Authoritative Sensemaking in a Public Inquiry Report

Abstract

This article analyses the Cullen Report into the Piper Alpha disaster in order to research how public inquiry teams represent their efforts to make sense of events as authoritative. It is argued that inquiry reports are highly convention-governed sensemaking narratives that employ various forms of verisimilitude in order to bolster their authority. They are also monological storytelling performances that function hegemonically to impose a particular version of reality on their readers. The investigation of the means by which inquiry reports accomplish verisimilitude and hegemony are important as they may shed light on how this form of public discourse depoliticizes disaster events, legitimates social institutions, and lessens anxieties by concocting myths that emphasize our omnipotence and capacity to control.

Coping with Problems of Understanding in Interorganizational Relationships: Using Formalization as a Means to Make Sense

“…We have shown that formalization entails socio-psychological processes through which participants socially construct or 'enact' their realities (Ariño and Ring 2004;Vaara 2003;Weick 1995) and by which they reduce the cognitive disorder, ambiguity and uncertainty that they experience (Carson et al 2006;McKinley and Scherer 2000;Weick 1979Weick , 1995Weick , 2001Weick , 2004. Collectively, our arguments depict formalization as a process of 'constructive clarification' (Cardinal et al 2004: 422) by which particular versions of reality are created, clarified, sustained and modified (Brown 2004), and as a form of structuring that generates and recreates meanings (Ranson et al 1980). Our description accommodates several distinguishing features of sensemaking such as 'its genesis in disruptive ambiguity [e.g.…”

“…Moreover, they can improve their understanding of each other's intentions, actions and behaviour (Aulakh and Madhok 2002). The resulting collective consciousness (Clegg et al 2002;Hill 2001), common reality, or shared understandings (Brown 2004;Hardy et al 2005;Putnam and Cooren 2004) offer them a unitary basis for action (Maitlis 2005;Weick and Roberts 1993).…”

Introduction: Organizational Discourse: Exploring the Field

“…They may also function ideologically so as to represent the interests of a particular group (Boje, 1995(Boje, , 2001Czarniawska-Joerges, 1996Gabriel, 1991Gabriel, , 1995Gabriel, , 1997Gabriel, , 1998Mumby, 1987;Phillips, 1995). Several authors (Brown, 2000(Brown, , 2004Dunford & Jones, 2000;Wallemacq & Sims, 1998) have noted how narratives are integral to the process of sense-making (Weick, 1995) in organizations. In short, narratives are fundamental to the way in which we think about ourselves and how we interact with one another (Ochs, 1997).…”

Decision-making in project portfolio management: using the Cynefin framework to understand the impact of complexity

“…Storytelling (Callahan, Rixon, & Schenk, 2006), games and simulations (Leigh & Kinder, 2001) are known tools to make sense of complexity. Stories are richer research instruments than conventional questionnaires and interviews because they bring the subjects' opinion directly into the research field (Berry, 2001;Boudes & Laroche, 2009;A.D. Brown, 2004;A.D.…”