensible, proportionate approach is to think about team changes along two dimensions:
Seniority and supervisory responsibility
The more a person is responsible for directing the research methodology, overseeing participant interactions, or making judgements about ethical conduct in the field, the more their departure is likely to warrant amendment. Principal researchers, senior methodologists, and those with specific supervisory roles over data collection sit at this end of the spectrum.
Specialisation relative to the project's ethical and methodological profile
If a project was approved on the strength of a particular capability (e.g. expertise in trauma-informed interviewing practices, or proficiency in a specific analytical method that was central to the design) then the loss of that capability is material. If the capability being changed is largely interchangeable, it is less so.
Where a change is clearly minor, and the team's collective competence is demonstrably maintained, it remains best practice to record the change internally and note it in progress reports to the ethics committee. The National Statement (5.4.8) already requires researchers to report on compliance with the approved proposal at regular intervals; a change of this nature is precisely the kind of information that belongs in a progress report.
Where a change is significant, treat it as a minor amendment and prioritise getting it reviewed promptly rather than letting it sit. Most ethics committees have delegated processes for minor amendments that do not require full committee consideration, allowing these to be turned around efficiently.
The Consortium and Panel Context
One final practical note for evaluators and researchers working in consortium or panel delivery models: the lead applicant may not have complete details of the sub-contracted team at the time of application. This is a recognised reality, and our ethics committee understands it.
Where this applies, the application should be as complete as possible about the expected team profile, the supervisory and governance arrangements, and the competencies that are collectively required. As sub-contracted team members are confirmed, especially if they are confirmed in specialist or senior roles, notifying the ethics committee proactively is good practice. It builds the relationship with the committee, reduces the risk of a later query, and demonstrates the kind of ongoing engagement with ethics oversight that the National Statement encourages.
The Bottom Line
The obligation under 1.1(e) doesn't evaporate once approval is granted. It continues throughout the life of the project. The question to ask when a team change occurs is not "do I technically need to file an amendment?" but rather "would the ethics committee, knowing what I now know, still be satisfied that this team can conduct this research to the standard that was approved?"
If the answer to this second question is confidently yes, particularly where supervisory continuity is maintained and the change involves interchangeable roles, document it, note it in your progress report, and move on. If the answer is uncertain, or clearly no, submit a minor amendment and do so promptly. The integrity of the research depends on the team being capable of delivering it. Keeping the ethics committee informed is simply what maintaining that integrity looks like in practice.
Still have questions? Get in touch - we're always happy to help!
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.