Whistleblowing against doping in sport: A cross-national study on the effects of motivation and sportspersonship orientations on whistleblowing intentions.

Whistleblowing against anti-doping rule violations and related misconduct has been recognized as an important deterrent of doping behaviour in competitive sport. However, research on whistleblowing against doping is scarce and the available studies have focused on small samples using qualitative and inductive approaches. The present study used quantitative methods to assess, for the first time, the association between self-determined motivation, achievement goals, sportspersonship orientations and intentions to engage in whistleblowing against doping misconduct. A total of 992 competitive athletes from Greece (n = 480) and Russia (n = 512) completed structured measures of self-determination, achievement goals, sportspersonship orientation beliefs, and intentions to report doping misconduct. Latent profile analysis classified athletes into clusters consistent with the theoretical predictions. One-way analyses of variance further showed consistently across countries that autonomous motivated athletes reported higher intentions to whistleblow, and athletes with higher scores in achievement goals and sportspersonship orientations had significantly higher scores in whistleblowing intentions, compared to those with lower scores in these characteristics in both countries. This is the first study to demonstrate the association between motivational regulations, achievement goals, sportspersonship beliefs, and whistleblowing intentions. The theoretical and policy implications of our study are discussed.

How should researchers cope with the ethical demands of discovering research misconduct? Going beyond reporting and whistleblowing.

In this paper, I will argue that making it mandatory to report research misconduct is too demanding, as this kind of intervention can at times be self-destructive for the researcher reporting the misconduct. I will also argue that posing the question as a binary dilemma masks important ethical aspects of such situations. In situations that are too demanding for individual researchers to rectify through reporting, there can be other forms of social control available. I will argue that researchers should explore these. Finally, framing the issue as a question about the responsibilities of individual researchers masks the responsibilities of research institutions. Until institutions introduce measures that make this safe and effective, we should not consider reporting research misconduct mandatory. I will discuss this in light of both quantitative and qualitative data gathered as part of a survey in the PRINTEGER-project.

Isn't high school bad enough already? Rates of gender harassment and institutional betrayal in high school and their association with trauma-related symptoms.

Germinal studies have described the prevalence of sex-based harassment in high schools and its associations with adverse outcomes in adolescents. Studies have focused on students, with little attention given to the actions of high schools themselves. Though journalists responded to the #MeToo movement by reporting on schools' betrayal of students who report misconduct, this topic remains understudied by researchers. Gender harassment is characterized by sexist remarks, sexually crude or offensive behavior, gender policing, work-family policing, and infantilization. Institutional betrayal is characterized by the failure of an institution, such as a school, to protect individuals dependent on the institution. We investigated high school gender harassment and institutional betrayal reported retrospectively by 535 current undergraduates. Our primary aim was to investigate whether institutional betrayal moderates the relationship between high school gender harassment and current trauma symptoms. In our pre-registered hypotheses (https://osf.io/3ds8k), we predicted that (1) high school gender harassment would be associated with more current trauma symptoms and (2) institutional betrayal would moderate this relationship such that high levels of institutional betrayal would be associated with a stronger association between high school gender harassment and current trauma symptoms. Consistent with our first hypothesis, high school gender harassment significantly predicted college trauma-related symptoms. An equation that included participant gender, race, age, high school gender harassment, institutional betrayal, and the interaction of gender harassment and institutional betrayal also significantly predicted trauma-related symptoms. Contrary to our second hypothesis, the interaction term was non-significant. However, institutional betrayal predicted unique variance in current trauma symptoms above and beyond the other variables. These findings indicate that both high school gender harassment and high school institutional betrayal are independently associated with trauma symptoms, suggesting that intervention should target both phenomena.

Whistle blowing and research integrity: Potential remedy for research misconduct in Malaysian institutions of higher education.

This study found that less than half of the respondents are willing to blow the whistle. The results reveal that a lack of protection with regard to the whistleblower's identity, the tedious investigative process, and the notion of avoiding confrontation, which is more apparent in Asian cultures as compared to the West, are among the reasons why individuals who witnessed misconduct chose to remain silent. Adhering to the Asian cultural upbringing where the young must respect the old, those of lower rank must obey those with higher authority, and subordinates do not question the actions of their superior, has become a norm even in the working environment. Therefore, emphasize the need for better protection for whistleblowers including using experienced individuals with a research ethics background to handle allegations from whistleblowers. In addition, established guidelines and procedures for whistleblowers with regard to voicing their allegations against colleagues engaged in research misconduct is still lacking or, to a certain extent, is still unknown to researchers. Thus, the concern indicates a need for institutions to create awareness among researchers regarding the existing platform for whistleblowers, or to develop a systematic and clear procedure which is reliable and independent to promote professionalism in academia.

Clinical governance breakdown: Australian cases of wilful blindness and whistleblowing.

BACKGROUND: After their attempts to have patient safety concerns addressed internally were ignored by wilfully blind managers, nurses from Bundaberg Base Hospital and Macarthur Health Service felt compelled to 'blow the whistle'. Wilful blindness is the human desire to prefer ignorance to knowledge; the responsibility to be informed is shirked. OBJECTIVE: To provide an account of instances of wilful blindness identified in two high-profile cases of nurse whistleblowing in Australia. RESEARCH DESIGN: Critical case study methodology using Fay's Critical Social Theory to examine, analyse and interpret existing data generated by the Commissions of Inquiry held into Bundaberg Base Hospital and Macarthur Health Service patient safety breaches. All data was publicly available and assessed according to the requirements of unobtrusive research methods and secondary data analysis. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Data collection for the case studies relied entirely on publicly available documentary sources recounting and detailing past events. FINDINGS: Data from both cases reveal managers demonstrating wilful blindness towards patient safety concerns. Concerns were unaddressed; nurses, instead, experienced retaliatory responses leading to a 'social crisis' in the organisation and to whistleblowing. CONCLUSION: Managers tasked with clinical governance must be aware of mechanisms with the potential to blind them. The human tendency to favour positive news and avoid conflict is powerful. Understanding wilful blindness can assist managers' awareness of the competing emotions occurring in response to ethical challenges, such as whistleblowing.

To Whistleblow or Not to Whistleblow: Affective and Cognitive Differences in Reporting Peers and Advisors.

Traditional whistleblowing theories have purported that whistleblowers engage in a rational process in determining whether or not to blow the whistle on misconduct. However, stressors inherent to whistleblowing often impede rational thinking and act as a barrier to effective whistleblowing. The negative impact of these stressors on whistleblowing may be made worse depending on who engages in the misconduct: a peer or advisor. In the present study, participants are presented with an ethical scenario where either a peer or advisor engages in misconduct, and positive and the negative consequences of whistleblowing are either directed to the wrongdoer, department, or university. Participant responses to case questions were evaluated for whistleblowing intentions, moral intensity, metacognitive reasoning strategies, and positive and negative, active and passive emotions. Findings indicate that participants were less likely to report the observed misconduct of an advisor compared to a peer. Furthermore, the findings also suggest that when an advisor is the source of misconduct, greater negative affect results. Post-hoc analyses were also conducted examining the differences between those who did and did not intend to blow the whistle under the circumstances of either having to report an advisor or peer. The implications of these findings for understanding the complexities involved in whistleblowing are discussed.

Mental Health Problems Among Whistleblowers: A Comparative Study.

Whistleblowers play a very important and indispensable role in society and health care sector, but their act may elicit retaliation and other negative effects, which may impact their mental health. The main aim of the present comparative study is to assess to what extent whistleblowers ( N = 27) more often suffer from severe mental health problems than other population-based groups in the Netherlands, i.e., matched controls ( N = 135), cancer patients ( N = 130), persons with (partial) work disabilities ( N = 194), physically "healthy" persons ( N = 200), and general population ( N = 1026), using the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey scales (for general mental health) and the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised scales (for specific mental health problems: depression, anxiety, agoraphobia, interpersonal sensitivity and distrust, and sleeping problems). Logistic regression analyses showed that the prevalence of general mental health problems was much higher than among matched controls and people with work disabilities but similar to cancer patient when controlling for demographics. About 85% suffered from severe to very severe anxiety, depression, interpersonal sensitivity and distrust, agoraphobia symptoms, and/or sleeping problems, and 48% reached clinical levels of these specific mental health problems. These specific mental health problems were much more prevalent than among the general population.

Bad news and quality reputation among users of public services / Malas noticias y calidad de la reputación entre usuarios de los servicios públicos

This manuscript examines whether the effect of anchoring bias is greater when citizens evaluate the quality of a public service after receiving negative initial information about service performance than after receiving positive information. It also tests whether there are differences in this anchoring bias by comparing formal (report) vs. informal (rumor) communication. Two field experiments were conducted with the participation of passengers of a commuter public train transportation organization (Experiment 1, N = 105) and users of a public university administrative service (Experiment 2, N = 172). The first experiment confirmed the bias produced by the negative initial information, whereas this bias does not exist for the positive information. The second experiment showed that the bias produced by the initial information has the same magnitude for both formal and informal communication. This paper concludes with a discussion of theoretical and practical implications for managing reputation in public services

Este manuscrito examina si el efecto del sesgo de anclaje es mayor cuando los ciudadanos evalúan la calidad de un servicio público después de recibir información inicial negativa sobre la calidad del servicio, que después de recibir información positiva. También pone a prueba si hay diferencias en este sesgo de anclaje al comparar la comunicación formal (informe) con la comunicación informal (rumor). Se realizaron dos experimentos de campo con la participación de pasajeros de una compañía pública de trenes de cercanías (experimento 1, N = 105) y usuarios del servicio administrativo de una universidad pública (experimento 2, N = 172). El primer experimento confirmó el sesgo producido por la información inicial negativa, mientras que este sesgo no existe para la información positiva. El segundo experimento mostró que el sesgo producido por la información inicial tiene la misma magnitud tanto para la comunicación formal como para la informal. El trabajo concluye con una discusión de las implicaciones teóricas y prácticas para la gestión de la reputación de los servicios públicos

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.

Supporting doctors as healthcare quality and safety advocates: Recommendations from the Association of Surgeons in Training (ASiT).

BACKGROUND: As front-line healthcare staff, doctors in surgical training occupy a unique organisational space rotating through hospitals and services in which they witness first hand both good and bad practice. This puts trainees in a clear position to identify and raise patient safety issues, and to contribute to discussions regarding quality and safety improvement. However, there are a number of real and perceived barriers to trainees doing so. These include concerns about the impact on training assessments and career progression, and uncertainty about the appropriate route. METHODS: Paper-based survey of delegates attending the Association of Surgeons in Training (ASiT) conference (response rate 73%; 479/652). RESULTS: 288 (60%) of trainees reported previous concerns over practices and behaviour of colleagues that might pose risks to patient care including concerns over poor performance (n = 243; 84%), bullying (n = 45; 16%), alcohol and drug abuse (n = 15; 5%) and mental health problems (n = 8; 3%). However, 53% (n = 153) did not escalate these concerns. 178 (37%) of trainees also reported concerns over hospital policies, protocols or systems that might pose a risk to patient care, with 46% (n = 82) not escalating such concerns. Respondents highlighted fear of personal vilification or reprisal (n = 224; 47%), fear of impact on career (n = 206; 43%) and a lack of confidence in the process (n = 170; 36%) as barriers to whistleblowing. More senior trainees were significantly more likely to raise concerns than more junior grades (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: These results highlight worrying issues around reporting concerns, with trainees often "silent witnesses" to poor performance in healthcare. Adverse events must provide opportunities for learning to improve future outcomes. Herein, ASiT proposes 14 recommendations to improve protection for trainees in raising patient safety concerns. These include the creation of a positive workplace culture, promoting the active involvement of trainees in quality improvement discussions, with clear mechanisms for trainees to raise concerns.

Institutional Betrayal and Gaslighting: Why Whistle-Blowers Are So Traumatized.

Despite whistle-blower protection legislation and healthcare codes of conduct, retaliation against nurses who report misconduct is common, as are outcomes of sadness, anxiety, and a pervasive loss of sense of worth in the whistle-blower. Literature in the field of institutional betrayal and intimate partner violence describes processes of abuse strikingly similar to those experienced by whistle-blowers. The literature supports the argument that although whistle-blowers suffer reprisals, they are traumatized by the emotional manipulation many employers routinely use to discredit and punish employees who report misconduct. "Whistle-blower gaslighting" creates a situation where the whistle-blower doubts her perceptions, competence, and mental state. These outcomes are accomplished when the institution enables reprisals, explains them away, and then pronounces that the whistle-blower is irrationally overreacting to normal everyday interactions. Over time, these strategies trap the whistle-blower in a maze of enforced helplessness. Ways to avoid being a victim of whistle-blower gaslighting, and possible sources of support for victims of whistle-blower gaslighting are provided.

"Supporting nursing, midwifery and allied health professional students to raise concerns with the quality of care: A review of the research literature".

BACKGROUND: This article reports aspects of a systematic literature review commissioned by the UK Council of Deans of Health. The review collated and analysed UK and international literature on pre-registration healthcare students raising concerns with poor quality care. The research found in that review is summarised here. OBJECTIVE: To review research on healthcare students raising concerns with regard to the quality of practice published from 2009 to the present. DATA SOURCES: In addition to grey literature and Google Scholar a search was completed of the CINAHL, Medline, ERIC, BEI, ASSIA, PsychInfo, British Nursing Index, Education Research Complete databases. REVIEW METHOD: Sandelowski and Barroso's (2007) method of metasynthesis was used to screen and analyse the research literature. The review covered students from nursing, midwifery, health visiting, paramedic science, operating department practice, physiotherapy, chiropody, podiatry, speech and language therapy, orthoptist, occupational therapy, orthotist, prosthetist, radiography, dietitian, and music and art therapy. RESULTS: Twenty three research studies were analysed. Most of the research relates to nursing students with physiotherapy being the next most studied group. Students often express a desire to report concerns, but factors such as the potential negative impact on assessment of their practice hinders reporting. There was a lack of evidence on how, when and to whom students should report. The most commonly used research approach found utilised vignettes asking students to anticipate how they would report. CONCLUSIONS: Raising a concern with the quality of practice carries an emotional burden for the student as it may lead to sanctions from staff. Further research is required into the experiences of students to further understand the mechanisms that would enhance reporting and support them in the reporting process.

Prenatal exposure to testosterone (2D:4D) and social hierarchy together predict voice behavior in bankers.

Prohibitive voice behaviors are employees' expressions of concern about practices, incidents, or behaviors that may potentially harm the organization. In this study, we examined a potential biological correlate of prohibitive voice: prenatal exposure to testosterone. In a sample of bankers, we used 2D:4D (i.e., the ratio of the length of the index finger to the length of the ring finger) as a marker for prenatal exposure to testosterone (lower 2D:4D suggests higher prenatal exposure to testosterone). We used a self-report scale to measure prohibitive voice. For low-ranked employees, lower 2D:4D was related to using less voice. No such relation was found for high-ranked employees. Conclusions should be drawn with caution, because the findings only applied to voice regarding the organization as a whole (and not to voice regarding the own team), and because of methodological limitations. However, the findings are consistent with the ideas that (a) people low in 2D:4D tend to strive to attain and maintain social status and that (b) remaining silent about perceived problems in the organization is-at least for low-ranked employees-a means to achieve this goal.

Sexual misconduct in prison: What factors affect whether incarcerated women will report abuses committed by prison staff?

More than 80,000 prisoners each year are sexually victimized during incarceration, but only about 8% report victimization to correctional authorities. Complicating reporting is the fact that half of the perpetrators are staff members. Given the restrictive and highly regulated prison environment, studies that examine reporting behaviors are difficult to conduct and to date information available relied on those who have reported or hypothetical victimization studies. This study uses an ecological framework and archival data from a class action lawsuit of sexual misconduct to determine predictors of reporting. Relying on a subsample of 179 women, chosen because they have all experienced at least 1 penetration offense, we use bivariate and multivariable mixed effects logistic regression analyses to examine individual, assault, and context-level predictors of reporting on 397 incidents of staff sexual misconduct. The final model revealed that that 6 predictors (age at time of assault, physical injury, multiple incidents, perpetrator with multiple victims, the year the abuse began, and the number of years women have left on their sentence) account for 58% of the variance in reporting. Disclosure to inmate peers and/or family and friends was significant in the bivariate results. These findings indicate the need for stronger and more systematic implementation of Prison Rape Elimination Act guidelines and remedies that create and enforce sanctions, including termination, for staff violating policy and state law. (PsycINFO Database Record