Journal of Academic Ethics

, 9:307

Selected Ethical Issues in the Analysis and Reporting of Research: Survey of Business School Faculty in Malaysia

Article
  • 293 Downloads

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Research ethics Ethical perceptions of business faculty Unethical research behavior among business faculty Code of ethics Malaysia 

References

  1. Academy of Management. (2009). Academy of management code of ethics. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 1369–1376.Google Scholar
  2. American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060–1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cossette, P. (2004). Research integrity: an exploratory survey of administrative science faculties. Journal of Business Ethics, 49, 213–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fine, M. A., & Kurdek, L. A. (1993). Reflections on determining authorship credit and authorship order on faculty-student collaborations. American Psychologist, 48, 1141–1147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gardenier, J. S., & Resnik, D. B. (2002). The misuse of statistics: concepts, tools, and a research agenda. Accountability in Research, 9, 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gibelman, M., & Gelman, S. R. (2003). Plagiarism in academia: trends and implications. Accountability in Research, 10, 229–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grossberg, M. (2004). Plagiarism and professional ethics—A journal editor’s view. The Journal of American History, March, 1333–1340.Google Scholar
  16. Gupta, J. L., & Sulaiman, M. (1996). Ethical orientations of managers in Malaysia. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 735–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of International Business Studies, 14, 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: an issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16, 366–395.Google Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kumar, M. N. (2008). A review of the types of scientific misconduct in biomedical research. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6, 211–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Locke, E. A. (2006). Business ethics: a way out of the morass. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5, 324–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Poff, D. C. (2010). Reflections on the relationship of research integrity to research ethics in publishing. Journal of Academic Ethics, 8, 259–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Resnik, D. B. (2000). Statistics, ethics, and research: an agenda for education and reform. Accountability in Research, 8, 163–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rosenthal, R. (1994). Science and ethics in conducting, analyzing, and reporting psychological research. Psychological Science, 5, 127–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sieber, J. E. (1994). Will the new code help researchers to be more ethical? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 25, 369–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Singapore Statement on Research Integrity (2010). http://www.singaporestatement.org/statement.html. Accessed 14 February 2011.
  36. Sterba, S. K. (2006). Misconduct in the analysis and reporting of data: bridging methodological and ethical agendas for change. Ethics & Behavior, 16, 305–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Von Glinow, M. A., & Novelli, L. (1982). Ethical standards within organizational behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 417–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zabid, A. R. M., & Alsagoff, S. K. (1993). Perceived ethical values of Malaysian managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 331–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UKM-Graduate School of BusinessUniversiti Kebangsaan MalaysiaBangiMalaysia
  2. 2.School of Business and EconomicsUniversiti Malaysia SabahKota KinabaluMalaysia

Personalised recommendations