The Importance of Conceptual Clarity and Methodological Diversity for Studying Confidential Gossip – a Response and Addition to Fan et al. (2021)

In their essay ‘Confidential gossip and organization studies’, Fan, Grey, and Kärreman (2021) argue that confidential gossip is a distinctive sub-category of gossip that has particular implications for the communicative constitution of organizations and that they provide a methodological platform for studying confidential gossip. We view these claims, written from a phenomenological/constructivist perspective, from a postpositivist perspective, and propose some amendments and nuance, with the goal of furthering understanding of confidential gossip. Fan et al’s adoption of context-specific and mutable meanings for participants may be adequate for the purposes of their broadly phenomenological analysis, but needs amending if it is to enable the formulation of clear theoretical propositions and testable predictions regarding the effects of confidential gossip in organizations, which from our perspective is essential. We make three suggestions. First, a clear definition of gossip is needed. Second, we emphasize the importance of clear predictions on how confidentiality shapes gossip processes and outcomes by distinguishing (1) sender motives for confidentiality, (2) receiver perceptions of confidentiality, and (3) whether gossip is kept confidential from just the gossip target or also from other parties. Systematically testing such predictions could then lend support for the conclusion that confidential gossip is a distinctive sub-category of gossip that impacts organizations in different ways than non-confidential gossip does. Third, we argue that Fan et al.'s methodological perspective overlooks recent developments in the gossip literature, and that rather than focusing on participant observation as Fan et al. advocate, employing a broader range of research methods is needed to understand confidential gossip and its impact on organizations.