Skip to main content
Log in

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

Journal of Academic Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Academy of Management. (2009). Academy of management code of ethics. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 1369–1376.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060–1073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cossette, P. (2004). Research integrity: an exploratory survey of administrative science faculties. Journal of Business Ethics, 49, 213–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fine, M. A., & Kurdek, L. A. (1993). Reflections on determining authorship credit and authorship order on faculty-student collaborations. American Psychologist, 48, 1141–1147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardenier, J. S., & Resnik, D. B. (2002). The misuse of statistics: concepts, tools, and a research agenda. Accountability in Research, 9, 65–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibelman, M., & Gelman, S. R. (2003). Plagiarism in academia: trends and implications. Accountability in Research, 10, 229–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of International Business Studies, 14, 75–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: an issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16, 366–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, M. N. (2008). A review of the types of scientific misconduct in biomedical research. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6, 211–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E. A. (2006). Business ethics: a way out of the morass. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5, 324–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poff, D. C. (2010). Reflections on the relationship of research integrity to research ethics in publishing. Journal of Academic Ethics, 8, 259–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D. B. (2000). Statistics, ethics, and research: an agenda for education and reform. Accountability in Research, 8, 163–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R. (1994). Science and ethics in conducting, analyzing, and reporting psychological research. Psychological Science, 5, 127–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sieber, J. E. (1994). Will the new code help researchers to be more ethical? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 25, 369–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Glinow, M. A., & Novelli, L. (1982). Ethical standards within organizational behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 417–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zabid, A. R. M., & Alsagoff, S. K. (1993). Perceived ethical values of Malaysian managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 331–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2011 Business and Social Science Research Conference in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. We wish to thank Dullah Haji Mulok, Hawati Janor, Rozhan Othman, and Zaireena Wan Nasir for their assistance during the data collection phase of the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to June M. L. Poon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Poon, J.M.L., Ainuddin, R.A. Selected Ethical Issues in the Analysis and Reporting of Research: Survey of Business School Faculty in Malaysia. J Acad Ethics 9, 307–322 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-011-9142-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-011-9142-3

Keywords

Navigation