The tl;dr:

We made a flow chart to help you navigate the National Statement (or at least help you start to figure out which service you might need). There's a PDF version here.

Introduction

In our upcoming resource on lower risk reviews we cover the reasons why most projects in market research, social research and evaluation should be receiving at least a lower risk review. But there's a lot of text.  

There are a lot of criteria that must be considered when assessing a project and the level of ethical review it needs. So we want to give you something that helps you in that process. It's called the "National Statement Navigator", or "The Navigator" for short.

The Navigator

Please right click and open the image in a new tab/window to view it at full size, or you can get a PDF version at the bottom of the page.

The Navigator is a flow chart designed for use by project managers designing and delivering research and evaluation activities. Its goals are to illustrate the pathways of ethical review available under the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025 (a.k.a. the "National Statement") and help users identify the key questions that need to be asked in the design phase to guide the selection of the right pathway.

Some quick answers to questions

Is this flow chart definitive?

Not at all. 

It's a guide, based on our analysis of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025, and the Ethical Considerations in Quality Assurance and Evaluation Activities 2014 ("Ethical QA/Eval"), both publications of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). It doesn't capture the full range of possible activities and considerations covered by these documents or by research and evaluation projects.

Therefore it should not be considered binding, but it is a good starting point for identifying aspects of your activities that may lead to a certain level of review being needed. 

Where does Chapter 4 of the National Statement fit in the flowchart?

It doesn't (well, not explicitly). 

Under the 2025 edition of the National Statement (Section 4 Introduction):

The National Statement requires researchers and reviewers to consider potential sources of increased risk arising from the characteristics and circumstances of individual participants when viewed in the context of a specific research project. This approach is based on the understanding that increased risk is not an ‘either/or’ binary state, nor is being at increased risk a fixed characteristic of any particular individual or group. Rather, it is a matter of degree; increased risk exists on a spectrum and may arise from multiple sources. Increased risk also may vary over time as a participant’s circumstances change and/or a research project progresses.

In other words, just because a participant or stakeholder is from a specific group, does not mean that a project will automatically require a certain level of ethical review (and so it doesn't figure in the flow chart directly). What is important is that the risks are understood in the context of the project and appropriately managed (so it does figure, just indirectly). 

How that can be done is a thing that future resources will cover.

We note that this updated advice is a significant change from previous editions of the National Statement, where research with certain groups would automatically trigger a full HREC review, regardless of the context. Which is our way of saying that we had to throw out some earlier versions of the flow chart. 

Why does evaluation and quality assurance have an extra loop?

Great question. It's a function of how the National Statement interacts with the Ethical QA/Eval document. The National Statement is the document with higher authority (because it covers a broader range of activities that QA and evaluation still need to meet as a standard). Therefore, to integrate the Ethical QA/Eval requirements without removing any requirements under the National Statement, logically the flow chart needs an extra loop. 

Importantly, any activity with a non-negligible risk of harm to stakeholders requires a full review, regardless of whether it's called evaluation, QA, or research. But the Ethical QA/Eval document provides further detail in determining whether a lower risk review should be considered as an alternative pathway.

What about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities?

There are further considerations that need to be taken into account in designing and delivering research and evaluation that primarily involves Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, including review by an HREC with appropriate community acceptance as being able to provide guidance on culturally appropriate activities, and the additional content from the NHMRC's Ethical conduct in research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and communities: Guidelines for researchers and stakeholders 2018, and the AIATSIS Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research 2020. These are not covered in this flow chart. 

What does <insert word or phrase here> mean?

For a set of guidelines like these, every word and phrase is important and has specific meaning. But every word and phrase also needs to be interpreted in the context of the proposed work. As we grow we are going to develop some resources that will help you to interpret some of these key words and phrases in your context. Our Expert Determination service will also help provide some guidance in how the Iris Ethics HREC interprets the National Statement in specific contexts.

What if my question hasn't been answered here?

You can contact us and ask us. We'll do our best to work with you to find an answer.

Can I have a copy of the chart?

Yes! Here's a PDF: