The Evolution of Whistleblowing Studies: A Critical Review and Research Agenda

Culiberg, Barbara; Mihelič, Katarina Katja

doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3237-0

Cited by 156 publications

(201 citation statements)

References 119 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

165

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The whistleblowing literature makes a general distinction between internal (i.e., reporting to someone within the firm) and external (i.e., reporting to someone outside the firm) whistleblowing (Dworkin and Baucus ; Sinzdak ; Park and Blenkinsopp ). The literature (e.g., Culiberg and Mihelič ) has also introduced another distinction: individuals who work inside the organization and report wrongdoing are “inside” whistleblowers. Conversely, people who disclose wrongdoing but are not part of the organization where it occurs are “outside” whistleblowers.…”

Section: Research Approach and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building the Legitimacy of Whistleblowers: A Multi‐Case Discourse Analysis

Stolowy

Gendron

Moll

et al. 2018

Contemporary Accting Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence suggests that society still does not view whistleblowers as wholly legitimate-despite legal protections now offered in some jurisdictions, such as the United States. Drawing on a discourse analysis (i.e., an examination of statements), we investigate the well-publicized stories of seven whistleblowers from 69 sources, including books, firstand second-hand interviews, websites, and videos. Our focus is to examine how whistleblower discourses can build legitimacy by more tightly defining the whistleblower role and demonstrating its alignment with social norms. Using whistleblower self-narratives, we identify four narrative patterns: (i) Trigger(s)-the event(s) leading to whistleblowing; (ii) Personality traits-whistleblower's morality, resourcefulness, and determination; (iii) Constraints-barriers requiring regulatory and organizational change; and (iv) Consequences-the longer term positive impact of the whistleblowing act. These patterns rely on symbolic, analogical, and metaphorical framing to allow others to better understand the role of whistleblowers and enlist their support. Exploring a data set of 1,621 press articles, we find indications that these narrative patterns resonate in the media-which provide a form of support and may be instrumental in legitimizing the whistleblower role. Grounded on these results, we develop a legitimacy construction model of the whistleblower role, that is, a representation of how role legitimacy is produced and sustained. From this model, we identify a number of important areas for future research.Construction de la légitimité des lanceurs d'alerte : une analyse de discours multi-cas RÉSUMÉ De nombreuses situations dans le domaine du public donnent à penser qu'il existe un scepticisme important à l'égard de la légitimité des lanceurs d'alertemalgré la protection juridique dont ils bénéficient maintenant dans certains pays, dont les États-Unis. A l'aide d'une analyse de discours

show abstract

Section: Research Approach and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building the Legitimacy of Whistleblowers: A Multi‐Case Discourse Analysis

Stolowy

Gendron

Moll

et al. 2018

Contemporary Accting Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The term 'member' is not explicitly defined, but it has generally been taken to mean organisational members or employees. 33 This excludes many individuals who may have links with an organisation and be in a position to observe, and raise concerns about, wrongdoing within the organisation. Miceli et al 34 note that many significant 'whistleblowing' cases reported in the press are technically not examples of whistleblowing, as the person who raised the concerns was not a current or former member of the organisation in question.…”

Section: Subjective -Objectivementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although we acknowledge the logic of this attempt to bring definitional clarity to this new offshoot of the whistleblowing field, it is difficult for academics to impose such definitional precision retrospectively, once a term is out in the public domain and being used 'wrongly'. Culiberg and Mihelic 33 suggest that rather than framing the issue in terms of whistleblowing versus bell-ringing, it might be more useful to refer to insider versus outsider whistleblowing.…”

Section: Subjective -Objectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the knowledge gaps in whistleblowing and speaking up in health care: narrative reviews of the research literature and formal inquiries, a legal analysis and stakeholder interviews

Mannion

Blenkinsopp

Powell

et al. 2018

Health Serv Deliv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There is compelling evidence to suggest that some (or even many) NHS staff feel unable to speak up, and that even when they do, their organisation may respond inappropriately. Objectives The specific project objectives were (1) to explore the academic and grey literature on whistleblowing and related concepts, identifying the key theoretical frameworks that can inform an understanding of whistleblowing; (2) to synthesise the empirical evidence about the processes that facilitate or impede employees raising concerns; (3) to examine the legal framework(s) underpinning whistleblowing; (4) to distil the lessons for whistleblowing policies from the findings of Inquiries into failings of NHS care; (5) to ascertain the views of stakeholders about the development of whistleblowing policies; and (6) to develop practical guidance for future policy-making in this area. Methods The study comprised four distinct but interlocking strands: (1) a series of narrative literature reviews, (2) an analysis of the legal issues related to whistleblowing, (3) a review of formal Inquiries related to previous failings of NHS care and (4) interviews with key informants. Results Policy prescriptions often conceive the issue of raising concerns as a simple choice between deciding to ‘blow the whistle’ and remaining silent. Yet research suggests that health-care professionals may raise concerns internally within the organisation in more informal ways before utilising whistleblowing processes. Potential areas for development here include the oversight of whistleblowing from an independent agency; early-stage protection for whistleblowers; an examination of the role of incentives in encouraging whistleblowing; and improvements to criminal law to protect whistleblowers. Perhaps surprisingly, there is little discussion of, or recommendations concerning, whistleblowing across the previous NHS Inquiry reports. Limitations Although every effort was made to capture all relevant papers and documents in the various reviews using comprehensive search strategies, some may have been missed as indexing in this area is challenging. We interviewed only a small number of people in the key informant interviews, and our findings may have been different if we had included a larger sample or informants with different roles and responsibilities. Conclusions Current policy prescriptions that seek to develop better whistleblowing policies and nurture open reporting cultures are in need of more evidence. Although we set out a wide range of issues, it is beyond our remit to convert these concerns into specific recommendations: that is a process that needs to be led from elsewhere, and in partnership with the service. There is also still much to learn regarding this important area of health policy, and we have highlighted a number of important gaps in knowledge that are in need of more sustained research. Future work A key area for future research is to explore whistleblowing as an unfolding, situated and interactional process and not just a one-off act by an identifiable whistleblower. In particular, we need more evidence and insights into the tendency for senior managers not to hear, accept or act on concerns about care raised by employees. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

show abstract

“…permanent vs. temporary appointments) and gender. These power elements have been identified as key factors in most commercial organisations' studies on organisational integrity (Dozier and Miceli 1985;Cassematis and Wortley 2013;Culiberg and Mihelic 2017). We also study the influence of the specific type of misconduct, i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Willingness to Report and the Consequences of Reporting Research Misconduct: The Role of Power Relations

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While attention to research integrity has been growing over the past decades, the processes of signalling and denouncing cases of research misconduct remain largely unstudied. In this article, we develop a theoretically and empirically informed understanding of the causes and consequences of reporting research misconduct in terms of power relations. We study the reporting process based on a multinational survey at eight European universities (N = 1126). Using qualitative data that witnesses of research misconduct or of questionable research practices provided, we aim to examine actors' rationales for reporting and not reporting misconduct, how they report it and the perceived consequences of reporting. In particular we study how research seniority, the temporality of work appointments, and gender could impact the likelihood of cases being reported and of reporting leading to constructive organisational changes. Our findings suggest that these aspects of power relations play a role in the reporting of research misconduct. Our analysis contributes to a better understanding of research misconduct in an academic context. Specifically, we elucidate the processes that affect researchers' ability and willingness to report research misconduct, and the likelihood of universities taking action. Based on our findings, we outline specific propositions that future research can test as well as provide recommendations for policy improvement. Keywords Research integrity · Research misconduct · Whistleblowing · Power relations · OrganisationsSerge P. J. M. Horbach and Eric Breit have contributed equally to this article. Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (https ://doi.

show abstract

The Evolution of Whistleblowing Studies: A Critical Review and Research Agenda

Cited by 156 publications

References 119 publications

Building the Legitimacy of Whistleblowers: A Multi‐Case Discourse Analysis

Building the Legitimacy of Whistleblowers: A Multi‐Case Discourse Analysis

Understanding the knowledge gaps in whistleblowing and speaking up in health care: narrative reviews of the research literature and formal inquiries, a legal analysis and stakeholder interviews

On the Willingness to Report and the Consequences of Reporting Research Misconduct: The Role of Power Relations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About