This article is part of the Iris Ethics Knowledge Base; you can find a directory of all articles here.
Two tiers of information
Participants must be given adequate understanding of the purpose, methods, demands, risks and potential benefits of the research before they consent (NS 2.2.2). This is the essential, decision-relevant information: it should be given prominence and not buried among administrative detail.
A further set of matters must also be communicated, and NS 2.2.6 lists them at (a) to (m):
- (a) any alternatives to participation
- (b) how the research will be monitored
- (c) provision of services to participants adversely affected by the research
- (d) contact details of a person to receive complaints
- (e) contact details of the researchers
- (f) how privacy and confidentiality will be protected
- (g) the participant’s right to withdraw from further participation at any stage, along with any implications of withdrawal and whether it will be possible to withdraw data (see Withdrawal of consent)
- (h) the amounts and sources of funding for the research
- (i) financial or other relevant declarations of interests of researchers, sponsors or institutions
- (j) any payments to participants
- (k) the likelihood and form of dissemination of the research results, including publication
- (l) any expected benefits to the wider community
- (m) any other relevant information, including research-specific information required under other chapters of the National Statement.
Except where any of these matters is also essential to the participant's decision to take part, NS 2.2.6 requires that they be kept distinct from the essential information at NS 2.2.2 ("Participation that is voluntary and based on sufficient information requires an adequate understanding of the purpose, methods, demands, risks and potential benefits of the research."). In practice, this means leading with a participant information sheet with what a person needs to decide whether to participate, then following with the administrative consent procedure that supports transparency.
Presentation of information
Information must be presented in ways suitable to each participant (NS 2.2.3). NS 5.3.6 sets out what researchers should consider in doing so:
- the mode of communication (speech, writing, visual, or a combination);
- the need for accurate translation into a participant's first language or dialect;
- the participant's cultural background;
- their educational background and level of literacy, numeracy and familiarity with technical concepts;
- their age and maturity; and
- any visual, hearing or communication impairment.
See Plain language, Easy English and Easy Read for how to apply this to written materials, including readability targets.
Participant information and consent forms
In most research settings, a written participant information and consent form (PICF) is the standard mechanism for meeting these requirements. A PICF conventionally combines two distinct elements: an information section that gives participants what they need to decide whether to take part, and a consent section where participants record their agreement, typically as a checklist of confirmations followed by a signature and date. Keeping the two elements distinct matters: the information section should not be crammed with consent declarations, and the consent section should not be where participants learn something for the first time.
A well-constructed PICF for social research, market research, and evaluation projects will typically cover:
- who is running the project and the ethics committee that approved it;
- what the project is about and why the person was invited;
- what participation involves and how long it will take;
- whether participation is voluntary and what happens on withdrawal;
- risks and benefits, described proportionately;
- any payments;
- how data will be handled and for how long;
- how findings will be disseminated;
- alternatives to participation, if any; and
- how to ask questions or complain.
Documents intended for use in the conduct of a project, including participant information sheets and consent forms, must be approved by the review body before use (NS 5.2.16).
Not every project needs a multi-page written PICF. For an online survey, an in-line information and consent preamble on the landing page, with commencement and submission of the survey constituting consent, is sufficient for lower-risk projects. For intercept or street-based interviewing, oral consent may be appropriate provided the interviewer gives adequate information verbally beforehand. What must remain constant, whatever the format, is that participants have adequate understanding of the purpose, methods, demands, risks and potential benefits before they consent (NS 2.2.2; NS 2.2.5; NS 3.1.24-3.1.25). For a full walkthrough of PICF structure and a downloadable template, see the Iris Ethics guide to participant information and consent forms.
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.