Quantitative Data Analysis using PLS-SEM (SmartPLS): Issues and Challenges in Ethical Consideration
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37134/ibej.Vol17.2.04.2024Keywords:
Quantitative Research, PLS-SEM, Research Ethics, SmartPLSAbstract
In research, ethical issues are crucial, including the preservation of participants' rights, privacy, and well-being to secure informed consent and minimize potential harm. Throughout the study, researchers must maintain transparency, honesty, and integrity, promoting trust and credibility in the pursuit of knowledge. In the realm of quantitative research, the process of data analysis plays a fundamental role, serving as a critical element in the generation of reliable and precise findings. The purpose of this concept paper is to provide the growing recognition of the ethical importance of quantitative data analysis in research. This paper delves into the ethical aspects of quantitative data analysis, underscoring the necessity for researchers to approach matters related to data collection, storage, and analysis with meticulous attention when using SmartPLS. This study highlights that preserving privacy and confidentiality requires the secure handling of various data types, especially those containing personally identifiable or health information. Additionally, it is crucial to subject biases and discrimination in data analysis to rigorous examination to ensure fair representation and mitigate potential negative consequences. The current prevalence of privacy breaches and the accompanying ethical concerns underscore the critical importance of prioritizing ethical considerations. This paper also explores the ethical complexities unique to Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM), a widely used statistical technique across multiple disciplines by using SmartPLS software. SmartPLS enables researchers to analyse intricate relationships, facilitating the derivation of significant conclusions. Nevertheless, researchers employing SmartPLS must remain attentive to distinct ethical dilemmas, particularly those related to the interpretation, management, and disclosure of data. The exercise of ethical vigilance becomes essential when the conclusions drawn from SmartPLS have an impact on various stakeholders, such as employees, consumers, and shareholders. Researchers can ensure the integrity, accountability, and ethicality of their research endeavours by adhering to ethical guidelines, conducting comprehensive analyses, and exercising caution when making generalizations while utilizing SmartPLS.
Downloads
References
Aguinis, H., Bergh, D., & Molina-Azorin, J. F. (2023). Methodological challenges and insights for future international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 54(2), 219-232.
Baskaran, S., Nallaluthan, K., & Kunjuraman, V. (2021). Perception and Readiness towards Indian Ayurvedic Medicine Acceptance to Combat COVID-19 Outbreak: A Multigroup Analysis in PLS Path Modelling. International Journal of Ayurvedic Medicine, 12(2), 318-331.
Becker, J.-M., Cheah, J.-H., Gholamzade, R., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2023). PLS-SEM’s most wanted guidance. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 35(1), 321-346.
Bell, E., Bryman, A., & Harley, B. (2022). Business research methods. Oxford University Press.
Bloomfield, J., & Fisher, M. J. (2019). Quantitative research design. Journal of the Australasian Rehabilitation Nurses Association, 22(2), 27-30.
Dash, G., & Paul, J. (2021). CB-SEM vs PLS-SEM methods for research in social sciences and technology forecasting. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 173, 121092.
Hair, J. F., Astrachan, C. B., Moisescu, O. I., Radomir, L., Sarstedt, M., Vaithilingam, S., & Ringle, C. M. (2021). Executing and interpreting applications of PLS-SEM: Updates for family business researchers. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 12(3), 100392.
Hair Jr, J., Page, M., & Brunsveld, N. (2019). Essentials of business research methods. Routledge.
Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2021). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications.
Hasan, N., Rana, R. U., Chowdhury, S., Dola, A. J., & Rony, M. K. K. (2021). Ethical considerations in research. Journal of Nursing Research, Patient Safety and Practise (JNRPSP) 2799-1210, 1(01), 1-4.
Jones, K. (2012). A regrettable oversight or a significant omission?: Ethical considerations in quantitative research in education. In Situated ethics in educational research (pp. 147-161). Routledge.
Kaiser, K. (2009). Protecting respondent confidentiality in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 19(11), 1632-1641.
Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 1-10.
Lach, D. (2014). Challenges of interdisciplinary research: Reconciling qualitative and quantitative methods for understanding human–landscape systems. Environmental Management, 53, 88-93.
Latan, H., Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A. B., & Ali, M. (2023). Crossing the red line? Empirical evidence and useful recommendations on questionable research practices among business scholars. Journal of Business Ethics, 184(3), 549-569.
Lock, I., & Seele, P. (2015). Quantitative content analysis as a method for business ethics research. Business Ethics: A European Review, 24, S24-S40.
Manna, A., Sengupta, A., & Mazumdar, C. (2020). A quantitative methodology for business process-based data privacy risk computation. Advanced Computing and Systems for Security, 10, 17-33.
Ong, M. H. A., & Puteh, F. (2017). Quantitative data analysis: Choosing between SPSS, PLS, and AMOS in social science research. International Interdisciplinary Journal of Scientific Research, 3(1), 14-25.
Panter, A. T., & Sterba, S. K. (2011). Handbook of ethics in quantitative methodology. Routledge.
Ramayah, T., Cheah, J., Chuah, F., Ting, H., & Memon, M. A. (2018). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using smartPLS 3.0: An updated guide and practical guide to statistical analysis. (2nd ed.). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Pearson.
Richter, N. F., Cepeda-Carrion, G., Roldán Salgueiro, J. L., & Ringle, C. M. (2016). European management research using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). European Management Journal, 34 (6), 589-597.
Ringle, Christian M., Wende, Sven, & Becker, Jan-Michael. (2024). SmartPLS 4. Bönningstedt: SmartPLS. Retrieved from https://www.smartpls.com
Romo-González, J. R., Tarango, J., & Machin-Mastromatteo, J. D. (2018). PLS SEM, a quantitative methodology to test theoretical models from library and information science. Information Development, 34(5), 526-531.
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (2013). Quantitative Methods and Ethics. The Oxford Handbook of Quantitative Methods in Psychology.
Rosnow, Ralph L., and Robert Rosenthal. 2013. Quantitative methods and ethics. In T. D. Little (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Quantitative Methods in Psychology Volume 1 (pp. 32-54). Oxford University Press.
Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., Thiele, K. O., & Gudergan, S. P. (2016). Estimation issues with PLS and CBSEM: Where the bias lies! Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 3998-4010.
Sarstedt, M., Hair Jr, J. F., Cheah, J.H., Becker, J.M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). How to specify, estimate, and validate higher-order constructs in PLS-SEM. Australasian Marketing Journal, 27(3), 197-211.
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Hair, J. F. (2021). Partial least squares structural equation modeling. In Handbook of market research (pp. 587-632). Springer.
Saunders, M., & Lewis, P. (2017). Doing research in business and management. Pearson.
Scherbaum, C., & Shockley, K. (2015). Analysing quantitative data for business and management students. Sage.
Sharma, P. N., Liengaard, B. D., Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2022). Predictive model assessment and selection in composite-based modeling using PLS-SEM: Extensions and guidelines for using CVPAT. European Journal of Marketing, 57(6), 1662-1677. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-08-2020-0636
Shmueli, G., Ray, S., Estrada, J. M. V., & Chatla, S. B. (2016). The elephant in the room: Predictive performance of PLS models. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4552-4564.
Shmueli, G., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Cheah, J.-H., Ting, H., Vaithilingam, S., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for using PLSpredict. European Journal of Marketing, 53(11), 2322-2347.
Steffen, E. (2016). Ethical considerations in qualitative research. In E. Lyons & A. Coyle (Eds.), 2nd Edition analysing qualitative data in psychology (pp. 31-44). Sage Publications Ltd.
Treloar, S., Taylor, S., Otlowski, M., Barlow-Stewart, K., Stranger, M., & Chenoweth, K. (2004). Methodological considerations in the study of genetic discrimination. Public Health Genomics, 7(4), 161-168.
Wong, K. K.-K. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) techniques using SmartPLS. Marketing Bulletin, 24(1), 1-32.
Zyphur, M. J., & Pierides, D. C. (2017). Is quantitative research ethical? Tools for ethically practicing, evaluating, and using quantitative research. Journal of Business Ethics, 143, 1-16.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Kesavan Nallaluthan, Saslina Kamaruddin, Ramayah Thurasamy, Arsalan Mujahid Ghouri, Kaaminy Kanapathy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
