Ethical Issues

Having studied Walford (1994), Platt (2001) and BERA (2004), I identified a number of ethical issues associated with interviewing elites that required

consideration in designing my research. The first of these is confidentiality through anonymity. However, it would be impossible to ensure anonymity for the chief officers and other leaders who are part of the research as they have by the very nature of their positions "high visibility" (Walford 1994, p22). Even if names are kept anonymous, they will be able to be recognised by the information in the case studies. There were also consequences for me being known within my "community" and therefore I bear a "social responsibility for the research" that I "will need to live with" (Platt 2001, p75).

The next set of ethical issues, which I have grouped together, relate to power relationships, control and knowledge. Walford (1994) states that politicians and senior government officials are "well versed in controlling any information they provide" (p5) and Ball, in Walford (1994), identifies from his own research that

elites will not only want to "control the event” they will also want to “control meanings" (p96). Therefore knowledge in this context is included within the power and control issues as all these aspects have a bearing on the research method selected. It is acknowledged by McHugh in Walford (1994) that elite subjects will be very knowledgeable and the researcher needs to be well prepared. He stresses that there are two stages of preparation. The first, before the interviews take place, is “remote” and includes, for example, researching the person or company to get

background information about them and the second is “proximate” or just prior to the interview where, for example, the researcher needs to ensure the actual questions to be used are appropriate and that recording equipment is working.

Elite subjects may have already been subjected to research or they may have undertaken it themselves. I therefore needed to be aware that they were likely to be able to “construct a conception of what the interview is meant to be about” (Platt 2001, p77), which would impact on how they behaved. Another aspect about

knowledge which is more practical than ethical is that assumptions could be made by the interviewees about our mutually shared understandings. However, it has been shown by Platt (2001) that it is important to “get it all down on paper” otherwise biases are unnecessarily introduced and "key data will not be recorded" (p78). Platt (2001) also recognises that although it is important for the researcher to give the interviewee a full account of the rationale and purpose of the study the focus of the interview should be on the research questions not the nature of the study.

To control for some of the issues outlined above I used, as Walford (1994) suggests, semi-structured interviews in order to "offer some control over interviews" acting "as

a foil to those who were used to being deferred to and listened to or just talking their own agenda" (p96). Also to make the interview work I would need to use "conscious role-playing" (Platt 2001, p80). This is important to ensure that the interviewer maintains the role of researcher and not one of a colleague in the same community. Although this in itself has problems as Platt (2001) outlines it is difficult in

maintaining your own intellectual integrity if you do not reveal your own hypotheses. However, the role played by the researcher needs to be understood and carried out successfully to ensure the data given and received and that knowledge is seen to be “excavated” not “constructed” (Mason 2002, p63). The interviewee should be providing “raw data” (Platt 2001, p80), which the researcher interprets and so as not to create a jointly agreed interpretation of the events.

The roles of interviewee and the interviewer will also not be the only ones present. There will also be a relationship based on the fact that outside the situation they are equals and that they belong to the same community. The two players have to manage their own feelings and themselves. I therefore had to ensure I controlled how much of me as an elite was within the role of me as a researcher.

Platt (2001) reminds us that "no technique is problem-free" and that "the weakness of interviewing is intrinsically bound up with its strengths as a specialised mode of social interaction" (p89). Mason (2002) reiterates that it is this social interpretation or context of the interview that is important. The relationship between the elite

understand these complexities and develop a sense of how they will materialise during my interview interactions.

Harvey, Oppenheim and Miller in Cohen at el (2001) also suggest that “both

interviewer and interviewee need to be prepared in advance … if its potential is to be realised” (p291). In order to do this, while considering all the issues and possible problems outlined above, I decided to send my interviewees my thesis title and research questions in advance of the actual interview. I did this for a number of reasons. The first was to make it very clear to the interviewee what I was researching and, although I had received their consent, it was another opportunity to ensure they felt comfortable answering the questions. The next reason was to reduce the time needed to further explain my research as this would avoid the interview shifting to a discussion. It also enabled the experienced interviewee to do some preparatory thinking which was valued. Two other issues emerged, one of mutual respect in that I was seen to be continuing to undertake personal development albeit with a heavy workload and responsibility and the other was that it gave the interviewee time to reflect on what had happened within their own authority which they said was very useful.

3.3.5 Research Methodology and Method – Creating Case Studies Using Semi-