Qualitative study uncovers widespread confusion, distrust, and cynicism regarding internal misconduct reporting in police officers, highlighting structural barriers to organizational reform.
Recent high-profile cases of police misconduct in the UK have raised questions about the willingness or ability of police officers to contest misconduct amongst their own members. Willingness to whistleblow against fellow colleagues has received limited attention in the literature. Previous research has revealed discrepancies in defining and measuring whistleblowing with a reliance on quantitative approaches limiting the understanding of officers lived experiences. Here, we investigate officer knowledge, perceptions, and real-life encounters with police whistleblowing, employing semi-structured interviews with 15 members of a UK policing force. We focus on officers’ own definitions of whistleblowing, the reality of their experiences along with reflections and potential improvements on the process. Applying a reflexive thematic analysis, six main themes were generated – (1) the blind spots of whistleblowing, (2) the primacy and influence of interpersonal relationships, (3) cynicism and scepticism about the whistleblowing system, tensions in the process including (4) the problem of gossip and (5) the paradox of anonymity, and (6) suggestions for change. We reveal widespread confusion among officers regarding whistleblowing, compounded by a reliance on gossip and a notable distrust of investigative systems. Officers describe both positive and negative consequences of anonymity in the reporting system and reveal a cynicism about the possibility that police forces can undergo positive organisational change. They also make recommendations for improving organisational communication and the investigative process. We conclude with some practical recommendations for improving whistleblowing in the policing context.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Taylor et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: