8 found
Order:
  1.  59
    What Can Milgram and Zimbardo Teach Ethics Committees and Qualitative Researchers About Minimizing Harm?Martin Tolich - 2014 - Research Ethics 10 (2):86-96.
    The first objective of this article is to demonstrate that ethics committee members can learn a great deal from a forensic analysis of two classic psychology studies: Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Study and Milgram’s Obedience Study. Rather than using hindsight to retrospectively eradicate the harm in these studies, the article uses a prospective minimization of harm technique. Milgram attempted to be ethical by trying to protect his subjects through debriefing and a follow-up survey. He could have done more, however, by carrying (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  2.  10
    Shifting From Research Governance to Research Ethics: A Novel Paradigm for Ethical Review in Community-Based Research.Jay Marlowe & Martin Tolich - 2015 - Research Ethics 11 (4):178-191.
    This study examines a significant gap in the role of providing ethical guidance and support for community-based research. University and health-based ethical review committees in New Zealand predominantly serve as ‘gatekeepers’ that consider the ethical implications of a research design in order to protect participants and the institution from harm. However, in New Zealand, community-based researchers routinely do not have access to this level of support or review. A relatively new group, the New Zealand Ethics Committee, formed in 2012, responds (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  3.  83
    The Principle of Caveat Emptor: Confidentiality and Informed Consent as Endemic Ethical Dilemmas in Focus Group Research. [REVIEW]Martin Tolich - 2009 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6 (1):99-108.
    Informed consent and confidentiality supposedly minimize harm for research participants in all qualitative research methodologies, inclusive of one-on-one unstructured interviews and focus groups. This is not the case for the latter. Confidentiality and informed consent uniquely manifest themselves as endemic ethical dilemmas for focus group researchers. The principle of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) may be a more useful tool for those involved in focus group research: that is, let the researcher, the participants and the ethics committee beware that (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  4.  10
    Lay Members of New Zealand Research Ethics Committees: Who and What Do They Represent?Helen Gremillion, Martin Tolich & Ralph Bathurst - 2015 - Research Ethics 11 (2):82-97.
    Since the 1988 Cartwright Inquiry, lay members of ethics committees have been tasked with ensuring that ordinary New Zealanders are not forgotten in ethical deliberations. Unlike Institutional Review Boards in North America, where lay members constitute a fraction of ethics committee membership, 50% of most New Zealand ethics committees are comprised of lay members. Lay roles are usually defined in very broad terms, which can vary considerably from committee to committee. This research queries who lay representatives are, what they do, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5.  8
    Evolving Power Dynamics in an Unconventional, Powerless Ethics Committee.Martin Tolich & Jay Marlowe - 2017 - Research Ethics 13 (1):42-52.
    A previous research ethics article by the authors provided evidence to support the claim that the New Zealand Ethics Committee was a powerless ethics committee. Ethics review applicants were not formally obliged to seek ethics review, and any committee recommendations were given on a ‘take it or leave it’ basis. One year later, the capacity of applications has doubled, and NZEC finds its core assumptions challenged as funders and government agencies now compel contracted researchers to make use of this free (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6.  11
    Finding Your Ethical Research Self: A Guidebook for Novice Qualitative Researchers.Martin Tolich & Emma Tumilty - 2021 - Routledge.
    Finding Your Ethical Research Self introduces novice researchers to the need for ethical reflection in practice and gives them the confidence to use their knowledge and skill when, later as researchers, they are confronted by big ethical moments in the field. -/- The 12 chapters build on each other, but not in a linear way. Core ethical concepts like consent and confidentiality once established in the early chapters are later challenged. The new focus becomes how to address qualitative research ethics (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  7.  14
    Guidelines for Community-Based Ethics Review of Children’s Science Fair Projects.Martin Tolich - 2008 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 5 (4):303-310.
    Low-level community based ethics committees staffed by teachers, parents and community representatives can readily review children’s science fair projects subject to the revision of two core assumptions currently governing children’s Science Fairs. The first part of the paper recasts the New Zealand Royal Society guidelines from its primary emphasis on risk to a new assumption, without benefit there can be no risk. Equally, this revision gives more prominence to the participant information sheet, allowing it to act as a quasi application (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8.  5
    How Idiocultures and Warrants Operate Independently in New Zealand Health Ethics Review Boards.Martin Tolich - 2015 - Research Ethics 11 (2):67-81.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark