Sensational Cases, Flawed Theories (From Contemporary Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice: Essays in Honor of Gilbert Geis, P 45-66, 2001, Henry N. Pontell and David Shichor, eds. -- See NCJ-193102)

• NCJ Number: 193105
• Author(s): Diane Vaughan
• Date Published: 2001
• Length: 22 pages
• Sale Source: Prentice Hall Publishing
• Publication Format: Book (Softbound)
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

The author uses her experience gained from her study of the fatal launch of the space shuttle "Challenger" in 1986 to examine the problems inherent in studying "sensational cases" of organizational misconduct; she warns of the danger of over-generalizing from such instances while paying too little attention to what makes them unique.

Abstract

Based on her 9-year study of NASA's fatal decision to launch the "Challenger," the author shows how delving into primary sources contradicted the historically accepted explanation of the disaster by contrasting the conventional wisdom about what happened with a revisionist account. Further, she identifies the socially organized sources of distortion and misunderstanding that outside investigators of a sensational case confront. Issues discussed in this regard are retrospection and hindsight, the autonomy and interdependence in interorganizational regulatory relations, and documentary accounts and the reduction of information. The essay concludes that the "Challenger" disaster is not an isolated example of the discrepancy between an historically accepted explanation of a sensational case and what research based on primary sources produces. Advice for scholarly inquiry is offered. First, researchers must maintain a critical stance about the media and official inquiries, since both frame their findings for public consumption. Second, although sensational cases tend to provide abundant data, it is important to remain sensitive to the limitations of that data. Third, because of the wealth of information accessible in sensational cases, a "landmark narrative" may develop prematurely, making it difficult for more lengthy, comprehensive, and complex studies to gain acceptance if they contradict the "landmark narrative." Fourth, scholarly inquiry into sensational cases of organizational misconduct must not only give attention to how and why they are different, but also be balanced by inquiry into the unsensational cases. 35 notes