{"title":"Whistleblowing academic research: historical perspective","authors":"Paulina Arroyo, Nadia Smaili","doi":"10.1108/jfc-01-2024-0044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nFor more than four decades, scholars from diverse disciplines and countries have been interested in the act of whistleblowing. To battle financial fraud, financial regulators have been developing whistleblowing programs to motivate and protect whistleblowers, i.e. those who sound the alarm after witnessing an illegal act in their organization. The purpose of this article is to review five historical phases of whistleblowing research. The authors analyze the themes covered by whistleblowing studies conducted over the past 50 years and draw a snapshot of the evolution of whistleblowing research.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThe authors examine academic papers published between 1970 and 2022 and inventory the disciplines involved in the literature and changes in the definition of whistleblowing.\n\n\nFindings\nThe findings show the progress made in academic research (especially for the accounting discipline) regarding whistleblowing. The themes covered by academic studies became progressively diverse. However, this broader scope limited the depth of analysis and the level of self-criticism in the academic research. All but a few articles fail to view whistleblowing in light of its actual level of complexity, and the rationale behind limiting the definition of whistleblowing can only increase this myopia. Although most academic studies have adopted Near and Miceli (1985) definition of whistleblowing, the literature has yet to reach a consensus. Indeed, the analysis shows that Near and Miceli’s (1985) definition of whistleblowing is incomplete and narrow by today’s standards, not to mention out of step with regulators’ needs.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThe main contributions are offering a big picture of whistleblowing academic research's evolution and proposing a more complete and updated view of this act.\n","PeriodicalId":38940,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Financial Crime","volume":"27 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Financial Crime","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jfc-01-2024-0044","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose
For more than four decades, scholars from diverse disciplines and countries have been interested in the act of whistleblowing. To battle financial fraud, financial regulators have been developing whistleblowing programs to motivate and protect whistleblowers, i.e. those who sound the alarm after witnessing an illegal act in their organization. The purpose of this article is to review five historical phases of whistleblowing research. The authors analyze the themes covered by whistleblowing studies conducted over the past 50 years and draw a snapshot of the evolution of whistleblowing research.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors examine academic papers published between 1970 and 2022 and inventory the disciplines involved in the literature and changes in the definition of whistleblowing.
Findings
The findings show the progress made in academic research (especially for the accounting discipline) regarding whistleblowing. The themes covered by academic studies became progressively diverse. However, this broader scope limited the depth of analysis and the level of self-criticism in the academic research. All but a few articles fail to view whistleblowing in light of its actual level of complexity, and the rationale behind limiting the definition of whistleblowing can only increase this myopia. Although most academic studies have adopted Near and Miceli (1985) definition of whistleblowing, the literature has yet to reach a consensus. Indeed, the analysis shows that Near and Miceli’s (1985) definition of whistleblowing is incomplete and narrow by today’s standards, not to mention out of step with regulators’ needs.
Originality/value
The main contributions are offering a big picture of whistleblowing academic research's evolution and proposing a more complete and updated view of this act.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Financial Crime, the leading journal in this field, publishes authoritative, practical and detailed insight in the most serious and topical issues relating to the control and prevention of financial crime and related abuse. The journal''s articles are authored by some of the leading international scholars and practitioners in the fields of law, criminology, economics, criminal justice and compliance. Consequently, articles are perceptive, evidence based and have policy impact. The journal covers a wide range of current topics including, but not limited to: • Tracing through the civil law of the proceeds of fraud • Cyber-crime: prevention and detection • Intelligence led investigations • Whistleblowing and the payment of rewards for information • Identity fraud • Insider dealing prosecutions • Specialised anti-corruption investigations • Underground banking systems • Asset tracing and forfeiture • Securities regulation and enforcement • Tax regimes and tax avoidance • Deferred prosecution agreements • Personal liability of compliance managers and professional advisers