Research Ethics

Unpacking the Ethics of Research on Sexual Assault Research Ethics
Yes, we have the letters, but do we play the word?

Unpacking the Ethics of Research on Sexual Assault

April 6, 2017 1242

Ethics on scrabble board_opt

Yes, we have the letters, but do we play the word?

Thirty-nine Australian universities will now individually release the findings of a national research project on sexual assault and harassment on campus. The Conversation

The “Respect. Now. Always.” project, launched in February 2016, has involved two phases:

This announcement follows intense criticism from student bodies and sexual assault activists after it was initially announced that the findings for individual universities would not be made public.

The Conversation logo

This article by Bianca Fileborn originally appeared at ” target=”_blank”>The Conversation, a Social Science Space partner site, under the title “How ethical is sexual assault research?”

The project has also faced considerable controversy over the submission process, which did not receive ethics approval before starting the research. The AHRC said this was because it was not required.

But the commission confirmed it did receive ethics approval for the survey component of the research.

Insufficient distinction between the two strands of the project, however, appears to have created confusion over whether correct ethics protocols have been followed – and over the nature of the research that participants were taking part in.

The project has also suffered from poor communication with participants. The AHRC has acknowledged that its use of the phrase “areas for action,” rather than “recommendations,” was confusing and misleading.

In response to this, journalist and anti-sexual assault advocate Nina Funnell commented in The Guardian:

They don’t have to get ethics approval, that is true, but they do have to treat survivors with respect and they haven’t.

Clearly, this case raises some substantial questions about what constitutes “ethical” research on sexual assault.

Why does it matter if research is ethical or not? And what steps could or should have been taken to ensure that issues such as those the AHRC now faces are avoided?

Research ethics 101

Ethics procedures are in place as a way to safeguard and protect research participants from harm, while ensuring that research has the potential to benefit the broader community.

In Australia, strict codes of conduct govern research involving human participants. These codes set out the responsibilities of individual researchers and the institutions they work for.

All research involving human participants is subject to review by a human research ethics committee. Researchers cannot start their work until approval has been granted.

Broadly speaking, ethical research is guided by the following principles:


  • All participants must be treated with respect for their rights and autonomy as human beings. This includes, for example, ensuring that they are informed as to what participation in research will involve, and what the potential risks are.


  • Research is methodologically sound and rigorous. Any potential benefits of a project are balanced carefully against the potential to cause harm.


  • The research does not disadvantage any particular segment of the community and the benefits of research are shared across the community.


  • Research should seek to benefit the community.

The ways in which these principles are achieved will, of course, vary depending upon the nature and goals of a specific research project.

Conducting research on sexual assault
Obtaining ethics approval and conducting research in an ethical manner is vital for all research involving human participants.

Research with sexual assault victim-survivors can present heightened ethical challenges. This means that research on this topic must be handled with particular skill, care and respect.

Although it is important not to generalise the experiences of victim-survivors, it is fair to say that sexual assault can be a difficult and sensitive topic to discuss with a researcher.

The potential for participants to experience harm or retraumatisation in sexual assault research is very real – although victim-survivors also report many benefits from participating in research.

This does not mean that we cannot or should not undertake research with sexual assault victim-survivors.

It does, however, mean that we need to have processes in place to support participants and minimise the likelihood that taking part in a project will cause them distress.

This potential for harm places a considerable onus on sexual violence researchers to ensure that our projects are designed with care and rigour to ensure that our participants’ contributions carry the weight and authority they deserve.

Poorly designed research has the potential to cause direct harm to victim-survivors – for example, it might underestimate the actual prevalence of sexual violence.

Sexual assault involves a loss of autonomy and control. Because of this, it is vital that our research aims to provide victim-survivors with control and choice over how they participate and what information they share.

A key aspect of affording participants control is communicating to them, prior to the research, how their contributions will be used and represented in research outputs, such as publications.

Victim-survivors often face the very real fear of being identified by their perpetrator and facing ramifications, as well as the stigma associated with experiencing sexual assault.

For these reasons, ensuring that participants cannot be identified, and that their responses are stored securely and confidentially, is of utmost importance.

Victim-survivors often participate in research out of a desire to help others. They share their experiences in the hope that doing so will contribute towards meaningful change, and ultimately prevent others from experiencing sexual violence.

Given this motivation, it is unsurprising that the AHRCs’ poor communication regarding whether recommendations will be made from the research has been a distressing one for some participants: it may undermine their very purpose in participating in the first place.

Negative encounters with research have the potential to undermine public trust and faith in research, and may contribute towards a reluctance to participate in the future.

Getting it right
How can we best ensure that all research with sexual assault victim-survivors engages in appropriate practices to protect and maintain participants’ rights and wellbeing, as well as the integrity of the research?

Best practice guidelines on sexual assault research include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • prioritising the safety and wellbeing of participants at all times
  • ensuring the research methodology is sound
  • ensuring all members of a research team have been extensively trained in undertaking research sensitively with victim-survivors, and are aware of relevant ethical issues
  • providing support, such as access to counselling, for victim-survivors both during and after their participation in the research
  • having procedures in place to minimise the potential for participant distress, and to support participants should they become distressed during the research
  • maintaining the confidentiality of participants’ contributions at all times
  • affording participants control over how and when they participate
  • ensuring that participants are fully informed about the nature of the research, and how their contributions will be used, prior to taking part.

If this article has raised any concerns for you and you live in Australia, please seek support by calling 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732),

Bianca Fileborn is a lecturer in criminology at the University of New South Wales. Her research is concerned with the examining assemblages of space, culture, identity and violence and safety. She has also been involved in numerous projects on sexuality and ageing. Her current research is concerned with justice responses to street harassment, and with the sexual assault of older women.

View all posts by Bianca Fileborn

Related Articles

Maintaining Anonymity In Double-Blind Peer Review During The Age of Artificial Intelligence
August 23, 2023

Maintaining Anonymity In Double-Blind Peer Review During The Age of Artificial Intelligence

Read Now
Hype Terms In Research: Words Exaggerating Results Undermine Findings
Research Ethics
June 23, 2023

Hype Terms In Research: Words Exaggerating Results Undermine Findings

Read Now
Five Steps to Protect – and to Hear – Research Participants
Research Ethics
January 18, 2023

Five Steps to Protect – and to Hear – Research Participants

Read Now
We Developed a Tool to Make Responsible Research and Innovation Easier
June 16, 2022

We Developed a Tool to Make Responsible Research and Innovation Easier

Read Now
COVID-19, Face Masks and Research Integrity

COVID-19, Face Masks and Research Integrity

Robert Dingwall asks if claims about the effectiveness of face masks in stopping COVID consistent with current standards of research integrity.

Read Now
To Study Zika, They Offered Their Kids. Then They Were Forgotten

To Study Zika, They Offered Their Kids. Then They Were Forgotten

“We feel diminished,” says Alessandra Hora dos Santos. “It’s like we were lab rats. They come in nicely, collect information, collect exams on the child, and in the end we don’t know of any results. It’s like we are being used without even knowing why that is being done.”

Read Now
NAS Creates Council to Address Research Integrity and Trust

NAS Creates Council to Address Research Integrity and Trust

A new blue-ribbon council convened by the United States’ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine aims to tackle questions about nettlesome issues like conflict of interest, measuring impact and handling retractions.

Read Now
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments