ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesNew Zealand

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

One size does not fit all: organisational diversity in New Zealand tertiary sector ethics committees (Papers: Martin Tolich et al 2015)0

Posted by Admin in on August 30, 2016

New Zealand tertiary ethics committees may work from similar ethical principles but this article demonstrates that the way in which they operate is idiosyncratic. The paper builds on commentaries offered by current or former members of five New Zealand ethics committees on the organisation and practices of their committees. It examines differences among the committees with the aim of initiating an ongoing conversation about the work of ethics committees in the New Zealand context. It argues for the merits of diversity, transparency and openness as core principles for the work of ethics committees and as a platform for dealing with critique.

Keywords: centralisation, diversity, ethics committees, New Zealand, universities,

Tolich M, Bathurst R, Deckert A, Flanagan P, Gremillion H and Grimshaw M (2015) One size does not fit all: organisational diversity in New Zealand tertiary sector ethics committees. Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, 11(1).

Resourcing reflective practice – whiteboard video0

Posted by Admin in on July 27, 2016

The AHRECS team is thrilled to share this seven-and-a-half minute video about the value and importance of resourcing the reflective practice of research, rather than focussing on enforcing compliance with rules.

Be a voice for constructive change! Please promote this video throughout your networks.

Please contact us by emailing if you want help in moving your institution move to a resourcing reflective practice approach.

The script for this whiteboard was written by Dr Gary Allen and it is spoken by Adj Prof Mark Israel. It was produced for us by the very talented BethanyDivaa through

A New Zealand retraction has been added to Retraction Watch – 28 March 20160

Posted by Admin in on March 29, 2016

“A journal has retracted a paper on a controversial course of treatment used to stunt the growth of disabled children, at the request of the human research ethics committee at the University of Waikato in New Zealand.

The paper described the so-called Ashley Treatmentexplored last week in the New York Times — in which disabled children receive hormones and procedures to keep them small and diminish the effects of puberty, making it easier for them to be cared for. The retracted paper analyzed the use of the treatment in a girl named Charley who was born in New Zealand with a brain injury, whose case has attracted the attention of The Washington Post and People magazine, among other outlets.

28 March 2016 – Ethics committee asks journal to retract paper about controversial growth-stunting treatment

About Retraction Watch
We launched Retraction Watch in August 2010, and although we didn’t predict this, it’s been a struggle to even keep up with retractions as they happen. While we occasionally dip into history in our “Best Of” series, realistically we don’t want to fall even further behind. If we ever have the resources to grow the site, this will be one of our priorities.

The price of deceiving your future employees (Papers: Mark Israel et al 2016)0

Posted by Admin in on March 3, 2016

Excerpt “Those of us who grew up reading Mark Twain will remember the story of The Prince and the Pauper. In Twain’s book, the future English King Edward VI swaps places with a poor boy in order to move unrecognised among his future subjects. The book has spawned a variety of different versions. The latest enactment may be in a New Zealand university.

According to the New Zealand Herald, the preferred candidate for the position of vice-chancellor at Lincoln University interviewed 20 staff while posing as a visiting academic preparing a report. During the interviews, the newspaper claims that Prof. Robin Pollard collected data about concerns academics had about the university, only revealing his identity by email after the interviews had been completed. The project did not seek ethics review from either the visiting professor’s home university in the United Kingdom or Lincoln University but may have been approved by Lincoln University’s Council. Ethics review is mandatory for all research conducted on university students or staff in New Zealand. University codes of ethics deem them vulnerable or exploitable persons given the conflict of interest and unequal power relations.

If it is true that Prof. Pollard conducted research in this way, such a scheme must have seemed attractive to the incoming university boss. Academic leaders may find themselves isolated in the top position and there are significant advantages in opening up multiple lines of communication with your colleagues throughout an organisation. Academics who might not divulge their thoughts to senior management might reveal their views to a visiting academic making the use of deception seductively attractive in these circumstances.”

Israel, M, Poata Smith, B & Tolich, M (2016) The price of deceiving your future employees. Tertiary Update: Weekly News from The New Zealand Tertiary Education Union – Te Hautū Kahurangi O Aotearoa 2 March