Measuring Serious Leisure in Chess: Model Confirmation and Method Bias

The serious leisure inventory and measure (SLIM) was tested with 348 chess players to confirm the factors, assess the effects of method bias, and propose a set of the best-performing items for the 18 factor SLIM. The 54-item SLIM demonstrated acceptable fit and reliability values. The effect of method bias was evidenced in the sample and explained one-third of the variance. Inspection of factor loadings, when controlling for method bias, yielded one best-performing item per factor. Findings indicate method bias continues to be problematic for self-report measures such as the SLIM.     

Research Ethics of Business Academic Researchers at AACSB Institutions

Academic researchers in business are likely to have different perceptions and attitudes regarding what constitute unethical behavior in conducting their research. In fact, some might consider certain actions to be totally ethical while other behaviors might be unacceptable in one discipline, but acceptable in another. Therefore, a survey was administered to a sample of professors at AACSB-accredited institutions to identify those actions felt to be unethical and to gauge the state of research ethics among business academics. The survey was developed around eleven substantive issues concerning business research ethics. Some of the topics included: treatment of data, confidentiality, plagiarism, working with co-authors, and multiple submissions. First, respondents were asked whether they felt the behavior was unethical. Secondly, they were asked whether they had ever personally engaged in such activity. Finally, they were asked if they were aware of colleagues who had taken a particular action.The primary contribution of the paper is to provide evidence on faculty definitions of unethical research practices and the extent of such behavior within the academic business environment. An overwhelming percentage of respondents (greater than 95%) condemned five of the eleven activities studied. They included: falsifying data, violating confidentiality of a client, ignoring contrary data, plagiarism, and failing to give credit to co-authors. Probably the most important finding of this paper concerns the level of unethical activity reported by faculty about their colleagues. While these findings likely include some degree of double counting within an institution, the level of unethical activity reported on colleagues and the number of institutions represented indicates the problem is quite common. Seven actions were reported by between 20 and 47% of respondents to have occurred within their institutions. These actions include adding names of persons not contributing to a paper, failing to give credit to co-authors, selective reporting of data, and plagiarism. These results indicate unethical practices occur frequently among researchers in AACSB accredited business schools and are not merely exceptions. Coverage of ethical issues in a graduate research methods course might force students to ponder these issues prior to confronting them in the world of business or academic research.