can only hope to detect and minimise them. Any suggestion that human beings are instinctively and naturally objective and non-judgemental is, therefore, fundamentally flawed.

The development of mechanisms to minimise the effects of human bias would be a significant step forward in improving the objectivity of panel recommendations. To do this, however, is a complex task: initially, there is a need to analyse the workings of panels in order to understand in detail the factors that affect the decision-/recommendation-making process as it is only then that principles on which to base corrective processes can be developed. It was this aim, to understand the factors which affect panel decision-making, that inspired the research discussed in this article.

Research aim The overarching aim of the study was to explore the judgements and recommendations of panel members as they consider the journey of individuals wishing to become permanent or temporary parents to looked after children. In particular, it set out to explore the ways in which adoption and fostering panel members’ biographies, attitudes and values influence their role and the process of making recommendations. To do this, the study investigated the underlying thinking of panel members when arriving at their decisions and the extent to which their conceptualisation of their professionalism affected their role on the panel. It also analysed the systems, methods and group processes that influence panel recommendations. It was hoped that the results would show whether panels are the best system for determining who is suitable to look after separated children and how effective matching of child to placement can be achieved.

The state of knowledge Before fashioning the methodology, a literature review was undertaken to establish the boundaries of current knowledge, particularly with respect to the differences between individual and group- level behaviour. Of significant interest here is the work of Wilfred Bion whose original (1961) paper explored how an individual’s thinking processes change in a group context and how this alteration affects the collective thinking of the group. He defined two fundamental types of group. The first he called the ‘workgroup’ which is characterised by a high sense of co-operation and focus on the specific task for which the group has come together. However, when under pressure, workgroups can begin to operate at the unconscious level, leading to a loss of focus and co-operation. The result is the second type of group, which Bion termed a ‘basic assumption group’, so-called because its behaviour is based on a set of tacit, underlying assumptions which it uses to deal with anxiety and conflict, but which distract it from its conscious (and primary) task. This is clearly undesirable and can only result in heightening the risk of reaching a flawed recommendation.

Another group phenomenon which interferes significantly, and destructively, with effective panel recommendation-making is ‘groupthink’, first identified by Irving Janis in 1982. This concept stems from his observation that while a properly formulated group is likely to make better decisions than any individual in the group, this potential advantage is often lost when the members work closely together, as the psychological pressures created by facing a common crisis generate a strong tendency to collaborate. In short, groupthink is essentially a mode of thinking in which the desire to