achieve group unanimity overrides individual freedom. Baron (1994) added to Janis’s work by showing that irrational and biased thinking is also evident in a closed group, indicating another group-level behavioural phenomenon that can, and often does, lead to flawed decisions.

Despite this, it is important to note that there are many studies that point to significant advantages that arise from group decision-making. These include better comprehension of a problem, a greater sum total of knowledge, more diversity in approaches to problems, more alternatives and higher levels of acceptance of a decision (Gunnarsson, 2010; Proctor, 2011). Groups can also enhance individual effectiveness and functioning through the process, as Tuckman (1965) memorably called it, ‘forming, storming, norming, and performing’. However, as shown by this study, these advantages are generally outweighed by the negative effects of groupthink.

As the research focused on the behaviours of individuals in a panel context, it was also important to understand the scope and findings of recent research on panels. Hence, a review of relevant work over the past 30 years was carried out. This showed that several studies have set out to investigate aspects of panel workings, some of which have relevance to this one. Examples included a 1993 study by Pennie that explored how panel practice could improve, and the 2004 and 2005 papers by O’Sullivan in relation to more effective panel functioning. Another informative study was that by Clifton, Horne and Smith (2014) which analysed the attitudes of panel members under different circumstances. Despite this, however, no research was found that explicitly set out to investigate the ways in which the biographies, attitudes and values of adoption and fostering panel members influence their role and recommendation-making (although Pennie noted a need to explore this area). Nor were there any studies seeking to understand the systems, methods and techniques that impact recommendations. The current research was thus framed to address these questions.

Research method The key element in deciding on a framework for the research was the recognition that its objective was not to decide whether individuals or groups are right or wrong or to apportion blame, but rather to examine the consequences of holding a given position. For this reason, the selected methodology was constructivist in nature, as this challenges the objectivist perspective that there is just one external truth (Crotty, 1998). The aim was to explore and analyse the conscious and unconscious influences that individuals use to construe the world and how these contribute to recommendation- making in panel. It is only by understanding the nature and impact of biography and, particularly, unconscious biases in panel recommendation-making, that the ability to control these influences will be improved.

The role of narrative In order to gain this understanding, it was necessary to investigate and analyse the personal experiences, life histories and lived situations of an appropriate sample of panel members. For this, a narrative research approach based on Wengraf’s (2004) work on the Biographic Narrative Interpretive Method (BNIM) was used. This takes the form of semi-structured interviews and has been in use for more than 20 years. It begins by asking a single open question which Wengraf calls a