“Whistleblower” or “Renegade”: Definitional Contests in an Official Inquiry

This paper addresses the interpretive dynamics of official inquiries. Beginning with an ideal-typical sketch of congressional investigations, the discussion traces a portrayal of public problems by a committee of the House of Representatives. This leads to the analysis of a hearing in which committee factions struggled to define an Air Force administrator as a “whistleblower” or a “renegade.” The hearing is understood as a “certification ceremony” that rhetorically transformed staff discoveries into allegedly definitive evidence. It is concluded that the paper's conceptual approach can be applied to diverse inquiries that combine documentary research with interrogation of witnesses to generate authoritative findings.