Demonstrating research merit

This article is part of the Iris Ethics Knowledge Base; you can find a directory of all articles here.

Overview

Demonstrating research merit means showing that a proposed research/evaluation project has a valid purpose, is appropriately designed to achieve that purpose, and is based on adequate knowledge of the relevant field (NS 1.1). See Merit (NS 1.1-1.2) for a full discussion of the merit principle itself. This article focuses on how merit is demonstrated in practice when describing the scope and methods of a project for ethics review.

In practice

For applied research and evaluation, merit is demonstrated through:

• Clear research/evaluation questions: articulating precisely what the research/evaluation aims to find out and how the findings will be used.
• Appropriate methodology: selecting methods that are fit for purpose and proportionate to the scope and resources of the project, and demonstrating how this is achieved. See Method selection.
• Evidence base: situating the research in the relevant literature or prior evaluations, showing what is already known and what the proposed research adds (NS 1.1(c)).
• Validity of instruments: using validated instruments where available, or justifying the development of new instruments.
• Analytical approach: describing how data will be analysed and how conclusions will be drawn, typically through a data analysis plan.

Matrices: a tool for demonstrating merit

One tool that can be used to demonstrate that a proposed method or methods are fit for purpose is a matrix. Evaluation matrices are commonly used in mixed-method evaluation to identify which data sources address each evaluation question, which is especially useful where questions are answered through triangulation, synthesis, and comparison across multiple sources.

In an ethical review context, a matrix demonstrates how each method addresses the set of research/evaluation questions, letting reviewers see where each method fits and how it is justified. It is also useful during design: if a matrix shows that a method addresses no research/evaluation question, that should prompt discussion of whether the method is necessary, or whether the questions are aligned with the project's overall objectives.

An example matrix is provided below:

Merit and the minimum necessary standard

Merit also encompasses proportionality. Research and evaluation should not impose greater burdens on participants than are necessary to answer the questions; if a less burdensome method can achieve the same analytical objectives, merit supports using it. This is particularly relevant when choosing between qualitative and quantitative approaches, deciding what information to collect, and determining sample sizes.

Practical considerations

Merit takes into account the practical realities of doing research and evaluation under resource and scope constraints. The National Statement does not require the "best" method; it requires methods that are appropriate to answering the research/evaluation questions (NS 1.1(b)).

Where scope constraints (time, budget, operational capacity) have influenced the choice of method, these should be described. The rationale for a design choice is a vital part of the assessment process, and documenting it is also good practice when reporting on findings.

What reviewers look for

Reviewers look for a clear line from the stated research/evaluation questions to the methods proposed and the resources committed to them. A matrix, or an equivalent description, that shows every method contributing to at least one question, and every question covered by at least one method, is the fastest way to demonstrate this. Reviewers are also alert to two common gaps: a method included because it is conventional in the field rather than because it answers a specific question, and a scope constraint (time, budget, access) that has shaped the design but is not disclosed. Naming the constraint and explaining the resulting design choice is generally viewed more favourably than presenting the chosen scope as if it were unconstrained.

Related resources

• Merit (NS 1.1-1.2): the merit principle in full
• Method selection: matching methods to research/evaluation questions
• Resource planning: resourcing the methods described in the merit case

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.