This article is part of the Iris Ethics Knowledge Base; you can find a directory of all articles here.
Overview
These worked examples show how the ethical review requirements in this Knowledge Base apply in social research settings. Each is a hypothetical, generic scenario; it does not describe a real Iris Ethics application.
Case study: Housing stress qualitative study
Description: A social research organisation proposes in-depth interviews with 25 individuals currently experiencing housing insecurity, exploring experiences of service navigation, financial stress, and relationships with government agencies.
Key considerations: This study involves a population that may experience a higher risk of harm (financial hardship, dependence on government services) discussing sensitive topics. There is a foreseeable risk that interviews may cause distress beyond ordinary discomfort, elevating the risk to potential harm (NS 1.6 requires that likely benefit justify any risk of harm or discomfort). The design must include clear referral pathways, interviewer training in trauma-informed practice, and a protocol for managing distressed participants (NS 1.7). See Harm vs discomfort and Risk of harm.
Review pathway: Full HREC review. Key issues: risk of psychological harm; vulnerability of participants; safeguarding protocols.
Case study: Online survey on workplace discrimination
Description: A research team proposes an anonymous online survey of 2,000 adults on experiences of workplace discrimination, with no identifying information collected.
Key considerations: The topic is sensitive, but the anonymous design and online delivery limit re-identification risk. Some respondents may experience discomfort recalling discriminatory experiences, but the absence of identifying information supports a lower risk classification. This design may also meet the exemption criterion at NS 5.1.17(b), which covers surveys using information collected without personal identifiers that is highly unlikely to cause distress; however, given the sensitivity of the topic, a lower risk review (rather than exemption) is the safer classification unless the applicant can show that distress is truly unlikely. Referral information should be provided for participants who experience unexpected distress. See Risk assessment checklist and Exemptions from ethical review (NS 5.1.15-5.1.18).
Review pathway: Lower risk review. Key issues: participant welfare safeguards; ensuring anonymity is genuine (no metadata collection).
Case study: Snowball sampling to reach a hidden population
Description: A social research team studying experiences of a stigmatised health condition proposes to recruit participants by asking existing interviewees to pass on the names and phone numbers of others in their networks who might be eligible.
Key considerations: Traditional snowball sampling, where a referrer's contact details are passed to the research team without the referred person's prior knowledge, raises privacy and autonomy concerns. The referred individual has not consented to their information being shared and receives unsolicited contact, and the social relationship with the referrer may create pressure to participate that falls short of overt coercion (NS 1.10–1.12 on respect for autonomy; NS 3.1.20 on the impact of recruitment strategy on the voluntariness of consent). Snowball sampling does not meet any of the exemption criteria at NS 5.1.17 and must be included in the scope of ethical review, with referral scripts and first-contact materials submitted for review. A modified opt-in approach, where the current participant shares study information with their contact and the interested person initiates contact themselves, better protects both privacy and voluntariness and is the design reviewers generally prefer. See Recruitment strategies and Avoiding coercion.
Review pathway: Lower risk or full HREC review depending on the sensitivity of the topic and the vulnerability of the population; snowball sampling recruitment is never eligible for exemption.
Related resources
This page was last updated on 16 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.