The World of Whistleblowing

Abstract

This exploratory study investigates the world of whistleblowing. The topic has produced a great deal of discussion but little clear understanding of the contexts in which whistleblowers act or the paths they follow, or even a critical understanding of whistleblowing as a social and legal practice. The study articulates some of these boundaries through a mixed-method analysis. The authors reviewed extant quantitative data and conducted a series of interviews in order to be able to sketch a plausible picture of the current state of whistleblowing. The results were used to construct a typology of whistleblowers that provides a conceptual shorthand for the goals, motivations, and contexts that define whistleblowing.

Health Research Ethics: Between Ethics Codes and Culture

“…However, unlike Carroll and Johnson (1990), my research was not performed under auspices of an organization with the power to resolve such cases effectively. In gray-area cases, there is no consensus on the best whistle-blowing strategy to follow, and such acts are rare (Sieber, 2012; Wenger, Korenman, Berk, & Liu, 1999), even when laws are in place to protect whistle-blowers (Heumann, Friedes, Cassak, Wright, & Joshi, 2013).…”

“…How should researchers deal with information about irregular, questionable, or illegal actions when there is no institutional framework that may be used to take action without disclosing confidential information or breaching anonymity? In light of the literature on whistle-blowing in research, there needs to be more consensus, training on appropriate ways of action (Sieber, 2012; Wenger et al, 1999), and legal support for such actions (Heumann et al, 2013).…”

The Ethical Algorithm: Journalist/Whistleblower Relationships Explored Through the Lens of Social Exchange

“…An altruistic computer engineer with evidence of state secrets, for example, is distinct from an auditor with evidence of corporate accounting abuses, as their motivations, employers, evidence, and circumstances vary. Using interviews with whistleblowers and research on how they are viewed by colleagues and institutions, Heumann et al (2013) developed a useful typology, distinguishing five types of motivations:…”

“…Nevertheless, little research has tested these types discretely, instead attempting to find more universal motivations for those who choose to disclose (Dozier & Miceli, 1985; Heumann et al, 2013). According to empirical research, personal and situational ethics, for example, are stronger predictors of the intent to blow the whistle, as opposed to the act of whistleblowing, because threats of retaliation or other consequences may become relevant when individuals face the decision to report wrongdoing (Latan et al, 2017; Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005).…”

“…A whistleblower, however, is distinct because of five conditions that, when combined, define a whistleblower as a specific type of source. First, several reasons, ranging from altruism, revenge, company loyalty, alarmism, or self-interest, may motivate whistleblowers to give journalists information (Heumann et al, 2013; Jubb, 1999). Second, whistleblowers take personal risk when deciding to disclose, facing potential job loss, criminal prosecution, civil punishment, or retaliation for their actions (Wilczek, 2016).…”