On the Ethics of Management Research: An Exploratory Investigation

Douglas C. Frechtling • Soyoung Boo

Received: 18 July 2011 / Accepted: 20 July 2011 / Published online: 7 August 2011

� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract While there is an abundant academic literature

on professional codes of ethics, there appears to be few

devoted to assessing the compliance of management

research with such codes. This article presents the results of

applying the World Association for Public Opinion

Research (WAPOR) Code of Professional Ethics and

Practices to research articles based on probability sample

surveys in the top three academic journals covering tour-

ism, hospitality, and related fields. Four research questions

are posed to focus application of the WAPOR Code to

nearly 200 articles published in three recent years. Content

analysis of these articles, documented by a measure of

intercoder reliability, indicates that it is feasible for mul-

tiple coders to accurately apply the WAPOR Code to such

articles. None of the articles examined complied with all

WAPOR standards, and fewer than half of them complied

with half of the standards. Finally, we find that there is

some difference among the three journals in compliance,

but this difference is relatively small. In sum, there is very

little compliance with ethical standards in the field of

management research studied here.

Keywords Code of ethics � Management research � Content analysis � Research ethics � Sample surveys � Intercoder reliability

Introduction

There is abundance of corporate codes of ethics, and the

published research on them is plentiful (Fennell 2000;

Kaptein and Schwartz 2008; Langlois and Schlegelmilch

1990; Long and Driscoll 2008; Svensson and Wood 2008).

There is also a class of ethical codes developed by pro-

fessional associations to guide their members toward eth-

ical behavior (Christian and Gumbus 2009; Coughlan

2001; Gaumnitz and Lere 2002; Groves et al. 2006; Pater

and Van Gils 2003; Skubik and Stening 2009; Wiley 2000).

Adopting from Pater and Van Gils (2003, p. 765), we

define ‘‘professional codes of ethics’’ as ‘‘written, distinct

and formal documents, issued by professional associations,

that attempt to guide the professional behaviour of their

members.’’ Skubik and Stening (2009) maintain that ‘‘the

most important role of a code is to explain the underlying

professional values and principles’’ to guide association

members (p. 520). They further note that these may be

developed as ‘‘an aspirational guide and education tool for

members’’ (p. 515) and may include ‘‘enforceable stan-

dards’’ (p. 520).

Purpose

Motivated by Coughlan’s (2001) recommendation that

‘‘additional studies are needed that explore the relevance

and effectiveness of existing professional codes’’ (p. 157),

we focus here on the ethical guidance provided for the

conduct of research for management. Chia (2002) distin-

guishes management research as dealing ‘‘fundamentally

with the production and legitimization of the various forms

of knowledge associated with the practices of manage-

ment’’ (p. 1). These practices of management include

D. C. Frechtling (&) � S. Boo Department of Tourism and Hospitality Management,

School of Business, The George Washington University,

2201 G Street, N. W., Suite 301, Washington, DC 20052, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

S. Boo

e-mail: [email protected]

123

J Bus Ethics (2012) 106:149–160

DOI 10.1007/s10551-011-0986-7

human resource management (Wiley 2000), marketing

(Rau and Kane 1999), research, finance, and operations

(Datar et al. 2010). We adopt this definition of management

research in this study.

We choose a specific field of management research and

identify a professional code of ethics that pertains to that

field. We operationalize the standards in the code with

statements that can be applied to articles published in

academic journals to indicate compliance or non-compli-

ance with each. To shed light on the ethics of management

research, we compose four research questions. We then

identify nearly 200 articles published in the top academic

journals in that field (management research) and apply the

professional code to them. Finally, we propose answers to

the research questions and state conclusions about the

ethics of management research.

Background on Management Research Ethics

Relatively little has been published on the ethics of man-

agement research. Rau and Kane (1999) address the ethical

issues that can arise in marketing research. They conclude

that the establishment of ‘‘codes of ethics governing mar-

keting research practice’’ (p. 144) is worthy of consider-

ation. Payne (2000) explores the assumptions, values,

ideologies, and other influences that affect the choice of

business research practice, often at an implicit level. Ryan

(2005) discusses duties of scientific inquiry in the field of

tourism research and concludes that researchers must act

with honesty and integrity while pursuing justice. Perdue

(1991) examines the field of visitor surveys to determine

the economic impact of tourists on a geographic area and

provides a list of potential ethical problems. He suggests

that presenting results from a convenience sample of visi-

tors as being the same as those derived from a probability

sample is unethical behavior.

Chia (2002) observes that management researchers are

‘‘governed by a code of practice established by a com-

munity of scholars’’ (p. 4). While some such codes may be

implicitly understood, others take the form of formal pro-

fessional codes of ethical conduct (Groves et al. 2009;

Korac-Kakabadse et al. 2002).

One such formal professional code applicable to man-

agement research is promulgated by the World Association

for Public Opinion Research (WAPOR) as the WAPOR

Code of Professional Ethics and Practices. WAPOR was

founded in 1947 to ‘‘(a) promote in each country of the

world the right to conduct and publish scientific research

on what the people and its groups think and how this

thinking is influenced by various factors, (b) promote

the knowledge and application of scientific methods in

this objective, (c) assist and promote the development

and publication of public opinion research worldwide,

(d) promote international cooperation and exchange among

academic and commercial researchers, journalists and

political actors, as well as between the representatives of

the different scientific disciplines’’ (World Association for

Public Opinion Research 2010, p. 1).

The WAPOR Code ‘‘defines professional ethics and

practices in the field of public opinion research’’ (p. 1) and

explains that the standards within it are promulgated in

order

• ‘‘to advance the use of science in the field of public opinion research;

• to protect the public from misrepresentation and exploitation in the name of research;

• to maintain confidence that researchers in this field are bound by a set of sound and basic principles’’ (World

Association for Public Opinion Research 2010, p. 1).

The ‘‘instrument of public opinion’’ referred to here is

the scientific opinion poll defined by three characteristics:

1. Designed to measure the views of a specific group of

humans;

2. Respondents are chosen according to explicit criteria

in order to ensure representation of the group;

3. Survey questions are ‘‘worded in a balanced way’’

(ESOMAR 2008, p. 5).

Scientific opinion polls, also called probability sample

surveys, gather information for dealing with a number of

management issues, such as market segmentation, cus-

tomer satisfaction, and product planning (Groves et al.

2009).

Structure of the WAPOR Code

The WAPOR Code of Professional Ethics and Practices

‘‘prescribes principles of ethical practices for the guidance

of its members, and a framework of professional standards

that should be acceptable to users of research and to the

public at large’’ (World Association for Public Opinion

Research 2010, p. 1). Employing the classification scheme

proposed by Gaumnitz and Lere (2004), the WAPOR Code

contains 44 statements in five thematic areas:

1. Responsibilities of Researchers;

2. Responsibilities of Sponsor;

3. Rules of Practice Regarding Reports and Survey

Results (i.e., disclosure of methods);

4. Responsibility to Informants;

5. Practice between Researchers.

In Gaumnitz/Lere terms, the WAPOR Code is a hori-

zontal five-statement code. Its shape is 12, 5, 15, 7, 5,

disclosure, responsibilities of researchers. In terms of tone,

150 D. C. Frechtling, S. Boo

123

it is overwhelmingly positive (‘‘thou shalt’’ = 35 state-

ments) rather than negative (‘‘thou shalt not’’ = 9 state-

ments). Finally, it appears to be aspirational rather than

legal since the words ‘‘enforceable’’ do not appear and no

mechanism is stated for reporting and investigating alleged

violations (in contrast to Skubik and Stening 2009 and

Academy of Management, n.d., p. 6).

WAPOR Code Article II, section C, specifies 14 ‘‘Rules

of Practice Regarding Reports and Survey Results,’’ stat-

ing, ‘‘Every complete report on a survey should contain an

adequate explanation of the following relevant points’’

(p. 3). These points are listed verbatim in Table 1.

The WAPOR Code specifies the ethical obligations of

survey researchers toward the public, including their cli-

ents. This appears to be congruent with one of the ‘‘two

broad aspects of ethical practice especially relevant for

survey research’’ that academic and professional survey

researchers recognize (Groves et al. 2009, p. 371). The

other aspect of ethical practice required from survey

researchers—procedures directly affecting survey respon-

dents—is not addressed here. Researchers’ ethical obliga-

tions to respondents are often embodied in law

(Institutional Review Boards and other procedures) and

deal with minimizing potential harm to respondents and

maximizing benefits to them, including respect for persons

and informed consent of respondents before their

participation.

Groves et al. (2009) maintain that a broad aspect of

ethical practice in survey research regards general stan-

dards of scientific conduct. These standards include fol-

lowing procedures that yield valid conclusions, as well as

avoiding ‘‘plagiarism, falsification or fabrication in pro-

posing, performing, reviewing research or on reporting

research results’’ (p. 372). This area of ethical survey

practice also requires disclosure of certain information

about a survey and its conduct when the findings are

publicly released.

The overall objective of this ethical practice is to

encourage transparency in survey research, that is, com-

plete disclosure of survey methods. This objective derives

from what biologist Glass (1965) calls ‘‘the ought of sci-

ence’’: ‘‘a full and true report is the hallmark of the sci-

entist, a report as accurate and faithful as he can make it in

every detail. The process of verification depends upon the

ability of another scientist who wishes to repeat a proce-

dure and to confirm an observation’’ (p. 83). It is note-

worthy that the Academy of Management Code of Ethics

‘‘Professional Principles’’ for research and publications

state similar objectives (Academy of Management, n.d.,

p. 4). Moreover, Michalos (1991, p. 416), in a different

context, proposes eight characteristics that publishers of

results of public opinion polls of the electorate during

election campaigns should provide so as ‘‘to maintain and

even increase the benefits of public opinion polling while

significantly reducing the costs.’’

To provide a focus for our research, and to build upon

the knowledge of a distinct field of management that we

have acquired, we focus on sample surveys as management

research in tourism, hospitality, recreation, and related

fields. We investigate compliance with the WAPOR rules

of a set of articles published in specific academic journals

in these fields in recent years. We do so by defining

Research Questions that indicate compliance with the

WAPOR rules and applying them to the set of articles

through content. After careful consideration of the con-

sensus of the content coders, we determine whether and

how the articles comply with the WAPOR principles. We

draw conclusions from these findings and recommend

approaches that can improve the compliance of manage-

ment research articles and reports with ethical principles.

‘‘Compliance’’ relating to codes of ethics includes

auditing, verification, and enforceability (Kolk and van

Table 1 WAPOR Rules of Practice Regarding Reports and Survey Results

Every complete report on a survey should contain an adequate

explanation of the following relevant points:

For whom the survey was conducted and by whom it was carried

out

The purpose of the study

The universe or population to which the results of the survey are

projected

The method by which the sample was selected, including both

the type of sample (probability, quota, etc.) and the specific

procedures by which it was selected

Steps taken to ensure that the sample design would actually be

carried out

The degree of success in actually carrying out the design,

including the rate

Of non-response and a comparison of the size and characteristics

of the actual and anticipated samples

A full description of the estimating procedure used for all results

that are reported, including the sample size on which it was

based and weighting procedures used to adjust raw data

A full description of the method employed in the survey

The time at which the survey, if any, was done, and the time span

covered in collecting data

The findings obtained

(Where the nature and the research demands it) the

characteristics of those employed as interviewers and coders

and the methods of their training and supervision

A copy of the interview schedule or questionnaire and

instructions

Which results are based on parts of the sample, rather than the

whole sample

A description of the precision of the findings, including,

if applicable, estimates of sampling error

Source World Association for Public Opinion Research (2010)

On the Ethics of Management Research 151

123

Tulder 2002; referenced in Fennell and Malloy 2007,

p. 77). Examples of effective compliance factors in the

published literature are unavailable, according to these

authors. However, as at least one concrete example of

compliance procedures in a professional code, we note The

Academy of Management Code of Ethics includes a set of

‘‘Technical Standards [that] set forth enforceable rules of

conduct for AOM members’’ (Academy of Management,

n.d., p. 1).

To be effective, codes of conduct require explicit

investigations of compliance and identification of instances

of non-compliance, defined as behavior that does not

conform to the prescriptions in a code of ethics (Fennell

and Malloy 2007, p. 15). Wiley (2000) maintains that

without an enforcement mechanism, professional codes

degenerate into public relations tools.

Research Questions

We do not believe there is enough ‘‘conceptual develop-

ment and concomitant empirical support’’ to justify pre-

senting formal hypotheses here (Somers 2001, p. 187).

Rather, we propose several Research Questions relating to

published survey research for management examined here.

Our findings regarding these Questions may lead to formal

hypotheses that may be tested in later research.

Research Question 1: Is it practicable to determine

compliance of published management research sur-

vey articles with WAPOR rules with an acceptable

degree of reliability? This question addresses Com-

pliance Assessment Feasibility: can coders with little

coding experience consistently apply the rules to

published journal articles? If there is little agreement

among coders as to whether individual articles com-

ply with individual standards, then there is little point

in trying to apply the WAPOR standards to the

published articles on probability sample surveys. On

the other hand, if coders evidence a high level of

agreement, then we can conclude it is practicable to

apply the WAPOR standards to published articles to

ascertain compliance with ethical standards for

management research.

Research Question 2: Do a majority of these articles

comply with most of the WAPOR rules? This

addresses General Compliance of authors of man-

agement research articles with the WAPOR stan-

dards. If we find that most articles comply with most

of the WAPOR standards, then we can fairly affirm

that management research is ethical. On the other

hand, if most of the articles fail to comply with most

of the principles, then we can fairly deduce that

management research is not ethical.

Research Question 3: Are most of the WAPOR rules

widely observed in the articles while a few are not?

This question addresses Specific Compliance with the

WAPOR rules. If we find there are several principles

that are widely ignored in published management

research, but that many of the others are generally

observed, then we can conclude that non-compliance

is limited to a few specific standards. We could then

conclude that while management research is ethical

in general, there are a few areas of research ethics,

which need to be observed for management research

to completely comply with ethical standards for

management sample survey research. Conversely, we

might find that most of the standards are widely

ignored, while only a few are generally followed,

suggesting that management research is ethical only

with regard to a few rules.

Research Question 4: Does the degree of compliance

with the WAPOR Code differ significantly among the

journals providing the articles? This last question

addresses Publication Compliance. How it is

answered indicates how widely management research

ethics is observed among the journals. If we find that

only one journal is the source of a majority of the

non-compliance, then we cannot fairly conclude that

management research is unethical, only that lack of

compliance is centered in one source. The other

journals can then be labeled sources of ethical man-

agement research.

Method

Content Analysis

Content analysis is a method of codifying the content of a

selection of writing into various categories depending on

specified criteria (Weber 1990). Holsti (1969) offers a

broad definition of content analysis as any technique for

making inferences by objectively and systematically

identifying specified characteristics of messages. Although

the term ‘‘content analysis’’ was first used in the field of

communication, the practice of such methodology has been

widely employed in exploratory research, theory develop-

ment, hypothesis testing and applied research (Smith

2000).

Krippendorff (2004) viewed content analysis as a

research technique for making replicable and valid infer-

ences from data according to their context. Content anal-

ysis entails a systematic recording of a body of units,

images, and symbolic matter, though not necessarily from

the author’s perspective. The overall goal of content

152 D. C. Frechtling, S. Boo

123

analysis is to identify and record relatively objective

characteristics of messages (Stemler 2001). Tucker et al.

(1999) and Gaumnitz and Lere (2002) apply this technique

to the analysis of professional codes of U.S. associations.

Hayes and Krippendorff (2007) maintain that generating

data may take the form of judgments of kind (in which

category the unit belongs), of magnitude (how prominent

an attribute is within a unit), or of frequency (how often

something occurs). We apply content analysis for the third

purpose in this article.

In general, manifest content analysis (i.e., surface ele-

ments that are physically present) and latent content anal-

ysis (i.e., coders’ subjective interpretations) are the two

distinguishable areas central in the application of content

analysis. Initially, content analysis dealt with quantitative

descriptions of the manifest content of communications

(Krippendorff 2004). Its application has been later expan-

ded to include the study of latent content analysis for

quantitative measures in various fields including tourism

management (Choi et al. 2007; Malloy and Fennell 1998;

Murphy 2001; Pan et al. 2007) and business ethics

(Gaumnitz and Lere 2002; Stohl et al. 2009).

Latent content analysis is subjective and complex

because the coders’ own mental schema intervene (Potter

and Levine-Donnerstein 1999). Owing to this potential

difficulty, a more systematic coding scheme may be

required. On the other hand, manifest content analysis is

simple and direct, and can provide more objective infor-

mation. Inferences about latent meanings of messages are

therefore permitted (Holsti 1969). As recommended by

Holsti (1969), our study employs blended manifest and

latent content analysis and relies on observers’ judgments

regarding interpretation of textual matter (Hayes and

Krippendorff 2007) to achieve our purposes.

Intercoder Reliability

‘‘Intercoder reliability’’ is the term widely used for the

extent to which independent coders evaluating a charac-

teristic of a message reach the same conclusion (Kolbe and

Burnett 1991). Neuendorf (2002) suggests that when

human coders are used in content analysis, intercoder

reliability quantifies the amount of agreement among two

or more coders. Although intercoder reliability is often

perceived as a standard measure of research quality (Kolbe

and Burnett 1991), researchers have noted that most arti-

cles using content analysis do not provide information on

intercoder reliability clearly or in significant detail (Riffe

and Freitag 1997).

Nevertheless, researchers have emphasized the impor-

tance of measuring intercoder reliability in content analy-

sis. For example, Neuendorf (2002) notes that content

analysis exercises are useless without a measure of

reliability. Tinsley and Weiss (2000) discuss the necessity

of intercoder agreement in content analysis, concluding

that interpretations of the data cannot be considered valid

without a measure of consistency. Kolbe and Burnett

(1991) also emphasize the importance of measuring inter-

coder reliability, indicating high levels of disagreement

among judges suggest weaknesses in the method. Overall,

intercoder reliability is considered as a critical component

of content analysis, and the key to reliability is the agree-

ment of the opinions found among independent observers

(Hayes and Krippendorff 2007).

Although a number of measures of intercoder reliability

have been proposed, there seems to be no universally

agreed-upon single measure (Hayes and Krippendorff

2007; Holsti 1969; Lombard et al. 2002). Instead, it appears

that researchers select an index of intercoder reliability

based on research assumptions and the characteristics of

the data (e.g., the level of measurement of each variable).

Among the various indices of intercoder reliability pro-

posed by researchers, we choose to employ Cohen’s (1960)

kappa to provide the measure of agreement among coders

in a content analysis.

One widely used method of the agreement between the

pairs of observations is the simple percentage of agreement

(Stohl et al. 2009). However, such percentages do not take

into account the likelihood of chance agreement between

coders that we would expect even if the two observations

were unrelated (Grayson and Rust 2001). Cohen (1960)

offered kappa to correct for such chance agreement by

comparing the observed proportional agreement of two

coders to the amount of agreement that would be expected

entirely by chance. We employ Cohen’s kappa in this

article to indicate the amount by which the observed in-

tercoder agreement exceeds the agreement which could be

expected by chance alone, divided by the maximum that

this difference could be. Specifically,

k ¼ pa � pcð Þ 1 � pcð Þ

where k is Cohen’s kappa, pa is the proportion of agreed on

judgments, and pc is the proportion of agreement one

would expect by chance.

Although Cohen’s kappa has drawbacks, it is considered

to be one of the most reliable and useful measures of in-

tercoder reliability by researchers (Lombard et al. 2002;

Neuendorf 2002). Kappa is generally used only for mea-

suring intercoder reliability for nominal level variables

(Lombard et al. 2002). We have chosen to use Cohen’s

kappa as a measure of agreement because the content to

which coding was applied consists of nominally scaled

variables (i.e., compliance or non-compliance with the

WAPOR standards, or non-applicability) and it is designed

to measure the agreement of a pairing of coders. Kappa

On the Ethics of Management Research 153

123

coefficients for this study were calculated using the Sta-

tistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).

Coding Categories

Creating categories is a core feature of content analysis.

Categories may be thought of as compartments into which

content units are placed. Holsti (1969) states that the def-

inition of categories requires that they actually represent

the elements of the investigator’s study, so that items rel-

evant to the study can be classified. Well-specified decision

categories in conjunction with well-specified decision rules

will produce fewer discrepancies, even when used by rel-

atively inexperienced coders (Krippendorff 2004).

Our intent is to apply the auditing function in compli-

ance, ‘‘the assessment of performance against [a] goal or

other stated criteria’’ (Fennell and Malloy 2007, p. 84).

Through content analysis, we apply the ‘‘Rules of Practice

Regarding Reports and Survey Results’’ from the WAPOR

‘‘Code of Professional Ethics and Practices’’ (World

Association for Public Opinion Research 2010) to identify

compliance and non-compliance of specific articles pub-

lished in the top three academic journals in the fields

related to tourism and hospitality. Table 2 shows how

Table 2 WAPOR ‘‘Rules of Practice Regarding Reports and Survey Results’’ and criteria for coders

Coding categories from WAPOR ‘‘Rules of Practice Regarding

Reports and Survey Results’’: reports must state

Criteria for coders

(a) For whom the survey was conducted and by whom it was carried

out

(a.1) Compliance = names of those who carried out the survey

are stated

(a.2) Non-compliance = states that the survey was conducted for

or funded by an unidentified sponsor or client; otherwise Not

Applicable

(b) The purpose of the study (b) Compliance = purpose and/or objectives are stated

(c) The universe or population to which the results of the survey are

projected

(c) Compliance = target population is defined

(d) The method by which the sample was selected, including both

the type of sample (probability, quota, etc.) and the specific

procedures by which it was selected

(d.1.) Compliance = sampling frame is specified

(d.2.) Compliance = how sample was selected from the

population is stated

(e) Steps taken to ensure that the sample design would actually be

carried out

(e) Not applied because this statement is an intent prior to survey

conduct that is better expressed by (f) below

(f) The degree of success in actually carrying out the

Related Tags

Academic APA Assignment Business Capstone College Conclusion Course Day Discussion Double Spaced Essay English Finance General Graduate History Information Justify Literature Management Market Masters Math Minimum MLA Nursing Organizational Outline Pages Paper Presentation Questions Questionnaire Reference Response Response School Subject Slides Sources Student Support Times New Roman Title Topics Word Write Writing