Showing papers in "Journal of Academic Ethics in 2006"

Mapping our Progress: Identifying, Categorizing and Comparing Universities’ Ethics Infrastructures

Abstract: Ethics researchers have scrutinized ethical business problems, which have been demonstrated through the actions of managers at Enron, WorldCom, and Arthur Andersen, among others. In response to these business transgressions, the US government has implemented the Sarbanes–Oxley Act to shore up businesses’ ethics infrastructures. However, universities, too, struggle with ethics problems. These include NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) violations, discrimination issues, sexual harassment, endowment admits, plagiarism, and research funding manipulation. Despite these problems, we have little knowledge regarding universities’ ethics infrastructures and codes of conduct, and insignificant empirical research on academic ethics issues (Kelley & Chang, Journal of Higher Education, under review, 2006; Morgan & Korschgen, College Student Journal, Sept., 2001). This lack of knowledge exists despite the critical role universities play in shaping the moral behavior of future generations (Langlais, The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 13:B11, 2006; Woo, BizEd, May/June:22–27, 2003). In this paper, we conduct exploratory research to identify the elements of universities ethics’ infrastructures. From our research, we develop an understanding of the ethics policies and infrastructure elements in place at a representative group of universities. We compare these infrastructures to those in business as well as across Carnegie Classifications. We then conclude with recommendations for developing university ethics infrastructures and suggestions for future research.

Academic Citizenship: An Academic Colleagues’ Working Paper

Abstract: Universities are facing a critical challenge; university citizenship has steadily declined over the last few decades. As a self-governing entity, most of the foundational elements of a university community are within its own control. As a result, the health and future welfare of the institution depends greatly on the quality of its leaders and robustness of its governing structure. These in turn depend on the quality of those undertaking leadership roles and serving on governing bodies and on the degree to which they reflect its values and aspirations. Maximising the probability that these desiderata will be achieved requires a broad-based faculty willingness to serve conscientiously on these bodies and to serve as administrators to be involved in selecting members, and to be involved on the myriad of sub-committees, task forces, departmental committees, and the like. It is not only an abdication of citizenship to leave governance and administration of the institution to a few willing faculty, it is dangerous and puts at risk the welfare of the institution. Even if these few were all able to place the welfare of the institution above their own particular agendas and their self-interest (not something on which to count), the process of self-selection could not be expected to result in a group that would adequately reflect, represent or understand the breadth and depth of the needs, aspirations and complex circumstances of the entire institution. The larger the pool of willing participants, the greater the probability that those selected will reflect best the institutional diversity. This paper draws out the rights and obligations of faculty citizens embedded in the structural arrangements common to universities in the western world. In part A we examine three fundamental components of those arrangements, components that collectively define certain rights and entail certain obligations of citizenship. These obligations flow in part from essential rights, and also in part from what is necessary to sustain the viability and vibrancy of the community. In Part B, we examine some of these essential obligations of citizenship. In Part C, we make recommendations about how to promote effective citizenship; these recommendations are collected after Part C under the heading “Recommendations.”

Measuring the Ethical Propensities of Accounting Students: Mach IV versus DIT

Abstract: This study responds to Bay and Greenberg's (Bay, D.D. and Greenberg, R.R. (2001). The relationship of the DIT and behavior: A replication. Issues in Accounting Education 10(3): 367–380) call to investigate alternative psychometric instruments to measure ethical behavior other than the heavily relied upon Defining Issues Test. The Mach IV scale (Christie, 1970) has been cited in more than 500 published psychological studies; however, it has not been used extensively in the accounting ethics research. This study provides some preliminary evidence on the use of the Mach IV scale in an accounting ethics context. Similar to ethics studies in other academic disciplines, results across two dependent measures indicate accounting students high in Machiavellianism are more likely to view questionable ethical behavior as acceptable. The research findings also indicate that the Machiavellian construct appears to be a better predictor of ethical propensities in comparison to the commonly used Defining Issues Test. The paper concludes with a discussion on how these reported research findings impact the accounting profession and accounting education.

Building Trust in Business Schools Through Ethical Governance

Abstract: This paper presents conceptual arguments to suggest that trust within organizations and trustworthiness of organizations are built through ethical governance mechanisms. We ground our analysis of trust, trustworthiness, and stewardship in the business literature and provide the context of business school governance as the focus of our paper. We present a framework that highlights the importance of knowledge, resources, performance focus, transparency, authentic caring, social capital and citizenship expectations in creating a basis for the ethical governance of organizations.

New Angles and Tangles in the Ethics Review of Research

Abstract: This articles considers the larger, external and the micro, internal forces that impinge on the nature and impact of contemporary research-ethics codes. The larger forces that shape the impact of codes involve the increase in public and governmental concern with privacy protection, changes within disciplines, and the rise of research entrepreneurship. In terms of micro-level forces, the article explores the continuing problems associated with the bio-medical approach to research-ethics, on-going instability for some types of social research, slippages between REBs and researchers, and variability of local interpretations of ethics codes. A number of ethics-review fads also produce instability in the ethics regime.

Grey Matter: Ambiguities and Complexities of Ethics in Research

Abstract: Ethical dilemmas are often not discussed in the dissemination of educational research. While the ethical guidelines for research seem clear at first glance, a closer look at the intimate nature of qualitative research reveals that there are many ambiguities or ‘grey’ areas where researchers must rely on their personal value systems. This article discusses the challenges faced by an experienced educator, although novice researcher, in considering the ethical parameters of her own research with adolescents with hearing loss. In particular, the grey ethical areas identified by the researcher include: (a) vulnerable population; (b) researcher role confusion; (c) consent; (d) privacy, confidentiality, and anonymity; as well as (e) the nature of risk. Based on the author’s own reflections on beginning the research process, the article presents possible pitfalls and ways of overcoming the possibility of becoming immobilized by the ethical enigmas of research.

The Ethics Trapeze

Abstract: This article constitutes the introduction to a collection of essays in volume 4 of JAE, representing an extremely diverse collection of pieces written by authors from equally diverse backgrounds with the purpose of sharing the theoretical and practical issues related to research-ethics, or on ethics more generally. All of the articles are fresh contributions to the research-ethics review debate. The 17 authors of the 12 articles come from the United States, South Africa, and Canada. Their disciplinary or research backgrounds include Aboriginal literatures, English literature, English-as-a Second-Language pedagogy, French literature, history, language and literacy, liberal arts, and linguistics – all fields in the cluster of the humanities. The volume also has contributions from social work, sociology, and speech pathology. The world of research-ethics review has become so pervasive that it invades all areas of research: it does not respect disciplinary boundaries. The articles in this special volume represent, in short, a microscope of the research world.

The ethics of opinion in academe: Questions for an ethical and administrative dilemma

Abstract: If we accept that all plagiarism is wrong, the issue is black and white. But are there more challenging questions that color the issue with shades of gray that may influence or help clarify the ethical underpinnings of the act? Does intent matter? Does the venue matter? Does the form of writing matter? What about a professor when working as a private citizen, rather than in his/her academic role? Might plagiarism be mitigated when there is no associated financial gain? Is a writer’s history that exhibits impeccable ethical integrity relevant? Should these factors, and/or other factors, even be considered in a university’s administrative response — or non-response? What might employing an ethical approach contribute to wrestling with the dilemma? The authors explore critical issues that might face a senior academic administrator when confronting the need to respond on behalf of a university to a charge of plagiarism leveled by an influential newspaper against a university professor for a social responsibility-focused opinion-editorial published in this newspaper.

Evidence-Based Ethical Problem Solving: An Idea Whose Time Has Come

Abstract: This is an account of the evolution of ideas and the confluence of support and vision that has eventuated in the founding of the Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics (JERHRE). Many factors have contributed to the creation of this rather atypical academic journal, including a scientific and administrative culture that finally saw the need for it, modern electronic technology, individuals across the world who were committed to somehow finding common ground between researchers and those charged with ethical oversight of research, a network of helpful colleagues, and a university whose administration gave moral support to the endeavor in a time of fiscal austerity. Perhaps equally important were the decisions to make JERHRE a nonprofit undertaking, to emphasize the implications of empirical research for specific best practices, to serve the educational needs of those concerned with human research, and to seek to stimulate the interest of students in gaining an evidence-based understanding of the research contexts in which they decide to work. This article explores the ‘chemistry’ that has made it possible to develop a somewhat unorthodox journal and set of related activities.