PERCEIVED CONDUCT AND PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AMONG COLLEGE ECONOMICS FACULTY.

Laband, David N. ; Piette, Michael J.

Michael J. Piette [*]

Abstract

We present survey results that shed light on the perceived frequency and severity of 61 professional practices. Our findings, based on questionnaires completed by 728 academic economists in the United States, suggest that most of the practices that might be considered ethically suspect also are perceived to occur relatively infrequently. The mean values for the responses to our survey are significantly lower, in absolute terms, than those recorded by Mason et al. (1990), who conducted an almost identical survey in 1987 of marketing academicians. However, in relative terms the perceived severity of these practices is highly consistent between economics faculty and marketing faculty.

ethical: "being in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice, esp. the standards of a profession."--The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, (2nd ed., unabridged, 1987)

I. INTRODUCTION

Many economics departments in the United States offer a baccalaureate degree through a college (or school) of business. The various degree programs, including economics, offered in the context of a business school are regarded as 'professional' degree programs. As such, the American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) requires accredited business schools to provide for instruction of ethics, in a variety of guises, to undergraduate business majors. Despite this clear concern by the AACSB about student exposure to ethics, most of the national associations of which business and economics faculty are members do not have codes or statements of ethical professional conduct, either inside or outside of the classroom. This includes the American Economic Association and all of the major regional associations.

Surely the lack of any formal statement or code of professional ethics does not reflect a lack of shared concern about certain professional practices. We suspect that there are a number of practices about which members of the economics profession, and others, would express concern. Yet aside from anecdotes, we know little about: (1) the types of professional practices members of the economics profession perceive as problematic, and (2) the perceived frequency of occurrence of various professional practices. Indeed, with the exception of papers by Fox, Sattler, Piette, and Johnson in a special symposium on ethics in forensic economics published in the Journal of Forensic Economics (1991), and by Meier (1986) and Fisher (1986) also on ethical behavior by economists in a forensic testimony context, the professional literature in economics is barren with respect to the professional behavior of economists.

Following the methodology established by Mason et al. (1990), we present survey results that shed light on the perceived frequency and severity of 61 professional practices. Our findings, based on questionnaire responses by 728 economists in U.S. colleges and universities, are consistent in many respects with those of Mason et al., and provide a useful benchmark for measuring changes in attitudes and perceptions about a wide array of professional practices.

II. METHOD

Sample

Our survey instrument was sent to 3,000 randomly-selected members of the American Economic Association in 1993, who held academic positions. We identified these individuals by selecting every 5th name in the 1993 AEA Directory; if that individual did not list an affiliation with a U.S. college or university, we went to the next name as necessary until we found an individual who met these criteria. The mailing included an introductory letter that read:

Dear Professor _______:

Dr. Michael J. Piette and I are conducting an intensive survey of the academic membership of the American Economic Association, as a critical first step in a scientific assessment of ethical behavior among academic economists. There are no 'right' or 'wrong' answers to the questions on the enclosed questionnaire. We seek only to measure the extent to which certain practices are perceived to occur and the extent to which certain practices are regarded as problematic by academic economists. We hope that you will be kind enough to complete the enclosed questionnaire, which has return postage paid, staple it and pop it back in the mall to us. The survey is designed to be anonymous. However, as you will note at the end of the survey, in the event that you would like a copy of our findings, we would be pleased to provide them to you.

We sincerely appreciate your time and trouble.

Sincerely,

David N. Laband

Professor and Head

The questionnaire with cover letter was mailed in late June and early July of 1996. Of the 3,000 surveys mailed, 60 were returned undeliverable. Limited funds precluded us from issuing a follow-up mailing. Over the ensuing 4 months or so, we received 728 completed questionnaires, for a response rate just slightly under 25 percent. [1] Characteristics of the survey respondents are identified in Table 1.

Two-thirds of the respondents were employed by public colleges and universities with the other third employed by private academic institutions. The large majority (71 percent) were located at schools with more than 10,000 students. Sixty-three percent of the respondents taught at schools which offered a doctoral program in economics. [2] The distribution of assistant, associate and full professors in our sample is 13 percent, 26 percent, and 60 percent, respectively. Twelve percent of the respondents were women.

Measures

The questionnaire began with the following instruction: "Please circle the number that most closely reflects your perception about the frequency of occurrence and severity of the behaviors listed below, in your current academic unit, where 0 reflects low occurrence or severity and 4 reflects high occurrence or severity." The questionnaire identified 61 separate practices that the respondents were asked to provide their perceptions of, using a five-place scale ranging from 0 to 4. As suggested above, lower scores reflect respondents' perceptions of low occurrence or limited severity, while higher scores indicate frequent occurrence and high severity. Following the methodology established by Mason et al., the practices were grouped into the following categories: classroom teaching and conduct (15 questions), use of university resources (10 questions), personal conduct (12 questions), research and publication practices (11 questions), and relationships with students (13 questions).

In Tables 2-6 we report the weighted mean values for perceived frequency and perceived severity of the 61 practices, by category. We also report a composite mean, for each practice, derived by multiplying the two individual weighted means by 0.5 and summing.

III. FINDINGS

Teaching and Classroom Conduct--Table 2

None of the 15 practices listed in this area were identified by survey respondents as having a very high occurrence. Only four practices had a mean occurrence greater than 1.0; none had a mean occurrence greater than 1.5. Moreover, none of the 15 practices were regarded by respondents as particularly severe; with but a single exception the mean severity for every practice was less than 1.5. Not showing up for student appointments was the practice with the highest mean occurrence (though not by much, and in a context in which all means were fairly low). Of greater import, perhaps, is the fact that respondents regarded this practice as the most severe problem listed in this section, by a large margin.

Use of University Resources and Restricted Material--Table 3

Three of the practices listed in this section are regarded by the respondents as being characterized by relatively high frequency: (1) use of university telephone for personal use, (2) using university supplies for personal use, and (3) not adhering to copyright restrictions in reproducing materials for classroom use or consulting. However, respondents did not rate the perceived severity of these practices particularly high, which, in all likelihood, helps explain the reported high incidence.

Personal Conduct Issues--Table 4

Most of the behaviors listed in this category were characterized by respondents as having a relatively low frequency of occurrence. Only three practices show a mean rating greater than one. While all but one of the selected practices show a mean perceived severity greater than one. none showed a mean perceived severity greater than two. Operating a private business in addition to a full-time faculty position is identified as the most frequently-occurring practice in this group, but there is not much evidence that this is perceived as being improper.

Research and Publication Practices--Table 5

Three of the behaviors listed in this section show a mean perceived occurrence greater than one: developing multiple articles with great similarity from the same data, failing to report contrary data/findings in a manuscript, and manipulating the data so as to achieve acceptable results. Further, two of these three practices show a relatively high mean value for perceived severity: manipulating the data so as to achieve acceptable results, and failing to report contrary data/findings in a manuscript.

Relationships with Students--Table 6

Most of the behaviors in this category were perceived as occurring relatively infrequently. Only two practices show a mean frequency rating greater than one: criticizing other faculty in the presence of students, and deviating significantly from the course syllabus given to students at the start of course. In terms of perceived severity, however, several of these behaviors were rated relatively high: insisting on sexual favors in return for better grades or support, amorous relationships with students in one s classes, having a graduate student develop a manuscript and then not giving the person credit for the published result, and accepting bribes from students in return for better grades. There are widely-shared perceptions that these four practices, while regarded as improper, occur relatively infrequently.

IV. ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS

We were struck by the bimodal distribution of responses to several of the identified practices. For example, the response profile for the severity of the practice "Insisting on sexual favors in return for better grades or support" is: 0-46 percent, 1-3 percent, 2-2 percent, 3-1 percent, 4-43 percent, no answer-5 percent. It seems unlikely that nearly half of the survey respondents believe that this practice is not a problem at all while almost as many believe that it is an extremely serious problem. In our opinion, this bimodal response pattern may result from differing interpretations of our instructions by the survey respondents. Recall that our instructions asked respondents to: "Please circle the number that most closely reflects your perception about the frequency of occurrence and severity of the behaviors listed below, in your current academic unit, where 0 reflects low occurrence or severity and 4 reflects high occurrence or severity." It is possible that certain individuals assumed that 'frequency o f occurrence' captured the severity of the actual problem within their department and that when reporting on the severity of the practice they treated it as a hypothetical. That is, a particular practice might be regarded as a severe problem if it were to occur.

The pattern of responses suggests, on occasion, that certain individuals did in fact treat the severity issue (in particular) as a hypothetical, whereas others did not. Even though respondents may not have had a consistent perspective when rating the severity of the selected practices, we believe that there are two ways of ranking the practices that convey meaningful information with respect to perceived severity. In Table 7, we identify the practices for which at least 30 percent of the respondents rated the severity in the highest category (4) and/or at least 30 percent of the respondents rated the severity in either the highest category or next-to-highest category (3).

Based on the criterion of a relatively high percentage of respondents ranking severity in the highest category, our findings suggest that academic economists believe that, if it were to occur, insisting on sexual favors in return for better grades or support and accepting bribes from students in return for better grades are especially egregious examples of improper behavior by faculty. Although not viewed quite as harshly, five other selected behaviors were considered as highly improper by at least 30 percent of respondents: (1) enhancing one's record with fictitious articles or program appearances, (2) using the title of Ph.D. or similar designation without having earned the credentials, (3) amorous relationships with students in one's classes, (4) having a graduate student develop a manuscript and then not giving the person credit for the published result, and (5) manipulating the data so as to achieve acceptable results.

One question that might be of interest has to do with how 'problematic' these behaviors are. It might be the case, for example, that the perceived (and/or actual) incidence of behaviors that are perceived as the most severe is not very great. If true, this would imply that, on balance, the practice is not one that is unduly troubling to the profession. On the other hand, a practice that is perceived to be highly improper for which the incidence is relatively great might be more likely to command the attention of the profession. One way of shedding light on this question is by ranking the practices according to the ratio of perceived severity to occurrence, which we do in Table 8. We then compared this ranking against the practices listed in Table 7.

At the top of this list are practices that simultaneously are regarded by respondents as being highly improper, but also ones which occur relatively rarely. Several of the practices identified in Table 7 as being regarded by a significant fraction of respondents as highly improper are at or near the top of the ranking in Table 8. Thus, for example, accepting bribes from students in return for better grades is regarded as highly improper but also is perceived to be an event that occurs infrequently. Similarly, with insisting on sexual favors in return for better grades or support, enhancing one's record with fictitious articles or program appearances, using the title of Ph.D. or similar designation without having earned the credentials, amorous relationships with students in one's classes, having a graduate student develop a manuscript and then not giving the person credit for the published result, lengthy paraphrasing of someone else's work without credit to the original source, destroying the research instr ument and data at the conclusion of a research investigation, and listening to the research idea of a colleague and then independently conducting the research. However, four of the practices listed in Table 7 appear towards the bottom of the ranking in Table 8, which implies that they are regarded as improper but, at least in a relative sense, may occur more than infrequently. These four practices are: (1) not showing up for student appointments, (2) falling to report contrary data/findings in a manuscript, (3) manipulating the data so as to achieve acceptable results, and (4) using the research of students as a basis for one's own work.

We calculated the mean frequency of occurrence and perceived severity by gender and by institutional setting (public versus private). For the sample of questions taken as a whole and for the separate categories of practices, we found no significant differences in means between respondents employed by public colleges and universities as compared to those working for private institutions or between male and female respondents.

V. CLOSING REMARKS

Our survey results constitute the first-ever findings with respect to the perceived frequency and severity, among academic economists, of the 61 practices identified. We have identified several professional practices that are perceived to occur relatively frequently but are not regarded as constituting severe problems (e.g., using office supplies for private use). We also identified several professional practices that are regarded as being quite problematic, but whose frequency of occurrence, not surprisingly, is perceived as being quite low (e.g., accepting bribes from students in return for better grades). Our findings can be used by future researchers as a benchmark for measuring changes in the perceived frequency of occurrence and severity of the identified practices.

Although our survey findings are focused on specific practices that would tend to be of concern only in an academic context, there are other practices that potentially would be of concern to both academic and non-academic economists. We suspect, for example, that a relatively large (and increasing) number of academic economists engage in forensic economic consulting work. One situation that has been suggested as ethically suspect involves a professional economist charged with the responsibility of determining lost earnings for an individual in a wrongful death or personal injury action. The professional behavior issue has to do with whether the economist writes essentially the same report of lost earnings whether (s)he is retained by the plaintiffs counsel or the defense counsel. If not, does the context justify differential behavior or does this constitute unethical behavior on the part of the individual?

A strikingly similar situation involves academic economists who assume (usually temporarily) very visible positions in the public sector. The question is whether a professional economist who has publicly maintained one position on an issue as an academic scholar but who adopts an inconsistent position on the same issue in a different employment context is engaging in unethical behavior.

In addition to surveys addressed to practicing economists that deal with a broader range of professional behavior, additional information on the same questions that we asked about could be gained from a quite different set of prospective respondents: students. Both undergraduate and graduate students may have quite different perceptions than faculty members do with regard to the frequency and severity of the practices that we identified. Indeed, such a survey might serve as a useful validation of at least some of our findings.

* Professor of Forest Economics, Auburn University, and President, Analytical Economics, Inc., Tallahassee, Florida. We greatly appreciate assistance received from Michele Y. Butler, Dianne M. Cox, and John Sophocleus. Financial support from Economic Research Services is gratefully acknowledged.

NOTES

(1.) Mason et al. (1990) enjoyed a 33.7 percent response rate to their virtually identical survey of approximately 2,200 educator members of the American Marketing Association. It is possible that the response rate to our survey was mitigated by the fact that it was mailed during the summer. We do not know any details regarding the timing of the Mason et al. survey.

(2.) It seems likely to us that AEA membership is non-neutral with respect to school size and presence of a doctoral program. Thus our sample arguably is not a true cross-section of college-level economic educators, with whatever shortcomings this may imply.

REFERENCES

Fisher, Franklin M., "Statisticians, Econometricians, and Adversary Proceedings," Journal of the American Statistical Association, June 1986, 277-86.

Fox, Pauline, "The Economic Expert in Wrongful Death/Personal Injury Cases: Workable Competition or Monopoly Power?" Journal of Forensic Economics, Vol. 4, no. 3, 1991, 255-62.

Johnson, Walter D., "Qualifications, Ethics and Professional Responsibility in Forensic Economics," Journal of Forensic Economics, Vol. 4, no. 3, 1991, 277-85.

Mason, J. Barry, William O. Bearden, and Lynne David Richardson, "Perceived Conduct and Professional Ethics Among Marketing Faculty," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 81, no. 3. Summer 1990, 185-97.

Meier, Paul, "Damned Liars and Expert Witnesses," Journal of the American Statistical Association, June 1986, 269-76.

Piette, Michael J., "Codes of Professional Ethics for Forensic Economists: Problems and Prospects," Journal of Forensic Economics, Vol. 4, no. 3, 1991, 269-76.

Sattler, Edward L., "Economists, Ethics, and the Marketplace," Journal of Forensic Economics. Vol. 4, no. 3, 1991, 263-68.