Interviews

A total of 42 semi-structured interviews were conducted with local and national stakeholders who could provide an insight into the research topic (see Appendix B). These lasted between fifty and ninety minutes. Interviews enabled access to participants' sense-

making (Goodwin & Horowitz, 2002; Bryman, 2008) and therefore provided the greatest depth for understanding how police accountability operates from the point of view of those engaged directly within and around those structures. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and then analysed using Nvivo. However, caution was required in interpreting interview data because some interviewees may have engaged in presentation management in order to place themselves in the best light rather than answer questions more honestly (Goffman, 1959; Riach, 2009). Helpfully, analysis of statistical data, documentary analysis and field observations provided ways of verifying some claims made, such as how proactive and transparent police officers were in consulting the public.

Participants were granted anonymity by default unless explicitly opting to be named. Four people wished to remain anonymous (two senior officers, one chief officer, and one public appointee from a national policing body). However, the unique positions occupied by most interviewees meant that they could have been easily identified by a process of elimination. Therefore, a blanket policy of anonymity was applied to all participants. Organisational affiliations and job titles were stripped away and categorised into the following four groups:

 ChiefOfficer: all interviewees of at least of the rank of assistant chief constable.

 Commissioner: elected PCCs and their appointed deputies.

 National: public appointees or staff (included warranted police officers) employed by the following national policing bodies: Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, Independent Police Complaints Commission, College of Policing, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

 Public: a category consisting of members of the public interviewed who were part of local police-community scrutiny groups or community-led groups claiming to

represent the interests of ethnic minorities, and elected councillors on the police and crime panels. This final category of interviewees are attributed to their police force area as doing so helps to reveal important differences and similarities in the case study areas without revealing their identities.

This blanket anonymity also meant that the findings chapters had to be arranged thematically rather than by a case-by-case basis. Whilst losing some ability to contrast findings between each force, it meant that the full range of transcripts could be used to evidence the most significant findings, particularly in relation to how PCCs sought to negotiate their role with their chief constables (chapter 9).

Some difficulty was experienced in negotiating access into police forces to conduct interviews, as is typical of police research more generally (Reiner, 2000). Interview requests were sent to key national and local stakeholders and while most were willing to participate, accessing operational officers or chief officers was more difficult. For example, Leicestershire police required prior authorisation from an internal research committee in order to conduct any interview or observation even with the PCC's office despite the latter's supposed independence of the police and duty to hold it to account. Three months after the request was made, the committee rejected the application. Leicestershire was an ideal contrast to Nottinghamshire and the West Midlands due to its historic policing issues and recent changes to stop and search governance following legal action for potentially discriminatory practice (see EHRC, 2010; 2013). This resulted in a significant amount of time and work lost and the list of reserve cases re-examined for the second most suitable alternative: Suffolk.

The applied nature of the PhD meant that the researcher came into contact with a wide variety of key national actors, all of whom were approached for interviews in addition to local actors encountered during field observations. This familiarity appeared to engender trust to facilitate frank discussions but occasionally required careful management to ensure answers best reflected participants' views rather than any attempt to appease StopWatch, the collaborative partner, whose reputation for intensive scrutiny of police practice preceded it. However, this only appeared to be a problem with some senior officers interviewed rather than all participants, for example:

“I get some of the arguments for it [re-recording stop and accounts] but our force has made a decision that we’re not going to do it. I think for me- I know you’ve got a different argument ((laughs))”

WestMids/Police/01 WestMids/Police/01 was clearly conscious of the researcher's connection with StopWatch which influenced his/her response and some other officers interviewed. To promote open exchanges, interviewees were reminded that their participation would remain anonymous, that the researcher retained full control over the direction and context of the thesis, and that its semi-structured nature gave them the ideal opportunity to present alternative views or challenge the nature of questioning, although no-one actually did this save for two chief officers and a PCC. Interviews with chief officers was the most difficult to manage owing to their tendencies to deflect questions or exaggerate confidentiality concerns to avoid divulging information, particularly in relation to counter-terrorism policing. The aforementioned chief officers and PCC became frustrated after being presented with evidence gathered from other methods that contradicted their rather optimistic assessment of how effective local arrangements were in facilitating public scrutiny. One chief took particular exception by complaining:

“I mean, it’s a different subject- I’m not sure where we’re going today. If you want to talk about where we are with stop and search I’ll bring some

people in who can talk you through in some more detail in relation to it. [However] If you’re happy to talk about how we engage with the police and crime commissioners and chief constable?”

ChiefOfficer/02 ChiefOfficer/02's reaction was the most extreme of all chief and senior officers who become frustrated with being asked questions that revealed weaknesses in the local accountability structures that they were keen to present as effective. Stop and search was controversial because chief officers appeared to be used to research interviews on more general issues that they could speculate about their relationship with their PCCs rather than specific areas of contention, as another more friendly chief officer indicated during their interview. Fortunately, questions predicted to spark the most discomfort were left towards the end of interviews and interviewees were also informed that any challenges to the questions were welcomed as it would ensure that the research better reflects their social reality. However, they appeared to be more concerned about the weaknesses that the questions exposed in police accountability rather than the validity of the research focus, particularly since every interviewee had themselves identified stop and search as one of the most pressing local issues before they were asked a single question on it (see Appendix C).

Surprisingly, the most uncomfortable experiences for the researcher arose from interviews with councillors and members of the public or 'community leaders' involved in scrutinising the police. Some interviews took an unexpected turn when local politicians or citizens launched politically motivated attacks against rival individuals or community groups, often trying to solicit a response. In these cases, grievances were allowed to be aired where it related to the research topic and any expectations to join in 'bashing' rivals was met with an awkward, deafening silence used to move the conversation on. These moments were very

revealing of how the lacking unity amongst local leaders and community groups was undermining more effective police accountability, as discussed in subsequent chapters.

A core line of questioning related to the relationship between race/ethnicity and experiences of the police but, unexpectedly, the researcher's own ethnicity became a topic of interest and this may have influenced some participants. Interviewees from ethnic minority backgrounds were pleased to see another person from a minority background research this topic and this appeared to have an endearing effect because they assumed a sense of shared experience. This usually became apparent towards the end of the interview or as part of a rich discussion immediately after audio-recording had stopped. Certainly, these respondents appeared very supportive and forthcoming in their views. This openness was interpreted as a positive sign that enough rapport had been built to facilitate frank discussions about deeply personal issues. Whilst this bias was unavoidable, care was taken to avoid directly influencing participants' answers by suspending discussions about the researcher's ethnicity until the end of the interview. Non-ethnic minority interviewees were to varying degrees also sensitive to this because some of their answers seemed constructed to demonstrate awareness of a variety of ethnic groups beyond the usual discussion of black people's policing experiences. Often, it appeared to be a genuine attempt to avoid excluding the researcher’s presumed heritage from the topic. A typical way this manifested itself was for interviewees to speak predominantly about black people (or Asians in relation to counter-terrorism powers)- perhaps a reflection of how police-recorded data is interpreted- only to then quickly throw in other groups that the researcher might have belonged to but as an after-thought. This made it difficult to judge the extent to which the policing experiences of these other minority groups feature so highly in routine decision- making.

Finally, the changing government rhetoric would have also influenced officers and PCCs interviewed. For example, one senior officer who extended an invitation to meet with StopWatch right at the start of the PhD berated a certain study that had been extremely critical of their force's use of stop and search. However, during an interview a year later, s/he presented an entirely different view having apparently forgotten about this meeting. Ultimately, it was hard to assess whether their later views 'toed-the-party-line' or was the respondents' genuinely held belief, but interviewing a wide range of actors and undertaking field observations and documentary analysis provided some means of verifying whether what interviewees said reflected actual practice.