Skip to main content

Impact of ethics on research productivity in higher education

Abstract

The objective of this research is to assess the impact of ethics on research productivity within laboratories of public universities. To achieve this objective, neural networks’ method is used to highlight impacting and impacted variable modalities. Findings show ethical variables having the greatest impact on research productivity are ethics supporting document and transparency, while the variables most impacted by ethics are publications and scientific projects. Finally, the originality of this work lies in the reconciliation of two dimensions that appear to be irreconcilable a priori, namely, ethics which has a social connotation and productivity which has an economic connotation. It also resides in employing neural networks’ method, with is rarely used in social sciences.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Abramo, G., and C.A. D’Angelo. 2014. How do you define and measure research productivity? Scientometrics 101: 1129–1144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Adam, P., P.V. Ovseiko, J. Grant, et al. 2018. ISRIA statement: Ten-point guidelines for an effective process of research impact assessment. Health Res Policy, Sys 16: 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0281-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Adler, N., and A.W. Harzing. 2009. When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. Academy of Management Learning and Education 8 (1): 72–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Agrawal, P. 2018. Ethical issues in research. In Higher education and professional ethics, ed. S.S. Sethy. Routledge India: Roles and Responsibilities of Teachers.

  5. Aiston, S.J., and J. Jung. 2015. Women academics and research productivity: An international comparison. Gender and Education 3 (27): 205–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Alrahlah, A.A. 2016. The impact of motivational factors on research productivity of dental faculty members: A qualitative study. Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences 11 (5): 448–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Alzuman, A. 2015. Faculty research productivity in Saudi Arabian public universities: A human capital investment perspective. A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Virginia Commonwealth University.

  8. American Psychological Association (2003). Five principles for research ethics. https://www.apa.org/monitor/jan03/principles. Accessed 25 Dec 2020.

  9. Aref, F., E.O. Manyibe, A.L. Washington, et al. 2017. Research productivity in rehabilitation, disability, and allied health programs: A focus group perspective on minority-serving institutions. Rehabilitation Research Policy and Education 31 (3): 194–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Arliansyah, J., and Y. Hartono. 2015. Trip attraction model using radial basis function neural networks. Procedia Engineering 125: 445–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Arregui-Pabollet, E., Doussineau, M., Dettenhofer, M. (2018). An analytical framework to assess the governance of universities and their involvement in Smart specialisation strategies. EUR 29306 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, ISBN 978-92-79-91042-5, doi: https://doi.org/10.2760/760453, JRC112706.

  12. Balakrishnan, B. Fumihiko Tochinai, F. Kanemitsu, H., and Altalbe, A. (2021). Engineering ethics education from the cultural and religious perspectives: a study among Malaysian undergraduates. European Journal of Engineering Education, doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2021.1881449.

  13. Balcombe, K., A. Bailey, and I. Fraser. 2005. Measuring the impact of R&D on productivity from an econometric time series perspective. Journal of Productivity Analysis 24: 49–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bayley, J., and Phipps, D. (2019). Extending the concept of research impact literacy: Levels of literacy, institutional role and ethical considerations. Emerald Open Research, 1, 14: Last updated 2020. https://doi.org/10.35241/emeraldopenres.13140.2.

  15. Bennett, D.M., and D.McD Taylor. 2003. Unethical practices in authorship of scientific papers. Emergency Medicine 15 (3): 263–270.

  16. Bergen, C.W.V, and M.S. Bressler. 2017. Academe’s unspoken ethical dilemma: author inflation in higher education. The Research in Higher Education Journal 32: 1–17.

  17. Brett, J., Staniszewska, S., and Mockford, C. (2010). The PIRICOM study: A systematic review of the conceptualisation, measurement, impact and outcomes of patient and public involvement in health and social care research. United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration, London. www.ukcrc.org. Accessed 14 Jan 2021.

  18. Caminiti, C., et al. 2015. A method for measuring individual research productivity in hospitals: Development and feasibility. BMC Health Services Research 15: 468. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-1130-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ddungu, D., and R. Edopu. 2016. Social responsibility of public and private universities in Uganda. Makerere. Journal of Higher Education 8 (1): 71–90.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dill, D.D. 2020. Enhancing academic quality and collegial control: Insights from US policy on the ethical conduct of human subjects’ research. High Educ Policy 33: 45–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. DuBois, J.M., and A.L. Antes. 2018. Five dimensions of research ethics: A stakeholder framework for creating a climate of research integrity. Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 93 (4): 550–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Düwell, M. 2019. Editorial: Open Science and ethics. Ethic Theory Moral Prac 22: 1051–1053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Edwards, R., and M. Mauthner. 2002. Ethics and feminist research: Theory and practice. In Ethics in qualitative research, ed. M. Mauthner, M. Birch, J. Jessop, and T. Miller. London: SAGE Publications.

  24. El Kadiri Boutchich, D. 2019. Proposal of an alternative human capital evaluation method for a research laboratory: multidimensional approach based on physical indicators and activities. Journal of Education 199 (1): 35–44.

  25. El Kadiri Boutchich, D. 2020a. Factors with significant impact on efficiency of research laboratories: case of the public university. Qual Quant 54: 1317–1333.

  26. El Kadiri Boutchich, D. 2020b. Human capital in public research laboratories: a method proposal for assessing actual and target scores. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education 12 (5): 1189–1208.

  27. El Kadiri Boutchich, D. 2020c. Relevant ingredients for identifying factors with significant impact on research structures efficiency in higher education. Journal of Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022057420914910.

  28. European Commission. (2018). DRAFT ETHICS GUIDELINES FOR TRUSTWORTHY AI. https://www.euractiv.com/wp content/uploads/sites/2/2018/12/AIHLEGDraftAIEthicsGuidelinespdf.pdf. Accessed 13 Jan 2021.

  29. Fauzi, M.A., N.-L.C. Tan, T. Ramayah, and A.O. Ojo. 2019. Knowledge sharing: Role of academics towards research productivity in higher learning institution. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems 49 (1): 136–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Fitzpatrick, M. 2008. From hero to zero: Andrew Wakefield was once the media’s darling—But a new study unravels why they turned against him. British Medical Journal 336: 479. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39492.664225.0FPMCID:PMC2258393.

  31. Gaurang Panchal, G., A. Ganatra, P. Shah, and D. Panchal. 2011. Determination of over-learning and over-fitting problem in Back propagation neural network. International Journal on Soft Computing 2 (2): 39–51.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Greenwood, M., and R.E. Freeman. 2018. Deepening ethical analysis in business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 147: 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Grinnell, F. (2002). The Impact of Ethics on Research. The Chronicle Review, 49(6): B15. http://www4.utsouthwestern.edu/FrederickGrinnell/GrinnellWebMisc/impact%20of%20ethics.PDF. Accessed 14 Jan 2021.

  34. Haykin, S. 1998. Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Foundation, 2nd éd. New York: Macmillan College Publishing.

  35. Heinze, T., P. Shapiro, J.D. Rogers, and J.M. Senker. 2009. Organizational and institutional influences on creativity in scientific research. Research Policy 38 (4): 610–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. High Council for Evaluation of Research and Higher Education (2020). Evaluation Report on the Research Unit: Institute of Human Genetics. https://www.igh.cnrs.fr/images/equipes/seitz/HCERES_Final_Report_Team20Seitz.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2021.

  37. IBM SPSS. (2015). Neural Networks 24. ftp://public.dhe.ibm.com/software/analytics/spss/documentation/statistics/24.0/fr/client/Manuals/IBM_SPSS_Neural_Network.pdf. Accessed 21 Jan 2021.

  38. IBM-SPSS (2011). IBM SPSS Neural Networks 20. ftp://public.dhe.ibm.com/software/analytics/spss/documentation/statistics/20.0/en/client/Manuals/IBM_SPSS_Neural_Network.pdf. Accessed 21 Jan 2021.

  39. Iqbal, M.Z., and A. Mahmood. 2011. Factors related to low research productivity at higher education level. Asian Social Science 7 (2): 188–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Jones, J.F.X. 2013. The impact of impact factors and the ethics of publication. Irish Journal of Medical Science 182: 541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-013-1014-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Joungtrakul, J., and B.M. Allen. 2012. Research ethics: A comparative study of qualitative doctoral dissertations submitted to universities in Thailand and the USA. Science Journal of Business Management 2: 1–11 https://www.sjpub.org/sjbm/joungtrakul-et-al.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kearns, R. 1998. Interactive ethics: Developing understanding of the social relations of research. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 22 (3): 297–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kern, S. 2011. Analytic model for academic research productivity having factors, interactions and implications. Cancer Biology & Therapy 12 (11): 949–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kim, S., C. Colicchia, and D. Menachof. 2018. Ethical sourcing: An analysis of the literature and implications for future research. Journal of Business Ethics 152: 1033–1052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Kum-Lung, C., and L. Teck-Chai. 2010. Attitude toward business ethics: Examining the influence of religiosity, gender and education levels. International Journal of Marketing Studies 2 (1): 225–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Löfström, E., and K. Pyhältö. 2017. Ethics in the supervisory relationship: supervisors' and doctoral students' dilemmas in the natural and behavioural sciences. Studies in Higher Education 42 (2): 232–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Macfarlane, B. (2009). Researching with Integrity. The Ethics of Academic Enquiry. Routledge; 1st edition. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Researching-Integrity-Bruce-Macfarlane/dp/0415429048. Accessed 1 Feb 2009.

  48. McGill, M.M., and A. Settle. 2012. Identifying effects of institutional resources and support on computing faculty research productivity, tenure, and promotion. International Journal of Doctoral Studies 7: 167–198.

  49. McWilliam, E., P. Singh, and Peter G. Taylor. 2002. Doctoral education, danger and risk management. Higher Education Research & Development 21 (2): 119–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Mietola, R., S. Sonja Miettinen, and S. Vehmas. 2017. Voiceless subjects? Research ethics and persons with profound intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 20 (3): 263–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Mogra, I. 2017. Strengthening Ethics: A Faith Perspective on Educational Research. J Acad Ethics 15: 365–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Morell, K. 2010. Governance, ethics and the National Health Service. Public Money & Management 26 (1): 55–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Muthanna, A., and Alduais, A. A. (2020). Thematic review on research integrity and research Supervision: Relationships, Crises and Critical Messages. J Acad Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-020-09368-z.

  54. OECD. (2019). Measuring Productivity. Measurement of Aggregate and Industry-Level Productivity Growth. OECD Manual.. http://www.oecd.org/sdd/productivity-stats/2352458.pdf. Accessed 16 Jan 2021.

  55. Panchal, G., A. Ganatra, P. Shah, and D. Panchal. 2011. Determination of over-learning and over-fitting problem in back propagation neural network. International Journal on Soft Computing 2 (2): 39–51.

  56. Paruzel-Czachura, M., Baran, L., and Spendel, Z. (2020). Publish or be ethical? Publishing pressure and scientific misconduct in research. Research Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016120980562.

  57. Perron, E., et al. 2016. Laying the foundations for Scientometric research: A data science approach. Research on Social Work Practice 27 (7): 802–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Prado, N. (2020). Predictors of research productivity among administrators, faculty, and students. Liceo Journal of Higher Education Research, doi: https://doi.org/10.7828/ljher.v15n2.1319.

  59. Quimbo, M.A.T., and E.C. Sulabo. 2014. Research productivity and its policy implications in higher education institutions. Studies in Higher Education 39 (10): 1955–1971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Rahimi, M., N. Yousoffi, and S. Moradkhani. 2018. Research practice in higher education: Views of postgraduate students and university professors in English language teaching. Cogent Education 5 (1): 1560859. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1560859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Ramkumar, S. 2018. Faculty research productivity: Perspective from human and social capital. Amity Journal of Management Research 3 (1): 81–94.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Ramsden, P. 1994. Describing and explaining research productivity. Higher Education 28 (2): 207–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Redman, B.K. 2014. Review of measurement instruments in research ethics in the biomedical sciences, 2008−2012. Research Ethics 10 (3): 141–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Reijers, W., et al. 2018. Discussing Ethical Impacts in Research and Innovation: The Ethics Canvas. In This Changes Everything – ICT and Climate Change: What Can We Do? HCC13 2018. IFIP advances in information and communication technology, vol 537, ed. D. Kreps et al. Cham: Springer.

  65. Resnik, D.B., T. Neal, A. Raymond, and G.E. Kissling. 2015. Research misconduct definitions adopted by U.S. research institutions. Accountability in Research 22 (1): 14–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Salmi J., Scott P. (eds) (n.d.) The European Higher Education Area. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20877-0_13.

  67. Savall, H., M. Péron, V. Zardet, and M. Bonnet. 2017. Socially responsible capitalism and management. New York: Roudledge.

  68. Smith, E., B. Williams-Jones, Z. Master, et al. 2020. Researchers’ perceptions of ethical authorship distribution in collaborative research teams. Science and Engineering Ethics 26: 1995–2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00113-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Stocker, F., and J.M.G. Boaventura. 2020. A stakeholder theory approach to creating value in higher education institutions. The Bottom Line 33 (4): 297–313.

  70. Stommel, W., and de Rijk, L. (2021). Ethical approval: None sought. How discourse analysts report ethical issues around publicly available online data. Research Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016120988767.

  71. Suri, H. 2020. Ethical considerations of conducting systematic reviews in educational research. In Systematic reviews in educational research, ed. O. Zawacki-Richter, M. Kerres, S. Bedenlier, M. Bond, and K. Buntins. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27602-7_3.

  72. Taebi, B., J. van den Hoven, and S.J. Bird. 2019. The importance of ethics in modern universities of technology. Science and Engineering Ethics 25: 1625–1632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. van Wee, B. 2019. The need for a code of conduct for research funders. Science and Engineering Ethics 25: 1657–1660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Vanclay, F., J.T. Baines, and C.N. Taylor. 2013. Principles for ethical research involving humans: Professional ethical practice in impact assessment part I. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 4 (31): 243–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Varshney, D., and H. Damanhouri. 2012. Senior female faculty research support dimensions in Saudi Arabia: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Commerce, Business and Management 1 (3): 2319–2828.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Vlăsceanu L., and Hâncean MG. (2015) Policy incentives and research productivity in the Romanian higher education. An institutional approach. In: Curaj, A., L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi, and P. Scott. The European higher education area. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20877-0_13.

  77. Winkworth, I. (1990). Performance indicators for polytechnic libraries. Library Review, 39(5). https://doi.org/10.1108/00242539010002642.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Driss El Kadiri Boutchich.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

PHD in economics

Graduate Diploma in Management Techniques (Data Analysis, Mathematical Programming, Inputs and Outputs methods, Statistics…)

Director of the Madeo laboratory

http://www.madeo.ma

Reviewer or Member of the scientific committee of the journals:

- Journal of Education-SAGE Publishing

-Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education- Emerald Insight

- Quality & Quantity - Springer

- Journal of Applied Social Science- SAGE Publishing

https://publons.com/researcher/1643986/driss-el-kadiri-boutchich/

-Dossiers de Recherches en Economie et Gestion, ISSN: 2336-064X :

- Cahiers de Recherche en Sciences de Gestion, ISSN : 2489-1207.

-Revue Intelligence, Marketing et Management Appliqué, ISSN requested, not yet assigned.

Editorial Board Member in:

- Journal of Liberal Arts and Humanities, USA

https://jlahnet.com/editorial-board/

- Journal of Economics & Management Policy, USA

https://jempnet.com/editorial-board/

Member of the Scientific Commission - Higher School of Technology

Member of Research Evaluation Commission - Mohammed First University

Member of scientific committees of conferences outside Morocco

-2015 : Rencontres internationales de la diversité, 10 et 11 décembre. Université de liège-Belgique :

http://www.egid.hec.ulg.ac.be/diversite2015/site/Comite_scientifique.html

-2017 : 13ème Rencontres internationales de la diversité « Regards internationaux sur l’inclusion et les diversités en milieux de travail », 5 et 6 octobre. Université Laval-Québec-Canada : https://sites.google.com/a/essec.edu/rencontres-internationales-de-la-diversite/home/13eme-rid-2017

Participation in the work of the Socio-Economic Institute of Firms and Organizations (ISEOR): 1995

-Publications:

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5824-4441

-Communications :

https://sites.google.com/site/elkbdproduction/communications

-Organisation of Scientific Events:

https://sites.google.com/site/elkbdproduction/organisation-de-manifestations-scientifiques

-Member of Scientific Committees of Conferences

https://sites.google.com/site/elkbdproduction/comite-scientifique

Appendices

Appendices

Table 9 Variables Coded
Fig. 1
figure1

Architecture of neural network Model. Source: SPSS

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

El Kadiri Boutchich, D. Impact of ethics on research productivity in higher education. International Journal of Ethics Education (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40889-021-00123-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Ethical variables
  • Research productivity
  • Higher education
  • Neural network
  • Impact assessment