Primary research material was collected by means of qualitative interviews with elite actors in each country. These interviews were conducted face to face and involved two field visits each to Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands. Being resident in Ireland it was possible to spread the work in that country over a longer period. The interviews were semi-structured to allow participants to range freely over subjects they were happy to discourse on, and were underpinned by the principle of triangulation (cross checking the accuracy of information with alternative sources as far as possible).
Overall the research was conducted between 2011 and early 2013. The procedure received pre-clearance from the Ethics Committee of the National University of Ireland at Maynooth (NUIM) and followed the guidance provided in Alan Bryman (2008, Chapter 18). A list of those interviewed is included in Appendix 1.
For the purpose of analysing the research material to obtain the most explanatory power from it a dual approach was adopted in the case of Ireland. This involved drawing on both the fields of international relations and of the new institutionalisms in the manner described below. Moreover, Ireland presents a more complex case
54
because of the existence of countertendencies to an ideal type of liberal market economy. It was decided to use this methodology for Ireland because of the access available to a wide range of actors in politics, public administration, business and trade unions. It was also felt to be the most effective approach to getting explanatory power out of the interplay of institutions, policy and ideas.
In Denmark three of the people interviewed were from the world of politics, one was from a university based sociological institute, one had both business and university connections, and one was from the trade unions. In Finland one interviewee was from politics, two were from public administration, two were from research institutes, one was from a business related university R&D fund, one was from the disability sector, and one was from the trade union centre. Three people interviewed in the Netherlands were politicians, two were trade unionists, one was from business, one was head of the Social & Economic Council with a business background, and one was a university professor. In Ireland five people were from the world of politics, ten were from public administration, eight were from business, one was from academia and politics, two were from trade unionism and politics and two were trade unionists. These people were selected because they were judged to be either key actors or in a position of some influence. Access was a crucial consideration too and this was achieved through networks in academia, business, politics, public administration and trade unions.
Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2012:346-347) call attention to the need for reflexivity – considering the possibility of lack of objectivity or bias on the part of the researcher – when conducting research. In that spirit the reader should be aware that this researcher has been a participant either direct or indirect in some of the matters inquired into. Specifically, he is currently General Secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU), a member of the Executive Committee of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), and a former Director of the Irish Central Bank. Clearly it is not possible to lay claim to complete detachment and it is perhaps unusual for people who have been active in aspects of public affairs to study same as a social scientist. That said, there are certain advantages in terms of access to key decision makers from being part of a network. Being personally known to people means that interviews can be conducted in a more relaxed and open way.
55
The mirror image of this is that people might be more guarded in what they choose to reveal. A case in point could be representatives of employers’ organisations with whom the researcher has a professionally adversarial (but good personal) relationship. The experience of conducting many quite long interviews is that people were unfailingly courteous, open and discursive. In one case one of the interviewees asked for the recorder to be turned off, having originally assented to its use, but was happy to proceed on the basis of written notes. There is also a possibility that high profile interviewees subjected to public criticism – former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern for example – might indulge in self-justification in the knowledge that their actions might come under further scrutiny. This must be balanced against the acute knowledge of public affairs in the possession of these interviewees. In Bertie Ahern’s case he represented Ireland at the European Council for twenty-one years and was one of the longest serving Prime Ministers in Europe.
It would be hard to think of anyone with greater practical knowledge of Ireland’s experience of European integration. In the case of the present and former governors of the Irish Central Bank it will be seen that triangulation is used to good effect to bring out contrasting perspectives on the 2008 financial crisis and the bank’s role in it (see pp. 206-207). Finally, it should be noted that not all those approached agreed to be interviewed. EU Commissioner Ollie Rehn declined for lack of time while former Taoiseach Brian Cowen and former Secretary to the Department of Health, Michael Scanlan simply declined. Former Prime Minister of Finland, Paavo Lipponen, said he longer gave interviews as he was too busy.
Having regard to the foregoing the potential for bias was addressed in two ways.
First by ensuring that the people interviewed were disproportionately drawn from the worlds of business, politics and public administration by comparison with the trade unions in Ireland. A second filter against bias was employed through asking two interviewees, one a former secretary general to the government and the other a former Minister and Advisor to the liberal Progressive Democratic Party,12 to read drafts of chapters at different stages of development and to give feedback. More generally the danger of encountering group think, or ‘cognitive lock’ as Blyth (2002) describes it, amongst the elite actors interviewed was countered by having a wide
12 The Progressive Democratic Party was a small party with a strong liberal platform much like the Free Democrats in Germany. It was formed in 1987 and was a coalition partner in government for most of the period until its demise in 2010. Its outlook was not sympathetic to trade unionism although it supported Social Partnership for pragmatic reasons.
56
ranging group of interviewees whose interests would sometimes be opposed one to the other, and by asking international interviewees for their impressions of Irish policy at different stages. This risk was also mitigated by an extensive review of literature. In his comparison of four countries Scharpf (1991) followed a similar approach noting that elite interviews were essential to his research project because,
‘one must meet the actors in their milieu before one can interpret “objective” data’
(ibid: xix). Moreover, Katzenstein’s focus is on elites. He observes that while letting international markets force economic adjustments, elites in small open economies choose a variety of economic and social policies that mitigate the costs of change (Katzenstein, 1985: 24).