DOCSLIB.ORG

Collaborative Development of an Interdisciplinary Scientific Research Proposal: Negotiation Through Boundary Objects

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Old Dominion University ODU Digital Commons English Theses & Dissertations English Spring 2016 Collaborative Development of an Interdisciplinary Scientific Research Proposal: Negotiation through Boundary Objects Laura Emond Paganucci Old Dominion University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/english_etds Part of the Communication Commons, and the Rhetoric Commons Recommended Citation Paganucci, Laura E.. "Collaborative Development of an Interdisciplinary Scientific Research Proposal: Negotiation through Boundary Objects" (2016). Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Dissertation, English, Old Dominion University, DOI: 10.25777/vtkp-ym37 https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/english_etds/16 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the English at ODU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in English Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTERDISCIPLINARY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PROPOSAL: NEGOTIATION THROUGH BOUNDARY OBJECTS by Laura Emond Paganucci B.A. May 2002, Bowdoin College M.S. June 2006, Dartmouth College A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Old Dominion University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY ENGLISH OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY May 2016 Approved by: Louise Wetherbee Phelps (Director) Holly Gaff (Member) Daniel Richards (Member) Julia Romberger (Member) ABSTRACT COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTERDISCIPLINARY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PROPOSAL: NEGOTIATION THROUGH BOUNDARY OBJECTS Laura Emond Paganucci Old Dominion University, 2016 Director: Dr. Louise Wetherbee Phelps Funding agencies are increasingly soliciting proposals that require interdisciplinary and collaborative solutions for a scientific issue. The development of these research proposals is challenging and often problematic due to the complexity involved in integrating the differing characteristics of multiple disciplines to produce a single, cohesive document. Minimal research has been conducted to examine this collaborative process as it occurs. This study uses the concept of boundary objects as a framework to analyze an interdisciplinary and collaborative team during the development of a research proposal. Multiple methods were used to identify disciplinary differences and analyze their negotiations. This study delineated disciplinary differences and highlighted the need for increased disciplinary awareness to improve the collaborative process. The findings also suggested that funding agencies need to modify solicitation and review processes to accommodate interdisciplinary proposals. iii Copyright ©, 2016, by Laura Emond Paganucci, All Rights Reserved. iv This dissertation is dedicated to two very important men in my life. First, my husband, who was an unwavering source of support and through the writing of this dissertation, did not let my children starve. Next, my father, who started me on this journey and always knew I could pull it off. v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to take this opportunity to thank my committee. My chair, Louise Wetherbee Phelps, offered phenomenal support and insight. Bridging the gap between English and the sciences proved challenging in more ways than one. Louise, thank you for your patience and perfect guidance as I situated myself in a new discipline. This truly was an interdisciplinary effort in every way. Holly Gaff also deserves a special thank you. I could not have accessed and learned from this amazing team of scientists without you. You are a true friend and inspiration. Julia Romberger and Daniel Richards, thank you for the resources, suggestions, and insight that you offered through the development of this dissertation. I would also like to thank a fellow graduate student, Susanne Nobles, for her constant support, editing and friendship. I look forward to seeing where we will go from here. I must also thank my family. Craig, you supported my desire to obtain yet another degree even though we faced numerous deployments, seven moves and the birth of two children during my tenure in this program. I am infinitely grateful to you for never letting me give up. Caitlin and Gabe, you have been so patient with me. I can now give you my undivided attention. To my parents, thank you for being a constant source of support no matter where my professional life may lead. I could not have made it this far without you all. Thank you. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... viii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ ix Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2 RESEARCH AIMS ................................................................................................... 6 1.3 CHAPTER OVERVIEW .......................................................................................... 7 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................................... 11 2.1 SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES .................................................................................. 11 2.2 BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF INTERDISCIPLINARITY ....................... 16 2.3 CONCEPT OF BOUNDARY OBJECTS ............................................................... 23 2.4 RESEARCH PROPOSAL GENRE AND SUBGENRE ........................................ 26 3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 30 3.1 PARTICIPANT SELECTION ................................................................................ 32 3.2 DERIVATION OF THE ANALYTICAL FOUNDATION ................................... 34 3.3 INTERVIEW PROTOCOL .................................................................................... 35 3.4 DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 38 3.5 MEETING OBSERVATIONS ............................................................................... 39 3.6 EMAIL AND TRACK-CHANGES PROTOCOL ................................................. 39 3.7 ANALYSES OF TEXTS ........................................................................................ 41 4. IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL BOUNDARY OBJECT ........................................................................................................ 43 4.1 STUDY QUALIFICATIONS ................................................................................. 43 4.2 BOUNDARY OBJECT IDENTIFICATION ......................................................... 44 4.3 EEID PROPOSAL BOUNDARY OBJECT DESCRIPTION: STATUS ............... 49 4.4 EEID PROPOSAL BOUNDARY OBJECT DESCRIPTION: SOCIAL WORLDS ................................................................................................................ 50 4.5 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 75 5. EEID PROPOSAL BOUNDARY OBJECT DESCRIPTION: SATISFYING INFORMATIONAL REQUIREMENTS ..................................................... 79 5.1 SATISFYING INFORMATIONAL REQUIREMENTS ....................................... 79 5.2 CONTEXT OF THE EEID PROPOSAL ................................................................ 91 5.3 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 97 vii 6. EEID PROPOSAL BOUNDARY OBJECT DESCRIPTION: NEGOTIATIONS TO PRODUCE ACTION ...................................................................... 99 6.1 IDENTIFICATION OF NEGOTIATION FACTORS ........................................... 99 6.2 NEGOTIATIONS OF DISCIPLINARY IDENTITY TO BUILD RHETORICAL STRATEGIES ............................................................................ 106 6.3 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................... 133 7. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 135 7.1 REALIZING THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ....................................................................................................... 135 7.2 DESCRIPTION OF SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATIONS AND OUTCOMES ......................................................................................................... 138 7.3 IMPLICATIONS FOR THE AGENCY SOLICITATION AND REVIEW PROCESSES ........................................................................................ 145 7.4 INTEGRATING DISCIPLINARY DIFFERENCES AND COMPLICATING THE PROPOSAL GENRE .................................................... 152 7.5 INFORMING RESEARCH ON METHODOLOGICAL DESIGN ..................... 156 7.6 AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH .................................................................. 161 7.7 FINAL THOUGHTS ............................................................................................ 162 REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • A Short Guide to Reviewing Interdisciplinary Research

    A Short Guide to Reviewing Interdisciplinary Research

    ISSTI Briefing Note (Number 2) May 2007 Short Guide to Reviewing Interdisciplinary Research Proposals ∗ Dr Catherine Lyall ∗∗, Ann Bruce**, Professor Joyce Tait** and Dr Laura Meagher § Building a cadre of interdisciplinary reviewers....................................................................... 1 Different approaches to interdisciplinarity.............................................................................. 2 Implications for research design............................................................................................ 2 Practical considerations for reviewers ................................................................................... 3 What does a successful interdisciplinary proposal look like? A checklist for reviewers.......... 4 Building a cadre of interdisciplinary reviewers The intellectual conservatism of research funders and the academic community may err towards “a safe pair of hands” when allocating research funds. This risk-averse approach can hinder the ability of interdisciplinary research projects to secure funding. Interdisciplinary researchers often lack a fixed peer community and interdisciplinary teams and researchers who are not well known to referees may be disadvantaged by the review process. Referee choice is less problematic in well-established interdisciplinary areas such as science and technology studies where there is already a pool of known, interdisciplinary referees. The problem is more acute for proposals that are trying to put forward a novel interdisciplinary project
  • EIGHT Writing a Research Proposal

    EIGHT Writing a Research Proposal

    EIGHT Writing a Research Proposal Before you have to do an undergraduate dissertation or any other research project, you will normally be asked to produce a proposal of what you are planning to research and write about. This will enable your tutor to make sure that the subject is suitable and that the planned project is ‘do-able’ within the time and resources available. We have already discussed the literature review that forms a part of the proposal, but what about the rest? Here is a summary of what you need to write. A proposal is a careful description of what your dissertation or research project will be about and how you intend to carry out the work involved until its completion. It is a really useful document that challenges you to think very carefully about what you are going to do, how you will do it and why. It will be required in order to inform your supervisor of your intentions so that he or she can judge whether: • The subject and suggested format conforms to the requirements of the course • It is a feasible project in respect to scope and practicality • You have identified some questions or issues that are worth investigating • Your suggested methods for information collection and analysis are appropriate • The expected outcomes relate to the aims of the project. Do: When you write your proposal, it not only gives you an opportunity to crystallize your thoughts before you embark on the project, but it also allows you to consider how much you will actually be able to achieve within the few weeks/months allowed.
  • New Faculty Guide to Competing for Research Funding

    New Faculty Guide to Competing for Research Funding

    New Faculty Guide to Competing for Research Funding What all new faculty need to know about finding funding and writing research proposals Second Edition October 2016 By Mike Cronan and Lucy Deckard Academic Research Funding Strategies, LLC New Faculty Guide to Competing for Research Funding What all new faculty need to know about finding funding and writing research proposals BY MIKE CRONAN AND LUCY DECKARD Strategies to help new faculty get off to a successful start in identifying and competing for grants to support their research Second Edition, October 2016 Note: This electronic book has been purchased on the basis of an institutional license agreement, which authorizes unlimited distribution of this book within your institution. Within the institution, it may be copied, duplicated, distributed electronically, in whole or in part, and it may be posted to a secure campus website not accessible by those outside the institution or by Google search. Please do not post this book on an open website. Copyright 2016 Academic Research Funding Strategies, LLC. All rights reserved TABLE OF CONTENTS About the Authors………………………………………………………….. 1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………. 2 The Big Picture Developing a Research Funding Strategic Plan……………………….. 3 Developing Your Research Agenda……………………………………… 6 Developing Your Education Agenda…………………………………….. 8 Research Affinity Groups…………………………………………………. 11 Finding Funding Finding Research Funding: an Overview…………………………………. 15 Funding from Federal Agencies………………………………………….. 18 Federal Agencies: Who Funds What? A Quick Guide………………… 20 Funding from Foundations………………………………………………… 24 Private Foundations that Fund Academic Research: A Quick Guide…. 26 Funding in the Humanities………………………………………………… 30 Funding for Less Well-Supported Research Areas…………………….. 32 What to do When You Need Equipment………………………………… 36 Planning & Developing Your Proposal Role of the RFP……………………….
  • Research Proposal: Kathryn Orange Kathryn Orange University of Bolton, Kathryn.Orange@Chep.Com

    Research Proposal: Kathryn Orange Kathryn Orange University of Bolton, [email protected]

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Bolton Institutional Repository (UBIR) University of Bolton UBIR: University of Bolton Institutional Repository Bolton Business School: Examples of Research Bolton Business School Proposals 2010 Research proposal: Kathryn Orange Kathryn Orange University of Bolton, [email protected] Digital Commons Citation Orange, Kathryn. "Research proposal: Kathryn Orange." (2010). Bolton Business School: Examples of Research Proposals. Paper 2. http://digitalcommons.bolton.ac.uk/bbs_proposals/2 This Other is brought to you for free and open access by the Bolton Business School at UBIR: University of Bolton Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Bolton Business School: Examples of Research Proposals by an authorized administrator of UBIR: University of Bolton Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Student Number: 0708319 Course: PT MBA Level: M Module: Research Methods MBA Credits: 20 Assignment: 1 of 1 Date issued: 11.09.09 Submission date: 25.01.10 Tutor: Dr. Peter Moran CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research Philosophy Easterby-Smith et al (2008:56) explain that failure to think through philosophical issues can seriously affect the quality of management research. They also outline that knowledge of philosophy can help the researcher recognise which designs will work best and that it enables the achievement of a satisfactory outcome for the research activity. Saunders et al (2009:107) develop this further and explain that research philosophy supports the creation of knowledge in a particular field and is influenced by the way a researcher thinks.
  • Research Proposal Guidelines

    Research Proposal Guidelines

    Research Proposal Guidelines FMP requirements: Due by March 22. The proposal should be around 3 pages long. Every discipline has a different format for the research proposal. You should follow the format that is standard for your field and that your faculty mentor prefers. The program guidelines that follow are a general overview intended to help you get started with your proposal. PART I: INTRODUCTION A. Make sure the proposal starts on a general level with some type of introductory remarks before going into the details of the specific research question you are proposing. This can be accomplished by providing a frame of reference, a definition, or a discussion of the significance of the topic in the field. B. Provide a statement of the question, issue or general problem that you are examining. A common problem in research proposals is for the author to delay too long in stating the specific research question. Make sure the research question is stated no later than the end of the second or third paragraph. Make sure the research question is fully stated in one place. C. Discuss what other studies have said about your research topic and how your research relates to that of other scholars who have written on the topic. PART II: LITERATURE REVIEW A. The literature review is written to place your study within the context of existing knowledge and other studies in your discipline. It gives recognition to other scholars and it also allows you to point out what is new about your research. Be sure to indicate if you are building on a previous study or a well-established theory; addressing certain gaps in knowledge that exist; or adding to existing knowledge by doing a study with a different or more complete methodology.
  • Writing Research Proposals

    Writing Research Proposals

    Writing Research Proposals Why care about research proposal writing? Although you may not be planning on pursuing a career in research or a career as a scholar, you may still need to write proposals of sorts in your work. You may need to “pitch” ideas to your boss or clients. You may have to apply for project funding (think “Kickstarter”). Even if this is simply a course assignment, treat it as practice for “pitching” an idea or project. Your goal is not only to help readers understand what you want to do, but also to communicate your passion for your topic and get readers excited about your work. Prewriting: Before you write, ask yourself these questions: • What do I want to study? • Why is the topic important? • How is it significant and related to the theories I have been learning? • What problems will my research contribute to solving? • How does it build upon [and hopefully go beyond] research already conducted on the topic? • How can I go about studying the topic? “Moves” in Research Proposals Introducing the Theoretical Framework: This section should provide the theoretical underpinnings of the research you will do. It should show clearly how your study fits within the broader scholarship about the research problem. Overview of Your Research Objective: What is your proposal about? Introduce the topic, but get to your specific focus quickly. This section should not review everything you have learned about the research problem/topic; choose only what is relevant to help explain the focus and goals of your study. Explain the Significance: Why is this research important? How does it link to other knowledge? This section argues how and in what ways your research will refine or extend existing knowledge in the subject area.
  • IRB Reseach Proposal Form

    IRB Reseach Proposal Form

    Proposal No. _____ (Internal Use) Research Proposal Form Note: Please complete this form and attach responses to the issues raised, keeping in mind that the primary concern is the potential risk – physical, emotional, or other – to the participants, as well as the protection of their rights. Provide copies of all questionnaires, consent forms, or other documents to be used in the inquiry. In addition, for each investigator associated with the project, please attach a “Certificate of Completion” from the National Institutes for Health (NIH) Office of Extramural Research indicating the successful completion of the NIH Web-based training course “Protecting Human Research Participants” within three years of your submission of this document. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) must have enough information about the transactions with the participants to evaluate the risks of participation. Assurance from you, no matter how strong, will not be substitute for a description of the transactions. Submit the proposal and supporting documents to the Institutional Review Board. Principal Researcher: Title: Division/Department or Other COS Affiliation: Campus (Select One): Hanford Tulare Visalia External Affiliations (if any): Phone: Email: Other researchers in project (provide same information as for principal researcher): ____________________________________________________________________________________ Research Title: ________________________________________________________________________ Data Collection Start/End Dates (Grant Project start and
  • Measuring Bias, Burden and Conservatism in Research Funding Processes [Version 1; Peer Review: 1 Approved, 1 Approved with Reservations]

    Measuring Bias, Burden and Conservatism in Research Funding Processes [Version 1; Peer Review: 1 Approved, 1 Approved with Reservations]

    F1000Research 2019, 8:851 Last updated: 27 SEP 2021 RESEARCH ARTICLE Measuring bias, burden and conservatism in research funding processes [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] Susan Guthrie , Daniela Rodriguez Rincon, Gordon McInroy, Becky Ioppolo, Salil Gunashekar RAND Europe, Cambridge, Cb4 1YG, UK v1 First published: 12 Jun 2019, 8:851 Open Peer Review https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.19156.1 Latest published: 12 Jun 2019, 8:851 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.19156.1 Reviewer Status Invited Reviewers Abstract Background: Grant funding allocation is a complex process that in 1 2 most cases relies on peer review. A recent study identified a number of challenges associated with the use of peer review in the evaluation version 1 of grant proposals. Three important issues identified were bias, 12 Jun 2019 report report burden, and conservatism, and the work concluded that further experimentation and measurement is needed to assess the 1. Adrian G. Barnett , Queensland performance of funding processes. Methods: We have conducted a review of international practice in the University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia evaluation and improvement of grant funding processes in relation to 2. Robyn Tamblyn, McGill University, Montréal, bias, burden and conservatism, based on a rapid evidence assessment and interviews with research funding agencies. Canada Results: The evidence gathered suggests that efforts so far to measure these characteristics systematically by funders have been Any reports and responses or comments on the limited. However, there are some examples of measures and article can be found at the end of the article. approaches which could be developed and more widely applied.
  • Introduction

    Introduction

    PunchDERP-3440-Ch-01.qxd 7/4/2006 6:20 PM Page 1 1 Introduction 1.1 Research proposals: purpose and use of this book 1 1.2 Background to this book 2 1.2.1 Empirical research: data 2 1.2.2 Quantitative and qualitative data 3 1.2.3 Relaxing the quantitative–qualitative distinction 4 1.2.4 Social science and social science areas 5 1.2.5 Relationship of this book to Introduction to Social Research 6 1.3 A view of research 6 1.4 Chapter outline 7 1.5 Review concepts 8 1.1 Research proposals: purpose and use of this book The research proposal is a central feature of the research world. Typically, the presentation and approval of a formal proposal are required before a piece of research can proceed. This applies to the graduate student in a university, for whom the research dissertation (or thesis) lies ahead, and for whom the approval of a research proposal is required in order to proceed with the dissertation. It applies also to the application for funds to support research, where the proposal is the vehicle by which the proposed research is assessed, and decisions are made about its funding. This book is mainly written for the graduate student in the university, but I hope it will also be useful for other situations where proposals are required. Its central purpose is to help students develop research proposals, assuming that the research involved is empirical research in some area of social science. The idea of empirical research is discussed in Section 1.2.1.
  • Education Research Guidelines.Indd

    Education Research Guidelines.Indd

    Successful Educational Research Guidelines for getting going, getting funded and getting published Roger Deacon and Ben Parker in conjunction with the Centre for Education Policy Development Successful Educational Research Guidelines for getting going, getting funded and getting published Roger Deacon and Ben Parker in conjunction with the Centre for Education Policy Development The Guidelines are produced as part of the Teacher Education Research and Development Programme (TEP) funded by the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. TEP consortium partners: Centre for Education Policy Development Centre for Evaluation and Assessment (University of Pretoria) Human Sciences Research Council South African Institute for Distance Education Published by the Centre for Education Policy Development (CEPD) Centre for Education Policy Development Box 31892 Braamfontein 2017 Tel: +27 (0)11 403 6131 Fax: +27 (0)11 403 1130 [email protected] www.cepd.org.za Successful Educational Research Guidelines for getting going, getting funded and getting published ISBN 978-0-9814402-0-0 © Roger Deacon and Ben Parker (in conjunction with the Centre for Education Policy Development) 2009 Date of publication: March 2009 Roger Deacon, Ben Parker and the Centre for Education Policy Development assert their moral rights to the intellectual property embedded in the Guidelines. Creative Commons Licence The copyright for this work is held by Roger Deacon, Ben Parker and the Centre for Education Policy Development. However, to maximise distribution and application, the work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported Licence. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0 Disclaimer: All organisations, websites or texts mentioned were accessible and in operation at the time of publication, but there is no guarantee that all will remain so in the medium to long term.
  • Doing Indigenous Research Proposal

    Doing Indigenous Research Proposal

    DOING INDIGENOUS RESEARCH PROPOSAL The Promise of Indigenous Research Methodologies (IRM) 17/09/2019 © Dr. Francis Adu-Febiri 2019 1 PRESENTATION OUTLINE 1. Introduction: IRM: The Promise; The Main Argument 2. Participatory Action Research (PAR) Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) 3. Indigenous Research Methodologies (IRM) 4. Intersectionality of IRM and PAR and CBPR= Appreciative Participatory Action Research Inquiry (APARI) 5. Beyond Intersectionality: Decolonization, Indigenization, and Hope 6. Summary 17/09/2019 2 7. Conclusion •MOTIVATE •Why we should care about the promise of Indigenous Research Methodologies 17/09/2019 3 Introduction: IRM’s PROMISE • MAIN THEME: • Hope-Oriented Research • CENTRAL QUESTION: • How relevant is what Indigenous Research Methodologies (IRM) promise student researchers doing Indigenous research proposal ? • MAIN THESIS: • IRM promises community-based, participatory, social action-focused research. That is, RESEARCH AS LIFE-CHANGING CEREMONY contributing to mending broken social relationships and creating sustainable social relationships Introduction: MAIN ARGUMENT (Amplified Thesis): The River Metaphor • Indigenous Research Methodologies are like a river with Participatory Action Research (PAR) and Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) as a major tributaries. • All Indigenous research methodologies are PAR and CBPR but not all PAR and CBPR are Indigenous research methodologies. • This is because Indigenous research methodologies go beyond problem-focused research approach of PAR
  • Disaster’ Research Proposals

    Disaster’ Research Proposals

    Project Title The 2013-2014 UK Floods: a critical appraisal of two ‘disaster’ research proposals. Written for Somerset County Council, November 2014. Author Henry Lennon (PhD researcher), Sheffield Hallam University. Outline In response to your recent inquiry, this project outlines two research proposals investigating the management and response of the recent floods that hit the UK over the 13-14 winter period, with particular focus given to their underlying ontological and epistemological origins and current uses. Although you stipulated desire for both of these proposals to favour the objectivist-(post)positivist approach, several problems have been identified. Thus, as the first proposal introduces a conventional objectivist-(post)positivist approach, its problems in relation to the second proposal, the constructionist-interpretivist (discourse-analytical) approach, will be discussed. The second approach addresses the ontological and epistemological limitations of the objectivist-(post)positivist proposal, and although there are also limitations, these are surmountable for the disaster and questions being studied. Recommendations The project advises that the objectivist-(post)positivist approach is unsuitable to study the disaster due to problems regarding: 1. Researcher neutrality and data/actor positionality; 2. Predictive and phenomenological complexity; 3. The action orientation (rather than mere referentiality) of language. These problems are underlined by reliance on discovering/asserting causal laws reflecting a world simply ‘out there’ rather than one constituted through human action. The latter approach, informed by constructionist ontology and interpretivist epistemology, is instead recommended to investigate how the disaster was situated within the conventions, structures, and practices of the key actors/institutions involved. This focus enables critical engagement with constructed versions of the disaster, thus exploring sense-making procedures of accountable bodies implicated within the event.