Gossip as Social Control: Informal Sanctions on Ethical Violations in Scientific Workplaces

Vaidyanathan, Brandon; Khalsa, Simranjit; Ecklund, Elaine Howard

doi:10.1093/socpro/spw022

Cited by 23 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 46 publications

(61 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the data, there are examples of how researchers learn from their experiences and engage in preventative behavior, by making misconduct harder or teaching others to avoid it. Vaidyanathan et al have documented a similar phenomenon, based on their observation that researchers can use gossip as a substitute for reporting misconduct (Vaidyanathan et al 2016). If they feel that reporting the misconduct is beyond their risk tolerance, they warn other researchers, and exert social control through gossiping about it.…”

Section: A Broader Perspective On Duties When Discovering Misconductmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How should researchers cope with the ethical demands of discovering research misconduct? Going beyond reporting and whistleblowing

Vie¹

2020

Life Sci Soc Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, I will argue that making it mandatory to report research misconduct is too demanding, as this kind of intervention can at times be self-destructive for the researcher reporting the misconduct. I will also argue that posing the question as a binary dilemma masks important ethical aspects of such situations. In situations that are too demanding for individual researchers to rectify through reporting, there can be other forms of social control available. I will argue that researchers should explore these. Finally, framing the issue as a question about the responsibilities of individual researchers masks the responsibilities of research institutions. Until institutions introduce measures that make this safe and effective, we should not consider reporting research misconduct mandatory. I will discuss this in light of both quantitative and qualitative data gathered as part of a survey in the PRINTEGERproject.

show abstract

Section: A Broader Perspective On Duties When Discovering Misconductmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…We therefore need a broader theoretical lens. Social control theory offers such a lens (Ben-Yehuda 1986;Fox and Braxton 1994;Hackett 1994;Vaidyanathan et al 2016). One way of defining wrongdoing within this approach is to say that it is "any behavior labeled as wrongful by social control agents" (Palmer 2012, 243).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How should researchers cope with the ethical demands of discovering research misconduct? Going beyond reporting and whistleblowing

Vie¹

2020

Life Sci Soc Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A common assertion is that gossip circulates via “the grapevine,” an informal word-of-mouth communication network between employees (Mills, 2010). Some researchers refer to gossip as a substitute for formal information (e.g., Houmanfar & Johnson, 2004) or as an informal sanction for targets (e.g., Vaidyanathan, Khalsa, & Ecklund, 2016). Compared to informal communication, formal communication is regulated by norms that determine the chain of command, departmentalization, and centralization.…”

Section: A Systematic Review Of Different Gossip Definitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Integrative Definition and Framework to Study Gossip

Cruz

Nieper

Testori

et al. 2021

Group & Organization Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The omnipresence of workplace gossip makes understanding gossip processes imperative to understand social life in organizations. Although gossip research has recently increased across the social sciences, gossip is conceptualized in disparate ways in the scientific literature. This conceptual confusion impedes theoretical integration and providing practical advice. To resolve this, we systematically reviewed 6114 scientific articles on gossip and identified 324 articles that define gossip. From these definitions, we extracted two essential characteristics of gossip on which there seems to be agreement within the literature, namely, (1) that gossip is communication between humans involving a sender, a receiver, and a target, and (2) that the target is absent or unaware of the communicated content. These two characteristics formed the basis of a broad, integrative definition of gossip: a sender communicating to a receiver about a target who is absent or unaware of the content. Furthermore, some definitions include characteristics on which there is less agreement: gossip valence (from negative to neutral to positive) and formality (from informal to intermediate to formal). We incorporate these characteristics in a dimensional scaling framework that can guide future research. Our broad, integrative definition of gossip and the dimensional scaling framework provide the building blocks for a systematic, integrated knowledge base on the role of gossip in human social life in general as well as in organizations. This can foster future theory development and hypothesis testing, ultimately helping organizations to manage gossip.

show abstract

“…(Mills, 2010). Some researchers refer to gossip as a substitute to formal information (e.g., Houmanfar & Johnson, 2004), or as an informal sanction administered to targets (e.g., Vaidyanathan et al, 2016).…”

Section: Criterion 3: Evaluative Valence Of Gossipmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Integrative Definition and Framework to Study Gossip

Cruz¹,

Nieper²,

Testori³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The omnipresence of workplace gossip makes understanding gossip processes imperative to grasp social life in organizations. Although gossip research has recently experienced an upsurge across the social sciences, findings regarding the consequences of gossip are conflicting. A potential reason is that gossip is conceptualized in myriad different manners in the scientific literature, causing conceptual confusion and rendering theoretical integration impossible. In order to resolve this, we systematically reviewed 6114 scientific articles on gossip and identified 324 papers that define gossip. From the definitions we extracted two essential characteristics of gossip on which there seems to be good agreement within the literature, namely (1) that gossip is communication between humans involving a sender, receiver, and target, and (2) that the target is absent or unaware of the communicated content. These formed the basis of a broad, integrative definition of gossip: a sender communicating to a receiver about a target who is absent or unaware of the content. Furthermore, our review revealed that some definitions discuss characteristics on which there is less agreement: gossip valence (from negative to neutral to positive) and formality (from informal to intermediate to formal). We propose incorporating these characteristics in a multidimensional scaling framework that can guide future research. Our broad, integrative definition of gossip and the multidimensional scaling framework provide the building blocks for a systematic, integrated knowledge base on the role of gossip in human social life, which can foster future theory development and hypothesis testing, and thereby ultimately help organizations to manage gossip.

show abstract

Gossip as Social Control: Informal Sanctions on Ethical Violations in Scientific Workplaces

Abstract: Research on misconduct in science has

Cited by 23 publications

References 46 publications

How should researchers cope with the ethical demands of discovering research misconduct? Going beyond reporting and whistleblowing

How should researchers cope with the ethical demands of discovering research misconduct? Going beyond reporting and whistleblowing

An Integrative Definition and Framework to Study Gossip

An Integrative Definition and Framework to Study Gossip

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About