47
to provide a transcript of the interview, which would be tape recorded, so that the
subjects could withdraw any material deemed sensitive.
All requests were successful with the exception of those to one individual formerly at
the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and two who had been at the Department
for Education and Skills; one individual involved during the 1990s had moved out of
the education department and another could not spare the time to be interviewed. It is,
I think, significant that I was known to virtually all those who agreed to be
interviewed. The ability of civil servants to elude investigations into their involvement
in policy-making remains a major obstacle , one which I have not succeeded in
overcoming.
For each interview, I met the subject in his/her office or a place of his/her choosing. I
began by restating what I had explained in my letter, that my interest was in the
pressures on the examining boards during the 1990s. I asked each subject to begin by
recalling that period, and talking about their perceptions. When they had reached the
end of that ‘stream of consciousness’, I asked them to comment on a list of issues my
research had suggested as important. [See Figure 2.1]
Each interview lasted approximately one hour. Two subjects requested to see
transcripts, but none placed any restriction on my use of the data.
Lord Dearing agreed to be interviewed at the House of Lords, but in deference to his
age, I followed a different procedure. Rather than ask him about particular factors,
during the 1990s, I simply asked about thinking at the time of his 1996 Report.
Technical problems meant that the interview was not fully recorded, and I had only
post-interview notes rather than a verbatim transcript. I interviewed Professor Gosden
in the Archives Department of Leeds University.