A Micro-Level Perspective on Joint Inspections: How Teamwork Shapes Decision Making

  • Kim Loyens


In street-level bureaucracy studies, inspectors are often seen as frontline workers with individual discretion. Inspectors, however, increasingly operate in intra- or inter-organizational teams and perform joint inspections to more effectively tackle the complexity of multi-problems and wicked issues in society. Nevertheless, how street-level bureaucrats work together in teams, and how teamwork shapes decision making on the ground has not been given much scholarly attention in public administration. Based on findings from the few published studies on this topic, this chapter argues that the social dynamics and decision-making processes in joint inspections may be different than those in one-on-one inspector–inspectee encounters. It therefore calls for more research to better understand how teamwork shapes decision-making at the micro-level, and how challenges can be dealt with.


Consistency Networks Responsiveness Street-level bureaucracy and teamwork 


  1. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barker, R. (Ed.). (2008). Making sense of every child matters: Multi-professional practice guidance. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  3. Berthod, O., Grothe-Hammer, M., & Sydow, J. (2017). Network ethnography: A mixed-method approach for the study of practices in interorganizational settings. Organizational Research Methods, 20(2), 299–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berthod, O., Grothe-Hammer, M., & Sydow, J. (2018). Inter-organizational ethnography: Promises and problems. In A. Bryman & D. A. Buchanan (Eds.), Unconventional methodology in organization and management research (pp. 212–230). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Boodhoo, A. (2010). An examination of collaborative working in child protection (Doctoral dissertation). University of Greenwich, London.Google Scholar
  6. Borgatti, S. P., & Foster, P. C. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29(6), 991–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bos, A., Loyens, K. M., Nagy, V., & Oude Breuil, B. C. M. (2016). Uitbuiting van minderjarigen in de criminaliteit in Nederland: Onderzoek naar de signalering aanpak en de samenwerking door professionals. Den Haag: WODC.Google Scholar
  8. Braithwaite, J. (2011). The essence of responsive regulation. UBC Law Review, 44(3), 475–520.Google Scholar
  9. Braithwaite, V., Murphy, K., & Reinhart, M. (2007). Taxation threat, motivational postures, and responsive regulation. Law & Policy, 29(1), 137–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dedering, K., & Sowada, M. G. (2017). Reaching a conclusion—Procedures and processes of judgment formation in school inspection teams. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 29(1), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Feld, L. P., & Frey, B. S. (2007). Tax compliance as the result of a psychological tax contract: The role of incentives and responsive regulation. Law & Policy, 29(1), 102–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Foldy, E. G., & Buckley, T. R. (2009). Re-creating street-level practice: The role of routines, work groups, and team learning. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(1), 23–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Groeneveld, S., & Van de Walle, S. (2011). Introduction. In S. Groeneveld & S. Van de Walle (Eds.), New steering concepts in public management (pp. 1–8). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hood, R., Nilsson, D., & Habibi, R. (2018). An analysis of Ofsted inspection reports for children’s social care services in England. Child & Family Social Work.
  15. Hudson, B. (2005a). ‘Not a cigarette paper between us’: Integrated inspection of children’s services in England. Social Policy & Administration, 39(5), 513–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hudson, B. (2005b). Integrated inspection: Up to standard? Children and Society, 19(3), 246–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hudson, B. (2006). Children and young people’s strategic plans: We’ve been here before haven’t we? Policy Studies, 27(2), 87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hupe, P., Hill, M., & Buffat, A. (Eds.). (2015). Understanding street-level bureaucracy. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  19. Isett, K. R., Mergel, I. A., Leroux, K., Mischen, P. A., & Rethemeyer, R. K. (2011). Networks in public administration scholarship: Understanding where we are and where we need to go. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(suppl. 1), i157–i173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kapucu, N., Hu, Q., & Khosa, S. (2017). The state of network research in public administration. Administration & Society, 49(8), 1087–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lecy, J. D., Mergel, I. A., & Schmitz, H. P. (2014). Networks in public administration: Current scholarship in review. Public Management Review, 16(5), 643–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leviner, S. (2008). An overview: A new era of tax enforcement—From ‘big stick’ to responsive regulation. Regulation & Governance, 2(3), 360–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Loyens, K. (2012). Integrity secured: Understanding ethical decision making among street-level bureaucrats in the Belgian Labor Inspection and Federal Police (Doctoral dissertation). Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium.Google Scholar
  25. Loyens, K. (2014). Rule bending by morally disengaged detectives: An ethnographic study. Police Practice and Research, 15(1), 62–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Loyens, K. (2019). Networks as unit of analysis in street-level bureaucracy research. In P. Hupe (Ed.), Research handbook on street-level bureaucracy: The ground floor of government in context. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. Maïga, D., Akanmori, B. D., & Chocarro, L. (2009). Joint reviews and inspections: Strategic forms of collaboration for strengthening the regulatory oversight of vaccine clinical trials in Africa. Vaccine, 28(2), 571–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mascini, P., & van Wijk, E. (2009). Responsive regulation at the Dutch food and consumer product safety authority: An empirical assessment of assumptions underlying the theory. Regulation & Governance, 3(1), 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maynard-Moody, S., & Musheno, M. (2000). State agent or citizen agent: Two narratives of discretion. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2(2), 329–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McCallin, A. (2001). Interdisciplinary practice—A matter of teamwork: An integrated literature review. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 10(4), 419–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McCann, E., & Ward, K. (2012). Assembling urbanism: Following policies and ‘studying through’ the sites and situations of policy making. Environment and Planning A, 44(1), 42–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mordaunt, E. (2000). The emergence of multi-inspectorate inspections: Going it alone is not an option. Public Administration, 78(4), 751–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nielsen, V. L., & Parker, C. (2009). Testing responsive regulation in regulatory enforcement. Regulation & Governance, 3(4), 376–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Noordegraaf, M. (2011). Risky business: How professionals and professional fields (must) deal with organizational issues. Organizational Studies, 32(10), 1349–1371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nouwen, E., Decuyper, S., & Put, J. (2012). Team decision making in child welfare. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(10), 2101–2116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Osborne, S. P. (2010). The new public governance: Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pires, R. R. (2011). Beyond the fear of discretion: Flexibility, performance, and accountability in the management of regulatory bureaucracies. Regulation & Governance, 5(1), 43–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Purcell, M. E., Christian, M., & Frost, N. (2012). Addressing the challenges of leading children’s services in England: Leadership in a changing environment. Journal of Children’s Services, 7(2), 86–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Raaphorst, N., & Loyens, K. (2018). From poker games to kitchen tables: How social dynamics affect frontline decision making. Administration & Society.
  40. Rice, D. (2017, August 30–September 1). Network ties among social policy professionals: Benefits and costs for public service organizations and citizens. Paper for the EGPA Permanent Study Group XX on Welfare state of governance and professionalism: 2017 Annual conference of the European Group for Public Administration, Milan.Google Scholar
  41. Rutz, S. I., Adams, S. A., Buitendijk, S. E., Robben, P. B., & de Bont, A. A. (2013). Hiding complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity: How inspectorates simplify issues to create enforceable action. Health, Risk & Society, 15(4), 363–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rutz, S., Mathew, D., Robben, P., & de Bont, A. (2017). Enhancing responsiveness and consistency: Comparing the collective use of discretion and discretionary room at inspectorates in England and the Netherlands. Regulation & Governance, 11(1), 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sandfort, J. (1999). The structural impediments to human service collaboration: Examining welfare reform at the front lines. Social Service Review, 73(3), 314–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Silbey, S. S. (1981). Case processing in an attorney general’s office. Law & Society Review, 15(3/4), 849–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Silbey, S. S. (1984). The consequences of responsive regulation. In K. Hawkins & J. M. Thomas (Eds.), Enforcing regulation (pp. 147–170). Boston, MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tuijn, S. M., van den Bergh, H., Robben, P., & Janssens, F. (2014). Experimental studies to improve the reliability and validity of regulatory judgments on health care in the Netherlands: A randomized controlled trial and before and after case study. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 20(4), 352–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Turrini, A., Cristofoli, D., Frosini, F., & Nasi, G. (2010). Networking literature about determinants of network effectiveness. Public Administration, 88(2), 528–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. van Bueren, E. M., Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. F. (2003). Dealing with wicked problems in networks: Analyzing an environmental debate from a network perspective. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(2), 193–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1008–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vigoda, E. (2002). From responsiveness to collaboration: Governance, citizens, and the next generation of public administration. Public Administration Review, 62(5), 527–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Utrecht University, School of Governance (USG)UtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations