Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-fnpn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-04T06:39:01.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding Ethics in Practice: An Ethnomethodological Approach to the Study of Business Ethics 1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

Nelson Phillips
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Business ethics is an eclectic blend of intellectual traditions that seeks to exam ine the question of “what should I do in my business relationships.” This paper attempts to widen this discussion by proposing an alternative view of the nature of ethical behaviour: ethical behaviour as a situated social accomplishment. From an ethnomethodological perspective, norms and rules have the status of interpretive aids which are used to negotiate an acceptable meaning for a situation; norms and rules are constituted by, and in part constitute, the situations in which they occur. While most work in business ethics has tended to reify ethical practices, this paper stresses the contingent and situational nature of ethical decision making. In addition to presenting an ethnomethodological perspective, this paper discusses the methodological ramifications of this perspective through an examination of three ethnographic studies of situated rule usage.

For any worthwhile study of society must be philosophical in character and any worthwhile philosophy nzust be concerned with the nature of human society.

– Peter Wirch (1958: 3)

Type
Articles
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , April 1992 , pp. 223 - 244
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Astley, W.G.: 1985, “Administrative Science as Socially Constructed Truth,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 30: 497–513.Google Scholar
Bittner, E.: 1965, “The Concept of Organization,” Social Research, 32: 239–258.Google Scholar
Brady, F.N. and Logsdon, J.M.: 1988. “Zimbardo's ‘Stanford Prison Experiment” and the Relevance of Social Psychology for Teaching Business Ethics,” Journal of Business Ethics, 7: 703–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beversluis, E.H.: 1987, “Is There ‘No Such Thing as Business Ethics’,” Journal of Business Ethics, 6: 81–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camus, A.: 1955, The Myth of Sisyphus, New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Denzin, N.: 1989, The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Etzioni, A.: 1991, “Reflections on teaching business ethics,” Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(4): 355–366.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P.: 1989, Against Method, New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Fiske, D.W. and Shweder, R.A. (Eds.): 1986, Metatheory in Social Science, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H.: 1967, Studies in Ethnomethodology, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Gephart, R.: 1978, “Status degradation and organizational succession: An ethnomethodological approach,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 23: 553–581.Google Scholar
Hacking, I.: 1983, Representing and Intervening, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hekman, S.: 1984, “Action as text: Gadamer's hermeneutics and the social scientific analysis of action,” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 14(3): 333–354.Google Scholar
Heritage, J.: 1984, Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Jackall, R.: 1983, “Moral mazes: Bureaucracy and managerial work,” Harvard Business Review, Sept/Oct: 118–130.Google Scholar
Jackall, R.: 1988, Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I.: 1800, Logic, Translated by Hartman, Robert S. and Wolfgang, Schwarz, 1974, New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T.: 1970, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Leiter, K.: 1980, A Primer on Ethnomethodology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, G. and Smircich, L.: 1980, “The Case For Qualitative Research,” Academy of Management Review, 5: 491–500.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, J.: 1981, “Four Laws of Organizational Research,” in Van de Ven, A. and Joyce, W. (eds.), Perspectives on Organizational Design and Behavior, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Phillips, N.: 1991, “The Sociology of Knowledge: Towards an Existential View of Business Ethics,” Journal of Business Ethics, 10: 67–75.Google Scholar
Starbuck, W.H.: 1985, “Acting First and Thinking Later: Theory Versus Reality in Strategic Change,” in Pennings, J.M. & Associates, Organizational Strategy and Change, San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
Vogel, D.: 1991, “The Ethical Roots of Business,” Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(1): 101–120.Google Scholar
Waterman, A.: 1988, “On the Uses of Psychological Theory and Research in the Process of Ethical Research,” Psychological Bulletin, 103(3): 283–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wieder, D. Lawrence: 1974, Language and Social Reality: The case of Telling the Convict Code, The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Willis, P.: 1978, Profane Culture, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Winch, P.: 1958, The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy, New York: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Wolfe, A.: 1991, “Reflections on business ethics: What is it? What causes it? and , What should a course in business ethics include?,” Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(4): 409–439.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, D. H.: 1978, “Ethnomethodology,” The American Sociologist, 13: 6–15.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, D. H. and Wieder, D. L.: 1977, “You Can't Help but Get Stoned: Notes On the Social Organization of Marijuana Smoking,” Social Problems, 25: 198–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar