Do we really need another review of the workplace

bullying literature?

John CollinsCandidate: Doctor of Education, UniSA

Overview

In the beginning . . . (the context) My methodology – the Twitter version The dominant discourse of the literature Its common sense & adoption Example / ‘case study’ Conclusion – we do need more reviews of

the literature?

In the beginning . . .

Joined state public service, Nov 2003 40 years in the workforce, never aware of

bullying Bullied to the point where I thought I was

going to die Joining the EdD program in mid-2004 was

one of the things to “save” me.

The context

So, workplace bullying was a natural choice for study and research . . .

and it follows that I, as a researcher and a (once) target of bullying, am not an impartial bystander

So, how did I come to my methodology?

I read widely about workplace bullying and became very familiar with the literature . . . and reviews of the literature

But what I read, again and again, did not reflect (or “capture”) my experience

A breakthrough was discovering Norman Fairclough* and a literature around the ideas of power, language, ideology and text.

eg ‘Language and Power’, 2001

Institutional Ethnography

“to begin to understand oppression

Institutional Ethnography

“to begin to understand oppression, one must be able to identify and challenge the prevailing problems in otherwise unquestioned, taken for granted, prevailing ways of knowing and acting”

Campbell, 2003

Institutional Ethnography

“to begin to understand oppression, one must be able to identify and challenge the prevailing problems in otherwise unquestioned, taken for granted, prevailing ways of knowing and acting”

Campbell, 2003

“an IE study identifies an area of local practice and asks ‘what is happening here?’ ”

Grace, 2005

Coming to the Lit Review

A lit review is problematic for an Institutional Ethnographer – the researcher has ‘position’!

Campbell and Gregor 2002

IE becomes a means of expanding people’s own knowledge rather than substituting the expert’s knowledge for our own.

Smith 2005

Starting the Lit Review

Reviews of the literature, form part of the literature

In general, most lit reviews: don’t adequately cover MY experience very similar – follow a pattern, cite the

same authors, make the same general recommendations

Starting the Lit Review

Although highly valuable in their own way, many research reports merely confirm, for example, that bullying occurs in this sector or that and agree, or disagree, with other or general findings

However there are also bodies of literature which stand out from the pack as ‘different’

An example / case study

A 2009 authoritative, commissioned review* of the literature on workplace bullying

An example / case study

A 2009 authoritative, commissioned review* of the literature on workplace bullying cites leading authors so as:

1. to dismiss ‘mobbing’ as an alternate term for workplace bullying

2. adopt a particular (for me, problematic) definition

* 2009 (confidential), UniSA

Consequences – mobbing

A corpus of authoritative research that treats mobbing as significantly different to bullying is overlooked.

Valuable insight from the research on mobbing including, importantly, on the ways to treat and prevent both mobbing and bullying, are ‘lost’

Consequences - definition

Adopting what the author states as being “possibly the most widely cited (definition) in recent years” again dismisses a body of knowledge that takes issue with one or more aspects of the definition.

Definition adopted

In order for the label bullying to be applied to a particular activity it has to occur repeatedly and regularly e.g. weekly and over a period of time e.g. about six months. A conflict cannot be called bullying if the incident is an isolated event . . .

Einarsen, et al. 2003

Ignores, for example

Hockley C, UniSA,1999

views of other cited authors (eg: Rayner)

REASONS (from the literature) why definitions are sooooo important (eg: Rigby K, UniSA, 2002)

and . . . lived experience

Remember the IE question

“What’s going on here?”

The IE question

What’s the problem?

‘Other’ literature

Academic literature to popular or “institutional” literature

Guidelines Policies Media Legislation

Back to our ‘case study’ . . .

“it is intuitive that developing policies and procedures . . . should contribute to improving the workplace”

cf: Grogan & Dann “Perfect Policies, Putrid Practices. Workplace bullying in the public sector” UniSA, 2002Boucaut, R “Workplace bullying: a complex organisational problem” UniSA, 2001

Summary

I am partial, I have an agenda My method of inquiry is critical and asks

the question, what’s going on here? The academic literature, while valuable,

contains an hegemonic master narrative This ‘common sense’ transfers to

institutional literature

Conclusion

I posed the question: Do we really need another review of the workplace bullying literature?

The answer:

Yes, of course!