BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam//NONSGML v1.0//EN NAME:PhD defence A.A.G. Bakkeren METHOD:PUBLISH BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART:20261001T114500 DTEND:20261001T131500 DTSTAMP:20261001T114500 UID:phd-defence-a-a-g-bakkeren@8F96275E-9F55-4B3F-A143-836282E12573 CREATED:20260924T225122 LOCATION:Main building VU, 1105, Aula, De Boelelaan, 1081 HV, Amsterdam SUMMARY:PhD defence A.A.G. Bakkeren X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:

Navigating Crisis Pa radoxes

Crisis decisions are never completely correct, on ly defensible

The concrete reason was the Dutch crisis re sponse during COVID-19, in which these tensions became visible on a l arge scale in public health. This is scientifically relevant, because research into crisis management, administrative management and ethic s often takes place separately from each other, while in practice the y come together in one decision. My central question was therefore: h ow do decision-makers in a crisis arrive at choices that are not perf ect, but are workable and defensible?

I have shown that crisis decisions can never do justice to all interests at the same time. In practice, what is immediately visible and controllable almost always takes precedence. Other consequences, such as social damage, distribu tion questions or loss of trust, often only become visible later. I a lso show that crisis management does not get stuck on one wrong choic e, but on the lack of structure to deal with that tension. Decisions are more upheld if it is clear who decided, why the rules were deviat ed from and how such a choice can be explained later. The most import ant conclusion is therefore: in a crisis, good governance is not abou t the perfect decision, but about choices that remain traceable, expl ainable and defensible under pressure.

This research is importa nt for everyone who has to act in a crisis: administrators, crisis te ams, public health organisations, security regions, ministries and im plementing organisations. The yield is practical. My research shows w hat is needed to be able to manage better under pressure: traceable d ecisions, clear room for exceptions and explicit accountability. This helps during the crisis, but also afterwards, when choices are asses sed.

More information on the thesis

DESCRIPTION: Navigating Crisis Paradoxes

Crisis decisions are neve r completely correct, only defensible

My research is abou t an uncomfortable question: how do you make decisions in a crisis wh en speed is needed, information is incomplete and rules do not always fit? In such situations, interests are also under pressure. What is needed now can cause damage later. What seems administratively logica l may be impracticable locally.The concrete reason was the D utch crisis response during COVID-19, in which these tensions became visible on a large scale in public health. This is scientifically rel evant, because research into crisis management, administrative manage ment and ethics often takes place separately from each other, while i n practice they come together in one decision. My central question wa s therefore: how do decision-makers in a crisis arrive at choices tha t are not perfect, but are workable and defensible?I have shown that crisis decisions can never do justice to all interests at the same ti me. In practice, what is immediately visible and controllable almost always takes precedence. Other consequences, such as social damage, d istribution questions or loss of trust, often only become visible lat er. I also show that crisis management does not get stuck on one wron g choice, but on the lack of structure to deal with that tension. Dec isions are more upheld if it is clear who decided, why the rules were deviated from and how such a choice can be explained later. The most important conclusion is therefore: in a crisis, good governance is n ot about the perfect decision, but about choices that remain traceabl e, explainable and defensible under pressure.This research is importa nt for everyone who has to act in a crisis: administrators, crisis te ams, public health organisations, security regions, ministries and im plementing organisations. The yield is practical. My research shows w hat is needed to be able to manage better under pressure: traceable d ecisions, clear room for exceptions and explicit accountability. This helps during the crisis, but also afterwards, when choices are asses sed.More information on the thesis END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR