This article is part of the Iris Ethics Knowledge Base; you can find a directory of all articles here.
Overview
Document review is the systematic collection and analysis of existing documents, including organisational records, policy documents, meeting minutes, program materials, media, and other textual or visual materials, as a research or evaluation method. It is common in evaluation, historical, and policy research, and it raises a distinct set of ethical questions from primary data collection because the people whose information appears in the documents were not necessarily engaged, or even aware, at the point the documents were created.
When document review requires ethics review
Document review requires ethics review where the documents contain personal information about identifiable individuals, for example organisational records containing employee or client information, case files, complaint records, and similar materials. The relevant test is not the age or format of the document but whether it contains information that identifies, or could reasonably be used to identify, a living individual.
Document review confined to publicly available material, such as published reports, publicly accessible policy documents, and media, does not typically require ethics review, as this falls within the exclusion in the National Statement for research using information that has been published or has otherwise entered the public domain (NS: Purpose, Scope and Limits of this Document). Document review using personal information without consent cannot itself be exempted from ethics review (NS 5.1.16); it may instead require a waiver of consent, considered against the criteria at NS 5.1.17.
Consent, authorisation, and access
A favourable ethics review does not, by itself, authorise access to confidential organisational documents. Researchers must separately have lawful authority to access the documents under review, whether through the consent of the individuals or organisations concerned, access rights under applicable legislation, or a waiver of the consent requirement granted by the review body.
Where the documents were created for an unrelated purpose, such as case management or service delivery, the key question is whether the proposed research use is consistent with any consent obtained when the information was originally collected, including extended or unspecified consent for future research use (NS 2.2.14–2.2.16). Where research draws on document collections that have previously been shared, banked, or flagged for re-use, researchers should also consider the sharing and re-use requirements at NS 3.1.59–3.1.61, including the constraint that identifiable shared or banked material cannot be used in research that is exempt from ethics review (NS 3.1.61). For the general consent framework governing this kind of re-use, see Uses of existing data/records.
Privacy protection in reporting
Document review involving personal information requires careful attention to de-identification in reporting. Verbatim quotation from documents that would identify individuals, or that would allow identification through contextual detail such as role, date, or location, is generally not appropriate unless participants have consented to being identified. This is particularly important in small organisations or services, where even carefully paraphrased material can be attributable.
What reviewers look for
- Whether the documents under review contain personal information about identifiable individuals
- Whether the researcher has, or has a credible plan to obtain, lawful authority to access the documents
- Whether the proposed use is consistent with any consent given when the documents were created, or whether a waiver is being sought and justified
- Whether reporting and quotation practices adequately protect the privacy of individuals named or described in the documents
Related resources
This page was last updated on 7 October 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.