This article is part of the Iris Ethics Knowledge Base; you can find a directory of all articles here.
Overview
Respect for human beings is the fourth core value in the National Statement and encompasses the recognition of the intrinsic value of every person involved in research and evaluation. Respect requires that researchers/evaluators and review bodies give due regard to the welfare, beliefs, perceptions, customs, and cultural heritage (both individual and collective) of those involved in research/evaluation (NS 1.10).
Defining respect in the National Statement
Paragraphs 1.10 to 1.13 of the NHMRC National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research set out how respect should be applied in practice. These sections highlight four key responsibilities for researchers and evaluators:
- Recognising the intrinsic value of participants, including their welfare, beliefs, customs, and cultural heritage.
- Respecting participants' privacy, confidentiality, and cultural sensitivities, and honouring any specific agreements made.
- Supporting participants' autonomy and decision-making throughout the research process.
- Where participants have diminished capacity to make their own decisions, respect involves empowering them where possible and protecting them where necessary.
As noted elsewhere, Iris Ethics' position is that "participants" should be construed broadly to include those conducting the research/evaluation activities.
Respect and consent
Respect is closely connected to the consent requirements in Chapter 2.2. Obtaining valid informed consent is a primary expression of respect for participants' autonomy. However, respect extends beyond the consent process to the entire research relationship; this includes how participants are approached, how their data is handled, and how findings are reported.
Respect and cultural sensitivity
Respect for cultural diversity requires that researchers consider how their research design, communication, and data management reflect the cultural contexts of participants. This is particularly important in research involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and communities (see NS Chapter 4.7 and the NHMRC's guidance on Ethical Conduct in Research With Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and Communities).
How do I demonstrate respect in my project?
Given the above considerations, you can consider each of these points as questions you must address in the design process, and incorporate your responses in your application.
Are we recognising participants as people, not just data?
Respect begins with a simple but powerful idea: participants are people. They have values, beliefs, and lived experiences that matter. This means designing research that acknowledges and honours those experiences.
In practice, this might include:
- engaging with communities before data collection begin, to identify potential sensitivities and ensure data collection tools are appropriate,
- designing questions that are sensitive to cultural or personal contexts, and
- avoiding assumptions about participants' beliefs or behaviours.
Respect also means recognising collective identities. For example, the cultural heritage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is both a collective and individual system. Ensuring that research is conducted in ways that are culturally safe and appropriate involves recognition of this collective nature, and in some situations this means engaging with cultural knowledge holders and leaders to ensure that proposed activities are acceptable.
Are we honouring privacy, confidentiality, and cultural sensitivities?
Respect also includes practical responsibilities around privacy and confidentiality. Stakeholders must be able to trust that their information will be handled with care. In practice this means:
- being transparent about how data will be used and stored;
- avoiding unnecessary collection of sensitive information; and,
- fulfilling any specific agreements made with participants or communities.
Cultural sensitivities must also be considered. What is appropriate in one cultural context may not be in another. Researchers should seek guidance, consult with communities, and adapt their methods accordingly.
Are we supporting autonomy and informed decision-making?
Respect is closely tied to autonomy, and the presumption of participant competence as a starting point in the engagement process.
Participants must be given the opportunity to make informed decisions about their involvement in research. This means:
- providing clear, accessible information about the research,
- ensuring participants understand what they are consenting to, and
- creating space for questions, withdrawal, or refusal without pressure.
Importantly, autonomy is not a one-time event. It must be supported throughout the research and evaluation process, from recruitment to reporting.
Are we protecting participants with limited decision-making capacity?
Not all participants can make decisions for themselves. For example, children, people with cognitive impairment (whether permanent, temporary, or situational), or those in certain situations may have diminished capacity to make fully informed judgements on their participation. Special considerations: specific populations explores some of these situations, and while the above examples represent some cases, we should remember that all participants and stakeholders may be limited in their decision-making capacity depending on the context.
Respect in these cases means:
- empowering participants where possible - for example, by using adapted consent processes and materials or involving support persons.
- protecting participants from harm or exploitation, such as by ensuring that incentives for participation are proportionate to the required involvement, appropriate to the context, and unlikely to act as an inducement to participation.
- ensuring that participation is both voluntary and ongoing, for example by having affirmation of consent at the beginning and end of an activity.
This is especially important in research involving sensitive topics or taking place with groups who may be at higher risk of harm or distress. In such cases the ethical bar is higher, and the design must reflect that.
What will we do if circumstances change?
Respect is not static. If the research or evaluation context changes (for example, if new risks emerge or participants express discomfort) researchers and evaluators must respond. This might involve:
- pausing or modifying the research;
- consulting with ethics review bodies or community representatives; or,
- communicating transparently with participants.
Making clear how you will identify and manage such changes as part of your project plan is useful planning, as well as a clear demonstration of respectful intent. After all, respect means being responsive, not just compliant.
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.