How idiocultures and warrants operate independently in New Zealand health ethics review boards

Research Ethics 11 (2):67-81 (2015)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Laura Stark’s ethnography of IRB decision-making unearthed two concerns: first, even though the committees were governed by ethical principles, the committees generated their own precedents for future decision-making; second, Stark witnessed unequal power relations within committee decision-making as a member’s expertise was accepted as a ‘warrant’. This article examines how these warrants are practiced within the decision-making process of New Zealand’s four Health and Disability Ethics Committees. More specifically, this article concerns these warrants during a committee’s decision to consult with indigenous communities, a decision for which there exist no guidelines. The article ends by discussing ethical issues when observing in public places.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,593

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

New Zealand Research Ethics Committee Matters.Andrew Moore - 2011 - Research Ethics 7 (4):132-135.
Is mandatory research ethics reviewing ethical?Murray Dyck & Gary Allen - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (8):517-520.
Effective governance for start-up companies: Regarding the board as a strategic resource.Coral B. Ingley & Kevin McCaffrey - 2007 - International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics 3 (3):308-329.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-10-11

Downloads
6 (#1,269,502)

6 months
1 (#1,040,386)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?