How to Write an Ethics Application

Ethics committees are not trying to stop your research. They are checking that you have thought through the risks to participants — and an application that shows this clearly is usually approved quickly.

For many students, the ethics application is the first formal document they write about their own research, and it often comes at a stressful point when they want to start collecting data. Applications get returned for amendments mostly for avoidable reasons: vague descriptions, missing documents and risks that have not been considered. This guide explains what committees look for and how to provide it the first time.

Check what level of review you need

Institutions usually have tiers of review. Low-risk studies with adult volunteers and non-sensitive topics may need only supervisor or department approval. Research involving vulnerable groups, sensitive topics, deception, health settings or personal data may need full committee review, and some settings — such as healthcare services — have their own external approval processes. Find out early, because external approvals can take months.

Describe the study so a non-specialist understands it

Committee members may come from other disciplines. Explain your aims, design and procedures in plain language, avoiding jargon or defining it where necessary. Describe exactly what participants will do, for how long, where and how often. Vague descriptions such as “participants will be interviewed about their experiences” invite questions; specific ones prevent them.

Explain who will take part and how you will recruit them

State your inclusion and exclusion criteria, sample size and recruitment method. Committees look closely at recruitment for signs of pressure: if you are recruiting your own students, colleagues or patients, explain how you will avoid them feeling obliged to take part. Using a neutral third party to distribute invitations is a common solution.

Make consent genuine

Informed consent means participants understand what they are agreeing to and can refuse without consequence. Your participant information sheet should explain the purpose, what is involved, risks and benefits, how data will be used and stored, and how to withdraw — including until when withdrawal is possible.

Consider your own position and safety

Committees increasingly ask about researcher wellbeing as well as participant welfare. If you will be interviewing people alone, travelling to unfamiliar locations or discussing distressing topics, describe how you will stay safe and supported — for example, telling a named contact when interviews start and finish, using public or institutional spaces, and having access to debriefing with your supervisor. Insider researchers, studying their own workplace or community, should also explain how they will manage conflicts of interest and confidentiality.

Identify the risks and how you will manage them

Think about physical, psychological, social and reputational risks to participants, and also risks to yourself as the researcher. Discussing a sensitive topic might cause distress; plan how you will respond, such as pausing the interview and providing details of support services. Risks do not need to be zero, but they should be anticipated, minimised and proportionate to the value of the research.

Risk	Example mitigation
Emotional distress	Right to skip questions, pause or stop; signposting to support
Identification from quotes	Pseudonyms, removing identifying details, checking small-group quotes
Coercion	Third-party recruitment, no link to grades or employment
Researcher safety	Public venues, check-in procedure, online alternatives

Address data protection in detail

Explain what personal data you will collect, why you need it, how it will be stored and secured, who can access it, how long it will be kept and how it will be destroyed. Distinguish between anonymous data (no link to identity at any point) and pseudonymised data (identities replaced by codes but recoverable). Follow your institution’s data management guidance and any applicable data protection law.

Justify any deception or incomplete disclosure

Some studies cannot reveal their full purpose in advance without affecting results. If yours involves any deception, explain why it is necessary, why it is minimal and how you will debrief participants afterwards. Expect closer scrutiny for these designs.

Include all supporting documents

Missing attachments are one of the most common causes of delay. Typically, you will need the participant information sheet, consent form, recruitment materials, interview guide or questionnaire, debrief sheet where relevant, and any gatekeeper permission letters. Make sure the documents are consistent with each other and with the application form — committees notice mismatches.

Allow time for amendments

Even strong applications can come back with minor requests. Build at least two to four weeks into your timeline for review and revision, more for committee review. Respond to each point clearly, saying what you have changed and where. Do not begin recruitment or data collection until approval is confirmed in writing.

Write in a way that makes approval easy

Reviewers often handle many applications at once. Answer each question on the form directly and completely, even if you feel you have covered it elsewhere. Use the same terminology throughout, keep participant-facing documents in plain language at an appropriate reading level, and ask your supervisor to read the application before submission. A clear, consistent application signals that the research will be carried out carefully, which is exactly what the committee needs to see.

Treat ethics as ongoing

Approval covers the study as described. If you change your method, sample or materials significantly, you will usually need to submit an amendment. Ethical practice continues through data collection, analysis and write-up — in how you treat participants, protect their data and represent their words. Reflecting on this briefly in your methodology chapter demonstrates mature research practice.

Common reasons applications are returned

• Unclear or missing withdrawal arrangements.
• Inconsistencies between the form and the information sheet.
• No plan for participant distress on a sensitive topic.
• Vague data storage and retention details.
• Recruitment that could pressure people to take part.
• Missing gatekeeper permissions or supporting documents.