This article is part of the Iris Ethics Knowledge Base; you can find a directory of all articles here.
Not all evaluation/research projects are reviewed in the same way. The level of scrutiny applied to a project depends on the risks it poses to participants. This is a deliberate design feature of the Australian ethics review framework. This piece explains how the system works and what the different review pathways mean in practice.
Proportionate review: the governing principle
The National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2025) organises ethics review around the principle of proportionality. The level of review should match the level of risk. Higher-risk projects require more thorough and independent scrutiny. Projects with a lower risk profile can be reviewed through more efficient pathways without compromising the integrity of the oversight provided.
This matters because a one-size-fits-all approach would be both impractical and poorly calibrated. A telephone survey exploring residents' views on local council services does not carry the same risk profile as in-depth interviews with people who have experienced family violence. The ethical considerations involved are genuinely different, and the review process should reflect that.
How risk is assessed
The National Statement's Chapter 2.1 identifies four risk categories: minimal risk, low risk, greater than low risk, and high risk. The most important dividing line for determining review pathway is the distinction between lower risk (minimal and low) and higher risk (greater than low and high).
Lower risk research is defined as research in which the foreseeable risk to participants is no greater than discomfort. This might include mild anxiety associated with answering survey questions, or minor inconvenience from participating in an interview. Research that carries a risk of actual harm to participants sits in the higher risk categories and requires a different level of review. Our resource on Harm vs discomfort explores this distinction in more detail.
It is worth noting that risk in this context is not only physical. The National Statement identifies psychological, social, economic, cultural, and legal harms as relevant considerations. A project that asks participants about sensitive personal experiences, or that could expose them to social stigma or discrimination if their participation became known, may carry meaningful risk even if there is no physical element involved at all.
The three review pathways
Full committee review
Research assessed as carrying more than low risk must be reviewed by a Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC). An HREC is a formally constituted body with membership requirements set out in the National Statement (Section 5.1.30), designed to bring together the breadth of expertise and perspective that higher-risk projects warrant. The committee considers the full application, deliberates, and reaches a decision collectively.
In social research and program evaluation contexts, full committee review is typically required for projects involving sensitive topics or populations whose circumstances predispose them to higher levels of risk than the general population. Research involving participants with lived experience of trauma, projects exploring illicit behaviour or experiences of discrimination, and studies that involve potentially distressing disclosures are examples of work that would ordinarily require full committee review.
Lower risk review
Projects where the foreseeable risk to participants is no greater than discomfort can be reviewed through a lower risk pathway. Many evaluation/research projects in commercial and government settings fall into this category. Online surveys on non-sensitive topics, telephone interviews about service experience, focus groups exploring consumer preferences, and employee surveys on workplace conditions are the kinds of projects that commonly qualify for lower risk review. The pathway is designed to provide genuine independent scrutiny while avoiding process overhead that is disproportionate to the risk involved.
It is important to understand that lower risk review is still substantive review. The reviewer examines the same core elements as a full committee would, including the adequacy of information provided to participants, the approach to consent, data management arrangements, and the appropriateness of the risk assessment. The difference is in the level of the process, not in whether proper scrutiny occurs.
Exemption from review
Some projects may be eligible for a formal statement of exemption from ethics review. The criteria for exemption are set out in NS 5.1.17 and are specific. Broadly, they cover situations involving fully de-identified data (where re-identification is not possible and researchers explicitly commit not to attempt it), observation of publicly available behaviour without personal identifiers, research conducted solely for training purposes within an educational program, or the use of data that is publicly available under legislative or regulatory frameworks.
Exemption is a formal determination that the project meets the criteria for exemption and that independent review by an ethics body is therefore not required. That determination still needs to be made and documented, especially as this is a requirement for submission to most peer-reviewed publications. The National Statement is explicit that institutions must keep a record of any decision to grant exemption (NS 5.1.18).
It is worth being cautious about self-assessing for exemption without seeking advice. The criteria are specific, and projects that appear to involve only de-identified data sometimes involve more personal information than the evaluator or researcher initially appreciated. A dataset that contains postcodes, occupations, and age brackets may be more identifiable than it first appears, particularly in smaller population groups.
Ready to apply? Check out our resources on the application process, or head straight to the services page to commence your application.
Choosing the right pathway
The practical question for most evaluators and researchers is: which pathway applies to my project? The answer requires an honest assessment of the risk the project poses to participants, considered against the categories the National Statement describes.
A useful starting point is to ask what the worst realistic outcome for a participant would be if something went wrong. If the answer is mild discomfort or inconvenience, lower risk review is likely appropriate. If the answer involves distress, harm, or exposure of sensitive information with real consequences for the participant, a full committee review warrants serious consideration.
When the answer is genuinely uncertain, seeking advice before lodging an application is time well spent. More importantly, it is in everyone's interest, including the evaluator's or researcher's, to have projects reviewed at the level that genuinely reflects their risk profile.
If you are unsure which pathway is right for your project, Iris Ethics is happy to help you work through it before you apply. We've also created a National Statement Navigator to help guide your decision making.
This page was last updated on 24 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.