Business Students' Perceptions of Potential Ethical Dilemmas Faced by Faculty

LEISA L. MARSHALL, DAVID CAMPBELL, EILEEN A. HOGAN andDEXTER E. GULLEDGE

BUSINESS STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF POTENTIAL ETHICALDILEMMAS FACED BY FACULTY

(Accepted 22 September 1997)

ABSTRACT. Because students’ ethical behavior may be modified through socializationcontact with faculty, the perspectives of students relating to faculty ethics is an importanttopic. Prior research on business schools and ethics has not included students’ perceptionsof ethical dilemmas that often confront faculties of business schools. Student questionnairedata provides two important insights into students’ perceptions of the ethics of facultybehavior. In the aggregate, students viewed 29 potential ethical issues as more serious thandid faculty. Based on students’ perceptions, four factors of ethical dilemmas were isolated:Regulations, Academic Job Performance, Dating, and Personal Benefits.

INTRODUCTION

Despite the overwhelming amount of ethics literature and the appearanceof ethics-based journals in recent years, little research exists in the areas ofbusiness faculty ethics or stakeholders’ expectations of business faculty.Popular topics of research in the area of business ethics have focusedon ethics coverage in the business curricula (e.g., Loeb and Bedingfield,1972; Hoffman and Moore, 1982; Karnes and Sterner, 1988; Cohen andPant, 1989; Langenderfer and Rockness, 1989; Thompson et al., 1992); thelong-term impact of business ethics exposure (e.g., Purcell, 1977; Agacerand Cassidy, 1989; Martin, 1981–82; Hiltebeitel and Jones, 1991); andstudents’ and business professionals’ perceptions of ethical dilemmas inbusiness settings (e.g., Pressley and Blevins, 1984; Beltramini et al., 1984;Carver and King, 1986; Lane et al., 1988; Lane and Schaupp, 1989; Engleand Smith, 1990, 1992; Stevens et al., 1993).

Ethical dilemmas facing business school academicians include loyal-ties to the search for truth vs. loyalties to consulting clients, commitmentto teaching vs. research, and commitment to remain current in the disci-pline vs. pressures of other duties. Kenney (1987) examines situationaldilemmas faced by academicians who form relationships with industryby detailing the ethical dilemmas. Although Kenney’s arguments againstexpress relationships between industry and academia specifically relate tothe biotechnology industry, they may also apply to business school faculty.

Teaching Business Ethics1: 235–251, 1998.c 1998Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

236 LEISA L. MARSHALL ET AL.

Many dilemmas appear to result from the incongruency of profit motivesin industry on one hand and university goals on the other. Universitiesask academics to provide “dispassionate and disinterested education andresearch”; firms ask academics to improve their bottom lines (Kenney,1987).

Relationships with industry and research requirements present addi-tional ethical dilemmas that relate directly to students. Kenney (1987)presents three areas in which professor-industry relationships can impactstudents negatively. First, faculty may become so involved with outsideactivity that they don’t properly supervise their students (citing Yamamoto,1982; Stetten, 1981). Second, faculty may push students toward topics thatprovide benefit to a firm. Third, faculty may use students’ unpublishedwork for the benefit of a firm or themselves. The list of possible ethicaldilemmas can be easily expanded. Accounting academics, for instance,express concerns relating to padding expense accounts, not substantivelyparticipating at meetings attended at university expense, using universityequipment for personal activities, and canceling office hours excessively,etc. (Engle and Smith, 1992).

Research pressures also create ethical dilemmas. Many schools require acertain number of publications or level of research activity to meet tenure,promotion, and pay raise requirements. Particular issues of concern toaccounting academicians (Engle and Smith, 1992), and which logicallygeneralize to other business faculty, include presenting the same researchat more than one professional meeting, submitting the same manuscriptto more than one journal (against journal policy), inappropriately givinga colleague coauthorship, and not appropriately giving coauthorship sta-tus to graduate students. Publication pressure may also indirectly impacton students’ situations. Anderson (1992) notes that students may receivesubstandard levels of education in some situations if faculty members relyheavily on graduate students to cover classes and to grade homework andexams. Faculty may feel they do not “have time” to teach or are “too busy”for such non-research oriented tasks. Many more ethical dilemmas existthan those mentioned here.

Much of the cited research focuses on increasing ethical standards andbehavior of students through business school ethics courses. Althoughsuch course work may be interesting and important, evidence exists thatcourse work has little effect on ethical maturation of students (Davis andWelton, 1991; Borkowski and Ugras, 1992; Stevens et al., 1993). Davidet al. (1990) and Sauser (1990) note that students might learn ethics frompersonal examples provided by faculty. In general, students continuallyundergo a socialization process (Smelser, 1988; Riley et al., 1988). Weiss

BUSINESS STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF POTENTIAL ETHICAL DILEMMAS237

(1992) explains how that process continues even through doctoral training.Evidence that this socialization applies toward students “learning” ethicsfrom faculty actions appears in a survey of business graduates (David etal., 1990). This study reveals that 92 percent of these business graduatesbelieve that one of the most important influences of students’ ethical valuesdevelopment is business professors’ actions. This direct link of the social-ization process and students ethical development implies that faculty needto display ethical behavior if higher ethical standards from students aredesired. It follows, then, that knowledge of student perspectives relatingto potential ethical dilemmas facing faculty is necessary.

The current study extends the work of Engle and Smith (1990, 1992),by focusing on the role of professors as perceived by business students,as opposed to the views of fellow faculty members in accounting depart-ments. To this end, two objectives are accomplished with respect to studentperceptions. First, student responses to 29 potential ethical dilemmas arecompared to faculty responses from the Engle and Smith study to deter-mine whether faculty and students hold faculty to the same standards.Then the individual issues are combined to develop a framework of over-all dimensions of business faculty ethical dilemmas. This is accomplishedby using the students’ responses to the 29 ethical issues in exploratoryfactor analysis. This follows the work of Serwinek (1992) who developedfour aspects of business ethics perceptions from survey responses thatincluded 15 questions on business ethics in business organizations.

Many studies of ethical situations test for differences in demographiccharacteristics as potential explanations for differences in responses. Themost frequently tested characteristics include sex, marital status, numberof dependent children, amount of education, major (business and non-business), and age. Mixed results surfaced between studies and withinindividual studies. For example, several studies indicate that females aremore ethically concerned than males (Betz et al., 1988; Jones and Gautschi,1988). Evidence also exists that males and females do not differ in theirethical orientation (Kidwell et al., 1987). Yet, other studies indicate thatfemales are different in some situations and not others (Peterson et al.,1991). This description of the findings related to sex also applies to eachof the other demographic characteristics listed above.

METHODOLOGY

Students from nine classes at a college of business administration in asouthern university comprised the sample. One hundred thirty-eight stu-dents voluntarily completed the written questionnaire. The instrument


included 29 items on ethical issues faced by faculty members and somedemographic items. The ethical issues portion of the instrument, shown inTable 1, was developed by Engle and Smith (1990) and modified to accountfor student respondents. Each item was rated using a Likert-type 5-pointscale format with one being “totally ethical” and five being “extremelyunethical”.

Respondents were approximately 54 percent males and have an averageage of 23.1. The majority (85%) were business majors, (40% Accounting,15% Management, 21% Marketing, 9% Other Business), 25 percent wereattending school for a second degree, and nearly 87 percent were classifiedas at least juniors. Comparisons of responses between the lower divi-sion students (freshmen and sophomores) and the upper division students(juniors and seniors) as well as comparisons between majors (business andnonbusiness), and the traditional student (less than 24 years old) and thenontraditional student (24 or older) were made to determine the feasibilityof combining all of the student respondents into one sample. Significantdifferences were not revealed in any of the comparisons. The respondentstherefore were combined into one sample.

The literature indicates that students are less ethically oriented than bothfaculty (Stevens et al., 1993) and business practitioners (Wood et al., 1988;Stevens et al., 1993). Although these studies focused on ethical businesspractices instead of faculty ethics, faculty and business practitioners werefound to be more ethically oriented than students. This premise that facultyare believed to possess a higher ethical orientation than students indicatesthat faculty would produce higher average values to the ethical dilemmas.This leads to the following hypothesis, stated in the alternative:

H1: Faculty display a higher ethical orientation than students in situa-tions relating to ethical dilemmas faced by faculty. (faculty averageresponses are greater than the students’ average responses to theethical dilemmas).

The sign test was used to compare average responses between facultyand students. This non-parametric test is appropriate because the studentsample (students’ average responses to the ethical dilemmas) is drawnfrom a population with an unknown median, the responses represent atleast ordinal data, and the responses are continuous (Daniel, 1990). Thistest converts the faculty and students’ average responses to each questioninto a sample of pluses and minuses. The test statistic for the sign test isthe normal approximation of the binomial (Gibbons, 1985).

Dimensions of ethical dilemmas were developed with factor analysis.This sample sizevs. number of items ratio (1.0:4.75) was large enough topermit the use of this method (Hair et al. 1992). Orthogonal rotation was


TABLE I

Ethics survey – Actions

Please respond to the following possible faculty member activities using the followingscale:

1 = totally ethical/no sanctions;

2 = slightly unethical/no sanctions;

3 = moderately unethical/discussion with department head;

4 = moderately to extremely unethical/severe reprimand; and

5 = extremely unethical/ dismissal.

Research Activities

1. Plagiarizing research

2. Submitting a manuscript to two or more journals in violation of journal policy.

3. Falsifying documentation for research grants.

4. Falsifying research data.

5. Not giving graduate student(s) coauthorship on publications when the student(s)contribution justified coauthorship.

6. Inappropriately giving a colleague a coauthorship status.

7. Presenting the same research to more than one regional or annual meeting (againstmeeting policy).

Travel Activities

8. Padding an expense account.

9. Attending a meeting at university expense and not substantively participating(most of the time spent sight-seeing, etc).

Outside Employment

10. Neglecting university responsibilities due to outside employment.

11. Using university equipment for personal activities.

Relationships with Publishers

12. Selling complimentary textbooks to a used book salesperson.

13. Accepting a bribe (e.g., money, sex) from a publisher for a textbook adoption.

14. Adoption of a textbook in return for assets donated to the accounting departmentby the publisher.

Student-Related Activities

15. Favoring a particular firm(s) in employment advice to students because grants,employment, etc., have been accepted from the firm by the faculty member.

16. Using student assistants for personal work (e.g., running errands).

17. Cancelling office hours excessively.


TABLE I

Continued

18. Accepting sex for grades.

19. Accepting money or gifts for grades.

20. Dating a student in his or her class.

21. Dating a student not in his or her class who is majoring in the professor’sdiscipline.

22. Dating a student not in his or her class who is not majoring in the professor’sdiscipline.

23. Allowing lecture notes to become outdated.

24. Allowing a relative or friend in class and giving them preferential treatment.

25. Allowing a student assistant to grade non-objective exams and/or written assign-ments that require significant judgment.

26. Cancelling classes when the faculty member is not ill and has no other universityrelated commitments.

27. Conducting university responsibilities under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

28. Using outdated text to avoid the effort necessary to revise notes, etc.

Other Activities

29. Falsifying activity reports that are utilized by his or her institution for raises,promotion, or tenure evaluations.

used to determine the underlying dimensions of ethical concern as pre-sented within these variables. Results of the scree plot and the eigenvaluesindicated that a four-factor solution was appropriate.

RESULTS

Student and Faculty Perceptions

Students’ average scores on each item, shown in Table 2, indicates theseriousness with which students view the ethical dilemmas. A majority ofthe items (20 of 29) received average scores of at least 3.50. Twenty-eightof the 29 items received average scores above 3.0 (moderately unethical).The faculty in the Engle and Smith (1992) study rated less than half of theitems greater than 3.50 and only 22 of the 29 items as at least moderatelyunethical.

Application of the sign test produced a test statistic of –2.97 which yieldsa p-value of 0.9985. These findings do not support the literature whichstates that faculty are more ethically-oriented. These findings, instead,


TABLE II

Comparison of faculty vs. Students mean responses

Faculty1 Students

Item Mean Mean Faculty> Students

1 4.63 4.20 +

2 2.88 3.76 –

3 4.48 4.51 –

4 4.68 4.43 +

5 3.65 4.30 –

6 3.06 3.99 –

7 2.87 3.59 –

8 3.82 4.07 –

9 3.16 3.84 –

10 3.57 3.69 –

11 3.31 3.40 –

12 2.32 3.48 –

13 4.48 4.37 +

14 3.59 3.72 –

15 3.03 3.34 –

16 3.05 3.45 –

17 3.08 3.65 –

18 4.90 4.82 +

19 4.90 4.82 +

20 3.55 3.48 +

21 2.64 3.01 –

22 1.98 2.39 –

23 2.92 3.40 –

24 3.66 4.02 –

25 2.99 3.86 –

26 3.44 3.12 +

27 4.24 4.66 –

28 3.27 3.99 –

29 4.16 4.48 –

1Data from Engle, Terry J., and Jack L. Smith, “Accounting Faculty Involvement withActivities of Ethical Concern”,Issues in Accounting Education5(1), (Spring 1990),pp. 7–29.P (# of (–) = 22jn = 29) = 0.9985


provide support to test the hypothesis that students possess a higherethical orientation. Application of the sign test to this hypothesis pro-vided evidence that students are, indeed, more ethically oriented thanfaculty (p-value = 0.0015). These results indicate that students considerthese activities, in the aggregate, to be more unethical than do faculty. Inother words, these results indicate that students appear to possess a higherethical orientation than faculty.

Dimensions of Faculty Ethics

Exploratory factor analysis of the 29 ethical items produced four factorswhich represent dimensions of ethical dilemmas (see Table 3). Six itemsfailed to load on the resulting factors within the 0.50 cutoff selected andwere dropped from further analysis, resulting in 23 items. The final factorsexplain 65.2 percent of the variance in the data set.

The first factor includes 10 violations of university policy or profes-sional norms, including items such as presenting the same research to morethan one meeting against meeting policy and using university equipmentfor personal activities. The dimension uncovered by this factor related toand was named “Regulations”. The second factor contains seven items,all of which include some aspect of doing less work, e.g., using an out-dated text to avoid revising notes, allowing student assistants to gradenon-objective tests or assignments, and canceling office hours excessively.This dimension reveals an ethical dilemma labeled “Academic Job Perfor-mance”. The third factor consists of statements related to dating studentsand is labeled “Dating”. The final factor contains items that appear torepresent personal benefits and is labeled “Personal Benefits”. Itemswithin this dimension include falsifying documentation for grants andaccepting sex, money, or gifts for grades.

Mean responses of the items within each dimension were totaled andaveraged to determine an overall average score for each dimension. Thesescores indicate students place the highest value on Personal Benefits, 4.72.Regulations and Academic Job Performance received mid-range scores,3.75 and 3.79, respectively. Interestingly, in this period of increased sensi-tivity to sexual harassment, Dating, with a score of 2.96, appears to be ofleast concern to students.

Demographic Comparisons

Summary scales based on the factor analysis results were used to test fordifferences in demographic variables and appear in Table 4. The demo-graphic variables include sex, marital status, children, and prior degree.


TAB

LEIII

Fac

tor

load

ings

ofet

hics

item

s(F

acto

rL

oadi

ngs

�

0.50

)

Aca

dem

icJo

bP

erso

nal

Item

Des

crip

tion

Reg

ulat

ions

Per

form

ance

Dat

ing

Ben

efits

12.

Sel

ling

com

plim

enta

ryte

xtbo

oks

toa

used

book

sale

sper

son.

0.85

11.

Usi

ngun

iver

sity

equi

pmen

tfor

pers

onal

activ

ities

.0.

79

9.A

tten

ding

am

eetin

gat

univ

ersi

tyex

pens

ean

dno

tsu

bsta

ntiv

ely

part

icip

atin

g(m

osto

fthe

time

spen

tsig

ht-s

eein

g,et

c).

0.74

8.P

addi

ngan

expe

nse

acco

unt.

0.69

15.

Fav

orin

ga

part

icul

arfir

m(s

)in

empl

oym

ent

advi

ceto

stud

ents

beca

use

gran

ts,

empl

oym

ent,

etc.

,ha

vebe

enac

cept

edfr

omth

efir

mby

the

facu

ltym

embe

r.

0.69

7.P

rese

ntin

gth

esa

me

rese

arch

tom

ore

than

one

regi

onal

oran

nual

mee

ting

(aga

inst

mee

ting

polic

y).

0.67

10.

Neg

lect

ing

univ

ersi

tyre

spon

sibi

litie

sdu

eto

outs

ide

empl

oym

ent.

0.66

14.

Ado

ptio

nof

ate

xtbo

okin

retu

rnfo

rass

ets

dona

ted

toth

eac

coun

ting

depa

rtm

entb

yth

epu

blis

her.

0.65

13.

Acc

eptin

ga

brib

e(e

.g.,

mon

ey,s

ex)f

rom

apu

blis

herf

ora

text

book

adop

tion.

0.57

6.In

appr

opria

tely

givi

nga

colle

ague

aco

auth

orsh

ipst

atus

.0.

56

28.

Usi

ngou

tdat

edte

xtto

avoi

dth

eef

fort

nece

ssar

yto

revi

seno

tes,

etc.

0.76

23.

Allo

win

gle

ctur

eno

tes

tobe

com

eou

tdat

ed.

0.71


TAB

LEIII

Con

tinue

d

Aca

dem

icJo

bP

erso

nal

Item

Des

crip

tion

Reg

ulat

ions

Per

form

ance

Dat

ing

Ben

efits

25.

Allo

win

ga

stud

ent

assi

stan

tto

grad

eno

n-ob

ject

ive

exam

san

d/or

writ

ten

assi

gnm

ents

that

requ

iresi

gnifi

cant

judg

men

t.0.

64

17.

Can

celli

ngof

fice

hour

sex

cess

ivel

y.0.

61

16.

Usi

ngst

uden

tass

ista

nts

for

pers

onal

wor

k(e

.g.,

runn

ing

erra

nds)

.0.

54

2.S

ubm

ittin

ga

man

uscr

ipt

totw

oor

mor

ejo

urna

lsin

viol

atio

nof

jour

nalp

olic

y.0.

53

4.F

alsi

fyin

gre

sear

chda

ta.

0.52

21.

Dat

ing

ast

uden

tno

tin

his

orhe

rcl

ass

who

ism

ajor

ing

inth

epr

ofes

sor’s

disc

iplin

e.0.

89

20.

Dat

ing

ast

uden

tin

his

orhe

rcl

ass.

0.85

22.

Dat

ing

ast

uden

tno

tin

his

orhe

rcl

ass

who

isno

tm

ajor

ing

inth

epr

ofes

sor’s

disc

iplin

e.0.

77

18.

Acc

eptin

gse

xfo

rgr

ades

.0.

81

19.

Acc

eptin

gm

oney

orgi

ftsfo

rgr

ades

.0.

81

3.F

alsi

fyin

gdo

cum

enta

tion

for

rese

arch

gran

ts.

0.54

Not

e:Ite

ms:

1P

lagi

ariz

ing

rese

arch

,5

Not

givi

nggr

adua

test

uden

t(s)

coau

thor

ship

onpu

blic

atio

nsw

hen

the

stud

ent(

s)co

ntrib

utio

nju

stifi

edco

auth

orsh

ip,

24A

llow

ing

are

lativ

eor

frie

ndin

clas

san

dgi

ving

them

pref

eren

tialt

reat

men

t,26

Can

celli

ngcl

asse

sw

hen

the

facu

ltym

embe

ris

noti

llan

dha

sno

othe

run

iver

sity

rela

ted

com

mitm

ents

,27

Con

duct

ing

univ

ersi

tyre

spon

sibi

litie

sun

der

the

influ

ence

ofdr

ugs

oral

coho

l,an

d29

Fal

sify

ing

activ

ityre

port

sth

atar

eut

ilize

dby

his

orhe

rin

stitu

tion

forr

aise

s,pr

omot

ions

,ort

enur

eev

alua

tions

wer

edr

oppe

ddu

eto

insu

ffici

entl

oadi

ngs.


TAB

LEIV

Test

for

diffe

renc

esbe

twee

nm

eans

(Une

qual

varia

nces

)

Inde

pend

ent

Varia

ble

Eth

ical

dim

ensi

ons

Mea

ns,(

Sta

ndar

dD

evia

tions

),an

dt-

Valu

es

Reg

ulat

ions

Aca

dem

icJo

bD

atin

gP

erso

nal

Per

form

ance

Ben

efits

Sex

F=

3.88

(0.7

8)F

=3.

92(0

.76)

F=

3.27

(1.1

2)F

=4.

51(0

.67)

61F

emal

e(F

)M

=3.

64(0

.76)

M=

3.72

(0.6

4)M

=2.

69(1

.15)

M=

4.07

(0.7

3)

73M

ale

(M)

t=1.

82t=

1.66

t=2.

96��

t=0.

10

Mar

italS

tatu

sS

=3.

64(0

.80)

S=

3.74

(0.7

0)S

=2.

78(1

.10)

S=

4.45

(0.6

2)

97S

ingl

e(S

)M

=4.

08(0

.56)

M=

4.18

(0.6

7)M

=3.

54(1

.13)

M=

4.67

(0.4

4)

32M

arrie

d(M

)t=

–3.4

0��

t=–2

.40�

t=–3

.34�

�

t=–2

.19�

Chi

ldre

nY

=3.

97(0

.60)

Y=

3.81

(0.7

2)Y

=3.

35(1

.13)

Y=

4.70

(0.4

2)

21Y

es(Y

)N

=3.

70(0

.80)

N=

3.86

(0.5

8)N

=2.

89(1

.17)

N=

4.48

(0.6

0)

113

No

(N)

t=1.

73t=

–0.3

4t=

1.68

t=2.

07�

Prio

rD

egre

eY

=3.

87(0

.72)

Y=

3.77

(0.7

1)Y

=3.

13(1

.24)

Y=

4.64

(0.4

0)

34Y

es(D

)N

=3.

72(0

.79)

N=

3.94

(0.6

7)N

=2.

87(1

.11)

N=

4.08

(0.6

2)

100

No

(N)

t=1.

06t=

–1.2

1t=

1.84

t=1.

76

Not

e:

�

p

�

0.05

;��

p

�

0.01

,one

-tai

led.


The literature produced mixed results relating to the sex variable andethics. Many studies indicate females appear to be more concerned or awareof ethical dilemmas, or more ethically oriented toward ethical situationsthan their male counterparts (Beltramini et al., 1984; Pressley and Blevins,1984; Jones and Gautschi, 1988; Lane and Schaupp, 1989; Ruegger andKing, 1992; Kohut and Corriher, 1994). This contrasts with findings whichindicate that differences exist between males and females on one of severaldimensions, but no significant differences on several of the remainingdimensions (Kidwell et al., 1987; Harris, 1989). Still other studies foundno significant difference between males and females on any dimension(Singhapakdi and Videll, 1991; Sikula and Costa, 1994).

The present results indicate that females consider the ethical dilemmaswithin the Dating dimension more critically than do their male counter-parts. Both sexes place an equally high level of ethical import on theRegulations dimension (average scores for females of 3.89 and 3.64 formales), Academic Job Performance dimension (average scores of 3.96for females and 3.78 for males) and on the Personal Benefits dimension(average scores of 4.22 for females and 4.07 for males).

Marital status has been found to have no impact when consideringbusiness ethics practices (Lane and Schaupp, 1989; Serwinek, 1992). Thissame conclusion was not derived when considering students’ perspectivesof faculty ethics. Married people expect faculty to project higher levels ofethical standards than do single individuals across all four ethical dimen-sions. Individuals with children make judgements on the Personal Benefitsdimension more rigorously than individuals without children. At the sametime, there is no difference in their perceptions on the remaining dimen-sions. Those with prior degrees view the ethical dilemmas equally to thosewithout prior degrees.

DISCUSSION

The comparison of student responses to faculty responses indicates thatstudents have a higher expectation of faculty members than do facultymembers themselves. These results are particularly disturbing if oneassumes that students learn ethical, and unethical, standards from observingfaculty actions as well as through course work. If this finding is supportedby additional research, it should stimulate debate relating to the methodsof “teaching” ethics. For example, faculty may conduct group discussionsabout faculty dilemmas and how to deal with the various dilemmas orfaculty may use scenario analysis based on business situations. The results


detailed in this study provide strong justification for additional researchinto the issue of students’ perceptions of the ethics of faculty behaviors.

Factor analysis explained 65 percent of the variation in the data set,indicating that a minimum of one dimension remains to be discovered.Five of the six items that did not load on a dimension produced averagescores above 4.0 (moderately to extremely unethical). These specific issuesare (1) plagiarizing research, (2) not giving graduate students coauthorshipon publications when the student(s) contribution justified coauthorship,(3) allowing a relative or friend in class and giving them preferentialtreatment (4) conducting university responsibilities under the influenceof drugs or alcohol, and (5) falsifying activity reports that are utilizedby his or her institution for raises, promotion, or tenure evaluations. Theseriousness of these particular ethical dilemmas should not be ignoredhowever, and should be investigated. Discovery of those factors, combinedwith the factors revealed in this study, is vital to the profession’s statedconcern with the education of its students in ethics. Given the student’ssocialization process and perceptions of business graduates, the professionmust be aware of the dimensions students use to gage faculty ethics, if theprofession means to teach ethical behavior through courses and/or throughfaculty behaviors. Therefore, research should be undertaken to identifythe undiscovered factors. The exploratory factor analysis produced fourdimensions of faculty ethical behavior as defined by student perceptions:Regulations, Academic Job Performance, Dating, and Personal Benefits.With the exception of Dating, the dimensions across each demographiccharacteristic produced average ratings above 3.50, indicating the severitywith which students perceive these dimensions.

Although marital status produced the only significant results on theRegulations and Academic Job Performance dimensions, all categories ofdemographic characteristics considered this an area of ethical concern,as most scores were rated close to 4.0 (moderately to extremely uneth-ical). Two of the four demographics produced significant differences onthe Dating dimension in spite of the rather low average ratings (3.0, mod-erately unethical). The lower scores for the Dating dimension intimatesthis dimension is not of major concern to students. With the exception ofthe sex and prior degree demographics, the demographic characteristicsviewed the Personal Benefits dimension differently, all producing scoresabove 4.0.

Females produced higher scores on all dimensions with only one dimen-sion producing significant results. Only the Dating dimension was signifi-cant. The remaining dimensions received scores close to 4.0 by both malesand females. It could be suggested that marriage infuses a sense of ethics,


as married individuals produced significantly higher ratings than singleindividuals, across all four dimensions of potential faculty ethical dimen-sions. Those with children yielded significantly higher results on only onedimension, Personal Benefits. However, the average scores on the Regu-lations and Academic Job Performance dimensions for both groups wereclose to 4.0 indicating both individuals with and without children considerthe items within these dimensions to be of ethical concern.

LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Although the sample is small, it provides insight into student perceptionsof faculty ethics. Also, as with most studies, generalizability of the resultsmay be somewhat limited because the sample was developed from oneuniversity at one point in time. The value of the findings, then, would bemuch enhanced if data were gathered from different sets of students invarious institutions.

The conclusions comparing the ethical orientation of faculty membersto students must be drawn cautiously, however, for a number of reasons.First, the Engle and Smith (1990) study includes approximately 15 percentfemales while the current study contains 46 percent females. Faculty datawere drawn from only one discipline at a number of schools while studentdata were drawn from all business disciplines at one school, and the twogroups of data were obtained a number of years apart. Further, many ofthe topics addressed are likely to be outside the experience of students. Inthe alternative, students may indeed hold faculty to higher standards thanthe faculty themselves.

As noted by Stevens et al. (1992), “If there is a true concern on the partof Colleges of Business Administration to improve the ethical sensitivity ofstudents and not just to have course content requirements met, then perhapsethics education should begin with the faculty and not the students”. Giventhe apparent disparity between students’ and faculty members’ perceptionsof the ethical seriousness of certain specified actions and the belief by prac-titioners that the academic world can not teach ethical and moral issues(Carver and King, 1986), research should be conducted to determine theexpectations of other stakeholders in the education process. These otherstakeholders include industry, government, and the general population.Knowledge of the expectations of all such stakeholders would seem a nec-essary precondition to the formulation of an effective strategy for trainingstudents in appropriate ethical standards and behaviors. Faculty need moreawareness of the expectations of all constituent groups to appropriatelytrain business students various aspects of ethical development.


REFERENCES

Agacer, G. and J. Cassidy: 1989, ‘Ethics in the Management Accounting Environment: Canit be Taught?’, presentation at the American Accounting Association Annual Meeting,Honolulu, HI, August 13–16.

Anderson, M.: 1992, ‘What! Me Teach? I’m a Professor’,The Wall Street Journal, Sep-tember 8.

Beltramini, R. F., R. A. Peterson and G. Kozmetsky: 1984, ‘Concerns of College StudentsRegarding Business Ethics’,Journal of Business Ethics3, 195–200.

Betz, M., L. O’Connell and J. M. Shepard: 1989, ‘Gender Differences in Proclivity forUnethical Behavior’,Journal of Business Ethics8, 321–324.

Borkowski, S. C. and U. J. Ugras: 1992, ‘The Ethical Attitudes of Students as a Functionof Age, Sex and Experience’,Journal of Business Ethics11, 961–979.

Carver, R., Jr. and T. E. King: 1986, ‘Attitudes of Accounting Practitioners TowardsAccounting Faculty and Accounting Education’,Journal of Accounting Education4(1),Spring, 31–43.

Cohen, J. R. and L. W. Pant: 1989, ‘Accounting Educators’ Perceptions of Ethics in theCurriculum’, Issues in Accounting Education4(1), Spring, 70–81.

Daniel, W. W.: 1990,Applied Nonparametric Statistics, Second Edition (PWS-KENT,Boston).

David, F. R., L. M. Anderson and K. W. Lawrimore: 1990, ‘Perspectives on Business Ethicsin Management Education’,SAM Advanced Management Journal9, 26–32.

Davis, J. R. and R. E. Welton: 1991, “Professional Ethics: Business Students’ Perceptions’,Journal of Business Ethics10(6), June, 451–463.

Engle, T. J. and J. L. Smith: 1990, ‘The Ethical Standards of Accounting Academics’,Issues in Accounting Education5(1), Spring, 7–29.

Engle, T. J. and J. L. Smith: 1992, ‘Accounting Faculty Involvement with Activities ofEthical Concern’,The Accounting Educators’ JournalIV (1), Spring, 1–21.

Gibbons, J. D.: 1985,Nonparametric Methods for Quantitative Analysis, Second Edition(American Sciences Press, Inc., Columbus, Ohio).

Hair, J. F., Jr., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham and W. C. Black: 1992,Multivariate DataAnalysis, 3rd edition (Macmillan, New York).

Harris, J. R.: 1989, ‘Ethical Values and Decision Processes of Male and Female BusinessStudents’,Journal of Education for Business, February, 234–238.

Hiltebeitel, K. M. and S. K. Jones: 1991, ‘Initial Evidence on the Impact of IntegratingEthics into Accounting Education’,Issues in Accounting Education6(2), Fall, 262–275.

Hoffman, W. M. and J. M. Moore: 1982, ‘Result of a Business Ethics Curriculum SurveyConducted by the Center for Business Ethics’,Journal of Business Ethics1, 81–83.

Jones, T. M. and F. H. Gautschi, III: 1988, ‘Will the Ethics of Business Change? A Surveyof Future Executives’,Journal of Business Ethics7, 231–248.

Karnes, A. and J. Sterner: 1988, ‘The Role of Ethics in Accounting Education’,TheAccounting Educators’ Journal, 18–31.

Kenney, M.: 1987, ‘The Ethical Dilemmas of University-Industry Collaborations’,Journalof Business Ethics6, 127–135.

Kidwell, J. M., R. E. Stevens and A. L. Bethke: 1987, ‘Differences in Ethical PerceptionsBetween Male and Female Managers: Myth or Reality?’,Journal of Business Ethics6,489–493.


Kohut, Gary F. and S. E. Corriher: 1994, ‘The Relationship of Age, Gender, Experience andAwareness of Written Ethics Policies to Business Making’,SAM Advanced ManagementJournal, Winter, 32–39.

Lane, M. S., D. Schaupp and B. Parsons: 1988, ‘Pygmalion Effect: An Issue for BusinessEducation and Ethics’,Journal of Business Ethics7, 223–229.

Lane, M. S. and D. Schaupp: 1989 ‘Ethics in Education: A comparative Study’,Journal ofBusiness Ethics8, 945–949.

Langenderfer, H. Q. and J. W. Rockness: 1989, ‘Integrating Ethics into the AccountingCurriculum: Issues, Problems, and Solutions’,Issues in Accounting Education4(1),Spring, 58–69.

Loeb, S. E. and J. P. Bedingfield: 1972, ‘Teaching Accounting Ethics’,The AccountingReview, October, 811–813.

Martin, T. R.: 1981–1982, ‘Do Courses in Ethics Improve the Ethical Judgement of Stu-dents?’,Business and Society20–21, 17–26.

Peterson, R. A., R. F. Beltramini and G. Kosmetsky: 1991, ‘Concerns of College StudentsRegarding Business Ethics: A Replication’,Journal of Business Ethics10, 733–738.

Purcell, T. V.: 1977, ‘Do Courses in Business Ethics Pay Off?’,California ManagementReview, SIS, 4, Summer, 50–58.

Pressley, M. M. and D. E. Blevins: 1984, ‘Student Perceptions of ‘Job Politics’ as Practicedby Those Climbing the Corporate Career Ladder’,Journal of Business Ethics3, 127–138.

Riley, M. W., A. Foner and J. Waring: 1988, ‘Sociology of Age’, in N. J. Smelser (ed.),Handbook of Sociology, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.

Ruegger, D. and E. W. King: 1992, ‘A Study of the Effect of Age and Gender upon StudentBusiness Ethics’,Journal of Business Ethics11, 179–186.

Sauser, W. I., Jr.: 1990, ‘The Ethics of Teaching Business: Toward a Code for BusinessProfessors’,SAM Advanced Management Journal9, 33–37.

Serwinek, P. J.: 1992, ‘Demographic & Related Differences in Ethical Views Among SmallBusiness’,Journal of Business Ethics11, 555–566.

Sikula, A., Sr. and A. D. Costa: 1994, ‘Are Women More Ethical than Men?’,Journal ofBusiness Ethics13, 859–871.

Singhapakdi, A. and S. J. Vitell: 1991, ‘Analyzing the Ethical Decision Making of SalesProfessionals’,Journal of Personal Selling & Sales ManagementXI (4), 1–12.

Smelser, N. J.: 1988, ‘Social Structure’, in Neil J. Smelser (ed),Handbook of Sociology,Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.

Stetten, P., Jr.: 1981, ‘Recombinant Molecules: Anxieties and Hazards’,preceeding of the1981 International Conference on Genetic Engineering1, Roslyn, Virginia, 54–68.

Stevens, R. E., O. J. Harris and S. Williamson: 1993, ‘A Comparison of Ethical Evaluationsof Business School Faculty and Students: A Pilot Study’,Journal of Business Ethics12,611–619.

Thompson, J. H., T. L. McCoy and D. A. Wallestad: 1992, ‘The Incorporation of Ethicsinto the Accounting Curriculum’,Advances in Accounting10, 91–103.

Weiss, M.: 1992, ‘The University Professor as Teacher: A Study in Secondary Socializa-tion’, Journal of General Education41, 1–7.

Wood, J. A., J. G. Longenecker, J. A. McKinney and C. W. Moore: 1988, ‘Ethical Atti-tudes of Students and Business Professionals: A Study of Moral Reasoning’,Journal ofBusiness Ethics7, 249–257.


Yamamota, K. R.: 1982, ‘Faculty Members as Corporate Officers: Does Cost OutweighBenefit’, in W. J. Whelan and S. Black (eds.),From Genetic Engineering to Biotechnology– The Critical Transition, pp. 195–201.

Department of Accounting and Finance Leisa L. MarshallValdosta State University

Department of Marketing and Economics David CampbellValdosta State University

Department of Management Eileen A. HoganKutztown University

Department of Accounting Dexter E. GulledgeBloomsburg University

Documents

Business Students' Perceptions of Potential Ethical Dilemmas Faced by Faculty