Before involving people or using identifiable records, confirm the required review process, explain participation clearly and plan how data will be handled. A signature alone does not answer those questions. This guide is a preparation checklist; it does not grant approval or replace institutional, workplace or applicable legal requirements.
The UK Data Service's ethical-consent module connects informed consent with responsible handling and sharing. It provides research guidance, not a Nigerian institutional approval rule. Take the questions below to your supervisor before collection.
Your methodology should describe the permissions and process that actually exist. UniDraft helps organise confirmed project facts and instructions into an editable document. Start your project documentation using the project workflow, then review every approval statement. Keep private participant records out of uploads; the software does not grant ethics clearance or consent.
Keep the permissions separate
| Question | What needs confirmation |
|---|---|
| May the study proceed? | The institution's required ethics or project-review route |
| May you enter a site or access records? | The relevant organisation's access permission |
| Does a person agree to take part? | The approved participant-information and consent process |
| May material be recorded or quoted? | What participants were told and agreed to, within the approved plan |
| May evidence be shared or published? | Conditions covering the specific material and audience |
One permission does not automatically supply the others. A supervisor's academic feedback is not proof of ethics clearance, and workplace access is not permission to publish private records.
Prepare participant information before a form
Use this original worksheet to check your draft against the institutional template:
- What is the study about, in language this audience can understand?
- Why is this person being invited, and what would participation involve?
- What time, discomfort or foreseeable risk is involved?
- Is participation voluntary, and how can someone decline without pressure?
- What withdrawal arrangements actually apply, including any practical deadline or limit?
- Will there be recordings, quotations, follow-up contact or reuse of data?
- Who can access identifiable information, and where will it be stored?
- What contact route is provided for questions or concerns?
Do not promise “withdraw at any time” if the approved process cannot identify and remove a response after anonymisation or aggregation. Explain the actual arrangement accurately. Do not copy a generic consent form and present it as institutionally approved.
Anonymous, coded and confidential need precise wording
Removing a name may leave a record identifiable through a student number, email address, voice, photograph or unusual combination of details. A separate file linking codes to identities also matters.
The UK Data Service's participant-protection guidance explains why disclosure risk needs attention throughout a research project. Use it to prepare questions about your own records rather than claiming every dataset can be made safely public.
Fictional example: a questionnaire has no name field but collects an email address automatically. Calling that collection anonymous would misdescribe it. Check the actual settings and approved plan. The Google Forms guide covers delivery checks; it cannot determine ethics approval for you.
Make a data-handling plan
| Item | Decision to record |
|---|---|
| Necessary information | What the question needs, and what you will not collect |
| Storage | Approved location, access controls and backup arrangements |
| Identity links | Whether a code key exists and who can access it |
| Recordings and quotations | How they will be handled and what may be published |
| Retention | The institution's required period and disposal arrangements |
| Sharing | Which reviewer or recipient can receive which version |
No universal retention period is supplied here. Confirm the applicable policy. Avoid moving identifiable responses into public links, messaging groups or external tools without checking the approved handling arrangements.
Recognise situations needing specific advice
If the work involves children, sensitive experiences, health information, dependent relationships, covert observation or records obtained through employment, seek the relevant institutional guidance before proceeding. Do not improvise a consent or recruitment procedure from this checklist.
Even an apparently simple class-group invitation can create pressure or unwanted disclosure. Ask how invitations, refusals and questions should be managed. A teacher, employer or group administrator's permission does not automatically mean each person has freely agreed.
For the practical file lifecycle, use the student data management plan. Its inventory and handover worksheet help document versions, responsible roles and agreed access arrangements; they do not replace consent or review.
Write only the process that actually happened
In your methodology chapter, state the real review status, access arrangements and participant process. Use an approval reference only if it exists and is appropriate to disclose. If a required step was missed, tell your supervisor; do not invent retrospective approval, dates or signatures.
The appendices guide helps distinguish a blank instrument from completed private records. A signed consent form is evidence to handle under the approved process, not a decorative page for a publicly shared project.
UniDraft helps organise your written project from confirmed facts and instructions. It does not provide ethics clearance, legal permission or participant consent. Keep the actual authorised records so you can explain your process honestly.