One size does not fit all : organizational diversity in New Zealand tertiary sector ethics committees
Loading...
Supplementary material
Other Title
Authors
Tolich, Martin
Bathurst, Ralph
Deckert, Antje
Flanagan, Paul
Gremillion, Helen
Grimshaw, Grimshaw
Bathurst, Ralph
Deckert, Antje
Flanagan, Paul
Gremillion, Helen
Grimshaw, Grimshaw
Author ORCID Profiles (clickable)
Degree
Grantor
Date
2015-05
Supervisors
Type
Conference Contribution - Oral Presentation
Ngā Upoko Tukutuku (Māori subject headings)
Keyword
research ethics committees
New Zealand
tertiary institutions
New Zealand. Committee of Inquiry into Allegations concerning the Treatment of Cervical Cancer at National Women's Hospital and into other related matters.
Cartwright Inquiry 1987-1988 (N.Z.)
New Zealand
tertiary institutions
New Zealand. Committee of Inquiry into Allegations concerning the Treatment of Cervical Cancer at National Women's Hospital and into other related matters.
Cartwright Inquiry 1987-1988 (N.Z.)
ANZSRC Field of Research Code (2020)
Citation
Tolich, M., Bathurst, R., Deckert, A., Flanagan, P., Gremillion, H., & Grimshaw, M. (2015, May). One size does not fit all: Organizational diversity in New Zealand tertiary sector ethics committees. Paper presented at Ethics in Practice Conference, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Abstract
Since 1988 in NZ all university and funded health researchers have been mandated to seek ethical review for research projects
At the time, the Ministry of Health ethics committees were guided by an operational standard for health research, yet no equivalent national ethics statement has been produced to guide all University research in NZ (unlike the situation in Canada and Australia)
Academics are justifiably questioning of institutional efforts to temper their autonomy unnecessarily, but little is known – outside of local/individual experiences – about how ethics committees actually work
This current project seeks to identify strengths of alternative approaches in particular institutional circumstances. It maintains a critical edge centred on improving appropriate access to committee processes and deliberations, and on improving the potential ‘educative’ (vs. governance) focus of ethics committees.
Some key findings:
No two committees share even broadly similar organizational structures. Four of the five committees are centralised, but the ways in which they operate differ significantly
Researchers have a variable range of access to advice and consultation, and they tend not to use the optional provisions that exist
All five committees are involved in facilitating (varying) learning opportunities within committees and/or in exchanges with others
Publisher
Permanent link
Link to ePress publication
DOI
Copyright holder
Authors
Copyright notice
All rights reserved