H&SS simple guide to ethics applications for human research
In H&SS:
 ethics approval is usually required because the researcher plans to survey or to interview people; and
 research is usually minimal risk and can be approved at School level (although this is not always the
case).
The good news is:
 if you have already planned your research project carefully, completing an ethics application will not
be very onerous; or, alternatively
 if your research project is still in development, completing an ethics application will force you to
clarify things, thus strengthening the ultimate research result.
‘What do I need to do?’
Read carefully overleaf: ‘Documentation required for your ethics application’.
The Presiding Officer of the Ethics Committee (currently Emma Rush) is available to answer any questions
that arise while you are preparing your application.
Once you have completed your application, see the ‘Ethical Review Process’ flow chart (filename:
ehrc_flowchart.pdf).

If you believe that your project is minimal risk research, please forward electronic copies of all the
documentation for your ethics application to the Chair of H&SS Ethics Committee
(erush@csu.edu.au). Provision of electronic copies facilitates circulation to Committee members.

If you believe your research is not minimal risk, you may forward your ethics application directly to
the University Ethics Committee. However, if you would like comments on your application before
forwarding it to the University Ethics Committee, the School Committee is available to comment.
SUPERVISORS OF HONOURS AND POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS
PLEASE NOTE:
Developing the capacity to negotiate institutional ethics processes is an important part of research training
for Honours and postgraduate students. It is the responsibility of supervisors to thoroughly check
applications made by students before the application is submitted.
Please use the following document naming conventions
Form 1
Attachments to Form 1
Information sheet
Consent form
Interview guide
Survey instrument (questionnaire)
Form 2
Naming convention
Form1_Surname_dd.mm.yyyy
Example
Form1_Rush_25.11.2010
Info_Surname_dd.mm.yyyy
Consent_ Surname_dd.mm.yyyy
Interview-Surname_dd.mm.yyyy
Survey_Surname_dd.mm.yyyy
Form2_ Surname_dd.mm.yyyy
Info_Rush_25.11.2010
Consent_Rush_25.11.2010
Interview_Rush_25.11.2010
Survey_Rush_25.11.2010
Form2_Rush_25.11.2010
These naming conventions enable the tracking of any revisions to applications following SEC comments and prior to
final approval. They also allow for effective electronic filing: by avoiding the need for a final set of documents to be
printed out once the application is approved, the SEC can reduce paper use.
Documentation required for your ethics application
Forms available from: http://www.csu.edu.au/research/ethics_safety/human
Form 1: ‘aauhpmr’
(= application for approval for use of human
participants or materials in research)
This gives an overview of your research project. If you have
already completed a research proposal (e.g. for funding), you
should be able to cut and paste in most of the details about your
project.
Question 4.7, frequently poses problems for people. The usual way
of dealing with it is to tick ‘probable’ for all the categories it is
possible that your participants might fall into, and then say in the
box (b) following, something like: “It is possible that some
recruited participants may belong to one or more of the above
categories, but even where participants do belong to one or more of
the above categories, the research would remain very low-risk
since there is nothing involved in the research which would
increase risk to such participants.”
Attachments to Form 1
(i) Information sheet
(ii) Consent form
Which (if any) of these documents you attach depends on the kind
of research you are planning. Note that you will have to finalise
these documents at some point anyway, so attaching them to the
ethics application involves relatively little extra work overall.
Note that pp.3-4 of Form 1 provides an ‘information sheet
checklist’ with which your documentation must comply.*
Note that pp.8-9 of Form 1 provides a ‘consent form checklist’
with which your documentation must comply.*
One thing that is not on the checklist is a space for the research
participant to print their name. It is likely to be useful to include
this, since it is not always clear from a signature who is returning
the form!
(iii) Interview guide
(iv) Survey instrument (questionnaire)
Form 2: ‘mrrc’
(= minimal risk review checklist)
These documents will be carefully assessed by the Committee not
only for ethical implications but also for methodological
soundness. The NSECHR states that human research must meet
‘relevant scholarly or scientific standards’ (2007, p.77). If it does
not, it does not show ‘respect and concern’ for research participants
(2007, p.3) – it effectively wastes their time and effort to achieve
results of limited or no use.
This involves 3 pages of check-boxes to help you assess whether
your proposed research project is minimal risk or not.
NOTE: It may be that even if you tick ‘yes’ for one or more
item(s), you can nonetheless make a case (see part 6 on final page)
that your research is minimal risk.
*It will say on the Consent and Information Form that you need to include details of who participants should contact in
case of a concern about the research. If the School Ethics Committee ends up approving the project, the details should
be given as follows:
Presiding Officer, Research Ethics Committee
School of Humanities and Social Sciences
Charles Sturt University
Locked Bag 678
WAGGA WAGGA NSW 2678
Ph: (02) 6933 2249
Email: humgen@csu.edu.au