Skip to main content
Log in

Empirical Business Ethics Research and Paradigm Analysis

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite the so-called ‘paradigm wars’ in many social sciences disciplines in recent decades, debate as to the appropriate philosophical basis for research in business ethics has been comparatively non-existent. Any consideration of paradigm issues in the theoretical business ethics literature is rare and only very occasional references to relevant issues have been made in the empirical journal literature. This is very much the case in the growing fields of cross-cultural business ethics and undergraduate student attitudes, and examples from these fields are used in this article. No typology of the major paradigms available for, or relied upon in, business ethics has been undertaken in the wider journal literature, and this article addresses that gap. It contributes a synthesis of three models of paradigms and a tabulated comparison of ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions in the context of empirical business ethics research. The author also suggests the likely (and usually unidentified) positivist paradigm assumptions underlying the vast majority of empirical business ethics research published in academic journals and also argues for an increased reliance on less positivist assumptions moving forward.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Brand, V.: 2006, ‘Business Ethics Perceptions of Malaysian Chinese and Australian Undergraduate Business Students: Cross-Cultural Business Ethics and a Paradigm Analysis’, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Flinders University, Australia.

  • Brand, V., & Slater, A. (2003). Using a Qualitative Approach to Gain Insights into the Business Ethics Experiences of Australian Managers in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 45, 167–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. 1979, Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis. Heinemann, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Business Ethics Quarterly: 2007, ‘Information for Contributors’, http://www.buec.udel.edu/beq/contributors.htm. Accessed 5 Nov 2007 .

  • Chikudate, N. (2000). A Phenomenological Approach to Inquiring into an Ethically Bankrupted Organization: A Case Study of a Japanese Company. Journal of Business Ethics, 28, 59–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collier, J. (1995). ‘Business Ethics Research: Shaping the Agenda’, Business Ethics. European Review (Chichester, England), 4, 6–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A. (1999). Are You Ethical? Please Tick Yes or No: On Researching Ethics in Business Organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 20, 237–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crotty, M. 1998, The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Aquila, J., Bean, D., & Procario-Foley, E. (2004). ‘Students’ Perceptions of the Ethical Business Climate: a Comparison With Leaders in the Community’. Journal of Business Ethics, 51, 155–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). 1994, Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • French, W., Häßlein, C., & van Es, R. (2002). Constructivist Negotiation Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 39, 83–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French, W., Zeiss, H., & Scherer, A. (2001). ‘Intercultural Discourse Ethics: Testing Trompenaars’ and Hampden-Turner’s Conclusions about Americans and the French’. Journal of Business Ethics, 34, 145–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritzsche, D., Y. Huo, S. Sugai, S. Tsai, C. Kim, and H. Becker: 1995, ‘Exploring the Ethical Behavior of Managers: A Comparative Study of Four Countries’, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 12, 37–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan, C. 1982, In a Different Voice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E. and Y. Lincoln: 1994, ‘Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research’, Chapter 6 in N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA)

  • Hassard, J. 1993, Sociology and Organization Theory: Positivism, Paradigms and Postmodernity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackall, R. 1988, Moral Mazes, Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Journal of Business Ethics: 2007, ‘Description of Journal’, Accessed 14 Dec 2007. http://www.springer.com/west/home/philosophy?SGWID=4-40385-70-35739432-0

  • Kohlberg, L. 1981, The Philosophy of Moral Development, Harper & Row, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohlberg, L. 1984, The Psychology of Moral Development, Harper & Row, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kincheloe, J. and P. McLaren: 1994, ‘Rethinking Critical Theory and Qualitative Research’, Chapter 8 in N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA)

  • Lämsä, A., & Takala, T., 2000, ‘Downsizing and Ethics of Personnel Dismissals – the Case of Finnish Managers’, Journal of Business Ethics, 23, 389–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeil, M., & Pedigo, K., 2001a, ‘Dilemmas and Dictates: Managers Tell Their Stories: About International Business Ethics’, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 13, 43–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeil, M., & Pedigo, K., 2001b, ‘Western Australian Managers Tell Their Stories: Ethical Challenges in International Business Operations’, Journal of Business Ethics 30, 305–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, L., & Roffey, B., 1997, ‘Back to the Drawing Board: Revisiting Grounded Theory and the Everyday Accountant’s and Manager’s Reality’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 10, 212–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedigo, K., & Marshall, V., 2004, ‘International Ethical Dilemmas Confronting Australian Managers’, Journal of European Industrial Training, 28, 183–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K., 1972, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randall, D., & Fernandes, M., 1991, The Social Desirability Response Bias in Ethics Research. Journal of Business Ethics 10, 805–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randall, D., & Gibson, A., 1990, ‘Methodology in Business Ethics Research: A Review and Critical Assessment’, Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 457–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randall, D., Huo, Y., & Pawelk, P., 1993 Social Desirability Bias in Cross-Cultural Ethics Research. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis 1, 185–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, D., 1993, ‘Empiricism in Business Ethics: Suggested Research Directions’, Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 585–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwandt, T.: 1994, ‘Constructivist, Interpretivist Approaches to Human Inquiry’, Chapter 7 in N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

  • Spence, L., & Rutherfoord, R., 2003, ‘Small Business and Empirical Perspectives in Business Ethics: Editorial’, Journal of Business Ethics 47, 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Su, Z., & Richelieu, A., 1999, ‘Western Managers Working in Romania: Perception and Attitude Regarding Business Ethics’, Journal of Business Ethics, 20, 133–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, D., & Snell, R., 2002, ‘The Third Eye: Exploring Guanxi and Relational Morality in the Workplace’, Journal of Business Ethics, 41, 361–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treviño, L., Brown, M., & Hartman, L., 2003, ‘A Qualitative Investigation of Perceived Ethical Leadership: Perceptions from Inside and Outside the Executive Suite’, Human Relations 56, 5–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges the valuable assistance provided by Assoc Prof Carol Tilt in the development of this article, and also thanks the anonymous reviewers for their assistance and comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to V. Brand.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brand, V. Empirical Business Ethics Research and Paradigm Analysis. J Bus Ethics 86, 429–449 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9856-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9856-3

Keywords

Navigation