Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] Date: 11 January 2016, At: 23:15
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Learned Ethical Behavior: An Academic
Perspective
David E. Gundersen , Ernest A. Capozzoli & Rajasree K. Rajamma
To cite this article: David E. Gundersen , Ernest A. Capozzoli & Rajasree K. Rajamma (2008) Learned Ethical Behavior: An Academic Perspective, Journal of Education for Business, 83:6, 315-324, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.83.6.315-324
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.83.6.315-324
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 64
View related articles
July/August2008 315 fter the collapse of some
well- knownorganizationssuchasener-gygiantEnronandthepublicaccounting firmArthurAndersen,anewconcernhas emergedregardingissuesandpractices of ethical behavior in organizations. However,ethicalbehaviorconcernsare notlimitedtothefor-profittypeoforga-nizations that garner major headlines when ethical mistakes are made. Less visible but perhaps more pervasive are ethicalissuesthatpermeatehigheredu-cationalinstitutionsinwhichethicsare considered,taught,learned,andcarried toward the private sector. Inherent in this view of ethical learning in higher educationisthenotionthatindividuals grow and mature in their perspectives onethicsastheyprogressintheiraca- demicachievements.Inshort,individu-alsshouldbecomemoreethicalasthey increase their educational accomplish-mentsbecauseofincreasingexposurein bothreceivingandadministeringethics curricula. If this were not true, teach-ing ethics would be viewed as a waste oftime.
Otherresearchershavesupportedthe link between changing ethical mores and educational accomplishments: As individuals progress through different levels of cognitive moral development, theirabilitytodealwithethicaldilem-mas improves (Christensen & Kohls, 2003; Goolsby & Hunt, 1992; James, 2000; Kohlberg, 1969). Consequently,
apatternofincreasingethicalstandards should emerge as individuals progress educationallyandcognitively.
Still other researchers have viewed the business educational domain as featuring so many theories on ethical content that the domain may confuse students (Anderson, 2007). This view has foundation in the notion that busi-ness curricula have evolved from the scientific model, in which the sole meansofknowledgeacquisitionissci-ence (Buchholz & Rosenthal, 2008). Consequently, the development of eth-icscurriculaasamultidisciplinarytopic has evolved from an eclectic arena of sciences across many academic areas. No single discipline is responsible for theethicsdomain.
Ethicalbehaviorinanacademicset-tingrelatingtoresearchandpublishing has been a debatable topic for decades (Cahn,1994;Payne&Charnov,1987). Despite the inclusion of ethics as an integral part of most formal curricula in many fields today, researchers have acknowledged that organizational cul-ture after formal education plays a major role in how individuals perceive their moral responsibilities (Frederick & Weber, 1987). Research has indi-cated that organizational factors help to explain ethical decision making by individuals (Kelley, Skinner, & Fer-rell,1989;Robin&Reidenbach,1987). Consequently, organizational factors
LearnedEthicalBehavior:
AnAcademicPerspective
DAVIDE.GUNDERSEN
STEPHENF.AUSTINSTATEUNIVERSITY NACOGDOCHES,TEXAS
ERNESTA.CAPOZZOLI
KENNESAWSTATEUNIVERSITY KENNESAW,GEORGIA
A
ABSTRACT. Theauthorsanalyzedthereactionsofvariousacademic-levelrespon- dentgroupsto14shortscenariosreflect-ingethicaldilemmasinhighereducation andresearch.Astheauthorshypothesized, groupsdifferedintheirviewsofthedilem-maspresented.Theresultsdidnotsupport a2ndhypothesispredictingalinearrela-tionshipbetweenacademicachievement ofrespondentgroupsandtheirethical responses.Theauthorsexpectedthatas respondentsgainedmoreexposuretoethi-calperspectivesthroughfurthereducation, theywouldrespondaccordingly,support-ingacorrelationeffect.Despitesignificant differencesbetweengroupsintheirassess- mentsofthedilemmas,situationaldiffer-encesotherthaneducationalattainment appearedtobemostinfluential.Theauthors discussedimplications,whichraiseddoubt aboutwhetherteachingethicsenhances ethicalbehavior.
Keywords:academics,authorship,ethics, publications,research
Copyright©2008HeldrefPublications
RAJASREEK.RAJAMMA FAIRFIELDUNIVERSITY FAIRFIELD,CONNECTICUT
316 JournalofEducationforBusiness havegarneredalltheattentionandhave been used to explain ethical failures in organizations. Profit, bonuses, and greed have all been culprits of failure. Few,ifany,linkstotheacademicrealm fromwhichindividualscomehavebeen considered. With all the attention on ethical breakdowns in organizations, the present research focused on eth-ics in higher education. More specifi-cally, this research targeted whether individualsvaryintheirperceptionsof ethicaldilemmasastheyprogressfrom undergraduate education to successful academic careers. The intent was to investigatewhetherincreasededucation influencesperceptionsofethicaldilem-mas that occur in a higher education environment.
ResearchandEthicsin Academia
Theacademicpublishingenvironment contains many factors that may induce unethical behavior. Increased research requirementscreateintensepressureon bothtenuredanduntenuredfacultywho mustpublishtoprogressandstaycred-ible in their careers. Extrinsic rewards such as pay raises, promotions, and tenure are often directly connected to facultypublishing.Theuseofpublica-tions as an index of faculty productiv-ity is increasing. Most universities in the United States base promotion and tenuredecisionsonthethreecriteriaof research,teaching,andservice.Howev-er,manyresearchers(Cargile&Bublitz, 1986;Hermanson,Hermanson,Ivancev-ich,&Ivancevich,1995;Shultz,Meade, & Khurana, 1989) have asserted that, of these three, research—and resulting publications—isgiventhemostweight inpromotionandtenuredecisions.Para-suraman (2003) rightfully pointed out thatpublishorperish hasbecomeaper-vasivephraseintheprofessoriallexicon. The American Marketing Association (AMA)TaskForceontheDevelopment ofMarketingThought(1988)reacheda similarconclusion.Theyfoundthatthe systemtrulydeservesitsappellationof publishorperish.Thecurrentacademic performance appraisal system empha-sizing publishing produces strong and undesirable incentives toward knowl-edgedevelopmentonthepartofyoung
academicians.Itisextremelyshort-term in orientation, almost entirely peer- oriented,anddirectedtowardachieving onlyonething:amaximumnumberof publications to assure promotion and tenure(Monroeetal.,1988).
While professors struggle to pub-lishfortenureandpromotion,doctoral students are at a frenzied level to get published and make themselves more attractivecommoditiesforthejobmar-ket.Productionofapublishablequality manuscript is often one of the require-mentsofseminarsindoctoralprograms at most universities. Master’s degree students are not immune to publishing pressure. Although students pursuing master’sdegreesarenotunderasmuch pressureasdoctoralstudents,frequently amajorproportionofgradesearnedby master’sstudentsarelinkedtothequal-ity of a required manuscript in many courses.
As novices in research and publish-ing,oneoftheavenuesopentograduate studentsistogettrainedintheskillsof publishing by working with a produc-tiveprofessor.Ofcourse,mostdoctoral studentsgrabtheopportunityofferedto them by any of the mentors or profes-sors with whom they work as research and teaching assistants. Because there are no established codes of conduct, the ethical practices of this area are largely determined by the beliefs and valuesheldbytheindividualsinvolved. Moreover,majorantecedentsofunethi-cal behavior such as competitiveness (Ford & Richardson, 1994; Hegarty & Sims,1978),self-interest(Beu&Buck-ley, 2001), work pressure (Brenner & Molander, 1977; Ford & Richardson), andothersituationalvariablesareample in academic research and publishing. According to Ford and Richardson, whenthedecisionmaker’sjobsecurity orthesurvivaloftheorganizationisat stake,thepressureontheindividualto act unethically is very high. Because academicresearchandpublishingoffer suchahigh-pressureenvironment,ethi-cal dilemmas related to research and publishing in academia provide an excellent forum for assessing the pos-sibilityof changingethicalperceptions forindividualsastheyprogressintheir academic experiences. In short, the objective of the present research is to
understandthedifferencesinresponses ofstudentsandfacultytoethicaldilem-mas faced during the process of aca-demicresearchandpublishing.
Capozzoli, Gundersen, and Scifres (1996) postulated that individuals are exposedtoethicaldilemmasintheaca-demicsettingthroughouttheir associa-tion with the educational institution. Theexposurecontinuesevenafterthey enter academia as assistant professors andadvanceintheirprofessorialcareers toward promotion to full professors. Many ethical dilemmas arise in higher education because of the emphasis on andthenatureofresearch.Researchis acomplextaskthatistypicallyunstruc-turedwithfewroadmapstofollow.The normsofpublishingarefrequentlylim-ited to university institutional review boards whose focus is on the protec-tion of human participants (Orlans, 2004).Formanyacademicsinvolvedin publishing, ethical decisions related to research are frequently framed by the views of colleagues who have decided onpathsorsolutionsprimarilyontheir own. Ethical codes of conduct from professional associations might exist butrarelydeterminedecisionoutcomes unless the consequences of the deci-sionsaredire.
StudentRolesinPublishing
Capozzolietal.(1996)describedhow studentsactasresourcesforprofessors. Theybelievedthatstudentsactasacon-stant source of ideas for research and providemostoftheresearchassistance, includingconductingtheactualresearch, collecting data, and, in many PhD pro-grams, writing the articles. Hence, it is logical to conclude that the faculty– student relationship is one of mutual dependency. However, this mutual dependency appears very one-sided to moststudentswhoviewtheirsurvivalin agraduateprogramasessentiallylinked tothepreferencesoftheprofessors.Sus-picionsaboundthatatleastsomefaculty engage in unethical behavior and take undue advantage of the vulnerable sta-tus of their students. Working for the National Institute of Health, McGee (1996) found that young scientists fre-quently complain about their laborato-ry directors, dissertation advisors, and
July/August2008 317 others who inappropriately insist on
beinglistedasauthorsofarticlesonthe basisofsimplybeingsuperiorstothose who actually did the research and writ-ing. On the basis of these findings, we expectedthatfacultyareboundtodiffer markedlyfromstudentsintheirpercep-tionsofethicalissuesrelatedtoresearch andpublishing.
Based on the previous discussion and literature review, the objective of thisstudywastomeasuretherespons-es of faculty and students to situations posing ethical dilemmas in academic researchandpublishing.Wealsosought to explore whether respondent groups have different ethical perceptions and whether those group perceptions vary directly as educational credentials increase. To summarize our objectives in terms of hypotheses (Hn), we offer thefollowing:
H1:Perceptionsofethicalbehaviorwill vary at different levels of academic maturity, measured as undergradu-ates, master’s students, doctoral stu-dents, assistant professors, associate professors,andfullprofessors. H2:Groupratingsofethicalbehaviorwill
consistently(linearly)trendwithincreas-ing educational credentials (achieve-ment)associatedwiththegroup.
METHOD
InstrumentDesign
After a relevant review of literature, wecreatedaquestionnairecontaining25 scenariosrelatingtoethicaldilemmasin which personal experiences were con- sidered.Tohelporganizethequestion-naireandfacilitateanalysis,weusedthe frameworkofferedbyCampbell(1987) identifyingstagesorthechainofevents in the publication process as the basis forclassifyingthescenariosdescribing ethical dilemmas. The stages include (a)ideageneration,(b)datageneration, (c) report generation, and (d) publica-tion.Theclassificationofscenarioswas content validated using four graduate studentsandfourprofessorsatamajor Southeasternuniversity.
Thecontentvalidatorsmutuallyagreed on the stage of the Campbell (1987) frameworkof14ofthe25scenarios.The resulting questionnaire included 4
sce-nariosassociatedwithideageneration,4 scenariosassociatedwithdatageneration, and 6 scenarios associated with report generation.Thepublicationstagedidnot haveanyscenariosthatwereunanimously associatedwithitbythegraduatestudents and professors. Of the 14 scenarios, 12 werescoredona4-pointLikert-typescale rangingfrom1(ethical)to4(unethical). Wescored2scenariosrelatingtoowner-ship on a 3-point scale ranging from 1 (studentownership)to3( professorown-ership). The items using this scale are identifiedintheResultssection.
DataCollection
Respondents to the questionnaire wereallmembersofalargeSouthwest-ernuniversityandwereprimarilyfrom thecollegeofbusiness.Businessstudent respondentscorrespondedtothedegree programsoffered,includingbachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral levels. Faculty respondents were affiliated with busi-ness administration, public affairs and communityservice,andmerchandising and hospitality management. Colleges outside of business were included to increasethesamplesizeforthefaculty respondent group. A total of 143 fac-ulty members from various academic disciplinesweresentquestionnaires.Of these, 60 faculty members responded with correctly completed instruments, providing a response rate of almost 42%. Although most faculty members declined to list their academic disci-plines because of confidentiality con-cerns,collegeaffiliationswererecorded. Consequently,informationonacademic disciplines was discarded from sub-sequent analyses. College affiliations of faculty respondents showed that 29 were from business administration, 15 werefrompublicaffairsandcommunity professor rank.All faculty ranks had a responserateofmorethan35%.
Fromthecollegeofbusiness,268stu-dents received questionnaires, and 234 ofthemrespondedwithcorrectlycom-pletedinstruments,yieldingaresponse rateof87%.Therespondentbreakdown
bystudentclassconsistedof43doctoral students, 81 master’s degree students, and110undergraduatestudents.Allcat-between varying levels of faculty and students. First, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to assessdifferencesinmeansforallitems across each of the groups. Second, we used univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) to investigate differences in group response by items, including academicranksforfacultyandstudents and college affiliation for faculty. Post hoc analyses using Scheffe tests were applied to test significant differences betweenacademicranksofstudentsand professorsbyitems.Nosignificantdif-ferences across items were found for facultyaffiliationbycollege.
RESULTS
The results of the MANOVA,F(84, 1644) = 6.35,p < .001, supported the notionthatthereweregroupperceptual differences in responses to the ethical dilemmaspresented.Tables1,2,and3 containtheresultsfromtheANOVAsin whichitemsaregroupedbyideagenera- tion,datageneration,andreportgenera-tion, respectively. Means and standard deviations for items are also included inthetables.Wepresenteachstageand correspondingitemsassociatedwiththe stagenext.
IdeaGenerationItems
Table1containsthemeansandstan-dard deviations for items associated with the idea generation stage of the Campbell (1987) framework depicting stages in the publication and research process.Letters(representingacademic ranks)followingmeansofspecificaca-demic rank scores indicate significant differencesbetweenranksatp<.05.
Item1
Theprofessormakesnoattempttosub-mitajointlyauthoredpapertoajournal and will not give the student author
318
Journal
of
Education
for
Business
TABLE1.UnivariateFResults,Means,andStandardDeviationsforIdeaGenerationItemsforEachRespondentGroup
Faculty
Undergraduate Master’s Doctoral Assistant Associate Full
Item M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD F(5,289) p
1.Theprofessormakesnoattempttosubmitajointlyauthoredpapertoajournal andwillnotgivethestudentauthorpermissiontosubmitthepapertoajournal. Thestudentsubmitsthepapertoajournalanyway,anditisacceptedwiththe
studentassoleauthor.Thestudentactedinamannerthatwas: 1.74 1.05 1.67 0.93 1.51 0.88 1.55 0.94 1.29 0.61 1.85 1.04 0.955 .446
2.Thestudentandtheprofessorarehavingaheateddebateoverapaperwritten fortheprofessor’sclass.Thestudentauthorfeelsthatthepaperishisintellectual propertyandshouldbehistosubmitornotsubmittoajournal.Whoownsthe
intellectualrightstothepaper? 1.12a 0.35 1.23 0.45 1.16 0.37 1.35b 0.49 1.29 0.61 1.20 0.41 1.930 .048
3.Aprofessorcomesupwithanoriginalresearchideaandthestudentdoesall theworkassociatedwiththeresearchandpaper.Thepaperissubmittedbythe professorandacceptedwiththestudentasfirstauthorandtheprofessoras
secondauthor.Theprofessor’sactionis: 1.79c 0.95 1.77c 1.09 1.70 1.10 1.20d 0.36 1.14d 0.36 1.95e 1.19 2.352 .041
4.Aprofessorcomesupwithanoriginalresearchideaandthestudentdoesall theworkassociatedwiththeresearchandpaper.Thepaperissubmittedbythe professorandacceptedwiththeprofessorasfirstauthorandthestudentas
secondauthor.Theprofessor’sactionis: 2.96f 1.01 2.54g 1.12 2.21g 1.01 2.07g 1.07 2.07g 1.07 2.40g 1.23 4.764 .001
Note.Itemswereratedonascalefrom1(ethical)to4(unethical).Scheffetestsaresignificantatp<.05(significantdifferenceintable).
aValueissignificantlydifferentfromassistantprofessor.bValueissignificantlydifferentfromundergraduates.cValueissignificantlydifferentfromassistantandassociateprofessors.dValueissignificantly differentfromallstudentgroupsandfullprofessors.eValueissignificantlydifferentfromassistantandassociateprofessors.fValueissignificantlydifferentfromallgroups.gValueissignificantlydifferent fromundergraduates.
July/A
ugust
200
8
319
TABLE2.UnivariateFResults,Means,andStandardDeviationsforDataGenerationItems
Faculty
Undergraduate Master’s Doctoral Assistant Associate Full
Item M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD F(5,289) p
5.Tomeettherequirementsofacourse,astudentmustconductresearchand storetherawdataresultsinauniversitycomputer.Thestudentandthe professorarehavingaheateddebateoverthedataandsubsequentuseofthe
data.Whoownstheintellectualrightstothedata? 1.44 0.56 1.44 0.54 1.35 0.61 1.35 0.48 1.64 0.63 1.30 0.47 0.875 .498
6.Tomeettherequirementsofacourse,astudentmustconductresearchthat maycostmorethan$500oftheirownmoneytoinitiateandcomplete.The professoralsorequiresthatapaperbewrittenfromtheresearch.The
professor’srequestis: 3.08a 1.08 3.02a 1.11 3.09a 0.99 2.80 1.36 2.79 1.31 2.40b 1.35 2.241 .050
7.Tomeettherequirementsofacourse,astudentmustconductresearchthat maycostmorethan$50oftheirownmoneytoinitiateandcomplete.The professoralsorequiresthatapaperbewrittenfromtheresearch.The
professor’srequestis: 2.41c 1.00 2.37d 1.16 2.33d 1.21 1.70e 1.13 2.00 1.17 1.85f 1.13 2.288 .046
8.Tomeettherequirementsofacourse,astudentmustconductresearchthat maycostmorethan$300oftheirownmoneytoinitiateandcomplete.The professoralsorequiresthatapaperbewrittenfromtheresearch.The
professor’srequestis: 3.06g 1.02 2.96g 1.07 3.09g 1.04 2.70 1.30 2.64 1.21 2.30h 1.26 2.243 .050
Note.Itemswereratedonascalefrom1(ethical)to4(unethical).Scheffetestsaresignificantatp<.05(significantdifferenceintable).
aValueissignificantlydifferentfromfullprofessors.bValueissignificantlydifferentfromallstudentgroups.cValueissignificantlydifferentfromassociateandfullprofessors.d Valueissignificantlydif-ferentfromassistantprofessors.eValueissignificantlydifferentfromallstudentgroups.fValueissignificantlydifferentfromundergraduates.gValueissignificantlydifferentfromfullprofessors.hValueis significantlydifferentfromallstudentgroups.
320
Journal
of
Education
for
Business
TABLE3.UnivariateFResults,Means,andStandardDeviationsforReportGenerationItems
Faculty
Undergraduate Master’s Doctoral Assistant Associate Full
Item M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD F(5,289) p
9.Theprofessormakesnochangestoapaperandsubmitsthepapertoa journallistinghimselfasfirstauthorandthestudentassecondauthor.The
professoractedinawaythatwas: 3.83 0.57 3.73 0.67 3.60 0.82 3.95 0.22 3.93 0.26 3.85 0.49 1.467 .201
10.Theprofessormakesnochangestoapaperandsubmitsthepapertoa journallistingthestudentasfirstauthorandhimselfassecondauthor.The
professoractedinawaythatwas: 2.70a 1.12 3.07b 1.02 3.09c 1.13 3.60d 0.75 3.14 1.29 2.90e 1.29 2.995 .012
11.Theprofessormakessubstantialchangestoapaperandsubmitsthepaperto ajournallistinghimselfasfirstauthorandthestudentassecondauthor.
Theprofessoractedinawaythatwas: 2.85 0.93 2.85 1.07 2.47 1.14 2.85 1.09 2.71 1.07 2.60 1.18 1.092 .365
12.Theprofessorsendsthepapertoacolleagueanddoesnotconsultthestudent. Thepaperisessentiallyunchangedafterreviewbythetwoprofessors.The paperissubsequentlysenttoajournalwiththestudentasthethirdauthor.
Theprofessoractedinamannerthatwas: 3.79 0.54 3.79 0.52 3.67 0.71 3.95 0.22 4.00 0.00 3.65 0.81 1.330 .252
13.Theprofessorsendsthepapertoacolleagueanddoesnotconsultthestudent. Thepaperisessentiallyunchangedafterreviewbythetwoprofessors.The paperissubsequentlysenttoajournalwiththestudentasthefirstofthree
authors.Theprofessoractedinamannerthatwas: 2.75f 0.97 3.14g 0.92 3.02h 1.08 3.50g 0.68 3.50g 0.85 3.55i 1.00 4.827 .001
14.Theprofessorsendsthepapertoacolleagueanddoesnotconsultthestudent. Thepaperisimprovedsubstantiallyafterreviewbythetwoprofessors.The paperissubsequentlysenttoajournalwiththestudentasthethirdauthor.
Theprofessoractedinamannerthatwas: 3.25 0.85 3.12 0.94 2.88 1.03 3.40 0.99 3.07 1.07 3.35 1.08 1.426 .215
Note.Itemswereratedonascalefrom1(ethical)to4(unethical).Scheffetestsaresignificantatp<.05(significantdifferenceintable).
aValueissignificantlydifferentfrommaster’s,doctoral,andassistantprofessors.bValueissignificantlydifferentfromundergraduatesandassistantprofessors.c Valueissignificantlydifferentfromunder-graduates.dValueissignificantlydifferentfromundergraduates,master’s,andfullprofessors.eValueissignificantlydifferentfromassistantprofessors.fValueissignificantlydifferentfrommaster’sandall facultygroups.gValueissignificantlydifferentfromundergraduates.hValueissignificantlydifferentfromfullprofessors.iValueissignificantlydifferentfromundergraduatesanddoctoral.
July/August2008 321
permission to submit the paper to a journal. The student submits the paper to a journal anyway, and it is accepted withthestudentassoleauthor.Thestu-dentactedinamannerthatwas:
Therewerenosignificantresultsfor this item. All groups across both stu-dent and faculty ranks tended to rate this action on the ethical side of the scale. Despite the lack of significance across groups, results showed that the fullprofessorandtheassociateprofes-sor were the farthest apart, with the associateprofessorconsideringitmore ethical than did other student and fac-ultyranks.
Item2
Thestudentandtheprofessorarehaving a heated debate over a paper written for the professor’s class.The student author feels that the paper is his intellectual property and should be his to submit or not submit to a journal. Who owns the intellectualrightstothepaper?
This item used a 3-point scale ranging from1(studentownership)to3( profes-sorownership).
The overall univariate analysis was significant,F(5, 289) = 1.930,p = .048. Scheffe results indicated that undergraduatesrespondedsignificantly differently than did assistant profes-sors. Although all groups tended to viewownershiprightsasbelongingto the student, undergraduates felt more strongly about it, whereas assistant professorsfeltlessso.
Item3
A professor comes up with an original research idea and the student does all the work associated with the research andpaper.Thepaperissubmittedbythe professor and accepted with the student asfirstauthorandtheprofessorassecond author.Theprofessor’sactionis:
Univariate analyses, F(5, 289) = 2.352,p <.05,andSchefferesultsindi- catedthatassistantandassociateprofes-sors differed significantly from all the studentgroupsandfromfullprofessors. Assistantandassociateprofessorsindi- catedthattheactionwasethical,where-astheothergroupsviewedtheactionas less ethical. One possible explanation for the difference might be that assis-tant and associate professors may still
require tenure and have at least one more promotion to achieve, and pub-lishingprovidesthemeanstothatend. Thisneedtopublishmayinfluencetheir view of taking advantage of a student- generatedpublishingopportunity,result-ing in their viewgeneratedpublishingopportunity,result-ing it as more ethi-cal. Full professors are not under such pressures because they have achieved the pinnacle of their academic career. Studentswhodotheworkappearmore likelytothinkoftheprofessor’saction aslessethical.
Item4
A professor comes up with an original research idea and the student does all the work associated with the research andpaper.Thepaperissubmittedbythe professorandacceptedwiththeprofessor asfirstauthorandthestudentassecond author.Theprofessor’sactionis:
Univariate analyses, F(5, 289) = 4.764,p < .001, and Scheffe results indicated that undergraduates viewed thisbehaviorasmoreunethicalthandid otherrespondentgroups,withallgroups viewing the action as between ethical andunethical.Apossibleexplanationis that undergraduate students simply do not understand the realities of publish-ing and that they view the professor’s actionasinappropriateandthecontribu-tionofaresearchideaasinsignificant. To the contrary, graduate students and facultyunderstandthecollaborationon research,evenwhentheonlycontribu-tionistheresearchidea.
DataGenerationItems
Table2containsthemeansandstan-dard deviations for items associated with the data generation stage of the Campbell (1987) framework depicting stages in the publication and research process.Letters(representingacademic ranks)followingmeansofspecificaca-demic ranks indicate significant differ-encesbetweentheranksatp<.05.
Item5
To meet the requirements of a course, a student must conduct research and store therawdataresultsinauniversitycom-puter. The student and the professor are havingaheateddebateoverthedataand subsequentuseofthedata.Whoownsthe intellectualrightstothedata?
This item used a 3-point scale ranging from1(studentownership)to3( profes-sorownership).
Therewerenosignificantresultsfor thisitem.Allgroupsacrossstudentand faculty ranks tended to rate ownership as between (a) student and (b) both professor and student. Apparently, the storageofdataonauniversitycomputer doesnotautomaticallymeanownership byaprofessor.
We designed Items 6, 7, and 8 to explore the ethics of student-funded research. The scenarios required that a student conduct and fund research to complete course requirements. The scenariosvariedtheresearchcoststhat weretobefundedbythestudent.
Item6
To meet the requirements of a course, a student must conduct research that may costmorethan$500oftheirownmoney to initiate and complete. The professor alsorequiresthatapaperbewrittenfrom theresearch.Theprofessor’srequestis:
The univariate results,F(5, 289) = 2.241,p < .05, and Scheffe post hoc analysesindicatedthatthefullprofessor group was significantly different from all three student respondent groups. It isnotsurprisingthatthestudentgroups viewed this action as more unethical thandidthefacultygroups,withthefull professor viewing this as more ethical thandidallothers.Perhapsfullprofes- sorsaretoofarremovedfromtheexpe-rienceofleanliving,inwhichmoneyis amajorconsiderationinlifedecisions, especially in comparison with student groups.
Item7
To meet the requirements of a course, a student must conduct research that may costmorethan$50oftheirownmoneyto initiateandcomplete.Theprofessoralso requiresthatapaperbewrittenfromthe research.Theprofessor’srequestis:
Results for this item revealed a sig-nificant univariate outcome,F(5, 289) =2.288,p<.05,witharangeinwhich undergraduates leaned toward slightly unethicalperspective,whereasassistant professors had a slightly ethical per-spective.Posthocanalysesrevealedthat assistant professors differed from all student groups and that full professors
322 JournalofEducationforBusiness differedfromundergraduates.Itisinter-estingthatassistantprofessors,whohad perhaps the most to accomplish yet in their careers, felt that the action was more ethical in comparison with the students. Again, for full professors, moneymaybelessofanissue,sothat amere$50shouldnotbeahindranceto research,especiallyincomparisonwith undergraduatefinancialstatus.
Item8
To meet the requirements of a course, a student must conduct research that may costmorethan$300oftheirownmoney to initiate and complete. The professor alsorequiresthatapaperbewrittenfrom theresearch.Theprofessor’srequestis:
Univariate analyses, F(5, 289) = 2.243,p <.05,andSchefferesultsindi- catedthatfullprofessorsdifferedsignif-icantlyfromstudentgroups.Thisitem’s results paralleled results from Item 6, for which the same explanations could bemade.Itisnoteworthythatfullpro-dard deviations for items associated with the report generation stage of the Campbell (1987) framework depicting stages in the publication and research process.Letters(representingacademic ranks)followingmeansofspecificaca-demic ranks indicate significant differ-encesbetweentheranksatp<.05.
We designed Items 9, 10, and 11 to represent varying degrees of faculty contributionandauthorshiporder.Items 12,13,and14focusedontheinclusion ofanadditionalauthorwhoisafriend of the faculty member, so that vary-ingdegreesoffacultycontributionand authorshiporderwereagaintested.
Item9
The professor makes no changes to a paperandsubmitsthepapertoajournal listing himself as first author and the student as second author. The professor actedinawaythatwas:
Both the univariate and Scheffe results across all items lacked signifi-cance despite differences in responses.
Doctoral students and assistant profes-sors represented the extreme ends of thescale.Althoughallresponsegroups viewed the action as unethical, doc-toral students deemed it less unethical in comparison with others, with assis-tant professors furthest away on the scale.Doctoralstudentsunderstandthe importanceoflinkingwithfacultywho publishandarethereforemoreresigned toacceptthisactionincomparisonwith other groups. Once doctoral students graduate and become assistant pro-fessors, they no longer have to accept professors’ intrusions into a submit-tedmanuscriptandprobablyfeelmore stronglythattheactionisunethical.
Item10
The professor makes no changes to a paperandsubmitsthepapertoajournal listingthestudentasfirstauthorandhim-selfassecondauthor.Theprofessoracted inawaythatwas:
Univariate analyses, F(5, 289) = 2.995,p <.05,andSchefferesultsindi-cated differences in that the range for respondentgroupsshowedundergradu- ates’viewingtheactionasleastunethi-calandassistantprofessors’feelingthe action was more unethical in compari-son with all other groups between the two positions. Significant differences existedbetween(a)undergraduatesand (b) master’s degree students, doctoral students,andassistantprofessors.Mas-ter’s degree students also differed with assistant professors, who felt that the action was less ethical in comparison. Additionally, full professors differed with assistant professors, who viewed this as more unethical in comparison. In fact, assistant professors, as already indicated, felt more strongly that the actionwasunethicalincomparisonwith allothergroups.Thisfindingisconsis-tent with Item 9, in response to which assistant professors also had the most extreme response, leaning toward the unethical rating.As we hinted in Item 9’ssection,thetransitionfromdoctoral studenttoassistantprofessorisawater-shedeventwheretheindividualmoves fromaself-perceptionoflackingpower to a feeling of empowerment. This changemayhelptoexplaintheextreme ratingsofassistantprofessors.However, thisfeelingistemperedbythefactthat
assistantprofessorshavefurthertogoin their careers, as we mentioned in Item 3’ssection,anddoneedtopublish.The primarydifferencebetweenItem10and Item3isthataresearchideaisprovided by the professor in Item 3. This is a contribution that is missing in Item 10 and may help to explain the different perspectives of the associate professor acrossthetwoscenarios.
Item11
Theprofessormakessubstantialchanges toapaperandsubmitsthepapertoajour-nallistinghimselfasfirstauthorandthe student as second author. The professor actedinawaythatwas:
Univariate and Scheffe analyses did notrevealanysignificantfindingsforthe above scenario. However, scores indi-catedthattherangeontheethicalscale haddoctoralstudentsviewingtheaction as more ethical than did other groups. Fromarealisticperspective,thisbehav-ior probably happens frequently, and doctoralstudentsprobablyviewitmore asthenormthanastheexception.
Item12
The professor sends the paper to a col-league and does not consult the student. The paper is essentially unchanged after reviewbythetwoprofessors.Thepaper issubsequentlysenttoajournalwiththe studentasthethirdauthor.Theprofessor actedinamannerthatwas:
Therewerenosignificantdifferences and all groups viewed this behavior as unethical.
Item13
The professor sends the paper to a col-league and does not consult the student. The paper is essentially unchanged after reviewbythetwoprofessors.Thepaper issubsequentlysenttoajournalwiththe student as the first of three authors.The professoractedinamannerthatwas:
Theunivariateanalysisrevealedsig-nificantdifferencesbetweenthestudent and faculty groups,F(5, 289) = 4.827, p < .001. Scheffe post hoc analyses indicated that undergraduate students viewed this as more ethical and dif-fered significantly from the master’s degree group and all faculty groups, whosemembersfeltthebehaviortobe more unethical. Doctoral students also
July/August2008 323 differed from full professors, who felt
that the action was more unethical. It is interesting that all professor groups felt that the action was highly unethi-cal.Undergraduateswereinthemiddle of the scale, being more neutral about theethicsoftheaction.Theirignorance andlackoffamiliaritywiththeresearch processandrulesoftheresearchgame might explain their relative neutrality. Regarding doctoral students, perhaps theirneedtopublishoverrodeanycoun-tervailingpressuresonethicality.
Item14
The professor sends the paper to a col-league and does not consult the student. Thepaperisimprovedsubstantiallyafter reviewbythetwoprofessors.Thepaper issubsequentlysenttoajournalwiththe studentasthethirdauthor.Theprofessor actedinamannerthatwas:
No significant differences between the groups existed.A surprising aspect of the results is that undergraduates felt that this scenario showed action that was more unethical compared to actionsinItem13.Apparentlysubstan-tialimprovementbytheprofessordoes not equate to a more ethical rating by undergraduatestudents.
DISCUSSION
The present study confirmsH1 in thatforsomeethicalscenarios,different groups perceived the ethical dilemmas dissimilarly.Morespecifically,8ofthe 14 items showed that the respondent groups of students and faculty varied in their perceptions of how ethical the scenarioswere.Incontrast,H2wasnot supported in that no linear or consis-tentassociationwasfoundbetweenthe groups’ ratings and their levels of aca-demicachievement.
A supposition of this study was that as people progress from undergraduate tofullprofessor,theirethicalsensitivity should trend from less ethical to more ethical.Inshort,responsesshouldtrend from a point on the scale for under-graduates that is progressively higher orlowerdependingontheethicalityof thescenariotoadifferentpointforfull professors.Thistrendshouldoccurdue toincreasedexposuretoformalethical education as in most higher education
curricula. Ethics as a topic is consis-tently covered in many courses across various disciplines. It is sometimes an entirecoursethatmaybeeitherrequired or an elective for particular programs of study. However, this view was not supported in the present study. Rather, student and faculty groups rated sce- narioswithoutanyapparenttrendasso-ciatedwiththeiracademicachievement level.Infact,situationalcircumstances associated with a group’s level appear to be more explanatory than the actual educationallevelattained.
Resultsfromthisresearchraiseques-tions about the notion that teaching ethics or increased exposure to ethical standards in academia somehow offers individualstheopportunitytoevolvein theirethicalperceptions.Perhapscom-moncircumstancesassociatedwiththeir academicstation(i.e.,doctoralstudents) aremoreinfluentialinestablishingethi-cal standards than are their academic achievementsaspostulatedearlier.
One implication of the present study raisesthequestionofwhethertheinclu- sionofethicsinaformaleducationalset-ting,specificallyinbusinessschools,has anyethicalbehavioralbenefits.Although this issue is beyond the scope of the present study, researchers must wonder whether ethical education is worth the timeandmoneyintermsofpreparation, curriculumdevelopment,andclasstime. Perhaps talking about ethics has only a minimal effect, whereas circumstan-tial ethics experiences associated with an individual’s educational group have moreofaneffect.Itisalsopossiblethat beneficialeffectsbeyondtheethicalrat-ings of scenarios in the present study may be influenced by ethical content in education. Further research identify-ing additional benefits is necessary to determinewhetherthisistrue.Research-this possibility would require use of a multi-universitydataset.
NOTES
DavidE.Gundersen isaprofessorofmanage- mentandspecializesinhumanresourcemanage-mentandethicaldecisionmaking.
ErnestA.Capozzoliisanassociateprofessor of accounting with interests in accounting infor-mation systems and inforinfor-mation system technol-ogydevelopment.
RajasreeK.Rajamma isanassistantprofes-sor of marketing at Charles F. Dolan School of Business with teaching and research interests in healthcare marketing and consumer decision making.
Correspondence concerning this article should beaddressedtoDavidE.Gundersen,Department of MMIB, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches,TX75962,USA.
E-mail:dgundersen@sfasu.edu
REFERENCES
American Marketing Association (AMA) Task Force. (1988). The development of marketing thought:Developing,disseminatingandutiliz-ing marketthought:Developing,disseminatingandutiliz-ing knowledge.Journal of Market-ing,52,1–25.
Anderson, M. H. (2007). Why are we creating so many theories? A classroom exercise to help students appreciate the need for multiple theories of a management domain.Journal of ManagementEducation,31,757–776. Beu,D.,&Buckley,R.(2001).Thehypothesized
relationshipbetweenaccountabilityandethical behavior.Journal of Business Ethics, 34(1), 57–73.
Brenner, S., & Molander, E. (1977). Is the eth-ics of business changing?Harvard Business Review,55(1),57–71.
Buchholz,R.A.,&Rosenthal,S.B.(2008).The unholyallianceofbusinessandscience. Jour-nalofBusinessEthics,78,199–206.
Cahn, S. M. (1994).Ethics in academia: Saints andscamps. Lanham,MD:RowmanandLittle-field.
Campbell, D. J. (1987). Ethical issues in the research publication process. In S. L. Payne, &B.C.Charnov(Eds.),Ethicaldilemmasfor academic professionals(pp. 69–84). Spring-field,IL:CharlesC.Thomas.
Capozzoli, E. A., Gundersen, D. E., & Scifres, E. (1996). Student and faculty perceptions of the ethicality of selected behavior related to publishinginanacademicenvironment.Delta PiEpsilonJournal,38(1),14–25.
Cargile,B.R.,&Bublitz,B.(1986).Factorscon-tributing to published research by accounting faculties.AccountingReview,61(1),158–178. Christensen, S. L., & Kohls, J. (2003). Ethical
decisionmakingintimesoforganizationalcri-sis.Business&Society,42,328–358. Ford, R. C., & Richardson, W. D. (1994).
Ethi-cal decision making:A review of the empiri-cal literature.Journal of Business Ethics, 13,
205–221.
Frederick, W., & Weber, J. (1987). The values of corporate managers and their critics: An empirical description and normative implica-tions. InW. Frederick (Ed.),Research in cor-porateperformanceandpolicy(pp.131–152). Greenwich,CT:JAIPress.
Goolsby, J. R., & Hunt, S. D. (1992). Cognitive moral development and marketing.Journal of Marketing,56,55–68.
Hegarty, H.W., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1978). Some determinants of unethical decision behavior: Anexperiment.JournalofAppliedPsychology, 63,451–457.
Hermanson, D. R., Hermanson, H. M., Ivancev-ich,D.M.,&Ivancevich,S.H.(1995,August).
Perceived expectations and resources associ-ated with new accounting faculty positions.
324 JournalofEducationforBusiness Paperpresentedat1995AmericanAccounting AssociationAnnualMeeting,Orlando,FL.
James,H.S.,Jr.(2000).Reinforcingethicaldeci-sion making through organizational structure.
JournalofBusinessEthics,28(1),43–58. Kelley, S. W., Skinner, S. J., & Ferrell, O. C.
(1989). Opportunistic behavior in marketing research organizations.Journal of Business Research,18,327–340.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitivedevelopmentalapproachtosocializa-tion.InD.Goslin(Ed.), Handbookofsocializa-tion theory and research (pp. 347–480). Chi-cago:RandMcNally.
McGee, G. (1996, August 2). Young scientists needtofeelapersonalstakeinethics. Chroni-cleofHigherEducation,A8.
Monroe, K., Bloom, P., Clayton,A., Hirschman, E., Holbrook, M., McAleer, L., et al. (1988). Developing, disseminating, and utilizing mar-ketingknowledge.JournalofMarketing,52(4), 1–26.
Orlans, H. (2004). Institutional review boards.
Change,36(3),8–10.
Parasuraman,A.(2003).Reflectionsoncontribut-ingtoadisciplinethroughresearchandwriting.
JournaloftheAcademyofMarketingScience, 31,314–318.
Payne, S. L., & Charnov, B. H. (Eds.). (1987).
Ethical dilemmas for academic profession-als (pp. 183–187). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Robin, D. P., & Reidenbach, R. E. (1987). Social responsibility, ethics, and marketing strategy: Closing the gap between concept and application.Journal of Marketing, 51, 44–58.
Schultz, J. J., Jr., Meade, J. A., & Khurana, I. (1989).Thechangingroleofteaching,research and service in the promotion and tenure deci-sionsforaccountingfaculty. IssuesinAccount-ingEducation,4(1),109–119.
ERRATUM
IntheMarch/April2008issueoftheJournalofEducationforBusiness(Volume83,Number4),theorderofauthorsfor thearticle,“ExperientialandCooperativeLearning:UsingaSituationAnalysisProjectinPrinciplesofMarketing,”was printedincorrectly.ThecorrectorderofauthorsisAnnHuserandCarolineMunoz.Theauthorsintendedfortheirnames tobeplacedinalphabeticalordertoreflectequalauthorship.TheeditorialstaffoftheJournalofEducationBusinessregret thiserror.Thearticleshouldbereferencedasfollows:
Huser,A.,&Munoz,C.(2008).Experientialandcooperativelearning:Usingasituationanalysisprojectinprinciplesof marketing.JournalofEducationforBusiness,83,214–220.
