40
as an examining board trustee in order to gain access to what has always been an area
concealed behind the confidential nature of the examining business.
Gewirtz and Ozga acknowledge a similar advantage: “Access was considerably eased
by the fact that one of us has worked closely with a former Deputy Permanent
secretary, who was invaluable in directing us to his colleagues and friends, and who
gained their co-operation by describing us as ‘perfectly harmless” (Gewirtz and
Ozgan 1994: 193). Geoffrey Walford, in his editorial ‘Reflections on researching the
powerful’ suggests that:
It would seem that access is more likely to be granted if the researchers appear
to be... ‘perfectly harmless’. In our sexist society, where it is men who hold most
of the powerful positions, female researchers may be at an advantage in being
perceived as being ‘harmless ’, especially if they are young and not in senior
positions within their own organizations.
(Walford 1994: 223)
In my case, although not young and having been in a relatively in∩uential position, I
believe I was seen not as “harmless” but as trustworthy because I was known to most
of the individuals I was interviewing. This was I think not ‘a’ but ‘the’ essential
advantage in my gaining access. The fact that my interviews were in the interest of
academic research rather than, for example, journalism, was also a factor in
facilitating access to a publicity-shy segment of the educational world.
In explaining the methodology of this research, it is important to make clear the
potential hazards inherent in my dual role as a researcher on the outside seeking data,
and an insider who gains access to that data because of a privileged position. The
methodological concerns one faces were described by Susan Semel:
... Writing the history of a school in which one has been so intimately involved
poses significant methodological concerns.
I am cognizant that many of the problems of participant observation...are
applicable to my research.