Building a Research Integrity Culture in Business Schools

This lay summary is based on the article “Developing a Research Integrity Culture Framework for Business Schools”, written by PhD Cand. Anna Strazda, Assoc. Prof. Inna Majoor-Kozlinska, and Prof. Paula Danskin Englis, and published in the Journal of Academic Ethics in 2026.

WHY DOES THIS STUDY MATTER?
Business research matters because it can influence real decisions in organisations and society. At the same time, researchers in business schools often work under pressure to publish, compete, and show measurable results. Links with industry, funding, and external partners can also influence research priorities. In this context, specific integrity risks may emerge, including misconduct, questionable research practices, selective reporting, p-hacking, and strategic framing. Therefore, research integrity is not only about individual behaviour. It is also shaped by broader organisational and institutional contexts.
This study addresses an important research gap. Existing approaches often focus mainly on individual misconduct, while the organisational context remains underexplored. Business school-specific risks are still insufficiently studied, and institutional approaches often focus on policies and compliance. As a result, research integrity is rarely understood as an organisational and cultural issue.

WHAT DID WE WANT TO FIND OUT?
The aim of the study was to understand how research integrity in business schools is shaped by three connected levels. The individual level refers to researchers’ knowledge, values, and career motivations. The organisational level includes leadership, mentoring, and everyday expectations. The systemic level includes rankings, metrics, funding, and formal policies. The study asked what factors influence research integrity, how these factors interact, and how organisational culture can help us understand this interaction better.

HOW DID WE BUILD THE FRAMEWORK?
The study combined two perspectives. The first was research integrity literature, which helps to explain what supports or weakens responsible research. The second was organisational culture theory, which helps to understand how everyday values, norms, and expectations shape behaviour. Schein’s model was used to see culture in three layers: visible practices, such as policies, training, and mentoring; declared values, such as quality, transparency, and responsibility; and deep assumptions about what people believe is needed to succeed.
The framework was developed through a systematic and theory-building approach. First, a bibliometric analysis was used to provide a broad overview and identify trends and gaps in the research integrity field. Second, a systematic literature review of 51 high-quality articles was conducted to identify key concepts, definitions, theoretical perspectives, and factors influencing research integrity. Third, these factors were categorised into three analytical levels: individual, organisational, and systemic. Finally, the framework was developed by integrating these levels with Schein’s organisational culture model and using mid-range theorising to create a context-specific framework for business schools.

WHAT DOES THE FRAMEWORK SHOW?
The Research Integrity Culture Framework shows how systemic factors define the rules, incentives, and constraints of the research environment. Individual factors shape how researchers perceive and respond to these conditions. Organisational culture conditions how systemic pressures and individual factors translate into research practices.

WHAT CAN WE CONCLUDE?
The main conclusion is that research integrity in business schools is shaped by three connected levels: systemic pressures, individual researchers, and organisational culture. The key contribution of the study is a culture-based framework showing how organisational culture can either support integrity or increase risks. This matters for business schools because the framework helps explain context-specific risks such as performance gaming, grey zones, and normalised questionable practices. In practical terms, the framework can help institutions review evaluation and performance systems, strengthen mentoring, training, and researcher support, identify where researchers feel pressure or lack guidance, and build a culture where responsible research is supported in everyday practice.