Inquiries Following Crises

  • Sandra L. ResodihardjoEmail author


Within the blame game literature, appointing an inquiry is often mentioned as a way to deal with blame. Much more, however, can be said about inquiries—hence this chapter. Starting with why inquiries are appointed following a crisis and how they could be used to manage the crisis’ political fallout, the chapter proceeds to address how actors can try to influence the inquiry. So-called catalytic inquiries, however, can be quite independent and influential; publishing reports that cannot be ignored.


Reasons to appoint an inquiry Catalytic inquiry Influencing an inquiry 


  1. Boin, A. (2009). The new world of crises and crisis management: Implications for policymaking and research. Review of Policy Research, 26(4), 367–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boin, A., ’t Hart, P., Stern, E., & Sundelius, B. (2005). The politics of crisis management. Public leadership under pressure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boudes, T., & Laroche, H. (2009). Taking off the heat: Narrative sensemaking in post-crisis inquiry reports. Organization Studies, 30(4), 377–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bovens, M., ’t Hart, P., & Kuipers, S. (2008). The politics of policy evaluation. In R. E. Goodin, M. Moran, & M. Rein (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 319–335). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Scholar
  5. Brändström, A. (2016). Crisis, accountability and blame management. Strategies and survival of political office-holders (Vol. 44). Stockholm: CRISMART.Google Scholar
  6. Brändström, A., & Kuipers, S. (2003). From ‘normal incidents’ to political crises: Understanding the selective politicization of policy failures. Government and Opposition, 38(3), 279–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, A. D. (2000). Making sense of inquiry sensemaking. Journal of Management Studies, 37(1), 45–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, A. D. (2003). Authoritative sensemaking in a public inquiry report. Organization Studies, 25(1), 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, A. D. (2005). Making sense of the collapse of Barings Bank. Human Relations, 58(12), 1579–1604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bulmer, M. (1983). Introduction. Commissions as instruments for policy research. American Behavioral Scientist, 26(5), 559–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cartwright, T. J. (1975). Royal commissions and departmental committees in Britain. A case-study in institutional adaptiveness and public participation in government. London: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
  12. Chapman, R. A. (1973). Commissions in policy-making. In R. A. Chapman (Ed.), The role of commissions in policy-making (pp. 174–188). London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  13. Elliott, D., & McGuinness, M. (2002). Public inquiry: Panacea or placebo? Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 10(1), 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gephart, R. P., Jr. (1992). Sensemaking, communicative distortion and the logic of public inquiry legitimation. Industrial Crisis Quarterly, 6(2), 115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gilligan, G. (2002). Royal commissions of inquiry. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 35(3), 289–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gosnell, H. F. (1934). British royal commissions of inquiry. Political Science Quarterly, 49(1), 84–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry. (2016). Terms of reference. Retrieved March 1, 2017, from
  18. Hogwood, B., & Gunn, L. (1993). Why ‘perfect implementation’ is unattainable. In M. Hill (Ed.), The policy process: A reader (pp. 238–247). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  19. Holme, R. (2003). Drinking water contamination in Walkerton, Ontario: Positive resolutions from a tragic event. Water Science and Technology, 47(3), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Home Office. (1991). Inquiry by her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons into the escape of two category ‘A’ prisoners from her Majesty’s prison Brixton on 7 July 1991. Text of parts of the report being made public. London: Author.Google Scholar
  21. Hood, C., Jennings, W., Dixon, R., Hogwood, B., & Beeston, C. (2009). Testing times: Exploring staged responses and the impact of blame management strategies in two examination fiasco cases. European Journal of Political Research, 48(6), 695–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Howe, G. (1999). The management of public inquiries. The Political Quarterly, 70(3), 294–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hutter, B. M. (1992). Public accident inquiries: The case of the railway inspectorate. Public Administration, 70(2), 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maclean, M. (2001). How does an inquiry inquire? A brief note on the working methods of the Bristol royal infirmary inquiry. Journal of Law and Society, 28(4), 590–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McConnell, A. (2003). Overview: Crisis management, influences, responses and evaluation. Parliamentary Affairs, 56(3), 393–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McConnell, A. (2010). Understanding policy success. Rethinking public policy. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McConnell, A. (2011). Success? Failure? Something in-between? A framework for evaluating crisis management. Policy and Society, 30(2), 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McLean, I., & Johnes, M. (2000). ‘Regulation run mad’: The board of trade and the loss of the Titanic. Public Administration, 78(4), 729–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Morgan, R. (1992). Following Woolf: The prospects for prisons policy. Journal of Law and Society, 19(2), 231–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morgan, R. (1997). Imprisonment: Current concerns and a brief history since 1945. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, & R. Reiner (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminology (2nd ed., pp. 1137–1194). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. O’Connor, D. R. (2002). Part one. Report of the Walkerton inquiry: The events of May 2000 and related issues. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.Google Scholar
  32. O’Toole, L. J., Jr. (1997). Implementing public innovations in network settings. Administration & Society, 29(2), 115–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Player, E., & Jenkins, M. (1994). Introduction. In E. Player & M. Jenkins (Eds.), Prisons after Woolf. Reform through riot (pp. 1–28). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Prasser, S. (1994). Royal commissions and public inquiries: Scope and uses. In P. Weller (Ed.), Royal commissions and the making of public policy (pp. 1–21). South Melbourne: Macmillan Education.Google Scholar
  35. Pülzl, H., & Treib, O. (2007). Implementing public policy. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis. Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 89–107). Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  36. Ransley, J. (1994). The powers of royal commissions and controls over them. In P. Weller (Ed.), Royal commissions and the making of public policy (pp. 22–31). South Melbourne: Macmillan Education.Google Scholar
  37. Resodihardjo, S. L. (2006). Wielding a double-edged sword: The use of inquiries at times of crisis. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 14(4), 199–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Resodihardjo, S. L. (2009). Crisis and change in the British and Dutch prison services. Understanding crisis-reform processes. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  39. Rhodes, G. (1975). Committees of inquiry. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  40. Rochefort, D. A., & Cobb, R. W. (1994). Problem definition: An emerging perspective. In D. A. Rochefort & R. W. Cobb (Eds.), The politics of problem definition. Shaping the policy agenda (pp. 1–31). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  41. Sedley, S. (1989). Public inquiries: A cure or a disease? The Modern Law Review, 52(4), 469–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Simpson, A. C. (1978). Commissions of inquiry and the policy process. In S. Levine (Ed.), Politics in New Zealand. A reader (pp. 22–35). Sydney: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  43. Snider, L. (2004). Resisting neo-liberalism: The poisoned water disaster in Walkerton, Ontario. Social & Legal Studies, 13(2), 265–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stone, B. (1994). Success in public inquiries: An analysis and a case study. In P. Weller (Ed.), Royal commissions and the making of public policy (pp. 244–258). South Melbourne: Macmillan Education.Google Scholar
  45. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sulitzeanu-Kenan, R. (2006). If they get it right: An experimental test of the effects of the appointment and reports of UK public inquiries. Public Administration, 84(3), 623–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sulitzeanu-Kenan, R. (2007). Scything the grass: Agenda-setting consequences of appointing public inquiries in the UK. A longitudinal analysis. Policy & Politics, 35(4), 629–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sulitzeanu-Kenan, R. (2010). Reflection in the shadow of blame: When do politicians appoint commissions of inquiry? British Journal of Political Science, 40(3), 613–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sulitzeanu-Kenan, R., & Holzman-Gazit, Y. (2016). Form and content: Institutional preferences and public opinion in a crisis inquiry. Administration & Society, 48(1), 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Van Duin, M., Wijkhuijs, V., & Jong, W. (2013). Leren van dilemma’s: Rode draden uit de casus [Learning from dilemmas. Most important issues from the cases]. In M. van Duin, V. Wijkhuijs, & W. Jong (Eds.), Lessen uit crises en mini-crises 2012 (pp. 9–34). Den Haag: Boom Lemma.Google Scholar
  51. Weller, P. (1994a). Preface. In P. Weller (Ed.), Royal commissions and the making of public policy (pp. ix–xii). South Melbourne: Macmillan Education.Google Scholar
  52. Weller, P. (1994b). Royal commissions and the governmental system in Australia. In P. Weller (Ed.), Royal commissions and the making of public policy (pp. 259–266). South Melbourne: Macmillan Education.Google Scholar
  53. Woodhouse, D. (1995). Matrix Churchill: A case study in judicial inquiries. Parliamentary Affairs, 48(1), 24–39.Google Scholar
  54. Woolf. (1991). Prison disturbances April 1990. Report of an inquiry by the Rt Hon Lord Justice Woolf (Parts I and II) and his honour Judge Stephen Tumim (Part II). London: HMSO, Cm 1456.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Management ResearchRadboud UniversityNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations