This metaphor for social systems also describes research systems. Here, I
distinguish between research systems that are like clocks and those that are
like clouds. Business ethics research is more cloud-like than clock-like. From
a distance, it appears to be a singular, solid, substantial thing. But, up close,
it is fuzzy, flexible, and organic.

One of the greatest strengths of business ethics research lies in the diwrsity
of those interested in knowing more about it. Where else could we find
moral philosophers, industrial psychologists, political scientists, management
scholars, and organizational sociologists all exploring the same issue? Schol-
ars from these and other disciplines bring to the table an intriguing mix of
skills and perspectives. In doing so, they reflect a common interest in ques-
tions regarding business, ethics, and the relationship between the two. How-
ever, with this strength also comes a weakness. Researchers from such di-
verse backgrounds often find it difficult to communicate with one another
in meaningful ways. Nowhere has this been more true than with business
ethics.

Several recent essays address the natural conflicts that arise between those
with different perspectives on the field. Most of this work echoes two central
themes, and those themes compose the agenda for this volume. First, how
might we best integrate the two very different areas -- philosophy and social
science -- that provide the foundation for the field? Second, how might we
create closer ties between business ethics research and real business settings?

Business ethics research consists of two distinct subdisciplines. One, primar-
ily descriptive and based in the social sciences, addresses the question of
"what is." The other, primarily normative (or prescriptive) and based in
moral philosophy, addresses the question of "what ought to be." Historically,
these two approaches represented distinct areas of inquiry, and recent works
point to a number of issues that inhibit efforts to integrate them: fear, pur-
pose, and background.

For example, Victor and Stephens ( 1994) pointed out that historically,
philosophy and social science have exhibited a sort of division of labor with
respect to business ethics. Philosophers address normative issues; social
scientists, descriptive ones. However, forces in each area impede attempts
to integrate the two. For example, philosophers fear a creeping "naturalistic
fallacy" in the face of advancing empiricism. That is, they fear that discoveries
of what is may come to define our thinking of what ought to be. Similarly,
social scientists express concern over breaking ranks with a positivist tradi-
tion, which asserts that facts are distinct from values. If truth cannot carry

-2-