‘Lay’ roles on research ethics committees : North American vs. New Zealand experiences
Gremillion, Helen; Tolich, Martin; Bathurst, Ralph
Citation: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:http://hdl.handle.net/10652/3146
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?