DAOD 5062-1, Conduct of Social Science Research

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Overview
3. Social Science Research Review Board
4. Social Science Research activities
5. Mandatory Procedures and Process
6. Compliance and Consequences
7. Responsibilities
8. References

1. Introduction

Date of Issue: 2014-06-18

Date of Last Modification: 2026-04-21

Date of Last Review: 2026-04-21

Application: This is a directive that applies to employees of the Department of National Defence (DND employees) and an order that applies to officers and non-commissioned members of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF members).

Supersession:

• CANFORGEN 095/24, Clarification of the Interpretation of DAOD 5062-1
• CANFORGEN 198/08, Coordination of DND/CF Opinion and Information Gathering and Social Science Research

Approval Authority: Chief of Military Personnel (CMP)

Enquiries:

• Administrative Response Centre (ARC) (for policy)
• Director General Military Personnel Research and Analysis (DGMPRA) (for the office of primary interest)

2. Overview

Interpretation

2.1 In this DAOD, “relevant civilian” refers to a family member of a CAF member, a member of Canadian Cadet organizations or Junior Canadian Rangers, or an applicant for enrolment in the CAF.

Procedures

2.2 For detailed procedures on human participant research, see DAOD 5061-0, Research Involving Human Participants, and DAOD 5061-1, Research Involving Human Participants - Conditions, Standards, and Procedures.

Note – This DAOD should be read in conjunction with the DAOD 5062-0, Social Science Research.

Purpose

2.3 The purpose of this DAOD is to:

1. outline the procedures and responsibilities for conducting social science research involving DND employees, CAF members and relevant civilians; and
2. ensure that research is conducted ethically, efficiently, and in full alignment with departmental standards, values and the CAF Ethos.

3. Social Science Research Review Board

3.1 The Social Science Research Review Board (SSRRB) is responsible for reviewing all data collection and information-gathering activities that constitute, or may constitute social science research from an ethical, methodological and contextual perspective, whether proposed by DND employees and CAF members or researchers outside of the DND and the CAF.

3.2 The SSRRB conducts full and coordination reviews of social science research proposals and information-gathering activities, in which:

1. a full SSRRB review involves the examination of the ethical, methodological and contextual aspects of a social science research proposal by the Board, which consists of:
   1. the Chair;
   2. research ethics officers;
   3. appointed Board members;
   4. command research officers; and
   5. ad hoc members, as required; or
2. a coordination SSRRB review:
   1. involves the contextual review of the planned research activity and ensures appropriate organizational support from sponsors and commands; and
   2. tracks, coordinates and deconflicts data collection activities.

3.3 Detailed procedures that must be followed in the conduct of social science research projects are set out in the SSRRB standard operating procedures (SOP).

4. Social Science Research Activities

Information Gathering

4.1 Information gathering for social science research may be associated with a broad range of activities, including, but not limited to:

1. personnel research;
2. academic research;
3. policy research;
4. product and program development;
5. product and program evaluation; or
6. quality of service or customer satisfaction studies.

4.2 All information-gathering activities, including research and program evaluations, must consider:

1. the importance of the activities in relation to government priorities;
2. whether ethical issues (e.g., the sensitivity of the questions, data storage, privacy, anonymity, consent, or other concerns from the respondents) might arise, and how these may be mitigated;
3. how the collection and handling of information must comply with the applicable laws and policy requirements; and
4. whether informed consent free of coercion or undue influence was obtained from the participants.

Program Evaluation

4.3 Program evaluation data collection activities involve experiential information gathering using exclusively fact or judgment-based questions to evaluate a program from existing stakeholders or subject matter experts. Quality of service or customer satisfaction studies are undertaken to measure a process, program, or effectiveness of service. The results from these activities are intended for the individuals associated with the process, program, or service being evaluated. When used exclusively for assessment, management, or improvement purposes, these types of investigations do not constitute social science research for the purposes of this DAOD, provided that the content of the questions is based on objective or measurable criteria (“factually based”).

4.4 Program evaluation or quality assurance or improvement studies may require SSRRB review if the activity intends to do any of the following:

1. ask questions that are not factually based;
2. examine how and why certain outcomes were achieved (not just what was achieved); or
3. answer important questions about relevance, unintended effects, or the impact of the program.

Secondary Use of Information or Data

4.5 An SSRRB review may be required when secondary use of information or data, as defined in DAOD 5061-1, and in Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS 2) is proposed for social science research purposes, to ensure identity and privacy protections as per the TCPS 2 and DAOD 1002-6, Disclosure of Personal Information. The SSRRB should be consulted when secondary use of anonymous information is being used for social science research, to determine whether an ethics review or Director Access to Information and Privacy (DAIP) approval is required. 

Activities not Requiring SSRRB Approval

4.6 The following activities are not considered social science research for the purposes of this DAOD, and do not require full or coordination SSRRB review:

1. literature reviews or reviews of secondary sources;
2. verification of performance of services or delivery of goods under contractual arrangements;
3. consultations involving a two-way process of engagement between stakeholders and participants, if there is no expectation of anonymity;
4. exit interviews, performance reviews, or human resources and administration-related inquiries, provided they are factually based and are not used for research purposes; and
5. part of individual training and education program course critiques, program evaluations, validations, and testing within normal educational and evaluation requirements when used exclusively for assessment.

Conditions for SSRRB Review Exemption in DND and CAF Research Activities

4.7 Subject to paragraph 4.8 below, the following exemptions apply to specific data-gathering activities, for which a full SSRRB review may not be required:

1. data collection activities or social science research conducted under the mandate of:
   1. Assistant Deputy Minister (Review Services); and
   2. Office of the Ombudsman for the DND and the CAF;
2. activities conducted by other Government of Canada Departments (e.g., Statistics Canada, Treasury Board (TB), etc.) under statutory authority involving DND employees and CAF members;
3. research conducted by Canadian Defence Academy within the Royal Military Colleges, involving students, faculty, or staff within the confines of the colleges. If research participants include DND employees and CAF members outside the colleges, SSRRB review is required;
4. data collection activities or social science research conducted by Canadian Forces Training Development Centre (CFTDC) as part of the Training Development Officer Basic Qualification Course or the Training Development Services Program;
5. data collection for occupational analyses conducted by the Director Personnel Generation Requirements; or
6. data collection activities of training and designated training authorities as outlined in paragraph 4.6(e).

Coordination and Internal Approval Requirements

4.8 Even when exempt from a full SSRRB review, researchers are still required to coordinate with the SSRRB, at minimum, for tracking purposes. If exemption is confirmed, researchers must obtain approval through internal ethical and technical review processes of their organization.

Guidance on Activity Classification

4.9 The SSRRB Secretariat must be consulted when in doubt about the applicability of this DAOD for data collection activities, or for clarification on whether an activity constitutes program evaluation or social science research.

Communications by CAF Members Participating in Social Science Research

4.10 CAF members are encouraged to participate in social science research candidly, honestly and ethically with a view to generating accurate and reliable data. Whether data is individually identifiable or not, the following approach must apply to social science research:

1. communications made by CAF members during social science research authorized under this DAOD are deemed to be outside of the categories of improper conduct outlined in Queen’s Regulations and Orders (QR&O) article 19.14, Improper Comments;
2. for the purposes of participating in social science research authorized under this DAOD, CAF members are granted permission to communicate with researchers pursuant to:
   1. QR&O article 19.36, Disclosure of Information and Opinion;
   2. QR&O article 19.37, Permission to Communicate Information; and
   3. QR&O article 19.38, Communications With Other Government Departments; and
3. CAF members and researchers must remain cognizant of:
   1. operational security;
   2. the Foreign Interference and Security of Information Act;
   3. the Privacy Act; and
   4. other similar limitations relating to the safeguarding of secret information, protected information or the personal information of other CAF members.

5. Mandatory Procedures and Process

Research Submission

5.1 Researchers must submit to the SSRRB a research proposal detailing the research plan setting out how the project is to be conducted, containing as a minimum:

1. the background and purposes of the project, i.e., the research question or hypothesis;
2. the qualifications of the researcher;
3. methodology to be used including content of the research instruments; 
4. confirmation of completion of the TCPS 2: CORE-2022 (Course on Research Ethics);
5. sufficient information about the risks and benefits of the project to demonstrate that the requirements of full, informed consent, must be met as per the TCPS 2; and
6. sufficient information about how the privacy of the participants must be protected, including:
   1. the type of personal information to be collected (if any);
   2. the potential for indirect identification, data minimization measures to limit collection to what is necessary; and
   3. plans for secure storage, access controls, retention, and destruction of data.

5.2 SSRRB approval must not be issued without written confirmation, by memorandum or email, indicating that:

1. sponsorship is granted for the project; and
2. approval-in-principle to access or communicate with research participants is granted by the level one (L1) advisor or personnel research advisor (if applicable).

Note 1 – A sponsor is a commanding officer (Lieutenant Colonel or higher) or a director equivalent (or higher) in the DND or the CAF, who has direct authority over the organization where the research is to be conducted or has functional authority in the topic area of the research.

Note 2 – Approval-in-principle provides the permission from the L1 advisor and commands to use personnel within those organizations as research participants.

5.3 As a condition of approval to proceed, researchers are required to sign a Letter of Agreement confirming their commitment to submit copies of their completed project to their research sponsor prior to publication for sponsor review. The purpose of this requirement is to:

1. prevent the disclosure of information that could compromise the security of the DND or the CAF, or cause harm to DND employees, CAF members or other individuals; and
2. contribute to the institutional knowledge base of the DND and the CAF.

5.4 Other directives and policy requirements must be followed, where applicable, in considered in developing and executing social science research, such as:

• DAOD 1001-0, Access to Information;
• DAOD 1002-0, Administration of Privacy Act;
• DAOD 1002-3, Personal Information Management;
• DAOD 1002-4, Privacy Incident Management;
• DAOD 1002-6, Disclosure of Personal Information;
• DAOD 2006-0, Defence Security;
• DAOD 5039-0, Official Languages;
• DAOD 5061-0, Research Involving Human Participants;
• DAOD 6000-0, Information Management and Information Technology;
• Policy on Gender Based Analysis Plus;
• DND and CAF’s Science Integrity Policy; and
• TCPS 2. 

Multi-Jurisdictional Research Review

5.5 A significant amount of social science research is conducted with DND employees and CAF members by researchers participating in programs at academic institutions. A DND employee or CAF member, or external researcher engaged in social science research with DND employees and CAF members, or relevant civilians must comply with:

1. the requirements for ethical review in accordance with the TCPS 2 imposed by their academic institution;
2. the requirements in the SSRRB SOP and any other requirements directed by the relevant research ethics board (REB); and
3. the laws and policies applicable to the protection of the privacy and personal information of the participants.

5.6 In cases where multi-jurisdictional research would involve the sharing of personal information across jurisdictions without the consent of the individuals to whom the personal information related, DAIP approval would be required.

5.7 The following are three options for SSRRB review of submissions if another REB is involved:

1. simultaneous independent reviews by the SSRRB and an academic or external REB;
2. if academic REB approval has already been granted, the SSRRB must still conduct a methodological and contextual review of the research proposal but will wave the ethical component of the review proposal; or
3. collaborative reviews involving both the SSRRB and the academic or external REB, which requires discussion and agreement of the terms of the collaboration between the REBs before the submission is reviewed by either the academic or external REB, or the SSRRB.

5.8 SSRRB approval is contingent on confirmation of approval or coordination from an academic or external REB for external-to-DND and CAF research proposals.

Note – In all cases of multi-jurisdictional research review, contextual review of the research proposal includes obtaining sponsorship and Approval-in-Principle as per paragraph 5.2, above.

Use of Existing Records Containing Personal Information

5.9 Researchers conducting social science research must obtain informed consent from participants prior to the collection and use of personal information. In circumstances where researchers request access to copies of existing records containing personal information that were originally collected for another purpose by the DND the CAF, such requests must be:

1. reviewed in accordance with the Privacy Act, subsection 8(2)(j);
2. assessed for necessity, proportionality, and privacy risks, with consideration given to applicable ethical standards (e.g. the TCPS 2); and
3. approved by the appropriate delegated authority, including the DAIP office if required.

Official Languages (OLs)

5.10 In compliance with the Official Languages Act (OLA) and DAOD 5039-4, Translation – Producing and Procuring Documents in Both Official Languages, for research conducted by DND employees, CAF members, or researchers contracted by DND or the CAF, all related SSRRB documentation (e.g., SOPs, forms, instructions, surveys, interview guides) must be available in both (OLs) for research conducted in bilingual regions, as per Part V of the OLA. For DND or CAF research conducted in all other regions, all related documentation must be available in the OL that predominates.

5.11 If external researchers are working independently and not on behalf of the DND or the CAF, related documentation may be provided in one OL, unless specific circumstances require both under the OLA. When possible, efforts should be made to provide documentation in both languages to support the OLA’s intent.

Requirement for Assistant Deputy Minister (Public Affairs) (ADM(PA)) and Minister of National Defence (MND) Approval for Public Opinion Research (POR)

5.12 For internally generated research conducted by or for the DND and the CAF (including faculty members of the Royal Military Colleges), the SSRRB requires confirmation of ADM(PA) and ministerial approval or ADM(PA) approved non-POR status if the project involves the planned gathering, by or for the Government of Canada, of opinion-based information of any target audience including Canadians, businesses, Government of Canada employees and stakeholders, as per DAOD 2008-9.

5.13 MND approval is required if the project consists of research under a contractual arrangement, and in instances if the research is determined to be significant, or of medium to high importance or risk (see DAOD 2008-9).

5.14 The ADM(PA) is responsible for determining if planned non-contracted research is significant. The research proposal may only be approved by the SSRRB after the ADM(PA) has reviewed and provided comments, including any consideration by the MND.

SSRRB Rejection

5.15 If the SSRRB rejects a proposal for any reason, the researcher may request reconsideration by DGMPRA, and then by CMP. In addition, CAF members may submit a grievance in accordance with section 29, Grievances of the National Defence Act by following the processes in DAOD 2017-1, Military Grievance Process.

Back to top

6. Compliance and Consequences

Compliance

6.1 DND employees and CAF members must comply with this DAOD. Should clarification of the policies or instructions set out in this DAOD be required, DND employees and CAF members may seek direction through their channel of communication or chain of command, as appropriate. Managers and military supervisors have the primary responsibility for ensuring the compliance of their DND employees and CAF members with this DAOD.

Consequences of Non-Compliance

6.2 DND employees and CAF members are accountable to their respective managers and military supervisors for any failure to comply with the direction set out in this DAOD. Non-compliance with this DAOD may have consequences for both the DND and the CAF as institutions, and for DND employees and CAF members as individuals. Suspected non-compliance may be investigated. Managers and military supervisors must take or direct appropriate corrective measures if non-compliance with this DAOD has consequences for the DND or the CAF. The decision of an L1 advisor or other senior official to take action or to intervene in a case of non-compliance, other than in respect of a decision under the Code of Service Discipline regarding a CAF member, will depend on the degree of risk based on the impact and likelihood of an adverse outcome resulting from the non-compliance and other circumstances of the case.

6.3 The nature and severity of the consequences resulting from non-compliance should be commensurate with the circumstances of the non-compliance and other relevant circumstances. Consequences of non-compliance may include one or more of the following:

1. the ordering of the completion of appropriate learning, training or professional development;
2. the entering of observations in individual performance evaluations;
3. increased reporting and performance monitoring;
4. the withdrawal of any authority provided under this DAOD to a DND employee or CAF member;
5. the reporting of suspected offences to responsible law enforcement agencies;
6. the application of specific consequences as set out in applicable laws, codes of conduct, and DND and CAF policies and instructions;
7. other administrative action, including the imposition of disciplinary measures, for a DND employee;
8. other administrative or disciplinary action, or both, for a CAF member; and
9. the imposition of liability on the part of His Majesty in right of Canada, DND employees and CAF members.

Note – In respect of the compliance of DND employees, see the TB Framework for the Management of Compliance for additional information.

7. Responsibilities

Responsibility Table

7.1 The following table identifies the responsibilities associated with this DAOD:

8. References

Acts, Regulations, Central Agency Policies and Policy DAOD

• Foreign Interference and Security of Information Act
• National Defence Act
• Official Languages Act
• Privacy Act
• Public Opinion Research Contract Regulations
• QR&O article 19.14, Improper Comments
• QR&O article 19.36, Disclosure of Information and Opinion
• QR&O article 19.37, Permission to Communicate Information
• QR&O article 19.38, Communications With Other Government Departments
• Framework for the Management of Compliance, Treasury Board
• Policy on the Planning and Management of Investments, Treasury Board
• Policy on Communications and Federal Identity, Treasury Board
• Policy on Official Languages, Treasury Board
• Directive on the Management of Communications and Federal Identity, Treasury Board
• Directive on the Management of Procurement, Treasury Board
• Policy on Gender-Based Analysis Plus, Department of Justice
• DAOD 1000-7, Policy Framework for Military Personnel Management
• DAOD 5062-0, Social Science Research

Other References

• DAOD 1001-0, Access to Information
• DAOD 1002-0, Administration of the Privacy Act
• DAOD 1002-3, Personal Information Management
• DAOD 1002-4, Privacy Incident Management
• DAOD 1002-6, Disclosure of Personal Information
• DAOD 2006-0, Defence Security
• DAOD 2008-9, Public Opinion Research
• DAOD 2017-1, Military Grievance Process
• DAOD 5031-2, Canadian Armed Forces Individual Training and Education System  
• DAOD 5039-0, Official Languages
• DAOD 5039-4, Translation – Producing and Procuring Documents in Both Official Languages
• DAOD 5061-0, Research Involving Human Subjects
• DAOD 5061-1, Research Involving Human Subjects – Approval Procedures
• DAOD 6000-0, Information Management and Information Technology
• Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans – TCPS 2 (2022), Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
• DND and CAF’s Science Integrity Policy
• TCPS 2: CORE-2022 (Course on Research Ethics)
• Social Science Research Review Board Standard Operating Procedures
• Individual Training and Education Instruction 2002-1, Appointment and Responsibilities of Training Authorities
• Individual Training and Education Instruction 2002-2, Appointment and Responsibilities of Designated Training Authorities
• Individual Training and Education Instruction 7003-1, Conduct of Social Science Research in Support of CAF Training and Education

Back to top