who were chosen because of their extensive public sector
experience, seniority and assumed technical knowledge. As
accounting techniques have an aura of logic, objectivity and
accuracy, particularly strongly among those not technically
equipped to deconstruct accounting numbers (Ezzamel,
1994), it was considered that such interviewees were in
a unique position to provide realistic and well-informed
views on the issues. Given the potential sensitivities of the
matters being discussed and the desire for the participants
to be as candid as possible, interviewees were informed
that the interviews would be reported in a manner where
statements could not be attributed to specific individuals.
However, the results are presented in such a way so as to be
able to distinguish between possible differences of opinion
between the actors in each jurisdiction.
Since the paths chosen in the two jurisdictions were
very different (as seen above), this was reflected in the
interview guides. Drawing on the main themes identified in
the literature and official UK and RoI government publications,
the UK guide explored the impact of the introduction
of RAB several years into its operation while the RoI guide
investigated the reasons why, despite official utterances
to the contrary, the eventual change was extremely limited.
Although many of the UK interviewees were qualified
accountants, this was the case for only a small minority of
the RoI interviewees, including the ‘Operational Accountants’
(far fewer qualified accountants are employed in the
RoI public sector, with many accounting positions being
filled by career civil servants).