APPENDIX 2
Project Methodology
SAMPLE AND DATA COLLECTION
Our focus was on internal whistleblowing recipients because of a lack of research into this group, and our initial assumptions that this would offer valuable insights. We collected primary date in the form of interviews with 23 internal whistleblowing recipients in four organizations and seven external recipients and advisors (n = 30). The first group: recipients of internal whistleblowing claims held positions ranging from: compliance officer, HR manager, HR director, legal counsel, investigator and auditor. The organizations comprised a UK National Health Service Trust, an engineering multinational, a bank with offices in Western Europe and the United States and a central government agency in Southeast Asia. In addition to interview material, we requested and were provided with documents including annual reports, whistleblowing policies, and intranet screenshots. In addition, we interviewed a range of external recipients of disclosures including: a speak‐up consultant, a hotline operator, an external ombudsman, an independent advice line operator, a law‐firm partner and two regulators. The primary interviews were conducted both in person and where necessary via telephone, between November 2015 and February 2016. Each lasted between 40 and 90 minutes. Interview schedules encompassed questions on how the organization had designed, implemented, communicated and managed their internal speak‐up arrangements. We were also interested in people's experiences: the successes they had had and the challenges they experienced. Our questions also focused on how processes were operated in practice but also whether and how these processes enabled whistleblowers' concerns to be taken further. Each interview was recorded and then transcribed verbatim before checking for accuracy.
ANALYSIS
Our analysis proceeded via an abductive strategy, which enables unusual and surprising findings to emerge, and the development of theories in response to this.1 Abductive analysis considers that, unlike grounded theory, a‐priori conceptual frameworks are both present and influential in the analysis of new empirical data. The focus is upon iteration between consideration of data, in‐depth and further reading of relevant theoretical approaches, to develop new frameworks and insights (Timmermans and Tavory, 2012). For Timmermans and Tavory (2012: 176) such iterations allow ‘a theoretically salient image’ to emerge in relation to a particular concept, one ‘that illuminates different aspects of the data and foregrounds previously undistinguishable facets.’ For example, in this case where the authors were working on theories relating to ethics, transparency, organizational culture and context, and trust. Analysis thus proceeded through members of the team, who had not been involved in a particular case, developing initial codes ‘within case’.2 Next, we drew on strategies for cross‐case comparison3 in order to connect common threads between themes. Again we followed an iterative process with each author separately considering the emergent themes to date before coming together to discuss. Qualitative data analysis software was used in order to organize the emergent themes and categories. From an initial set of 120 codes, eight main themes arose around: ‘trust’, ‘lack of trust’, ‘communication’, ‘power’, ‘emotions’, ‘reasons for not using speak‐up procedure’, ‘reasons for using speak‐up procedure’. We then worked up these themes in many cases in conjunction with interviewees and practitioners, presenting ongoing research at industry events (Vandkerckhove et al., 2016a),4 incorporating feedback into the ongoing development of our analysis.