Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji joeb.83.6.315-324

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

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

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

Learned฀Ethical฀Behavior:฀
An฀Academic฀Perspective
RAJASREE฀K.฀RAJAMMA
FAIRFIELD฀UNIVERSITY
FAIRFIELD,฀CONNECTICUT

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:15 11 January 2016

DAVID฀E.฀GUNDERSEN
STEPHEN฀F.฀AUSTIN฀STATE฀UNIVERSITY
NACOGDOCHES,฀TEXAS
ERNEST฀A.฀CAPOZZOLI
KENNESAW฀STATE฀UNIVERSITY

KENNESAW,฀GEORGIA

ABSTRACT. The฀authors฀analyzed฀the฀
reactions฀of฀various฀academic-level฀respondent฀groups฀to฀14฀short฀scenarios฀reflecting฀ethical฀dilemmas฀in฀higher฀education฀
and฀research.฀As฀the฀authors฀hypothesized,฀
groups฀differed฀in฀their฀views฀of฀the฀dilemmas฀presented.฀The฀results฀did฀not฀support฀
a฀2nd฀hypothesis฀predicting฀a฀linear฀relationship฀between฀academic฀achievement฀
of฀respondent฀groups฀and฀their฀ethical฀
responses.฀The฀authors฀expected฀that฀as฀
respondents฀gained฀more฀exposure฀to฀ethical฀perspectives฀through฀further฀education,฀
they฀would฀respond฀accordingly,฀supporting฀a฀correlation฀effect.฀Despite฀significant฀
differences฀between฀groups฀in฀their฀assessments฀of฀the฀dilemmas,฀situational฀differences฀other฀than฀educational฀attainment฀
appeared฀to฀be฀most฀influential.฀The฀authors฀
discussed฀implications,฀which฀raised฀doubt฀
about฀whether฀teaching฀ethics฀enhances฀
ethical฀behavior.฀
Keywords:฀฀academics,฀authorship,฀ethics,฀
publications,฀research
฀
Copyright฀©฀2008฀Heldref฀Publications

฀

A

fter฀ the฀ collapse฀ of฀ some฀ wellknown฀organizations฀such฀as฀energy฀giant฀Enron฀and฀the฀public฀accounting฀
firm฀Arthur฀Andersen,฀a฀new฀concern฀has฀
emerged฀regarding฀issues฀and฀practices฀
of฀ ethical฀ behavior฀ in฀ organizations.฀
However,฀ethical฀behavior฀concerns฀are฀
not฀limited฀to฀the฀for-profit฀type฀of฀organizations฀ that฀ garner฀ major฀ headlines฀
when฀ ethical฀ mistakes฀ are฀ made.฀ Less฀
visible฀ but฀ perhaps฀ more฀ pervasive฀ are฀
ethical฀issues฀that฀permeate฀higher฀educational฀institutions฀in฀which฀ethics฀are฀
considered,฀taught,฀learned,฀and฀carried฀
toward฀ the฀ private฀ sector.฀ Inherent฀ in฀
this฀ view฀ of฀ ethical฀ learning฀ in฀ higher฀
education฀is฀the฀notion฀that฀individuals฀
grow฀ and฀ mature฀ in฀ their฀ perspectives฀
on฀ ethics฀ as฀ they฀ progress฀ in฀ their฀ academic฀achievements.฀In฀short,฀individuals฀should฀become฀more฀ethical฀as฀they฀

increase฀ their฀ educational฀ accomplishments฀because฀of฀increasing฀exposure฀in฀
both฀receiving฀and฀administering฀ethics฀
curricula.฀ If฀ this฀ were฀ not฀ true,฀ teaching฀ ethics฀ would฀ be฀ viewed฀ as฀ a฀ waste฀
of฀time.
Other฀researchers฀have฀supported฀the฀
link฀ between฀ changing฀ ethical฀ mores฀
and฀ educational฀ accomplishments:฀ As฀
individuals฀ progress฀ through฀ different฀
levels฀ of฀ cognitive฀ moral฀ development,฀
their฀ ability฀ to฀ deal฀ with฀ ethical฀ dilemmas฀ improves฀ (Christensen฀ &฀ Kohls,฀
2003;฀ Goolsby฀ &฀ Hunt,฀ 1992;฀ James,฀
2000;฀ Kohlberg,฀ 1969).฀ Consequently,฀

a฀pattern฀of฀increasing฀ethical฀standards฀
should฀ emerge฀ as฀ individuals฀ progress฀
educationally฀and฀cognitively.
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฀ business฀ curricula฀ have฀ evolved฀ from฀ the฀
scientific฀ model,฀ in฀ which฀ the฀ sole฀
means฀of฀knowledge฀acquisition฀is฀science฀ (Buchholz฀ &฀ Rosenthal,฀ 2008).฀
Consequently,฀ the฀ development฀ of฀ ethics฀curricula฀as฀a฀multidisciplinary฀topic฀
has฀ evolved฀ from฀ an฀ eclectic฀ arena฀ of฀
sciences฀ across฀ many฀ academic฀ areas.฀
No฀ single฀ discipline฀ is฀ responsible฀ for฀
the฀ethics฀domain.
Ethical฀behavior฀in฀an฀academic฀setting฀relating฀to฀research฀and฀publishing฀
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฀ culture฀ after฀ formal฀ education฀ plays฀ a฀
major฀ role฀ in฀ how฀ individuals฀ perceive฀
their฀ moral฀ responsibilities฀ (Frederick฀
&฀ Weber,฀ 1987).฀ Research฀ has฀ indicated฀ that฀ organizational฀ factors฀ help฀
to฀ explain฀ ethical฀ decision฀ making฀ by฀

individuals฀ (Kelley,฀ Skinner,฀ &฀ Ferrell,฀1989;฀Robin฀&฀Reidenbach,฀1987).฀
Consequently,฀ organizational฀ factors฀
July/August฀2008฀

315

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:15 11 January 2016

have฀garnered฀all฀the฀attention฀and฀have฀
been฀ used฀ to฀ explain฀ ethical฀ failures฀
in฀ organizations.฀ Profit,฀ bonuses,฀ and฀
greed฀ have฀ all฀ been฀ culprits฀ of฀ failure.฀
Few,฀if฀any,฀links฀to฀the฀academic฀realm฀
from฀which฀individuals฀come฀have฀been฀
considered.฀ With฀ all฀ the฀ attention฀ on฀
ethical฀ breakdowns฀ in฀ organizations,฀
the฀ present฀ research฀ focused฀ on฀ ethics฀ in฀ higher฀ education.฀ More฀ specifically,฀ this฀ research฀ targeted฀ whether฀
individuals฀ vary฀ in฀ their฀ perceptions฀ of฀
ethical฀dilemmas฀as฀they฀progress฀from฀
undergraduate฀ education฀ to฀ successful฀

academic฀ careers.฀ The฀ intent฀ was฀ to฀
investigate฀whether฀increased฀education฀
influences฀perceptions฀of฀ethical฀dilemmas฀ that฀ occur฀ in฀ a฀ higher฀ education฀
environment.฀
Research฀and฀Ethics฀in฀
Academia
The฀academic฀publishing฀environment฀
contains฀ many฀ factors฀ that฀ may฀ induce฀
unethical฀ behavior.฀ Increased฀ research฀
requirements฀create฀intense฀pressure฀on฀
both฀tenured฀and฀untenured฀faculty฀who฀
must฀publish฀to฀progress฀and฀stay฀credible฀ in฀ their฀ careers.฀ Extrinsic฀ rewards฀
such฀ as฀ pay฀ raises,฀ promotions,฀ and฀
tenure฀ are฀ often฀ directly฀ connected฀ to฀
faculty฀ publishing.฀The฀ use฀ of฀ publications฀ as฀ an฀ index฀ of฀ faculty฀ productivity฀ is฀ increasing.฀ Most฀ universities฀ in฀
the฀ United฀ States฀ base฀ promotion฀ and฀
tenure฀decisions฀on฀the฀three฀criteria฀of฀
research,฀teaching,฀and฀service.฀However,฀many฀researchers฀(Cargile฀&฀Bublitz,฀
1986;฀Hermanson,฀Hermanson,฀Ivancevich,฀&฀Ivancevich,฀1995;฀Shultz,฀Meade,฀
&฀ Khurana,฀ 1989)฀ have฀ asserted฀ that,฀

of฀ these฀ three,฀ research—and฀ resulting฀
publications—is฀given฀the฀most฀weight฀
in฀promotion฀and฀tenure฀decisions.฀Parasuraman฀ (2003)฀ rightfully฀ pointed฀ out฀
that฀publish฀or฀perish฀has฀become฀a฀pervasive฀phrase฀in฀the฀professorial฀lexicon.฀
The฀ American฀ Marketing฀ Association฀
(AMA)฀Task฀Force฀on฀the฀Development฀
of฀Marketing฀Thought฀(1988)฀reached฀a฀
similar฀conclusion.฀They฀found฀that฀the฀
system฀truly฀deserves฀its฀appellation฀of฀
publish฀or฀perish.฀The฀current฀academic฀
performance฀ appraisal฀ system฀ emphasizing฀ publishing฀ produces฀ strong฀ and฀
undesirable฀ incentives฀ toward฀ knowledge฀development฀on฀the฀part฀of฀young฀
316฀

Journal฀of฀Education฀for฀Business

academicians.฀It฀is฀extremely฀short-term฀
in฀ orientation,฀ almost฀ entirely฀ peer-฀
oriented,฀and฀directed฀toward฀achieving฀
only฀one฀thing:฀a฀maximum฀number฀of฀

publications฀ to฀ assure฀ promotion฀ and฀
tenure฀(Monroe฀et฀al.,฀1988).
While฀ professors฀ struggle฀ to฀ publish฀for฀tenure฀and฀promotion,฀doctoral฀
students฀ are฀ at฀ a฀ frenzied฀ level฀ to฀ get฀
published฀ and฀ make฀ themselves฀ more฀
attractive฀commodities฀for฀the฀job฀market.฀Production฀of฀a฀publishable฀quality฀
manuscript฀ is฀ often฀ one฀ of฀ the฀ requirements฀of฀seminars฀in฀doctoral฀programs฀
at฀ most฀ universities.฀ Master’s฀ degree฀
students฀ are฀ not฀ immune฀ to฀ publishing฀
pressure.฀ Although฀ students฀ pursuing฀
master’s฀degrees฀are฀not฀under฀as฀much฀
pressure฀as฀doctoral฀students,฀frequently฀
a฀major฀proportion฀of฀grades฀earned฀by฀
master’s฀students฀are฀linked฀to฀the฀quality฀ of฀ a฀ required฀ manuscript฀ in฀ many฀
courses.฀
As฀ novices฀ in฀ research฀ and฀ publishing,฀one฀of฀the฀avenues฀open฀to฀graduate฀
students฀is฀to฀get฀trained฀in฀the฀skills฀of฀
publishing฀ by฀ working฀ with฀ a฀ productive฀professor.฀Of฀course,฀most฀doctoral฀
students฀grab฀the฀opportunity฀offered฀to฀
them฀ by฀ any฀ of฀ the฀ mentors฀ or฀ professors฀ 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฀
values฀held฀by฀the฀individuals฀involved.฀
Moreover,฀major฀antecedents฀of฀unethical฀ behavior฀ such฀ as฀ competitiveness฀
(Ford฀ &฀ Richardson,฀ 1994;฀ Hegarty฀ &฀
Sims,฀1978),฀self-interest฀(Beu฀&฀Buckley,฀ 2001),฀ work฀ pressure฀ (Brenner฀ &฀
Molander,฀ 1977;฀ Ford฀ &฀ Richardson),฀
and฀other฀situational฀variables฀are฀ample฀
in฀ academic฀ research฀ and฀ publishing.฀
According฀ to฀ Ford฀ and฀ Richardson,฀
when฀the฀decision฀maker’s฀job฀security฀
or฀the฀survival฀of฀the฀organization฀is฀at฀
stake,฀ the฀ pressure฀ on฀ the฀ individual฀ to฀
act฀ unethically฀ is฀ very฀ high.฀ Because฀
academic฀research฀and฀publishing฀offer฀
such฀a฀high-pressure฀environment,฀ethical฀ dilemmas฀ related฀ to฀ research฀ and฀
publishing฀ in฀ academia฀ provide฀ an฀
excellent฀ forum฀ for฀ assessing฀ the฀ possibility฀ of฀ changing฀ ethical฀ perceptions฀

for฀individuals฀as฀they฀progress฀in฀their฀
academic฀ experiences.฀ In฀ short,฀ the฀
objective฀ of฀ the฀ present฀ research฀ is฀ to฀

understand฀the฀differences฀in฀responses฀
of฀students฀and฀faculty฀to฀ethical฀dilemmas฀ faced฀ during฀ the฀ process฀ of฀ academic฀research฀and฀publishing.
Capozzoli,฀ Gundersen,฀ and฀ Scifres฀
(1996)฀ postulated฀ that฀ individuals฀ are฀
exposed฀to฀ethical฀dilemmas฀in฀the฀academic฀ setting฀ throughout฀ their฀ association฀ with฀ the฀ educational฀ institution.฀
The฀exposure฀continues฀even฀after฀they฀
enter฀ academia฀ as฀ assistant฀ professors฀
and฀advance฀in฀their฀professorial฀careers฀
toward฀ promotion฀ to฀ full฀ professors.฀
Many฀ ethical฀ dilemmas฀ arise฀ in฀ higher฀
education฀ because฀ of฀ the฀ emphasis฀ on฀
and฀the฀nature฀of฀research.฀Research฀is฀
a฀complex฀task฀that฀is฀typically฀unstructured฀with฀few฀roadmaps฀to฀follow.฀The฀
norms฀of฀publishing฀are฀frequently฀limited฀ to฀ university฀ institutional฀ review฀
boards฀ whose฀ focus฀ is฀ on฀ the฀ protection฀ of฀ human฀ participants฀ (Orlans,฀
2004).฀For฀many฀academics฀involved฀in฀
publishing,฀ ethical฀ decisions฀ related฀ to฀
research฀ are฀ frequently฀ framed฀ by฀ the฀
views฀ of฀ colleagues฀ who฀ have฀ decided฀
on฀paths฀or฀solutions฀primarily฀on฀their฀
own.฀ Ethical฀ codes฀ of฀ conduct฀ from฀
professional฀ associations฀ might฀ exist฀
but฀rarely฀determine฀decision฀outcomes฀
unless฀ the฀ consequences฀ of฀ the฀ decisions฀are฀dire.
Student฀Roles฀in฀Publishing
Capozzoli฀et฀al.฀(1996)฀described฀how฀
students฀ act฀ as฀ resources฀ for฀ professors.฀
They฀believed฀that฀students฀act฀as฀a฀constant฀ source฀ of฀ ideas฀ for฀ research฀ and฀
provide฀most฀of฀the฀research฀assistance,฀
including฀conducting฀the฀actual฀research,฀
collecting฀ data,฀ and,฀ in฀ many฀ PhD฀ programs,฀ 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฀
most฀students฀who฀view฀their฀survival฀in฀
a฀graduate฀program฀as฀essentially฀linked฀
to฀the฀preferences฀of฀the฀professors.฀Suspicions฀abound฀that฀at฀least฀some฀faculty฀
engage฀ in฀ unethical฀ behavior฀ and฀ take฀
undue฀ advantage฀ of฀ the฀ vulnerable฀ status฀ of฀ their฀ students.฀ Working฀ for฀ the฀
National฀ Institute฀ of฀ Health,฀ McGee฀
(1996)฀ found฀ that฀ young฀ scientists฀ frequently฀ complain฀ about฀ their฀ laboratory฀ directors,฀ dissertation฀ advisors,฀ and฀฀

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:15 11 January 2016

others฀ who฀ inappropriately฀ insist฀ on฀
being฀listed฀as฀authors฀of฀articles฀on฀the฀
basis฀of฀simply฀being฀superiors฀to฀those฀
who฀ actually฀ did฀ the฀ research฀ and฀ writing.฀ On฀ the฀ basis฀ of฀ these฀ findings,฀ we฀
expected฀that฀faculty฀are฀bound฀to฀differ฀
markedly฀from฀students฀in฀their฀perceptions฀of฀ethical฀issues฀related฀to฀research฀
and฀publishing.฀
Based฀ on฀ the฀ previous฀ discussion฀
and฀ literature฀ review,฀ the฀ objective฀ of฀
this฀ study฀ was฀ to฀ measure฀ the฀ responses฀ of฀ faculty฀ and฀ students฀ to฀ situations฀
posing฀ ethical฀ dilemmas฀ in฀ academic฀
research฀and฀publishing.฀We฀also฀sought฀
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฀
the฀following:
H1:฀Perceptions฀of฀ethical฀behavior฀will฀
vary฀ at฀ different฀ levels฀ of฀ academic฀
maturity,฀ measured฀ as฀ undergraduates,฀ master’s฀ students,฀ doctoral฀ students,฀ assistant฀ professors,฀ associate฀
professors,฀and฀full฀professors.฀
H2:฀Group฀ratings฀of฀ethical฀behavior฀will฀
consistently฀(linearly)฀trend฀with฀increasing฀ educational฀ credentials฀ (achievement)฀associated฀with฀the฀group.
METHOD
Instrument฀Design
After฀ a฀ relevant฀ review฀ of฀ literature,฀
we฀created฀a฀questionnaire฀containing฀25฀
scenarios฀relating฀to฀ethical฀dilemmas฀in฀
which฀ personal฀ experiences฀ were฀ considered.฀To฀ help฀ organize฀ the฀ questionnaire฀and฀facilitate฀analysis,฀we฀used฀the฀
framework฀offered฀by฀Campbell฀(1987)฀
identifying฀stages฀or฀the฀chain฀of฀events฀
in฀ the฀ publication฀ process฀ as฀ the฀ basis฀
for฀classifying฀the฀scenarios฀describing฀
ethical฀ dilemmas.฀ The฀ stages฀ include฀
(a)฀idea฀generation,฀(b)฀data฀generation,฀
(c)฀ report฀ generation,฀ and฀ (d)฀ publication.฀The฀classification฀of฀scenarios฀was฀
content฀ validated฀ using฀ four฀ graduate฀
students฀and฀four฀professors฀at฀a฀major฀
Southeastern฀university.฀
The฀content฀validators฀mutually฀agreed฀
on฀ the฀ stage฀ of฀ the฀ Campbell฀ (1987)฀
framework฀of฀14฀of฀the฀25฀scenarios.฀The฀
resulting฀ questionnaire฀ included฀ 4฀ sce฀

narios฀associated฀with฀idea฀generation,฀4฀
scenarios฀associated฀with฀data฀generation,฀
and฀ 6฀ scenarios฀ associated฀ with฀ report฀
generation.฀The฀publication฀stage฀did฀not฀
have฀any฀scenarios฀that฀were฀unanimously฀
associated฀with฀it฀by฀the฀graduate฀students฀
and฀ professors.฀ Of฀ the฀ 14฀ scenarios,฀ 12฀
were฀scored฀on฀a฀4-point฀Likert-type฀scale฀
ranging฀from฀1฀(ethical)฀to฀4฀(unethical).฀
We฀scored฀2฀scenarios฀relating฀to฀ownership฀ on฀ a฀ 3-point฀ scale฀ ranging฀ from฀ 1฀
(student฀ownership)฀to฀3฀(professor฀ownership).฀ The฀ items฀ using฀ this฀ scale฀ are฀
identified฀in฀the฀Results฀section.฀
Data฀Collection
Respondents฀ to฀ the฀ questionnaire฀
were฀all฀members฀of฀a฀large฀Southwestern฀university฀and฀were฀primarily฀from฀
the฀college฀of฀business.฀Business฀student฀
respondents฀corresponded฀to฀the฀degree฀
programs฀offered,฀including฀bachelor’s,฀
master’s,฀ and฀ doctoral฀ levels.฀ Faculty฀
respondents฀ were฀ affiliated฀ with฀ business฀ administration,฀ public฀ affairs฀ and฀
community฀service,฀and฀merchandising฀
and฀ hospitality฀ management.฀ Colleges฀
outside฀ of฀ business฀ were฀ included฀ to฀
increase฀the฀sample฀size฀for฀the฀faculty฀
respondent฀ group.฀ A฀ total฀ of฀ 143฀ faculty฀ members฀ from฀ various฀ academic฀
disciplines฀were฀sent฀questionnaires.฀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฀ disciplines฀ because฀ of฀ confidentiality฀ concerns,฀college฀affiliations฀were฀recorded.฀
Consequently,฀information฀on฀academic฀
disciplines฀ was฀ discarded฀ from฀ subsequent฀ analyses.฀ College฀ affiliations฀
of฀ faculty฀ respondents฀ showed฀ that฀ 29฀
were฀ from฀ business฀ administration,฀ 15฀
were฀from฀public฀affairs฀and฀community฀
service,฀and฀16฀were฀from฀merchandising฀and฀hospitality฀management.฀Of฀this฀
group฀of฀60฀faculty฀respondents,฀20฀had฀
the฀professor฀rank,฀20฀had฀the฀associate฀
professor฀rank,฀and฀20฀had฀the฀assistant฀
professor฀ rank.฀All฀ faculty฀ ranks฀ had฀ a฀
response฀rate฀of฀more฀than฀35%.฀
From฀the฀college฀of฀business,฀268฀students฀ received฀ questionnaires,฀ and฀ 234฀
of฀them฀responded฀with฀correctly฀completed฀ instruments,฀ yielding฀ a฀ response฀
rate฀of฀87%.฀The฀respondent฀breakdown฀

by฀student฀class฀consisted฀of฀43฀doctoral฀
students,฀ 81฀ master’s฀ degree฀ students,฀
and฀110฀undergraduate฀students.฀All฀categories฀of฀student฀respondents฀exceeded฀
response฀rates฀of฀80%.
Analyses
We฀used฀several฀procedures฀to฀investigate฀differences฀in฀ethical฀perceptions฀
between฀ varying฀ levels฀ of฀ faculty฀ and฀
students.฀ First,฀ a฀ multivariate฀ analysis฀
of฀ variance฀ (MANOVA)฀ was฀ used฀ to฀
assess฀differences฀in฀means฀for฀all฀items฀
across฀ each฀ of฀ the฀ groups.฀ Second,฀ we฀
used฀ univariate฀ analyses฀ of฀ variance฀
(ANOVAs)฀ to฀ investigate฀ differences฀
in฀ group฀ response฀ by฀ items,฀ including฀
academic฀ranks฀for฀faculty฀and฀students฀
and฀ college฀ affiliation฀ for฀ faculty.฀ Post฀
hoc฀ analyses฀ using฀ Scheffe฀ tests฀ were฀
applied฀ to฀ test฀ significant฀ differences฀
between฀academic฀ranks฀of฀students฀and฀
professors฀by฀items.฀No฀significant฀differences฀ across฀ items฀ were฀ found฀ for฀
faculty฀affiliation฀by฀college.
RESULTS
The฀ results฀ of฀ the฀ MANOVA,฀ F(84,฀
1644)฀ =฀ 6.35,฀ p฀