This article is part of the Iris Ethics Knowledge Base; you can find a directory of all articles here.
Overview
Blanket approval describes a standing ethics approval that covers repeated, standardised research or evaluation activities sharing the same design, risk profile, and participant population, so that a fresh application is not required for every repetition. This may be granted for both full HREC and lower risk reviews, though typically this applies for lower risk research activities. It is a type of approval outcome, not a form of pre-application advice. Contrast it with Pre-review, which is a conversation that takes place before a formal application exists and does not itself grant approval for anything.
The National Statement basis
The National Statement anticipates review of a defined program of related activity, not only single projects: researchers seeking approval for "a program of research (i.e. a series of related research projects)... should adequately describe their plans to reviewers" (NS 3.1.11). Blanket approval, where offered, gives effect to this for standardised, high-volume activity: the review body considers the standardised design once, and approval extends to the repetitions that fall within the approved scope, rather than each repetition being submitted as a fresh application.
When blanket approval is appropriate
A standing approval of this kind is suited to activity that is standardised and repeated, such as regular customer satisfaction surveys, routine tracking studies, or a recurring service-feedback survey using the same instrument, where all of the following hold:
- The methodology is applied repeatedly without material variation.
- The risk profile is consistent across repetitions and no greater than discomfort (see Risk of discomfort).
- The participant population and recruitment approach are consistent across repetitions.
- The data management approach is standardised across repetitions.
Scope and conditions
A blanket approval defines the activities it covers and the conditions attached to it. A project falling outside that defined scope, for example a different methodology, topic area, or participant population, is not covered and requires its own application or an amendment to the existing approval (see Amendments).
Record keeping
Monitoring arrangements must be commensurate with the risk, size, and complexity of the research (NS 5.4.2). For a standing approval covering an open-ended number of repetitions, this points toward the researcher maintaining its own record of each project conducted under the approval, including project descriptions, dates, participant numbers, and any adverse events, so the review body can confirm the approval continues to be used as intended.
Related resources
This page was last updated on 10 September 2026.
Was this helpful? We'd appreciate your feedback!
This article makes reference to the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025. It is intended as practical guidance and does not constitute legal advice.
AI Disclosure: Resources in this library were prepared using Large Language Models with input from Iris Ethics staff who guided the scope and design. Subsequent revisions and final versions were developed and approved by Iris Ethics staff.