Interviews are one of the major tools in qualitative research, although there is a limited literature on the subject of interviewing generally and elite interviewing particularly. The aim of this article is to introduce some of the issues involved in elite interviewing to researchers new to the use of the technique. Emphasis is also placed on the need for the interviewer to know his/her subject thoroughly, and to be prepared to be flexible in an interview situation. The information is based on the author's own recent experience of interviewing a number of top civil servants, both serving and retired.

In this paper we identify and seek to resolve a certain paradox in the existing literature on networks and networking. Whilst earlier policy network perspectives have tended to emphasize the structural character of networks as durable, dense and relatively static organization forms, the more recent strategic network literature emphasizes the flexible, adaptive and dynamic quality of networking as a social and political practice. However, neither perspective has yet developed a theory of network formation, evolution, transformation and termination. In this paper, we seek to rectify this omission, advancing a 'strategic relational' theory of network dynamics based on a rethinking of the concept of network itself. We illustrate this perspective with respect to the policy process centred in and around Westminster and Whitehall, drawing on a series of semi-structured interviews with ministers and officials from four departments.

Mental health problems contribute 23% to the global burden of disease in developed countries (WHO, 1999). In the U.K., recent legislation attempts to address this by modernizing mental health services so that they provide evidence based, accessible and non-discriminatory services for both serious and common mental health problems. Cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) has a robust evidence base that fits very well with the thrust of policy. However, CBT's delivery systems are rooted in traditional service models, which pay little attention to the growing evidence base for brief and single-strand treatments over complex or multi-strand interventions. Services characterized by 9-5 working, hourly appointments and face-to-face therapy disenfranchise the majority of people who would benefit from CBT. In this paper we argue that the evidence exists for service protocols that promote equity, accessibility and choice and that CBT services should be organized around multiple levels of entry and service delivery rather than the more usual secondary care referral systems.

Unequal Plurality: Towards an Asymmetric Power Model of British PoliticsOBSERVERS OF BRITISH POLITICS, BE THEY ACADEMICS, JOURNALISTS, politicians or other political activists, usually operate with an implicit, rather than an explicit, view of how British politics works. In part, this can be explained by the fact that only a small number of authors have developed an explicit model of the British political system. 1 As Gamble observes, for a long time: 'the majority of the political science profession were largely sympathetic' to the Westminster model. 2 Yet, the Westminster model has always been used more as a shorthand, normative, organizing perspective to portray a particular image of the British political system, rather than a theoretically, welldeveloped and explicit model of how British politics works. As a consequence, there has been little effort to theorize the state, that is, to provide a more developed model of British politics.One exception to the paucity of models of British Politics has been provided by Rhodes. 3 As an alternative to the Westminster model, Rhodes has developed the 'Differentiated Polity Model'. This model aims to capture the changing nature of the British state in an era of governance. 4 Rhodes argues that the Westminster model is too inflexible and monolithic to reflect the diverse nature and complex

This introduction starts by specifying the theoretical and analytical framework underpinning the range of essays in this special issue. It then provides an overview of the existing literature on policy networks and network governance in order to identify what a decentred approach might contribute. What follows is an account of decentred theory, a discussion of the potential alternatives it can offer to existing accounts and how these might be achieved through reconstructing networks by appealing to notions of situated agency and tradition; it concludes by considering the potential methodologies to be employed, with particular emphasis on ethnography. INTRODUCTIONPolicy networks consist of governmental and societal actors whose interactions with one another give rise to policies. They are actors linked through informal practices as well as (or even instead of) formal institutions. Typically, they operate through interdependent relationships, with a view to trying to secure their individual goals by collaborating with each other. Policy networks have long been a topic of study in the social sciences. More recently, they have been central to the literature on governance, which is often described as rule by and through networks. The essays in this special issue explore both the use and limitations of a decentred theory of policy networks and network governance. To decentre is to focus on the social construction of a practice through the ability of individuals to create and act on meanings. It is to unpack a practice in terms of the disparate and contingent beliefs and actions of individuals. A decentred governance approach involves challenging the idea that inexorable, impersonal forces are driving a shift from hierarchies to networks. Instead, it suggests that networks are constructed differently by many actors against the background of diverse traditions.Adopting decentred theory, the contributors to this special issue attempt: