Burrell Gibson, Hyman Michael R, Michaelson Christopher, Nelson Julie A, Taylor Scott, West Andrew
Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Institute for Marketing Futurology and Philosophy, Las Cruces, USA.
J Bus Ethics. 2022;180(3):917-940. doi: 10.1007/s10551-022-05243-6. Epub 2022 Sep 26.
To commemorate 40 years since the founding of the Journal of Business Ethics, the editors in chief of the journal have invited the editors to provide commentaries on the future of business ethics. This essay comprises a selection of commentaries aimed at creating dialogue around the theme Questions of who produces knowledge about what, and how that knowledge is produced, are inherent to editing and publishing academic journals. At the Journal of Business Ethics, we understand the ethical responsibility of academic knowledge production as going far beyond conventions around the integrity of the research content and research processes. We are deeply aware that access to resources, knowledge of the rules of the game, and being able to set those rules, are systematically and unequally distributed. One could ask the question "for whom is knowledge now ethical'"? (See the Burrell commentary.) We have a responsibility to address these inequalities and open up our journal to lesser heard voices, ideas, and ways of being. Our six commentators pursue this through various aspects of the ethics and politics of academic knowledge production. Working with MacIntyre's scheme of practices and institutions, Andrew West provides commentary on the internal good of business ethics learning and education. Inviting us to step out of the cave, Christopher Michaelson urges a clear-eyed, unblinking focus on the purposes and audiences of business ethics scholarship. As developmental editor, Scott Taylor uncovers some of the politics of peer review with the aim of nurturing of unconventional research. Mike Hyman presents his idiosyncratic view of marketing ethics. In the penultimate commentary, Julie Nelson attributes difficulties in the academic positioning of the Business Ethics field to the hegemony of a masculine-centric model of the firm. And finally, Gibson Burrell provides a powerful provocation to go undercover as researcherinvestigators in a parallel ethics of the research process.
为纪念《商业伦理杂志》创刊40周年，该杂志的主编邀请各位编辑就商业伦理的未来发表评论。本文精选了一系列评论文章，旨在围绕“谁生产关于什么的知识，以及这些知识是如何产生的”这一主题展开对话。在学术期刊的编辑和出版过程中，关于知识生产者、知识内容以及知识生产方式的问题是与生俱来的。在《商业伦理杂志》，我们认为学术知识生产的伦理责任远远超出了研究内容和研究过程诚信方面的传统要求。我们深刻意识到，资源获取、游戏规则知识以及制定这些规则的能力，在系统上存在不平等的分配。人们可能会问“知识现在对谁而言是合乎伦理的”？（见伯勒尔的评论）我们有责任解决这些不平等问题，让我们的期刊向那些较少被听到的声音、观点和存在方式开放。我们的六位评论员从学术知识生产的伦理和政治的各个方面探讨了这一问题。安德鲁·韦斯特运用麦金太尔的实践和制度模式，对商业伦理学习与教育的内在益处进行了评论。克里斯托弗·迈克尔森敦促我们以清醒、坚定的目光专注于商业伦理学术研究的目的和受众，走出“洞穴”。作为发展编辑，斯科特·泰勒揭示了同行评审中的一些政治因素，旨在培养非传统研究。迈克·海曼提出了他对营销伦理的独特观点。在倒数第二篇评论中，朱莉·纳尔逊将商业伦理领域在学术定位上的困难归因于以男性为中心的企业模式的霸权。最后，吉布森·伯勒尔提出了一个有力的激励，即在研究过程的平行伦理中，以研究者的身份进行卧底调查。
