Approach to the study

1.15     Legal education and training have received considerable attention in a range of reports delivered over the last 40 years.[1] The Review has been given the opportunity to revisit these reports and create more of a foundation[2] for evidence-based decision-making. The LETR process has been research-led in order to discover not only the need for change but how best to approach change in a manner that will be tolerable for the regulated and unregulated professions concerned. The data sources and methods adopted will be fully explained in this chapter.

An ‘adequately complex’ approach to LSET research

1.16     The research team has sought to develop a methodology with a range of data which will provide an overview of the trends shaping LSET. It will enable exploration of aspects of context, content and system that may represent barriers to the continuing competence, flexibility, mobility, and diversity of the legal services workforce.

1.17     The aim of this approach is to produce an ‘adequately complex’ description and analysis of the problems inherent in current legal services education and, where necessary, identify opportunities for reform. Legal services education reform needs to be understood as a ‘complex’ social problem. More than just ‘complicated’ or technically difficult, LSET, and any reform of LSET, operates under conditions of ‘social complexity’. ‘Socially complex’ problems demonstrate a number of characteristics, shown in Table 1.1.[3] The second column of the table offers illustrative aspects of LSET and LSET reform which appear to fit that descriptor.

1.18     This perspective has implications for both the project’s methodology, and its recommendations. LETR takes a ‘problem-based’ approach (cp. Savery and Duffy, 1995; Brown, 2010). This can be seen as an iterative approach that uses the methods of thematic inquiry (see Appendix D) to ground a process of collective learning and collaborative problem-solving. This three-stage process builds up a picture of the problem, including potential solutions to the problem, then identifies and addresses critical information gaps, before developing the actual solution(s) to the problem collaboratively with stakeholders.

 

Table 1.1: Understanding LSET reform as a ‘socially complex’ problem

 

Characteristics of socially complex problems	Corresponding features of LSET (eg)
There is no definitive definition of the problem	Some agreement over a need for reform, but widespread disagreement over the extent, priorities and nature of the changes required
They tend to be intractable	General lack of effect from a number of recent education and training reviews Specific intractable problems: Achieving consistency of standards Reducing costs of training Managing increasing numbers
The information needed to make sense of the problem is often ill-defined, changing and may be difficult to put into use	Currently operating in rapidly changing work and educational environments Relative lack of robust, especially longitudinal, data Costs of deriving meaningful information are relatively high
They emerge in fields where there are multiple stakeholders; limited consensus as to who the legitimate stakeholders and/or problem-solvers are, and stakeholders are likely to have different criteria of success	Large number of stakeholders, with different understandings of the problem(s), and different levels of engagement with the process Legitimacy questions exist, eg, over the extent of professional and regulatory interest in the Bachelor of Laws (LLB) Evidence of different stakeholders having different ‘objectives’ for the review
Every attempt at a solution matters significantly	Reform tends to be a ‘one-shot’ operation so relatively high risk Exacerbated by uncertainties about the new regulatory environment, and the tendency of LSET system to operate as a relatively low trust environment

 

1.19     There are risks in treating socially complex problems as ‘tame’ issues capable of traditional linear resolution. Socially complex problems are more likely to require solutions that:

• recognise that there are few right/wrong solutions as opposed to better/worse outcomes;
• build shared understanding of the problem amongst a range of stakeholders;
• build a shared commitment to action;
• recognise that ‘one-shot’ reforms will affect the system dynamics, often in unexpected or unintended ways;
• recognise that capacity for continuing engagement, and institutional (re)design needs to be taken seriously.

1.20     The distinctive treatment of solutions is a key feature of this approach. Under conditions of social complexity solutions have important social as well as technical dimensions; they tend not to be right or wrong, but better or worse. Consequently they tend to be evaluated on ‘goodness of fit’ criteria or ‘social robustness’ (Nowotny et al, 2001). As such they need to be regarded as not just a potential outcome of the problem-solving process, but as part of a process of problem definition. In examining why a solution is or is not acceptable, or the nature of the objections, one comes to understand something more about the nature and scope of the problem itself.[4]

1.21     The ultimately collaborative basis on which solutions are agreed also reflects the need for solutions to exhibit social as well as technical robustness. It is clear from previous attempts at legal education reform, and from the research and literature relating to other professions, including especially the medical profession, that without substantial professional agreement there is a considerable ‘gravitational pull’ towards the status quo. It was therefore essential to focus on finding out not just what the stakeholders thought was wrong, but also what would be likely to succeed in making recommendations for change.

Processes and methods

1.22     The aims of the study, discussed above, were expressed in seven specific research questions. The report addresses these research questions thematically rather than sequentially; this is reflected in the structure and organisation of the chapters that follow.

1.23     A draft of the research questions was discussed with key stakeholders at the first LETR Consultation Steering Panel meeting in July 2011.[5] Following this exercise, the draft questions were lightly revised. The final versions are shown in Table 1.2, mapped against key respondent groups and the methods adopted for gathering information in response to each question.

1.24     The three stages of the research were as follows:

Stage 1 – literature review;

Stage 2 – the ‘context’;

Stage 3 – ‘content’ and ‘systems/structures’.

Stage 3 was used to identify training needs at both pre- and post-qualification stages of LSET (the ‘workforce development’ stage). Much of the qualitative data for stages 2 and 3 was derived in tandem.

 

Table 1.2: Research questions mapped against key participants and methods

 

	Research question	Key participants	Methods
i)	What legal skills, knowledge and experience are required of different kinds of lawyers and other emerging roles currently?(content)	Legal service providers Employers Teachers Students/trainees Stakeholder groups Careers advisers (CAs) Consumers	Desk research Interviews Focus groups Online survey Careers advisers survey BRDC Continental survey 'Solicitors and their skills' Public consultation (DP 01/2012; 02/2012)
ii)	What legal skills, knowledge and experience will be required of lawyers and other key roles in the provision of legal services in 2020?[6](content)	Legal service providers Employers Teachers Students/trainees Stakeholder groups Careers advisers Consumers	Desk research Interviews Focus groups Online survey Careers advisers survey BRDC survey 'Solicitors and their skills' Public consultation (DP 01/2012; 02/2012)
iii)	What kind of LSET system(s) will support the delivery of high quality, competitive legal services and high ethical standards(systems and structures)	Legal service providers Employers Teachers Students/trainees Stakeholder groups	Desk research Interviews Focus groups Online survey Public consultation (DP 01/2012; 02/2012)
iv)	What kind of LSET systems will deliver flexible education and training options, responsive to the need for different career pathways, promoting mobility in the sector and encouraging social mobility and diversity(context/systems and structures)	Legal service providers Employers Teachers Students/trainees Stakeholder groups	Desk research Interviews Focus groups Online survey Public consultation (DP 02/2011; 02/2012) EDSM Advisory Group report
v)	What characteristics/processes will enable qualification routes to be responsive to emerging needs (eg, of students, training organisations, consumers)?(context/systems and structures)	Legal service providers Employers Teachers Students/trainees Consumers Stakeholder groups	Desk research Interviews Focus groups Online survey Public consultation (DP 02/2012)
vi)	To what extent, if any, is there scope (and might it be desirable) to move to sector-wide LSET outcomes(content/systems and structures)	Legal service providers Employers Teachers Stakeholder groups	Desk research Interviews Online survey Public consultation (DP01/2012; DP 02/2012)
vii)	To what extent, if any, should LSET regulation be extended to currently unregulated groups?(context/systems and structures)	Legal service providers Employers Consumers Stakeholder groups	Interviews Online survey Will-writer survey Public consultation (DP01/2012; DP02/2012)

Key: CA survey: LETR survey of Higher Education Institute (HEI) careers advisers.

BDRC Continental survey: data from a consumer benchmarking survey conducted for the LSB in 2012.

DP: LETR Discussion Papers 02/2011; 01/2012; 02/2012.

‘Solicitors and their Skills’: LETR research phase time-based survey of solicitors’ work activities.

EDSM report: report of the Equality, Diversity and Social Mobility Advisory Group, a sub-group of the CSP

1.25     The empirical research involved four methods: (i) meta-analysis of existing research data; (ii) collection of original qualitative research from interviews and focus groups; (iii) collection of original quantitative data, primarily from online surveys, and (iv) collection of further qualitative data from a range of stakeholder engagement activities. The result is a large dataset, including a literature review of over 300 pages, and in excess of 1200 pages of ‘raw’ qualitative data. When combined with the quantitative data generated, this provides a robust foundation on which to base recommendations. Participant confidentiality precludes publication of the raw data in its entirety, but representative quotations from that data are included in this report.

1.26     A summary of each element of the research follows. A fuller technical explanation of the research methodology is contained in Appendix D.

The literature review

1.27     An extensive literature review was undertaken as the first stage of the research. This work was intended to constitute a resource in its own right, and to provide the primary data for a number of elements, notably:

• comparison with other legal and professional education systems;
• meta-analysis of existing empirical research (eg, on consumer perceptions of legal services provision, and on equality and diversity trends);
• concept mapping regarding the proper functions and reach of LSET regulation.

It also enabled the research team to highlight gaps in the research base and to construct some parameters for the work.

1.28     In more detail, nine topics were identified, all broadly focused on the relationship between regulation and education in law:

• the role of legal education and training and its relationship to maintaining professional standards and regulation in the sector;
• the role of formal education and training requirements working in concert with other regulatory tools to deliver regulatory objectives;
• educational standards for entry to the regulated profession;
• the requirements for continuing education;
• the requirements placed on approved providers of legal education and training;
• existing equality and diversity issues;
• comparative analysis of international systems and other relevant sectors and professions;
• possible impacts of the 2012/2013 reforms in the higher education sector on legal education and training and in particular the increases in undergraduate tuition fees;
• the impact of the LSA 2007 on education, training and practice models.[7]

1.29     A draft of the literature review was published at the beginning of March 2012, and feedback invited. The final literature review is published on the LETR website simultaneously with this report. A full bibliography is also included among the project outputs on the website. Some additional literature, particularly in respect of issues that did not readily fit within this thematic structure (such as research on unregulated legal services), has been identified and highlighted in LETR working papers as the research progressed, and is referred to, where necessary, in this report. These additional sources are also included in the bibliography.

1.30     Four key issues emerged from the Literature Review, which influenced the approach and direction of travel of the research phase. These are:

• persistently divergent views about the purposes of legal education and training, and lack of clear definition of education and training outcomes, particularly in respect of post-qualification workforce development;
• neglect of regulation of education and training in the literature;
• impact of structural factors (including resource constraints, information asymmetries, fragmentation of legal work, and proliferation of regulators and regulations) making it difficult to design and sustain a coherent network of pathways into and between the legal professions;
• the need for enhanced, genuine and continuing collaboration between education and training providers, practitioners and regulators, and the need therefore to consider how such collaboration may be designed into regulatory tools and structures for the future, together with input from consumers.

The qualitative research

1.31     Qualitative research, as adopted in both stages 2 and 3 and, as Table 1.2 demonstrates, contributed to all of the research questions posed. The rationale for adopting a primarily qualitative approach, and the precise methodology followed, is explained in Appendix D. Content analysis of the qualitative data was undertaken using a specialist qualitative data analysis software package (NVivo).

1.32     Qualitative analysis is based on the following range of data generated as part of the LETR research phase:

• individual and stakeholder responses to Discussion Papers (see below);
• unsolicited submissions to the research team;[8]
• free text comments submitted as part of the online survey (see below and Appendix D);
• interviews, meetings and focus groups.[9]

1.33     A total of 56 individuals were interviewed and 39 focus groups took place, involving 307 participants in total. A breakdown of participant numbers by occupation is included in Appendix D, Table D.1. A cross-section of the interview guides used to facilitate these activities is included in Appendix E.

1.34     Participants for interviews were selected purposively. Specific individuals or groups were identified as significant stakeholders, affected persons or change agents, both at the outset of the research and through ‘snowball sampling’ and sometimes by further cascade in which existing participants suggested or invited others. Interviews were held with representatives of all the approved regulators; senior partners of both City and high street law firms; senior members of the Bar, managers of ABSs and unregulated entities, and representatives of specialist associations of lawyers and paralegals, including ‘young lawyer’ and diversity groups.

1.35     Focus group participants were also invited purposively and were added to by cascade or snowballing. In organising focus groups the research team sought to ensure a cross-section of occupations, seniority and geographical location. The research team inevitably had limited control over who would attend, as access was often facilitated by intermediary institutions – local law societies, Bar circuits, universities, the senior judiciary, etc, and participation might be determined by a mix of participant knowledge, availability and willingness to attend. In some instances, as the work progressed, this necessitated convening additional focus groups to close gaps that emerged.

The quantitative research

1.36     In addition to utilising existing quantitative research, the research team also generated original quantitative data from five surveys. These surveys contributed to both stages 2 and 3 of the project.

Public online survey

1.37     The primary source of quantitative data for this phase was the LETR online survey. Between 30 April and 16 August 2012, the LETR research team conducted a large-scale open survey of individuals with an interest in matters relating to legal education. The survey was designed using the proprietary online research utility SurveyMonkey, and promoted through the LETR website, by the commissioning regulators and both social and print media. By the closing date the survey achieved a broad and statistically robust sample of 1,128 persons (see further Appendix D).

1.38     The survey was designed to obtain both demographic and quantitative attitudinal data from respondents on a range of issues, including the necessary knowledge, skills and attributes required of legal service providers. A number of the attitudinal questions linked directly to issues explored in Discussion Paper 01/2012, and thus provided data that could be contrasted to the formal stakeholder responses. All quantitative data were analysed using the SPSS statistical package. The survey also gave respondents scope to add free text comments, which were separately analysed as part of the qualitative data.

1.39     Respondents came from a wide range of occupations in the sector (Table 1.3). Solicitors narrowly constituted the largest group (326 respondents, or 28.9%), followed by barristers (312 respondents, or 27.7%) and CILEx members (162 respondents, or 14.4%). Based on these figures the Bar and CILEx are proportionately over-represented and solicitors under-represented in the sample, relative to their total populations. Consequently, an exercise was undertaken to assign weighting factors to the responses of the three largest professions. This has the effect of adjusting responses so that, when compared, the data better reflect the actual population as a whole (Table 1.4). For transparency, responses from these groups are presented in both unadjusted and weighted form. The weighting methodology is explained more fully in Appendix D.

1.40     There was also a strong response from academics and public sector law teachers (64 respondents, or 5.7%), and a high response rate from notaries public (43 respondents, or 3.8%). Thirty-four paralegals (3.0%, two-thirds of whom worked in regulated entities) also responded to the survey. The remaining regulated legal professions were relatively poorly represented, with no responses from either patent attorneys or licensed conveyancers.[10] Of those respondents in practice, just under 75% were in private practice, with 12.7% working in the public sector and 9.2% in-house.

 

Table 1.3: Survey respondent occupation clusters (unweighted data)

 

Respondent Occupation (Condensed)	Valid % of respondents	Frequency
Solicitors (including trainees)	28.9	326
Barristers (including pupils)	27.7	312
CILEx members (including trainees)	14.4	162
Other Legal Practitioners	8.7	98
Legal Academics/Training Providers	7.4	84
Other Occupations	7.0	79
Law Students	5.9	67
Total	100.0	1128

 

Table 1.4: Comparison of ‘responses’ in the unweighted and weighted surveys[11]

 

	Unweighted Survey	Weighted Survey
Barristers (including pupils)	312	312
Solicitors (including trainees)	326	652
CILEx members (including trainees)	162	486
Notaries Public (including trainees)	43	0
Paralegals	34	0
Legal Academics/Training Providers	84	0
Law Students	67	0
Other Interested People	100	0
Total	1128	1450

 

1.41     Demographically the survey cohort matches its target population quite well with near parity of gender overall; the stronger male bias of the Bar and significant female bias in CILEx membership are also reflected in the data. BME respondents appear to be a little underrepresented, though it should be noted that over 8% of respondents declined to disclose their ethnicity. Nearly 7% of the sample declared a disability or long-term illness, although, again, there was a relatively high non-response to this item (7.4%).[12] Further analysis of the sample demographics can be found in Appendix D.

BDRC Consumer survey

1.42     Following discussions in the autumn of 2011 between the research team and the Legal Services Board (LSB), it was agreed that the research team would be granted advance access[13] to the consumer data produced for the LSB by the research consultancy BDRC Continental through an online survey (see also BDRC, 2012).

1.43     The purpose of the research was to examine how individual consumers identified and responded to legal needs, including exploring their advice-seeking behaviour, and their experience of and satisfaction with the legal services used. The survey is methodologically robust, and draws on a sample of 4,017 respondents. It covers a broader range of legal problems than the Civil and Social Justice Survey and explores in-depth respondents’ experiences of purchasing conveyancing, divorce and probate services. It does not explore issues of education and training with consumers, but adds significantly to the data on consumer needs discussed in Chapter 2.

Will writer and careers adviser surveys

1.44     Two smaller surveys were also produced for specific purposes by the research team. Between January and March 2012, a survey was conducted among law careers advisers in higher education. Careers advisers were selected because of their role as knowledgeable intermediaries between the legal services market and students, and hence as a relatively impartial source of triangulation for a range of issues being explored through the qualitative and quantitative data. They were asked in the survey about their perceptions of the skills, knowledge and behaviours sought by recruiters and the deficiencies in new recruits which appeared to be of most concern to prospective employers. Respondents also provided data on extra-curricular activities and the ‘social capital’[14] sought by employers; on prospective changes in employers’ preferences, and possible trends in relation to the CILEx graduate entry programme. The survey was facilitated by convenors of a specialist online discussion list; it obtained 19 responses from a cross-section of institutions (out of a possible estimated 124 list users = 15%). Further details of the range of institutions participating appear in Appendix D.

1.45     A survey of will writers was piloted in paper form at the Institute of Professional Willwriters Annual Conference in February 2012, and subsequently circulated in electronic form to the wider membership of the Society of Will Writers and the Institute of Professional Willwriters. It sought to examine attitudes amongst will writers to the move to make will-writing a reserved activity. It also canvassed opinion on the form that any regulation should take. Whether there ought to be a prior educational standard for will writers and the adequacy of existing continuing professional development were also examined. A total of 139 responses were received. No claims are made as to the representativeness of this data, and it should particularly be noted that responses do not include will writers operating outside the voluntary standards imposed by membership of these associations.

Solicitors and their skills

1.46     In advance of the development of the new Legal Practice Course (LPC)in 1990 the Law Society Research and Policy Planning Unit commissioned work to explore the viability of different research methods for collating and categorising the skills solicitors use in their work. The results were published in 1991 (Sherr, 1991). The review of the literature which accompanied the 1991 study showed how little empirical work had been conducted on what lawyers actually did and what their daily work consisted of. Almost all of the previous research was based on assumptions relating to activity rather than empirical observation or assessment. The 1991 study sought to narrow that gap by undertaking direct participant observation of the activities on which solicitors spent their time, thereby giving a quantitative indication of the work that solicitors do.

1.47     In considering what forms of legal services education and training will be most appropriate for the future, the research team compared the 1991 results with how solicitors spent their time in 2012. Twenty-one years later, the nature of lawyers’ work could have changed significantly. The balance of time spent on different tasks might be different. If so the necessary training for these functions would need to be revised to reflect those changes.

1.48     Time recording and time management have moved on and been computerised since 1991. Many lawyers now use ‘smart timers’ which provide a much more accurate account of the exact time used on different elements of their work than the old time sheets, often filled in subsequently. A new approach to assessing the use of solicitors’ time was therefore implemented. Solicitors involved in the exercise were asked to review their ‘smart timers’ at the end of each day and at the end of each week in order to note down the different types of work in which they had been involved. Smart timers are likely to produce a fairly accurate assessment of time spent. A copy of the forms used for collating these assessments can be found in Appendix E. Within each of the entities researched, these ‘work diaries’ were collated, ensuring that all client information was removed and then passed to the research team for assessment and analysis. Thirty-six lawyers were involved in this part of the research, from a total of six firms: two of the largest commercial firms, a mid-range city firm, and three firms dealing more with personal plight work. Data from 34 of the participants were included in the final dataset. The results of this exercise are considered in Chapter 2.

Stakeholder engagement

1.49     Much of the research team’s work involved stakeholder engagement activities. These were designed both to inform stakeholders about LETR issues and progress, and to enable stakeholders to engage with the research and contribute additional information to the process. Stakeholder engagement activities included:

• stakeholder responses to LETR publications;
• CSP meetings and advice;
• the LETR Symposium;
• events and meetings attended by research team members and organised by the team or by others.

The contribution of each of these to the research is considered below.

Responses to LETR publications

1.50     Over the course of the research the LETR team published 12 papers: four Discussion Papers, six Briefing Papers and two Research Updates. A summary of all the papers is provided in Appendix C, and copies of the papers are downloadable from the LETR website.

1.51     The Discussion Papers were the most significant in contributing to the data. Three Discussion Papers were designed to identify trends and questions, and to explore issues for the Review in a way that encouraged response and debate. They were drafted in the context of the other work undertaken by the research team. DP02/2011 (Equality, Diversity and Social Mobility) thus fed into both the equality and diversity impact analysis, and wider discussion of appropriate systems and structures; DP01/2012 (Key Issues I: Call for Evidence) and DP02/2012 (Key Issues II: Developing the Detail) provided a significant iterative development and testing of themes emerging from the fieldwork. All responses to Discussion Papers have been included in the NVivo database and analysed as part of that data set. The original responses are available in full on the LETR website, except where the response was provided on condition of non-disclosure.

1.52     A summary of the responses to DP01/2012 was included in DP02/2012. The number and range of responses to the three substantive Discussion Papers, DP02/2011, DP01/2012 and DP02/2012 is shown in Table 1.5. It should be noted that the majority of these are institutional or collective responses, so that the number of organisations or persons represented is greater than the numbers suggest. The numbers in brackets indicate the number of personal (individual) responses in each category. A full list of respondents is contained in Appendix A.

 

Table 1.5: Number and breakdown of responses to LETR Discussion Papers

 

Paper	Published	Deadline	Responses
			Reg	Rep	LSP	Acd	Trn	IG	Eq	Oth	Tot
02/2011	23.4.12	02.7.12	1	4	4	1(1)	2	1	2	0	15
01/2012	12.3.12	10.5.12	2	6	9(2)	12(1)	2	1	0	3(1)	35
02/2012	28.8.12	23.10.12	2	10	6	12(4)	1	3	0	5(1)	39

Key: Reg – regulator

Rep – representative body

LSP – legal services provider (eg, a law firm)

Acd – academic institutions

Trn – training providers

IG – interest group

Eq – equality and diversity group

Oth – other.

Consultation Steering Panel meetings

1.53     The LETR CSP is mentioned above at 1.4. As noted there the function of the CSP was consultative and advisory. Its remit was to act as a ‘critical friend’ to the research team and as a bridge between the research phase and the key stakeholders whom members represent.

1.54     Six meetings of the CSP were held from July 2011 through to November 2012. The meetings were used to test ideas, present and discuss work in progress, and to provide a forum within which members and the research team could learn about relevant developments within LSET, or in other professional service sectors. A number of ‘external’ (ie, non-research team) presentations were made to the CSP that have contributed to the work of the research team:

• Emma Matthews (Architects Registration Board), The regulation of architects – standards and continuing professional development (March 2012);
• Charles Welsh (Skills for Justice), Setting standards and apprenticeships for those performing paralegal functions (March 2012);
• David Dixon (Cardiff Law School), Legal education and training – the Welsh dimension (June 2012);
• Richard Moorhead (UCL), Are there LETR lessons from empirical approaches to ethics? (September 2012);
• Victoria Purtill (ILEX Professional Standards) CPD Review: Proposed changes to CPD for members of CILEx (September 2012);
• Sara Kovach Clark (General Medical Council), Medical revalidation (November 2012).

1.55     CSP agendas, notes of meetings and slides from presentations are located on the LETR website. Other information arising from CSP meetings has helped inform the research team’s views and enabled the team to gauge the level of receptiveness towards ideas in the course of development.

LETR Symposium and external events

1.56     An international symposium entitled Assuring Competence In A Changing Legal Services Market was held in Manchester in July 2012. The conference comprised a range of keynote and parallel presentations. Keynotes were presented by Professor Julia Black (London School of Economics), Steve Mark (Legal Services Commissioner, New South Wales), Professor Richard Susskind (independent LETR research consultant) and Professor Wes Pue (University of British Columbia). Two sets of parallel sessions were also held. The first of these involved presentations and discussion on themes relevant to the review, including: the changing workforce; new business structures; CPD reform; apprenticeships and workplace learning; innovation in undergraduate education; lessons from other professions and from Europe, and consumer perspectives on LSET. The second set of parallel sessions explored, in a workshop setting, a set of scenarios for the regulation of LSET developed by the research team.

1.57     The keynote papers and summaries of the parallel and workshop sessions have been published as Briefing Paper 4/2012, and contribute to the literature base that informs the research. Slides from the presentations are also available on the LETR website.

1.58     In addition, members of the research team attended a range of meetings, seminars and events during the course of the research. Where these were accompanied by formal publications or other record of note, these have been included within the bibliography. A list of all external events attended by members of the research team and/or the CSP Co-Chairs appears in Appendix C.