This article is part of the Iris Ethics Knowledge Base; you can find a directory of all articles here.
Overview
Observational research collects data by watching people in natural settings without intervening in their behaviour. It spans naturalistic observation in public spaces, participant observation in community settings, and non-participant observation in organisational or service settings. The ethical questions it raises turn on two variables: whether participants have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the setting observed, and whether they know they are being observed.
Public observation and exemption
Observation of public behaviour, where information is collected and recorded without personal identifiers and is highly unlikely to cause distress, may be eligible for a formal exemption from ethics review (NS 5.1.17(b)). This exemption is narrow: it applies to truly public settings and non-identifying records, and institutions must keep a record of any decision to grant it (NS 5.1.18). A dataset that seems anonymous at first glance, such as observation notes that record occupation, suburb, and approximate age, can still permit identification in a small population, so exemption should not be assumed without checking the criteria in full.
Private settings and covert observation
Observation in settings where individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy, including workplaces, healthcare settings, community meeting spaces, and similar environments, requires either consent or a waiver of consent from the review body. Where participants do not know they are being observed, the observation is a form of limited disclosure and is governed by NS Chapter 2.3. Any research involving active concealment of the fact of observation can only be reviewed and approved by an HREC, not through a lower risk or exemption pathway (NS 2.3.4). Approval requires the researcher to demonstrate that the concealment is necessary for the validity of the research, that the research has merit sufficient to justify it, and that the risk to participants remains low (NS 2.3.1). See Limited disclosure and deception for the full justification and debriefing requirements that apply once observation moves from unobtrusive to covert.
Recording and data management
Where observation involves audio or video recording, participants must generally be informed of and consent to the recording; this is distinct from consent to being observed and should be addressed separately in the information provided to participants. Researchers and reviewers should assess the identifiability of any recordings or field notes, considering not only direct identifiers but also the risk of re-identification through combinations of contextual detail (NS Chapter 3.1, Element 4). Recordings and notes that identify participants must be stored securely with restricted access, and de-identified or destroyed at the end of the approved retention period unless participants have separately consented to ongoing storage in identified form.
Ethical risks
Observational research in organisational or service settings can expose participants to reputational or professional risk if findings are attributable to identifiable individuals or small, identifiable groups, even where no names are recorded. Social and economic harms of this kind sit alongside the psychological and physical harms more commonly associated with research risk, and reviewers should weigh them accordingly. Design and reporting should protect the privacy of those observed wherever this is consistent with the research aims, including through aggregation, de-identification, and care in how findings are attributed within small settings.
What reviewers look for
- Whether the setting observed carries a reasonable expectation of privacy, and whether this has been correctly assessed rather than assumed
- Whether any concealment of the fact of observation is justified, proportionate, and limited to what the research design requires
- Whether recording, storage, and retention arrangements match the identifiability of the data collected
- Whether reporting and dissemination plans protect participants from attribution risk in small or identifiable settings
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.