Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-npwhs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T13:45:32.018Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Researching Up? Interviews, Emotionality and Policy-Making Elites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2009

SARAH NEAL  and
EUGENE MCLAUGHLIN
SARAH NEAL
Affiliation:
Faculty of Social Sciences, Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA email: s.neal@open.ac.uk
EUGENE MCLAUGHLIN
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, City University, Northampton Square, London, EC1V 0HB email: e.mclaughlin@city.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article recounts the methodological story of a qualitative research project that investigated the work of the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain and the news media's deconstruction of the Commission's report – the Parekh Report – which was published on 11 October 2000. Our project used a multi-method fieldwork approach, combining textual analysis of news media coverage and the extensive documentary archives of the Commission, along with semi-structured interviews with Commissioners and other figures involved in the publication of the Report. The article attempts to offer a reflexive account of the experiences of interviewing a particular public policy-making elite and examines how a particular ‘public trauma’ – that is, the damaging political fall-out of extremely negative news media coverage of the Parekh Report – inflected our research encounters. We argue that the openness with which many of the participants spoke about this traumatic experience suggests that the production of policy documents can constitute highly emotional labour for participants. We extend this argument by examining how this openness also reveals the instabilities and uncertainties of power within the research interviewee/interviewer relationship. In this way the article seeks to contribute to debates about the problems of defining the category ‘elites’ in both public policy and social research worlds.

Information

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 38 , Issue 4 , October 2009 , pp. 689 - 707
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ahmed, S. (2004), The Cultural Politics of Emotion, Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press.Google Scholar
Ball, S. (1993), ‘Ethnography in the corridors of power: the diary of a research tourist. Reflections on the fieldwork for “Politics and Policy-making in Education”’, paper presented to ESRC 1988 Education Reform Act research seminar, University of Warwick.Google Scholar
Ball, S. (2005), Education Policy and Social Class: The Selected Works of Stephen Ball, London: Routledge Falmer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnard, M., Taylor, J., Dixon, J., Purdon, S. and O'Connor, W. (2007), Researching the Very Wealthy: Results from a Feasibility Study, London: National Centre for Social Research.Google Scholar
Bochel, C. and Bochel, H. (2004), The UK Policy Process, London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bondi, L. (2003), ‘Empathy and identification: conceptual resources for feminist fieldwork’, ACME: International Journal of Critical Geography, 2: 1, 64–76.Google Scholar
Bourne, J. with Sivanadan, A. (1982), ‘Cheerleaders and ombudsmen: the sociology of race relations in Britain’, Race and Class, 21: 331–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, S. (2006), ‘Theory and practice: psychoanalytic sociology as psycho-social studies’, Sociology, 40: 6, 1153–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cochrane, A. (1998), ‘Illusions of power: interviewing local elite’, Environment and Planning A, 30: 2121–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commission for the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain (2000), The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain, London: Profile Books.Google Scholar
Conti, J. A. and O'Neil, M. (2007), ‘Studying power: qualitative methods and the global elite’, Qualitative Research, 7: 1, 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, F. L., Barabas, J. and Page, I. (2002), ‘Invoking public opinion: policy elites and social security’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 66: 235–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craib, I. (1997), ‘Social construction as social psychosis’, Sociology, 31: 1, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, P. (2004), MI6 and the Machinery of Spying (Studies in Intelligence), London: Frank Cass.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desmond, M. (2004), ‘Methodological challenges posed in studying as elite in the field’, Area, 36: 3, 262–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duelli Klein, R. (1993), ‘How to do what we want to do: thoughts about feminist methodology’, in Bowles, G. and Duelli Klein, R. (eds.), Theories of Women's Studies, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Duke, K. (2002), ‘Getting beyond the official line: reflections on dilemmas of access, knowledge and power in researching policy networks’, Journal of Social Policy, 31: 1, 39–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duke, K. (2003), Drugs, Prisons and Policy-Making, London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, F. and Forester, R. (eds.) (1983), The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning, London: University College Press.Google Scholar
Fortier, A. M. (2005), ‘Pride politics and multiculturalist citizenship’, in Lewis, G. and Neal, S. (eds.), Migration and Citizenship, Ethnic and Racial Studies, Special Issue, 28: 3, 423–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerwirtz, S. and Ozga, J (1993), ‘Sex, lies and audiotape: interviewing the education policy elite’, paper presented to ESRC 1988 Education Reform Act research seminar, University of Warwick.Google Scholar
Glees, A., Davies, P. and Morrison, J. (2006), The Open Side of Democracy: Britain's Intelligence and Security Committee, London: Social Affairs Unit.Google Scholar
Harding, S. (1987), Feminism and Methodology: Social Science Issues, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Hertz, R. and Imber, J. (1995), Studying Elites Using Qualitative Methods, London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, S. (1993), ‘Even sociologists fall in love: an exploration in the sociology of emotions’, Sociology, 27: 1, 201–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liazos, A. (1972), ‘The poverty of sociology of deviance: nuts, sluts and perverts’, Social Problems, 20: 103–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDowell, L. (1992), ‘Doing gender: feminism, feminists and research methods in human geography’, Transactions, Institute of British Geographers, 17: 399–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, E. and Neal, S. (2004), ‘Misrepresenting the multicultural nation: the policy process, news media management and the Parekh Report’, Policy Studies, 25: 3, 155–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, E. and Neal, S. (2007), ‘The public sphere and public interventions on race and nation: intellectuals, policy formation and the Parekh Report’, Cultural Studies, Special Issue.Google Scholar
Moyser, G. and Wagstaffe, M. (eds.) (1987), Research Methods for Elite Studies, London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Neal, S. (1995), ‘Researching powerful people from a feminist and anti-racist perspective: a note on gender, collusion and marginality’, British Journal of Educational Research, 21: 4, 506–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neal, S. (1998), The Making of Equal Opportunities Polices in Universities, Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Neal, S. (2003), ‘Scarman, Macpherson and the media: how newspapers respond to race centred policy interventions’, Journal of Social Policy, 32: 1, 55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oakley, A. (1981), ‘Interviewing women: a contradiction in terms?’, in Roberts, H. (ed.), Doing Feminist Research, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Olssen, M. (2004), ‘From the Crick Report to the Parekh Report: multiculturalism, cultural difference and democracy – the revising of citizenship education’, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 25: 2, 179–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, C. (2000), ‘Spin doctors and sports brokers: researching elites in sports’, International Review for Sociology of Sport, 35: 3, 364–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parekh, B. (2001), ‘Reporting on a report’, Runnymede Trust Bulletin, 326, June: 1–7.Google Scholar
Petley, J. (2000), ‘A case of mistaken identity’, Index on Censorship, pp. 20–9.Google Scholar
Pilkington, A. (2003), Racial Disadvantage and Ethnic Diversity in Britain, London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Pimlott, B. (2002), The Queen: Elizabeth II and the Monarchy, London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Probyn, E. (2005), Blush: Faces of Shame, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Punch, M. (1986), The Politics and Ethics of Fieldwork, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Rein, M. and Schon, D. (1993), ‘Reframing policy discourse’, in Fischer, F. and Forester, R. (eds.), The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning, London: University College Press.Google Scholar
Richards, D. (2007), ‘Elite interviewing: approaches and pitfalls’, Politics, 16: 3, 199–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, R. (2000), ‘Children will be told lies – distortions, untruths and abuse in media coverage’, Runnymede Trust Bulletin, 324, December, 12–13.Google Scholar
Rose, E. J. B. (1969), Colour and Citizenship: A Report on British Race Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rose, G. (1997), ‘Situating knowledges: positionality, reflexivities and other tactics’, Progress in Human Geography, 21: 3, 305–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shurmer-Smith, P. (1998), ‘Becoming a memsahib: working with the Indian Administration Service’, Environment and Planning A, 30: 2163–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, D. (2002), Elite Deviance, Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Smart, C. (1984), The Ties That Bind: Law, Marriage and the Reproduction of Patriarchal Relations, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Smith, K. (2006), ‘Problematising power relations in “elite” interviews’, GeoForum, 37: 643–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, L. and Wise, S. (1983), Breaking Out: Feminist Consciousness and Feminist Research, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Troyna, B. (1993), ‘Sounding a discordant note? “Being critical” and “critical beings” in education policy research’, paper presented to fifth Cambridge International Conference on Education Evaluation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Walford, G. (ed.) (1997), Researching the Powerful in Education, London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
Ward, K. G. and Jones, M. (1999), ‘Researching local elites: reflexivity, “situatedness” and political-temporal contingency’, GeoForum, 30: 4, 301–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welch, C., Marschan-Piekkvi, R., Penttinen, H. and Tahvanainen, M. (2002), ‘Corporate elites as informants in qualitative international business research’, International Business Review, 11: 5, 611–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, S. (1998), ‘Modernity and the emotions: corporeal reflections on the (ir)rational’, Sociology, 32: 4, 747–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar