Do we really need another review of the workplace bullying literature?

2. Do we really need another review of the workplace bullying literature? John Collins Candidate: Doctor of Education, UniSA

3. 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?

4. 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.

5. 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

6. 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

7. Institutional Ethnography • “to begin to understand oppression

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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’

13. An example / case study • A 2009 authoritative, commissioned review* of the literature on workplace bullying

14. An example / case study • A 2009 authoritative, commissioned review* of the literature on workplace bullying cites leading authors so as: • to dismiss ‘mobbing’ as an alternate term for workplace bullying • adopt a particular (for me, problematic) definition * 2009 (confidential), UniSA

15. 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’

16. 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.

17. Definition adopted In order for the label bullying to be applied to a particular activity it has to occur repeatedlyandregularly e.g. weeklyandover 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

18. 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

19. Remember the IE question “What’s going on here?”

21. The IE question What’s the problem?

22. ‘Other’ literature • Academic literature  to popular or “institutional” literature • Guidelines • Policies • Media • Legislation

23. 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, 2002 Boucaut, R “Workplace bullying: a complex organisational problem” UniSA, 2001

24. 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

25. Conclusion • I posed the question: Do we really need another review of the workplace bullying literature? • The answer:Yes, of course!