scholarly journals MAQASID SHARIAH IN THE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY: A REVIEW

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (18) ◽  
pp. 34-43
Author(s):  
Nur Farahiah Azmi ◽  
Syarizal Abdul Rahim ◽  
Norailis Ab. Wahab ◽  
Mohamad Zaharuddin Zakaria

The purpose of this research is to review relevant articles on the application of Maqasid shariah for the manufacturing industry. In today's competitive and dynamic market, manufacturing companies are working incredibly hard to retain their integrity and competitiveness. Many industrial companies have implemented integrity processes to encourage ethical decision-making. The study review relevant articles on the application of Maqasid shariah for the manufacturing industry. While the absence of empirical research limits this work, the study proposes for further study to examine the application of Maqasid shariah in the manufacturing industry.

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leanne Kelly

The value of listening to children's voices is well acknowledged. The vast body of literature surrounding this topic discusses children's voices in pedagogy, theory, methodology, and through empirical research. While some of this literature has focused on ethical considerations surrounding evaluative consultations with children in applied practice settings, there is a shortage of literature specifically relevant to small and medium-sized nongovernment organisations (NGOs). These organisations typically conduct consultations on a smaller scale and with fewer resources than their larger counterparts. This paper refers to Australian ethical guidelines using a practice example from a mid-sized NGO to examine ethics in child consultation from a practice-based program improvement perspective. The paper examines whether consultations with children always require formal ethics approval and discusses terminology and considerations surrounding ethical decision making processes.


2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 213-224
Author(s):  
Becky Grace ◽  
Tony Wainwright ◽  
Wendy Solomons ◽  
Jenna Camden ◽  
Helen Ellis-Caird

Given the nature of the discipline, it might be assumed that clinical psychology is an ethical profession, within which effective ethical decision-making is integral. How then, does this ethical decision-making occur? This paper describes a systematic review of empirical research addressing this question. The paucity of evidence related to this question meant that the scope was broadened to include other professions who deliver talking therapies. This review could support reflective practice about what may be taken into account when making ethical decisions and highlight areas for future research. Using academic search databases, original research articles were identified from peer-reviewed journals. Articles using qualitative ( n = 3), quantitative ( n = 8) and mixed methods ( n = 2) were included. Two theoretical models of aspects of ethical decision-making were identified. Areas of agreement and debate are described in relation to factors linked to the professional, which impacted ethical decision-making. Factors relating to ethical dilemmas, which impacted ethical decision-making, are discussed. Articles were appraised by two independent raters, using quality assessment criteria, which suggested areas of methodological strengths and weaknesses. Comparison and synthesis of results revealed that the research did not generally pertain to current clinical practice of talking therapies or the particular socio-political context of the UK healthcare system. There was limited research into ethical decision-making amongst specific professions, including clinical psychology. Generalisability was limited due to methodological issues, indicating avenues for future research.


Author(s):  
Brandon Brown ◽  
Logan Marg ◽  
Emily Michels ◽  
Zhiwei Zhang ◽  
Dario Kuzmanović ◽  
...  

Given the dearth of regulatory guidance and empirical research on practices of providing payments to research participants, our study aimed to examine whether there were significant differences in payment amounts between sociobehavioral and biomedical studies and to examine study factors that may explain payment differences. This study reviewed 100 sociobehavioral and 31 biomedical protocols. Results showed that both biomedical studies and sociobehavioral studies had a wide variation of payments and, on average, the biomedical studies paid significantly more. Additionally, more biomedical studies offered payment than sociobehavioral studies. The primary factors that explained differences in payment amounts between sociobehavioral and biomedical studies were the number of study visits, study time, participation type, risk level, and research method. These findings provide pilot data to help inform future ethical decision-making and guidance regarding payment practices.


2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 30-41
Author(s):  
Fabian Zhilla ◽  
Layal Abou Daher ◽  
Cenk Lacin Arikan ◽  
Moufid El-Khoury

Understanding the role of the determinants of the ethical decision making in business organizations has become increasingly appealing to the field of business ethics. Various ethical decision making models put more emphasis on a narrow set of determinants. In concert with other contextual factors, these determinants appear to drive the ethical decision making in business organizations. However, in the literature there seems to be room for a more holistic set of determinants, which can explain effectively and holistically the diverse ethical rationales underlying the decision making more effectively. In this paper, the authors set out several ethical models and extract the predominant determinants. After portraying the main literature, the authors conclude that the most recent models are based on the first generation of ethical models, which tend to be more theoretical than empirical. They note the lack of empirical research in this area, which can be explained by both the nature and the intricateness of business ethics. They find that empirical analysis, when it exists, tends to focus on specific variables. The authors highlight at the end of the paper the need for integrative ethical models, which tackle not only the “how” but also the “why” of ethical decision making.


2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 359-364 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karin L. Price ◽  
Margaret E. Lee ◽  
Gia A. Washington ◽  
Mary L. Brandt

1992 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael C. Gottlieb ◽  
◽  
Jack R. Sibley

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document