Can ethnography and activism overlap? In conversation with Kerstin Carlson

00:00:04: Welcome to the in-court podcast.

00:00:06: The podcasts were re-delving into trials and tribulations of the courtroom.

00:00:11: My name is Nina Tornquist, I'm a criminologist at Uppsala University Sweden.

00:00:15: my research centres on the worlds legal professionals with particular focus on emotion and legal decision making.

00:00:22: i have

00:00:23: observed criminal court cases in sweden for almost a decade.

00:00:27: My Name is Chloe Squires and I am postdoctoral researcher at Lancaster university.

00:00:31: My PhD work looked at the sentencing of individuals, charged with terrorism offenses and I observed court proceedings

00:00:40: in England & Wales.

00:00:50: For several months i have observed courtroom hearings on low level offences in German district courts.

00:00:55: In this podcast we dive into complexities We have identified throughout our times observing legal proceedings to demystify what happens in the courtroom.

00:01:05: And today, we have the pleasure of having Sharon Wheel as a guest on our podcast and talk about her research

00:01:13: on

00:01:13: court-and terrorism trials.

00:01:15: Welcome, Sharon!

00:01:17: Would you like introduce yourself?

00:01:20: Hello I'm Sharon Vale.

00:01:22: I am a professor at International Law At the American University of Paris and a research associate at the Sorbonne university, I did few empirical work in court.

00:01:34: I studied different courts whether criminal court administrative military

00:01:40: court.

00:01:40: Sharon thank you very much for taking time to be apart guest on our episode today.

00:01:47: You are an experienced

00:01:49: corporate

00:01:49: researcher different projects, some of them also transdisciplinary interdisciplinary multidisciplinary and we would like to learn from you how you've experienced working with colleagues from various disciplines.

00:02:08: Yeah thank you very much for organizing those podcasts.

00:02:12: then I'm really happy to participate.

00:02:14: my two recent big project were in court where ethnographic and were part of a pluridisciplinary research group.

00:02:24: So I wanted to share these experiences because i really feel that it's very enriching, its'a very strong experience... Of course there are also challenges but this is why i think it's good to share it and discuss so maybe it could help others in constructing similar projects.

00:02:45: So the first project that we did was such a research within terror courts in France.

00:02:52: In this project, We started as very small group.

00:02:55: I mean small...we were four people.

00:02:58: there was an anthropologist political scientist A judge which is also..I mean it's not a practicing Judge.

00:03:05: he WAS a judge but now He do theory of law and myself an international lawyer.

00:03:12: And then we started to go together, to court and to observe tribes together.

00:03:18: so this was the first maybe new approach in our pluridisciplinary approach because at that time's...and it started in two thousand seventeen.

00:03:28: So of course the idea of having pluridisciplinary groups is not a new idea But many times, and this you can see in edited book of pluridisciplinary research.

00:03:44: it's like everyone is contributing from its own discipline.

00:03:50: And there isn't necessarily a collective work on the research itself You see?

00:03:56: It more every one giving his perspective.

00:03:59: We put them together somehow In collection for example.

00:04:03: Our approach was very different because we were looking at objects.

00:04:08: So we went to court together.

00:04:10: I mean, of course not always and you know some of us were teaching etc.

00:04:14: but as far is we could... We want to gather at the Court And then we were meeting maybe once a month or every two months sometimes officially sometime not officially Sometimes simply after being in court.

00:04:27: You know your old-time.

00:04:28: discuss about what you've seen What do you think?

00:04:31: so this Is About Us!

00:04:33: Then Of Course there is The Meeting with the Actors.

00:04:37: Again, you have some official interviews.

00:04:39: Some interview that you are doing on the spot in the courtroom as ethnography work here is being done and part of it's on-the-spot and part he constructed an interview.

00:04:50: And then the idea more generally to look about different access.

00:04:55: actually when we do such research This something after I theorize how to study courts is to look at the legal doctrine.

00:05:08: Because many times when we have sociological studies, somehow the legal component of it is a little bit overlooked and don't really do our legal analysis.

00:05:21: And I think that legal analysis is an important part of this research, because it's the language used in this place.

00:05:30: So whatever is legal doctrine and how they are transformed for what purpose So for this, the eye of an international lawyer or the lawyer is important.

00:05:51: And they work on top of these.

00:05:54: beyond ethnography—of course it's to go through legal sources and see how law evolves, what interpretation we're given not only by the court that you are observing but also as a part who are the Court of Appeal, whether constitutional court gave a decision at Supreme Administrative Court etc.

00:06:21: So all this legal work was also an important component.

00:06:28: So this was the first act.

00:06:29: The second acts were the question of actors, with sociologists and it's much an approach to see the place as a laboratory where things are happening in itself And we have sociologists who could really contribute.

00:06:54: What was really interesting for me as an international lawyer to work, the first time with such a group is that I learned a lot.

00:07:01: So even through their gaze... ...I could refine my own analysis and vice versa.

00:07:07: you see?

00:07:08: This was very interesting in this sense That also you are all-the-time learning things actually from your colleagues.

00:07:16: simply The idea of actors going into two strides is to understand or to follow the bios of those actors, where they come from.

00:07:30: You know how their development career and kind of network that you could see?

00:07:37: And this second thing in the court room itself.

00:07:42: So this could be also more an anthropological look, you know about how they're ritual are taking account of their architecture etc.

00:07:50: so In these sense we have both of them.

00:07:52: one is more individual The bio and second is the interaction.

00:07:57: but the interaction Is not only confined to the courtroom because it can go More broadly through the courthouse or to the corridors And to offices where we will do the interviews.

00:08:11: So in a way, doing court ethnography is not only courtroom it's also courthouse and offices where people are working.

00:08:22: So this leads me to the third point, which is the institution.

00:08:25: It's to understand a dynamic of the institution because they analyze over courtroom.

00:08:32: so it's what you see right?

00:08:33: It's one case.

00:08:34: judges are deciding on cases by basis and through procedure that predetermined, but for sure the decision is a part of wider routine.

00:08:47: A wider professional routine.

00:08:49: and why they're here or she?

00:08:51: And why their economy of justice?

00:08:53: where then you need to be more efficient, more rapid

00:08:55: etc.?

00:08:56: So this I think it's important also to see the analyzed one court that you are observing within.

00:09:11: And especially, you will have here the question of efficiency versus justice.

00:09:16: The question what knowledge do judges have from before going to see this particular case?

00:09:23: How does knowledge is constructed?

00:09:25: who are helping the judges know or what kind of formation and et cetera.

00:09:31: so that's an entire universe about the institution And of course, whether or not they are like.

00:09:36: maybe some influence from other institutions and competition.

00:09:42: But mainly bureaucracy issues in Hiroshi.

00:09:47: Then lastly is the political environment.

00:09:49: to understand what is a wider political environment?

00:09:55: For example if it's terrorism, migration because our second research was on immigration then we need what political role the law has, right?

00:10:08: And of course this law is a tool that can be used by different actors differently.

00:10:13: But at end-of-the day... What's the role in an institution like this case law or whatever of these actors ?

00:10:20: This one aspect and for me it was always really interesting to see how politics are framed on the trike you know, so this is like the inner critique of the politics and to see who's using what or how.

00:10:40: So these are four axes that I thought were interesting.

00:10:48: Yeah, and we did.

00:10:51: So after we finished the terrorism research I did a similar research on the asylum court in France.

00:10:59: so again it was a pluridisciplinary.

00:11:01: here We also involve a lot of our students.

00:11:04: This is really good way to involve students because there are lots of hearings for asylum.

00:11:10: so we sent students.

00:11:12: you know we constructed the grid.

00:11:14: they were filling their grids And this was the student as an actor, as a public.

00:11:20: So through there we had more than fifty observation reports and through their observation report We could construct you know how that public perceived the trial.

00:11:31: so This is one thing.

00:11:32: but The maybe different things That we did in these researches Was each One of us of researchers were like In charge Of one actor One that did the judges, one that did lawyers.

00:11:50: I did the interprets and one did the rapporteur, the clerk.

00:11:55: So like this we had and it means that in every actor, so first a collective interview of about fifteen of them together one time or two depends.

00:12:08: And then individual interviews to see them in court.

00:12:14: It was long process took quite some time but over eighty interviews were really interesting Here not lucky.

00:12:25: We could do this because we had our founder, which is also in part Ministry of Justice.

00:12:32: So with these letter from the founder and president of the court really gave us access to all the actors.

00:12:40: he was sending one email you know to other hundred fifty reporter or three hundred reporters.

00:12:46: please if someone's interested in collaborating The researcher.

00:12:54: and this is how we got access to the actor

00:12:58: just following up on you being in charge of the actors And conducting interviews.

00:13:01: did that mean?

00:13:02: That in the code from setting.

00:13:04: You were also focusing On the clock, on the prosecutor.

00:13:08: like if you went for an observation because I think that's one of the questions each of us observers in courtrooms has, that there is so much going on.

00:13:17: That it's sometimes hard to understand what you're going to focus on?

00:13:21: So did you when you were in charge off say the clerks... Did you just look at what they were doing in a day in

00:13:28: court?".

00:13:29: Yeah thank you for your question!

00:13:31: You know.. For example if and I was working?

00:13:37: Yeah, of course.

00:13:38: So you will more focus on the interprets and then I could talk with her after a hearing... ...and she would tell me how it was for her

00:13:46: etc.,

00:13:47: but of course you are also at tune to be more general.

00:13:51: now You know, it depends.

00:13:55: what do you need when you focus to look.

00:13:58: So in this particular research we all... I mean me and Sarah the co-director knew very well this court because our self were judges there before.

00:14:10: so we knew really well.

00:14:13: but of course you always learn something new then.

00:14:16: for me was a new experience to leave this court setting from the perspective of The Interpretant.

00:14:23: This was really interesting because I was like now sitting more next to her, not really next door... Because i can't in the courtroom but yes behind her and I was trying to sit through her eyes.

00:14:39: And then you've got a completely different way of seeing the logical like this.

00:14:44: So I will sit with her in the waiting room for three hours until she's being called to the courtroom, and then in the... In the waitingroom You see all the interprets on what they do during that time that they wait.

00:14:59: so it is a different experience than from you know, just being in the courtroom or seeing this.

00:15:05: Yes so this is what we did and one that worked on the rapporteur.

00:15:10: she was ten days uh...in his office.

00:15:13: So not only in hearings but also in offices.

00:15:18: when we did an interview with the president we could see how the cases are distributed, who decide if it will go to hearing or three judges and one judge.

00:15:30: To an immediate rejection.

00:15:31: so in this way you can do every... This is what I said before that when you're at a courtroom but with your actor You also go beyond the courtroom In waiting room or offices And then you'll be able to see how works behind scenes.

00:15:48: And then, of course the challenge is how you do something together in writing.

00:15:54: Yeah, so as I said in the terrorism we had a lot of discussion together and then you know... And then we construct a report.

00:16:02: or now it's book but It was co-authoring right?

00:16:06: So its not like chapter by chapter.

00:16:09: Its co-authoring!

00:16:10: So is a process that needs strong editorial work to gather for the co-othering.

00:16:17: Of course everyone misses his own thing But you need a strong outline to understand how do it.

00:16:23: And now with the immigration report, which is only... Now it's going to be published and we are presenting in two weeks for first time.

00:16:30: Here was more so.

00:16:32: we had two jurists.

00:16:33: they really did the chapter on law.

00:16:37: We have a chapter of actors what I just described.

00:16:40: you So will by actor.

00:16:44: The first chapter describe the entire bureaucracy institution.

00:16:48: It like at beginning show how file Moving within the institution, then we had one ethnographer because we didn't have the applicant.

00:16:59: We did want to do them interview without.

00:17:01: it's too much...we wanted more than that.

00:17:04: but they never took an ethnographer.

00:17:07: so from a file perspective and human perspective walking in court how he managed to arrive at the courtroom etc.

00:17:16: So this is the opening chapter.

00:17:19: Then by actors And then we had the legal doctrines.

00:17:24: Well, so you know and I mean it's not easy to co-author but uh... Then you need to think well how you construct this co-authoring.

00:17:35: while their work should be well distributed.

00:17:38: It is not one person that writing for everyone But You need a strong editing work need maybe one or two that do the editing work but in a process of co-authoring, yeah.

00:17:54: Thanks Sharon and

00:17:55: I just...I think

00:17:57: what you've been talking about a lot is about the benefits of kind of interdisciplinary transdisciplinary integration and collaboration.

00:18:07: i think there are also quite a lot of challenges conceptual, theoretical models integrating kind of different experiences.

00:18:18: I wonder how you experience that and how you've overcome in your work especially with it being so

00:18:26: cross-disciplinary?

00:18:28: Yeah i guess this depends on the group

00:18:32: and

00:18:32: it depends on your approach.

00:18:34: that should be more or less defined from the start, like a general approach.

00:18:39: And then of course its grounded research.

00:18:40: so you should really open to see what happens right?

00:18:44: So I think in terrorism we had an extremely good group.

00:18:55: We were four confirmed researchers that we did already courted geographies and everyone in his approach.

00:19:02: And, you know to come to court I mean we would not pay the extra money...we didn't have millions!

00:19:09: We just did research right?

00:19:11: And also our minds were connected.

00:19:19: I don't know how to explain this, so... This is kind of an alchemy that just happened!

00:19:24: You can tell you why it happens and maybe… But if does not always happen, but in particular research was really good I respect enough each other, so to give this space too.

00:19:42: So it just happened really naturally and i didn't see any particular challenge in this sense you know.

00:19:49: because uh... It's like when you brought something so it was built upon etc.

00:19:56: then in the immigration research ...so we answered a call And that called for crisis This term of crisis In a way From a theoretical perspective, we had already the framing of crisis.

00:20:13: We needed to follow this idea through whatever we will find.

00:20:18: so here was this approach but... You know, then it was a crisis for lawyers.

00:20:24: So they will focus on this and from an institution we have those sociologists work of the idea that high classes become routine in how they frame their work as an institution... And what does it mean?

00:20:38: What does it means to be well-being of workers?

00:20:42: Their ideas about justices like good justice is rapid justice

00:20:47: etc.?

00:20:48: We had these ideas.

00:20:50: Yeah, and here it was more me and Sarah that we were the real coordinators.

00:20:55: So like this... It was less equal engagement as had in terrorism research.

00:21:03: Here some were paid for something very specific so they did one chapter but then a work of us to coordinate everything.

00:21:15: And for me, the challenge was that it was huge.

00:21:18: It was too much and even in the report is too long.

00:21:21: so maybe next time we will not do things to big because I don't know who's going to read all this... The challenges were really with the team but you have other challenges like what can be said or not say?

00:21:37: This is a big challenge.

00:21:39: you know, how... You work with different actors that maybe we should have actually do more meeting within the different groups of actors.

00:21:48: This could be really interesting but again… How far can you go?

00:21:52: With the institution your are studying!

00:21:54: Yeah so I think that maybe the challenges are not at theoretical level –I don't think there is a problem of intellectual ideas.

00:22:03: it's more the extent to which people will be engaged and involved.

00:22:11: Because a different theoretical approach, I mean you discuss them in any way from beginning... You form groups that think those approaches coexist well together.

00:22:23: Yeah i was thinking about how your first project on terrorism trials got into contact with other researchers coming out of other disciplines.

00:22:34: Did you decide to start the project?

00:22:37: Yeah, it's a good question.

00:22:40: I think they contacted me.

00:22:42: so at that time i was working... It was long ago ah!

00:22:48: So my PhD was about international law in domestic court and then I went to Berkeley to study military commission in Guantanamo And the Israeli Military Court.

00:23:00: those are work that I did along like Phd When I came back to Paris, so i presented somewhere my work on Guantanamo and of course it was then... So It Was Nine Eleven terrorism.

00:23:12: And Then you had the the Bataclan attack in two thousand fifteen and then this group started to form itself because they wanted to do this research and follow the trial in front, then contacted me.

00:23:25: They knew that I did it on other... So yeah there were two of them, they contacted me And then I proposed him fourth but he's already doing also.

00:23:36: so you know?

00:23:37: It was more a group from through work.

00:23:43: we didn't know eachother all us.

00:23:45: The first one yes Because they knew about his call to appeal the ground, but they didn't contact me.

00:23:52: And I proposed a fourth one and this is how we were created yeah?

00:23:56: In The Asylum Court.

00:23:58: so it was me in Sa'a because...I mean i work with her for another thing and then we thought let's do these!

00:24:04: Then when we got the grant It was more colleagues.

00:24:09: friends you know that We wanted to work together on something But They Didn't Have Necessarily Too Much Time.

00:24:16: So You Know They Took One Actor And then we took one of my students to continue.

00:24:23: Then after, we did a call because we were looking for jurists and...

00:24:28: Can I just ask Sharon?

00:24:29: Because i'm not quite aware the set up with this project.

00:24:32: Who was the funder ?

00:24:33: Was it difficult to acquire that funding?

00:24:36: How did that go?

00:24:37: Yeah but you know The funders changed their name like three times since started so to tell you how long it worked.

00:24:47: So, It was Institut droit et justice like Justice and Law whatever they're now with Robert but its an institution which is funded half by the Ministry of Justice And Half By The French CNRS Which Is The French National Researcher.

00:25:04: They do twice a year or once every year I don't know A call...and they finance groups which are pretty disciplinary.

00:25:12: So as Nina said, this is like a condition right?

00:25:19: stand me wrongly, it's France and its a very low financement.

00:25:24: I mean i'm speaking about uh a few thousand like... maybe forty-thousand something like this?

00:25:30: It's not a lot of money right?

00:25:33: You can may be higher one or two postdocs but even though for the entire period you will have research.

00:25:42: So of course, the one who had a position didn't get any money for this.

00:25:47: But it allows to have people that don't have positions or to have trips if you need to go somewhere which was not our case.

00:25:55: Yeah so Defender is nothing about the money because really there wasn't enough money but its more... You can reach these letters all the actors, because it's like Minister of Justice.

00:26:07: No one will tell you no I don't want to go...to be

00:26:10: interviewed.".

00:26:10: You know?

00:26:10: It does so this.

00:26:12: and then the distribution of the study also is really interesting because they distribute the study to the actor.

00:26:20: So in a way when we write these reports We write to judges To lawyers To the actors Not necessarily to academics.

00:26:29: Also academics Of course if anyone wants read us.

00:26:31: but It's really, there is like an institutional aspect in this.

00:26:35: This is why I liked to do it with them.

00:26:38: When

00:26:39: we envisaged making the podcast We were thinking about who is the kind of audience that we're targeting this at and we are thinking That its mostly likely To be people Who do similar research or People who want to do similar Research.

00:26:54: Do you have as somebody has...who Has done a lot Of research In this space?

00:26:59: Do You Have any tips Where people should start or things that they should do if they want to do a similar type of project.

00:27:06: Yeah, I think this is what i'm doing saying also to my students you should go!

00:27:10: You know?

00:27:10: You shouldn't need anything actually...you just have to be in court and take the court which is next your place where you are.

00:27:22: then you can just do it without necessarily funding.

00:27:26: Of course If you're funding okay whatever ...you'll do with money but The research itself, I mean if you need funding for your own position so okay.

00:27:35: You'll need to look for funding but If you don't need this i think you can just go to court and then uh... ...you go to Court with people that you like to work with them And i think it's nice not be alone But of course you can do it alone!

00:27:51: I personally like Not To Be Alone So you can Go With Your Students also !

00:27:54: You Can Go With One Colleague Two Colleagues Whatever And once you are on the ground, then... You learn by yourself how to get access and negotiate things.

00:28:10: What is interesting for you?

00:28:11: I think that we really need to follow what's interesting for us!

00:28:16: Go with it if you're more interested in going to the offices or go to the office.

00:28:23: if you are interested in one particular actor then go for it, and I think that good research is really because you like what you do.

00:28:33: So i think this will be my first recommendation just to do what you like maybe... Just say a final word!

00:28:40: Is that I really think its important to pass on these?

00:28:45: you know, this approach.

00:28:47: And I'm doing it with my students and I see... You know?

00:28:50: ...I had the graduate student master and she was following along a trial in Germany….

00:28:57: …and she wrote her master thesis about these and now she got the price of the best thesis that's possible!

00:29:04: You

00:29:04: know?!

00:29:04: And I was so happy because once you open those doors for your students they even discover them because its not something is it's always been thought right and then maybe you Take them the first time to court.

00:29:23: I always take my students, you know?

00:29:25: Always all right will...I'll take them to see terror tribes or asylum court of whatever Or if there is a big decision in constitutional court.

00:29:32: so You'd take your student and do it into groups or wherever And then people get the taste for It.

00:29:42: So i think that this really good thing To transmit like these students feel that it's also concrete, you know.

00:29:53: It is not only theoretical but there are professional aspects and they can also project themselves as one of those professions.

00:30:03: so maybe once with them then will be a rapporteur or say okay now I want to do law ,I want.

00:30:08: So I feel, you know that this is really also a good not only as researcher but also the teacher.

00:30:17: And these are something that could absolutely integrate in your classes and it's super.

00:30:24: Thank you so much, Chabon!

00:30:26: This has been really worthwhile listening to you.

00:30:28: thank you for taking your time.