Whistleblowing in the Public Sector: A Systematic Literature Review

• Author: Minsung Michael Kang
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X221078784
• Published date: 01 June 2023
• Date: 01 June 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X221078784

Review of Public Personnel Administration

2023, Vol. 43(2) 381 –406

© The Author(s) 2022

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0734371X221078784

journals.sagepub.com/home/rop

Article

Whistleblowing in the

Public Sector: A Systematic

Literature Review

Minsung Michael Kang1

Abstract

Public administration scholars have provided a variety of theoretical insights to

understand bureaucratic whistleblowing, and have emphasized its ethical, legal,

and practical rationales in the context of democratic bureaucracy. To enhance our

understanding of this principled dissent behavior in the public sector, this study

systematically reviews 71 whistleblowing articles and dissertations that address

three aspects in the literature: (1) definitions and theories; (2) methods and data,

and (3) factors associated with whistleblowing intention and behavior. The findings

show public administration whistleblowing research typically uses Near and Miceli’s

definition, grounded on psychology, ethics, and human resource management (HRM)

theories. Methodologically, there is a notable recent trend in the growth of empirical

research using survey data, and equal attention has been paid to both whistleblowing

intention and behavior variables. Based on the review findings, the study discusses

two issues—definitional and theoretical—and presents four research agendas for

future bureaucratic whistleblowing scholarship.

Keywords

whistleblowing, whistleblower protection, systematic literature review, merit

principles

Introduction

A democratic bureaucracy cannot be achieved without addressing and incorporating

bureaucrats’ principled dissent that reflects their public interest oriented nature (Bowman,

1980; Brehm & Gates, 1999; Graham, 1986; Hirschman, 1970). Whistleblowing—an

1University at Albany—State University at New York, USA

Corresponding Author:

Minsung Michael Kang, Rockefeller College of Public Affairs & Policy, University at Albany—State

University of New York, 135 Western Avenue, Albany, NY 12222, USA.

Email: mkang2@albany.edu

1078784ROPXXX10.1177/0734371X221078784Review of Public Personnel AdministrationKang

research-article2022

382 Review of Public Personnel Administration 43(2)

employee’s employees’ explicit dissenting behavior—has been receiving growing schol-

arly attention in the fields of political science (Johnson & Kraft, 1990), public adminis-

tration (Brewer & Selden, 1998; O’Kelly & Dubnick, 2006; Perry, 1993), and business

management (Miceli et al., 2008; Near & Miceli, 1985).

In public administration, there has been a flurry of empirical research on whistle-

blowing, defining it as a prosocial or altruistic behavior, after the initial connection

was made by Brewer and Selden (1998) (e.g., Caillier, 2015, 2017; Cho & Song, 2015;

Potipiroon & Wongpreedee, 2021; Prysmakova & Evans, 2020). Together with

Graham’s notion of principled dissent, which refers to “a protest and/or effort to

change the organizational status quo because of a conscientious objection to current

policy or practice” (Graham, 1986, p. 1), whistleblowing has received a fair amount of

scholarly attention with belief that it would enhance bureaucratic effectiveness,

accountability, and ethicality. Recently, the continuing interest in the field has eluci-

dated the bureaucratic whistleblowers’ psychological features using the theory of

planned behavior (Lee et al., 2021), the socialization effects of gender on intention to

blow the whistle (Prysmakova & Evans, 2020), the trends in State whistleblowing

laws (Exmeyer & Jeon, 2020), and the whistleblowing policies in local governments

(West & Bowman, 2020). Accordingly, we now have a clear consensus that whistle-

blowers play a key role in keeping bureaucracies democratic, efficient, and transpar-

ent, and thus we need to consider ways to better protect them.

Over the past four decades, whistleblowing became a common option for public

services to voice their prosocial concerns. In 2018, approximately 4,000 disclosures

about prohibited practices and 2,000 disclosures about wrongdoing were submitted to

the Office of Special Counsel (The U.S. Office of Special Counsel, 2018). These dis-

closures include claims relating to prohibited personnel practices, Hatch Act viola-

tions, and alternative dispute resolution under the new laws.

Theoretically, the recent advancements in whistleblowing research have provided a

rich context for the development of the theories of public and personnel management.

As an academic theme, bureaucratic whistleblowing is associated closely with the birth

of public service motivation theory (Brewer & Selden, 1998) and has been connected

with existing theories such as social exchange (e.g., Taylor, 2018), accountability (e.g.,

Friedrich, 1940; Moloney et al., 2019), ethics (e.g., Bowman, 1980; Cooper, 1990;

Menzel, 2016; O’Kelly & Dubnick, 2006; Svara, 2021), and bureaucratic politics (e.g.,

Lavena, 2016). Similarly, equal amounts of legal and practical attention have been paid

to the protection systems (e.g., Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 in the U.S.; Public

Interest Disclosure Act of 1998 in the U.K) through our long-standing discussion on the

rule of law (Hill & Lynn, 2015).

Then, what do we know about, and what do we need to know about bureaucratic

whistleblowing? To address this question, this study performs an inductive investiga-

tion of 71 studies published from 1980. This systematic literature review study pursues

two research goals, the first of which is to systematically understand and summarize

the recurring themes in the public administration whistleblowing literature, to obtain

the knowledge of what we know. To maintain research transparency for the first

descriptive goal, this study adheres to the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic