Unit IV RM
Transparent Practices: Primary and
Secondary Data in Business Ethics
Dissertations Shawn W. Nicholson
Terrence B. Bennett
ABSTRACT. We explore the availability and use of data
(primary and secondary) in the field of business ethics
research. Specifically, we examine an international sample
of doctoral dissertations since 1998, categorizing research
topics, data collection, and availability of data. Findings
suggest that use of only primary data pervades the disci-
pline, despite strong methodological reasons to augment
business ethics research with secondary data.
KEY WORDS: business ethics, datasets, doctoral
research, open data, primary data, secondary data
Introduction and issues
Popular and scholarly treatment of ethical dealings in
business continues to garner considerable attention,
with recent books, dissertations, journal articles, and
news reports supporting both applied and theoretical
advances in this field. In the scholarly arena there has
been much attention paid to the methodological
choices used to study business ethics (Bryman and
Bell, 2003; Crane, 1999; Godfrey and Hatch, 2007;
Robertson, 1993). In particular, the past decade has
witnessed articles promoting greater use of archival
and other secondary data to, among other things,
reduce the cost (monetary and political) of collecting
primary data, and enhance (or refute) the conclu-
sions derived from primary data, the integrity of
which can be compromised by the inevitable inter-
relationship of the data sources and the ethical
practices being observed. In his 1998 article ‘‘The
Use of Secondary Data in Business Ethics
Research,’’ Cowton uses these pages to ‘‘stimulate
the interest of business ethics researchers in using
secondary data’’ (Cowton, 1998). He worries about
the ‘‘poor empiricism’’ in business ethics research
and asserts that ‘‘as a general rule it seems to be the
case that researchers are not as aware as they might
be of the potential of secondary data for providing
valuable insights into a whole range of questions in a
cost effective manner’’ (Cowton, 1998).
Further advancing Cowton’s observations, Harris
explains that ethics research is strengthened by
analysis of impartial secondary sources. Because the
subject matter itself is sensitive, embarrassing,
threatening, stigmatizing, or incriminating (Harris,
2001), it can be difficult to collect reliable primary
data. His study uses a content analysis of major
newspapers to compile secondary data that supports a
richer exploration of business ethics. Furthermore,
he positions secondary data analysis as a means ‘‘to
constrain the researcher faced with the temptation to
arrive at more extensive conclusions than the [pri-
mary] data would support,’’ since classification of the
secondary data was clearly specified and able to
withstand careful scrutiny (p. 201).
Concomitant with these calls for greater use of
secondary data is the evolving discourse surrounding
open access and open data. Open data is a philoso-
phy and practice requiring that certain data are freely
available to everyone, without restrictions from
copyright, patents or other mechanisms of control.
The advocates of this model believe that there are
substantial benefits that arise from the sharing of
research data.1
The growing awareness of the advantages of open
data is, of course, not exclusive to business research,
but reaches across many scholarly disciplines. For
example, Wicherts et al. document the slim results
from their efforts to collect datasets for reanalysis
from articles published in a set of top psychology
journals (Wicherts et al., 2006). Responding to
Journal of Business Ethics (2009) 84:417–425 � Springer 2008 DOI 10.1007/s10551-008-9717-0
Wicherts et al., a recent editorial in Nature laments
the poor tradition in psychology regarding data
availability and lays out a plan whereby the Ameri-
can Psychological Association shall require the
‘‘deposition of data as supplementary electronic
material in APA databases’’ (‘‘A Fair Share,’’ 2006).
In this study we primarily seek to understand the
nature of data use in business ethics dissertation re-
search. Secondarily, we consider the overall ease of
findability of dissertations relevant to a specific field
of inquiry, as well as the ease of ascertaining the
presence or use of datasets within these dissertations.
Finally, we look for any indication of adherence to
trends in open data within the discipline of business
ethics. To this end, we analyze an international
sample of recent dissertations in the field of business
ethics, hoping to identify trends and patterns in the
availability and use of secondary data; track the
creation and open availability of primary data; and
examine the subsequent re-use of primary data.
Our focus on dissertations not only allows us to
derive a manageable-sized sample, but also directs our
attention to nascent scholarship. Chang and Hsieh
assert that ‘‘the doctoral dissertation is the major dis-
tinguishing feature of education, which traditionally
has a dual role: (1) [to] make a positive, original and
significant contribution to knowledge and (2) to
provide training in research and scholarly techniques’’
(Chang and Hsieh, 1997). It is reasonable to assume
that dissertation authors, as emerging scholars, are
exemplars in creating rigorous studies that give effect
to the latest trends, theories, and best practices in
research and scholarship in their discipline.
Methodology
An international sample (N = 48) of doctoral dis-
sertations primarily from North America and the
United Kingdom from 1998 to 2007 forms the
population for this analysis. This sample was derived
from a simple keyword search for (‘‘business AND
ethics’’) in two online subscription databases: Pro-
Quest Dissertations & Theses (PQDT, most of the
contents of which comes from the United States and
Canada) and the Index to Theses (Great Britain and
Ireland). When available, we also examined disser-
tation records from another ProQuest database:
Dissertations & Theses @ CIC Institutions.2
Records in this database are likely to include more
extensive indexing than that found in PQDT. Titles
from the results of this initial search were examined
in order to exclude results that were clearly unrelated
to business ethics. From the remaining sample, non-
doctoral-level dissertations were omitted (PQDT
and Index to Theses also include masters-level the-
ses), as were results from disciplines unrelated to
business or ethics. Ten (21%) of the dissertations
came from the UK, while the remaining 79% were
from the USA or Canada (except for one English-
language dissertation from The Netherlands).
Each dissertation has been content-analyzed and
coded for 11 variables (see Appendix A). We
reviewed several components of each dissertation for
an indication of the use of either primary or sec-
ondary data, utilizing a mixture of manifest and
latent coding (Monette et al., 2005). Specifically, we
paid close attention to mentions in each dissertation’s
abstract of data collection and use, acknowledging
the assertion by Adams and White that authors
‘‘typically want to represent their research as accu-
rately as possible in an abstract’’ (Adams and White,
1994). We also looked at tables of contents,
appendices, and the text itself in order to determine
the creation (and availability for re-use) of primary
data, as well as the presence of primary and sec-
ondary data. For purposes of this analysis, we again
take our cue from Cowton and define ‘‘data’’
broadly to include not only numeric datasets, but
also resources such as survey results, ethnographic
studies, or coded text (Cowton, 1998).
Analysis and discussion
We first examined information about the dissertations
in our sample that could be gleaned from secondary
sources, specifically, the citations and abstracts (when
available) and other indexing information found in
PQDT and Index to Theses. This approach models
the typical researcher’s level of access to a large
universe of dissertations: a browsable collection of
full-text dissertations is uncommon; however, an
online index or other finding aid is likely to be the
most readily available tool for identifying works of
potential interest.
418 Shawn W. Nicholson and Terrence B. Bennett
The role of title words and subject terms in initial screening
While our primary focus was the presence – and
availability for use – of data in business ethics dis-
sertations, we first had to consider the overall ease of
findability of dissertations in this broadly multidis-
ciplinary field. How fruitful would a search of dis-
sertation titles (presumably the first and fastest means
by which a dissertation’s subject reveals itself) be in
identifying to a researcher potentially suitable dis-
sertations in the field of business ethics?
The results from our sample were mixed
(Figure 1). Not quite half (46%) of the dissertations
in our sample had titles that contained the phrase
‘‘business ethics,’’ although an additional 10% had
titles that contained both words (‘‘business’’ or a very
closely related term, and ‘‘ethics’’) in the title.
Another 40% had only the word ‘‘ethics’’ in the title
(and were only deemed also to be business-related
because of other descriptive features), while 4% had
titles that did not mention ethics at all. If a researcher
were trying to identify relevant dissertations in
business ethics by searching only for results that
included both of those words in the title, then nearly
half of the items in our sample (44%) would have
been excluded.
Titles, of course, do not necessarily serve to fully
describe content, and it is reasonable to assume that a
careful researcher would also use other indexing cues
when screening for relevant content. We expected
that when subject or keyword terms were provided
in a commercial dissertation database, their presence
would increase the findability of relevant results.
This proved to be mostly untrue. Seventeen percent
of the dissertations in our sample did not include
subject or keyword terms as part of their database
record. Had these dissertations been given titles
without ‘‘business’’ or ‘‘ethics’’ – or did not have
appropriately descriptive abstracts – then they would
have been incorrectly omitted from our universe of
relevant dissertations.
Unfortunately, even when they are available,
subject terms supplied by the database vendor can be
inadequate for identification of relevant dissertations.
In PQDT, dissertations in business ethics fall under
broad subject terms such as ‘‘business administration
– management’’ or ‘‘business education’’ or even
‘‘philosophy.’’ The two dissertations in our sample
for which ‘‘business ethics’’ was assigned as a subject
term were found in Dissertations & Theses @ CIC
Institutions – an indexing tool with more precise
subject identifiers, but one that is available to only a
small percentage of researchers.
Presence of data revealed in abstracts and tables of contents
Our next point of inquiry was to determine the
adequacy of author-supplied abstracts in revealing
the presence of data within a dissertation. First, it is
worth noting that it became evident to us that in
some instances the abstract included in PQDT or the
Index to Theses was a foreshortened version of the
abstract found in the dissertation itself. When por-
tions of an abstract have been omitted in a database,
this has obvious negative implications for the fin-
dability of relevant dissertations by researchers. Based
on our examination of abstracts, it was disappointing
to discover that only 27% of the abstracts in our
sample explicitly indicate that data is included in the
research (see Figure 2), while a full 58% make no
mention of data whatsoever (the remaining 15% of
the abstracts offer an inconclusive indication that
data may be present).
A subsequent examination of the tables of con-
tents of our sample set of dissertations reveals that a
much larger portion of our sample does contain data.
The tables of contents explicitly cite data in 58% of
Presence of Ethics Terms in Title
no ethics terms in
title 4%
"business ethics"
appears in title
46%
"ethics" and "business"
in title 10%
"ethics" in title 40%
N = 48
Figure 1. Appearance of ‘‘business ethics,’’ ‘‘ethics’’ or
‘‘business,’’ and ‘‘ethics’’ in titles of a sample of disserta-
tions dealing with business ethics.
Transparent Practices 419
our sample, and another 19% hint at the presence of
data. Only 23% of our sample included tables of
contents that offered no explicit mention of data.
Considered another way, we found that among all of
the dissertations with abstracts that did not mention
the presence of data (73% of our sample, N = 35),
an examination of their tables of contents revealed that
43% of these (N = 15) actually do offer data-sup-
ported research.
These results refute the claim by Adams and White
(1994) that abstracts are an accurate reflection of an
author’s work. The implication of this finding is
serious: while abstracts are generally included in
dissertation-finding tools (i.e. online indexes to
dissertations, such as PQDT), tables of contents are
not included. Therefore, the use of only an online
index to identify dissertations in business ethics that
offer data-supported research – and that may include
datasets – would fail to serve up a significant propor-
tion of relevant dissertations. These could only be
discovered by a researcher who is willing to complete
the laborious process of obtaining the full text of a
dissertation in order to examine the table of contents.
And, as we discovered, even a detailed table of con-
tents may not explicitly reveal the presence of data
within a dissertation, as discussed below.
Collection of primary data and secondary data
While 58% of the abstracts in our sample made no
mention of data, and 23% of the tables of contents
did not reveal the presence of data, an examination
of the full text of the dissertations in our sample
revealed that only 16% truly did not include any
primary data, and a mere 5% were without either
primary or secondary data (See Table I). A further
Abstract Indicates Presence of Data
Abstract mentions data, 27%
Hints at data in the body, 15%
No explicit mention of data, 58% N = 48
Figure 2. Abstract in dissertation database cites the pres-
ence of data in the dissertation.
TABLE I
Collection of primary and secondary data
Description Number Percent (%) of total
Dissertations with primary data collected
Total with no primary data 7 16
Total with only one type of primary data 26 61
Total with two types of primary data 10 23
43 100
Dissertations with secondary data collected
Total with no secondary data 24 56
Total with only one type of secondary data 11 25
Total with two types of secondary data 2 5
Total with three or more types of secondary data 6 14
43 100
Presence of primary and secondary data
No primary or secondary data 2 5
Primary data only 22 51
Secondary data only 5 12
Primary and secondary data 14 32
43 100
420 Shawn W. Nicholson and Terrence B. Bennett
examination of the type of primary and/or second-
ary data reveals some interesting trends.
Among the 84% of dissertations in our sample that
included primary data, an overwhelming majority
(61% of the total sample, see Table I) reflected col-
lection of just one type of data – generally results
from a survey or questionnaire (see Table II). Most
of the remaining dissertations with primary data
reported findings from ethnographic or other
observations, or from in-depth interviews. Only two
dissertations (4% of the total sample) reported results
from actual tests or experiments. From this, it fol-
lows logically that half of dissertations that offered
two types of primary data (23% of the total sample,
see Table I) included at least one dataset arising from
a structured or in-depth interview, or from the
results of a survey or questionnaire (see Table II).
The field of business ethics is informed by mul-
tiple disparate disciplines and inevitably involves
examinations of human behavior and psychological
motivation; so, it is not surprising that the dominant
forms of primary data discovered in these disserta-
tions are not numeric datasets but text-based data
such as ethnographic observations, survey results,
and transcribed interviews. But if researchers in
business ethics are heeding the advice of Cowton
(1998) and Harris (2001), then we would expect to
see an abundant use of secondary data to reinforce
the conclusions derived from analyses of primary
data. However, the dissertations in our sample do
not match up to this expectation.
Among the dissertations in our sample, fully 56%
are without any secondary data (see Table I). Of the
44% that do make use of some form of secondary data,
we found only one dissertation (3% of all instances of
secondary data within the sample, see Table II) that
uses numeric datasets, and nine (24% of all instances of
secondary data) that are supported by information
from corporate financial reports or other SEC filings
(in some cases, each of these was present in a single
dissertation). Only five dissertations (13%) made use
of publicly available corporate reports such as mission
statements or ethics statements, while four disserta-
tions (11%) cited government documents other than
SEC filings. Surprisingly, only two dissertations (5%)
reported the use of internal corporate reports or
correspondence.
Because our inquiry was partly inspired by
Cowton’s well-reasoned argument for the use of
secondary data in business ethics research, we also
examined the bibliographies of all of the dissertations
in our sample to determine if his article ‘‘The Use of
Secondary Data in Business Ethics Research’’
(Cowton, 1998) was included. We were disheart-
ened to discover that only one of our authors cited
this article by Cowton.
Availability of collected data
In support of our interest in the growing conversa-
tion surrounding open data, we also examined the
extent to which the authors in our sample made
their data available for further use. We focused not
only on the authors’ primary data, but also on sec-
ondary data to which the author may have added
value through time-consuming collection and
re-presentation.
By invoking a generous interpretation of the
concept, we were able to ascertain that at least some
data were made available within the text or appen-
dices of 26% of the dissertations in our sample,
although it is arguable whether data such as selected
excerpts from structured interviews or coding from
the content analysis of interview transcripts would be
particularly useful to future researchers. In just five
instances (11%), dissertations include a clear citation
to secondary data, generally government reports from
which the author has collected and assembled data.
Not surprisingly, for a large majority (63%) of the
dissertations in our sample, direct access to the data
was unavailable to readers, and in most of these cases
(47%) it remained unclear whether the author would
(or could) provide data to those who might request
it. Given the sensitive nature of much of the data
that must be collected for research in this field, it is
understandable that authors need to be cautious
about making it available, and it was not unexpected
to find qualifying statements such as ‘‘confidentiality
was guaranteed to interviewees’’ or ‘‘transcripts of
confidential interviews will be destroyed within
three years.’’
Conclusions
Analysis of primary and secondary data is an integral
component of the research and scholarship taking
Transparent Practices 421
T A
B L E
II
T y p es
o f
p ri
m ar
y an
d se
co n d ar
y d at
a
C o d e
D es
cr ip
ti o n
N u m
b er
a P er
ce n t
(% )
o f
to ta
l
T yp
es of
pr im
ar y
da ta
co lle
ct ed
8 .0
N o
p ri
m ar
y d at
a co
ll ec
te d
7 1 3
8 .1
O b se
rv at
io n :
et h n o g ra
p h ic
st u d y
5 9
8 .2
O b se
rv at
io n :
o th
er 2
4
8 .3
S u rv
ey o r
q u es
ti o n n ai
re 2 4
4 5
8 .5
R es
u lt s
o f
te st
s o r
ex p er
im en
ts 2
4
8 .6
O th
er (1
0 ar
e st
ru ct
u re
d in
te rv
ie w
s) 1 3
2 5
5 3
1 0 0
C o d eb
D es
cr ip
ti o n
A ll
d is se
rt at
io n s
D is se
rt at
io n s
w it h
se co
n d ar
y d at
a
N u m
b er
c P er
ce n t
(% )
o f
to ta
l N
u m
b er
P er
ce n t
(% )
o f
to ta
l
T yp
es of
se co
n da
ry da
ta co
lle ct ed
9 .0
N o
se co
n d ar
y d at
a co
ll ec
te d
2 4
3 9
9 .1
N u m
er ic
d at
as et
s: fr
o m
IC P S R
0 0
0 0
9 .1
1 N
u m
er ic
d at
as et
s: o th
er 1
2 1
3
9 .2
C o rp
o ra
te re
p o rt
s (a
n n u al
re p o rt
s; et
c. )
6 1 0
6 1 6
9 .2
1 O
th er
p u b li c
co m
p an
y d o cu
m en
ts 5
8 5
1 3
9 .3
In te
rn al
co rp
o ra
te re
p o rt
s 2
3 2
5
9 .4
G o v er
n m
en t:
S E
C fi li n g s
3 5
3 8
9 .4
1 G
o v er
n m
en t:
re g u la
to ry
d at
a 1
2 1
3
9 .4
2 G
o v er
n m
en t:
o th
er 3
5 3
8
9 .5
L eg
al /c
o u rt
ca se
s 0
0 0
0
9 .6
A ca
d em
ic re
p o rt
s 3
5 3
8
9 .7
S y n th
es is
o f
li te
ra tu
re 6
1 0
6 1 6
9 .8
O th
er 8
1 3
8 2 1
6 2
1 0 0
3 8
1 0 0
a N =
5 3
(4 3
d is se
rt at
io n s;
1 0
w it h
tw o
ty p es
o f
p ri
m ar
y d at
a) .
b S ee
A p p en
d ix
fo r
fu ll er
d es
cr ip
ti o n
o f
co d es
. c N
= 6 2
(4 3
d is se
rt at
io n s:
2 4
w it h
n o
se co
n d ar
y d at
a; 2
w it h
2 ty
p es
; 6
w it h
3 o r
m o re
ty p es
).
422 Shawn W. Nicholson and Terrence B. Bennett
place at research institutions, yet methodological
choices continue to be challenged within the business
ethics literature. Specifically, recent articles implore
greater use of secondary data to augment the collec-
tion and analysis of primary data. This study sought to
investigate the nature of data collection and use in
recent doctoral dissertations in business ethics.
While most of the dissertations examined for this
study reported on the analysis of primary data
gathered by the authors, we were somewhat sur-
prised to find very few dissertations that made use of
secondary data to bolster the exploration of business
ethics concerns.
These observations about the use and availability
of data within business ethics research are made
worse by the additional layer of opacity resulting
from finding aids – specifically online indexes to
dissertations – that do not enhance the findability of
relevant research in this field. Finally, we note that
within our sample there is scant evidence of adher-
ence to the tenets of the open data movement.
Limitations and future research
This analysis explores issues related to the use and
availability of primary and secondary data in doc-
toral dissertations. By focusing on the multidisci-
plinary field of business ethics, we sought to make
discoveries that might reflect practices of data use in
other disciplines. However, comparative analyses
from other disciplines – especially from fields in
which research data is more commonly character-
ized by numeric datasets rather than coded text – is
essential for a deeper understanding of the
applicability of our findings to research in other
disciplines.
Also, while we note the relatively low use of
secondary data in business ethics research – despite a
clear call for its use by established scholars in this
field – we do not attempt to discern what drives the
continued exclusive reliance among a majority of
new scholars on primary data collection. Is there a
culture that dictates that original research can only
be demonstrated by original data collection? Further
studies must be undertaken to explore this issue.
We have also observed researchers do not ex-
pressly promote the availability of their primary data
for re-use and further analysis. Again, we do not
attempt to explore the reasons behind this apparent
unwillingness to make original research sufficiently
transparent to draw other scholars with similar
interests into the conversation. Is there a research
culture that supports data hoarding? Is there fear
among researchers of encroachment by others into
their field of original inquiry? Not only must these
questions by probed further, but it will also be
interesting to observe whether the nascent stirrings
among proponents of the open data movement will
evolve into a sea change among researchers and
scholarly publishers concerning the findability and
availability for use of research data.
Notes
1 ‘‘Open data’’ is an evolving concept whose advocates
are affiliated with a variety of disciplines. Their opinions
are often most ably captured in blogs (http://
wwmm.ch.cam.ac.uk/blogs/murrayrust/?p=913), list servs
(http://www.arl.org/sparc/opendata/), and even the on-
line contributed encyclopedia Wikipedia (http://en.wiki
pedia.org/wiki/Open_data). 2 This is a database of full-text dissertations from the
schools that comprise the Committee on Institutional
Cooperation (CIC): http://www.cic.uiuc.edu/.
Appendix A
NB: The raw data for this paper includes disserta-
tions from North America and the United Kingdom.
The authors will gladly share the list with interested
parties, yet the text itself remains the property of
authors and/or universities and/or ProQuest/UMI.
Coding scheme
Code Label
1 Year
2 Country
Series 3 Word in title
3.0 No ethics terms in title
3.1 ‘‘Business ethics’’ appears in title
Transparent Practices 423
References
Adams, G. B. and J. D. White: 1994, ‘Dissertation Re-
search in Public-Administration and Cognate Fields –
An Assessment of Methods and Quality’, Public
Administration Review 54(6), 565–576.
Bryman, A. and E. Bell: 2003, Business Research Methods
(Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York).
Chang, P. L. and P. N. Hsieh: 1997, ‘A Qualitative
Review of Doctoral Dissertations on Management in
Taiwan’, Higher Education 33(2), 115–136.
Cowton, C. J.: 1998, ‘The Use of Secondary Data in
Business Ethics Research’, Journal of Business Ethics
17(4), 423–343.
Crane, A.: 1999, ‘Are You Ethical? Please Tick Yes h Or
No h on Researching Ethics in Business Organiza-
tions’, Journal of Business Ethics 20(3), 237–248.
A Fair Share: 2006, Nature 444(7120), 653–654.
Godfrey, P. C. and N. W. Hatch: 2007, ‘Researching
Corporate Social Responsibility: An Agenda for the
21st Century’, Journal of Business Ethics 70(1), 87–98.
Harris, H.: 2001, ‘Content Analysis of Secondary Data: A
Study of Courage in Managerial Decision Making’,
Journal of Business Ethics 34(3/4), 191–207.
continued
Code Label
3.2 ‘‘Ethics’’ and ‘‘business’’ in title
3.3 ‘‘Ethics’’ in title
Series 4 Subjects/Keyword terms
4.0 No Subjects/Keyword terms
4.1 Ethics (business)
4.11 Ethics (philosophy)
4.2 Business Administration
4.3 Management or Managers
4.4 Other
Series 5 Abstract browse
5.0 No abstract available
5.1 Abstract mentions data
5.2 No explicit mention of data
5.3 Hints at data in the body
Series 6 Table of contents browse
6.0 No table of contents
6.1 Table of contents cites data explicitly
6.2 No explicit mention of data
6.3 Hints at data, but unclear without
further probing
Series 7 Research design
7.1 Exploratory
7.2 Descriptive
7.3 Causal
7.4 Other
Series 8 Primary data
8.0 No primary data collected
8.1 Observation: ethnographic study
8.2 Observation: other
8.3 Survey or questionnaire
8.4 Findings from focus groups/meetings
8.5 Results of tests or experiments
8.6 Other
Series 9 Secondary data
9.0 No secondary data collected
9.1 Numeric datasets: from Inter-University
Consortium for Political and Social
Research (ICPSR)
9.11 Numeric datasets: other
9.2 Corporate reports (annual reports;
mission statements; ethics statements)
9.21 Other public company documents
(mission or ethics statements; press releases)
9.3 Internal (private) corporate reports
or correspondence
9.4 Government: SEC filings
continued
Code Label
9.4 Government: regulatory data
(EPA, FEC, etc.)
9.4 Government: other
9.5 Legal/court cases
9.6 Academic reports (journal and books)
9.7 Synthesis of literature
9.8 Other
Series 10 Data available
10.0 Data not available
10.1 Yes, in document (appendix, in text, etc.)
10.2 Yes, not in document, but available
via ICPSR
10.3 Yes, not in document, but document
contains a good citation
10.4 Available on Web
10.5 Unclear: follow-up with author is required
10.6 Data has been destroyed
Series 11 Cites Cowton (1998)
11.1 Yes
11.2 No
424 Shawn W. Nicholson and Terrence B. Bennett
Monette, D. R., T. J. Sullivan and C. R. DeJong: 2005,
Applied Social Research : A Tool for the Human Services,
6th Edition (Thomson, Belmont, CA).
Robertson, D. C.: 1993, ‘Empiricism in Business Ethics:
Suggested Research Directions’, Journal of Business
Ethics 12(8), 585–599.
Wicherts, J. M., D. Borsboom, J. Kats and D. Molenaar:
2006, ‘The Poor Availability of Psychological
Research Data for Reanalysis’, American-Psychologist
61(7), 726–728.
Shawn W. Nicholson
East Lansing, MI 48824-1048, U.S.A.
E-mail: nicho147@msu.edu
Terrence B. Bennett
College of New Jersey,
Ewing, NJ 08628, U.S.A.
Transparent Practices 425