Brief synopsis
This study examines how European business schools publicly communicate research integrity through institutional websites. Using qualitative content analysis of dual-accredited institutions, it explores the visibility of research integrity mechanisms and their role in institutional accountability.
Abstract
Research integrity (RI) is a key foundation of academic credibility and public trust, yet its public visibility remains fragmented across higher education settings (Bonn & Pinxten, 2019). In business schools, where accreditation pressures, global rankings, and close ties to industry shape academic agendas, RI management goes beyond compliance and becomes part of institutional identity and reputation (Tourish & Craig, 2020; Glenna & Bruce, 2021; Tsui, 2022).
Existing literature has largely focused on individual misconduct and questionable research practices (Simmons et al., 2021; O’Boyle et al., 2017). Although recent scholarship acknowledges institutional and organisational influences, limited attention has been paid to how RI is publicly communicated and made visible through institutional practices in Europe (Antes et al., 2016; Berggren & Karabag, 2019).
Building on this shift, the conceptual framework developed by Strazda et al. (2026) adopts a multi-level view of research integrity, combining individual, organisational, and systemic factors, with organisational culture positioned as a moderator of ethical behaviour. Drawing on Schein’s (1992) distinction between external adaptation (how institutions respond to external demands and present themselves through policies, websites, and accreditations) and internal integration (shared values and norms), the framework provides a basis for examining how RI is embedded at the organisational level.
The present study focuses on the external adaptation dimension of RI culture by analysing institutional websites as cultural artefacts (Schein, 1992). Attention is given to the visibility of externally communicated commitments and references to internally oriented mechanisms across European business schools.
The aim of this study is to explore how research integrity is externally communicated and structured across European business schools.
RQ1: How do European business schools publicly articulate their responsibilities and commitments related to research integrity on institutional websites?
RQ2: Which research integrity mechanisms are visible in institutional online communications, and which remain absent or weakly articulated?
Methodological approach. To address the research questions, this qualitative study employs a structured desk-research design using content analysis of publicly accessible institutional websites. The sample comprises 50 European business schools holding both AACSB and EQUIS accreditations, ensuring a comparable institutional baseline in terms of governance and accountability.
Webpages were systematically analysed to identify RI-related organisational artefacts as manifestations of the external adaptation dimension of organisational culture (Schein, 1992), including strategic documents, ethical guidelines, misconduct procedures, researcher support structures, and references to open science practices. An Excel-based coding protocol supported consistent categorisation of RI content, guided by keyword searches (e.g. “research integrity,” “ethics,” “plagiarism,” “supervision”) and established approaches to document analysis (Bowen, 2009).
Preliminary findings from this ongoing desk research indicate substantial variation in how research integrity (RI) is publicly presented. Most institutions refer to RI in strategic documents, such as mission statements, accreditation frameworks, or general commitments to responsible research. This reflects Schein’s (1992) notion of external adaptation and attention to reputational legitimacy.
However, the visibility of organisational mechanisms supporting RI in practice is uneven. In the analysed sub-set, references to open science, authorship norms, or data transparency appear in 33% of schools. Only 20% mention RI-related training, supervision, or mentoring, and 13% indicate staff-focused RI governance structures. By contrast, 60% of institutions refer to plagiarism detection or misconduct procedures, primarily within student regulations rather than research frameworks.
These findings suggest a gap between formal strategic commitments and the visibility of embedded RI practices. Institutions appear to signal accountability externally, while internal integrity mechanisms remain less visible.
The results of the full analysis will inform the next phase of the study, involving interviews with faculty deans and research managers.
Keywords: research integrity, business schools, organisational culture, Institutional websites.
References
Antes, A. L., Mart, A., & DuBois, J. M. (2016). Are leadership and management essential for good research? An interview study of genetic researchers. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 11(5), 408–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264616668775
Berggren, C., & Karabag, S. F. (2019). Scientific misconduct at an elite medical institute: The role of competing institutional logics and fragmented control. Research Policy, 48(2), 428–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.03.020
Bonn, A., & Pinxten, W. (2019). A decade of empirical research on research integrity: What have we (not) looked at? Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 14(4), 338–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264619858534
Bowen, G.A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Glenna, L., & Bruce, A. (2021). Suborning science for profit: Monsanto, glyphosate, and private science research misconduct. Research Policy, 50(7). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104290
O’Boyle, E. H., Banks, G. C., & Gonzalez-Mulé, E. (2017). The chrysalis effect: How ugly initial results metamorphosize into beautiful articles. Journal of Management, 43(2), 376–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527133
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2021). Pre-registration: Why and how. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31(1), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1208
Strazda, A., Majoor-Kozlinska, I. & Englis, P.D. (2026). Developing a research integrity culture framework for business schools. Journal of Academic Ethics, 24, 58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-026-09736-1
Tourish, D., & Craig, R. (2020). Research misconduct in business and management studies: Causes, consequences, and possible remedies. Journal of Management Inquiry, 29(2), 174–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492618792621
Tsui, A. S. (2022). From traditional research to responsible research: The necessity of scientific freedom and scientific responsibility for better societies. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 9, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-062021-021303