This paper is an exploratory study of the complex role of tribunals of inquiry in bringing about organisational and inter-organisational-level change. Focusing on two consecutive tribunals of inquiry into the contamination of the Irish blood supply (which reported in 1997 and 2002) the paper engages with a range of participants directly involved with the tribunal proceedings and aftermath to reflect on the role played by the two tribunals in bringing about organisational and network-level change. We interview 12 key respondents across 6 implicated organisations and got them to tell the story of their tribunal experiences. Using a narrative methodology and drawing on frame analysis we present tribunals as “framing arenas” a locale where diverse stakeholders play out their individualised framing contests in a highly procedurally controlled and politicised context. As a framing arena or space tribunals of inquiry appear to be imbued with institutional meaning, implicated in power relations, open to interpretation as to their meaning and finally able to operate at a certain level of independent agency both constraining and enabling action.
Despite a considerable and diverse research literature in which tribunals of inquiry feature a gap that this paper wishes to address is the limited understanding we have of the role that these investigative mechanisms play in stimulating and directing change within the affected organisations. We know little as to how tribunals actually work, how the reports they produce are actually used (Boudes & Laroche, 2009) and little about what goes on internally within the affected organisations before, during and after these investigations. In turn, what we feel is missing from research on State investigations is the idea of contested interactions between the parties to the investigation and a fine grained appreciation of the role that tribunals play in managing these interactions and influencing strategic change in both a proactive and reactive manner. To this end we regard frame analysis (Goffman, 1974) as an appropriate theoretical lens to explore this topic.
Frames are typically seen as conceptual guides to interpretation and action that are constructed through social interaction (Kaplan, 2008). Frames shape how actors recognize and understand what is going on and are deemed to punctuate, elaborate and motivate action around a focal problem (Snow and Benford, 1992). Those sponsoring a frame will attempt to define the problem, attribute responsibility for it, prescribe solutions and mobilise for action. Frame analysis then is an ideal approach to aid understanding of how individuals and groups frame contentious social issues and how these are then deployed in the development and influence of public policy and change (Creed et al 2002:38; Cornelissen et al., 2011).
Here we build on Kaplan’s (2008) idea of “framing contests” where actors vie to establish the legitimacy of their frames and ideally have their frame adopted by other actors as a predominant guide to strategic choice and action to introduce the idea of tribunals as “framing arenas”. This brings attention to the role of space and context in the active management of multiple stakeholders and of how their diverse frames and motivations are brought together in a regulated environment to better manage legitimacy battles and produce some level of collective agreement and post-crisis response. Exploring the frames of the key participants as they entered into and engaged in the tribunal processes we see how the tribunals do not just operate at a ceremonial level (Gephart, 2007) or crude instruments of hegemony (Brown, 2004) but play a significant but complex non-linear role in influencing the frames of key participants and in controlling, motivating, driving and sustaining organisational change.
References:
Boudes, T., & Laroche, H. (2009). Taking off the heat: Narrative sensemaking in post-crisis inquiry reports. Organization Studies, 30, 377-396.
Brown, A. D. (2000). Making sense of inquiry sensemaking. Journal of Management Studies, 37, 45-75.
Brown, A. D. (2004). Authoritative sensemaking in a public inquiry report. Organization Studies, 25, 95-112.
Cornelissen, J.P., Holt, R. & Zundel, M. (2011) The role of analogy and metaphor in the framing and legimization of strategic change. Organization Studies, 32, 1701-1716.
Cornelissen, J.P. & Werner, M.D. (2014) Putting framing in perspective: A review of framing and frame analysis across the management and organizational literature. The Academy of Management Annals, 8, 181-235.
Gephart, R. (2007). Crisis sensemaking and the public inquiry. In C. Pearson, C. Roux-Dufort and J.A. Clair (Eds.), International handbook of organizational crisis management. (pp. 123-160). London, UK: Sage.
Goffman, E. (1976) Frame analysis. An essay on the organizationa of experience. Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press.
Snow, D. & Benford, R. (1992) Master frames and cycles of protest. In Morris and Mueller (Eds.) Frontiers in social movement theory (pp.133-155). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
