This section will describe the research design of the thesis, including reasons for choosing a multiple-embedded case study and the sources of data used for analysis.
2.4.1 Multiple-embedded case study
The time period covered included the following administrations: • Conservative Government (1990-1997)
46 These time periods were chosen because they demonstrated a significant amount of change in sentencing policy, both within and between governments. The study began by becoming familiar with the developments of the case studies; sentencing legislation, political strategies, key actors entering the field and external events related to penal policy and how they affected the prison population.
In order to address the aims and objectives of this research, a rich and in-depth analysis of political structure and decision-making processes were framed within a case study research design. Each administration was assigned as its own case, which gave structure for the organisation of a large amount of data to benefit data collection and analysis (Yin, 2009). This research design allowed for the case to be analysed independently, as well as its intertextuality with its former and latter periodisation. Referring to Coffee and Atkinson’s (2004) inter- textuality concerns the administration forming part of a context or background to its subsequent government. Looking at “operational links over time” (Yin, 2009:9), the complexity and specific nature of each administration could be appreciated and scrutinised (Stake, 1995).
Prior to the collection of data, the case study was chosen based on descriptions of penal policy in England and Wales within existing literature. Although most literature is based on policy within the United States, there is a significant amount of literature pertaining to political developments in England and Wales (see Downes & Morgan, 1997; 2007; Tonry, 2003; 2004; 2007; Ryan, 1983; Dunbar & Langdon, 1998; Faulkner, 2006; Faulkner & Burnett, 2012). A revision of these narratives pointed to the most substantive and politically contentious moments in penal policy history. These significant points have been noted and presented in a graph (see appendix I) which better illustrates the appropriateness of the time period and multiple case studies.
2.4.2 Units of analysis
A broad period of time was chosen for analysis due to the objectives of tracking continuity and change of sentencing policy. A narrower time period would not be able to do this as successfully. Although resources did not allow the period to be analysed fully in detail, certain points in time were selected as a reflection of that surrounding time period. This was achieved by ‘flagship’ Criminal Justice Acts which made significant changes to sentencing legislation
47 during the time period studied. A review of the criminal justice legislation and sentencing principles and practice resulted in the following Criminal Justice Acts being chosen as units of analysis, with specific focus on relevant sections of each criminal justice act relating to sentencing principles and/or practices (see appendix II):
• Criminal Justice Act 1991
• Crime and Public Order Act 1994 • Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 • Crime and Disorder Act 1998 • Criminal Justice Act 2003
• Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
Each Act was chosen due to its relevance to sentencing legislation, and the changes that each Act made to sentencing policy outcomes. The relevancy of the sections within the Act were determined by its focus on how a criminal act is punished. This includes new offences but also how those offences were responded to. The point of relevance is when conviction has been achieved and the sentence is handed down. This is due to the nature of the punitive turn claims; how punishment has become more severe and how criminal justice is replacing social welfare as a means of managing society. Also, each of the flagship Acts witnessed significant resistance and opposition to their implementation. This is a coincidence, as the Acts were not chosen on this premise. Rather, the resistance identified in initial data analysis justifies the direction taken in this thesis.
For each criminal justice Act, the passage of the Bill through Parliament was followed. This passage is illustrated by Figure 1:
48
Figure 1 – Passage of a Bill through Parliament https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/
2.4.3 Data collection
Data collection involved a cross-referencing of sources in order to gain an accurate understanding of the time period and its developments.
Data included:
• 40 Parliamentary debates of relevant legislation (see appendices III) which corresponded with the stages as shown in Figure 1.
• 17 speeches by key actors in the political field • 8 primary interviews
• Transcripts of 10 secondary interviews conducted by the Justice Select Committee • 16 government documents surrounding relevant legislation
• 9 third party documents on relevant legislative provisions • 17 media articles (as sources of information)
• 8 autobiographies and biographies of key actors
Key actors/organisations included: • The Prime Minister
• Political advisors
• Home Secretary (pre 2007)
49 • Minister of Prisons
• Ministry of Justice Under Secretaries of State • Leaders of the opposition parties
• Civil Servants who worked in the Home Office Research and Planning Unit • Penal Reform Charities
• Home Affairs Select Committee
Documents
Initial data collection involved secondary analysis of government archives. Documents concerning the above ‘flagship’ Acts of Parliament were analysed using content analysis of methods, objectives and justifications for punishment being suggested, in order to establish trends of crime control doctrines during that time period. Organising the documents into chronological order and into theoretical themes allowed the genealogy of ideas to be traced, as well as to see the processes of how certain decisions were made and the reasons behind particular policies being formed and implemented (Gidley, 2004).
Collection of the legislation and Government documents surrounding the legislation informed the study of the dominant agenda and what the new legislation intended to propose. Manifestos and speeches from political leaders were collected in order to explore the rhetoric, priorities and agendas of the speakers in the House of Parliament. Collection of relevant discussions in Hansard, the minutes of sessions of the Home Affairs Select Committee, documentation from pressure group activity and representations highlighted resistance, competition and negotiation of the dominant agenda – thus shedding light on the ‘politics’ behind the decision-making process. Additionally, political memoirs were collected in order to appreciate the full extent of specific concerns by influential policymakers and political leaders and what frustrations they came up against when trying to operationalise a specific agenda.
Media articles via the Nexis search engine were utilised in order to access relevant data sources, including extracts from speeches and debates that were not available from any other source. Therefore, the media articles were used as a source of identifying further opportunities for data, rather than data in themselves.
50
Semi-structured interviews
After familiarisation with the main developments of penal policy and the documents collected, the intention was to cross-reference analysis of documentary data with primary semi-structured interviews with key actors in the decision-making process during the time of study, as well as to attain a deeper level of understanding of developments within the organisation in relation to policy formation. Purposive sampling of those believed to be key actors in the decision-making process was initiated with the intention of creating a snowballing effect. Interviews were conducted with four retired Home Office researchers (two were interviewed at the same time), one retired member of the Sentencing Advisory Panel and distinguished criminologist who has had experience in the legislative arena, and one Chief Executive of a penal lobbyist group (see appendix IV for letter of request and consent form). Interviews were conducted between May 2017 and February 2018.
Interview A
Retired member of the Home Office Research and Planning Unit (HORPU) Interview B*
Interview C* Interview D
Interview E Chief Executive of a penal reform group
Interview F** Retired member of the Sentencing Advisory
Panel *Conducted at the same time
** Telephone interview
Table 1 – List of interviewee participants
The interviews consisted of a general discussion around the respondents’ position within the field and changes in sentencing legislation that occurred during their time in their respective positions. Questions were semi-structured and open, in order to offer the opportunity for elite respondents to discuss anything which they felt was important or relevant to the topic (Harvey, 2011). Theoretical propositions outlined by proponents of the punitive turn were translated into suitable questions, in order to reflect on the respondent’s opinion of how accurate the propositions were.
51 There were benefits and limitations to the interviews. Richards (1996) highlights how interviews can help to understand the context of the research area and to interpret documents/reports, as well as personalities who were involved in relevant decision-making processes. This was achieved with some participants who had direct involvement and communication (or lack of) with key players in the field. This was cross-referenced with what was implied by other sources of data such as Parliamentary debates, autobiographies and secondary interviews with the key players in question (discussed in the empirical chapters). Since autobiographies are known for being highly managed and self-serving accounts, the primary interviews were a more direct approach to gathering relevant data that was not managed in the same way.
There are benefits of primary interviews with key actors in the field for understanding political competition of penal policy when augmented with documentary analyses. For example, the interviews conducted revealed important dynamics and types of relationships between organisational agencies and their actors, specifically between Ministers and civil servants in the Home Office Research and Planning Unit (HORPU). This included hostile relationships between Senior Ministers and penal lobbyist groups, identifying not only what was on the agenda but also what was mobilised off. The interviews were useful in highlighting these relationships to a level of detail and evidenced in a way that could not be achieved via documents. This is important when investigating levels of political competition and the ways in which agendas are reinforced or constrained by such relations. Interviews revealed what the most significant obstacles were in the penal lobbyist group and research groups trying to disseminate their research to the Cabinet and in attempts of having a persuasive effect on the direction of a certain political agenda.
Further benefits included the gaining of information about specific meetings and internal events in relevant departments that resulted in changes to legislation. Although the details of the meetings were not made known, knowledge of these meetings provided a better understanding about the policy process itself, as well as the identity of key players evoking change or continuity in legislation. Also, the research gained a more in-depth access to actor’s motivations and perspectives. In this way, interviews provided a unique insight into the policy process and the dynamic relationships between different actors and agencies involved which the documentary sources could not provide.
52 However, with hindsight, the interviews were conducted too early. The interview questions were too broad due to the interviews proceeding before the diagnostic tool for political competition had been established (see Table 2). A lack of specific questions meant that answers were not always relevant to political competition. Also, there were issues concerning respondents’ memories of details relating to earlier Acts and their surrounding political context. Even though participants had an ‘elite’ status, it was realised during interviews that more was already known about the process of certain legislative Acts than the participant owing to the passage of time and memory lapse. Although this facilitated memory recall of certain time periods, the initial lack of memory questioned the validity of some answers given. Therefore, although there was some useful information that has been included in the empirical chapters of this thesis (and which highlight the advantages of primary interviews in investigations of political competition), the interviews were limited in insight into the decision-making processes of Acts and the political competition that is at the centre of this thesis due to the timing of the interviews being conducted.
Moreover, interview questions relating to later time periods (2003 onwards) resulted in respondents not wishing to add anything to that which was available in Harry Annison’s
Dangerous Politics (2015) on the Indeterminate Sentencing for Public Protection of the
Criminal Justice Act 2003. Although ethical restrictions prevented access to Annison’s full interviews, his publicised research provided a significant amount of relevant information needed for the latter years of the case study (2001-2008). Another source of information for the latter years of the study was data collected by the Home Affairs Select Committee on its inquiries into changes in sentencing legislation during New Labour - ‘Towards Effective
Sentencing’ (2007 - 2008) and ‘Justice Reinvestment’ (2009 - 2010). These documents
provided full access to interview transcripts with key players involved in the decision-making processes of relevant changes in sentencing legislation and practice during the time period studied. Thus, with the collation of this large amount of data the decision was made to terminate the interview process. In light of this existing data, it was felt unnecessary to contact key players and ask questions that they had already answered.
The research highlighted issues with oral history and the dependence on participants’ memory. As Portelli (in Thomson, 2010:77) argues, “memory is not a passive depository of facts, but an active process of creation of meanings”. Government documents and transcripts of Parliamentary debates are written at the time and may reflect a more accurate account of the
53 political agenda. However, documents cannot be used as a method for objective fact finding either. Official documents are written in a way that provoke certain meanings and are intended to have certain effects on the reader and autobiographies are written in a highly managed setting to portray favourable accounts. The use of interviews in penal policymaking can be cross- referenced in order to question or reinforce such intentions of meaning-making and can provide background information to the documents being written.
Even though interviews were not the most valuable method for this investigation, it is argued that interviews are a valuable method in the study of policy process because they provide access to unique and detailed accounts of what happens ‘behind the scenes’ in the policymaking environment and the agencies involved. Future research into the policymaking process will utilise interviews as a primary source of information which cannot be accessed via documentary sources. Interviews can provide in-depth data regarding actors’ motivations, their perspectives on issues, concerns, agendas and their own perspectives on why things transpired, and which provides a ‘closeness’ to the process being explored that documents cannot provide. They also illustrate how concepts of risk, dangerousness, punishment and rehabilitation are constructed and how punishment techniques are justified when changes to legislation are made.