Whistle-blowing

Whistle-blowing

Journal Article Analysis Each student will select one of the key terms presented in the module and conduct a search of Campbellsville University’s online Library resources to find 1 recent peer-reviewed academic journal article (within the past 3 years) that closely relate to the concept. Your submission must include the following information in the following format: DEFINITION: a brief definition of the key term followed by the APA reference for the term; this does not count in the word requirement. SUMMARY: Summarize the article in your own words- this should be in the 150-200 word range. Be sure to note the article’s author, note their credentials and why we should put any weight behind his/her opinions, research or findings regarding the key term. DISCUSSION: Using 300-350 words, write a brief discussion, in your own words of how the article relates to the selected chapter Key Term. A discussion is not rehashing what was already stated in the article, but the opportunity for you to add value by sharing your experiences, thoughts and opinions. This is the most important part of the assignment. REFERENCES: All references must be listed at the bottom of the submission–in APA format. Be sure to use the headers in your submission to ensure that all aspects of the assignment are completed as required. Any form of plagiarism, including cutting and pasting, will result in zero points for the entire assignment.

Whistleblowing as a Protracted Process: A Study of UK Whistleblower Journeys.

Authors:

Vandekerckhove, Wim1 (AUTHOR) w.vandekerckhove@gre.ac.uk Phillips, Arron1 (AUTHOR) arronpdphillips@gmail.com

Source:

Journal of Business Ethics . Sep2019, Vol. 159 Issue 1, p201-219. 19p. 7 Charts, 2 Graphs.

Document Type:

Article

Subject Terms:

* WHISTLEBLOWING *MANAGEMENT *POWER (Social sciences) SECONDARY analysis

Geographic Terms:

GREAT Britain

Author-Supplied Keywords:

Effective whistleblowing External whistleblowing Internal whistleblowing Power Retaliation

Abstract:

This paper provides an exploration of whistleblowing as a protracted process, using secondary data from 868 cases from a whistleblower advice line in the UK. Previous research on whistleblowing has mainly studied this phenomenon as a one-off decision by someone perceiving wrongdoing within an organisation to raise a concern or to remain silent. Earlier suggestions that whistleblowing is a process and that people find themselves inadvertently turned into whistleblowers by management responses, have not been followed up by a systematic study tracking the path of how a concern is repeatedly raised by whistleblowers. This paper provides a quantitative exploration of whistleblowing as a protracted process, rather than a one-off decision. Our research finds that the whistleblowing process generally entails two or even three internal attempts to raise a concern before an external attempt is made, if it is made at all. We also find that it is necessary to distinguish further between different internal (e.g. line manager, higher management, specialist channels) as well as external whistleblowing recipients (e.g. regulators, professional bodies, journalists). Our findings suggest that whistleblowing is a protracted process and that this process is internally more protracted than previously documented. The overall pattern is that whistleblowers tend to search for a more independent recipient at each successive attempt to raise their concern. Formal whistleblower power seems to determine which of the available recipients are perceived as viable and also what the initial responses are in terms of retaliation and effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of  Journal of Business Ethics  is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Author Affiliations:

1Business School, University of Greenwich, Park Row, SE10 9LS, London, UK