About Ryerson

Research Ethics

Human Ethics - Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

No research involving humans shall be undertaken without the prior approval of the Research Ethics Board.

1. How do I know if my project is considered to be "research involving humans"?

According to the Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS), research "involves a systematic investigation to establish facts, principles or generalizable knowledge." If such a project involves humans in any way, e.g. administering a survey, observing or interviewing participants, organizing focus groups, social or medical experimentation, then your project is subject to ethical review.

Research involving human participants is work done by an individual that entails data collection involving humans for the purpose of obtaining either primary or secondary data on research participants. The participants need not be the focus of the research.

If you are not sure, you may submit a preliminary application to the Research Ethics Board for assessment using the Online Ethics Protocol Submission and Review System (see below).

2. What types of projects are NOT subject to ethical review?

Projects that involve program evaluation and quality control are not subject to ethical review unless they are part of a research project.

3. How is Professional Practice distinguished from Research?

Individuals engaged in professional practice are not considered to be engaged in research. Professional practice should follow the ethical standards and guidelines of the relevant profession rather than the federal guidelines for research involving humans.

An applicant is engaged in professional practice when learning or doing the work of the profession. In general, professional practice involves the development of skills which are considered standard practice within a profession or field and includes information-gathering processes that are typically a part of the normal relationship between a parctitioner in a field and the people the they interact with in that context. Examples of this include clinical practice in nursing, the collection of information for journalistic purposes, marketing surveys, the provision of advice to a client, and the process of evaluating or auditing in conjunction with professional course work or field placement.

Not withstanding the above, if a course involves teaching how to conduct research as part of professional practice and includes students conducting a research project involving human participants (e.g., in a research methods course) and the research process for a professional in the field would normally involve an ethics review, then an ethical review is indicated.

4. What are Primary and Secondary Data Collection?

Primary data collection involves direct contact with, or observation of, one or more people for the purpose of collecting data from or about them.

Secondary data collection involves accessing information that has already been obtained about human participants, either individually or in aggregate form. Secondary data which contain personal identifiers is subject to ethical review. Secondary data which do not contain personal identifiers are exempt from these requirements. Secondary data - whether it contains personal identifiers or not - may be used only when original consent was obtained which allows the information to be used in this manner.

5. What is Minimal Risk?

According to the TCPS, "the standard of minimal risk is commonly defined as follows: if potential participants can reasonably be expected to regard the probability and magnitude of possible harms implied by participation in the research to be no greater than those encountered by the participant in those aspects of his or her everyday life that relate to the research then the research can be regarded as within the range of minimal risk."

In other words, a proposal is deemed to involve no more than minimal risk if the risk to participants is no more than what they would experience in their day to day lives.

6. What happens if my proposal involves no more than minimal risk?

The application is reviewed by a panel of Board members (at least two).

7. What happens if my protocol involves more than minimal risk?

The application is reviewed by all Board members.

8. How do I submit an application for human ethics review?

All applications for ethics review of research involving humans must be submitted via the Online Ethics Protocol Submission and Review System which can be accessed through your Blackboard account at:

9. I am a Ryerson University student, faculty or staff member. How do I access my Blackboard account?

The application process is through Blackboard which can be accessed using a Ryerson email (Matrix) username and password. Once logged in, you may access the system by selecting the "Online Ethics Submission and Review System" option which can be found in the "Research Ethics" box under the "my.ryerson" tab.

10. Can I submit a paper copy of the application or submit the application by email?

No, the Online Ethics Protocol Submission and Review System is the official record of the Research Ethics Board. Paper copies of an application or electronic copies submitted by email can no longer be accepted.

11. I am not affiliated with Ryerson University. How do I submit my application for human ethics review?

All applicants who do not have a Ryerson email (Matrix) account, can request access by contacting

• Toni Fletcher, REB Coordinator, Office of the Vice President, Research and Innovation, toni.fletcher@ryerson.ca, telephone 416-979-5000 ext. 7112.

This usually takes between 24 to 48 hours to process.

12. How does the Online Ethics Protocol Submission and Review System work?

The Online Ethics Protocol Submission and Review System is a "form based" web application system. Applicants are advised to read the protocol application guidelines below and need not complete the application at one time. The application may be saved and completed at a later time. Please note that there are stated character limits for many fields. Documents may be attached to the system so if responses exceed the stated character limits, refer to the document names of the attached files. Text may be copied and pasted into the application forms from other existing documents.

13. I am not familiar with the requirements of the human ethics review process. How do I find out what is required?

We recommend that you first read the Guidelines for completion of the Application for Ethics Review of Research Involving Humans. This can be viewed at:

Guidelines for completion of the Application for Ethics Review of Research Involving Humans

In addition, the Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics (PRE) has developed an Introductory Tutorial for the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS) . The Research Ethics Board recommends that all prospective applicants register and take this tutorial to become more familiar with the TCPS. Please note that registration is required to complete this tutorial.

14. What is the average turn around time for the human ethics review process?

Average response time is currently five to six weeks for the initial (first) response to protocols submitted for ethics review. The initial (first) response may be Approval, Conditional Approval, Suggestions/Requests for Additional Information, or Non-Approval.

15. What happens after the initial (first) response?

Your initial response may include suggestions or requests for additional information. In such a case, you will be required to resubmit the application using the Online Ethics Protocol Submission and Review System. The response time to a resubmission usually takes a couple of days to a week.

If your protocol has been approved, you will receive an approval letter. If you have received conditional approval, you will receive an approval letter listing various conditions that must be met for approval.

16. For how long is my ethics approval valid?

Ethics approval is valid for one year. It is renewable upon submission of an Annual Report.

17. When do I request to renew my protocol?

The Online Ethics Protocol Submission and Review System will send you a reminder three weeks before the expiry of your protocol. At that time, you may submit an Annual Report if you wish to renew the protocol for another year or you may submit a Final Report if your research is complete and you would like the REB to close the file.

18. I'm doing qualitative research and the application form seems more oriented towards quantitative research. What should I do?

This bias is recognized by the REB. Answer the questions to the best of your ability (e.g., give a sense of the kinds of questions asked or topics to be covered if you cannot provide a list of questions). The Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics (PRE) is aware of these deficiencies and a review of the process is now underway.

19. Once I receive my human ethics approval, can I begin my research?

Not necessarily, you may begin research once all appropriate certifications are obtained. If you need another certification, e.g., animal ethics, biohazard, radiation or other, research can only begin once all relevant certifications are obtained.

20. I am affiliated with Ryerson University (as a student, faculty or staff member) and will be conducting research involving humans off campus or at multiple sites. Is the Ryerson University approval all I need?

No, not necessarily. Canada's federal guidelines are based on a local review model. Approval must be sought from each individual institution with its own research ethics board e.g., university, college, hospital, school board.

21. I am affiliated with another institution but would like to conduct research involving Ryerson University students, staff or faculty members or using Ryerson facilities. Do I need to submit a protocol to the Ryerson Research Ethics Board?

Yes, any research involving Ryerson University student, staff or faculty members or at Ryerson University facilities must be reviewed and approved by the Ryerson University Research Ethics Board.

22. I am a student at another university but have an affiliation with Ryerson as well. Do I need to have my research reviewed by the Ryerson University Research Ethics Board?

Yes. Your affiliation at Ryerson will trigger an ethics review here as well as at your originating institution.

23. I am a new student, faculty or staff member transferring to Ryerson. Do I need to have my research already approved elsewhere be reviewed once I transfer?

Yes. As a person becoming affiliated with Ryerson University, any ongoing or new research will need to be reviewed and approved here.

24. I am conducting research in another country. Is my Ryerson University research ethics approval all I need?

No, you may need to obtain approval from an institution in that country. Please make sure that any relevant certifications are obtained in that jurisdiction.

25. Do institutional surveys require review by the Research Ethics Board?

It depends. A survey is considered to be an "institutional survey" when one is trying to obtain information about institutions or organizations by surveying one or more of its representatives. If the survey is used to collect only factual information that is publicly available, then an ethics review MAY not be necessary. If the survey includes any questions asking for opinions or interpretation by the participant, then ethical review is required. If you have any doubt about whether your project requires ethical review, please submit a preliminary application to the Research Ethics Board for assessment using the Online Ethics Protocol Submission and Review System.

26. What is the difference between “anonymous” and “confidential” data?

Many researchers use the terms “anonymous” and “confidential” either interchangeably or incorrectly. While anonymity or confidentiality, in other more general contexts, are well understood concepts, in research, they can cause confusion and misunderstanding.

First, it is important to note that, in any research study, there is no “requirement” for confidentiality or anonymity. What you must do, as a researcher, is keep your promise to the participants regarding how their identity and data are being maintained and disseminated. When you inform participants about how data is being presented and how their identity will either be protected by anonymity or confidentiality, you must be very explicit and present the strategies in a clear and simply understood manner. Then you have an ethical obligation to follow through and do what you promise.

The terms “anonymous” and “confidential” can refer to participants’ identity or to the data that they provide to you. Examples of common statements/promises on consent forms might include the following:

“Your identity will be kept confidential in any reports or publications of data.”

“Your data and identity will be kept confidential. Direct quotations from interviews will be used in the thesis or publication however they will not be attributed to any individuals, therefore keeping your identity and opinions confidential.”

“Please do not put your name anywhere on the survey and hand it in to the drop box in the main office. As this is an anonymous survey, no one, including the researchers will know that you chose to participate or not.”

“You are being asked to participate in an individual interview with the researcher. The researcher will know your name and will be able to attribute your opinions to you, however she will not publish your name in any report. Nor will she attribute any ideas to individuals, therefore maintaining confidentiality.”

The term “anonymous” can only be used in research if the participant is never identified, in any way. In the case of anonymity, even the researcher does not have knowledge of the identity of the participant. The use of this term in research implies that the respondent or participant can never be identified, traced back through a consent form or questionnaire or associated with a particular opinion or statement in a publication or report. There is no evidence that specific persons participated in the project that are identifiable or implied. Nor can any connection be made between the identity of the persons and their data.

Examples of anonymity might include:

(a) An on line survey requesting no names or identifying information (postal codes, employment positions) and submitted electronically through an on line survey administrator (such as Survey Monkey or SurveyNet) and not through an email. There is no way to trace the surveys to individuals after completion.

(b) A paper survey with a request for no identifying information (e.g. name) handed out to a group of persons, filled out privately and deposited in a drop box. Data cannot, in any way, be traced back to individual participants.

Each of these examples represents anonymous research data.

If, however, the researcher, at any point, has knowledge of the identity of the participants, then the term “confidential” is used because, very simply, the researcher is usually promising to keep the identity of the participants confidential. The fact that, as a researcher, you have knowledge of the identity of the persons participating, means that you absolutely cannot use the term “anonymous” in reference to participants because they never are anonymous!

Much confusion arises because, quite correctly, anyone reading a published research project in which the participants’ identity is kept confidential, will never know their names or be able to attribute data to particular persons. So many researchers wish to call that “anonymity”. To the rest of the world, yes, the participants are “anonymous”. But, and this is most important, if the researcher has knowledge of their identity, then they are not “anonymous participants”. Rather, they are participants whose identity is being kept confidential by the researcher. This is the important distinction to make when discussing confidentiality or anonymity in research proposals and on documentation that is provided for participants, such as consent forms and information flyers.

Examples of confidentiality might include:

(a) Individual interviews are carried out with key informants. In publications, no names are used nor are any potentially identifying data provided. If direct quotes are provided in publications, they are not attributed to individuals. Usually in this case, coding is used to help maintain confidentiality. At any time, the researcher can trace data back to individual participants if they wish however no one reading a report or publication would know the identity of the participants nor could they trace opinions or data back to individuals in any way.

(b) Surveys are handed out to students in class to complete. Surveys include names and contact information for follow up for phase two of the study, which includes individual interviews. In this case, the researcher has knowledge of the students’ identities but promises not to publish their names or attribute particular answers or opinions to any individual in a publication or report. The consent form notes that all data will be presented in an aggregate fashion, i.e. noting that a large percentage of respondents chose a particular answer or reported a specific phenomenon.

27. I am interested in undertaking research that involves digital data collection. Does this type of research require ethical review?

The Research Ethics Board currently follows the guidelines developed by Queen's University for projects involving digital data collection. These guidelines can be seen at:

Draft Exemption Policy: Research Ethics Review of Projects Involving Digital Data Collection

28. Is it possible to propose a project that involves incomplete disclosure or some form of deception?

Although discouraged under the federal guidelines, in certain circumstances and if justified, the Board will consider applications involving incomplete disclosure or deception along with the submission of a debriefing script to the REB. Further to informing participants about their experience with respect to the primary study intent, the debriefing script should include a reminder that participants are free to request - without consequence - complete withdrawl of their data from the sample, if possible, and indicate the timeframe within which they can request their data withdrawal (typically, withdrawal of data can be done up until the point of dissemination of findings e.g., publication, conference presentation). In all protocols involving students in the Pscychology department, submission of a debriefing script to the REB is required. The Board recommends that debriefing takes place as soon as possible once the participant has completed their participation in the study.

29. Use of online survey software

The Board discourages the use of American-based online survey software tools (e.g., SurveyMonkey) for use in research where confidentiality to participants is promised. Data stored on servers based in the USA are subject to the United States Patriot Act, to which USA law enforcement agencies have potential discretionary access. Alternatively, the Board would encourage use of online survey software that is hosted securely in Canada (e.g., "Opinio", housed on the DMP server at Ryerson University [http://survey.ryerson.ca] or FluidSurveys [http://fluidsurveys.com/]).

If you have any questions please contact:
Nancy Walton, PhD
Chair, Research Ethics Board
Associate Professor
Ryerson University POD470B
350 Victoria St., Toronto, ON
(416)979-5000 ext. 6300
nwalton@ryerson.ca
rebchair@ryerson.ca