Running Header: FAUX-SCHOLARSHIP 1

Introduction

“No new is good news” is an example of an incredibly popular adage. Whether it be

adages, folk sayings, ‘zingers’, or even memes, it appears that humans have the propensity to

gravitate towards, and even idealize, these short poignant blurbs. So much so, that it is not

uncommon for individuals to set stock in an adage, and allow its premise to guide their decision-

making process. The inherent qualm to the tendency to subscribing to the concepts popularized

by short blurbs is that they invariably lead one astray. Taking for example the adage above, “No

news is good news”, it is plain to see the inconsistency in the application of this concept, and,

ultimately, its erroneous conclusion. For instance, if a plan of action must be imminently

implemented but cannot be due to a lack of crucial data, data which is being waited on, then

clearly no news in this instance is definitely not good. In fact, the lack of news may actually

result in severe harm.

This, now, leads to the issue. When we humans allow our perspectives to be guided by

ideology laden with misgivings, we set ourselves to make decisions which will invariably harm

ourselves, others, or both. This is reflected in the case which we will address. The goal is to

provide background of the case, present the problems which need addressing, design a study to

assess the proper route of address, and to present practical solutions which assuage the problems

and pave the road to a healthier future.

Case

An agency in California, New Horizons Agency, is a provider of advocacy and

educational services related to children on the autistic spectrum to individuals and organizations.

New Horizons is a well-regarded agency, and is influential with lobbying and legislative groups
FAUX-SCHOLARSHIP 2

with relation to education and treatment policies regarding autism spectrum. In short, it is closely

followed by individuals and organizations of various natures for direction and guidance in the

realm of autism spectrum policies.

New Horizons employs a department designated to research, discover, and implement

efficient social media adoption and integration as a media communication vehicle. Jane heads

this department, the social media taskforce, and works in tandem with Jim, a hired consultant, to

expand the reach of the agency’s social media communications. In the process of this endeavor,

it was discovered that a number of the employees of the agency had a social media presence of

their own, and were utilizing it for communicating with the public. Specifically, the employees

were communicating their own perspectives on proper policy regarding autism spectrum

disorder. Unfortunately, these perspectives were occasionally in contrast with company positions

on policies on the same topic. What’s more, these employees were receiving attention on their

perspectives from the public. This became a matter of discussion between Jim and Jane. Jane’s

position on the matter was to create policy restricting employees’ permissions to promote their

opinions which contradicted that of the agency. Jim was initially weary of this notion, and

focused on the positive aspects of this publicity, after all “Any publicity is good publicity.”

However, when a specific employee’s personal blog with policy views in opposition of those

held by the organization became widely followed, Jim hired us as consultants to help address this

matter.

Problems

Upon review of the background information, the main matter is that of organizational

policy writing. The predicament is balancing protected human rights with policy writing that

protects the company’s image. This issue is inherent to the perspective of the agency and to that
FAUX-SCHOLARSHIP 3

of the employees, and may affect company production. If skewed too far in favor of company

image, the policy may be perceived as too intrusive by the employees and cause disgruntled

attitudes. However, if the policy is too liberal it may jeopardize the image of the company, and

result in loss of credibility and, ultimately, revenue. So, as explained by Stahl & King (2019) the

matter needs to be addressed in an exploratory manner. The research question is “What

limitations on expressing work-related matters in personal forums will employees understand,

accept, and implement without developing resentment?”

Study

Action research was selected as the methodology for this study because it brings the

employees’ perspective into the study, and will focus on practical solutions to the practical

problem noted (Green & Huntington, 2017). Obviously, since the question is that of employee

rights and tolerance, the perspective of the employees is paramount. Over the duration of the

research, a small group of selected employees would work together with the consultants and

media team to identify initial policy parameters regarding employees’ personal social media

presence, as well as an accompanying survey to provide agency-wide employee feedback

regarding the policy. Utilizing the action research cycle, plan > act > observe > reflect > plan

(Eden & Ackerman, 2018), the goal is to utilize insight from the employee body of the agency to

determine equitable guidelines on social media policies. Approval for the study was obtained

from the board, and participants were recruited from within the agency’s employee base. Criteria

for participation required employees to be actively involved with autism spectrum disorder either

as medical or mental health practitioners (keeping in line with the practitioners as co-researchers

model of action research theory (Coghlan & Shani, 2014)), involved with autism spectrum

disorder policy writing, editing, etc., and have a social media presence. An informational email
FAUX-SCHOLARSHIP 4

was sent to all agency employees with researcher contact information for willing participants in

the think-tank (focus group) portion of the study. A representative sample of volunteers was

selected from the respondents. The participants ages ranged from 20 to over 50. Data collection

occurred over the course of six months. The process was sending a series of agency wide

questionnaires in the form of surveys via email regarding varying levels of restrictive social

media policies, conducting think-tank sessions with selected participants and researchers

following the results of each survey, and utilizing results and conversation to set forth the next

series of policies for survey. All employees were encouraged to participate in surveys. Some of

the surveys included rational for presented policies, and others did not. The aim of the think-tank

sessions was to generate social media policy guidelines as a collaboration between researchers

and participants, and to review employee response to surveyed guidelines. These sessions

provided a supportive environment in which current and prospective policies were reviewed,

challenged existing perspectives, developed new ideas, and overall reflection. Think-tank

sessions were digitally recorded and saved in folders corresponding to dates meetings were held.

Additionally, researchers’ notes were added to each folder following the meetings.
FAUX-SCHOLARSHIP 5

References

Clarke, P., & Trask, R. (2014). Teachers' freedom of expression: A shifting landscape - part two
- curricular speech to students and recent developments. Education & Law
Journal, 23(2), 85-120. Retrieved from
https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/teachers-freedom-expression-shifting-
landscape/docview/1539328347/se-2?accountid=14376
Coghlan, D., & Shani, A. B. (2014). Creating action research quality in organization
development: Rigorous, reflective and relevant. Systemic Practice and Action Research,
27(6), 523-536. Retrieved from ProQuest Central Database from the Touro Library.
Debbie, L. R., McGrath, C., Donnelly, C., & Sands, M. (2019). Initiating participatory action
research with older adults: Lessons learned through reflexivity. Canadian Journal on
Aging, 38(4), 512-520. Retrieved from ProQuest One Academic database from the Touro
Library
Eckes, S., & Russo, C. J. (2021). Teacher speech inside and outside of classrooms in the united
states: Understanding the first amendment. Laws, 10(4), 88.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/laws10040088
Eden, C. & Ackerman, F. (2018). Theory into practice, practice to theory: Action research in
method development. European Journal of Operational Research, 271(3) 1145-
1155. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325535481_Theory_into_Practice_Practi
ce_to_Theory_Action_Research_in_Method_Development
Green, A. J. & Huntington, A.D. (2017) Online professional development for digitally
differentiated nurses: An action research perspective. Nurse Education in Practice, 22,
55-62 Retrieved from Proquest Central database from the Touro Library.
Monaghan, M., & Ingold, J. (2019). Policy practitioners’ accounts of evidence-based policy
making: The case of universal credit. Journal of Social Policy, 48(2), 351-368. Retrieved
from Proquest One Academic database from the Touro Library.
Rye, M., Friborg, O., & Skre, I. (2019). Attitudes of mental health providers towards adoption of
evidence-based interventions: Relationship to workplace, staff roles and social and
psychological factors at work. BMC Health Services Research, 19
doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-3933-4
Stahl, N. A., & King, J. R. (2019). Expanding approaches for research: Action research. Journal
of Developmental Education, 43(1), 26-28,32. Retrieved from Proquest One Academic
database from the Touro Library.
Stohl, C., Etter, M., Banghart, S., & Woo, D. (2017). Social media policies: Implications for
contemporary notions of corporate social responsibility: JBE. Journal of Business
Ethics,  142(3), 413-436. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2743-9