Integrity is a central topic in business ethics, and in the world of business it is quite possibly the most commonly cited morally desirable trait. But integrity is conceived in widely differing ways, and as often as it is discussed in the literature and given a central place in corporate ethics statements, the notion is used so variously that its value in guiding everyday conduct may be more limited than is generally supposed. Two central questions for this paper are what (...) work the notion does and whether it does any ethical work that is not done better by other concepts. In pursuing these questions the paper explores the most plausible range of understandings of integrity found in recent literature, considers in what sense it is a virtue, and proposes a strategy of clarification and interpretation that can facilitate both ethical reflection and the guidance of moral conduct in business. (shrink)

The value of solidarity, which is exemplified in noble groups like the Civil Rights Movement along with more mundane teams, families and marriages, is distinctive in part because people are in solidarity over, for or with regard to something, such as common sympathies, interests, values, etc. I use this special feature of solidarity to resolve a longstanding puzzle about enacted social moral rules, which is, aren’t these things just heuristics, rules of thumb or means of coordination that we ‘fetishize’ or (...) ‘worship’ if we stubbornly insist on sticking to them when we can do more good by breaking them? I argue that when we are in a certain kind of solidarity with others, united by social moral rules that we have established among ourselves, the rules we have developed and maintain are a constitutive part of our solidary relationships with one another; and it is part of being in this sort of solidarity with our comrades that we are presumptively required to follow the social moral rules that join us together. Those in the Polish Revolution, for example, were bound by informally enforced rules about publicity, free speech and the use of violence, so following their own rules became a way of standing in a valuable sort of solidarity with one another. I explain why we can have non-instrumental reasons to follow the social moral rules that exist in our own society, improve our rules and even sometimes to break the otherwise good rules that help to unite us. (shrink)

With reference to Plato and Aristotle, Gadamer discusses the question of what is left of friendship and solidarity in an age of `anonymous responsibility.'.

In the years since Enron corporate social responsibility, or “CSR,” has become a ubiquitous phenomenon in both research and business practice. CSR is used as an umbrella term to describe much of what is done in terms of ethics-related activities in firms around the globe to such an extent that some consider it a “tortured concept” (Godfrey and Hatch 2007, Journal of Business Ethics 70, 87–98). Addressing this skepticism, I argue in this article that the focus on CSR is indeed (...) problematic for three main reasons: (1) the term carries a lot of historical baggage – baggage that is not necessarily conducive to the clarity of the concept; (2) it is the object of increasing ethical instrumentalism; and (3) given the multiple ethical challenges that corporations face, and given the fact that the “social” responsibilities of business are but one set of corporate responsibilities, a suitable term would have to be more inclusive and integrative. I therefore suggests moving instead toward a sound definition of corporate integrity and aim in this article to develop a working definition by fleshing out “7 Cs” of integrity: commitment, conduct, content, context, consistency, coherence, and continuity. I then discuss how these 7 Cs impact our understanding of CSR or, more broadly, corporate responsibility in general. (shrink)

Commentators have compared Hans-Georg Gadamer’s focus on tradition in Truth and Method to his focus on solidarity in his later work in order to suggest that the latter signals a move away from ontological toward ethical and political concerns. This paper, however, is guided by Gadamer’s own view that his work, both early, late, and in Truth and Method, was always concerned with ethical and political issues. I therefore want to challenge the idea that his so-called politics of solidarity marks (...) a new direction in his work. His politics of solidarity does mark a new direction in discussions of solidarity insofar as he disconnects it from any necessary grounding in preexisting affinities such as religion and nationality. Gadamer’s later work may also be more explicitly concerned with the question of differences and the other than is Truth and Method. Nevertheless, I want to argue that rather than signaling a new direction for Gadamer, both his politics of solidarity and his concern with otherness highlight important features already present in his earlier account of tradition. Indeed, I think attention to this earlier account discloses a political dimension to Gadamer’s thought that is more sophisticated than his remarks on solidarity. Attention to this dimension of his earlier account allows us to challenge the now standard objection that it undermines possibilities for critical reflection. (shrink)

Academic misconduct is widespread in all cultures, and factors that influence it have been investigated for many years. An act of reporting peers’ misconduct not only identifies and prevents misconduct, but also encourages a student to think and act morally and raises awareness about academic integrity. The aim of this study was to determine factors that prevent students from reporting academic misconduct. A questionnaire to assess views on reporting the academic misconduct of a colleague was developed and sent to all (...) students enrolled at the University of Rijeka, Croatia. Results indicate that a tendency to protect fellow student and to comply with other opinions is the most influential factor that prevents students from reporting peers’ misbehavior. Furthermore, scientific discipline, gender, and age are all significant factors in students’ intention to report peer misconduct. Understanding the factors that influence students’ willingness to report academic misconduct enables faculties, administrators and students to strengthen the ethical culture in the academic community. (shrink)

Student academic dishonesty is a pervasive problem for universities all over the world. The development of innovative practices and interventions for decreasing dishonest behaviour requires understanding factors influencing academic dishonesty. Previous research showed that personal, environmental, and situational factors affect dishonest behaviour at a university. The set of factors and the strength of their influence can differ across countries. There is a lack of research on factors affecting student dishonesty in Russia. A sample of 15,159 undergraduate students from eight Russian (...) highly selective universities was surveyed to understand what factors influence their decision to engage in dishonest behaviour. Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour was employed to explain dishonest behaviour among students. The explained variance in the engagement in academic dishonesty equals 48% in the model for the full sample, and reaches 69% in the model for one of the considered institutions. The major findings of this study were: subjective norms appeared to dominate as the strongest predictor of academic dishonesty across the Russian universities; perceived behavioural control, appeared to be positively related to the dishonest behaviour. In the majority of universities, this factor was found to be insignificant. This finding indicates a specific feature of Russian students’ an ethical decision-making process discussed in the last part of the paper. (shrink)

_An in-depth look at the theory of solidarity of German philosopher Jürgen Habermas, serving also as a comprehensive introduction to his work._.

The current qualitative study investigated prevalence and types of academic integrity violations in psychology graduate students and solicited student recommendations for how academic institutions, professors, and peers may act to discourage or prevent its occurrence. Students were recruited through email lists and asked to participate in an online study with a series of open-ended questions assessing integrity violations and prevention recommendations. Results revealed academic integrity violations were relatively infrequent and most were of relatively low severity. Common antecedents to integrity violations (...) included inadequate preparation, task difficulty, and external stressors such as health ailments that interfered with preparation. Most violators reported engaging in a rational decision making process, weighing the pros and cons of cheating, and most did not reveal the violation to anyone. The majority of violations resulted in no negative consequences to the student and 44 % reported they would do it again. Students recommended better dissemination of integrity policies, greater oversight of graduate students, harsher punishments for violations, and consistent reporting of violations as prevention strategies. Results highlight how academic dishonesty in psychology graduate students may be a product of multiple time and resource demands, coupled with low self-efficacy to meet or negotiate these demands. Despite reports of external pressures being the top reason for academic integrity violations, few recommendations focused on decreasing external pressures as a mechanism to curb cheating. (shrink)

Student plagiarism and cheating have been at the focus of scholarly investigations for over two decades now, the discussion being conducted on the backdrop of the question of whether traditional didactics is suitable for Google generation students who supposedly think and process information differently. Using data collected via start-of-term questionnaires, a series of follow-up semi-structured interviews and a specially calibrated session on academic integrity, the present study looks into the students’ ideas on cheating, school work, internet use, studying habits and (...) understanding of academic integrity. The study aims to suggest (albeit tentatively) a holistic approach to teaching academic integrity in higher education taking into account the students’ perspective: an in-depth qualitative approach was used in the data analysis, evaluating students’ investment, engagement, motivation, learning habits, attitudes to cheating and plagiarism. The findings suggest a conflicted picture of the Bulgarian student: hardly taking the all-practical approach towards higher education, conflicted about the value of learning, this generation of students has little structure to their knowledge, they critically underuse ICT tools for learning and regard cheating as a commodity, unburdened by moral or ethical implications. (shrink)

Most professionals have the arduous task of managing their own dual loyalty: in one contextual relationship, they are members of a profession while simultaneously they are employed as members of a locally established organisation. This sense of a dual loyalty has to be taken into account when professional bureaucracies develop ethics programmes. This article focuses on universities. Accounting for the dual loyalty of academic professionals, it is the objective of the study to contribute to the most appropriate ethics programmes in (...) such an academic context. Based on a review of the literature, we identify which ethical issues commonly emerge in educational and research activities. Then we offer a conceptual analysis of the conditions required for each different strategy of ethics management. We argue that none of the four theoretically derived strategies is applicable solely on its own. For universities it is most promising to design ethics programmes based on the guiding values of the academic community, including integrity measures for universities and corrective measures for students. The argument developed in this article is assumed to be widely applicable in assessing the appropriateness of ethics management strategies in other professional settings. (shrink)

This study investigated faculty attitudes towards student violations of academic integrity in Canada using a qualitative review of 17 universities’ academic integrity/dishonesty policies combined with a quantitative survey of faculty members’ (N = 412) attitudes and behaviours around academic integrity and dishonesty. Results showed that 53.1% of survey respondents see academic dishonesty as a worsening problem at their institutions. Generally, they believe their respective institutional policies are sound in principle but fail in application. Two of the major factors identified by (...) faculty as contributing to academic dishonesty are administrative. Many faculty members feel unsupported by their administration and are reluctant to formally report academic dishonesty due to the excessive burdens of dealing with paperwork and providing proof. Faculty members also cite unprepared students and international students who struggle with language issues and the Canadian academic context as major contributors to academic dishonesty. This study concludes with recommendations for educators and recommendations for future research. (shrink)

Particular concern about academic ethics in higher education and research institutions in Lithuania was addressed in 2009 by the national decision to establish an Office of Ombudsman for Academic Ethics and Procedures. The decision was taken during the approval of the revised Law on Higher Education and Research by the Parliament of Lithuania. Following two failed attempts to appoint an ombudsman, the Office began to function in 2014. Since then, the ombudsman, alongside other state institutions, has been empowered to implement (...) national higher education and research policy. At the outset of the Office activity it is important to consider how public HERIs institutionalise academic integrity, i.e. how they create an ethical environment within the academic community and what means are used to support it further. Collecting data from codes of ethics, regulations of academic integrity committees and interviews, data analysis shows that academic values manifest unevenly in teaching/learning and research. Most efforts concern the behaviour of students rather than the behaviour of academic staff. Moreover, ethics infrastructure gives a misleading image, as it lacks harmony and compatibility, despite the fact that there is a myriad of means to foster ethical behaviour. Universities should make greater effort to connect academic values with operations in teaching/learning and research. (shrink)

a recent paper, Fábio Perin Shecaira proposes a defence of Waller’s deductivist schema for moral analogical argumentation. This defence has several flaws, the most important of them being that many good analogical arguments would be deemed bad or deficient. Additionally, Shecaira misrepresents my alternative account as something in between deductivism and non-deductivism. This paper is both an attempt at solving this misunderstanding and an analysis and criticism of Waller and Shecaira’s forms of deductivism.

Academic education largely concerns knowledge and skills. Where there is attention to ethics, this tends to focus on study-related misconduct such as plagiarising assignments and, more recently, methodological misconduct. The current paper argues that it is also essential to teach students about social misconduct in science, with a focus on questionable collaboration practices. First, this would increase future early career researchers’ ability to succeed and avoid academic snares. Enhancing this ability would appear to be an ethical responsibility going hand-in-hand with (...) our attempts at endowing students with skills that we know could be exploited. Second, such teaching would establish authoritative norms about collaborative practices that are and are not acceptable. This would help to adjust scientific attitudes in next generations of graduates, to the benefit of both themselves and science. Teaching on science-specific social misconduct would also naturally tie in with addressing general forms of antisocial conduct which also occur in academia, such as bullying or sexual harassment. The paper provides a framework for defining and recognizing questionable collaboration practices, and for how to provide students with the attitudes, concepts and skills necessary to protect themselves as they enter the reality of the academic arena. (shrink)