Quantitative Research/Social Change and Ethics/Quantitative Business Research The business environment today is constantly changing with changing demands of employees especially the entry level position employees that are costly demanding for more salar

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 design,

including the rate of non-response and a comparison of the size and

characteristics of the actual and anticipated samples

(f.1.) Non-compliance = statement is made that conduct of the

survey differed from the survey plan without explanation of

differences

(f.2.) Compliance = final response rate is stated or both the

initial sample size and the effective sample size are reported,

allowing response rate to be computed

(g) 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

(g) Non-compliance = statement is made that responses were

weighted prior to analysis but weighting procedures are not

explained

(h) A full description of the method employed in the survey (h) Not applied because items d, f, g, and i are considered to

comprise this method

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

covered in collecting data

(i) Compliance = when respondents were first contacted and

when researchers ceased collecting data from them are specified

(j) The findings obtained (j) Compliance = one or more tables, charts OR graphs of the

results is/are presented, OR the text reports salient findings

(k) (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

(k) Compliance = survey conducted face-to-face or by telephone

AND the interviewers are identified and how they were trained is

stated; otherwise Not Applicable

(l) A copy of the interview schedule or questionnaire and

instructions

(l) Compliance = Invitation and verbatim questions are stated

OR data collection instrument is presented OR a web URL is

presented where this instrument can be reviewed

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

whole sample

(m) Not applied due to difficulty finding this in a survey article

that highlights results

(n) A description of the precision of the findings, including, if

applicable, estimates of sampling error

(n) Compliance = sampling error for at least one significant

question is stated

Sources World Association for Public Opinion Research (2010), and authors

154 D. C. Frechtling, S. Boo

123

eleven of the 14 rules were defined for application to

journal articles presenting survey results in our chosen

field. Two of the rules (e and h in Table 2) were not applied

as they were deemed covered by other rules. One of the

rules (m) was not applied because of the difficulty of

determining if results reported were ‘‘based on parts of the

sample, rather than the whole sample.’’ Unless an author

explicitly states that results analyzed were based only on

part of the entire sample, we would not know this. Hence,

compliance with this standard can never be disproved.

For most rules in Table 2, the criterion of compliance can

be clearly stated and, if not met by the journal article, then

non-compliance is recorded for that rule. In other words, for

most rules there are only two possible, mutually exclusive

states: compliance or non-compliance. In three cases (rules

a.2., f.1. and g.), the criterion is only applicable under certain

conditions. If the condition for such a criterion is met in a

study, then compliance or non-compliance can be deter-

mined. Otherwise, such assessment cannot be made.

Therefore, three states are defined for these three specific

rules: compliance, non-compliance (i.e., information is

provided indicating the rule does apply, but the requirements

of the rule are not satisfied) and not applicable because the

required condition is not met and compliance or non-com-

pliance cannot be determined. Finally, the reader should

note that rules (a), (d), and (f) actually contain two criteria

each that can be applied to the articles. Consequently, we

have defined 14 criteria from the 14 WAPOR rules for

application here.

Data Collection

There are more than 80 English language academic journals

devoted to tourism, hospitality, and related fields, including

recreation, sport management, meeting management, and

event management (Frechtling 2010). Despite the large

number of journals covering these fields, there has been

considerable agreement about the three leading English-

language tourism and hospitality journals over the years

among academics (Howey et al. 1999; Marketing in Asia

Group 2009; McKercher et al. 2006; Pechlaner et al. 2004)

and practitioners (Frechtling 2004). These three journals are

the Annals of Tourism Research, Journal of Travel Research,

and Tourism Management. All these three journals employ

double-blind peer review processes. All three have been

published continuously for more than 30 years. Two of them

are published in the United States, while Tourism Manage-

ment is published in the United Kingdom. We think it is fair

to conclude that these three journals provide a reasonably

representative sample of probability sample survey research

articles published in all journals covering tourism, hospital-

ity, and related fields, and may even demand higher standards

for publishing research than the other journals in the field.

In this study, we consider only full research articles

published in these three journals from 2007 through 2009.

Editorials, research notes, and book reviews are excluded

from this analysis. Between 2007 and 2009 inclusive,

Annals of Tourism Research published a total of 126 full

research articles, and Journal of Travel Research published

123. On the other hand, Tourism Management published

284 full research articles during this period, more than the

number of research articles published by the other two

journals combined.

The articles examined in this study were obtained

through complete enumeration. All the 533 articles pub-

lished by the three selected journals during 2007–2009

were read independently by three coders to identify those

articles that presented research using a probability sample

survey methodology. Of the 533 articles, 200 (36% of the

total) were found to use a probability sample survey

methodology. Among these, 13 were found to address non-

management issues, such as student satisfaction, curricu-

lum design, and sociological issues. These were deleted

from our population, as being not part of management

research. The final sample of management-related articles

employing probability sample surveys consists of 187

articles published in the Annals of Tourism Research

(n = 36), Journal of Travel Research (n = 54), and

Tourism Management (n = 97) from 2007 through 2009.

Coding Procedures

Two graduate students plus one author of the current study

applied the coding process to the 187 articles. The two

graduate students had completed a graduate course on

probability sample survey research, but had little prior

coding experience in content analysis. Since previous

studies stress the importance of coder training (Holsti

1969; Krippendorff 2004; Lombard et al. 2002; Neuendorf

2002), the authors conducted specific training sessions for

the student coders. This training session familiarized all

coders with the purpose of this research and the content to

be coded, as well as coding procedures and their applica-

tion. This training included practice coding of a small

number of articles not selected for this study. Each coder

read all the articles and coded each according to the rules in

Table 2 independently and without consultation from

March 15 to April 30, 2010.

Results

Main Findings

Table 3 arrays the WAPOR Rules of Practice in descend-

ing order of percentage of compliance found in the articles.

On the Ethics of Management Research 155

123

All of the 187 articles analyzed in this study complied with

specifying who carried out the survey (rule a.1), the pur-

pose of the study (rule b), and the survey findings (rule j).

Three of the rules were not applicable to any of these

articles (a.2, g, and f.1), leaving eleven criteria as being

applicable to the articles.

Overall, the content analysis results demonstrate that the

articles reviewed comply universally with some criteria

regarding study description and findings, while few comply

with sampling- and survey-related standards. More than

three-quarters of the articles specified the target population

and sampling frame. About three-fifths of the articles

specified the response rate and time period the survey was

conducted. At the extreme non-compliance end of the

scale, only about one in ten of the articles presented esti-

mates of sampling error or presented the data collection

instrument questions and instructions.

Results for the Research Questions

Research Question 1: Is it practicable to determine com-

pliance of published management research survey articles

with WAPOR rules at an acceptable degree of reliability

(addresses Compliance Assessment Feasibility)? In order

to address this question, we examine Cohen’s kappa mea-

sures of intercoder reliability for applying the 14 criteria to

the 187 articles by the three coders.

Table 4 displays the kappa measures among the three

coders for each of the WAPOR standards. While there is no

objective standard indicating acceptable levels of inter-

coder agreement for Cohen’s kappa, Landis and Koch

(1977) suggest that values greater than 0.75 indicate

excellent agreement, while values between 0.40 and 0.75

indicate fair-to-good agreement.

As shown in Table 4, Cohen’s kappas for the coder A–

coder B pair were higher than those of other pairs

Table 3 Compliance and non-compliance of journal articles with WAPOR Rules of Practice Regarding Reports and Survey Results,

2006–2009

Coding criteria from ‘‘Rules

of Practice Regarding

Reports and Survey

Results’’

Compliance Non-

compliance

Not

applicable

a.1. States who carried out

the survey

100% 0% –

b. Purpose of the study is

specified

100 0 –

j. Findings obtained are

shown

100 0 –

a.2. Sponsor or client

indicated but not identified

– – 100%

g. Weighting procedures to

adjust raw data explained

– – 100

f.1. Survey conduct differs

from survey plan

– – 100

c. Target population is

specified

87 13 –

d.1. Sampling frame is

defined

75 25 –

f.2. Response rate or initial

and effective sample sizes

is presented

66 34 –

i. Time period of the survey

is stated

61 39 –

d.2. Sampling selection

method is identified

45 56 –

k. Interviewer

characteristics, training,

and supervision are

presented

39* 61* 59

n. Estimates of sampling

error are presented

16 85 –

l. Copy of the data

collection instrument and

instructions are presented

or web source provided

12 88 –

Sources Table 1 and authors

* Proportions based on articles where this rule is applicable

Table 4 Intercoder reliability in assessing compliance and non- compliance of journal articles to WAPOR Rules of Practice

Regarding Reports and Survey Results, 2006–2009

Coding criteria from

‘‘Rules of Practice Regarding

Reports and Survey Results’’

Cohen’s kappa between

coders

A and

B

A and

C

B and

C

a.1. States who carried out the survey 1.00 1.00 1.00

b. Purpose of the study is specified 1.00 1.00 1.00

j. Findings obtained are shown 1.00 1.00 1.00

a.2. Sponsor or client indicated but not

identified

1.00 1.00 1.00

g. Weighting procedures to adjust

raw data explained

1.00 1.00 1.00

f.1. Survey conduct differs from survey plan 1.00 1.00 1.00

c. Target population is specified 0.604 0.823 0.454

d.1. Sampling frame is defined 0.817 0.602 0.532

f.2. Response rate or initial

and effective sample sizes is presented

0.862 0.632 0.749

i. Time period of the survey is stated 0.955 0.865 0.821

d.2. Sampling selection method is identified 0.794 0.645 0.460

k. Interviewer characteristics, training,

and supervision are presented

0.788 0.775 0.773

n. Estimates of sampling error are presented 0.890 0.743 0.709

l. Copy of the data collection

instrument and instructions

are presented or web

source provided

0.786 0.841 0.637

156 D. C. Frechtling, S. Boo

123

(i.e., coder A–coder C, or coder B–coder C). Table 4

indicates that for the 42 possible kappas, 73% exceeded

0.75, the threshold for excellent agreement. The other 37%

of the kappa scores all exceeded 0.40, placing in the fair to

good agreement range. Therefore, we conclude that this

study indicates that the answer to Research Question 1 is

yes, it is practicable to determine compliance of published

management research survey articles with WAPOR rules to

an acceptable degree of reliability.

Before discussing the results regarding Research Ques-

tions 2, 3, and 4, we note that wherever intercoder dis-

agreement was found in this study regarding a particular

WAPOR criteria in a particular journal article, we jointly

examined the disagreement and jointly settled on a single

code for the instance. Therefore, the following discussion

covers all the 187 articles assessed on all the 14 WAPOR

criteria without disagreement.

Research Question 2: Do a majority of these articles

address all of the WAPOR rules (addresses General

Compliance)? None of the 187 articles examined adhered

to all the eleven of the WAPOR standards examined here,

indicating there is no General Compliance with the

WAPOR standards in this population. Therefore, the

answer to Research Question 2 is an unconditional nega-

tive. Indeed, there is no evidence that the authors or journal

editors have any familiarity with WAPOR’s rules or any

set of standards regarding presentation of probability

sample survey methodologies.

Research Question 3: Are there some WAPOR rules that

are widely observed in the articles while others are not

(addresses Specific Compliance)? As indicated in Table 4,

all the 187 probability sample survey articles analyzed

observed three of the WAPOR rules: who carried out the

survey, the purpose of the survey, and presentation of

findings. Eighty-seven percent defined the target popula-

tion. Failure to do so prevents generalization of the survey

findings to a known population. Three-quarters of the

articles defined the sampling frame, the list of all members

of the survey population, or rules for simulating such a list.

Definition of the sampling frame is essential for assessing

survey coverage error, that is, to what extent, members of

the target population were excluded from being selected for

the survey (Dillman et al. 2009).

Nearly two-thirds of the articles reported response rates

or the information necessary to compute response rates, or

designated the time period of the survey. A low response

rate suggests the presence of nonresponse bias in survey

results (Groves et al. 2009). Almost as many articles

reported the time period the survey was carried out.

Nearly one half of the studies reported the sample

selection method for the survey. A minority of articles

reported interviewer characteristics and training or repor-

ted estimates of sampling error. Sampling error indicates

the precision of the survey results in describing the target

population (Dillman et al. 2009). Without this informa-

tion, survey precision cannot be assessed. Only one in

eight articles displayed the data collection instrument or

provided an address where it could be examined. While

not all the journals may be able to devote space to pre-

senting data collection instruments, some do (Byrd et al.

2009). As an alternative, when space is unavailable, an

article may report the URL for a website displaying the

instrument.

In sum, we note that there is a substantial degree of

Specific Compliance for five of the WAPOR rules but less

than two-thirds compliance with six of them. We find that

the answer to Research Question 2 is yes, there is a sub-

stantial variety of compliance among the WAPOR rules.

Some are widely recognized and reported, while others

appear unknown among the majority of authors.

Research Question 4: Does the degree of compliance

differ significantly among the three journals (addresses

Publication Compliance)? To examine differences in

compliance across the journals, chi-square tests were

conducted. The chi-square test is useful for determining if

there is a statistical difference between groups of nominal

variables (Easterby-Smith et al. 2002). The critical level of

statistical significance was set at 0.05, and the statistical

test was two-tailed. This test found significant differences

for only three out of the 14 rules:

• d.2. Sampling selection method is identified (v2 = 6.729, df = 2, p \ .05);

• i. Time period of the survey is stated (v2 = 6.216, df = 2, p \ .05);

• n. Estimates of sampling error are presented (v2 = 18.470, df = 2, p \ .0001).

Among the three rules, ‘‘Estimates of sampling error are

presented’’ shows the largest difference in compliance

across the three journals. In each case Annals of Tourism

Research showed a significantly higher degree of compli-

ance than Journal of Travel Research or Tourism Man-

agement. Between the latter two, the Journal of Travel

Research shows compliance statistically greater than

Tourism Management on two of these three, while falling

behind Tourism Management on one.

We conclude that this study answers Research Question

4 with a qualified affirmative. There is weak evidence that

Annals of Tourism Research shows significantly higher

compliance in applying the WAPOR rules, but only for

three of the 11 criteria applied. From our studies, we cannot

conclude that this difference is because of to a conscious

policy on the part of the editors of that journal. Rather, this

difference may be due to randomness in the amount of

survey information authors chose to submit with their

articles in our sample.

On the Ethics of Management Research 157

123

Discussion and Conclusions

This study attempts to shed light on a research topic in

business ethics that has received relatively little attention: is

management research ethical? We focused on a particular

type of management research: articles based on probability

sample surveys published in the three top peer-reviewed

journals in tourism and hospitality fields. We investigated

compliance with a specific professional code of ethics,

another area lacking significant research attention.

In order to focus our analysis, we examined four

Research Questions. We concluded that journal articles’

compliance with specific ethical standards for management

research employing probability sample surveys can be

ascertained through content analysis by two or more coders

(Research Question 1). We further found that a majority of

these articles do not comply with relevant ethical standards

(Research Question 2). Indeed, very few of the standards

are addressed in even a minority of the articles (Research

Question 3). Finally, we found this lack of compliance with

ethical standards characterizes all the three journals serving

as sources of the articles (Research Question 4).

Overall, we conclude that published research for the

distinct area that we have investigated, tourism manage-

ment research utilizing probability sample surveys, is not

ethical. This finding applies to both the authors and the

editors of the journals examined. Both groups need to seek

out ethical standards such as the WAPOR Code and ensure

that their published studies abide by them.

However, our findings have another implication, as well.

The WAPOR Code of Professional Ethics and Practice is

not effective in securing compliance with standards of

ethical practice in at least one area of management

research. While it states, ‘‘Adherence to this code is

deemed necessary to maintaining confidence that

researchers in this field are bound by a set of sound and

basic principles,’’ (World Association of Public Opinion

Researchers, n.d., p. 1), this code incorporates no

enforcement mechanism. This might be as simple as an

annual report of compliance in various fields such as we

have done here for a branch of management research, or

aggressive condemnation of noncompliance as practiced by

the American Association for Public Opinion Research

(Bohannon 2009).

This study of the ethics of management research has a

number of limitations. It focused on articles published in

academic journals, while there are other significant outlets

for management research, such as books, reports, and

postings on internet websites. It examined only articles

based on probability sample surveys. Management research

also employs qualitative research techniques, such as

convenience sample surveys, focus group interviews,

content analysis, and participant observation (Easterby-

Smith et al. 2002), which were not examined in this study.

In addition, this study examined articles published in

three academic journals focused on tourism, hospitality,

and related fields. There are many other journals on other

subject areas, which publish management research. The

study period was limited to 2007–2009, leaving other

periods unexplored. Finally, the study applied a single code

of ethics when there might be others that could be applied

equally as well. Indeed, there may be ways of judging the

ethics of management research other than applying pro-

fessional codes.

These limitations suggest fruitful areas of further

research. Focusing on the probability sample survey

methodology, are there any among the 80 journals now

published in tourism, hospitality, and related fields , which

do conform to the WAPOR Code or other similar code? If

so, how instructive can their review procedures be for other

journals in these fields? How well do studies in manage-

ment fields outside of tourism, hospitality, and related

fields comply? Looking forward, will the journals singled

out for analysis in this study require higher standards of

compliance with the WAPOR standards in the future? If so,

what costs and benefits can be discerned and documented

for researchers and research users? In a broader context,

what are the ethical standards for management research

methodologies other than probability sample surveys? How

do such management studies comply with these standards?

What can be done to encourage compliance with published

ethical standards for management research? Addressing

these and other pertinent research topics can enhance our

overall understanding of the degree of ethical compliance

in management research and suggest improvements.

References

Academy of Management. (n.d.). Code of ethics. Accessed April 26, 2010 from http://www.aomonline.org/aomPrint.asp?ID=268&

page_ID=240.

Adams, J. S., Tashchian, A., & Shore, T. H. (2001). Codes of ethics as

signals for ethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 29(3), 199–211.

Bohannon, J. (2009). Author of Iraqi deaths study sanctioned.

Science, 323, 1278. Byrd, E. T., Bosley, H. E., & Dronberger, M. G. (2009). Comparisons

of stakeholder perceptions of tourism impacts in rural eastern

North Carolina. Tourism Management, 30(5), 693–703. Chia, R. (2002). the production of management knowledge: Philo-

sophical underpinnings of research design. In D. Partington

(Ed.), Essential skills for management research (pp. 1–19). London, UK: Sage Publications.

Choi, S., Lehto, X., & Morrison, A. (2007). Destination image

representation on the web: Content analysis of Macau travel

related websites. Tourism Management, 28(1), 118–129.

158 D. C. Frechtling, S. Boo

123

Christian, V., & Gumbus, A. (2009). Shades of gray: Applying

professional codes of ethics to workplace dilemmas. Organiza- tional Management Journal, 6, 178–199.

Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. Coughlan, R. (2001). An analysis of professional codes of ethics in

the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 20(2), 147–162.

Crompton, J. L., Lee, S., & Shuster, T. J. (2001). A guide for

undertaking economic impact studies: The Springfest example.

Journal of Travel Research, 40(1), 79–87. Datar, S. M., Garvin, D. A., & Cullen, P. G. (2010). Rethinking the

MBA. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet,

mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Easterby-Smith, Thorpe, M. R., & Lowe, A. (2002). Management research: An introduction (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

European Society for Opinion and Marketing Research (ESOMAR).

(2008). ESOMAR/WAPOR guide to opinion polls including the ESOMAR international code of practice for the publication of public opinion poll results. Accessed February 11, 2010 from http://www.esomar.org/uploads/pdf/ESOMAR_Codes&Guidelines_

OpinionPolling_v5.pdf.

Fennell, D. A. (2000). Tourism and applied ethics. Tourism Recre- ation Research, 25(1), 59–69.

Fennell, D. A., & Malloy, D. C. (2007). Codes of ethics in tourism: Practice, theory, synthesis. Clevedon, UK: Channel View Publications.

Frechtling, D. C. (2004). Assessment of tourism/hospitality journals’

role in knowledge transfer: An exploratory study. Journal of Travel Research, 43(2), 100–107.

Frechtling, D. C. (2010). List of active, peer-reviewed journals in tourism, hospitality, sport and event subject areas. Accessed June 10, 2010 from http://home.gwu.edu/*frechtli/resources. html.

Gaumnitz, B. R., & Lere, J. C. (2002). Contents of codes of ethics of

professional business organizations in the United States. Journal of Business Ethics, 35(1), 35–49.

Gaumnitz, B. R., & Lere, J. C. (2004). A classification scheme for

codes of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(4), 329–335.

Glass, B. (1965). Science and ethical values. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Grayson, K., & Rust, R. (2001). Interrater reliability. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10(1&2), 71–73.

Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Jr., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M.,

Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2009). Survey methodology (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Groves, B. W., Kucharewski, R., & Longsdorf, E. L. (2006). Ethical

issues in recreation research as perceived by recreation, park

resources, and leisure services faculty. In J. G. Peden & R.

M. Schuster (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2005 northeastern recreation research symposium (pp. 120–129). Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Forest Service.

Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a

standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 77–89.

Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Menlo Park, CA: Addison Wesley.

Howey, M., Savage, K. S., Verbeeten, M. J., & Van Hoof, H. B.

(1999). Tourism and hospitality research journals: Cross-cita-

tions among research communities. Tourism Management, 20(1), 133–139.

Kaptein, M., & Schwartz, M. (2008). The effectiveness of business

codes: A critical examination of existing studies and the

development of an integrated research model. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(2), 111–127.

Kolbe, R. H., & Burnett, M. S. (1991). Content-analysis research: An

examination of applications with directives for improving

research reliability and objectivity. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(2), 243–250.

Kolk, A., & van Tulder, R. (2002). International codes of conduct: Trends, sectors, issues and effectiveness. Accessed October 4, 2009 from http://www.ib-sm.org/internationalcodesconduct.pdf.

Kolk, A., van Tulder, R., & Welters, C. (2007). International codes of

conduct and corporate social responsibility: Can transnational

corporations regulate themselves? In A. Crane & D. Matten

(Eds.), Corporate social responsibility. 2: Managing and implementing corporate social responsibility. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Korac-Kakabadse, N., Kakabadse, A., & Kouzmin, A. (2002). Ethical

considerations in management research. In D. Partington (Ed.),

Essential skills for management research (pp. 20–44). London, UK: Sage Publications.

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer

agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. Langlois, C. C., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. (1990). Do corporate codes of

ethics reflect national character? Evidence from Europe and the

United States. Journal of International Business Studies, 21(4), 519–539.

Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis

in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder

reliability. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 587–604. Long, B., & Driscoll, C. (2008). Codes of ethics and the pursuit of

organizational legitimacy: Theoretical and empirical contribu-

tions. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(2), 173–189. Malloy, D. C., & Fennell, D. A. (1998). Codes of ethics and tourism:

An exploratory content analysis. Tourism Management, 19(5), 453–461.

Marketing in Asia Group. (2009). The MAG scholar journal ranking list 2009. Accessed September 9, 2009 from http://www.mag scholar.com/news.htm.

McKercher, B., Law, R., & Lam, T. (2006). Rating tourism and

hospitality journals. Tourism Management, 27(6), 1235–1252. Michalos, A. C. (1991). Ethical considerations regarding public

opinion polling during election campaigns. Journal of Business Ethics, 10, 403–422.

Murphy, L. (2001). Exploring social interactions of backpackers.

Annals of Tourism Research, 28(1), 50–67. Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Pan, B., MacLaurin, T., & Crotts, J. C. (2007). Travel blogs and the

implications for destination marketing. Journal of Travel Research, 46(1), 35–45.

Pater, A., & Van Gils, A. (2003). Stimulating ethical decision-making

in a business context: Effects of ethical and professional codes.

European Management Journal, 21(6), 762–772. Payne, S. L. (2000). Challenges for research ethics and moral

knowledge construction in the applied social sciences. Journal of Business Ethics, 26(4), 307–318.

Pechlaner, H., Zehrer, A., Matzler, K., & Abfalter, D. (2004). A

ranking of international tourism and hospitality journals. Journal of Travel Research, 42(4), 328–332.

Perdue, R. R. (1991). Ethical issues in tourism accountability

research: Some case studies. In Proceedings of the travel and tourism research association twenty-first annual conference,

On the Ethics of Management Research 159

123

June 10–13, 1990 (pp. 311–314). New Orleans, LA: The

Fairmont Hotel.

Potter, W. J., & Levine-Donnerstein, D. (1999). Rethinking validity

and reliability in content analysis. Journal of Applied Commu- nication Research, 27(3), 258–284.

Rau, P., & Kane, D. (1999). Marketing research ethics. In S.

K. Chakraborty & S. R. Chatterjee (Eds.), Applied ethics in management: Towards new perspectives. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Riffe, D., & Freitag, A. A. (1997). A content analysis of content

analyses: Twenty-five years of journalism quarterly. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74(4), 873–882.

Ryan, C. (2005). Ethics in tourism research: Objectivities and

personal perspectives. In B. W. Ritchie & P. Burns (Eds.),

Tourism research methods: Integrating theory with practice (pp. 9–19). Cambridge, MA: CABI Publishing.

Skubik, D. W., & Stening, B. W. (2009). What’s in a credo? A

critique of the academy of management’s code of ethical conduct

and code of ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(4), 515–525. Smith, C. P. (2000). Content analysis and narrative analysis. In H.

T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 313–335). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Somers, M. J. (2001). Ethical codes of conduct and organizational

context: A study of the relationship between codes of conduct,

employee behavior and organizational values. Journal of Busi- ness Ethics, 30(2), 185–195.

Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(17). Accessed June 28, 2010 from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=17.

Stohl, C., Stohl, M., & Popova, L. (2009). A new generation of

corporate codes of ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(4), 607–622.

Svensson, G., & Wood, G. (2008). International standards of business

conduct: Framework and illustration. European Business Review, 20(3), 260–274.

Tinsley, H. E. A., & Weiss, D. J. (2000). Interrater reliability and

agreement. In H. E. A. Tinsley & S. D. Brown (Eds.), Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling (pp. 95–124). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Tseng, H., Duan, C., Tung, H., & Kung, H. (2010). Modern business

ethics research: Concepts, theories, and relationships. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(4), 587–597.

Tucker, L. R., Stathakopolous, V., & Patti, C. H. (1999). A

multidimensional assessment of ethical codes: The professional

business association perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 19(3), 287–300.

Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage Publications.

Wiley, C. (2000). Ethical standards for human resource management

professionals: A comparative analysis of five major codes.

Journal of Business Ethics, 25(2), 93–114. World Association for Public Opinion Research. (2010). Constitution

of the World Association for Public Opinion Research. Accessed February 11, 2010 from http://www.unl.edu/wapor/constitution.

html.

World Association of Public Opinion Researchers. (n.d.). Accessed

January 19, 2010 from http://www.unl.edu/wapor/ethics.html.

160 D. C. Frechtling, S. Boo

123

Copyright of Journal of Business Ethics is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.