Journalism ethics : arguments and cases

Situating modern ethical dilemmas in a social and historical context, this text encourages students to think critically about the theory and practice of journalism ethics. It has been fully updated in every chapter with new examples and cases taken from 'yesterday's headlines'.

Re-searching ethics : towards a more reflexive critical management studies

Fournier and Grey (2000) suggest that those inhabiting the contested terrain of Critical Management Studies (CMS) share a commitment to identifying inequality and subordination in organizations and to the associated possibility of emancipation, however this is conceived. Despite their additional claim that one crucial distinction between critical and non-critical management studies is the ‘philosophical and methodological reflexivity’ of the former (Fournier and Grey 2000: 19), our review indicates limits to this reflexivity in CMS’s empirical practices – indeed, we argue these may even be counter-productive with regard to its political allegiances. To encourage wider discussion of these issues, we provide a tripartite framework of understandings of research ethics drawn from within and outside the management academy, and interrogate the opportunities and limitations of each for enriching CMS research.

Discriminating ethics

This article examines ethics in work organization and in academic, particularly Critical Management Studies, research. It is centred on empirical data exploring the actions of three employees of a higher education institution who variously failed to resist and/or colluded in the sex discrimination of a colleague.We bring ethics to bear in our analysis of these data in three ways. First, reflecting upon our own methodology, we highlight the difficulties of balancing competing ethical responsibilities when engaging in critical research in contexts defined by adversarial relationships. Second, we highlight how research subjects, who we interpret as exercising problematic agency, draw upon discourses of care, friendship and responsibility to discursively construct their behaviour as moral. Third, drawing upon feminist theory, we reflect upon the ethical warrant of academic critiques of research subjects’ agency. Our analysis raises unsettling implications both for the ethics of Critical Management Studies research and for the function of ethics in organizations.We end by being as concerned by the capacity of ethical discourse to enable and legitimize discrimination as we are reassured by its utility to enable us to discriminate right from wrong behaviour in organizations.

Research subjects/research subjections : exploring the ethics and politics of critical research

I use this paper to reflect upon the ethics and politics of Critical Management Studies (CMS) research. I highlight a potential for problematic power relations in CMS and, drawing upon Foucault’s (1976) ‘five methodological precautions’ for analysing power, I explore these power relations as an effect of the micro-constitution of ‘subordinate’ and ‘superior’ subject positions within the research process. Through detailed analysis of a research interview transcript I illustrate how the researched’s ‘subordinate’ and researcher’s ‘superior’ subject positions may be constructed as an outcome of normal and well-intentioned CMS research.

Book review : Ethics and organizational practice : questioning the moral foundations of management

The arena of ethics and business is a colossus: thousands of books, multiple dedicated journals, de rigueur organizational ethics policies and CSR initiatives - most of which we can be fairly confident would receive poor reviews by the editors and authors of Ethics and organizational practice: Questioning the moral foundations of management. This edited collection is a self-identified ‘critical’ take on business ethics, one that according to the editors’ introduction wishes to ‘expose business ethics to its crises’ and ‘critically investigate(s) what ethics means’. The ‘critical’ which Muhr, Sørensen and Vallentin invoke is one that would be familiar to authors and readers of Critical Management Studies – that is, to use Fournier and Grey’s (2000) oft-referenced depiction, the study of management and organization that is non-performative with regards to managerialist concerns of efficiency and profitability, that seeks to denaturalize taken-for-granted legitimations, and the normalization of current organizational practices and ideologies, and one which demonstrates significant reflexivity with regard to the philosophies and methodologies it deploys. To the above, we may also add pluralism, and indeed some playfulness, with a wide diversity of conceptual, theoretical, historical and popular sources mined for their potential to help us reconsider the organizational present.

Developing an ethics education framework for accounting

The purpose of this paper is to propose a framework of ethics education that promotes the structured learning of ethics in the accounting discipline. The Ethics Education Framework (EEF) is based on three key inter-related components that include: Rest’s (1986) Four-Component Model of ethical decision-making and behaviour; the key cognitive and behavioural objectives of ethics education; and the discrete and pervasive approaches to delivering content. The EEF provides university students and professional accountants a structure to learn to identify, analyse and resolve ethical issues, to the point of action. The EEF is a four-stage learning continuum represented as a set of building blocks which introduces ethical concepts and then reinforces and develops new levels of understanding with progressive stages. This paper describes the EEF, and includes a discussion of how it compares with other ethics education models, and an analysis of the support through responses by professional organisations (based on an Exposure Draft issued by the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), as the initial International Education Practice Statement). The IFAC has now revised its International Education Standard (IES 4) in relation to ethics, with a commentary period till July 2011.