On the 3 May 2016, eighteen fresh-faced
PhD students and a handful of academics found their way, haphazardly, to
Cumberland Lodge, in the grounds of the beautiful (though almost sinister—we
were told that leaving the Lodge after dark would result in our being accosted
by guards and returned. Anyone seen The Prisoner?) Windsor Great
Park, for two days of immersive socio-legal discussion. Geographically, we all arrived at the same
spot at the same time through multiple different routes, which neatly sums up
the discovery of socio-legal studies by postgrads working in law. For instance while others seemed to
miraculously get straight to the Lodge, I confidently arrived at a nearby town
on a train from London, and then spent a long time lost, as did
my taxi driver, traveling to and fro around the bucolic idyll of Windsor. Having arrived at multiple entrances to the
park which were all firmly closed, we finally found a gate that opened and let
us in, only to discover that we were then lost within the park itself. Needless to say, I made it to the Lodge just
before the coffee ran out. My experience
of socio-legal studies has been similar: a confident beginning (doctrinal law
was the business), followed by total confusion in the stunning theoretical
scenery of my LLM in critical jurisprudence, before an arrival in the perhaps
equally, though differently, puzzling yet irresistibly promising world of
socio-legal research. In this metaphor,
I am yet to discover whether there is any coffee left…
The masterclass was led by Linda
Mulcahy (LSE) under the auspices of the ESRC DTCs and principally took the form
of group discussions around a set of issues and collection of texts. Mercifully, the sessions did not religiously
rely on the texts that had been set (I may have crammed a little on the train in…)
and instead emphasised free discussion about our thoughts on and experiences
with socio-legal research. Due to this,
I’m going to focus more on the themes that emerged from these dialogues rather
than specific questions concerning the texts.
The first session focused on our
understandings of what socio-legal research is.
It was, for me, the most valuable session as my research in
international law and warfare kind of sets me on the fringe of socio-legal
research, particularly in terms of method.
After a quasi-interview of Phil Thomas (Cardiff)
by Dave
Cowan (Bristol) we had an engaging discussion of what we postgrads
understand socio-legal work to be. Opinions
ranged greatly between us, socio-legal scholarship being variously seen as a
separate discipline, the application of non-law methodologies to the study of
law and related issues, a rebellion against power in general, a rebellion
against power in the form of the traditional law school and so on. One possibility that particularly chimed with
me was the notion, proposed by Thomas, that socio-legal research aims be
subversive in an incremental and progressive manner, in contrast to the radical
challenge to power that is the hallmark of critical approaches to law.
This theme was picked up at the second
session, dealing with ‘critical empiricism’ (that kind of gives away what some
of the assigned reading might have been…).
In this session, run by Mulcahy and Cowan, the maintenance of critical self-awareness
by socio-legal researchers was emphasised.
For me the key message was that the apparently intractable antagonism
between socio-legal and critical scholarship is really rather illusory, the
barrier separating them being entirely permeable. Interestingly, this feeling had been
discussed over lunch, prior to the session, by some of the postgraduate
attendees. This, for me encapsulated why
socio-legal work can be about the adoption of alternate methodologies, often
from sociology, in legal research with a view to challenging ‘power’, be that
of the state, the law school, corporations or whatever. It seems that socio-legal and critical work
exist on the same spectrum of challenges to power. At one end there is the radical (or
revolutionary) approach and at the other there is (perhaps) the uncritical
compliance with power. At the former end
we are most likely to find work that would call itself critical, while at the
latter we may find traditional doctrinal legal scholarship, with work more accepting
of the law as it is. I reckon that socio-legal
studies can really exist at any point on that spectrum, bar the latter
end. Its aims are unfixed in terms of the
extent to which power is challenged, though nonetheless defined by the presence
of the challenge.
Next was a conversation between Rosemary Hunter (QMUL) and Mavis
Maclean (Oxford) about Maclean’s extensive work with the Ministry of
Justice. This was the perfect segue from
the previous session, as work so closely undertaken with a government department
appears to run the risk of being co-opted, its potential challenge to power
losing its force. It was an insightful
discussion in terms of the practicalities of such research but Maclean was also
happy to grapple with the argument that her type of socio-legal work might
become supportive of the status-quo.
Further emphasising the spectrum of possible types of socio-legal work,
the message from this session was about the ability of such research to stop,
or mitigate, crazy (my word, not hers) policy decisions. This is perhaps the subtlest form of
challenge to power that socio-legal research can offer, but it is a vital one. If you’re not a revolutionary then informing policy
decisions with evidence based research has to be one of the most important aims
for those of us working in the academy.
The following three sessions (one after
dinner and drinks, the other two after breakfast: oh how those established
academics worked us!!) focused on the very real need for socio-legal
researchers to be able to formulate research plans which can be communicated to
people with money. After receiving a scenario,
we split into groups of three and formulated then pitched our research
ideas. For me this was an eye-opening
session—I learned a lot about the practical side of running surveys, conducting
interviews and many other activities I’ve not yet carried out. Each group’s pitch was well received by our
colleagues and the academics, who gave us in-depth and detailed feedback. These sessions felt very much to have left
behind the themes of challenges to power and focused instead on the skills
socio-legal researchers need.
This continued in the final substantive
session, in which Kate
Malleson (QMUL) and Alan Paterson (Strathclyde)
discussed the trials and tribulations of interviewing ‘elites’. This session fit very well with the work
undertaken by some of the attendees, which resulted in some very interesting
conversations which I’m sure were highly beneficial to many. Following this there was a session for
reflection about our two days together, which I’m sure was excellent though I
missed out on it as I had to leave early.
Perhaps someone can summarise it in a comment below!
In a very promising sign, the penultimate
session had to be cut short: as I said, some of us had to leave early, but not
before we had all posed for a group photo!
This was instigated not by the organisers but by us students. During our time together we had fostered a
great sense of community (like Phil’s group in the 1970s, though with less
football… See Thomas,
1997: 9), and have agreed to create an informal network to aid our on-going
research. There was a palpable sense of potential
and excitement about the future.
Ultimately this is perhaps the most important result of the two-day masterclass,
I hope very much that it signals a continued interest in socio-legal research
and that one day it will be a group of us hosting a similar event for
optimistic young doctoral students.
This just a representation, I haven't got a copy of the original photo...
No comments:
Post a Comment