This article is part of the Iris Ethics Knowledge Base; you can find a directory of all articles here.
Overview
Evaluation and social research designs often collect data about a participant's experience from someone else: a family member, carer, teacher, or support worker. This is a distinct question from ordinary third-party disclosure, because the third party is not merely mentioned in the data; they are narrating another person's experience on that person's behalf, and that narration may be reported, published, or otherwise disseminated as if it were the participant's own account. The question is not only whether the data collection is permissible, but who has the standing to tell the story, and how that is represented once findings are disseminated.
Why this matters
The issue engages two of the National Statement's core values directly. Respect for human beings recognises each person's intrinsic worth and their capacity to make their own decisions, including decisions about who tells their story and how (NS 1.10-1.13). Collecting data about a participant's experience from a third party, without the participant's knowledge or agreement, risks bypassing this respect. Justice requires fair distribution of the benefits and burdens of research and freedom from exploitation (NS 1.4); it is relevant to ask whether it is fair to make someone the subject of research inquiry without their knowledge, even where they are not formally a "participant" as the National Statement defines the term.
When third-party reporting is justified
Third-party data collection is not inherently problematic. It is well justified where the third party's own experience is truly the focus of inquiry but cannot be understood without some context about the person they support, for example research into carer burden that necessarily includes the carer's observations of the person they care for. It is similarly appropriate where the person concerned cannot meaningfully participate directly, such as very young children in early childhood program evaluation, where a parent or guardian legitimately holds relevant knowledge. Cultural context also matters: in some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities it may be appropriate and expected for elders or senior family members to speak on behalf of others, and researchers should engage with the community to understand these norms rather than assume Western individualistic notions of consent and autonomy apply universally (NS 4.7, NS 4.7.2-4.7.4).
When it becomes ethically problematic
The position becomes harder to justify once the primary research or evaluation interest shifts from the third party's own experience to using them as a proxy for the participant's experience, satisfaction, or outcomes, particularly where the third party holds a position of authority or care over the participant. The National Statement's guidance on people in dependent or unequal relationships is directly relevant here: researchers must identify and take steps to minimise, mitigate, or manage the detrimental effects of a dependent or unequal relationship on the conduct of the research, and of the research on participants involved in that relationship, including in the dissemination of outcomes (NS 4.4.3; see People in dependent relationships (NS 4.4)). Reporting a third party's account as though it were equivalent to the participant's own perspective risks misrepresentation, denies the participant autonomy over their own narrative, and can reinforce an existing power imbalance rather than simply observing it.
Practical questions for design and reporting
Practitioners designing research or evaluation that relies on third-party respondents should be able to answer:
- Is the third party's own experience truly the object of inquiry, or are they being used as a convenient proxy for the participant?
- Why can this data not be collected from the participant directly, and has that alternative actually been explored, including through adapted or supported formats?
- What does the third party actually know from direct observation, as distinct from what they are being asked to speculate about?
- Is the participant aware that their experience is being discussed by a third party, and do they have any opportunity to set boundaries on this?
- What power dynamic exists between the third party and the participant, and how is this being managed in both data collection and reporting?
Implications for outputs
Where third-party accounts are used, outputs should present them explicitly as third-party observations rather than as definitive accounts of the participant's experience, and should distinguish clearly between what the third party observed and what they inferred. Where feasible, gathering the participant's own perspective alongside the third party's account, even in adapted form, gives a fuller and more defensible picture and reduces the risk that dissemination of findings misrepresents the person whose experience is at the centre of the research; see Dissemination planning and Returning findings to participants. Ethics applications should be explicit about why third-party respondents are being used, what safeguards protect the participants being discussed, and what limitations apply to the resulting data.
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.