This article is part of the Iris Ethics Knowledge Base; you can find a directory of all articles here.
Overview
This article outlines the types of risk most commonly encountered in evaluation, market research, and social research. Practitioners in these fields typically work with general populations on relatively bounded topics, so the risk profile is generally lower than in clinical or medical research. However, several categories of risk are frequently relevant, and some harms are more prevalent because of the nature of the information collected and the methods used to collect it (NS Chapter 2.1).
Psychological risks
The most common category of risk in applied research is psychological, particularly mild anxiety or discomfort associated with participation in surveys, interviews, or focus groups (NS Chapter 2.1). This is generally manageable through appropriate participant information, consent processes, and referral resources. Topics that touch on sensitive experiences, such as mental health, trauma, discrimination, financial hardship, employment insecurity, or relationship difficulties, may carry an elevated risk of distress, particularly for participants with lived experience of the issues discussed. Where reactions might reasonably exceed discomfort and become distress, this should be treated as a foreseeable risk of psychological harm, requiring full HREC review rather than a lower risk pathway (NS Chapter 2.1; NS 5.1.11). See Risk of discomfort, Risk of harm, and Harm vs discomfort for that distinction.
The method used can amplify this risk. Open-ended qualitative interviewing produces a wider range of possible responses and, depending on the topic and question wording, may prompt disclosure of sensitive experiences that the participant had not planned to share. Where sensitive topics are unavoidable, trauma-informed design and facilitation reduce the likelihood that discomfort will tip into distress; see Iris Ethics' Trauma-informed Evaluation resource for a practical safety protocol.
Privacy and re-identification risks
Social harm through re-identification or privacy breach is a significant category of risk in applied research, particularly in studies with small sample sizes, disaggregated reporting, or identifiable verbatim quotes (NS Chapter 2.1). Researchers should consider de-identification protocols and minimum cell sizes for any disaggregated reporting. Researchers should also avoid ambiguous language in participant-facing materials when discussing identifiability (for example, "anonymous" should be avoided as it is ill-defined and such data may be re-identifiable). Online research carries additional re-identification risk through metadata and IP address data. See Privacy and identifiability and Online/digital research for further guidance.
Power dynamics and coercion
Research involving participants in dependent or unequal relationships, such as employees, service recipients, students, or people in custody, carries an elevated risk to the voluntary nature of participation. Where participants may feel pressure, directly or indirectly, to take part, consent processes require particular care (NS Chapter 2.1). See People in dependent relationships (NS 4.4) and Avoiding coercion.
Reputational and professional risks
Some market research and social research activities expose participants to reputational or professional risk, particularly where questions concern workplace conduct, professional performance, or organisational culture. This is a form of social harm under the National Statement's classification (NS Chapter 2.1). Anonymised data collection and restricted access protocols are important mitigations, alongside clarity for participants about who will see identifiable responses and in what form.
Economic and legal risks
Economic harm arises where a project imposes direct or indirect costs on participants, and legal harm arises where participation could lead to discovery and prosecution of criminal conduct (NS Chapter 2.1). Both are less common in evaluation, social research, and market research than psychological or social harm, but they are not negligible: economic harm can arise from unreimbursed costs of participation, and legal harm can arise where an interview or survey touches on conduct that may be unlawful, such as workplace safety breaches or substance use. Where a topic carries any foreseeable risk of legal harm, researchers should be explicit with participants about the limits of confidentiality before they disclose anything.
Sensitive populations
Research and evaluation may engage populations who, because of the topic and the population's characteristics, face a higher risk of harm or discomfort than the general population. Children, people with disability, people experiencing mental illness, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples may, depending on the topic, be exposed to greater risk (NS Chapter 2.1). It is good practice to consider, for every project, whether any participant cohort may be at greater risk than others, and how that risk can be appropriately managed. See Specific populations for detailed guidance on particular groups.
Assessing likelihood and severity across these categories
Identifying that a risk category applies is only the first step. Reviewers expect an assessment of how likely the risk is to materialise and how severe it would be if it did, for the specific participant group and project design in question (NS 2.1.1, NS 2.1.2). The same topic can sit at different points on the risk continuum depending on the population, the setting, and the method used to collect the data. See Risk assessment checklist for a structured way to work through this for a specific project.
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.