Both Whistleblowers and the Scientists They Accuse Are Vulnerable and Deserve Protection

Whistleblowers play an important role diagnosing research misconduct, but often experience severe negative consequences. That is also true for incorrectly accused scientists. Both categories are vulnerable and deserve protection. Whistleblowers must proceed carefully and cautiously. Anonymous whistleblowing should be discouraged but cannot be ignored when the allegations are specific, serious, and plausible. When accused of a breach of research integrity it is important to be as transparent as possible. Sometimes accusations are false in the sense that the accuser knows or should know that the allegations are untrue. A mala fide whistleblower typically does not act carefully and we postulate a typology that may help in detecting them. Striking the right balance between whistleblower protection and timely unmasking false and identifying incorrect accusations is a tough dilemma leaders of research institutions have to face.     

Is failure to raise concerns about misconduct a breach of integrity? Researchers’ reflections on reporting misconduct

This article describes and discusses the views of researchers on the significance of raising concerns about scientific misconduct in their work environment and the reasons or circumstances that might deter them from doing so. In this exploratory qualitative research study, we conducted in-depth interviews with 33 researchers working in life sciences and medicine. They represent three seniority levels and five universities across Switzerland. A large majority of respondents in this research study argued that failure to raise concerns about scientific misconduct compromises research integrity. This is an encouraging result demonstrating that researchers try to adhere to high ethical standards. However, further interaction with respondents highlighted that this correct ethical assessment does not lead researchers to take the consequent action of raising concerns. The factors that discourage researchers from raising concerns need to be addressed at the level of research groups, institutions, and by setting a positive precedent which helps them to believe in the system’s ability to investigate concerns raised in a timely and professional manner. Training of researchers in research integrity related issues will have limited utility unless it is coupled with the creation of research culture where raising concerns is a standard practice of scientific and research activities.     

To Tell or Not to Tell? The Ethical Dilemma of the Would-Be Whistleblower

Despite the growing emphasis placed on the responsible conduct of research, little attention has been devoted to the question of what an individual should do upon discovering research misconduct. This article takes seriously the dilemma of a would-be whistleblower. It identifies ethical considerations that can be taken into account in moral decision-making about reporting research misconduct. It also offers rough guidelines about the moral significance of each consideration in the decision-making process based on the facts of the case in question. The article, therefore, offers tools for a would-be whistleblower to use to arrive at a defensible resolution to a difficult dilemma.     

The negative health effects of external whistleblowing: A study of some key factors

Blowing the whistle is a pro-social behaviour which can be highly effective if wrongdoing could be corrected without any adverse consequences for the person alleging or reporting it. However it is also risky and can cost whistleblowers their jobs and economic security as well as physical health and mental well-being. The purpose of this study was to identify the negative health effects—physical, behavioral, emotional, and mental—of whistleblowing and to examine the impact on these effects of dismissal, number of employees who blew the whistle in a group, income, and the passage of time. We statistically analysed survey data from external whistleblowers who had been identified by the news media in South Korea. This research differs from previous studies that explored the negative health effects of whistleblowing but did not distinguish between internal and external reporting. Our study contributes to the literature on the negative health effects experienced by whistleblowers and has implications for how to better protect them.     

Feminist social movements and whistleblowing disclosures: Ireland's Women of Honour

Feminist social movements based on workers disclosing sexual harassment and sexual violence have had a dramatic impact on workplaces worldwide. But what are the specific dynamics shaping organizations founded on acts of disclosure? Organizational whistleblowing research has overlooked this topic, while literature on feminist social movements has not, to date, focused on whistleblowing disclosure as a shared experience prompting collective action. In this article I address these lacunae. I isolate disclosure-based feminist movements (DFMs) as a specific, and important, organizational form, and I draw on relevant insights from whistleblowing theory to shed light on the dynamics therein. I find that first, DFMs are founded on a distinct kind of whistleblowing where members speak out about personally-experienced embodied violence. Second, movements are galvanized through affective connections formed through the sharing of such experiences, and third, the perceived credibility of individual disclosures are uniquely enhanced through the salience emerging from collective speaking. Extant whistleblowing theory—and literature on feminist social movements—fails to account for organizations based upon embodied and collective experiences of disclosure. In this article a novel theoretical framing based on feminist theory is developed, emphasizing embodied, affective forms of parrhesia involving collective salience that counters whistleblower reprisal. Ideas are illustrated throughout with insights from an exemplar case within the worldwide military #MeToo movement: Ireland's Women of Honour. Contributions for scholarship on feminist social movements and organizational whistleblowing conclude the article alongside insights for practice.     

A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Managers' Whistleblowing Tendencies*

In a global marketplace, managers often face major difficulties when it comes to handling ethical problems within a different cultural context. Whistleblowing is one possible response to ethical problems. This study considers the differences in culture between a United States sample of managers and a Jamaica, West Indies sample of managers using Hofstede's (1991) theory of International Cultures. The study explores how those cultural differences may help in our understanding of the differences in reported whistleblowing tendencies. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Perspectives on Whistleblowing: Faculty Member Viewpoints and Suggestions for Organizational Change

Given the prevalence of unethical behavior in research, whistleblowing may serve an important policing function. Despite this potential value of whistleblowing to organizations, engaging in this type of activity often has negative ramifications for those who choose to blow the whistle. Organizations may fail to provide adequate support for these individuals. In order to help inform best practices for organizations in terms of whistleblowing support infrastructure, the present effort content analyzed interviews with university faculty members regarding ethical decision making in which whistleblowing was a topic. Relevant themes in these interviews are discussed.