One size does not fit all: organisational diversity in New Zealand tertiary sector ethics committees

Traversing Ethical Imperatives: Learning from Stories from the Field

“…As the members of school-or faculty-level ethics committees are likely to be familiar with the methodologies under review, there is a greater opportunity for researchers and reviewers to engage in appropriate dialogue about ethics issues rather than merely aiming to achieve tick-box approval. If frustrations with inflexible, unresponsive, and slow ethics review processes are at least partly as a result of the centralisation of ethics review (Tolich et al, 2016), then the outcomes of experimentation in devolved ethics committees are going to be interesting to observe over the coming decades.…”

“…And as few researchers have gained access to the inner workings of ethics committees, researchers are often in the dark as to precisely what is required of ethics committee members (Fitzgerald, Phillips, & Yule, 2006; see van den Hoonaard, 2011, for exceptions). Tolich et al (2016) argue that researchers become better aware of the process of ethics when they are invited to attend the ethics committee meetings at which their proposed research will be discussed. By doing this, ethics committee deliberations and decisions become subject to external scrutiny.…”

“…The input of critical researchers in ethics review discussions may also offer rich learning opportunities for both researchers and ethics committee members as debate helps to develop understandings of the ethics issues under discussion. In fact, it is for these reasons that increased availability of research committee members for consultation outside formal ethics committee meetings has been shown to have a positive impact on review outcomes (Guta, Nixon, Gahagan, & Fielden, 2012;Stewart-Withers, 2016;Tolich et al, 2016).…”

“…Formative feedback received during researcher consultations with ethics committee members prior to the submission of their ethics protocols for review has a positive impact on both the experience of the review process and the outcome of the review process (de Jong, van Zwieten, & Willems, 2013;Hedgecoe, 2012;Tolich et al, 2016). The availability of ethics committee members to engage with researchers can be constrained by their workload (Allen, 2008;O'Neill, 2010;Tolich et al, 2016).…”

“…Formative feedback received during researcher consultations with ethics committee members prior to the submission of their ethics protocols for review has a positive impact on both the experience of the review process and the outcome of the review process (de Jong, van Zwieten, & Willems, 2013;Hedgecoe, 2012;Tolich et al, 2016). The availability of ethics committee members to engage with researchers can be constrained by their workload (Allen, 2008;O'Neill, 2010;Tolich et al, 2016). Comparing ethics review structures and processes across five universities in Aotearoa/New Zealand, Tolich et al (2016) argue that the volume of ethics applications requiring ethics review in some universities is preventing them from implementing the open-door approach adopted by others.…”