This article is part of the Iris Ethics Knowledge Base; you can find a directory of all articles here.
Overview
Resource planning is an element of demonstrating research merit. The National Statement requires that research be conducted or supervised by people with experience, qualifications and competence appropriate for the research, and using facilities and resources appropriate for the research (NS 1.1(e)–(f)). Reviewers must also be satisfied that a plan is in place to ensure resources are sufficient to conduct and complete the research as designed, and that facilities, expertise and experience are appropriately allocated and sufficient for the research to be completed safely (NS 3.1.9). This encompasses human resources, infrastructure, financial resources, and time.
Key resource considerations
- Experience and expertise: those conducting the research/evaluation must have the training and experience required for the methods being used, including experience with any specialised techniques (such as working with populations at increased risk, conducting trauma-informed research, or managing sensitive data).
- Staffing: adequate staff must be available for all phases of the project, including data collection, analysis and reporting, and for managing any participant welfare concerns that arise.
- Infrastructure: data collection and storage infrastructure must be adequate to meet the privacy and security requirements of the project.
- Time: the proposed timeline must be realistic for the scope of the research, including time for obtaining ethics approval before commencing.
- Financial resources: funding must be sufficient for the scope of the project, and any funding constraints that may affect the quality of the research should be disclosed. Researchers must also assure reviewers that any payment, in money or kind, to institutions, researchers or participants will not adversely influence the design, conduct, findings or publication of the research (NS 3.1.10).
Ongoing resource monitoring
Resource adequacy is not static. Changes in staffing, funding, or project scope during a project may affect its ethical acceptability. Continuation of ethics approval, whether after review of a progress report or after the original term of approval has expired, is conditional on researchers keeping the review body informed of matters that affect that acceptability (NS 5.4.10). Where changes are material, researchers should consider whether an amendment to the ethics approval is required. See Amendments for guidance on when amendments are required and how to submit them.
Related resources
- Demonstrating research merit: how resourcing contributes to the overall merit assessment
- Method selection: matching methods to the resources realistically available
- Amendments: reporting material changes in resourcing after approval
This page was last updated on 9 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.