Navigating the “Abyss”

Abstract

Whistle-blowers frequently face severe retaliation for their actions. This retaliation has power to destroy, marginalize, and even metaphorically murder those who speak out. Perhaps the greatest loss described by many whistle-blowers, however, is loss of personal identity, an experience we term the abyss. This study’s purpose was to explore organizational whistle-blowing experiences, specifically the abyss, and identity transformation of whistle-blowers through the construct of narrative identity theory. We interviewed 11 individuals who had blown the whistle against perceived corruption in various Texas school systems, and had experienced retaliation. Narrative analysis revealed four identities personified by whistle-blowers: crusader, citizen, mom, and popularity seeker. These various identities offered explanations for whistle-blowers’ choices to disclose, their perceptions of retaliation, and their abilities to either maintain their identities or reconstitute new identities. We conclude by offering implications for understanding how and why some whistle-blowers can seamlessly manage retaliation, whereas others are transformed by it.

Keywords

whistle-blowing narrative identity resistance

I used to be a great mom—foster mom, hardworking, loving and dependable. People respected me. Now I’m a crazy person—a troublemaker, a horrible parent. This is who I’ve become in many people’s eyes. It has changed who I am.

—Public school whistle-blower

The anonymous whistle-blower quoted above was a well-respected woman in her small community before speaking out against suspected wrongdoing in her school district. In apparent retaliation from school administrators, she faced anonymous allegations of neglect and an investigation by Child Protective Services (CPS), which caused her family immeasurable emotional and psychological trauma. This account highlights an outcome frequently experienced by those who report organizational misconduct (Rothschild & Miethe, 1999). Researchers have identified numerous forms of retaliation in whistle-blowing research, including negative performance evaluations, criticism from coworkers, being blacklisted in one’s industry (Rothschild & Miethe, 1999), job termination isolation, and even death threats (Alford, 2007). These acts of retaliation, in turn, have led to additional damaging consequences for whistle-blowers, including depression, distrust of others, and deterioration of mental or physical health (Rothschild & Miethe, 1999). Perhaps the greatest loss described by many whistle-blowers is loss of personal identity. Alford (2007) argued that retaliation has power to destroy, marginalize, and even metaphorically murder those who speak out, or as one individual asserted, create the belief that others wished her “to have never existed” (p. 232).

For this study, we utilized narrative identity theory to understand negative consequences organizational whistle-blowers may face and the traumatic outcomes these consequences have on their lives, expressly their personal identities. For the present study, we examined the lived narratives of individuals who blew the whistle within the Texas Public School System. Most public school systems are bureaucratic forms marked by hierarchical structures, centralized decision making, and adherence to policy, all mechanisms for controlling members (Meyer, 2010; Morgan, 2006). In such settings, dissent is highly problematic, as bureaucratic structures have few mechanisms other than discipline for dealing with those who oppose the status quo (O’Keefe, 2013). The narrative identity construct provides the opportunity to examine the whistle-blowing process, specifically retaliation and identity transformation of whistle-blowers as prospective change agents operating in bureaucratic, organizational contexts. No previous research has linked whistle-blowing and identity formation within organizational contexts, opening the door for future research. Furthermore, given the overwhelming negative consequences for whistle-blowers’ lives and identities, this study reveals strategies for whistle-blowers, specifically in regaining or reforming a sense of identity, and opens the door for understanding how those who choose to speak out cope with systematic retaliation.

Literature Review

In this section, we introduce relevant whistle-blowing scholarship, emphasizing the role of retaliation in whistle-blowing cases. Next, we suggest that retaliation can negatively affect whistle-blowers and argue that narrative identity theory is a particularly appropriate framework for examining whistle-blowers’ experiences with retaliation. This section concludes with a description of the Texas Public School System as the organizational context for this study.

Whistle-Blowing

Near and Miceli (1985) defined whistle-blowing as “the disclosure by organization members (former or current) of illegal, immoral, or illegitimate practices under the control of their employers, to persons or organizations that may be able to affect action” (p. 4). At its core, whistle-blowing is a communicative activity. In fact, communication must be present before whistle-blowing can occur. A key element of Near and Miceli’s (1985) definition is the notion of disclosure. Whistle-blowers, according to Miceli, Near, and Dworkin (2008), do not merely observe potential wrongdoing, they communicate the wrongdoing to someone with the authority to address it. While Miceli and Near (1990) suggested a demographic profile of the classic whistle-blower, a larger study (Rothschild & Miethe, 1999) found that no “typical” whistle-blower exists. The one common attribute whistle-blowers share, however, is the potential for experiencing retaliation.

Retaliation is a real threat for individuals who make the decision to speak out against wrongdoing (Alford, 2007). Whereas some research indicates that whistle-blowers can affect change without incurring retaliation (Skivenes & Trygstad, 2010), other studies have suggested that whistle-blowers encounter some retaliatory response (Alford, 2007). Rothschild and Miethe (1999) argued, “neither gender, age, race, educational attainment, nor years in the job can protect the whistle-blower from retaliation” (p. 125). Retaliatory behaviors affect the whistle-blowing process by inducing individuals to remain silent or by influencing the channels they use to disclose (i.e., external, internal, or anonymous; Miceli et al., 2008). While many studies address the impact of retaliation, only a few (Alford, 2007; Rothschild & Miethe, 1999) have focused on how whistle-blowers make sense of the personal and emotional toll of retaliation. Rothschild and Miethe (1999) identified several life-altering consequences suffered by whistle-blowers who faced retaliation, such as severe depression, feelings of isolation, powerlessness, distrust of others, deteriorating health, severe financial difficulties, and family problems. Other researchers (Richardson & McGlynn, 2011) have utilized interview methods to bring to light the magnitude of suffering whistle-blowers endure and, more importantly, to develop an understanding of the “people they became” (Alford, 2007, p. 223). To foster understanding of the impact of the whistle-blowing process on individuals’ identities, we utilized a narrative theory framework.

Narrative Identity

One’s identity is the sense of the self and the relationship of self to the world—“a system of beliefs or a way of construing the world that makes life predictable rather than random” (Kriesberg, Northrup, & Thorson, 1989, p. 55). The narrative identity perspective posits that lives of individuals are not simply a series of events; rather they are constituted by a human consciousness of relationships and connections. Thus, identity takes the form of lived narrative structures complete with settings, scenes, characters, plots, and themes (McAdams, 2004), individuals being authors or creators of their life narratives who construct their identities from the choices they make and the plots they enact.

However, human beings are not the sole authors of their lived narratives; rather, society plays a role in their identity construction (Somers, 1994). As individuals choose their actions and envisage their futures, they do so considering the views and expectations of others (Carr, 1986). Simply put, individuals participate in the coconstruction of their own autobiographies, while negotiating the contexts in which they are located (Bruner, 2002). For narrative identity theorists, identity represents a “particular way in which the self may be arranged, constructed, and eventually told” (McAdams, 1995, p. 385). Of particular importance is the manner in which human beings experience and orient themselves in time. In the following sections, we explore David Carr’s (1986) analysis of human experience as it relates to temporality (i.e., the way human beings experience time).

Central to the lived narrative identity approach is the view that human beings do not perceive their lives as a sequence of haphazard events, but rather a “unique order of meaning” (Crossley, 2000, p. 531; Polkinghorne, 1988). Key to this “order of meaning” is the human experience of time and temporality in which, according to Carr (1986), “we quite explicitly consult past experience, envisage the future, and view the present as a passage between the two” (p. 122). Furthermore, human beings do not simply wait for events to unfold—they affect the future by making choices based on their goals that bring about their future, thereby coconstructing their lived narratives (Bruner, 2002; Carr, 1986). Building upon Carr’s assertion, Allison (1994) argued that individuals exist narratively and are “better understood as storylivers rather than as storytellers” (pp. 108-109) who perform two actions: narration and narratization (Allison, 1994). Narration refers to “a verbal action wherein an agent mediates, for self or for others, a series of events that are temporally configured in a structure characterized by a beginning, middle, and an end” (p. 109). Narratization refers to “an agent’s ongoing mediation of his/her own physical and/or verbal actions within a temporally configured field in order to achieve an envisioned but, as yet, unrealized end” (p. 109). Simply put, narration is an act of telling stories about the past and narratization is the act of living out envisioned narrative structures.

Human beings seek coherence in lived narratives. Sometimes, however, unexpected events occur, causing this lived narrative structure to lose coherence and continuity (Carr, 1986). The individual may then experience “the abyss,” a dark and looming outer limit of experience characterized by chaos. When narrative coherence is lost, individuals attempt to restore the original narrative coherence in one of two ways. As individuals strive to regain legitimacy or continuity in their lives by forming a style that is true to their character and by choosing actions that correspond to what others expect of them (Bruner, 2002), they may attempt to resituate themselves within a previous narrative structure by continuing to perform “in character.” However, sometimes the lived narrative itself is called into question; in such cases, the individual may seek an alternative narrative—a structure that will allow the individual to find coherence and meaning in his or her experiences by creating a new lived narrative (Carr, 1986)—a new identity.

For whistle-blowers, retaliation has the potential to disrupt their lived narrative structures. When whistle-blowers disclose organizational secrets, others often engage in acts that seek to define them in ways that are inconsistent with the ways they have always defined themselves, coopting their narratives and impugning their characters. Little is known, however, about how these individuals strive to regain coherence in their narrative identities. We explored this process within the context of the Texas Public School System, which served to function as the setting and scene for whistle-blowers.

Organizational Context—Texas Public School System

The public school “setting” in the United States offers an advantageous context in which to study whistle-blowers’ identity formation from a narrative perspective. First, the Texas school system is bureaucratic, replete with hierarchy, centralization of authority, and adherence to policy (Meyer, 2010). These characteristics have replaced traditional and charismatic forms of organizational domination and provide subtler mechanisms for controlling organizational members or disciplining them when they undermine current ways of operating (Morgan, 2006). In effect, the whistle-blower disrupts the idea of a bureaucracy as a smooth-running machine in which everyone abides by the rules, which leads to the possibility of the individual being “disciplined” via retaliation. Next, the school context adds another dimension to possible retaliation against whistle-blowers: children. A mere accusation of being a bad parent could have serious implications for a whistle-blower’s identity, considering the salience of the “parent” identity to those with children.

Finally, the Texas Public School System is structured to operate as a culture of support, esprit de corps, and “team spirit.” The Texas Education Code Sec 11.1512 (1995) describes the relationship between the superintendent and the board as a collaborative affiliation. Furthermore, in its curriculum, the Texas Association of School Boards (TASB)—the organization responsible for providing training to local school boards—created the term “The Team of Eight” to refer to the local school board. In essence, this team concept includes a group of board members who work as equal partners together with the superintendent. Rothwell and Baldwin (2007) argued that a “code of silence” can exist in organizations that emphasize the benefits of loyalty and support over disagreement. The possibility that this type of loyalty, combined with a bureaucratic structure, exists within the Texas school governing system is significant to this study. Taken together, these characteristics provide the setting for examining the narratives of those who publicly dissent so that we may better understand how they perceive their identities were transformed by the whistle-blowing process. Thus, we proposed the following research question:

Research Question: What do the lived narrative structures of public school whistle-blowers reveal about their identities pre, post, and during their whistle-blowing and retaliation experiences?

Method

To address the research question, we utilized an interpretive, narrative approach to explore whistle-blowing processes and identity transformation for individuals in the Texas school system. We distinguish between narrative as a construct and narrative as a method (McAdams, 1995). As a construct, narrative is the lived stories of an individual, similar to how a person possesses a trait or motive. Narrative as a method involves the eliciting of stories that can be used for analysis to achieve the goal of a particular study. We utilized narrative inquiry as a methodology to understand whistle-blowers’ lives, with a focus on how they constructed their identities. Indeed, according to May (2002), narrative inquiry “increases attention to issues of selfhood, subjectivity, and identity” (p. 245), and identities are “social products” (p. 242); together, these phenomena provide insights into how individuals view themselves in relation to the world.

Participants

Eleven Texas school whistle-blowers (N = 11) participated in this study. The geographical scope was limited to schools in Texas to provide a consistent context, both legally and culturally. While Near and Miceli’s (1985) seminal definition of whistle-blowers is limited to employees or former employees, scholars have since recognized external stakeholders, including those who “have specialized knowledge and publicly communicate information about perceived problems or wrongdoing” as prospective whistle-blowers (Johnson, Sellnow, Seeger, Barrett, & Hasbargen, 2004, p. 353). All participants were school stakeholders who possessed insider knowledge about school operations, including employees (e.g., teachers, staff, and administrators), school board members, volunteers, and parents in the Texas school system. All participants encountered some form of retaliation for disclosing acts of wrongdoing. According to Alford (1999), whistle-blowers do not define themselves, but rather in practice, they are “defined by the organization that retaliates” (p. 266). Without experiencing retaliation, the whistle-blower is just an employee who has “done his [or her] duty” (p. 266). Thus, for the present study, it was important that the participants experienced retaliation as whistle-blowers.

Data Collection

Participants were recruited by one of three methods. First, we utilized a convenience sample, contacting individuals the lead author knew personally who had blown the whistle in a Texas school district. Second, we used Internet search engines to locate news articles containing accounts of Texas school districts that had been involved in accusations of wrongdoing and then attempted to contact the whistle-blowers through their attorneys or through networking sites such as Facebook or LinkedIn. Third, we utilized the contacts of a Texas education reform advocate, who maintained a website covering school district misconduct and had appeared before the Texas legislature advocating for legislation that would encourage fiscal accountability among Texas schools. Prospective participants were contacted by email, phone, social networking sites, or through their legal representation.

Using these recruitment strategies, 24 individuals were identified as whistle-blowers in the Texas school system. All were contacted; 3 declined to participate, 10 did not return messages, and 11 agreed to participate. We utilized an unstructured, open-ended, interview method to understand the effect whistle-blowing has on an individual’s identity. The focus of the interviews was to draw out the participants’ stories, addressing their lives before, during, and after their whistle-blowing experiences. Questions included “tell me about your background,” “when did you first realize something was wrong,” “tell me about the retaliation you encountered,” and “what has changed in your life as a result of this incident.” The preferred approach for this study was an in-person interview at a site convenient for the participant and suitable for maintaining confidentiality (Bauer, 1996). If such meetings were not possible, Skype interviews were conducted. Four individuals agreed to interviews in person, while seven requested Skype interviews. Ten interviews were audiotaped and professionally transcribed. Due to recorder malfunction, one interview required the researcher to take notes. Interviews ranged in length from 45 to 110 min. The transcription consisted of 161 single-spaced pages. Interview questions were designed to solicit the participants’ perspective on their lives prior to blowing the whistle, and how the experience affected their lives. The interview protocol served as a guide; probing questions were used where appropriate. Before individuals agreed to participate, they were provided a description of the study, a consent form stating that they had the option of discontinuing the interview at any time, and assurances of confidentiality.

Data Analysis

A clear formulation of the study’s objectives guided the analysis. Because this study explored the narrative structure of the participants’ lives related to their whistle-blowing experience, the unit of analysis was a complete narrative. Rather than analyzing interview fragments, we first assessed participants’ stories holistically. During this phase of analysis, we developed broad themes guided by the research question. Next, we utilized constant comparative analysis to further assess the interview data. This strategy involved focusing on each interview and “comparing it with all others that may be similar or different in order to develop conceptualizations of the possible relations between various pieces of data” (Thorne, 2000, p. 69). To complete the analysis, we clustered the participants’ narratives within broad themes to assess and categorize the impact retaliation had on the whistle-blower’s narrative identity.

Verification

Inherent in narrative analysis is recognition that through narrative construction and subsequent analysis, the participant can never be “quite free of the researcher’s interpretation of their lives” (Bell, 2002, p. 210). Thus, we conducted member checks to ensure consistency, specifically in regard to the dominant themes (Creswell, 2007). To conduct the member check, the lead author met with three participants from the study and to review major themes. She provided participants the opportunity to provide feedback regarding the consistency of themes. The participants confirmed that their experiences corresponded with the respective themes.

Findings

After holistically analyzing the narratives of 11 Texas school whistle-blowers, we identified several themes addressing the research question. These themes correspond to the longitudinal nature of a whistle-blowing case. Within the theme narrative identity prior to blowing whistle, we recognize how whistle-blowers constructed their identities before they made public their reports of wrongdoing. Specifically, the identities of citizen, crusader, mom, and popularity seeker characterize the participants prior to the act of whistle-blowing. The next theme, act of whistle-blowing and shift in narrative identity, describes how participants’ identities were contested by powerful school district agents after they blew the whistle. Within this theme, we note participants’ struggle with their locus of identity construction and engagement in trauma response as they struggled to make sense of the narrative abyss. The final theme, narrative identity after abyss experience, describes how participants either reestablished or abandoned their previous narrative identities after experiencing the trauma of the whistle-blowing experience. These themes, and their respective subthemes, are described next.

Narrative Identity Prior to Blowing Whistle

In analyzing the participants’ identity construction before they were whistle-blowers, we identified four characterizations: citizen, crusader, mom, and popularity seekers. While overlap existed among the themes for each participant, we classified them into the theme that was most salient throughout their narratives.

Citizen

We classified as citizen those descriptions of identity centered on ethics (morals, honesty, and matters of conscience), high character (how reliable others view the participant), respect (others’ high opinion of the participant), and “doing the right thing.” The narratives of Bill, Lane, Karla, and Tim focused on trust that others in the community and respective organizations placed in them, their sense of right and wrong, and respect they received from others as a core part of their identity. For example, when discussing the community’s perception of him, Bill described himself as a “rising star” saying, “I think my reputation in the community . . . was top notch [and] I had a great relationship with the news media . . . because I told the truth.” Lane identified his trustworthiness as the basis for the school district’s positive opinion of him as he contrasted his willingness to “ask a lot of questions,” with the “team of eight” members on the school board who, due to organizational rules and expectations, chose to “rubber stamp” decisions:

I’m a highly inquisitive person and I was known as the one who asked a lot of questions . . . I was probably a huge standout in the board in that there’s so many people there that take it—in my estimation—as “I’m here to rubber stamp—let’s get in let’s get out—it’s over.”

In describing their identities, these participants emphasized “doing things the right way.” Karla, in describing how her Christian faith shaped her identity, explained, “I’ve always had a very, very strong sense of right and wrong.”

The belief that one should always “do things right” was imbued in these individuals’ identities as they reflected on their relationships with their communities and schools before blowing the whistle. Interestingly, the citizen identity appears to be inscribed with societal values, including “telling the truth,” “altruism,” and “doing the right thing” (Gray, 1989). These values are likely to create tension for prospective whistle-blowers within bureaucratic organizations, where adherence to hierarchy, codified rules, and obedience is prioritized.

Popularity seekers

Two whistle-blowers’ narratives included references to popularity, as evidenced by a large number of friends, approval from peers, and high status. Melissa defined how others in the public school community perceived her, saying, “I think people thought I was real [fun]—I think I brought a new flavor to that little town.” Her narrative contained many references to her ability to “throw a good party.” Paul, when describing his success as a coach, focused on his popularity, saying, “I was well-liked. It was like being part of a fraternity.”

By examining their narratives just prior to their whistle-blowing disclosures, we see further evidence of their pre-report identities. For example, faithful to her narrative identity of being popular, Melissa chose to remain a silent observer during the early stages of the whistle-blowing process: “I didn’t like some of the way things were handled . . . but again I didn’t speak up too much—you know, I would try and maintain and get along.” However, when Melissa’s audience changed, her motivation for remaining silent (approval from others) now motivated her to disclose:

Lane who was a school board member, who I admired, leaned over and said “is anything going on illegally?”—and maybe due to the alcohol, maybe due to the fact that I have a big mouth, I just say “yes.”

Paul made his decision to disclose the wrongdoing he witnessed only partially, saying, “There are some things I didn’t blow the whistle on, because I would have lost a lot of my friends immediately.” After a good friend asked him to come forward, Paul finally made the decision to report a portion of what he had witnessed. Approval from peers or concerns over losing approval from peers highly affected these participants’ decision to disclose. Furthermore, they seemed to recognize speaking out as an implicit violation of bureaucratic norms, and an action that would result in reprisal.

Crusaders

In systems that are expected to adhere to high educational and ethical standards, it is perhaps not surprising that some participants worked to construct an identity of a crusader, vigorously opposing acts of wrongdoing. Nikki explained, “You know there was a need for me to know that the people who are elected or paid to guide the education of our children are interested in their education . . . that’s their only goal.” For crusaders, the whistle-blowing process was not a one-time event, but rather a long-term process of “questioning” and “research” into the public school system. Notably, their “questioning” was different than Lane’s “questioning,” in that it was conducted to fulfill his ethical responsibilities, while the crusaders’ questions consisted of investigative style inquiries, seeking to find and stamp out instances of wrongdoing. In essence, these participants had what Nikki called a “need to know.” Nikki described her initial interaction after she realized the school failed to follow standardized testing protocols: “That piqued my interest. If they were lying about their first grade class on tests, then what the hell else were they lying about?”

These participants dramatized their power struggles, investigative inquiries, and disclosures by using fictional characterizations for themselves and their adversaries. Laura referred to the district office as “the wooly mammoth,” and the principal of her child’s school as “the queen” who loved to rally her troops. Nikki characterized her battle as “a flea on the gorilla’s ass, because it didn’t matter how much I bit, the big gorilla would just scratch me.” Taken together, the crusader narratives reveal individuals who were vigilant in their scanning the environment for potential problems. They may even take joy in officials casting them as troublemakers in the school’s narrative of ethical behavior.

Mom

The final theme, mom, was salient in three of the participants’ narratives, all women: Maci, Cari, and Susan. Their stories clearly demonstrated the importance of family to their individual identities, as well as the organization’s power to affect these stakeholders’ narrative identities. Maci and Cari had both adopted children from abusive homes, which became an important part of their identity description. Maci characterized her devotion to these children as a “calling.” Cari, a mother of eight, described the significance of being a mom to her identity:

I worked at a day care and when they gave awards, I received several and everybody always was telling me what a good mom I was. And they actually had an award for “most family oriented” and I got that award, so it was kind of sweet. Yeah . . . they were always telling me what a wonderful mom I was.

Being a “wonderful mom” was a recurrent theme throughout these participants’ narratives. When asked to describe her background, it was difficult to separate Susan’s perception of her own identity from her descriptions of her son. In fact, Susan was the only participant who, when asked identity questions, discussed her background only in relation to her son, stressing the function of her family as an extension of her identity.

For all three, involvement in the whistle-blowing process began only as a last resort—the result of a need to protect their children or as a need to protect their reputations as mothers. For example, Cari described her initial tentativeness about reporting the school’s failure to fulfill the physical education curriculum requirements: “I was very reserved—I was trying hard to please the school, because I wasn’t 100% sure in my own mind . . . and I wanted to get along.” Eventually, she decided to disclose out of a frustrated attempt to protect her reputation as a responsible mother. Cari’s report angered the school’s principal, who told her that her son could not come back to school because Cari had failed to keep his shot records current. Cari was furious, explaining,

I called a couple of people and looked it up and realized they were wrong. It irritated me, so . . . I emailed [the State Health Department] and told the story . . . and she wrote me back and said, “don’t worry about it. I will contact the school for you and take care of it.”

For Cari, the choice to disclose was closely intertwined with her identity as a mother. Indeed, the choice to disclose was a difficult (if not unintended) decision for these participants. Scholars have recognized the primacy of the “mom” identity, arguing that society regards it as the essence of “feminine role fulfillment” and more rewarding than organizational work (Buzzanell et al., 2005, p. 263). In society’s script, mom is the absolute protector of her children, even if this means blowing the whistle against a respected organization. Interestingly, that same identity can become contested when the accused organization uses it as a tool of retaliation (e.g., utilizing CPS to frighten the “mom” who blows the whistle).

Act of Whistle-Blowing and Shift in Narrative Identity

Once participants became whistle-blowers, their narrative identity became contested, much like a plot twist in which the protagonist encounters new adversity. For the whistle-blowers, adversity took the form of severe retaliation carried out by powerful school district agents. What we describe as the narrative abyss occurs subsequent to a traumatic event, when an individual experiences a lack of narrative coherence instead of order, randomness in place of predictability. The participants revealed their loss of narrative coherence brought about by retaliation in two ways: locus of identity construction and trauma response.

Locus of identity construction

Carr (1986) argued that individuals choose narrative structures depending upon their desired goals. We define a change in locus of identity as a perceived shift of power to construct one’s identity, from the individual to others. Following retaliation, several participants experienced various levels of incoherence in their lived narrative structures as school administrators, school board members, students’ parents, and others, seized control of their narrative identities. For example, Lane described the role others played in his identity construction during the time of his reelection campaign: “Oh I knew they [fellow school board members] were bad mouthing me and saying that I was bad for the school, and they were saying I didn’t need to be re-elected.” Later Lane stated, in reference to his defeat, “Now that’s retaliation.” In a matter of days, these school board members transformed Lane’s identity from ethical board member to one who was “bad for the school” and would “betray” members of the district. In essence, the shift in Lane’s locus of identity construction resulted from the rumors and false accusations levied against him and widely circulated in the community.

Laura described her identity shift as “shundom,” referring to the school district’s use of anonymous blogs: “[they] will get people to post . . . about how stupid you are . . . and how dare she tell us how to run our school district.” Furthermore, two participants’ narratives revealed the school administrators’ use of CPS to facilitate a dramatic shift in the locus of identity control. Cari recounted her experiences powerfully in her narrative:

It was in January when I found out they had turned me in to CPS . . . They made out like my kids did not have enough to eat, which was not true, but it’s an easy thing to say because you really don’t have to prove anything—you just say it . . .

A school district’s use of CPS as an agent of retaliation has important implications for whistle-blowers, particularly those who identify as “mom.” CPS is state-sanctioned and considered a legitimate child-protection agency; school personnel are encouraged to contact CPS upon suspicion of child abuse (Krase, 2013). By using CPS in whistle-blowing cases, schools are able to indirectly exact retaliation using an agency generally considered a legitimate protector of children. The school benefits in two ways: They can attempt to silence the whistle-blower and they can do so without being directly involved as an agent of retaliation. The whistle-blower, meanwhile, may be called upon to deal with questions about their fitness as a parent, a situation sure to foster a number of competing identity tensions. If a parent is blowing the whistle to “protect” her child, she must negotiate retaliatory efforts which ultimately cast her as a “bad parent” and threaten her identity.

Although the use of CPS as a tool for retaliation seems severe, Bill’s narrative provided the most vivid example of loss of identity control:

There was a board meeting and the public came out to speak out against me . . . The board policy states that if there’s five people there to talk on the same subject . . . they must elect a sole representative . . . Well, the superintendent decided to waive that rule . . . and allow whoever wanted to come and talk against me . . . and she demanded that I be there and I sit on the front row right next to the podium. . . . So I’m in this board room, I’m on the front row right next to the podium, the principal’s next to me, and the coach . . . and I believe 26 people got up to speak against me. And they got as long as they wanted, to say whatever they wanted. And there was no holding back—it was all very inappropriate . . . direct comments towards me . . . and you know, I’m having to sit there and . . . it was public persecution . . . They jam packed the room and they allowed the rules to be broken just so I could suffer . . . and then I could hear all the snickers and whooping and hollering . . . from the audience.

Bill’s experience is an exemplar for all whistle-blowers who have experienced loss of narrative identity control: Members of the community, peers, coworkers, and wrongdoers united as agents of the school district to forge a new identity for the individual, whereas the whistle-blower is powerless as his or her own identity is destroyed through a coordinated “public persecution.”

Trauma response

After experiencing a traumatic event, people exhibit a wide range of responses (Levin, 1989), including shock and disbelief, flashbacks, and fear of the future or expectations of doom. We define the trauma response as physical and emotional reactions to the retaliation episode, similar to those responses that occur subsequent to other types of traumatic events. The trauma responses in the whistle-blowers’ narratives were apparent when retaliation transpired or when the participant perceived that retaliation might occur.

One common response that individuals experience subsequent to a traumatic event is the “expectation of doom” (Levin, 1989). This fear of the future arises due to a fear of loss of control. The participants’ reactions to the mere anticipation that retaliation might occur help illustrate this expectation of doom. For example, Cari said in reference to the moment that she realized there would be retaliation: “I knew—I knew—I knew—I knew—I knew that it was going to be bad.” This trauma response was particularly salient in Melissa’s narrative, as she described her emotions the evening she had disclosed to Lane:

I remember that night talking about being scared. I remember Lane saying, “What are you so worried about?” . . . and I talked about power. . . . He didn’t understand [the school district’s] power . . . I was scared to death.

While Melissa discussed “power” and destruction, Lane simply said, “Did I know the crap was going to hit the fan? Yes.” Yet, Lane conveyed almost no fear for the future, no expectation of doom, saying, “. . . you kind of just hope you can say ‘hey, I did the right thing, if you don’t like it I’m sorry.’” Melissa and Lane were involved in the same whistle-blowing incident, and while Lane experienced a shift in the locus of identity construction, he suffered no trauma response; Melissa’s expectation of doom was significant. Cari and Melissa’s narratives reveal an implicit understanding that making accusations against an institution built upon codified rules and “team spirit” would invite a retaliatory response.

In addition to experiencing an expectation of doom, participants suffered emotional and physical reactions, which are common after traumatic events. For example, Bill experienced the loss of his job, isolation, rumors and false accusations, and death threats. He recounted a story that illustrates his trauma response during the narrative abyss:

My kids didn’t suffer one beating from me during that whole time. I didn’t abuse my kids, and I’m not saying that lightly or jokingly either. I mean, I can’t tell you the stress of things that went on. I remember one night . . . [there] was so much stress that . . . you can’t even think straight anymore. You don’t know which way to turn. You don’t know what’s happening. You’re just—you’re kind of going crazy—literally going crazy.

Bill’s account reveals an identity struggle between his own sense of self and the school district’s attempt to construct him as a “bad person.” Fortunately, his high character identity persisted and his children were spared from abuse.

Narrative Identity After Abyss Experience

After experiencing the abyss, individuals strive to regain narrative coherence or reestablish narrative structures (Carr, 1986). We identify two themes relating to the participants’ narrative identities subsequent to the whistle-blowing process: reestablishment of previous narrative framework and identity and abandonment of previous narrative framework and identity.

Reestablishment of previous narrative framework and identity

Bruner (2002) asserted that some individuals, subsequent to a traumatic event, attempt to reestablish narrative coherence by maintaining a style true to who they were before the event. Six participants, all of the citizens and crusaders, reestablished their previous narrative identities. Nikki, who constructed a crusader identity prior to blowing the whistle, experienced the abyss and temporarily “gave up” on her educational reform efforts. However, her interview revealed her desire to “write a book . . . and send it out to people in the education industry,” as well as her plans to “pursue [educational reform] from another angle.” Similarly, Laura continued to “crusade” for educational reform, saying, “I’ve continued to show up at school board meetings. . . . If I can give a voice to a problem that is in the system, then maybe that’s my sole mission in life as a parent.”

The four participants, who constructed narrative identities as citizens, successfully reestablished their previous narrative identities. Lane explained his ability to maintain a strong sense of himself, saying,

We all pride ourselves on different things . . . and one of them is integrity . . . [and] yeah I was smeared . . . [but] you know, I can say “you’re a liar,” and you can duck your head and cower away or you can stand up and say, “I’m not a liar.” You know, you’re retaliated against either way, but how do you handle it?

Likewise, Tim concluded, “I consider myself the same person . . . I knew what I needed to do and I knew that I was doing my job.”

Abandonment of previous narrative framework and identity

According to Carr (1986), while some individuals are able to reestablish themselves within previous narrative structures subsequent to the abyss, others must forge an alternative narrative structure to restore coherence to their lives. Indeed, the mom and popular whistle-blowers abandoned or only partially reestablished their previous narrative structure as the meanings created by the act of retaliation still heavily influenced their identities. Cari, the participant who had received the “most family oriented” award at work, confessed that even several years later, she must still “worry about appearance on everything.” In essence, her narratization has become a “joint” endeavor; she monitors her actions in light of those school district administrators who retaliated. Cari explained that even after moving her children to a different school, her fear remained, saying, “I’m afraid they don’t think I’m a good mom—I’m afraid someone from [the old district] has talked to them and they already have it out for me.” Of the individuals who heavily identified with mom roles, none were fully able to reestablish themselves within their previous narrative structure because of what Maci described as “a change from our core values” forced from the fear that “people you care about can get hurt.”

While each of these individuals continued to struggle to reestablish their identities as “good mom,” Melissa and Paul abandoned their previous narrative identities. Melissa, who originally described herself as “popular,” “well-liked,” and “fun to be around,” subsequently described herself in the following way:

I have [only] two friends . . . and I just stay home most of the time . . . I’m not rebuilding. I’m fine the way I am . . . I’m just going through the motions and I realized I’m kind of doing it to get back to my old life, and [then] I realize, it’s not ever coming back.

Similarly, Paul said, “After I came forward, things never were the same. Everything I had accomplished, the friends I made—it was as if they never existed.” These examples reveal how the whistle-blowing experience can lead to competing narratives: the whistle-blowers’ narrative that attempts to assert they are still a good person, and the organization’s narrative that casts the whistle-blower as a malcontent who betrayed the system. The individual’s identity is at stake in this struggle. It is important to note the school/school district as the setting for this identity struggle. School districts are bureaucracies, a structure designed to discipline and control members (Morgan, 2006); schools are sites at which parents are expected to get involved, support the school, and conform to expectations of teachers, principals, and even other parents (Abdul-Adil & Farmer, 2006). The mom and popularity seeker whistle-blowers found their identities under intense scrutiny by these competing stakeholders; their identities fragmented, they had to either stand resolute in their identities or abandon them for something new.

Associations Between Themes

The themes described above allowed us to draw tentative conclusions about the various types of whistle-blowers, between previous identity construction and choice to disclose, and previous narrative construction and ability to reestablish narrative identities. In particular, the crusader and citizen whistle-blowers disclosed in deliberative, purposeful, and willing manners, even though they were aware, to varying degrees, of possible consequences of disclosing. The citizens exhibited little hesitancy in their decisions to disclose, even in the case of Lane, who spent many months making certain he acted legally and correctly, and who feared for the wrongdoer’s future. Furthermore, the crusaders were willing, even eager, to disclose acts of wrongdoing, characterizing disclosure as a responsibility. Overall, these participants claimed that they had “no choice” but to disclose. Next, these whistle-blowers were able to adeptly reestablish their previous narrative identity. In fact, it is important to recognize they may not have experienced an abyss at the same level as the other types of whistle-blowers. For these whistle-blowers, the abyss was a short-lived experience, and did not appear to permanently damage them. Just as they had done before the whistle-blowing incident, the citizens and crusaders continued to construct their identities subsequent to the whistle-blowing process by making choices consistent within their previous narratization. For example, Lane and Bill believed that others in the community still perceived them to behave ethically and honestly. Crusaders Nikkie and Laura illustrated their ability to reestablish their narrative coherence through their stated objectives for the future, specifically the goal to pursue reform in the public schools continually. Overall, these individuals reestablished their previous narrative identities by remaining true to the style they had practiced prior to the whistle-blowing incident.

Participants, whose identities were established as mom or popularity seekers, were either hesitant to disclose, or disclosed unintentionally. While these individuals did disclose, their approaches, timing, and motivations varied depending on their narrative identities. The moms disclosed to preserve that narrative identity, whereas the popularity seekers divulged to please others in the moment. Next, the moms and popularity seekers expressed difficulty in reestablishing their previous narrative identities. Those who valued their mom role struggled to reestablish their previous narrative structures—more specifically, they continually fought to reestablish their reputation as “good mom.” While they did not “abandon” their previous narrative structures, the fear of being stigmatized by the school district as a “bad parent” continued to affect their actions and the choices they made. For example, Cari felt the presence of the “third party” and made choices within her ongoing narratization based on the anticipated reactions of that “third party,” demonstrating that the public school organization had become a significant audience of her ongoing narratization. Meanwhile, Melissa, who saw herself as popular, abandoned that narrative identity. She described herself as being “reserved,” stating, “I can’t be ignored by any more people.” She added that she was now “finding a new happiness in being home alone.” Such accounts reveal effective efforts on the part of school administrators of “disciplining” those who violate bureaucratic, structural norms (Morgan, 2006). In these cases, school administrators effectively punished whistle-blowers and sent a powerful message to those who consider speaking out against future concerns.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to explore the narratives of public school whistle-blowers to understand their identities before, during, and after they encountered retaliation. Findings suggest that an individual’s identity, as revealed in their lived narrative, is critical in understanding their motivations for whistle-blowing, as well as how they were affected by retaliation. More specifically, by understanding an individual’s lived narrative, we might develop a profile of their decision to whistle-blow and how they make sense of retaliation.

Theoretical Implications

Researchers (Rothschild & Miethe, 1999) describe the negative effects that retaliation, indeed, even the threat of retaliation can have on the whistle-blowing process, specifically on the individual’s decision to disclose. However, we found that organizational retaliation may not be carefully considered in some individuals’ choices to disclose. The threat of retaliation did not seem to affect the decision to disclose for those whose narrative identities centered on citizen. Interestingly, even though these individuals were aware of the possibility of backlash, they did not mention retaliation as a consideration in their disclosure decisions. For the crusaders, experiencing retaliation seemed to strengthen their resolve, rather than discourage them. This finding is significant for future whistle-blowing research because it indicates that retaliation might actually increase incidents of whistle-blowing in some scenarios.

In contrast to the citizen and crusader whistle-blowers, the participants whose identities centered on mom and popularity seeker were hesitant to disclose. Fear of retaliation likely led these individuals to use whistle-blowing only as a last resort, particularly when the need arose to protect their narrative identities. For them, the decision to remain a silent observer was motivated by needs to protect their children (construct a narrative identity centered on being a “good mom”) or to simply “get along” (construct a narrative identity centered on being popular). These whistle-blowers’ choices to disclose were made to protect their children when all else failed or to impress individuals they admired. These findings suggest that the silent observer will turn whistle-blower when remaining silent no longer benefits their narrative identities. One alternative explanation is tied to agency, or one’s perception that they possess autonomy and are free of the influence of powerful others as they consider whether and how to respond (Croteau & Hoynes, 2003; Modesti, 2008). It is possible that the crusader and citizen identities possess a greater sense of agency than the popularity seeker and mom whistle-blowers. Possessing a sense of agency fosters individuals’ beliefs that they can affect positive change. Future studies should examine the connection between various identity types, perceptions of agency, and capacity to withstand retaliation.

Of additional significance in the present study is the fact that retaliation that seemed to produce the greatest costs on participants’ lives was that which targeted or threatened their narrative identity structures. This study presents a way for researchers to determine the form of retaliation that has the greatest negative effect on the whistle-blower, that is, the form that most directly attacks the individual’s identity. It demonstrates that threatened organizations and their stakeholders construct a narrative identity and a plot related to the whistle-blower that is at odds with that of the whistle-blower and uses available means (e.g., blogs, public fora, etc.) to reinforce the narrative and the identity. To illustrate, consider those identified as mom and the consequences that CPS investigations had on their lives, compared with the crusaders who similarly experienced retaliation but expressed few emotional consequences. These experiences fail to support the traditional view of retaliation. In essence, severity of retaliation, the participants’ experiences of narrative abyss, and their abilities to reestablish narrative structure might reveal a more accurate perspective of retaliation severity. Carr (1986) asserted that after experiencing narrative incoherence, individuals strive to regain coherence either by reestablishing their previous narrative structure or by abandoning the previous narrative structure and adopting a new one. In the present study, we found those whistle-blowers whose identities centered on citizen and crusader were successful in maintaining a sense of identity; in other words, they were able to reestablish themselves within their previous narrative structures. However, those whose identities centered on family roles or popularity either abandoned their previous lived narrative structures or modified them significantly. This strategic redefinition might help scholars understand why the consequences of retaliation vary for whistle-blowers.

These findings align with Buzzanell’s (2010) typology of factors contributing to individual or group resilience; specifically, her concept of “affirming identity anchors” resonates with this study’s notion of regaining narrative coherence. Buzzanell argues that individuals possess “a relatively enduring cluster of identity discourses” (p. 4) that are used by individuals and their families, work groups, and other groups, for understanding who they are in relation to one another. In times of distress, such as layoffs and other crises, individuals can rely on these identities, for example, breadwinner, as anchors against identity loss, personal stress, and uncertainty. Findings of this study complicate Buzzanell’s claims. We found that some identities were useful for withstanding retaliation, but recognized identities that were problematic in dealing with the negative repercussions of the whistle-blowing experience. It is possible that some identities are more useful “anchors” for combating the ill effects of retaliation than others. Researchers (Alford, 2001; Rothschild & Miethe, 1999) have typically suggested that retaliation is harmful to whistle-blowers in general. However, the experiences of whistle-blowers in this study suggest that the capacity for whistle-blowing to affect one’s identity negatively depends strongly on the individual’s identity prior to witnessing and reporting the wrongdoing. Overall, this study surfaced an initial typology of four whistle-blower identities revealing how each dealt with retaliation. Future research should be used to locate other possible identities and consider their capacity for coping with retaliation.

The present study also has implications to narrative identity theory. A prominent theme involved the participant’s locus of identity construction (Carr, 1986). For narrative identity theorists, the agent develops the plot of a story and identities are constructed through a lived narrative, a series of patterned events (Carr, 1986), in which the author makes choices for future actions based on the goals he or she wishes to achieve and the identity she or he desires to create (Bruner, 1987). In the lived narrative, individuals select events that are important to the outcome of the “story.” However, as agents in lived narratives, individuals do not have complete control in the construction of their narrative identities (MacIntyre, 1981). While scholars generally agree that society, or in the present case, an organization, plays a role in identity construction, they disagree about how large a role society plays.

The present study contributes to this debate over who controls the construction of an individual’s lived narrative. First, the participants were aware of what Rothwell and Baldwin (2007) referred to as the “code of silence” prevalent in organizations that stress loyalty. The mere presence of this code of loyalty constituted a power position for those who constructed a narrative identity of citizen or crusader. Embedded within the organization was an obstacle to these participants’ narrative identity construction, specifically an organizational code that required their silence. The participants’ narratives contained many references to their choices within their ongoing narratizations, specifically those that subverted the code of silence. The present study suggests whistle-blowers disclose to act in a manner consistent with their narrative identities, and they utilize available resources to obtain power to make choices within their ongoing narratizations.

The participants’ struggles to maintain control of their narrative identities became even more apparent after they experienced retaliation. At this phase of the whistle-blowing incident, the locus of identity shifted, the participants lost (some) control and experienced a narrative abyss, the moment when individuals lose narrative coherence, when others seized control of the narrative, shifting the locus of identity away from the participant to wrongdoers. All participants seemed to experience this shift, but the most obvious loss of power occurred after retaliation involving rumors and false accusations. The participants all seemed to lose agency, at least to some degree, when others in the community, including the wrongdoers, constructed an alternative narrative that threatened the whistle-blower’s identity. Metaphorically, this is the scene of all whistle-blowers who endure retaliation that directly attacks their identities.

This study suggests that human beings’ ability to “choose” the stories that become part of their lived narrative (Carr, 1986) is a power struggle between that ability to choose and society’s prescribed roles. The shift in locus of identity indicates that individuals’ abilities to construct their narrative structure vary depending on the resources available or their determination to find alternative resources of power, such as taking legal action. Future research should continue this line of inquiry, exploring the influence of social, financial, and political resources on one’s identity during traumatic experiences such as whistle-blowing.

Practical Implications

Findings of the present study offer a number of practical implications for whistle-blowing, particularly within school districts. First, our findings offer a means for identifying which whistle-blowers principally require social and material support. For example, whistle-blowers identifying as mom or popular are more likely to experience a sort of identity fragmentation; thus, they might benefit from allying themselves with powerful stakeholders, such as the news media, who may be able to affirm whistle-blowers’ identities through significant reporting of their identity as well as their allegations. At the university level, the Drake Group, which was created to reform collegiate athletics, can offer various types of support to whistle-blowers. State education reformers should likewise organize to offer institutional support to whistle-blowers. At the local level, whistle-blowers can ally themselves with teachers, administrators, board members, or parents. More specifically, they should meet with these individuals or groups, reveal evidence to support their claims, and ask them to join their cause. Although such disclosure can be risky, research suggests that such alliances can help the whistle-blower’s attempts to affect change, while providing necessary social support (Lutgen-Sandvik & McDermott, 2011).

Next, this study highlighted potential unintended consequences of certain structures (e.g., the Team of Eight arrangement) on organizational dissent. Such organizing principles could foster loyalty at the expense of constructive dissent, and potentially prevent problems being solved until whistle-blowing becomes a last resort. Education administrators should utilize structures, such as assigned devil’s advocates, to foster constructive dissent rather than stifling it (Schweiger, Sandberg, & Rechner, 1989). Furthermore, it is critical that school district leaders seek and reward dissenting viewpoints within their organizations before the culture will be primed for constructive disagreement (Lutgen-Sandvik & Tracy, 2011). Relatedly, state education associations should institute whistle-blowing hotlines to allow anonymous reporting and utilize agents to investigate reports aggressively. This process would enable investigators to become a (adversarial) focal point rather than the relatively powerless whistle-blower. Finally, whistle-blowers traumatized by their experiences should be encouraged to tell their stories. Indeed, research indicates that telling one’s story can be therapeutic (Langellier & Peterson, 2004). In the act of telling, the teller finds agency through asserting his or her own narrative identity, refusing the character portrayal proffered in the stories of others, and speaking his or her truth about the events in question, thereby providing the community an alternative perspective to the officially sanctioned story of the powerful players involved (Park-Fuller, 1995, 2000). Telling one’s story also permits the teller to locate a community and, thus, a broader support network of others who have experienced or might experience similar circumstances (Langellier, 1993).

In conclusion, as the Edward Snowden case reveals, when organizational members blow the whistle against alleged wrongdoing, powerful agents will attempt to characterize or define them in a number of ways: traitor, hero, whistle-blower, defector (Boerma, 2013). These characterizations, much like plot developments in stories, surface as attempts by the organization to construct the narrative identity of the whistle-blower. However, as shown in this study, the whistle-blower can construct an identity that enables his or her capability for pointing out wrongdoing and withstanding subsequent retaliation. Indeed, this study’s use of narratization reveals innumerable insights into whistle-blowers’ experiences not yet explicated through traditional research methods. Research should continue to examine individuals’ identities, lived narratives, and experiences with retaliation initiated by whistle-blowing.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the whistle-blowers who participated in this study, three anonymous reviewers, and the editor for their assistance with this project.

Authors’ Note

A previous version of this article was presented at the 2013 National Communication Association conference in Washington, D.C.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Dianne Gravley (MS, University of North Texas) is an instructor in communication studies at North Central Texas College. She specializes in the study of interpersonal and organizational communication within the Texas Public School System.

Brian K. Richardson (PhD, University of Texas at Austin) is an associate professor in the Communication Studies Department at the University of North Texas, United States. His main research interests include organizational whistle-blowing, peer reporting of unethical behavior, and disaster recovery.

John M. Allison Jr. (PhD, Louisiana State University) is chair and associate professor in the Communication Studies Department at the University of North Texas, United States. His primary research interests are literary narrative theory, the narrative structure of everyday life, and Southern culture and fiction.

References

Abdul-Adil

J. K.

Farmer

A. D.

(2006). Inner-city African American parental involvement in elementary schools: Getting beyond urban legends of apathy. School Psychology Quarterly, 21, 1-12. doi:10.1521/scpq.2006.21.1.1

Alford

C. F.

(1999). Whistleblowers: How much can we learn from them depends on how much we can give up. American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 264-277. doi:10.1177/00027649921955254

Alford

C. F.

(2001). Whistleblowers and the narrative of ethics. Journal of Social Philosophy, 32, 402-418. doi:10.1111/047-2786.00103

Alford

C. F.

(2007). Whistle-blower narratives: The experience of choiceless choice. Social Research, 74, 223-248. Retrieved from http://www.newschool.edu/cps/social-research/

Allison

J. M.

Jr. (1994). Narrative and time: A phenomenological reconsideration. Text and Performance Quarterly, 14, 108-125.

Bauer

(1996). The narrative interview: Comments on a technique for qualitative data collection. London, England: London School of Economics, Methodology Institute.

Bell

J. S.

(2002). Narrative inquiry: More than just telling stories. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 207-213. doi:10.2307/3588331

Boerma

(2013, August 12). Edward Snowden: Traitor, whistle-blower, or defector? CBSNews.com. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/edward-snowden-traitor-whistleblower-or-defector/

Bruner

(1987). Life as narrative. Social Research, 54, 11-32. Retrieved from http://www.newschool.edu/cps/social-research/

10.

Bruner

(2002). Narratives of human plight: A conversation with Jerome Bruner/interviewer: Rita Charon. In Charon

Montello

(Eds.), Stories matter (pp. 2-8). New York, NY: Routledge.

11.

Buzzanell

P. M.

(2010). Resilience: Talking, resisting, and imagining new normalcies into being. Journal of Communication, 60, 1-14.

12.

Buzzanell

P. M.

Meisenbach

Remke

Liu

Bowers

Conn

(2005). The good working mother: Managerial women’s sensemaking and feelings about work-family issues. Communication Studies, 56, 261-285. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01469.x

13.

Carr

(1986). Narrative and the real world: An argument for continuity. History and Theory, 25(2), 117-131. doi:10.2307/2505301

14.

Creswell

J. W.

(2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

15.

Crossley

M. L.

(2000). Narrative psychology, trauma and the study of self/identity. Theory & Psychology, 10, 527-546. doi:10.1177/095935430010405

16.

Croteau

Hoynes

(2003). Media/society: Industries, images and audiences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

17.

Gray

(1989). Television, black Americans, and the American dream. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 6, 376-386. doi:10.1080/15295038909366763

18.

Johnson

C. E.

Sellnow

T. L.

Seeger

M. W.

Barrett

M. S.

Hasbargen

K. C.

(2004). Blowing the whistle on Fen-Phen: An exploration of MeritCare’s reporting of linkages between Fen-Phen and valvular heart disease. Journal of Business Communication, 41, 350-369. doi:10.1177/0021943604265608

19.

Krase

K. S.

(2013). Educational personnel as reporters of suspected child mistreatment. Children & Schools, 35, 147-154. doi:10.1093/cs/cdt008

20.

Kriesberg

Northrup

T. A.

Thorson

S. J.

(1989). Intractable conflicts and their transformations. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

21.

Langellier

K. M.

(1993). Personal narrative as performance practice in HIV education. In Corey

F. C.

(Ed.), HIV education, performing personal narratives (pp. 181-193). Tempe: Arizona State University Press.

22.

Langellier

K. M.

Peterson

E. E.

(2004). Storytelling in daily life: Performing narrative. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

23.

Levin

(1989). The trauma response. Unpublished manuscript, Center for Academic and Personal Development, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Available from http://bsc.harvard.edu

24.

Lutgen-Sandvik

McDermott

(2011). Making sense of supervisory bullying: Perceived powerlessness, empowered possibilities. Southern Communication Journal, 76, 342-368. doi:10.1080/10417941003725307

25.

Lutgen-Sandvik

Tracy

S. J.

(2011). Answering five key questions about workplace bullying: How communication scholarship provides thought leadership for transforming abuse at work. Management Communication Quarterly, 26, 3-47. doi:10.1177/0893318911414400

26.

MacIntyre

(1981). After virtue. Notre Dame, NY: Notre Dame University.

27.

May

(2002). Qualitative research in action. London, UK: Sage.

28.

McAdams

D. P.

(1995). What do we know when we know a person? Journal of Personality, 63, 365-396. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1995.tb00500.x

29.

McAdams

D. P.

(2004). The redemptive self: Narrative identity in America today. In Beike

D. R.

Lampien

J. M.

Behrend

B. A.

(Eds.), The self and memory (pp. 95-115). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

30.

Meyer

(2010). Local control as a mechanism of colonization of public education in the United States. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 42, 830-845. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2008.00432.x

31.

Miceli

M. P.

Near

J. P.

(1990). Is there a whistle blowing personality? Personal variables that may be associated with whistle blowing (Working Paper Series 90-19). Columbus: College of Business, Ohio State University.

32.

Miceli

M. P.

Near

J. P.

Dworkin

T. M.

(2008). Whistle-blowing in organizations. New York, NY: Routledge.

33.

Modesti

(2008). Home sweet home: Tattoo parlors as postmodern spaces of agency. Western Journal of Communication, 72, 197-212. doi:10.1080/10570310802210106

34.

Morgan

(2006). Images of organizations (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

35.

Near

J. P.

Miceli

M. P.

(1985). Organizational dissidence: The case of whistle-blowing. Journal of Business Ethics, 4, 1-16. doi:10.1007/BF00382668

36.

O’Keefe

(2013). Sainthood as rebuke: The U.S. conference on Catholic Bishops’ strategic canonization of Dorothy Day. Journal of Contemporary Rhetoric, 3, 1-16.

37.

Park-Fuller

L. M.

(1995). Narration and narratization of a cancer story: Composing and performing “a clean breast of it.” Text and Performance Quarterly, 15, 60-67.

38.

Park-Fuller

L. M.

(2000). Performing absence: The staged personal narrative as testimony. Text and Performance Quarterly, 20, 20-42.

39.

Polkinghorne

D. P.

(1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. Albany: State University of New York Press.

40.

Richardson

B. K.

McGlynn

(2011). Rabid fans, death threats, and dysfunctional stakeholders: The influence of organizational and industry contexts on whistle-blowing cases. Management Communication Quarterly, 25, 121-150. doi:10.1177/0893318910380344

41.

Rothschild

Miethe

T. D.

(1999). Whistle-blower disclosures and management retaliation. Work and Occupations, 26(1), 107-128. doi:10.1177/0730888499026001006

42.

Rothwell

G. R.

Baldwin

J. N.

(2007). Ethical climate theory, whistle-blowing, and the code of silence in police agencies in the state of Georgia. Journal of Business Ethics, 70, 341-361. doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9114-5

43.

Schweiger

D. M.

Sandberg

W. R.

Rechner

P. L.

(1989). Experiential effects of dialectical inquiry, devil’s advocacy, and consensus approaches to strategic decision making. Academy of Management Review, 32, 745-772. doi:10.2307/256567

44.

Skivenes

Trygstad

S. C.

(2010). When whistle-blowing works: The Norwegian case. Human Relations, 63, 1071-1097. doi:10.1177/0018726709353954

45.

Somers

M. R.

(1994). The narrative constitution of identity: A relational and network approach. Theory and Society, 23, 605-649. doi:10.1007/BF00992905

46.

Texas Education Code. (1995). Chapter 11, School Districts: Subchapter A, Collaboration Between Board and Superintendent (Sec. 11.1512). Retrieved from http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/ED/htm/ED.11.htm

47.

Thorne

(2000). Data analysis in qualitative research. Evidence-Based Nursing, 3(3), 68-70. doi:10.1136/ebn.3.3.68