RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

RESEARCHING POWERFUL PEOPLE 129
they’ll know you are not a way-out person who
will distort what they say’ (McHugh 1994: 56).
Access is a significant concern in researching the
powerful, particularly if the issues being researched
are controversial or contested. Walford (1994c:
222, 223) suggests that it can be eased through
informal and personal ‘behind the scenes’ contacts:
‘the more sponsorship that can be obtained, the
better’, be it institutional or personal. Access can
be eased if the research is seen to be ‘harmless’
(Walford 1994c: 223); in this respect Walford
reports that female researchers may be at an
advantage in that they are viewed as more harmless
and non-threatening. Walford also makes the
point that ‘persistence pays’ (p. 224); as he writes
elsewhere (Walford 2001: 31), ‘access is a process
and not a once-only decision’.
McHugh (1994) also reports the need for
meticulous preparation for an interview with the
powerful person, to understand the full picture
and to be as fully informed as the interviewee,
in terms of facts, information and terminology,
so that it is an exchange between the informed
rather than an airing of ignorance, i.e. to do
one’s homework. He also states the need for the
interview questions to be thoroughly planned and
prepared, with very careful framing of questions.
McHugh (1994: 60, 62) suggests that during the
interview it is important for the interviewer not
only to be as flexible as possible, to follow the
train of thought of the respondent, but also to be
persistent if the interviewee does not address the
issue. However, he reminds us that ‘an interview
is of course not a courtroom’ (p. 62) and so
tact, diplomacy and – importantly – empathy are
essential. Diplomacy in great measure is necessary
when tackling powerful people about issues that
might reveal their failure or incompetence, and
powerful people may wish to exercise control over
which questions they answer. Preparation for the
conduct as well as the content of the interview
is vital.
There are difficulties in reporting sensitive
research with the powerful, as charges of bias may
be difficult to avoid, not least because research
reports and publications are placed in the public
domain. Walford (2001: 141) indicates the risk
of libel actions if public figures are named. He
asks (1994b: 84) ‘to what extent is it right
to allow others to believe that you agree with
them’, even if you do not Should the researcher’s
own political, ideological or religious views be
declared As Mickelson (1994: 147) states: ‘I
was not completely candid when I interviewed
these powerful people. I am far more genuine
and candid when I am interviewing non-powerful
people’. Deem (1994: 156) reports that she and her
co-researcher encountered ‘resistance and access
problems in relation to our assumed ideological
opposition to Conservative government education
reforms’, where access might be blocked ‘on the
grounds that ours was not a neutral study’.
Mickelson (1994: 147) takes this further in
identifying an ethical dilemma when ‘at times, the
powerful have uttered abhorrent comments in the
course of the interview’. Should the researcher say
nothing, thereby tacitly condoning the speaker’s
comments, or speak out, thereby risking closing
the interview She contends that, in retrospect,
she wished that she had challenged these views,
and had been more assertive (Mickelson 1994:
148). Walford (2001) reports the example of an
interview with a church minister whose views
included ones with which he disagreed:
AIDS is basically a homosexual disease ... and is
doing a very effective job of ridding the population
of undesirables. In Africa it’s basically a non-existent
disease in many places ....Ifyou’reawoollywoofter,
you get what you deserve ....Iwouldneveremploy
ahomosexualtoteachatmyschool.
(Walford 2001: 137)
In researching powerful people Mickelson
(1994: 132) observes that they are rarely women,
yet researchers are often women. This gender
divide might prove problematic. Deem (1994:
157) reports that, as a woman, she encountered
greater difficulty in conducting research than did
her male colleague, even though, in fact, she
held a more senior position than him. On the
other hand, she reports that males tended to be
more open with female than male researchers,
as females researchers were regarded as less
important. Gewirtz and Ozga (1994) report:
Chapter 5