This article is part of the Iris Ethics Knowledge Base; you can find a directory of all articles here.
The National Statement (Chapter 2.1) states clearly: "Neither burden nor inconvenience should be considered a type of harm or discomfort and therefore should not be viewed as a risk." (NS Chapter 2.1)
So what are they?
Burden refers to the demands placed on participants through their involvement in research. This includes:
- Time commitment required for surveys, interviews, or focus groups
- Cognitive or administrative load (completing lengthy forms, providing documentation)
- Ongoing obligations (repeated data collection, follow-up sessions)
Inconvenience captures the practical disruptions to participants' normal routines:
- Travel to research sites or venues
- Scheduling constraints (attending during work hours, outside caring responsibilities)
- Coordination requirements (arranging childcare, taking leave from work)
- Out-of-pocket costs (parking, public transport, meals)
The National Statement provides examples of both: "the time that will need to be given up to participate in the research, filling in forms and costs related to travel" (NS Chapter 2.1).
These are not risks in the ethical sense as they do not threaten participants' wellbeing, dignity, or interests. Nevertheless, they matter, and the National Statement requires researchers and ethics review bodies to consider the impact of any burdens or inconvenience on participants and determine whether they are justified by the potential benefits of the research (NS Chapter 2.1).
Distinguishing Burden and Inconvenience from Harm and Discomfort
This distinction is not merely semantic. It affects how research and evaluation are assessed and designed. The following table of examples illustrates the difference:
| Burden/Inconvenience | Harm/Discomfort |
|---|---|
| 90-minute survey on service usage | Survey questions that trigger distress about past trauma |
| Travelling 30km to attend a focus group | Anxiety about participating in group discussions |
| Completing diary entries daily for two weeks | Feeling judged or exposed by research participation |
| Providing bank statements or income documentation | Stigma or discrimination arising from disclosure |
| Three separate interview sessions over six months | Physical pain from medical procedures or tests |
| Scheduling conflicts with work or caring responsibilities | Psychological harm from poorly designed debriefing |
The left column involves effort, time, and practical challenges. The right column involves potential psychological, social, or physical harm.
A practical test: would the participant describe this as "hassle" or "stress"? Hassle suggests burden or inconvenience. Stress, particularly ongoing or significant stress, indicates potential discomfort or harm.
For example:
- Burden: A parent managing childcare arrangements to attend a 2-hour focus group on early childhood education policy
- Discomfort: That same parent feeling anxious about being judged by other parents for their views
- Inconvenience: Paying $15 for parking at the research venue
- Harm: The parent's employer discovering their participation and punishing them for it
Implications for Risk Assessment
Under the National Statement's risk framework (NS Chapter 2.1, Figure 1), research sits on a continuum:
- Minimal risk: No risk of harm or discomfort, but potential for minor burden or inconvenience
- Low risk: No risk of harm; risk of discomfort (with or without foreseeable burden)
- Greater than low risk: Risk of harm (with or without foreseeable burden)
- High risk: Risk of significant harm (with or without foreseeable burden)
Importantly, burden and inconvenience can be present at any level of risk. A minimal risk project might involve considerable burden (for example, a 60-minute survey on public attitudes to housing policy). A greater-than-low-risk project might involve minimal burden (for example, a 15-minute interview about experiences of discrimination, where the topic itself carries risk of psychological discomfort or harm). Conversely, unjustifiable harms can exist without any burden or inconvenience to a participant, such as where a participant's existing information is published in identifiable form without permission or knowledge.
The crucial point is that research or evaluation that involves only burden or inconvenience is not automatically exempt from ethics review. It is classified according to whichever of harm or discomfort is also present (or, where neither is present, as minimal risk), and still requires proportionate oversight (NS Chapter 2.1; NS 5.1.10-5.1.12).
The National Statement sets out specific criteria for exemption from ethics review, and the presence of burden or inconvenience alone does not satisfy these criteria (NS 5.1.15-5.1.18). Most evaluation and social research projects will require review through a lower risk pathway rather than exemption. See Exemptions from ethical review (NS 5.1.15-5.1.18) for the exemption criteria in full.
Minimising Burden and Inconvenience in Practice
Well-designed research minimises participant burden without compromising data quality. The following strategies can assist:
1. Streamline data collection
Every question should serve a clear purpose. Before deploying a lengthy survey, consider whether you could:
- Use existing administrative data instead of asking participants to provide it
- Reduce demographic questions to only what is analytically necessary
- Use skip and display logics so participants only see relevant questions
In evaluation work, consider whether service usage data can be extracted from program records rather than relying on participant recall.
2. Use plain language
Participant information sheets are often the first burden participants encounter, and can be unnecessarily complex. Effective information sheets should be:
- Concise (2-3 pages maximum for most projects)
- Front-loaded (key information first)
- Written at Year 10 reading level or below
- Free from jargon
The same principles apply to consent forms, surveys, and interview protocols. If participants require specialised knowledge to understand your materials, you have introduced unnecessary burden. We've created a plain English participant information and consent form that you can adapt for your projects.
3. Integrate with existing touchpoints
Where possible, and where it does not interfere with the research or evaluation goals, collect data when participants are already engaging with services rather than requiring additional appointments.
For example:
- Policy evaluation: survey participants at the conclusion of a regular program session
- Market research: integrate questions into existing customer feedback channels
- Service evaluation: conduct interviews via phone or video during scheduled check-ins
This approach is particularly important for participants with caring responsibilities, inflexible work arrangements, or limited transport options.
4. Embrace omnichannel data collection
Our Managing Director's prior work on universal design in research demonstrates the value of offering participants genuine choice in how they participate.
"Omnichannel" data collection means providing multiple modes of engagement:
- Online surveys with phone or paper alternatives
- In-person focus groups with video or telephone options
- Synchronous interviews or asynchronous written responses
This approach recognises that a single mode will not suit all participants. Some people lack reliable internet access. Others cannot easily take 90 minutes from their workday but could complete a survey in the evening. Some find video conferencing exhausting; others (like our Managing Director) prefer it to phone calls.
Greater flexibility reduces burden and can improve both participation rates and data quality.
5. Provide appropriate reimbursement
Where research involves substantial time commitment or out-of-pocket costs, participant reimbursement is not simply good practice; it is ethically necessary.
The National Statement permits reimbursement for costs such as travel, accommodation, and parking, as well as payment for time involved. It cautions against payment that is disproportionate to the time involved, or any other inducement likely to encourage participants to take risks.
For evaluation and social research, this concern around inducement is in most cases not significant, but should always be considered. The more general question is: are participants required to incur costs or sacrifice earnings to participate? If so, fair reimbursement is appropriate. See Payments and incentives for detail.
6. Be transparent about time and commitment
Participants cannot assess burden if they do not understand what participation entails. Information sheets should specify:
- Realistic time estimates for participation
- Number of sessions or touchpoints involved
- What participants will be asked to do
- Any costs they might incur
Transparency is both respectful and practical. It reduces dropout rates and supports informed decision-making.
Conclusion
Burden and inconvenience are not risks, but they remain important ethical considerations. They affect who can participate in research or evaluation, whether people complete their participation, and the quality of data collected. They are also factors that ethics review bodies such as Iris Ethics scrutinise.
Researchers should design projects to minimise burden from the outset. This means making participation as simple as possible, respecting participants' time, and recognising the practical constraints within which people live their lives.
Importantly, research that involves only burden or inconvenience is not exempt from ethics review. It requires proportionate oversight through an appropriate lower risk pathway (NS Chapter 2.1; NS 5.1.10-5.1.12).
Burden and inconvenience are not merely procedural considerations. They are reminders that research and evaluation occur within the context of participants' lives: lives with employment, caring responsibilities, limited schedules, and finite resources. Sound research and evaluation acknowledges this reality and designs accordingly.
Payments and incentives are one mechanism for acknowledging and partially compensating for participant burden. See Payments and incentives for guidance on the ethical requirements around incentives.
Related resources
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.