Investigation as legitimacy: the maturing of the big public inquiry

Kemp, Ray; O’Riordan, Timothy; Purdue, Michael

doi:10.1016/0016-7185(84)90053-8

Cited by 22 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Kemp notes that distorted communication was supplemented by two other de-politicizing practices: bureaucratic rules and mystifying terminology. Kemp's (1985, see also Kemp 1980;Kemp et al, 1984) analysis of communicative distortion addresses general features of inquiry sensemaking (e.g. types of evidence presented).…”

Section: The Public Inquirymentioning

confidence: 98%

“…This paper investigates the discursive, ceremonial production of state legitimation which occurs when a public inquiry is undertaken as a major collective response to technological disasters and hazards (Turner, 1976(Turner, , 1978Kemp, 1980Kemp, , 1985Wynne, 1982;Kemp et al, 1984;Gephart et al, 1990 ). To provide a framework for addressing inquiry legitimation, the paper integrates concepts of critical theory (Habermas, 1973(Habermas, , 1979Offe, 1984Offe, , 1985Kemp, 1985) with ethnomethodological concepts of sensemaking (Garfinkel, 1967;Gephart, 1979;Leiter, 1980) and institutional logics (Baccus, 1986).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sensemaking, communicative distortion and the logic of public inquiry legitimation

Gephart

1992

Industrial Crisis Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gephart, R.P., 1992. Sensemaking, communicative distortion and the logic of public inquiry legitimation. Industrial Crisis Quarterly, 6: 115-135. This paper investigates the public inquiry as a ceremonial legitimator of state responses to technological disaster. The paper addresses: (1) the implications of welfare state theory for understanding the public inquiry; (2) the communicative validity claims and counter-claims made by inquiry participants; (3) how sensemaking practices are used to interpret and transform these claims into institutionally sensible accounts; and (4) how the inquiry legitimates state and corporate responses to technological disaster. To investigate these issues, the paper describes a public inquiry into a fatal pipeline accident and then analyses key segments of inquiry testimony. The paper demonstrates that the inquiry distorted local logics of safety used by members and transformed these into the top-down logics of safety regulators. This distortion preserved the viability of disaster control through state regulation and thereby legitimated state actions and control procedures. The paper concludes by addressing the practical implications of the research.

show abstract

Section: The Public Inquirymentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensemaking, communicative distortion and the logic of public inquiry legitimation

Gephart

1992

Industrial Crisis Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Very early on, the role of expert knowledge in ADR was already under attack (see Amy, 1987). Kemp et al (1984) mention environmental actors' problems in funding their own research on nuclear energy. Wynne (1987) criticizes expert rationality as being a major obstacle in hazardous waste policies.…”

Section: Discourse and Expert Knowledge Between Simple And Reflexive mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3. As Kemp et al (1984) argue on the British Sizewell B Inquiry on the pressurized water reactor, this holds true for 'older' new models of investigative public inquiry too. 4.…”

Section: Acknowledgementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Habermas fightin' waste. Problems of alternative dispute resolution in the risk society

Keller¹,

Poferl²

2000

Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the early 1990s, German environmental policies have been characterized by a broad range of alternative dispute resolution procedures, such as, for instance, 'mediation' and 'risk dialogue'. Based on the ethics of discourse, developed by German social theorist Habermas, they are designed to solve problems in risk management caused by citizen protest. However, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) failed rather often in environmental issues. Based on a 'risk society' perspective, this paper presents a systematic argument for the empirical problems of discursive dispute regulation. End-of-pipe practical discourse is not suitable for dealing with questioned expert knowledge claims, problems of unawareness and manufactured uncertainties, central to regulation conflicts in risk society. This calls for an earlier public engagement via discourse, focusing on scientific and technological research and development agendas, as well as replacing traditional risk management with management of uncertainties and unawareness.

show abstract

“…The aftermath of Sizewell B in procedural as well as policy terms should prove most interesting. (For background on the Sizewell B Inquiry, see the monthly review in Town and Country Planning by Jennifer Amstrong, the fortnightly edition of Sizewell Reactions for a truly excellent cdverage, Kemp et al, 1984 and the September edition of Energy Policy (Brookes, 1984).) One journalist (Ince, 1984) rushed into print too early: a book on the Inquiry appeared about 100 days before the Inquiry was concluded!…”

Section: Parliamentary Involvementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental issues

O’Riordan¹

1985

Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Investigation as legitimacy: the maturing of the big public inquiry

Cited by 22 publications

References 5 publications

Sensemaking, communicative distortion and the logic of public inquiry legitimation

Sensemaking, communicative distortion and the logic of public inquiry legitimation

Habermas fightin' waste. Problems of alternative dispute resolution in the risk society

Environmental issues

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About