Open Access Peer-reviewed Commentary

On classic and modern ethical issues in business and management academic research

Article Sidebar

Matrix of rigour and relevance
Download PDF
Submitted   Sep 29, 2021
Published   Nov 16, 2021
Issue    Vol 2 No 1 (2021)
DOI   10.25082/FMB.2021.01.006

Views

2712

Downloads

833

Citations

PlumX Metrics

Main Article Content

Wei Hong corresponding author
Faculty of Business, City University of Macao, Macao 999078, China
Hong Mei Yu
Faculty of Business, City University of Macao, Macao 999078, China

Abstract

Ethical issues are critical to researchers, and this has been a hot topic in decades. Many classic ethical issues, such as plagiarism and fabrication, are repetitively discussed, but some contemporary ethical issues are still problematic and overlooked for researchers, especially those young scholars. The purpose of this paper is to analyse and discuss ethical issues around contemporary business and management academic studies. This paper found that first, scholars are internally and externally pushed to produce rigorous theory development papers, neglecting the relevance of practice. Second, researchers devoted themselves in improving their academy degree or meeting requirements from their employers instead of dealing with practical problems and their interests in research. Third, some 'self-plagiarism' behaviours, such as segmented publication, are arguable in the academy study, which leads to a waste of publication, but it is hard to discern and needs to be tackled.

Keywords
ethic issues, self-plagiarism, rigour and relevance

Article Details

How to Cite
Hong, W., & Yu, H. (2021). On classic and modern ethical issues in business and management academic research. Frontiers in Management and Business, 2(1), 118-125. https://doi.org/10.25082/FMB.2021.01.006
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

References

  1. Martinson BC, Anderson MS and De Vries R. Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 2005, 435(7043): 737-738. https://doi.org/10.1038/435737a
  2. Martinson BC, Anderson MS, Crain AL, et al. Scientists’ perceptions of organizational justice and self-reported misbehaviors. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2006, 1(1): 51-66. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.51
  3. Lambert DM. Rediscovering relevance. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 2019, 30(2): 382-394. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-02-2019-0059
  4. McKinnon AC. Starry-eyed: journal rankings and the future of logistics research. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 2013, 43(1): 6-17. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600031311293228
  5. Liu SB. Embarrassment of management study, 2019. https://www.huxiu.com/article/317877.html
  6. Bai CH. Research studies redirecting practice oriented. Nankai Business Review, 2020, 23(2): 2-3. https://doi.org/10.31193/SSAP.J.ISSN.2096-6695.2020.01.01
  7. Qi SH, Bai C, Chen C, et al. The Forecast: Facing the Chinese Management Practice. China Journal of Management, 2010, 7(11): 1685-1691.
  8. Jia XD and Kong ZX. Interactive innovation of Chinese Management Research and Practice: Review and Outlooks from the 10th Forum of “China Practice Management”. China Journal of Management, 2020, 17(3): 338-343.
  9. Qi SH. Rethinking the core management proposition from practice perspective. China Journal of Management, 2012, 9(1): 32-37.
  10. Tourish D. Management studies in crisis: Fraud, deception and meaningless research: Cambridge University Press, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108616669
  11. Bennis W. Leadership in a digital world: embracing transparency and adaptive capacity. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 2013, 37(2): 635-636.
  12. Latham J. Leadership for quality and innovation: Challenges, theories, and a framework for future research. Quality Management Journal, 2014, 21(1): 11-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10686967.2014.11918372
  13. Torres R and Reeves M. Adaptive leadership. Leadership Excellence, 2014, 28(7): 8.
  14. Zhu JH and Fan Y. Research on the Historical Changes and Development Trend of “Human Nature Hypothesis” - Based on Critical Analysis ofWestern Management Theory. Economic Research Guide, 2010, 33: 211-212.
  15. Hu S and Kang TG. Evaluation of Western Human Nature Supposition Theory and Related Management Model. Commercial Science Research, 2008, 3: 43-45.
  16. Renqing D. The Reasonable Essence and Enlightenmen of the Theory of Human Nature Supposition about West Psychology of Management. Journal of Qinghai Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 2008, 131(6): 142-145.
  17. Lv L. Meta-Issues of Management and Management Philosophy :Discussion on Logic Defect of’The Forecast:Facing the Chinese Management Practice’. China Journal of Management, 2011, 8(4): 517-523.
  18. Narasimhan R. The fallacy of impact without relevance - reclaiming relevance and rigor. European Business Review, 2018, 30(2): 157-168. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-01-2017-0005
  19. Glick W, Tsui A and Davis G. The moral dilemma of business research, 2018. https://bized.aacsb.edu/articles/2018/05/the-moral-dilemma-of-business-research
  20. Storbacka K. Does publish or perish lead to stylish rubbish? Journal of Business Market Management, 2014, 7(1): 289-295. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03976-3_1
  21. Stentoft J. Practitioners Perspectives on Contemporary Supply Chain Management Issues: The Danish Supply Chain Panel 2012-2016. University Press of Southern Denmark, Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag, 2017.
  22. Stentoft J and Freytag PV. Guest editorial. European Business Review, 2018, 30(2): 94-100. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2017-0217
  23. CEEMAN. Changing the Course of Management Development: Combining Excellence with Relevance, 2018). http://www.ceeman.org/docs/default-source/publications/ceeman-manifesto.pdf
  24. Podolny JM. The buck stops (and starts) at business school. Harvard Business Review, 2009, 87(6): 62-67.
  25. Tourish D. The triumph of nonsense in management studies. Academy of Management Learning Education, 2020, 19(1): 99-109. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2019.0255
  26. McEwen M and Wills EM. Theoretical basis for nursing: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2017.
  27. Alvesson M. The triumph of emptiness: Consumption, higher education, and work organization: OUP Oxford, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199660940.001.0001
  28. Lambert DM and Enz MG. We must find the courage to change. Journal of Business Logistics, 2015, 36(1): 9-17. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12078
  29. Grey C and Sinclair A. Writing differently. Management Learning, 2006, 13(3): 443-453. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508406063492
  30. Billig M. Learn to write badly: How to succeed in the social sciences. UK: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139208833
  31. NPPA. Academic publishing specification - Definition of academic misconduct of journals, 2019. https://bmi.sjtu.edu.cn/class_slides/ethics.pdf
  32. Gao LY. Misconducts in Journals ’legislated’ China Science Newspaper, 2019. http://news.sciencenet.cn/sbhtmlnews/2019/7/347901.shtm
  33. MEPRC. Measures for the Handling of Acts to Falsify Dissertations, 2012. http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A02/s5911/moe_621/201211/t20121113_170437.html
  34. LawinfoChina. Measures for the Prevention and Punishment of Academic Misconducts in Institutions of Higher Education, 2016. http://www.lawinfochina.com/display.aspx?id=22986&lib=law
  35. Zhang N. Academic misconducts in postgraduates research. (Master), Shihezi University, Shihezi, 2014. https://cdmd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CDMD-10759-1015512570.htm
  36. Arumugam A and Aldhafiri FK. A researcher’s ethical dilemma: Is self-plagiarism a condemnable practice or not? Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 2016, 32(6): 427-429. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2016.1185894
  37. Schneider L. Self-Plagiarism: helps careers, hurts noone? 2016. https://forbetterscience.com/2016/07/04/self-plagiarism-helps-careers-hurts-noone
  38. Zhang M. Academic Thesis Redundant Publication Behaviours Analysis and Preventive Measures. Science-Technology and Publication, 2020, 39(8): 82-86.
  39. Qiu WT. On “Self-plagiarism” Journal Of Ningbo Radio & TV University, 2018, 18(13): 2.
  40. Eaton SE and Crossman K. Self-Plagiarism Research Literature in the Social Sciences: A Scoping Review. Interchange, 2018, 49(3): 285-311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-018-9333-6
  41. Lancet. Self-plagiarism: unintentional, harmless, or fraud? The Lancet, 2009, 374(9691): 664. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61536-1
  42. Bonnell DA, Buriak JM, Hafner JH, et al. Recycling Is Not Always Good: The Dangers of Self- Plagiarism. ACS Nano, 2012, 6(1): 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1021/nn3000912
  43. Schneider L. Academic self-plagiarism: misconduct or a literary art form? 2016. https://forbetterscience.com/2016/04/11/academic-self-plagiarism-misconduct-or-a-literary-art-form