One size does not fit all : organizational diversity in New Zealand tertiary sector ethics committees
Tolich, Martin; Bathurst, Ralph; Deckert, Antje; Flanagan, Paul; Gremillion, Helen; Grimshaw, Grimshaw
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.
Permanent link to Research Bank record:http://hdl.handle.net/10652/3220
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