Selected Ethical Issues in the Analysis and Reporting of Research: Survey of Business School Faculty in Malaysia
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
This study reports the perceptions of business school faculty on ethical behaviors related to data analysis and research reporting as well as the prevalence of such behaviors in their academic environment. Survey data for the study were obtained from a sample of 102 business school faculty from five government-funded universities in Malaysia. Study results showed that a majority of the respondents considered practices such as fabrication, manipulation, and distortion of data to be ethically unacceptable, and these behaviors were reported to be least prevalent. In contrast, the practice of misapplying statistical techniques was considered ethically acceptable and reported to be quite prevalent. On research reporting, although a majority of the respondents agreed that plagiarism and taking undeserved authorship credit were ethically unacceptable, they also reported having observed the frequent occurrence of such behaviors. Finally, practices such as cutting up research data and simultaneous submissions to more than one publication outlet at the same time were less likely to be viewed as unethical and seen to be quite a common practice. In general, the findings of this study indicate that the perceptions of the ethicality and frequency of occurrence of behaviors related to data analysis and research reporting vary among business school faculty.
- Academy of Management. (2009). Academy of management code of ethics. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 1369–1376.
- American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060–1073. CrossRef
- American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
- Aquinis, H., & Henle, C. A. (2002). Ethics in research. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 34–56). Malden: Blackwell.
- Bedeian, A. G., Taylor, S. G., & Miller, A. N. (2010). Management science on the credibility bubble: cardinal sins and various misdemeanors. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 9, 715–725. CrossRef
- Borkowski, S. C., & Welsh, M. J. (2000). Ethical practice in the accounting publishing process: contrasting opinions of authors and editors. Journal of Business Ethics, 25, 15–31. CrossRef
- Burnaz, S., Atakan, M. G. S., & Topcu, Y. I. (2010). Have ethical perceptions changed? A comparative study on the ethical perceptions of Turkish faculty members. Journal of Academic Ethics, 8, 137–151. CrossRef
- Calabrese, R. L., & Roberts, B. (2004). Self-interest and scholarly publication: the dilemma of researchers, reviewers, and editors. International Journal of Educational Management, 18, 335–341. CrossRef
- Cossette, P. (2004). Research integrity: an exploratory survey of administrative science faculties. Journal of Business Ethics, 49, 213–234. CrossRef
- Fine, M. A., & Kurdek, L. A. (1993). Reflections on determining authorship credit and authorship order on faculty-student collaborations. American Psychologist, 48, 1141–1147. CrossRef
- Fine, M. A., & Kurdek, L. A. (1994). Publishing multiple journal articles from a single data set: issues and recommendations. Journal of Family Psychology, 8, 371–379. CrossRef
- Gao, T., Siegel, P., Johar, J. S., & Sirgy, M. J. (2008). A survey of management educators’ perceptions of unethical faculty behavior. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6, 129–152. CrossRef
- Gardenier, J. S., & Resnik, D. B. (2002). The misuse of statistics: concepts, tools, and a research agenda. Accountability in Research, 9, 65–74. CrossRef
- Gibelman, M., & Gelman, S. R. (2003). Plagiarism in academia: trends and implications. Accountability in Research, 10, 229–252. CrossRef
- Grossberg, M. (2004). Plagiarism and professional ethics—A journal editor’s view. The Journal of American History, March, 1333–1340.
- Gupta, J. L., & Sulaiman, M. (1996). Ethical orientations of managers in Malaysia. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 735–748. CrossRef
- Helton-Fauth, W., Gaddis, B., Scott, G., Mumford, M., Devenport, L., Connelly, S., et al. (2003). A new approach to assessing ethical conduct in scientific work. Accountability in Research, 10, 205–228. CrossRef
- Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of International Business Studies, 14, 75–89. CrossRef
- Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: an issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16, 366–395.
- Karande, K., Shankarmahesh, M. N., Rao, C. P., & Zabid, M. R. (2000). Perceived moral intensity, ethical perception, and ethical intention of American and Malaysian managers: a comparative study. International Business Review, 9, 37–59. CrossRef
- Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1–31. CrossRef
- Kumar, M. N. (2008). A review of the types of scientific misconduct in biomedical research. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6, 211–228. CrossRef
- Locke, E. A. (2006). Business ethics: a way out of the morass. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5, 324–332. CrossRef
- Mason, J. B., Bearden, W. O., & Richardson, L. D. (1990). Perceived conduct and professional ethics among marketing faculty. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18, 185–197. CrossRef
- McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Academic dishonesty in graduate business programs: prevalence, causes, and proposed action. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5, 294–305. CrossRef
- Meyer, M. J., & McMahon, D. (2004). An examination of ethical research conduct by experienced and novice accounting academics. Issues in Accounting Education, 19, 413–442. CrossRef
- Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (2005). Standing up or standing by: what predicts blowing the whistle on organizational wrongdoing? Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 24, 95–136. CrossRef
- Nitsch, D., Baetz, M., & Hughes, J. C. (2005). Why code of conduct violations go unreported: a conceptual framework to guide intervention and future research. Journal of Business Ethics, 57, 327–341. CrossRef
- Poff, D. C. (2010). Reflections on the relationship of research integrity to research ethics in publishing. Journal of Academic Ethics, 8, 259–263. CrossRef
- Price, J. H., Dake, J. A., & Islam, R. (2001). Selected ethical issues in research and publication: perceptions of health education faculty. Health Education & Behavior, 28, 51–64. CrossRef
- Resnik, D. B. (2000). Statistics, ethics, and research: an agenda for education and reform. Accountability in Research, 8, 163–188. CrossRef
- Resnik, D. B. (2003). Commentary. From Baltimore to Bell Labs: reflections on two decades of debate about scientific misconduct. Accountability in Research, 10, 123–135. CrossRef
- Rosenthal, R. (1994). Science and ethics in conducting, analyzing, and reporting psychological research. Psychological Science, 5, 127–132. CrossRef
- Sieber, J. E. (1994). Will the new code help researchers to be more ethical? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 25, 369–375. CrossRef
- Singapore Statement on Research Integrity (2010). http://www.singaporestatement.org/statement.html. Accessed 14 February 2011.
- Sterba, S. K. (2006). Misconduct in the analysis and reporting of data: bridging methodological and ethical agendas for change. Ethics & Behavior, 16, 305–318. CrossRef
- Von Glinow, M. A., & Novelli, L. (1982). Ethical standards within organizational behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 417–436. CrossRef
- Welfare, L. E., & Sackett, C. R. (2010). Authorship in student-faculty collaborative research: perceptions of current and best practices. Journal of Academic Ethics, 8, 199–215. CrossRef
- Zabid, A. R. M., & Alsagoff, S. K. (1993). Perceived ethical values of Malaysian managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 331–337. CrossRef
- Zabid, A. R. M., & Ho, J. A. (2003). Perceptions of business ethics in a multicultural community: the case of Malaysia. Journal of Business Ethics, 43, 75–87. CrossRef
- Selected Ethical Issues in the Analysis and Reporting of Research: Survey of Business School Faculty in Malaysia
Journal of Academic Ethics
Volume 9, Issue 4 , pp 307-322
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Research ethics
- Ethical perceptions of business faculty
- Unethical research behavior among business faculty
- Code of ethics