Held to account: Comparing adversarial questioning in remote and in-person parole hearings

Abstract This article analyses the use of adversarial questions in oral hearings conducted by the Parole Board of England and Wales. This is important because the Board is supposed to use an inquisitorial approach to oral hearings, so adversarial questions are examples of where Parole Board members deviate from this norm. The article outlines the work of the Parole Board, the process for carrying out oral hearings and the recent move to increased remote hearings following the Covid-19 pandemic. Using conversation analysis, the research casts light on the relationship between mode of hearing (remote vs. in-person) and adversarial questions and how discourses of blame and responsibility operate in the production of these challenging question types. A chi-square test reveals that adversarial questions are statistically significantly more common in remote hearings, although they remain low in frequency. The article concludes with thoughts on why remote hearings are more conducive to adversarial questions. (Accounts, adversarial questioning, conversation analysis, parole, responsibility)*