ABSTRACT
As we discussed in the introduction, an oral history project of this nature is probably only justified if the data that emerges adds up to more than the sum of its collected parts. The question then arises as to what reliable conclusions can be drawn from a collection of 68 interviews, a relatively small and not randomly selected group. We would argue that, while always treading cautiously and keeping in mind the possibility that any one of the collection of responses is unrepresentative, indeed a great deal of new knowledge and a greater understanding of the trends and opinions in the history of the audit in Britain since the 1920s can be garnered. There is here a neat parallel with auditing itself—between those who put their trust in statistical significance against those who emphasis the importance of judgment. This chapter is an exercise in the latter approach. Moreover, although since to some extent we sought out the leaders of the profession and this has, as we shall see, skewed our sample socially and educationally upward, it would seem unlikely that our respondents were widely untypical in their experiences and attitudes. Indeed, the similarity of answers to many questions suggested strongly that ours was a broadly representative group. Also, as we discussed in the introduction, individual opinions may be of interest in their own right if, for example, they give a new slant on the causes of a change in audit procedure or they give the perspective of a leading insider in events.
