The Analysis of the Correlation Between Myers Briggs Indicators - Essay Example

? The Analysis of the Correlation between Myers Briggs Part I Q1: Myers Briggs Type Indicator on human behavior The Myers Briggs Type Indicator is probably the most widely used personality test today, with huge application in organizational hiring all over the world (Bahreinian, Ahi and Soltani, 2012); according to this psychological type theory, human behavior exhibits normal consistent patterns of differences, which are determined by a unique pairing of mental functions and attitudes. Eventually, this framework defines human behavior based on four pairs of preferences or dichotomies, and individuals will often be naturally inclined on either of the two sides that make up a pair (Kummerow and Maguire, 2010). In this regard, individuals will prefer to focus their attention as a source of energy through either Extraversion or Introversion; whereas extroverts will be energized by interacting with others, introverts are energized through quiet, self-reflection (Culp and Smith, 2009). Similarly, individuals will either prefer to take in information through Sensing or Intuition, whereby preference for Sensing entails taking in details of real and tangible information while preference for Intuition entails looking at the big picture rather than details that lead to it. Additionally, individuals will prefer to make decisions either through thinking or feeling, with those with the thinking types looking at the logical consequences of a decision and the feeling types tending to settle disputes basing on their beliefs of fairness and truthfulness. Finally, based on the judging-perceiving dichotomy, individuals will prefer to live either in a more structured or spontaneous way; people who prefer judging will choose to live in an organized manner while those who prefer perceiving will tend to live in a flexible spontaneous way. Q2. Myers Briggs Type Indicator controversies The Myers Briggs Type Indicator has been criticized for a number of shortfalls that constrain its effective application in practical contexts; firstly, the framework has been accused of using ambiguous words that can easily be misunderstood, thereby leading to confusion in theory interpretation and subsequent application (Dodge, 2011). For instance, the adjective “ideational” as used by personality tests could have multiple meanings such as ideal, conceptual as well as notional, in varying contexts; theorists in personality tests domain have also expressed their concerns over the gross lack of consistency between the factor structure and the four factors outlined by the MBTI construct (Varvel et.al, 2004). Secondly, the Myers Briggs Type Indicator fails to account for all the aspects of personality because it only provides a snippet of the visible behavioral traits and cannot explain the hidden; besides, the environment in which the personality test is administered may influence the physical personality traits. Thirdly, the Myers Briggs Type Indicator is a complex subject that is currently subject to many changes in the future with the increasing research focus in the application of theory to practice; consequently, the accuracy of this framework is highly limited considering its complex nature and the various inconsistencies that manifest in practice due to technicalities in theory. Nevertheless, despite that the Myers Briggs Type Indicator, like all personality tests tend to be highly imperfect, they can be explored sourcing useful information about individuals, thereby being very helpful in predicting their behaviors in specific contexts. Part II Ethical integrity Ethical integrity has emerged to be one of the major concerns of scientific investigations especially in the wake of the significant cases of scientific misconduct in the Sciences including social, physical, and even clinical sciences (Luce, McGill and Peracchio, 2012). Scientific misconduct has traditionally been conceptualized as any form of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in coming up with proposals, conducting, or reviewing research, or reporting results from a successful empirical study (Montgomery and Amalya, 2009). Researchers in Science are directly responsible for upholding ethical integrity by maintaining the expected standards in their respective fields, abiding by set rules and regulations, be open to data sharing with peers, as well as observing standards in multi-disciplinary collaborations. Ethical integrity in scientific research is of the essence especially in today’s scientific world, where humanity has entrusted science to provide answers and practical solutions to all the challenges of the day. Besides researchers’ obligation to conduct themselves in accordance with the values and principles that define research integrity, other stakeholders such as research institutions, agencies sponsoring researches, as well as journals also have ethical responsibilities to consider (Kondro, 2012). For instance, in their role of upholding ethical integrity in science, research institutions should ensure that research is guided by clear and well-articulated rules that distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate conduct; research institutions should also enforce these rules by ensuring that all researchers and their staff, as well as students are trained in their application to scientific research. Sponsoring agencies, insofar as their role in ensuring ethical integrity in scientific research is concerned, have a responsibility to implement only the policies that will promote quality in scientific investigations rather than encouraging overemphasis on quantity at the expense of quality in the reward system for researchers. Journals on their part have an obligation to protect the integrity of research literature through advanced technologies, to use visible retractions to avoid citing of retracted papers, as well as to prevent duplication of publications. Scientific integrity in research has a wide scope especially because, in addition to the body of knowledge that researchers produce- the existing knowledge, constructs, and explanations, scientific integrity covers the entire research process. The research process is a sort of social enterprise that comprises both individuals and institutions that are involved in the establishment, certification, and communication of research findings for consumption by scientific communities, scholarly consideration, as well as commentary through critical peer reviews. Ethical integrity in scientific research entails not only shunning all the forms of research misconduct by definition, but also the active practice and teaching of responsible scientific methods and practices; additionally, ethical integrity in empirical investigations involve protecting the rights and welfare of the human participants and respecting the welfare of animal subjects in the experiments (Horner and Minifie, 2011a). Responsible conduct of research requires that all researchers and alongside their respective institutions to adhere to honest and verifiable ways of proposing, performing, evaluating, in addition to reporting research activities, and this calls for both integrity and commitment on the part of the researchers, as well as all the individuals in the research enterprise. Ethical integrity ensures that systematic, responsible practices in propositioning, conducting, analyzing, and reporting of research findings result to the documentation of truthful, valuable, as well as persistent scientific records; ethical integrity, therefore, aims at ensuring scientific authenticity because it discourages research misconduct that may compromise integrity of data. In the spirit of ensuring ethical integrity in scientific publications, whenever substantial errors or misconduct occurs, all records of a published article must be retracted immediately and any later citation of retracted articles eschewed accordingly (Horner and Minifie, 2011b). The scientific community collectively bears the responsibility of retaining the integrity of research by identifying all fraudulent articles and bringing them to the attention of scientists so they can be ignored, to prevent further corruption of scientific research by scientists inadvertently citing the said fraudulent articles. Generally, ethical academicians undertaking research in the field have a responsibility to consider all stakeholders in their studies who include the interviewee’s, advisors and mentors among others in order to effectively carry out their work. The research process must constantly remain credible by contributing valuable and enduring information that adds up to the current body of knowledge in the sciences without compromising scientific integrity; in that case, researchers are obligated to ensuring that scientific integrity is maintained at all costs because humans rely on science for operations function in their daily lives. Researchers cannot afford to be careless in their research by using haphazard methodologies whose credibility cannot be adequately verified because scientific communities have entrusted them with the task of conducting empirical investigations aimed at solving problems in daily life. Without scientific integrity, research is flawed and cannot be trusted any further as a source of truth for the troublesome issues affecting humanity anymore; in that case, ethical integrity in research instills confidence and trust in scientific findings, as valuable records of knowledge. Researchers can show their commitment to all the individuals who are touched by their research by eschewing all manner of research misconduct and practicing appropriate research behavior as reflected in proposing, conducting, evaluating, as well as communicating their research findings to others. Researchers are directly responsible for ensuring the ethical integrity of research because of the essential role they play in the generation of scientific knowledge through their research engagements, and as such, should be seen to play a proactive role in maintaining scientific integrity. With the increasing instances of research misconduct world over, scientific integrity is highly endangered as the scientists risk duplicating errors by citing fraudulent publications that are yet to be retracted; researchers must take extra caution in the process of research not to mislead the scholarly community through citing unverifiable publications. Evidently, ethical integrity in scientific research is a must and must be upheld by researchers through commitment to honesty and truthfulness in research by avoiding fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism proposing, conducting, or reviewing research, as well as reporting results. References Bahreinian, M., Ahi, M., & Soltani, F. (2012). The Relationship between Personality type and Leadership style of Managers: A case study. Mustang Journal of Business & Ethics, (3), 94-111. Culp, G., & Smith, A. (2009). Consulting Engineers: Myers-Briggs Type and Temperament Preferences. Leadership & Management In Engineering, 9(2), 65-70. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1532-6748(2009)9:2(65). Dodge, A.N. (2011). Temperament and Personality Assessments: Tools for Mediators? Dispute Resolution Journal, 66(4), 56-74. Horner, J and Minifie, F.D. (2011a). Research Ethics I: Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR)--Historical and Contemporary Issues Pertaining to Human and Animal Experimentation. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 54(1), S303-S329. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0265). Horner, J. and Minifie, F.D. (2011b). Research Ethics III: Publication Practices and Authorship, Conflicts of Interest, and Research Misconduct. Journal Of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 54(1), S346-S362. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0263). Kondro, W.(2012). Research integrity. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal: E902.  Kummerow, J. M., & Maguire, M. J. (2010). Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Framework with an Adlerian Perspective to Increase Collaborative Problem Solving in an Organization. Journal of Individual Psychology, 66(2), 188-200. Luce, F.M., McGill, A., and Peracchio, L. (2012). Promoting an Environment of Scientific Integrity: Individual and Community Responsibilities. Journal Of Consumer Research, 39(3), iii-viii. Print. Available at: Montgomery, K. and Amalya, L.O. (2009). Shifts in Guidelines for Ethical Scientific Conduct: How Public and Private Organizations Create and Change Norms of Research Integrity. Social Studies of Science, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 137-155. Varvel, T., et. al. (2004). Team Effectiveness and Individual Myers-Briggs Personality Dimensions. Journal of Management In Engineering, 20(4), 141-146. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2004)20:4(141). Read More