1 / 87

Dobbing vs Dissent: . STRUCTURES for USEFUL RESEARCH into WHISTLEBLOWING

Dobbing vs Dissent: . STRUCTURES for USEFUL RESEARCH into WHISTLEBLOWING. by Greg McMahon President, Whistleblowing Action Group Qld National Director, Whistleblowers Australia. PURPOSE.

paulchill
Télécharger la présentation

Dobbing vs Dissent: . STRUCTURES for USEFUL RESEARCH into WHISTLEBLOWING

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Dobbing vs Dissent: .STRUCTURES for USEFUL RESEARCH into WHISTLEBLOWING by Greg McMahon President, Whistleblowing Action Group Qld National Director, Whistleblowers Australia

  2. PURPOSE to explain to stakeholder groups the best practices for research into whistleblowing, as held by whistleblowers and their representative organisations

  3. LESSONS LEARNED fromWatchdog Research (WWTWP) into WHISTLEBLOWING Response by Whistleblower Organizations. Adopt a policy on best practices for whistleblower research. Adopt a formal response to WWTWP Advance a response to: The Universities & Partnering Organizations Australian Research Council Inquiries and Reviews The Media

  4. BEST PRACTICES • Re the Wrongdoing Disclosed (PIDs) • Re the Levels of Wrongdoing • Re the Structure of Surveys • Re the Links to Prior Research

  5. the Wrongdoing Disclosed (PIDs) A Categorisation of the Types of Wrongdoing disclosed is important to an understanding of the outcomes. ‘Characteristics of the Wrongdoing’ is a primary predictor of retaliation’. Near & Micelli.

  6. the Levels of Wrongdoing Level 5: OPTIMISED Level 4: INTEGRATED Level 3: MANAGED Level 2: PLANNED Level 1: AD HOC

  7. Level 1: AD HOC Wrongdoing

  8. Level 2: PLANNED Wrongdoing

  9. Level 3: MANAGED Wrongdoing

  10. Level 4: INTEGRATED Wrongdoing

  11. Level 4: INTEGRATED Wrongdoing (Nested)

  12. Level 5: OPTIMISED Wrongdoing

  13. COMBINING LEVELS & CATEGORISATIONS OF WRONGDOING • Re the Wrongdoing Disclosed (PIDs), maladministration – misconduct – crime, say • Re the Level of Wrongdoing, individual – group - agency

  14. Crime by Agency Crime by Group Misconduct by Individuals Maladministration A Simplified Stratification of Public Interest Whistleblower Situations

  15. WRONGDOING BY GROUPS WRONGDOING BY INDIVIDUALS An Over-Simplified Stratification of Public Interest Whistleblower Situations

  16. Re the Structure of Surveys Longitudinal Studies • Backward (eg, the Senate Whistleblowers) • Forward (eg, NSW Police Research) • Continuing (eg, Whistleblower Cases of National Significance, by ALAust) Cross-Sectional Study (eg, WWTWP)

  17. METHODOLOGIES • Longitudinal vs Cross-sectional Surveys • Hierarchies of Wrongdoing • The Seriousness of the Wrongdoing • The Level of Systemic Wrongdoing

  18. LINK TO PAST RESEARCH .

  19. CRITISISMS WWTW survey recorded 5.6% terminations vs UoQWS recorded 27% terminations & … when bad treatment does occur, it is unlikely to involve a single decisive blow such as a sacking … [WWTW II, p129]

  20. OPPORTUNITIES FROM RECENT RESEARCH Effectiveness of Legislation. The Comparison of surveys of known whistleblowers WWTWP – 114 from 15 agencies: 60% retaliation – 6% terminations UoQWS – 102 from 17 agencies: 70% retaliation – 27% terminations WWTWP – 114 from 15 agencies: 80% if adjusted for terminations Termination of the 1994 Senate Whistleblowers. Queensland whistleblowers who participated in UoQWS also gave evidence to Senate Select Committee Inquiry 1994 not all had been terminated at 1994 all terminated before 2000 Opportunity missed for practical, credible information about how legislation works and how it does not work available from the Case studies of Principal Whistleblowers

  21. CREDIBILITY I TREATMENT OF SYSTEMIC WRONGDOING and DISSENT WHISTLEBLOWING: The CLAIM OF DISCOVERY OF THE RISKS COMING FROM HIGHER MANAGEMENT The CRITICISM OF WBA AND ACADEMICS as having an ANTI-DOBBING MENTALITY The BIAS AGAINST RETALIATION BY TERMINATION The CLAIM THAT SACKINGS ARE UNLIKELY The ‘MYTHIC TALES’ DESCRIPTION of the Cases in ‘WHISTLEBLOWING’ by Dempster The PRESS RELEASES ADVERTISING RETALIATION RATES of 22%

  22. CONTEXT to WHISTLEBLOWING

  23. Questions .

  24. SYSTEMIC CORRUPTION TREATMENT OF AGENCIES AND WATCHDOGS

  25. CONTEXT of WHISTLEBLOWING The BLUE SKY Scenario Wrongdoing is ad hoc, Authorities are well intentioned, & Whistleblowing is mainly ‘DOBBING’ The BLACK SKY Scenario Wrongdoing is systemic, Authorities are ill-intentioned, & Whistleblowing is mainly ‘DISSENT’

  26. Watchdogs argue that wrongdoing in Australia is AD HOCWhistleblowers argue that wrongdoing in Australia is SYSTEMICWHICH IS IT?Level 1 Ad Hoc?orLevels 2 to 5 Systemic?

  27. With Which Levels of WrongdoingShould We Associate Research Results? Finding A: 71% of respondents have witnessed wrongdoing, [61% witnessed serious wrongdoing] in the last 2 years Finding B: 57% or 61 % of public servants did not report wrongdoing they observed .

More Related