The research consent form example scenario
Priya is a researcher interviewing business owners for a journal article. The interview is low risk but Marcus is talking about his finances. He wants control over how he is quoted.
This is a common middle ground between an anonymous research consent form and a high-profile media interview. For a general overview, see our interview consent form guide.
Why the purpose line is written that way
Notice the purpose field names both outputs: the article and the report. If Priya uses the interview in a conference talk not mentioned, she has gone beyond the agreement.
Naming every output at the time of consent avoids problems. It gives Marcus a real basis for deciding whether to take part. If you are drafting your own, check how to write an interview consent form.
Why attribution and withdrawal deadlines matter
Marcus agreed to be identified by his first name and his business. This is a middle option between anonymity and full attribution. It is common in local research to make the piece feel real.
The form gives a specific withdrawal date. A vague 'any time' would be dishonest because removing a quote after typesetting is not realistic. This specificity is as important as it is in medical consent forms.
Providing a clear date tied to a production milestone is honest. It ensures the participant knows exactly how long they have to change their mind before the work is published.
Storage and access considerations
Access is limited to two named people. This makes the commitment checkable. If a participant asks who has heard their recording, a vague team reference is much harder to answer honestly.
Retention is tied to university policy rather than a guess, much like a participant consent form or a simple interview consent form would handle basic data. The destruction method is also explicitly stated for clarity.
- Access is limited to two named people — Priya and her supervisor
- Retention is tied to a university policy figure (five years)
- Destruction gives both a method and a date
Common mistakes when filling in a form
Writing 'confidential' without saying what that means is a frequent error. Ticking the recording box but forgetting the transcription box also causes confusion. These small details can lead to large disputes.
Leaving the purpose field generic is a major cause of scope disputes. Always update contact details for the new project. If you are capturing video, ensure you use a video interview consent form instead.
- Writing 'confidential' without practical definitions
- Forgetting to address transcription separately from recording
- Leaving the purpose field generic ('research purposes')
- Using old contact details from previous projects
- Forgetting to date both signature lines
What was not needed in this sample
This is a low-risk interview about a business topic. It does not need a distress protocol or a safeguarding contact. Adding irrelevant clauses makes participants take the risk more seriously than it warrants.
Use this filled-in example as a check against your own drafts. Your project name and attribution choice will differ. The value is in seeing how specific, dated and checkable good answers look.