Appendix 3: Research process and method

Introduction

¶In terms of the broader context and immediate circumstances in which they occur and their short-term and longer-term aftermath, disasters involving multiple deaths and injuries are complex events impacting on the bereaved, survivors, rescuers, their families and their communities. To understand that complexity, in terms of causation and investigation, it has been suggested that disasters and their consequences should be considered as a sequence of distinct but inter-related 'phases'.

¶A three-part medical analogy is often used: 'incubation' phase; 'acute' or 'crisis' phase; 'recovery' phase. 'Incubation' considers the build-up during which the potential for disaster grows and develops, often hidden from view yet inevitable once certain circumstances coincide. The 'acute' or 'crisis' phase occurs as that potential, often quickly and irretrievably, becomes reality. The 'recovery' phase extends from rescue through to resignation.

¶While it is helpful to consider the progression of a disaster, its context and its aftermath as self-contained time periods, these periods cannot be precisely delimited, since human actions and reactions, involving the dynamics of personal, group and organisational responses, are not straightforward. Identifying phases that encompass a definable timespan, nevertheless, helps in analysing, planning for and responding to disasters.

¶Previous research into the context and consequences of the Hillsborough disaster considered eight phases: the historical context; the immediate context; the immediate circumstances; the 'moment'; rescue and evacuation; the immediate aftermath; the short-term aftermath; the long-term aftermath. This enabled an analytical approach to the key factors that contributed to the disaster, to what happened on the day and in the immediate aftermath, and to the investigations and inquiries that followed. As a framework this approach was adopted by the Panel in its analysis of the disclosed documents and other material and is reflected in the structure of the Report.

Terms of reference and scope

¶Within its terms of reference (see Appendix 1) the Panel was obliged to write a report demonstrating 'how the information disclosed adds to public understanding of the tragedy and its aftermath'. To achieve that end the Panel negotiated access to documents held by a diverse range of organisations and individuals (see Appendix 2).

388

¶The scope of material sought and disclosed covered: the decade prior to the disaster, focusing on the condition of the stadium and the arrangements for crowd safety and crowd management; the circumstances leading up to the FA Cup Semi-Final being held at Hillsborough in 1989; the 'moment' of the disaster; the immediate aftermath; and the investigations and inquiries that followed.

¶Once accessed, the documents and other material were catalogued and processed within the digital archive. While hard copies remained in key sites (The National Archive; the Sheffield Archives; the Liverpool Record Ofiice) or with their rightful owners, the digital archive provides a single, coherent repository of all disclosed documents.

¶The cataloguing process was time-consuming because many of the documents provided by the contributing organisations or individuals had not previously been catalogued or filed.

Research process

¶Within the first months of the Panel's work it became apparent that the sheer volume of documents would require a fully developed programme of research to provide an analytical review on which the Panel's Report could be based.

¶The research team was Dr Janet Clark, Dr Jo Doody, Dr Shaun McDaid and Ms Gemma Ní Chaoimh. Appointed by the Panel, the team was managed by Panel member Professor Phil Scraton and based at the School of Law, Queen's University, Belfast. Other Panel members also contributed significantly to the research process in accord with their specialist knowledge and professional expertise. The team was supported by members of the Panel's Secretariat.