Research

Research into whistleblowing and related topics is given high priority by QWAG.

The QWAG emphasis in this area has four thrusts.

QWAG RESEARCH PROGRAM. Continuation of the Research approach undertaken by the University of Queensland. Links to the principal research reports from this original research program are provided below:

Unshielding the Shadow Culture

Dr William de Maria and Cyrelle Jan

Queensland Whistleblower Study Result Release One,

University of Queensland, Brisbane, April 1994.

Wounded Workers

Dr William de Maria and Cyrelle Jan

Queensland Whistleblower Study Result Release Two,

University of Queensland, Brisbane, October 1994.

Information on the research survey is available off the Home Page of this website (right hand side). It follows the areas of interest used by Bill de Maria, Cyrelle Jan, Tony Keyes and Tracie Pell-Story in 1992-94. Whistleblowers, whether members or not members, are requested to attend an interview at which a series of questions are discussed. Contact details will be requested so that a QWAG researcher can clarify any responses, and follow up in future years.

QWAG MONITORING PROGRAM. Maintenance of feedback networks and processes on five key outcomes for the whistleblower situation.

Five tags are available on the Home page (right hand side) providing feedback sheets (under development) from whistleblowers to QWAG where any of the following occurs:

1. A Good Story or Outcome or other Event offering more Hope to whistleblowers.
2. Destruction of Evidence – incidents where documents or other materials sought from government or an agency may allegedly have been destroyed or disposed of or lost without a reasonable explanation.
3. Tricks used by Watchdog Regulators – incidents in the Queensland or Federal jurisdiction where watchdog regulators, such as a crime commission or ombudsman office or public service commission or information commission or legal services commission or archives office or other watchdog regulator, may allegedly have tricked or deceived the whistleblower, resulting in the denial of an investigation or denial of relief from adverse treatment.
4. Oppressive Tactics in Litigation – the failures of the government and agencies to act as a Model Litigant in proceedings defending claims by whistleblowers, is a behaviour by government legal officers that QWAG seeks to record and map. This information may be used in submissions made in support of disclosures by whistleblowers from these government legal offices, of the unfair practices being used to win litigation by means other than on the merits of the opposing arguments.
5. Loss of Capability – instances of operational failures or project failures or other mistakes or waste generated or caused by alleged wrongdoing that has been the subject of disclosures by the whistleblower, or caused by the removal of the whistleblower from particular responsibilities. This information will be provided in submissions advancing the benefits of effective whistleblower disclosure and protection schemes.

QWAG is also following research published on the performances of watchdog regulators, such as with the work of Anita Stuhmcke on the performances of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

QWAG further has been gathering ideas and papers that are helpful to explaining the whistleblower circumstance, including the natures of government dysfunction, and of alleged corruption and systemic corruption in government and in private sector organisations. An example is the paper by Tony Morris QC, first Commissioner for the Bundaberg Hospital Inquiry, delivered to the National Whistleblowers Conference in 2006, titled What have we Learned about Whistleblowing, Brisbane 25 November 2006.

IDEAS FOR THESIS TOPICS FOR HIGHER DEGREES. Promotion of research into Whistleblowing issues by university students undertaking postgraduate degrees

The following questions to be answered by a thesis undertaken for a higher degree may be of interest to candidates for masters and PhD programs:

1. Is the seriousness of the suspected wrongdoing disclosed by a whistleblower a significant factor in the severity of any reprisal taken against the whistleblower?
2. How long does it take and what processes are used to terminate whistleblowers?
3. How, if at all, does the termination of a whistleblower affect a work unit and its organisation?
4. How do organisations prepare for the conduct of wrongful operations?
5. What positions are adopted by applicants for senior positions on watchdog authorities?

or related questions.

REBUTTAL OF THE “Whistle While They Work” [WWTW] RESEARCH. Maintenance of feedback to stakeholders of the QWAG position on WWTW.

QWAG seeks to provide feedback, to academic institutions and to government agencies and the community, about QWAG’s concerns about particular aspects of the Whistle While They Work reports steered by the Watchdog Regulators of Australia. QWAG seeks to distil the information from that project that is useful, but also offer a considered position where the results of the WWTW may be flawed and detrimental to the safety of whistleblowers in the real world.

Examples of these efforts include:

1. Email exchanges between Dr Pam Swepson and Dr A Brown

Re the alleged exclusion by WWTW of terminated whistleblowers from surveys used in researching whistleblowing including the termination of whistleblowers, International Whistleblower Research networks, 2015

2. Email exchanges between Professor P Mazerolle and G McMahon

Re the claim by WWTW that the bad treatment of whistleblowers is a myth, International Whistleblower Research Networks, June 2015