Handmaidens, partners or go-betweens: Reflections on the push and pull of the judicial and justice policy audience
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1707Keywords:
Policy makers, judges, research impact, partialityAbstract
Debate about the ways in empirical accounts of socio-legal phenomena may be compromised by close engagement with policy audiences has long dogged discussions of the possibility of progressive agendas in the field. This paper re-examines these critiques by reference to a case study in which the authors worked closely with UK judges and the court service. It argues that accounts of the relationship between the policy audience and researchers frequently rely on overly simplistic conceptualisations of elite state actors and the ways in which empirical researchers engage with the powerful. We suggest that a range of forms of interaction are possible in which researchers can be characterised as handmaidens, partners or go-betweens. While acknowledging the importance of interrogating how the policy audience can compromise the independence of academic researchers, we argue that debate has tended to rest on oversimplified understandings of the dynamics of interactions with powerful state actors.
Downloads
Metrics
Downloads:
13(S1)_Mulcahy_Tsalapatanis_OSLS 196
XML_13(S1)_Mulcahy_Tsalapatanis_OSLS 7
References
Albiston, C.R., and Sandefur, R.L. 2013. Expanding the empirical study of access to justice. Wisconsin Law Review, 1, 101.
Andersson, R., 2018. The price of impact: reflections on academic outreach amid the “refugee crisis”. Social Anthropology [online], 26(2), 222–237. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8676.12478
Apple, M.W., 2010. A Response to Zeus Leonardo’s “Critical Empiricism: Reading Data With Social Theory”. Educational Researcher [online], 39(2), 160–161. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X10362591b
Banakar, R., and Travers, M., 2005. Law, Sociology and Method. In: R. Banakar and M. Travers, eds., Theory and Method in Socio-Legal Research. Oxford: Hart, 1–26.
Borgerson, K., 2011. Amending and defending critical contextual empiricism. European Journal for Philosophy of Science [online], 1(3), 435–449. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-011-0035-5
Brandsen, T., and Honingh, M., 2016. Distinguishing Different Types of Coproduction: A Conceptual Analysis Based on the Classical Definitions. Public Administration Review [online], 76(3), 427–435. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12465
Campbell, C.M., and Wiles, P., 1976. The study of law in society in Britain. Law and Society Review [online], 10, 551. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/3053297
Chubb, J., Watermeyer, R., and Wakeling, P., 2017. Fear and loathing in the academy? The role of emotion in response to an impact agenda in the UK and Australia. Higher Education Research & Development [online], 36(3), 555–568. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1288709
Cowan, D., and Hitchings, E., 2007. Pretty boring stuff: District judges and housing possession proceedings. Social & Legal Studies [online], 16(3), 363–382. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663907079764
Darbyshire, P., 2011. Sitting in judgment: the working lives of judges. London: Bloomsbury.
Davies, J., Yarrow, E., and Syed, J., 2020. The curious under-representation of women impact case leaders: Can we disengender inequality regimes? Gender, Work & Organization [online], 27(2), 129–148. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12409
Eisenstadt, N., and McLellan, J., 2020. Foregrounding co-production: Building research relationships in university–community collaborative research. Research for All [online]. London: UCL Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.14324/RFA.04.2.08
Feenan, D., 2008. Women judges: Gendering judging, justifying diversity. Journal of Law and Society [online], 35(4), 490–519. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2008.00448.x
Fischer, F., 1998. Beyond empiricism: policy inquiry in post positivist perspective. Policy studies journal [online], 26(1), 129–146. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1998.tb01929.x
Fransman, J., 2018. Charting a course to an emerging field of “research engagement studies”: A conceptual meta-synthesis. Research for All [online], 2(2), 185–229. Available at: https://doi.org/10.18546/RFA.02.2.02.
Freeman, M.D., 1994. Lloyd’s introduction to jurisprudence (Vol. 111). London: Sweet & Maxwell.
Giroux, H.A., 2014. Neoliberalism’s war on higher education. Chicago: Haymarket Books.
Greatbatch, D., and Dingwall, R., 1989. Selective facilitation: Some preliminary observations on a strategy used by divorce mediators. Law and Society Review [online], 23(4), 613–641. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/3053850
Griffith, J.A.G., 1977. The politics of the judiciary. Manchester University Press.
Harlow, C., ed., 1986. Public Law and Politics. London: Sweet and Maxwell.
HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS), 2022. Supporting Online Justice Films. YouTube playlist. HMCTSgovuk [online]. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLORVvk_w75Py6JClMOiiltyTjI2gyc81g
Holmwood, J., 2014. From social rights to the market: neoliberalism and the knowledge economy. International Journal of Lifelong Education [online], 33(1), 62–76. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2013.873213
Hunter, C., Nixon, J., and Blandy, S., 2008. Researching the judiciary: Exploring the invisible in judicial decision making. Journal of Law and Society [online], 35(s1), 76–90. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2008.00426.x
Hunter, R., 2007. Would You Like Theory With That? Bridging the Divide between Policy-Oriented Empirical Legal Research, Critical Theory and Politics. Studies in Law, Politics, and Society [online], 41(Special Issue Law and Society Reconsidered), 121–148. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1059-4337(07)00005-1
Hutter, B., and Lloyd-Bostock, S., 1997. Law’s Relationship with Social Science: The Interdependence of Theory, Empirical Work and Social Relevance in Socio-Legal Studies. In: K. Hawkins, ed., The Human Face of Law: Essays in Honour of Donald Harris [online]. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198262473.003.0002
Jo, S., and Nabatchi, T., 2016. Getting Back to Basics: Advancing the Study and Practice of Coproduction. International Journal of Public Administration [online], 39(13), 1101–8. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2016.1177840
Judicial Office, 2020. Judicial participation in research projects [online]. October. London: Judicial Office. Available at: https://www.judiciary.uk/publications/judicial-participation-in-research-projects/
Lacey, N., 1996. Normative reconstruction in socio-legal theory. Social & Legal Studies [online], 5(2), 131–157. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/096466399600500201
Leo, R.A., 1996. Police scholarship for the future: Resisting the pull of the policy audience. Law and Society Review [online], vol. 30, 865–879. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/3054121
Maclean, M., 2015. The Impact of Socio-legal Studies in Family Justice: From Oxford to Whitehall. Journal of Law and Society [online], 42(4), 637–648. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2015.00728.x
Ministry of Justice, 2020. Diversity of the judiciary: Legal professions, new appointments and current post-holders 2020 statistics [online]. 17 September. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/918529/diversity-of-the-judiciary-2020-statistics-web.pdf
Mulcahy, L., 2009. The unbearable lightness of being – Shifts towards the virtual trial. Journal of Law and Society [online], 35(4), 464–489. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2008.00447.x
Mulcahy, L., 2021. Virtual Poverty? What happens when criminal trials go online? In: D. Cowan and A. Mumford, eds., Pandemc Legalities: legal responses to COVID 19 – Justice and Social responsibility [online]. Bristol University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781529218916.003.0004
Mulcahy, L., and Tsalapatanis A., 2021. Putting us in our Place: Recognising the Parasitic Tendencies of the Socio-Legal Researcher [Blog post]. Frontiers of Socio-Legal Studies, 15 December. Available at: https://frontiers.csls.ox.ac.uk/putting-us-in-our-place/
Mulcahy, L., and Tsalapatanis, A., 2022. Exclusion in the interests of inclusion: who should stay offline in the emerging world of online justice? Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law [online], 44(4). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2022.2136713
Mulcahy, L., Rowden, E., and Tsalapatanis, A., 2022. Supporting online justice: Enhancing accessibility, participation and procedural fairness [online]. Oxford: Centre for Socio-Legal Studies. Available at: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:63fe7b82-d27a-494b-85fc-a146c33822c8
Mungham, G., and Thomas, P.A., 1981. Studying lawyers: aspects of the theory, method and politics of social research. British Journal of Law and Societ [online], 8(1), 79–96. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/1409835
Nabatchi, T., Sancino, A., and Sicilia, A., 2017. Varieties of Participation in Public Services: The Who, When, and What of Coproduction. Public Administration Review [online], 77(5), 766–76. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12765.
Nelken, D., 1998. Blind insights? The limits of a reflexive sociology of law. Journal of Law and Society [online], 25(3), 407–426. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6478.00098
Ostrom, E., et al., 1978. The Public Service Production Process: A Framework for Analyzing Police Services. Policy Studies Journal [online], 7, 381–389. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1978.tb01782.x
Paterson, A., 1983. The law lords [online]. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-06918-7
Paterson, A., 2013. Final judgment: the last law lords and the Supreme Court. Oxford: Bloomsbury.
Sanderson, I., 2011. Evidence-based policy or policy-based evidence? Reflections on Scottish experience. Evidence & Policy [online], 7(1), 59–76. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1332/174426411X553007
Sarat, A., and Silbey, S., 1988. The pull of the policy audience. Law & Policy [online], 10(2‐3), 97–166. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9930.1988.tb00007.x
Strassheim, H., and Kettunen, P., 2014. When does evidence-based policy turn into policy-based evidence? Configurations, contexts and mechanisms. Evidence & Policy [online], 10(2), 259–277. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1332/174426514X13990433991320
Tate, W., 2020. Anthropology of Policy: Tensions, Temporalities, Possibilities. Annual Review of Anthropology [online], 49(1), 83–99. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-010220-074250
Trubek, D.M., 1984. Where the action is: critical legal studies and empiricism. Stanford Law Review [online], 36(1/2), 575. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/1228692
Trubek, D.M., and Esser, J., 1989. “Critical Empiricism” in American Legal Studies: Paradox, Program, or Pandora’s Box? Law & Social Inquiry [online], 14(1), 3–52. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.1989.tb00577.x
Tsalapatanis, A., Mulcahy, L., and Rowden, E., 2022. Methodology Report: Supporting Online Justice Project [online]. Oxford: Centre for Socio-Legal Studies. Available at: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:d2f7afe7-b459-44eb-8d4a-d3f933eee589
UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), 2020. Get funding for ideas that address COVID-19 [online]. 21 September. Available at: https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/get-funding-for-ideas-that-address-covid-19/
UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), 2022. How Research England supports research excellence: REF Impact [online]. Available at: https://www.ukri.org/about-us/research-england/research-excellence/ref-impact/
Whitford, W.C., 1989. Critical Empiricism. Law and Social Inquiry [online], 14(1), 61–67. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1086/492249
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Linda Mulcahy, Anna Tsalapatanis
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
OSLS strictly respects intellectual property rights and it is our policy that the author retains copyright, and articles are made available under a Creative Commons licence. The Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution No-Derivatives licence is our default licence, further details available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 If this is not acceptable to you, please contact us.
The non-exclusive permission you grant to us includes the rights to disseminate the bibliographic details of the article, including the abstract supplied by you, and to authorise others, including bibliographic databases, indexing and contents alerting services, to copy and communicate these details.
For information on how to share and store your own article at each stage of production from submission to final publication, please read our Self-Archiving and Sharing policy.
The Copyright Notice showing the author and co-authors, and the Creative Commons license will be displayed on the article, and you must agree to this as part of the submission process. Please ensure that all co-authors are properly attributed and that they understand and accept these terms.