내부고발의 범위: 학술 연구, 보호법, 신문보도 간의 차이

초록

The purpose of this study was to explore the differences in the scope of whistleblowing applied by academic researchers, whistleblower protection laws, and newspaper articles to deal with disclosures about wrongdoing. Based on researchers’ definitions of whistleblowing, this study developed a framework for the comparative analysis of the scope, which was comprised of five analytical dimensions and their 10 sub-items of identifying the scope of whistleblowing. Using the framework, this study examined the scope in laws and newspaper articles by assessing the relevant clauses of whistleblower protection laws in the USA, the UK, and South Korea and analyzing 260 whistleblowing articles collected from three major newspapers (Dong-A, JoongAng, Hankyoreh) from 1990 to 2014 using their article-retrieval system. Results showed that there were significant differences in the scope of whistleblowing currently in application to respond to disclosures of wrongdoing. Academic researchers defined the scope of whistleblowing more broadly than the laws, showing that researchers have different views of whistleblowing, compared to the laws, in some items of the framework. Newspaper articles were found to have broader views than academic researchers and the laws regarding some items, applying a less-rigorous concept of whistleblowing than the other two categories. This gap in whistleblowing scope is indicative of the fact that academic researchers, laws, and newspapers serve distinct views and interests when responding to whistleblowing. Detailed findings and their substantive implications were discussed.

키워드