For many students, the research ethics application is the least exciting part of a dissertation — and the one that causes the most delay. It arrives just when you want to start collecting data, it asks questions you have not yet thought about, and it can come back with revisions that feel like obstacles rather than help. In reality, a well-written ethics application does something valuable: it forces you to think through your study from your participants’ point of view, before anyone is affected by it. Learning how to write a research ethics application is therefore not just administrative. It is part of doing the research well.
This guide explains what ethics committees look for, how to work through an application section by section, and how to avoid the common reasons applications are returned for revision. It is written generally, because every UK university runs its own system with its own forms and deadlines — always follow your institution’s specific guidance and your supervisor’s advice alongside this guide. Where your university’s rules differ from anything here, your university’s rules win.
Do you actually need ethical approval?
Not every dissertation needs full ethical approval, but most involving people, their data, or sensitive material do. As a rule, if your study involves human participants, personal data, vulnerable groups, sensitive topics, or deception of any kind, you should expect to apply. Studies using only published sources, anonymised secondary datasets with no personal identifiers, or textual analysis of public material may need only a lighter screening or exemption — but that decision is for your supervisor and your ethics committee, not for you alone.
Never assume you are exempt, and never start recruiting or collecting data before approval is confirmed in writing. Data collected without required approval can be unusable: you may be told to discard it, redo the study, or face academic proceedings. If you are unsure, ask early. A short conversation with your supervisor in the planning stage can save weeks of delay later.
What committees are looking for
Ethics committees are not trying to block your research. They are checking four things: that participants will be treated fairly and with respect, that risks have been identified and reduced as far as reasonably possible, that participants can make a genuinely informed choice about taking part, and that their data will be handled lawfully and securely. Every section of the application serves one of those purposes, even when it feels like paperwork.
Committees also check that you have thought about what could go wrong, not just what you hope will happen. What if a participant becomes distressed during an interview? What if someone discloses harm to themselves or others? What if your data is lost or accessed by someone unauthorised? An application that names those possibilities and gives a calm, specific response to each reads as competent. One that says “no risks are anticipated” for a study on a sensitive topic reads as unconsidered, and it is a common reason for revision requests.
Writing the application section by section
Start with a clear summary of the study in plain language. State your research question, what you will do, who will take part, and what participation involves, in terms a non-specialist could follow. Committees include members from outside your subject; jargon without explanation slows review and invites queries. If your study cannot be summarised in a paragraph, it may not yet be focused enough — revisit your question before you submit.
Next, describe participants and recruitment precisely. Who is eligible, who is excluded and why, how many you aim to recruit, and how you will approach them. Recruitment through a gatekeeper — a teacher, manager or clinician, for instance — needs care: participants must not feel pressured by someone in authority over them, so explain how you will keep the invitation genuinely voluntary. Recruiting your own friends, students you teach, or patients you care for raises similar concerns; say how you will avoid coercion, or choose a different sample.
Then describe procedures in the order participants will experience them: what they will be asked to do, for how long, where, and in what form. If you will interview, say how long interviews last and whether they will be recorded. If you will survey, attach the questionnaire — committees review the actual questions, not a description of them. If your study involves observation, say where, of whom, and whether people will know they are being observed. Vague procedure sections generate the most follow-up questions, so be specific even where the detail feels mundane.
Consent, information sheets and the right to withdraw
Informed consent is the centre of most applications, and it has two documents: the participant information sheet and the consent form. The information sheet must explain, in plain language, the purpose of the study, what participation involves, how long it takes, any risks or discomforts, how data will be used and stored, and who to contact with questions or complaints. It must also state clearly that participation is voluntary and that a participant may withdraw, and explain what happens to their data if they do.
Write the information sheet for your participants, not for the committee. Avoid academic language, define any necessary technical term, and keep sentences short. Ask someone outside your subject to read it: if they cannot explain back what participation involves, it needs rewriting. The consent form itself should be short and specific, with separate items for the main consent, for recording where relevant, and for any future use of anonymised data — participants should be able to agree to one part without agreeing to all.
Withdrawal needs practical thought. If data is anonymised immediately, withdrawal after that point may mean the data cannot be identified and removed, and the sheet must say so honestly, with a date after which withdrawal of data is no longer possible. If interviews are recorded, say when recordings will be transcribed and deleted. Promising that participants can withdraw “at any time” without qualification, when anonymised data cannot in practice be withdrawn, is a common inconsistency committees spot quickly.
Risk, safeguarding and sensitive topics
Every study has risks, even low-risk ones, and naming them honestly strengthens an application. For interview and survey studies, the main risks are usually distress, embarrassment, breach of confidentiality, and time burden. For each risk, state how likely it is, how serious it would be, and what you will do to reduce it and to respond if it happens.
Distress deserves a specific plan, not a general reassurance. If your topic could upset participants — bereavement, illness, discrimination, trauma, financial difficulty, or any sensitive personal experience — explain how you will handle it: pausing or stopping the interview, offering a break, providing a list of support services, and following up appropriately. Do not promise counselling you are not qualified to give; signposting to existing support services is the honest and expected approach.
Safeguarding is separate from distress and must be addressed where relevant. If a participant discloses harm to themselves, harm to a child or vulnerable adult, or criminal activity, what will you do? Your university will have a safeguarding procedure; find it, follow it, and state in the application that you will do so. Committees will not approve studies on sensitive topics without a safeguarding plan, and discovering the requirement after submission costs weeks. If your study involves children, vulnerable adults, or regulated activity, additional checks and approvals may apply — raise this with your supervisor at the earliest stage.
Data protection: anonymity, confidentiality and storage
Data protection is where many applications are weakest, because students confuse anonymity and confidentiality. Data is anonymous only if no one, including you, can identify the person it came from. Data that you can link back to a person, even through a code or a recording, is confidential, not anonymous — and must be described as such. Using the words precisely matters, because the committee judges your storage and sharing plans against the claim you make.
Describe the full lifecycle of your data: how it will be collected, where it will be stored, who will have access, how long it will be kept, and how it will be destroyed. In practice, that usually means university-approved storage rather than personal devices or personal cloud accounts, encrypted files, pseudonymised transcripts with a separately stored key, and deletion of recordings once transcription is checked. State retention periods honestly: if your university requires data to be kept for a set period after the dissertation, say so; if you will delete it on completion, say that instead.
Quotations need care too. A quotation that seems anonymous can identify someone through distinctive details — a rare job title, a specific incident, a small workplace. Explain how you will check quotations for identifiability and how you will alter or omit identifying details without distorting meaning. If you plan to share anonymised data beyond the dissertation, for example in an appendix or a repository, that needs explicit consent and a statement in the application.
Common reasons applications are returned
The most common reason is incompleteness: missing attachments, unattached questionnaires or interview guides, or an information sheet that does not match the application. Before submitting, check every attachment the form asks for, and read the whole pack as a committee member would — application, sheet, consent form, instruments — looking for contradictions.
The second is vagueness about procedures, risks or data handling. Phrases such as “participants will be treated ethically” or “data will be stored securely” are assertions, not plans. Committees want specifics: stored where, encrypted how, accessible to whom, deleted when. Replace every general reassurance with a concrete detail.
The third is overclaiming: promising anonymity for identifiable data, promising withdrawal after anonymisation, or promising confidentiality without noting safeguarding limits. Where a promise cannot be kept in full, qualify it honestly and explain the limit. Committees trust applications that acknowledge limits far more than ones that promise everything.
Finally, many applications are returned because the supervisor has not reviewed them. Most universities require supervisor sign-off before submission; a supervisor’s read-through catches inconsistencies and unrealistic plans before the committee does. Build that review into your timetable, and treat the committee’s comments, when they come, as revisions to make carefully rather than obstacles to argue with. A prompt, thorough response to each comment, explaining what you changed and where, usually leads to approval far faster than a defensive reply.
Research ethics FAQs
How long does ethical approval take?
It varies widely by institution and by risk level. Low-risk applications reviewed at department level can be approved quickly; higher-risk applications reviewed by a full committee may take several weeks, longer if revisions are requested. Ask your supervisor or ethics office for typical timescales at your university, and plan your data collection around them rather than assuming the fastest case.
Can I start recruiting while my application is under review?
No. Do not recruit, approach gatekeepers as a researcher, or collect data until you have written approval. Informal conversations about feasibility are different from recruitment, but if you are unsure where the line falls, ask your supervisor or ethics office before acting.
What if my study changes after approval?
Minor changes may need only a notification; substantial changes — a new population, a new method, a sensitive new topic — usually need an amendment approved before you proceed. Check your university’s amendment procedure, and do not implement a change first and seek approval afterwards.
Do I need approval for a questionnaire study?
Often yes, if it involves human participants and personal data, even when the topic seems low-risk. Questionnaires still raise consent, confidentiality and data protection issues. Some universities offer a lighter review route for low-risk surveys, but that route is still a form of approval — confirm which route applies to your study rather than assuming none does.
What should I do if a participant becomes distressed?
Pause or stop, check whether they wish to continue, and offer the support information you prepared in your application. Do not attempt to counsel them yourself. Record the incident factually for your records, inform your supervisor, and follow your university’s procedure if safeguarding issues arise.
Can I use quotations from participants in my dissertation?
Yes, if your consent form and information sheet covered quotation, and if quotations are checked for identifying details before use. Attribute quotations by pseudonym or code, not by name, and alter or omit details that could identify someone in a small or distinctive sample, while preserving the meaning of what was said.