Research ethics approval for a dissertation is permission, given before you recruit anyone or open any data, by the committee that protects the people your study touches. This guide, published by EdCitation, covers when you need it, which level of review applies, what the application asks for, how long it takes, what happens to data collected too early, and how the approval appears in the thesis.
Every rule was read at its source on 26 September 2026: four national frameworks (the US Common Rule, the UK's ESRC framework, Australia's National Statement, Canada's TCPS 2) and six universities (UCL and Leeds, Michigan and UC Santa Barbara, Western Sydney, and the University of British Columbia). Your own university's procedure outranks them all. How to write a dissertation covers the whole project; EdCitation's free Check your paper reads a brief or handbook into a checklist, and what it did with a real ethics procedure is reported below, misses included.
When does a dissertation need ethics approval?
When it is research and it involves living people, or information that can identify them. The US Common Rule defines a human subject by what an investigator, "whether professional or student", does: interacting with a living person, or using identifiable private information (Protection of Human Subjects, 2024). Canada's TCPS 2 brings even course-based projects inside the scope of review (Panel on Research Ethics, 2022a).
Universities draw the line in different places. University of Leeds (n.d.-b) says projects normally need review when they use interviews, questionnaires, observation, online datasets or other secondary data, including online surveys that collect nothing identifiable. University College London (n.d.-c) lists minimal-risk work that usually needs no UCL approval unless the department asks: fully anonymous online surveys on non-sensitive topics, observation of public behaviour, anonymised public datasets and systematic reviews. The same anonymous survey can need review at one and not the other, so ask your own committee and keep its answer in writing.
Secondary data and public records
TCPS 2 exempts research relying only on anonymous information, as long as linking data sets identifies nobody, and information made public under a legal mechanism such as death registries (Panel on Research Ethics, 2022a). Australia's National Statement lets an institution exempt lower-risk research on de-identified data only where researchers explicitly agree not to re-identify anyone, and never exempts personal information used without consent, which needs a waiver instead (National Health and Medical Research Council, 2025).
Michigan's guide for student researchers treats a de-identified data set as not regulated at all (University of Michigan IRB-HSBS, 2019). The ESRC is more cautious: further analysis of existing data is "not necessarily exempt" from full review (Economic and Social Research Council, 2025). Leeds asks for review whenever you cannot verify that a dataset was anonymised and consented when first collected.
Online posts and observation
TCPS 2 needs no review for public-domain material where nobody expects privacy, but online groups with restricted membership carry a much higher expectation and go to review. The ESRC lists social media research among its cases for full review, naming "closed" discussion groups where a quotation could identify someone (Economic and Social Research Council, 2026); see public online posts in the glossary. Observing people in a public place is exempt under TCPS 2 only if the researcher does not interact, nobody observed expects privacy, and nothing published identifies anyone.
Which level of ethics review applies to a dissertation?
The level follows the risk. TCPS 2 sends minimal-risk research to delegated review and the rest to the full board, and the committee's chair decides which (Panel on Research Ethics, 2022b). The ESRC expects "many student projects" to need only light-touch review, but says this "cannot be assumed" (Economic and Social Research Council, 2025).
Exempt, low risk and full review, country by country
- US: exempt research fits one of the Common Rule's eight categories, such as surveys or interviews recorded without identifiers; expedited review covers other minimal-risk work; the full board takes the rest.
- UK: UCL classes projects as minimal risk (no review), low risk (central or departmental review, rolling) or high risk (a committee meeting). High risk means vulnerability, sensitive topics, deception or covert research, disclosures, risk to the researcher, substances or invasive procedures (University College London, n.d.-b).
- Australia: the National Statement 2025, in force from 23 June 2026, sends anything above low risk to a human research ethics committee and lets institutions review lower-risk work other ways, down to a head of department.
- Canada: delegated or full board review.
Exempt still means an application
At Michigan an exempt project is still submitted, a staff member confirms its category, and it is still expected to offer informed consent. The National Statement asks institutions to record every exemption they grant.
When one word means two things
"Expedited" is the trap. At Michigan it is the ordinary minimal-risk route, done by designated board members on a rolling basis; the ESRC uses it for a full review done quickly, in exceptional cases only. Two sources also trail their frameworks: Western Sydney University (n.d.) still quotes the National Statement's older "negligible risk" wording, and Michigan's 2019 guide speaks of six exemption categories where the current rule lists eight. Where they differ, ask the ethics office which applies.
What does a research ethics application ask for?
A description of the project, every document a participant will see, and usually a data plan and a risk assessment. UCL's list is typical: participant information sheets and consent forms, recruitment materials such as posters or email scripts, topic guides or questionnaires, risk assessments and permissions already obtained (University College London, n.d.-b). Prepare them in this order:
- Confirm in writing whether the project needs review.
- Write the project description: question, design, participants, recruitment, what they are asked to do. Put the methods-chapter brief or handbook through Check your paper first.
- Draft the participant information sheet and consent form on the university's template; Western Sydney requires its own.
- Attach every recruitment material. The National Statement expects reviewers to see notices, flyers, advertisements and social media posts before use.
- Attach the instruments: questionnaire, interview schedule, observation guide.
- Write the data management plan, which Leeds requires with every application.
- Complete the risk assessment, for participants and for yourself.
- Finish training and signatures. UBC requires the TCPS 2 CORE tutorial of everyone who meets participants.
- Build the description's references with Cite a source, so the committee reads them correctly.
Who applies: you or your supervisor?
Often your supervisor. At UBC a graduate student's faculty advisor must be principal investigator, because the university holds the advisor accountable (University of British Columbia Office of Research Ethics, n.d.-b). At Western Sydney the principal supervisor applies and the candidate is principal researcher. UCL wants student and supervisor signatures on a low-risk application, and Michigan bars undergraduates from leading research above minimal risk (working with your supervisor).
How long does ethics approval take, university by university?
Weeks, and none of the figures below is a promise: Western Sydney University (n.d.) notes that most new applications were approved only after a second review. More universities are in the dissertation timeline guide.
| Source | Country | Review routes | Time to allow | Before approval |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UCL | UK | Minimal, low, high risk | Low risk: at least six weeks; high risk: submit about four weeks before the meeting | No data collection |
| Leeds | UK | Faculty committees | At least six weeks | No research activity |
| ESRC framework | UK | Light-touch, full, expedited | None given | Research should not proceed |
| Michigan | US | Exempt, expedited, full board | Exempt under a week; expedited 2 to 4 weeks; full board at least 4 to 8 | Data may be unusable |
| UC Santa Barbara | US | Procedure for unapproved data | Not stated | No retroactive approval |
| Common Rule | US | Exempt (eight categories), expedited, full | None given | Not in sections read |
| Western Sydney | Australia | Low-risk committee, full committee | At least 4 to 6 weeks | Not on page read |
| National Statement | Australia | Exempt, lower-risk pathways, full | None given | No retrospective approval |
| UBC | Canada | Minimal risk, full board | Minimal risk usually within 4 weeks; full board 6 to 8 | Not on pages read |
| TCPS 2 | Canada | Delegated, full board | None given | Review before recruitment |
Michigan also asks for 8 weeks before travel for expedited review of research abroad, and 12 for full board review.
What happens if you collect data before ethics approval?
You stop, you report it, and you may lose the data. The National Statement says retrospective approval "is not supported" (National Health and Medical Research Council, 2025). TCPS 2 requires approval before recruitment, data collection or access to data, pilot studies included (Panel on Research Ethics, 2022b). UC Santa Barbara's review board "cannot grant retroactive approval" (University of California, Santa Barbara, Office of Research, 2021).
What happens next varies. UC Santa Barbara's board cannot itself order data destroyed, since federal rules are silent on it, but can recommend that officials bar the data from a thesis or dissertation or require destruction, and may require the data collected again with approval. Michigan warns that missing approval may rule out using data already collected; Leeds says it could affect a research degree's award (University of Leeds, n.d.-a). Tell your supervisor and the committee at once.
Changes after approval count too
An approval covers the study as described. UCL requires a formal amendment, approved before the change, for significant changes to design, participants, methods or documents (University College London, n.d.-a). Leeds counts even an extension of your studies as a possible change.
How does ethics approval appear in the methodology chapter and appendices?
As a short statement in the methods chapter and the documents in an appendix. University of Leeds (n.d.-a) asks research students to include confirmation of approval in the thesis, possibly as a copy in the appendix, and to confirm at examination entry the reference number, approving committee and approval date. APA's reporting standard for quantitative studies asks authors to describe institutional review board agreements, ethical standards met and safety monitoring (American Psychological Association, 2018). The methodology chapter guide places ethics among the chapter's parts, and writing up qualitative findings covers pseudonyms.
A statement from those elements, brackets filled from your own letter:
Ethical approval was granted by [committee] on [date] (reference [number]). Participants received an information sheet and gave written consent, and could withdraw until [date]. Data were pseudonymised and stored on [university system]. The approval letter is in Appendix B; the information sheet and consent form are in Appendix C.
Name any amendment with its own date. In our view the appendix should hold blank forms, not signed ones, since a signed form carries a participant's name.
How EdCitation helps with an ethics application and the methods chapter
EdCitation is the best tool for the sources around an ethics application because it looks every reference up in the publisher's record and never writes one; it never writes any part of a dissertation or an ethics application. Here is what each tool returned on 26 September 2026, faults included.
Check your paper, free
We pasted the main sections of UCL's Apply for ethical approval page, trimmed of contacts and links. It returned no checklist rules. It set aside 27 sentences as not checked, among them "Allow at least six weeks for central low-risk ethics review", and listed three headings, such as "Log in to ethics@ucl and start your application", as sentences. The rule that every study recruiting participants needs information sheets and consent forms, and the list of supporting documents, appeared in neither list. The tool reads assignment instructions (word limits, headings, sources, style, format), so run it on the methods-chapter brief, and copy an ethics procedure's requirements down yourself.
Find sources and Cite a source, free
Find sources searches about 300 million published works by the claim a sentence needs. The claim "users do not expect their public social media posts to be used in research without consent" returned, in its first ten, a 2020 conference paper by Proferes and Walker on informing social media users and getting their consent, and a 2017 chapter by Williams, Burnap, Sloan, Jessop and Lepps on users' views of consent, anonymity and harm. The other eight were about social media, not research ethics, so read before you cite.
Cite a source found no record for either ISBN of the National Statement 2025, and said the TCPS 2 chapter page "could not be read". It read the ESRC page's date, "Last updated: 12 May 2025", but found no author or site on it, so the APA entry came out with the title in the author's place:
Ethics reviews. (2025, May 12). https://www.ukri.org/councils/esrc/guidance-for-applicants/research-ethics-guidance/ethics-reviews/
With the council entered as an organisation author and the site added in the form, it became:
Economic and Social Research Council. (2025, May 12). Ethics reviews. UK Research and Innovation. https://www.ukri.org/councils/esrc/guidance-for-applicants/research-ethics-guidance/ethics-reviews/
Checking the finished chapter
Verify references checks the list free: each entry comes back verified, doubtful (shown as "check this") or not found, retracted papers are flagged, and "could not check" is never shown as not found. References from a file, in Pro at $8 a month, also matches every in-text citation to the list. Theoretics QA, in Max at $24 a month, judges the chapter against its own brief, quoting it, and rewrites nothing (Pricing).
Quick questions
Does a secondary data dissertation need ethics approval?
Often. TCPS 2 exempts research using only anonymous information and the National Statement allows exemption for de-identified data under agreements not to re-identify, but Leeds asks for review when you cannot verify that data were anonymised and consented.
Can I get retrospective ethics approval after collecting data?
No, in every framework and university read here. The National Statement does not support it and UC Santa Barbara's board cannot grant it, so report the problem to your supervisor and the committee at once.
How long does ethics approval take for a dissertation?
Several weeks. UCL says to allow at least six for central low-risk review, Leeds at least six, Michigan two to four for expedited review, and UBC usually up to four for minimal risk.
Where does the ethics approval letter go in a dissertation?
In an appendix, with the reference number, committee and date stated in the methodology chapter, as Leeds asks. Check your paper reads your own handbook into a checklist, free, to confirm what it wants.
Does EdCitation write ethics applications?
No. EdCitation never writes any part of a dissertation or an ethics application; it finds, cites and verifies their sources.
References
- American Psychological Association. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research (JARS–Quant), table 1: Information recommended for inclusion in manuscripts that report new data collections regardless of research design [PDF]. APA Style. https://apastyle.apa.org/jars/quant-table-1.pdf
- Economic and Social Research Council. (2025, May 12). Ethics reviews. UK Research and Innovation. https://www.ukri.org/councils/esrc/guidance-for-applicants/research-ethics-guidance/ethics-reviews/
- Economic and Social Research Council. (2026, May 7). Research that may require full ethics review. UK Research and Innovation. https://www.ukri.org/councils/esrc/guidance-for-applicants/research-ethics-guidance/ethics-reviews/research-that-may-require-full-ethics-review/
- National Health and Medical Research Council. (2025). National Statement on ethical conduct in human research 2025. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/national-statement-ethical-conduct-human-research-2025
- Panel on Research Ethics. (2022a). Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans, TCPS 2 (2022), chapter 2: Scope and approach. Government of Canada. https://ethics.gc.ca/eng/tcps2-eptc2_2022_chapter2-chapitre2.html
- Panel on Research Ethics. (2022b). Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans, TCPS 2 (2022), chapter 6: Governance of research ethics review. Government of Canada. https://ethics.gc.ca/eng/tcps2-eptc2_2022_chapter6-chapitre6.html
- Protection of Human Subjects, 45 C.F.R. pt. 46 (2024). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2024-title45-vol1/pdf/CFR-2024-title45-vol1-part46.pdf
- University College London. (n.d.-a). After ethical approval. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/research-innovation/funding-and-support/research-ethics/after-ethical-approval
- University College London. (n.d.-b). Apply for ethical approval. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/research-innovation/funding-and-support/research-ethics/apply-ethical-approval
- University College London. (n.d.-c). Do you need ethical approval? https://www.ucl.ac.uk/research-innovation/funding-and-support/research-ethics/do-you-need-ethical-approval
- University of British Columbia Office of Research Ethics. (n.d.-a). BREB full board meetings + members. https://researchethics.ubc.ca/behavioural-research-ethics/breb-meeting-dates-deadlines
- University of British Columbia Office of Research Ethics. (n.d.-b). Writing behavioural ethics applications: Guidance notes. https://researchethics.ubc.ca/behavioural-research-ethics/breb-guidance-notes/guidance-notes-behavioural-application
- University of California, Santa Barbara, Office of Research. (2021). Data collection without IRB approval (HSC SOP No. 020). https://www.research.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/policies/hs/ucsb_hsc_020_datacollectionwithoutirbapproval.pdf
- University of Leeds. (n.d.-a). Ethics review process. https://students.leeds.ac.uk/postgraduate-research-practice/doc/ethics-review-process
- University of Leeds. (n.d.-b). How to apply for research ethics approval. https://secretariat.leeds.ac.uk/research-ethics/how-to-apply-for-research-ethics-approval/
- University of Michigan IRB-HSBS. (2019, March). The IRB process: A guide for student researchers. https://hrpp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2024/10/student_guide_0.doc
- Western Sydney University. (n.d.). How to apply for human ethics review. https://www.westernsydney.edu.au/research/research-ethics-and-integrity/human-ethics/apply-for-human-research-ethics-review