16 Aug ESS IA Ethics: Consent, Privacy and Safe Research Planning
Plan safe, ethical ESS research before collecting data. Identify permissions, participant information, environmental risks and data handling relevant to your method. Your school must approve the investigation; a checklist or tutor cannot authorise a method on its behalf.
Use the current ESS requirements
For first assessment 2026, the individual investigation has a maximum report length of 3,000 words and six criteria. Ethics is not a separate seventh criterion or an automatic source of marks for naming principles. Explain relevant decisions and their consequences where they matter to the investigation.
Research questions need not “test an ethical principle.” A water-quality investigation or a secondary-data comparison can raise practical ethical questions without claiming to measure whether an action is morally right.
Choose a feasible question
Ask what evidence is needed, whether it can be obtained safely and whether the question can be answered without unnecessary intrusion or disturbance. For example, a comparison of path use and vegetation could use existing footfall counts and non-destructive observations, subject to site rules. Do not manipulate a protected habitat simply to create a contrast.
State whether a relationship is observational. Ethical sampling does not itself establish causation, and a field location is not compulsory for every secondary-data investigation.
Agree permissions and participant information
- Check the site’s access rules, ecological sensitivity and any permission or permit needed for the proposed activity.
- Complete the school’s risk-assessment and approval process before starting, including a pilot.
- For human participants, explain the purpose, what participation involves, voluntary choice and data use in an accessible way.
- Follow school safeguarding and applicable consent requirements, including parent or guardian involvement where required. Do not assume one universal age rule covers every jurisdiction or research context.
- Agree how withdrawal works, including any point after which genuinely anonymised responses cannot be linked back to an individual.
A participant-information template must be adapted and approved; a copied sentence cannot establish that consent is informed or that a study is legally compliant. Avoid collecting sensitive information that is unnecessary for the question.
Minimise environmental disturbance
Use non-destructive observation where suitable, avoid unnecessary handling and follow the school’s animal and fieldwork rules. Permissions for access do not automatically permit collecting organisms, soil or protected species. Do not disturb wildlife to obtain a photograph or create an experimental result.
Choose sampling effort that balances the question, variability, feasibility and disturbance. “Use the smallest possible sample” is not a universal ethical rule: an inadequate study can waste effort without answering the question. Conversely, statistical ambitions do not justify unnecessary damage.
Record relevant choices such as using existing paths, limiting handling, cleaning equipment to reduce transfer between sites and removing your own materials. Restore a site only in a way approved by the site manager; do not assume refilling every core or moving stones is always appropriate.
Protect identities and distinguish coding from anonymity
Replacing names with participant codes is usually pseudonymisation when a key or other information can identify people. It is not automatically irreversible anonymisation. The European Commission’s explanation of personal data makes this distinction clear.
Collect only information needed for the study, use school-approved storage and restrict access. Store any code key separately where required. Ask your teacher about retention, deletion and submission arrangements rather than assuming that all files must be kept until a generic “moderation” date.
Do not include participants’ signed consent forms, names, contact details or identifiable raw responses in a public report or routine IA appendix. Keep original permission evidence securely with the school as required. In the report, describe the consent process and use an approved blank or redacted example only if useful and permitted. Redaction must remove indirect identifiers as well as names.
Explain decisions without inventing mark rules
Describe a decision, why it was appropriate and any consequence for the evidence. For example: “Sampling was restricted to an approved path to avoid disturbing the habitat. This limits the conclusions to vegetation accessible from the path.” That is a transparent limitation, not a guarantee of marks.
Random placement alone does not prove that disturbance was minimised. If a method affects reliability or coverage, explain the effect supported by the evidence; do not invent an exact size or direction to make the evaluation sound scientific.
Check before collecting or submitting
- The teacher has approved the method and relevant safety arrangements.
- Site rules and necessary permissions have been checked.
- Participants receive appropriate information and any required consent is obtained.
- Unnecessary identifiers and sensitive questions have been avoided.
- Storage, access, retention and withdrawal arrangements are clear.
- The submitted report does not disclose identities or signed personal documents.
- Secondary-data licences, source methods and any reuse restrictions are checked.
- Data, exclusions and methods are reported honestly, including justified changes.
Avoid common mistakes
Do not assume a public website makes identifiable data appropriate to reuse, that coded data are automatically anonymous, or that permission obtained later retrospectively authorises earlier collection. If a problem arises, stop and consult the teacher rather than hiding it or continuing.
Plagiarism, fabricated data and unacknowledged assistance raise academic-integrity concerns. Outcomes depend on the applicable process and circumstances; a blog should not claim every breach automatically produces one fixed sanction.
Include relevant information in the report
Explain the approved consent, safety and data-handling process in the method where relevant. Evaluate any consequences for coverage or interpretation. Supplementary material can document the process without exposing personal information; it cannot replace essential explanation in the main report.
If using AI or another digital tool, follow your school’s rules, check the output, protect data and acknowledge assistance where required. Do not upload participants’ identifiable records to an unapproved service.
Discuss your planning questions
Marija Maletz is an ESS teacher, examiner and tutor, with 13 years of teaching experience and more than 10 years as an IB ESS examiner. Guidance can help you understand planning choices, while your school approves permissions and your assessed work remains your own.
Request a FREE 20-minute trial lesson to discuss needs. It is an introduction, not a promise of approved permission forms or a ready-written evaluation paragraph.
No Comments