STUDENTS AS LAB RATS: THE ETHICS OF CONDUCTING NON-PEDAGOGICAL RESEARCH IN THE CONTEXT OF CLASSROOM SIMULATIONS AND EXPERIE... Developments in Business Simulations and Experiential Learning, Volume 32, 2005 STUDENTS AS LAB RATS: THE ETHICS OF CONDUCTING NON- PEDAGOGICAL RESEARCH IN THE CONTEXT OF CLASSROOM SIMULATIONS AND EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING James W. Gentry University of Nebraska-Lincoln jgentry@unl.edu Lee Philip McGinnis Washburn Uuniversity lee.mcginnis@washburn.edu John R. Dickinson Windsor Uuniversity bjd@uwindsor.ca Alvin C. Burns Louisiana State University alburns@lsu.edu ABSTRACT While much ABSEL work has addressed the teaching of business ethics to students, there is scant dialogue on the ethics of using one’s students as subjects in non- pedagogical classroom research. The authors contend that this practice is ethical when the research is focused on pedagogical topics and student interests are protected. However, when non-pedagogical research is undertaken with student subjects or using student data gatherers, issues of exploitation and uneven opportunity to learn arise. Consequently, the authors judge this practice to be unethical. INTRODUCTION The Dickinson, Gentry, & Burns (2004) paper raised some interesting issues concerning the viability of using pedagogical simulation games and experiential contexts to obtain data for academic (as opposed to pedagogical) research. One issue raised was the ethics of using extensive classroom time for academic research purposes. We take the perspective that academic research should NOT be obtained from classroom settings for ethical reasons. However, we do have some caveats: (1) We see no problem with the infrequent use of students to complete pretest questionnaires or to participate in the occasional pilot study. In fact, some advice for incorporating such efforts into the class material itself has been provided at ABSEL previously (Tansuhaj & Stell 1986). (2) The domain of our prescriptions does not apply to the “capstone”-type courses in which the course’s purpose is to integrate concepts from previously studied subdisciplines and to note the nature of their interactions. A simulation game would appear to be the ideal pedagogical approach to such a course, and this may provide an ideal laboratory for academic research, one conceivably unmatched by either the laboratory or the field. Thus, we are limiting our domain to that of required and elective non-capstone courses in the business curriculum. Given that the authors are marketers, the examples which we will use will be from marketing classes. Moreover, our intent is to raise the issue so as to increase awareness and hopefully to stir debate. COVERAGE OF ETHICS IN THE ABSEL LITERATURE While the specific context in which we will discuss ethical issues is relatively unique, the topic of ethics is one of the more commonly covered ones at ABSEL. For example, Howard & Strang (2003) found ethics to be the 32nd most commonly used term in ABSEL Proceedings titles and the 24th most common in the texts of the papers. Most of the work has not dealt with the ethics of research, but rather with the teaching of ethics via experiential 133 mailto:jgentry@unl.edu mailto:lee.mcginnis@washburn.edu mailto:bjd@uwindsor.ca mailto:alburns@lsu.edu Developments in Business Simulations and Experiential Learning, Volume 32, 2005 exercises or the insertion of critical incidents in simulation games (Anderson, Beveridge, & Scott 1998; Andrews 2000; Brozik & Zapalska 2003; Cannon & Schwaiger 2003; Chiesl 1994; Fristzsche & Rosenberg 1989; Halpin & Biggs 2000; Hauser & Logan 1977; Lynch 1998; Maddox, Armstrong, & Wheatley 1991; Markulis & Strang 1995; McAfee & Anderson 1995; Morgan & Dennehey 1995; Mujtaba 1997a, b; Page & Platt 2000; Ricci & Markulis 1990; Schreier 1990; Schreier & Komives 1997; Schumann, Anderson, & Scott 1996; Schumann, Scott, & Anderson 1994; Scot, Schumann, & Anderson 1998; Shami et al. 2004; Smith 1974, 1975, 1979; Sondergaard & Lommergaard 2002; Stacey 1988; Tangedahl & Manuel 2004; Trent et al. 1997; Ullmann & Brink 1992; Wheatley, Bennett, & Armstrong 1997; Wilson & Maxhem 1997; Wines, Anderson, & Fronmueller 1998; Wright & Brady 1990). While the bulk of this work reflects the increasing importance of ethical issues in the business curriculum in the last two decades, it is refreshing to see that such issues were discussed at ABSEL during its infancy as well. In addition to the discussions of how to teach ethics, ABSEL has seen coverage of unethical behavior on the part of students. Issues of student cheating and “free-riding” have been covered throughout ABSEL’s history, but more recently there has been concern for student “ethics” in an environment of greatly enhanced technology (Forte, Mueller, & Nicholson 2003; Hornyak, Peach, & Fekula 2003). There has been coverage of ethical issues related to research, but the bulk (Burns & Burns 1985; Gentry 1980; Loveland, Wall, & Wheatley 1979; Overby & Durden 1988; Sewall 1978) of that has focused on pedagogical research and the most dominant issue: “since most experiments require researcher introduced controls, might these controls have some differentiating effect on what students learn as a result of playing an experimentally controlled simulation game?” Gentry (1980) discussed the “Pygmalion” study by Rosenthal & Jacobson (1968), who found that children who were expected to succeed by their teachers (falsely so, as the experimenters had lied about the students’ IQs, which were essentially equivalent across classes) did receive better scores by the end of the year. Warwick (1975) criticized this study (and the other 250 or so studies which had replicated it in a relatively short period of time) for the possible harm done to the students whose IQs were lied about. ABSEL participants have discussed the need to protect student interests in pedagogical research, and obviously we advocate the continuance of such discussion. A non-ABSEL literature exists that involves students and ethical issues, one that sees students serving as respondents in the evaluation of ethical contexts. In particular, some of these issues assess college students' attitudes toward advertising's ethical consequences (Beard 2003), assess how their attitudes have changed over time (Zinkhan, Bisesi, & Saxton 1989), assess ethical sensitivity (Sparks & Hunt 1998), and measure how students of different cultures react differently toward ethical dilemmas (Ahmed, Chung, & Eichenseher 2003). These studies, by their very nature, use students because their attitudes and opinions are the essence of the comparison or represent the larger student population. Once again, though, ethical standards should apply to this type of research. If the research is self-serving and exploitive in nature, then we advise against its use in a classroom setting. However, systematic integration of the topic of the research with the course content (as discussed in Tansuhaj & Stell 1986) may result in a satisfactory learning experience. The point of this paper, though, is to discuss ethical issues related to basic research conducted in a pedagogical context. This topic has received far less coverage at ABSEL (see Dickinson et al. 2004; Gentry et al. 1984; Sewall 1978 for exceptions). We looked at a number of ethics statements (such as the AACSB’s “Ethics Education in Business Schools” and the Academy of Management’s “Code of Ethical Conduct”) for guidance in terms of evaluating the use of the classroom for basic research, and found little of a specific nature. However, the first author’s institution, the University of Nebraska, does offer something of substance in its own “Professional Ethics Statement:” 1. As researchers, we avoid any exploitation of others for personal advantage, …. 2. We respect the confidential nature of the relationship between professor and student; avoid any personal exploitation of students; protect their academic freedom; and acknowledge any significant assistance from them. 3. As faculty of a research university, we seek to involve both our graduate and undergraduate students in our professional investigations by nurturing their opportunity to contribute to meaningful research, and by giving them appropriate credit for their work. Clearly, all three of these points are open to multiple interpretations. For example, “appropriate credit” may be construed by some as a rite-of-passage obligation for a college sophomore in his/her Intro to Psychology course’s laboratory experiment. Or, “appropriate credit” might be satisfied by extra credit points to help one’s grade. Certainly more extensive efforts might merit a thank you in the article’s opening footnote or possibly even co-authorship. For us, the key words in the University of Nebraska’s Professional Ethics Statement are “avoid any exploitation of others for personal advantage.” Using unpaid students to further one’s research record often may be unethical. We argue strongly that this is an issue that ABSEL should be having a dialog about. The tools used by ABSELers to provide learning experiences can be used to generate basic knowledge about intricate business practices (again, see Dickinson et al. 2004). In fact, simulation was first attractive to academics as a research tool, long before it became a relatively common part of business pedagogy. Von Neumann and Morgenstern (1944) pioneered the use of games for basic research over a decade prior to the development in 1956 of what is commonly recognized as the first modern business simulation game, Top 134 Developments in Business Simulations and Experiential Learning, Volume 32, 2005 135 Management Decision Simulation, by the American Management Association. Despite simulation’s legacy as both a teaching and research tool, we suggest that the teaching/research interface may have a dark side that merits attention. As noted earlier, ABSEL has a rich history of dealing with the teaching of ethics in clever and appealing ways, should be proud of that tradition and should not capitulate when issues hit closer to home. Chiesl (1994) raised a critically important issue in the title of his paper, “Don’t Teach Ethics to Business Students!” As experienced experiential exercise devotees, ABSELers know that Newell was advocating that students should learn ethical behavior experientially. We raise the following issue: What do students learn when they have been exploited in the teacher/student interaction? Don’t students have the right to expect that the primary focus of a class is student learning, as opposed to faculty research generation? We argue that if learning is not the primary focus, then educators need to reassess the purpose of their instruction. Experiential exercises work in large part because they are more involving, but what can be more involving than the experience of “being used” by an instructor to further his/her own research record? The multiple interpretations issue discussed earlier muddies the water, so to speak, in terms of just where the line is that we should not cross. We will try to clarify where we think the line should be in the context of some pedagogies with which we have a great deal of experience. THE LIVE CASE APPROACH. A common approach in Marketing Research (and sometimes Promotion) courses has been to require students to do a hands-on study, often for a local client. The client may or may not be asked to pay the department (and not the instructor) a fee to cover out-of- pocket costs and to cover “overhead.” Usually this fee is in the low four figures, and has the meritorious effect of raising both client and student expectations in terms of the quality of the study. Depending upon the size of the class and the amount of data collection asked of each student, the sample sizes may be substantial (beyond the magnitude of reviewer criticism). Given the effort required [Burns (1978) referred to this as the “suffering bastard” approach], there is a great temptation to use the study to generate publications. Most such studies are doomed, becoming conference papers at best as the practical bent of the study, which is so motivating to students, does not lend itself well to the testing of theory. Reviewers are accustomed to seeing this form of study and are generally quite cynical. We (or at least all but one of us) have no problem with such efforts and hope that the instructors do some get publication credit for them, as long as the practical orientation is maintained. We do have problems with the use of such projects to conduct the instructor’s own research, “using” students as cheap data collectors. If there is no student ownership of the research process (selecting the project, helping to determine the nature of the research problem, designing and pretesting the questionnaire, and collecting, analyzing, and integrating the data/results), then the students are being “used” and do not receive their money’s worth in terms of a motivating learning opportunity. Students prefer simulations that are more realistic with greater real world consequences (Wheatley, 1995); doing research that is self-serving and with few real world applications may well deviate from providing this experience. A variant of this is having students become “junior colleagues” in a participant/observation study where they collect data (for example, of the Thanksgiving ritual within their families). While these experiences can be quite thought-provoking, the instructor has an obligation to justify the “use” of students as data collectors in his/her research to the students, to reviewers, and maybe to university administrators. The argument has been made that this requirement of students being collectors of observation data is akin to using classes to complete questionnaires, but we see a large difference between the use of a few minutes of class time (or possibly out-of-class time) for extra credit and the graded course requirement that necessitates a serious commitment of students’ out-of-class time. The latter, however, could be construed as a better learning experience for the students, but only if the assignment is an integral part of the course or part of the learning objectives as stated in the syllabus. For example, the study of Thanksgiving rituals could be a beneficial project for a class on qualitative techniques, consumer behavior, or marketing research because students would be using a specific technique to gather information; the key to the successful implementation of this from a learning perspective is the integration of the students’ effort with the course content. THE USE OF A SIMULATION GAME AS A MEANS OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH. Dickinson et al. (2004) listed a number of successful research (i.e., published in a Tier One journal) endeavors that used a teaching context. Many of these involved executive education contexts, where a more theoretical perspective might be more appropriate (i.e., they might understand the underlying issues being manipulated). The following criticisms deal with situations in which a game is used as part of a course (and not the context for the whole course) with “real students.” The bad fit between research topic and existing games may create problems. Forcing the games to fit the research topic may have negative consequences, as the modifications may involve aspects crucial to the learning objectives. One can create one’s own game, but to what extent is the course learning being modified to fit the research context? The Pygmalion Effect was discussed earlier. Some experimental treatments may facilitate learning better than others. How does one justify some students getting less than the best opportunity to learn? Sample size limitations in most courses may result in the researcher performing strange permutations to Developments in Business Simulations and Experiential Learning, Volume 32, 2005 136 generate a decent sample size. If one has a small class size, one should use that to facilitate learning rather than being concerned with aggregation to a sufficient size of similar student situations, and possibly harming the learning environment. Experimentation assumes randomization of treatments being assigned to subjects. In gaming situations, we are often talking about groups of students constituting one firm. Do we assign teams randomly? Good experimental method says clearly, “Yes.” Concern for student lives may say no, given the work schedules that many students face and different student characteristics that may force the instructor to control group makeup. Gentry et al. (1984) discuss a number of problems associated with attempts to do academic research within the context of classroom use of a simulation game. Their failure may be due to their (Gentry et al.’s) limitations as academic researchers, but the list of reasons does resonate and provides a basis for improving the research process. However, we would suggest that many attempts to overcome the issues may mean deviating from the effectiveness of the teaching aspects of the experiential approach. CONCLUSION We believe strongly in the use of experiential pedagogies. We also believe strongly in academic (non- pedagogical) research. We do not believe that one gets synergies by trying to combine them. Academic research should not be conducted in the guise of teaching, because we believe that it is difficult enough to teach effectively when one’s entire focus is on teaching the class (and not on the academic research by-products). And we are concerned that bad ethical behavior can indeed be learned experientially when faculty exploit student efforts in order to advance their own best interests. We advocate that student learning should be the focus of our classroom efforts, and note the possible conflicts of interest occurring when one attempts to generate non-pedagogical publishable research simultaneously with teaching. We believe that ethical faculty should question why they are doing what they do. If the answer is not in the best interests of their students’ learning, then we suggest that rethinking their efforts is called for. REFERENCES Ahmed, Mohamed M., Kung Young Chung, & John W. Eichenseher (2003), “Business Students’ Perception of Ethics and Moral Judgment: A Cross-Cultural Study,” Journal of Business Ethics, 43(1/2), 89-102). Anderson, Philip H., David A. Beveridge, & Timothy W. Scott (1998), “Threshold Solo Competitor: A Management Simulation (V 1.0): A Play Alone, Total Enterprise Simulation & Assessment Instrument,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 25, 40-41. Andrews, William A. (2000), “Identifying, Resolving, & Managing Common Ethical Dilemmas in the Workplace: An Experiential Approach,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 27, 68-75. Beard, Fred K. (2003), “College Student Attitudes Toward Advertising’s Ethical, Economic, and Social Consequences,” Journal of Business Ethics, 48(3), 217- 228. Brozik, Dallas & Alina Zapalska (2003), “The Competition Game: Decision Making in a Dynamic Environment,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 30, 10-13. Burns, Alvin C. (1978), “The Extended Live Case Approach in Teaching Marketing Research,” in D. Brenenstuhl & S. Certo, Exploring Experiential Learning: Simulations and Experiential Exercises, 245-251. Burns, Alvin C. & Jeanne H. Burns (1985), “Single Case Experimental Design as an Alternative to the Conventional Approach,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 12, 82-85. Cannon, Hugh M. & Manfred Schwaiger (2003), “Incorporating ‘Company Reputations’ into Total Enterprise Simulations,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 30, 288-297. Chiesl, Newell (1994), “Don’t Teach Ethics to Business Students!” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 21, 155-156. Dickinson, John R., James W. Gentry, & Alvin C. Burns (2004), “A Seminal Inventory of Basic Research Using Business Simulation Games,” Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Vol. 31, 345-351. Forte, Monique, Carolyn B. Mueller, & Carolyn Y. Nicholson(2003), “Incorporating Technology in the 21st Century Classroom: Are We Facilitating Academic Dishonesty?” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 30, 106-108. Fritzsche, David J. & Richard D. Rosenberg (1989), “Business Ethics, Experiential Exercises and Simulation Games,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 16, 186-187. Gentry, James W. (1980), “The Effects of Group Size on Attitudes toward the Simulation,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 7, 165- 168. Gentry, James W., Thomas F. Tice, Charles J. Robertson, & Martha J. Gentry (1984), “Simulation Gaming as a Means of Researching Substantive Issues: Another Look,” Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Vol. 11, 1-5. Developments in Business Simulations and Experiential Learning, Volume 32, 2005 137 Halpin, Annette L. & William D. Biggs (2000), “Internationalizing the Introduction to Business Course Using an International Text and a Domestic Simulation with a Twist,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 27, 115-121. Hauser, Robert E. & John F. Logan (1977), “SIM ECO SOC with Business Curriculum Modules: A Simulation for Business Ethics and Morals,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 4, 328-336. Howard, Barbara J. & Daniel R. Strang (2003), “The Way We Talk! Take II,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 30, 133-136. Hornyak, Martin, Brian Peach, & Mick Fekula (2003), “Blogging: A New Threat to Student Research,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 30, 131-132. Loveland, John P., Larry Wall, & Arthur Whatley (1979), “Group Decision Making in a Computer Game Analysis of Demographic and Psychosocial Variables,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 6, 145-149. Lynch, Robert D. (1998), “The Supervised Management Internship: A Job or Learning Exercise?” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 25, 124-130. Maddox, K. Nicholas, Terry R. Armstrong, & Walter J. Wheatley (1991), “Ethical Dilemmas in Experiential Learning: Issues and Strategies,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 18, 57- 60. Markulis, Peter M. & Daniel Strang (1995), “Three Strikes and You’re Out!: A Downsizing Experiential Exercise,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 22, 289. McAfee, R. Bruce & Claire J. Anderson (1995), “Compensation Dilemmas: An Exercise in Ethical Decision Making,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 22, 156-159. Mitton, Daryl C. (1992), “An Action-Ethics Dilemma: A Demonstration,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 19, 235. Morgan, Sandra & Robert F. Dennehy (1995), “Organizational Storytelling: Telling Tales in the Business Classroom,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 22, 160-165. Mujtaba, Bahaudin G. (1997a), “Business Ethics Survey: A Perspective from the Retail Industry,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 24, 186- 187. Mujtaba, Bahaudin G. (1997b), “Corporate Ethics Training Program,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 24, 130. Overby, John D. & Kay A. Durden (1988), “Experimental Analysis of Magnitude and Source of Students’ Inequitable Classroom Perceptions in Three Reward Conditions,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 15, 142-146. Page, Diana & Richard G. Platt (2000), “Meeting the Next Challenge for Experiential Education,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 27, 201-202. Ricci, Phillip & Peter M. Markulis (1990), “Can Ethics Be Taught? A Simulation Tests a Traditional Ethics Pedagogy,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 17, 141-145. Rosenthal, Robert & Lenore Jacobson (1968), Pygmalion in the Classroom, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc. Sewall, Murphy (1978), “Simulation and Experiential Learning as Human Subject Research,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 5, 283-288. Schreier, James W. (1990), “Selecting & Developing Experiential Exercises Using Movies,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 17, 150- 154. Schreier, James W. & John L. Komives (1977), “Assessment of Entrepreneurial Skills Using Simulation,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 4, 53-60. Schumann, Paul L., Philip H. Anderson, & Timothy W. Scott (1996), “Introducing Ethical Dilemmas into Computer-Based Simulation Exercises to Teach Business Ethics,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 23, 74-80. Schumann, Paul L., Timothy W. Scott, & Philip H. Anderson (1994), “Using A Business Simulation to Study the Determinants of Ethical Behavior,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 21, 90-95. Scott, Timothy W., Paul L. Schumann, & Philip H. Anderson (1998), “Ethical Dilemmas to Use with Business Simulations to Teach Business Ethics,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 25, 83-89. Shami, N. Sadat, Nathan Bos, Timothy Fort, & Michael Gordon (2004), “Designing a Globalization Simulation to Teach Corporate Social Responsibility,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 31, 22-27. Smith, Jerald R. (1974), “Smith Management Game (BUSOP),” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 1, 165-166. Smith, Jerald R. (1975), “Results of Using Gaming to Teach Ethics and Social Responsibility,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 2, 227- 233. Smith, Jerald R. (1979), “Gaming and Attitudinal Change,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 6, 231-234. Developments in Business Simulations and Experiential Learning, Volume 32, 2005 138 Sondergaard, Mikael & Jeanette Lommergaard (2002), “To Teach ‘Vikings’to Behave among ‘Mandarin’ Lessons from Teaching with a Simulation Model of Applied Business Ethics in International Management,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 29, 230-232. Sparks, John R. & Shelby D. Hunt (1998), “Marketing Researcher Ethical Sensitivity: Conceptual, Measurement, and Exploratory Investigation,” Journal of Marketing, 62 (2), 92-109. Stacey, James E. (1988), “Employee Rights – Student Rights: A Classroom Exercise,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 5, 129- 131. Tangedahl, Lee & Tim Manuel (2004), “An International Capital Budgeting Experiential Exercise,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 31, 71-72. Tansuhaj, Patriya S. & Roxanne Stell (1986), “The Research/Teaching Interface: Turning a Pretest into an Experiential Exercise,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 13, 235-237. Trent, Dona M., Edward T. Grasso, Molly Ransbury, Kim Faunce, & Heather Dixon (1997), “Service Learning: Linking Academic Study to Community Development and Business Enhancement,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 24, 126-127. Ullmann, Arieh A. & Charles G. Brink (1992), “Use of Simulation for ethics Education in Management,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 19, 169-172. von Neumann, John & Oskar Morgenstern (1944), Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, First Edition, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Warwick, Donald P. (1975), “Deceptive Research: Social Scientists Ought to Stop Lying,” Psychology Today, February, 29-40, 105-106. Wheatley, Walter (1995), “How Real Should Experiential Pedagogy Be? A View from the Students,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 22, 227-228. Wheatley, Walter J., Robert H. Bennett, & Terry R. Armstrong (1997), “Introducing Students to Potential Total Quality Management Ethical Dilemmas,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 24, 50-55. Wilson, Elizabeth J. & James G. Maxhem III (1997), “Internet Experiential Learning in the Principles of Marketing Classroom: A Pedagogical Approach,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 24, 261-266. Wines, William A., Holly L. Anderson, & Michael P. Fronmueller (1998), “Accelerating Moral Development Through Use of Experiential Ethical Dilemmas,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 25, 76-82. Wright, Penny L. & F. Neil Brady (1990), “Self-Assessment of Ethical Decision Making Predispositions,” Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 17, 222. Zinkhan, George M., Michael Bisesi, & Mary Jane Saxton (1989), “MBAs’ Changing Attitudes Toward Marketing Dilemmas: 1981-1987,” Journal of Business Ethics, 8(12), 963-974. Table of Contents Volume 32, 2005 LEARNER BEHAVIOR IN THE ONLINE CLASSROOM EXPERIENCE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A SIMULATION EXERCISE FOR INTEGRATING PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING IN MANAGEMENT EDUCATION DEMONSTRATION OF FOUR WEB-BASED SIMULATIONS THRESHOLD COMPETITOR: A MANAGEMENT SIMULATION ENTREPRENEUR: A NEW VENTURE SIMULATION MERLIN: A MARKETING SIMULATION MICROMATIX: A STRAGETIC MANAGEMENT SIMULATION LEARNING STYLES INFLUENCES ON SATISFACTION AND PERCEIVED LEARNING: ANALYSIS OF AN ONLINE BUSINESS GAME INTERNATIONAL INTERNSHIPS: DESIGN AND EXPERIENCES SIM MAP: TURNING ACTION-BASED LEARNING INTO SIMULATED CONSULTING PROJECTS NOTEL HEALTH SERVICES: A ROLE-PLAYING SIMULATION TEACHING EXPERIENTIALLY WITH THE MADELINE HUNTER METHOD: AN APPLICATION IN A MARKETING RESEARCH COURSE SIMULATING CUSTOMER LIFETIME VALUE: IMPLICATIONS FOR GAME DESIGN AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE VIRTUAL PROGRESS: SIMULATING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ONLINE STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT: AN EVALUATION OF THE USE OF THREE LEARNING METHODS IN CHINA ADOPTION OF DISCUSSION-BASED TEACHING AND ASSESSMENT IN TEACHING STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT IN CHINA STUDENTS' VIEW ON THE USE OF CASE METHOD IN CHINA CHINESE STUDENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF BUSINESS GAMING EXPERIENCECSR - A CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY SIMULATION CREATING DYNAMIC INTERACTION IN A VIRTUAL WORLD: ADD VALUE TO ONLINE CLASSROOMS THROUGH LIVE ELEARNING AND COLLABORATION: A DEMONSTRATION CAPABILITIES OF EXPERIMENTAL BUSINESS GAMING A COMPARISON BETWEEN SOLUTIONS AND DECISIONS IN A BUSINESS GAME VALIDATING BUSINESS SIMULATIONS: DOES HIGH PRODUCT QUALITY LEAD TO HIGH PROFITABILITY? ALIGNING ART AND EPISTEMOLOGY: ILLUSTRATIONS TO DISTINGUISH DISCOVERY FROM KNOWLEDGE BUILDING TUTORIALS USING WINK STUDENTS AS LAB RATS: THE ETHICS OF CONDUCTING NON-PEDAGOGICAL RESEARCH IN THE CONTEXT OF CLASSROOM SIMULATIONS AND EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING THE EFFECT ON GAME PERFORMANCE OF DIFFERENT MEASURES AND UNITS OF ANALYSIS IN QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS ANALYZING AND THINKING WHILE PLAYING A SIMULATION COMPUTER BUSINESS SIMULATION DESIGN: THE ROCK POOL METHOD EXPANDING THE ROLE OF E-ROOMS IN DISTANCE LEARNING APPLICATIONS TO MANAGEMENT EDUCATION APPLICATION OF TRADITIONAL AND ONLINE JOURNALING AS PEDAGOGY AND MEANS FOR ASSESSING LEARNING IN AN ENTREPRENEURIAL SEMINAR DEVELOPING MANAGERIAL EFFECTIVENESS: ASSESSING AND COMPARING THE IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES USING A MANAGEMENT SIMULATION OR A MANAGEMENT GAME INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT GAME Œ AN INTEGRATED TOOL FOR TEACHING STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONALLY STUDENT EXPECTATIONS OF SIMULATIONS DISTANCE EDUCATION DELIVERY OF AN INTENSIVE SIMULATION BASED COURSE TEACHING SERVICE LEARNING USING A BUSINESS GAME ROLE-PLAY SIMULATION EDUCATIONAL PERSPECTIVE OF COLLABORATIVE VIRTUAL COMMUNICATION AND MULTI-USER VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS FOR BUSINESS SIMULATIONS SIMULATION PERFORMANCE & PREDICTOR VARIABLES: ARE WE LOOKING IN THE WRONG PLACES TO MEASURE THE RIGHT LEARNING? VIDEO CASE: JET-A-WAY INC. Œ FOCUSING ON DIVERSITY AND ENTREPRENEURIAL LEADERSHIP ACTIVE LEARNING: WHAT IS IT AND WHY SHOULD I USE IT? FACILITATING THROUGH COLLABORATIVE REFLECTIONS TO ACCOMMODATE DIVERSE LEARNING STYLES FOR LONG-TERM RETENTION ONLINE CUMULATIVE SIMULATION TEAM PERFORMANCE PACKAGE WHEN PROPHECY FAILS: A SMALL SAMPLE, PRELIMINARY STUDY USING EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING TO INTEGRATE THE BUSINESS CURRICULUM FORECASTING STOCK VALUE EMPLOYING PROGRESSIVE PRACTICES AND PRINCIPLES TO FACILITATE SEMINAR ROOM LEADERSHIP AMONG LEARNERS: SHARED POWER AND COLLECTIVE ACCOUNTABILITY INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVEMENT DOES NOT GUARANTEE TEAM PERFORMANCE: AN EVIDENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING WITH BUSINESS GAMES DECISION MAKING IN BUSINESS SIMULTION DESIGN ZUG UM ZUG 2015: COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AS A TWO-LEVEL GAME A NEW METHOD FOR MODELING INNOVATION AND R&D IN BUSINESS SIMULATIONS: ILLUSTRATED WITH A SIMULATION OF A NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT PORTFOLIO DEVELOPING A MICRO SIMULATION EFFECT OF MARKET SHARE AND PRODUCTION EXPERIENCE ON COMPANY PROFITABILITY RE-DESIGNING A CURRICULUM THAT VALUES A WORK-INTEGRATED APPROACH TO STUDENT LEARNING HOW SIMULATIONS AND EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING FIT AS WE COMPLY WITH LEGISLATIVE AND AACSB ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES: HOW TO DEVELOP ACADEMICALLY SOUND COURSES THAT ALSO MEET STAKEHOLDER NEEDS EVALUATING SERVICE LEARNING: REFLECTION AND ASSESSMENT FROM THE STUDENT POINT OF VIEW SIMPLIFYING AND ENHANCING FINANCIAL ANALYSIS IN CASES AND SIMULATIONS OVERCOMING THE BUSINESS GAME COMPLEXITY PARADOX EXPLORING THE PREFERENCE IN LEARNING APPROACH AMONG THE HONG KONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS: CASE STUDY, PROBLEM-BASED OR TRADITIONAL TEXTBOOK QUESTION AN EXERCISE FOR EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JUNGIAN PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPES AND POLITICAL STYLE IN THE WORKPLACE EVALUATING THE DIRECTION OF RESEARCH IN ONLINE EDUCATION: ARE WE GOING ANYWHERE? AIS RAIL SYSTEM: A COMPUTER-BASED JOB-ORDER COST SIMULATION BLOOM BEYOND BLOOM: USING THE REVISED TAXONOMY TO DEVELOP EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING STRATEGIES DELIVERING A TECHNOLOGY-BASED CASE IN A TECHNOLOGICAL WAY: THE SMARTCART CASE USING THE INTERNET TO ENHANCE COURSE PRESENTATION: A HELP OR HINDRANCE TO STUDENT LEARNING TEACHING PRACTICES: A CLUSTER ANALYSIS OF STUDENTS IN HONG KONG TEACHING PRACTICES: A CLUSTER ANALYSIS OF TEACHING STAFF IN HONG KONG EVALUATING A SIMULATION WITH A STRATEGIC EXPLORATION TOOL A SYMBOLIC MODEL OF THE SIMULTANEOUS ACHIEVEMENT OF CONCRETE BENEFITS AND LEARNING BY PARTICIPATING GROUPS IN EXPERIENTIAL ACTIVITIES: ‚THE SPHERE OF EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING