This article is part of the Iris Ethics Knowledge Base; you can find a directory of all articles here.
Overview
Dissemination planning is the process of deciding how and to whom research or evaluation findings will be communicated beyond the immediate project team. It is distinct from communicating findings back to participants themselves, which the National Statement addresses separately at NS 3.1, Element 5 (see Communicating findings to participants). The National Statement treats public dissemination of outputs and outcomes as consistent with the ethical principles of respect, beneficence, and justice, and as a requirement of research merit and integrity (NS 3.1, Element 6). Its stated goal is that research should contribute to knowledge or practice, or serve a public good; common mechanisms include peer-reviewed publication, conference presentations, commissioned reports to public bodies, and other media such as creative works.
What dissemination planning involves
Researchers should consider, and advise the review body, whether they intend to disseminate outputs widely to contribute to knowledge or practice, whether any risk factors or commercial interests might legitimately delay or restrict dissemination, and whether the risks of dissemination are justified by its benefits, such as public interest (NS 3.1.68). A dissemination plan submitted with an ethics application should address:
- Who the intended audiences are for the findings
- Through what channels findings will be communicated (publications, reports, conference presentations, media, community summaries)
- Whether publication is planned regardless of whether findings are positive, negative, or inconclusive; publication should not be withheld on the basis that findings are negative or inconclusive (NS 3.1, Element 6)
- Any restrictions on publication imposed by funding or commissioning arrangements, disclosed to the review body (NS 5.3.11)
- How participant privacy will be protected in publication, including de-identification of qualitative material (see Privacy and identifiability)
- Whether and how findings will be returned to participants (see Returning findings to participants)
Most evaluation and market research is not disseminated publicly
Much evaluation and market research is commissioned for internal organisational use or commercial advantage, and the commissioning client typically controls dissemination decisions. This is ethically defensible where participants were told at recruitment and consent that findings would not be made public, who would receive them, and what, if anything, participants themselves would receive (NS 3.1.68, NS 2.2.6(k)). Restriction becomes ethically problematic only where it amounts to suppressing findings because they are negative, inconclusive, or politically inconvenient, or where a commissioning body attempts to veto publication of unfavourable results; both are inconsistent with research integrity (NS 3.1, Element 6; NS 3.1.69).
Reciprocity as an ethical obligation
Restricted dissemination to a commissioning organisation does not remove researchers' obligations to participants. Researchers should advise participants on the format and medium that will be used to disseminate outputs to them, such as a lay summary, and when this will occur, and dissemination to participants should be timely (NS 3.1.70). Any outputs disseminated to participants must be provided in language that is clear and understandable to them (NS 3.1.71). This obligation of reciprocity is particularly important where research involves Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and communities, culturally and racially marginalised groups, or people with disability, who have often participated in research and evaluation that benefited researchers/evaluators or service systems without a corresponding benefit to them. Meaningful engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in the design and conduct of research and evaluation, including in relation to outputs, is a requirement of NS Chapter 4.7; see Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (NS 4.7). Practical forms of reciprocity include plain-language summaries, community presentations, co-designed outputs, and accessible formats such as Easy Read, audio, or video.
Whose story is being told
Dissemination planning should also consider whose account of a participant's experience is being represented in outputs, particularly where third parties such as family members, carers, or professionals have provided information about a participant rather than the participant themselves. Representing a third party's account as equivalent to a participant's own voice, or failing to distinguish between the two in published outputs, raises risks of misrepresentation and can undermine a participant's authority over their own narrative. See Whose story is it to tell? for guidance on this issue.
Standards for reporting, referencing and authorship
Whether or not a project is publicly disseminated, researchers must ensure that reports of their outputs adhere to prevailing standards for ethical reporting, referencing and authorship, such as the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (NS 3.1.69). This applies equally to internal reports and client deliverables: proper attribution of sources and collaborators, authorship reflecting genuine intellectual contribution, and honest and accurate reporting of findings are required regardless of the audience.
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.