‘Lay’ roles on research ethics committees : North American vs. New Zealand experiences
Date
2014Citation:
Gremillion, H., Tolich, M., and Bathurst, R. (2014). ‘Lay’ roles on research ethics committees : North American vs. New Zealand experiences. Paper presented at Contemporary Ethnography Across the Disciplines conference, University of Waikato, Hamilton, 26-28 November.Permanent link to Research Bank record:
https://hdl.handle.net/10652/3146Abstract
Unique situation in NZ: in the wake of the 1988 Cartwright Inquiry (extreme abuse of medical power in research), 50% of committee composition is lay.
Keep in check researcher and institutional power
Also, power to the “ordinary New Zealander” (layperson)
This research project: experiences of lay members (so, internal to committee process)
Across five ethics committees in NZ, lay members are empowered, fully valued members
In sharp contrast to the North American experience: limited grammarian roles and often alienated, if not intimidated in cttee
Yet, ambiguity of lay role, particularly in tertiary committees: who is a ‘lay’ person? (on Health and Disability Ethics Committees [HDECs], clearer: ‘non-medical’). What or whom do they represent in tertiary contexts?
