All but one of the interviews were digitally recorded and then transcribed by a secure
confidential transcription service. In one case the interviewee did not wish to be recorded, so handwritten notes (including verbatim quotations) were taken and typed up for the purposes of analysis and treated the same as the transcripts. Transcripts and recordings were securely stored in encrypted form in locked cabinets. Transcripts were coded and subjected to
thematic analysis using NVIVO (qualitative research software) by three of the researchers (see Box A1 below for a summary of the main coding themes). Considerable effort went in to constructing the coding framework (thematic categories), in particular to ensure that the researchers involved in the coding had a consistent understanding of the coding definitions.
The coding started from the research questions and literature and then progressively
incorporated insights from the interviews themselves, and was developed collectively by the three researchers. In the early stages of the coding the researchers coded transcripts all together and then in pairs, and further checks were made to maximise inter-coder reliability.
Due to institutional arrangements, coding then continued on three separate copies of the NVIVO 10 project file and these were periodically merged. Given the sensitive nature of the data, project files were stored and transported on encrypted USB devices, necessitating the research team to physically meet to facilitate any exchanges of data. Where additional
themes (‘nodes’) emerged during coding, these were discussed among the research team and then simultaneously added to the separate project file copies to ensure that merging would be seamless.
Box A1. Analytical nodes
Below are the main ‘nodes’ the research team developed for coding the interview transcripts, which were created with reference to the existing literature, research
questions, and very detailed discussions of the substance of the interviews. Greater detail was captured, where required, in sub-themes (‘sub nodes’) that are not included below.
Background – material relating to historical context, of relevance to the introduction and literature review, etc.
Brief facts of the allegation – a short summary.
Risks and vulnerabilities – related to allegations of misconduct (organised as a series of more detailed sub-themes).
Implications, responses and solutions (again organised as a series of sub-themes).
Investigating misconduct – by whom, processes, decision making, etc.
Outcome of investigations – summary details.
Explanations of misconduct – hypotheses.
Types of misconduct – to inform the development of a typology.
History of misconduct – to capture any detail specifically relating misconduct history to current allegation.
Market in senior police leaders – supply and demand.
Investigated officers in sample – classified as ‘persons’, with key information recorded against each individual.
In the first instance, the task of analysing the coded material and turning that analysis into the final report was divided thematically among the research team. Coded material was then examined to identify broader themes. Analysis of the coded transcripts involved extracting
In subsequent chapters, verbatim quotations have been included to illustrate and support the findings and conclusions, though care has been taken to protect the anonymity of research participants and the people they were discussing. The quotations have only been identified in terms of whether they came from a stakeholder, investigator (IO or SIO), focus group
participant, or the force vetting officer we interviewed. In a small number of cases, the rank of the interviewee has been mentioned where relevant, but only if it did not increase the risk of an interviewee or cases being identified. Where multiple quotations have been presented to support a point, it should be assumed they are from different interviewees (unless stated otherwise).
We have not generally identified the number of respondents who adopted specific positions and raised particular themes. As a qualitative study, doing so would have given a spurious impression of precision. In this regard, it is significant that the interviews were
semi-structured. The topic guides were, to an extent, tailored to, and reflected, respondents’
differing experiences. Consequently, not all questions were asked of all interviewees. In general, we have tried to report only those themes that emerged from several interviews, and have highlighted where viewpoints were more individual, unusual or not shared by others.
Table A1 provides details of the cases.
Table A1. Alleged misconduct cases in sample
No Type of alleged misconduct Rank of officer
investigated Outcome 1 Professional decision-making
(procedures) Assistant Chief Constable Resigned 2 Professional decision-making
(other misjudgement) Deputy Chief Constable No misconduct found 3 Professional decision-making
(financial/material) Deputy Chief Constable Retired 4 Professional decision-making
(procedures) Deputy Chief Constable Management action 5 Professional decision-making
(process) Deputy Chief Constable Awaiting outcome 6 Professional decision-making
(financial/material) Assistant Chief Constable No misconduct found 7 Professional decision-making
(process) Deputy Chief Constable No misconduct found 8 Professional decision-making
(procedures) Chief officer (staff) Words of advice 9 Professional decision-making
(procedures)
Assistant Chief Constable Retired
10 Professional decision-making
(process) Chief officer (staff) Management action
11 Professional decision-making
(procedures) Chief officer (staff) Words of advice 12 Professional decision-making
(process) Deputy Chief Constable No misconduct found
13 Professional decision-making
(process) Assistant Chief Constable Awaiting outcome 14 Interpersonal conduct (sexual) Deputy Chief Constable Other
15 Professional decision-making
(process) Chief Constable No misconduct found
16 Professional decision-making
(other misjudgement) Chief Constable Not known 17 Professional decision-making
(other Misjudgement) Chief Constable No further action 18 Interpersonal conduct
(prejudice) Deputy Chief Constable No misconduct found 19 Professional decision-making
(procedures) Chief Constable Retired
20 Professional decision-making
(process) Deputy Chief Constable Dismissed
21 Professional decision-making
(procedures) Chief Constable Final written warning
22 Professional decision-making
(other misjudgement) Chief Constable Unknown (case to answer)
23 Professional decision-making
(process) Chief Constable Retired (not complete)
24 Professional decision-making
(other misjudgement) Chief Constable Retired (not complete) 25 Professional decision-making
(other misjudgement) Deputy Chief Constable Complaint withdrawn 26 Professional decision-making
(process) Assistant Chief Constable Management action 27 Professional decision-making
(process) Assistant Chief Constable No misconduct found 28 Professional decision-making
(process) Deputy Chief Constable Awaiting outcome 29 Professional decision-making
(financial/material) Deputy Chief Constable No misconduct found 30 Professional decision-making
(procedures) Chief officer (staff) Resigned
31 Professional decision-making
(process) Assistant Chief Constable No misconduct found 32 Professional decision-making
(process) Assistant Chief Constable Awaiting outcome 33 Professional decision-making
(process) Chief Constable No misconduct found
34 Interpersonal conduct (sexual) Chief Constable Written warning 35 Professional decision-making Chief officer (staff) Final written warning
36 Interpersonal conduct
(bullying) Assistant Chief Constable Unknown 37 Interpersonal conduct
(bullying) Assistant Chief Constable No misconduct found 38 Professional decision-making
(process) Chief Constable Dismissed
39 Professional decision-making (process)
Chief Constable No misconduct found
40 Professional decision-making
(process) Chief Constable No misconduct found