This article is part of the Iris Ethics Knowledge Base; you can find a directory of all articles here.
Overview
Research integrity is the second part of the first value in the National Statement. It encompasses the conduct of research with honesty, rigour, and transparency. Integrity is both an individual and institutional responsibility.
Integrity is one of those elusive concepts that everyone seems to understand, but when pressed for a definition can find it hard to articulate. It is ironic that the most famous quote about integrity is misattributed to the wrong author:
Integrity is doing the right thing, even when no one is watching.*
In the context of research and evaluation integrity applies this concept of doing the right thing within the specific context of the project and the team delivering it. It is a fundamental requirement for meaningful engagement with stakeholders.
What guidance is there to assure integrity?
Under the National Statement (paragraph 1.3), evaluation/research that demonstrates integrity is carried out by researchers/evaluators with a commitment to:
- searching for knowledge and understanding;
- following recognised principles of research and evaluation conduct;
- conducting research and evaluation with honesty;
- interacting with participants and others respectfully, with honesty, and fairly; and,
- disseminating, communicating and translating results, whether favourable or unfavourable, in ways that permit scrutiny and contribute to public knowledge and understanding.
Integrity issues in practice
In applied research and evaluation settings, integrity issues arise most frequently around the following:
- Reporting: findings must be reported accurately and completely, including results that are unfavourable to the commissioning body. The suppression or selective reporting of findings is a breach of integrity (see also NS 1.3(e) and NS Chapter 3.1, Element 6 on dissemination of project outputs and outcomes).
- Conflicts of interest: researchers must disclose any financial or other interest that bears on the research (NS 5.3.11). This includes commercial relationships between researchers and sponsors, or relationships between researchers and potential participant populations.
- Authorship and attribution: contributions to research must be accurately attributed. Ghost authorship (where a person is omitted from the author list despite significant contributions) and gift authorship (where a person is listed as an author without significant contribution) are both breaches of integrity.
- Data management: data must be managed with honesty and in accordance with the approved data management protocol.
How do I demonstrate integrity in my application?
Given the above conditions, you can consider each of these points as questions you must address in the design process, and incorporate your responses in your application.
How do I demonstrate commitment?
Demonstrating commitment to the qualities of integrity is more than merely stating your commitment or signing a declaration. It comes through in the way that you propose to conduct your projects - that is, your methodology for design, engagement, delivery, and analysis demonstrate whether there is a commitment.
Nonetheless, commitment can also be demonstrated in other ways, and in the qualities of the team that is delivering the work. Examples include:
- Membership of a professional body in your sector with an established code of conduct/ethics for members, such as those in place for the Australian Evaluation Society and The Research Society.
- Demonstrated experience in delivering similar projects to a high degree of integrity (noting that this includes more than publication records or longevity in a role).
- Support and endorsement by the communities you are working with.
Commitment can be demonstrated in different ways depending on the project and the stakeholders, and it is the responsibility of the researcher/evaluator to identify what is appropriate commitment for a project.
Is my team searching for knowledge and understanding?
This criterion is interesting because it is hard to think of a scenario in evaluation and research where a team has not been motivated to seek out knowledge and understanding. Even a project where a team of students may be replicating existing and well-studied research is an act of building knowledge and understanding in the students.
However, it happens.
Imagine the scenario of a "box-ticking" exercise where there is no interest in gaining knowledge and understanding, only for it to be shown that an evaluation or research project was conducted. This sometimes arises in highly politicised areas of policy and programs, and presents a complex ethical dilemma for practitioners.
Because these scenarios happen, it is necessary to differentiate your project from such cases. In practice, the commitment to knowledge and understanding is demonstrated through the proposed approach and its appropriateness to answering the research/evaluation questions. In that sense, it is something that should already be in your planning documentation.
Is my team following recognised principles of research conduct?
We have already made mention of the codes of conduct for professional organisations, but there are also other sets of principles worth examining, such as the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research 2018, published by the National Health and Medical Research Council. The principles laid out in that document provide valuable guidance for the delivery of projects.
However, there is also a need to recognise that when working with some communities, there are other principles that should be taken into account. Principles such as cultural safety and appropriateness, accessibility, and trauma-informed engagement may vary significantly depending on the groups that you are working with. For example, what is accessible for members of the Autistic community may not be the same for members of the d/Deaf community. Understanding this and adapting your approach demonstrates a commitment to recognising these principles and following them.
Many of these principles are developed and informed by the communities themselves, and while there is overlap with broader principles, there can be divergence. Moreover, these principles may not be neatly packaged in a single document but emergent from the collective discussion of that community. This is where design processes that actively engage with communities can help. The processes enable discussion and alignment with principles in a way that is accepted within that community or group.
Is the research/evaluation being conducted with honesty?
This has traditionally been the element of the principle that researchers have found hard to navigate. After all, there are many scenarios where a research or evaluation objective cannot be divulged to a participant or where a client cannot be disclosed. There are good reasons to do this, most commonly because disclosure may bias findings and therefore undermine the validity of the research (a scenario called "limited disclosure"). Does this make the conduct of the research/evaluation dishonest?
It is a good question, and like many things in this space, it comes down to the context of the project. The above scenarios have been anticipated in the National Statement and in other codes. Most notably, Chapter 2.3 of the National Statement ("Qualifying or waiving conditions for consent") commences with a useful discussion of limited disclosure, followed by guidance for practitioners and reviewers to assess whether such an approach is justifiable in their circumstances. Key requirements are that:
- there is not an alternative approach;
- the benefits outweigh the risks (including the reputation of research/evaluation);
- there is no risk of harm to participants;
- the extent of the limitation of disclosure is precisely defined; and,
- there is, where possible and appropriate, action to resolve the limited disclosure on completion of participation, including an opportunity to withdraw consent in response to full disclosure.
Honesty also extends beyond the data collection process and engagement of participants. There needs to be honesty in the design phase; for example if a co-design process is employed then it should have genuine bearing on the design process rather than being performative. Similarly, the analysis and publication of findings should be reflective of the stated aims of the work.
Is my team interacting with stakeholders respectfully, honestly, and fairly?
Once again, respect of participants (a principle in its own right) gets a mention. Similar to the case of merit, it is about showing how all stakeholders are respected through the aims of the work, the way it is carried out, and the results. It means having regard for the welfare, beliefs, privacy, and confidentiality of stakeholders, and importantly, giving credence to the idea that people should be empowered to make their own decisions and where this is not possible, protecting them as necessary.
Fairness ties in with the broader principle of justice, and in interpreting this principle (paragraph 1.4 of the National Statement) we see that fairness in the context of research and evaluation spans every stage of a project, from determining who should be included/excluded from participation, through to recruitment, and then to sharing the benefits of the research/evaluation with participants.
In demonstrating this practically, it will be shown through elements of your plan, including the design, engagement, and findings processes in place, communications plans, consent forms, and data collection instruments.
How are we communicating our findings?
Not all research and evaluation can be communicated to the general public directly or in full. There are cases where this would be inappropriate, create risks to stakeholders, or undermine the purpose of the research or evaluation itself. Common examples include:
- focus testing of unreleased products
- evaluations/research using sensitive or confidential information
- findings where there is a material risk of misinterpretation by the public and/or potential for publication to create disbenefits for stakeholders
However the expectation is that results should be disseminated factually and effectively so as to enable scrutiny and to contribute to public knowledge.
It is important to note that the National Statement does not mandate open and/or peer-reviewed publication of findings. It only directs that there needs to be in place a process of dissemination that is without favourable or unfavourable bias (i.e. no rose-coloured glasses or finding the clouds in silver linings), and that process must permit scrutiny and contribute to public knowledge and understanding.
In practice, this dissemination can be limited to certain stakeholders depending on the context, as long as it is without bias and allowing scrutiny. A report for a client can satisfy this if it is presented with honesty and with sufficient detail to permit scrutiny. The contribution to public knowledge is not limited to open publication, but can arise indirectly, for example through the impact of an internal report on the improvement of public-facing programs, or new products and services.
However, researchers and evaluators (and their clients) should consider how they may be able to provide some direct contribution to public knowledge as a result of their work. This can be achieved through a range of activities such as post-project engagement with participants to provide them with relevant findings, to project summaries, to publications or presentations that anonymise sensitive information while still preserving important learnings without bias. From our experience, discussing this with clients and stakeholders in the design phase can identify how best this can occur.
Related resources
* While this quote is commonly attributed to C.S. Lewis, it is in fact a paraphrase of a quote written by Charles Marshall, something the C.S. Lewis Foundation are quite adamant about redressing, an act that in its own way demonstrates integrity. [source]
This page was last updated on 24 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.