Options
Standing by or Standing Up?—How Philosophy Can (In)form Our Understanding of Bystander Behaviours in Workplace Bullying Dynamics
Author(s)
Date Issued
2021-03-25
Date Available
2024-06-18T11:29:55Z
Abstract
There is increasing awareness of the value of interdisciplinary collaboration within academia. Scholars argue that by drawing upon the conceptual, methodological, and interrogative paradigms of at least two disparate disciplines, researchers are challenged to re-evaluate and reconsider their own discipline-centric assumptions. A consequence of such purposeful boundary-blurring is an increased rigour and richness in the analysis of raw data, as well as the development of revealing insights through the novel application of discrete conceptual perspectives and theories. In such a way, dominant, taken-for-granted methodological and analytical assumptions are destabilised, as researchers are obliged to embrace contrasting perspectives while reassessing the epistemological foundations of their work. This paper focuses on the phenomenon of bystander responses to workplace bullying dynamics. While traditional scholarship into workplace bullying emanates from disciplines such as business, psychology, law, medicine and sociology, for example, this paper argues that philosophy, as a subject/field, may provide the researcher with a fresh interrogative lens through which to (re)view the phenomenon of workplace bullying, along with the consequential response of bystanders to such noxious behaviours. It suggests that, by drawing upon the philosophical concept of virtue ethics—which posits the question “What would a good or virtuous person do?”—we are afforded a robust theoretical framework to support a thoughtful and reasoned destabilization of contemporary perspectives on bystander behaviours and motivations.
Type of Material
Journal Article
Publisher
MDPI
Journal
Societies
Volume
11
Issue
2
Copyright (Published Version)
2021 the Authors
Language
English
Status of Item
Peer reviewed
This item is made available under a Creative Commons License
File(s)
Loading...
Name
Fahie and Dunne Revised 22.3.pdf
Size
216.97 KB
Format
Adobe PDF
Checksum (MD5)
4910445be26e0ab0714c76a6d8fca228
Owning collection