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.1707Palabras clave:
responsables políticos, jueces, impacto de la investigación, parcialidad, partes interesadasResumen
El debate sobre las formas en que la credibilidad del trabajo empírico socio-jurídico puede verse comprometida por un estrecho compromiso con el público político ha perseguido durante mucho tiempo las discusiones sobre la posibilidad de una agenda socio-jurídica progresista. Este artículo reexamina estas críticas haciendo referencia a un estudio de caso en el que los autores trabajaron estrechamente con jueces y el servicio judicial del Reino Unido. Sostiene que muchos de los relatos existentes sobre la relación entre el público político y los investigadores se basan con frecuencia en conceptualizaciones demasiado simplistas de los actores estatales de élite y de las formas en que los investigadores empíricos se relacionan con los poderosos. Sugerimos que son posibles distintos tipos de relaciones de investigación, que caracterizamos como de sirvientes, socios o intermediarios. Aunque reconocemos la importancia de cuestionar el modo en que las audiencias políticas pueden comprometer la independencia de los investigadores académicos, sostenemos que el debate ha tendido a basarse en interpretaciones unidimensionales de la dinámica de las interacciones con los poderosos actores estatales.
Descargas
Metrics
Downloads:
13(S1)_Mulcahy_Tsalapatanis_OSLS (English) 196
XML_13(S1)_Mulcahy_Tsalapatanis_OSLS (English) 7
Citas
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
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2023 Linda Mulcahy, Anna Tsalapatanis
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.
Los autores conservan el copyright de sus trabajos, que se publicarán en OSLS bajo una licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento NoComercial SinObraDerivada. Puede consultar más detalles en: http://es.creativecommons.org/licencia/. Si no está de acuerdo con esta licencia, por favor, póngase en contacto con nosotros.
El autor concede los permisos necesarios para difundir la información bibliográfica del artículo, incluyendo el resumen, y autorizar a otros, incluyendo las bases de datos bibliográficas, de índices y servicios de alerta de contenidos, a copiar y comunicar esta información.
Para más información sobre los permisos para distribuir su artículo en cada fase de la producción, por favor, lea nuestra Política de Autoarchivo y Divulgación (en inglés).
Las condiciones de copyright con el nombre de autores y co-autores, y la licencia Creative Commons se mostrarán en el artículo. Estas condiciones se deben aceptar como parte del proceso de envío de un artículo a la revista. Por favor, asegúrese de que todos los co-autores se mencionan correctamente, y que entienden y aceptan estos términos.
