Sparking Synergy – In conversation with Sharon Weill

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

00:00:07: The podcasts were redelving into the trials and tribulations of the courtroom.

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

00:00:16: my

00:00:16: research centers on the worlds legal professionals with particular focus on emotion and legal decision making.

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

00:00:28: My PhD work looked at the sentencing of individuals charged with terrorism offences and I observed court proceedings

00:00:39: in England & Wales.

00:00:42: My name is Niko Bögeland, I'm a sociologist and criminologist At The University Of Cologne In Germany.

00:00:47: my work focuses on institutional racism

00:00:50: in Court

00:00:50: And Terrorism cases.

00:00:52: For several months i have observed courtroom hearings On low level offenses in German district courts.

00:01:00: We have identified throughout our times observing legal proceedings to demystify what happens in the courtroom.

00:01:08: And today, we have the pleasure of having Sharon Wiel as a guest on this podcast and talking about her research

00:01:15: into

00:01:16: court and terrorism

00:01:17: trials.

00:01:18: Welcome,

00:01:18: Sharon!

00:01:19: Would you like to introduce

00:01:20: yourself?

00:01:23: Hello, I'm Sharon Vale.

00:01:25: I am a professor of international law at the American University of Paris and research associate at Sorbonne University.

00:01:33: I did few empirical work in court.

00:01:37: I studied different courts with criminal court administrative military court.

00:01:43: Sharon thank you very much

00:01:44: for taking time

00:01:45: to be apart guest on our episode today.

00:01:49: You are a very experienced courtroom researcher and you've conducted a lot of different projects, some of them also transdisciplinary interdisciplinary multidisciplinary.

00:02:01: And we would like to learn from how you have experienced working with colleagues from various disciplines.

00:02:10: Yeah, thank you very much for organizing those podcasts and I'm really happy to participate.

00:02:17: My two recent big projects were in court or ethnographic and were part of a pluridisciplinary research group.

00:02:27: 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.

00:02:47: So the first project that we did was such a research within terror courts in France.

00:02:54: In this project, we started as very small group... I mean small ... We were four people.

00:03:00: there was an anthropologist political scientist and judge which is also not a practicing judge.

00:03:08: he WAS a judge but now it's more if you do theory of law and myself an international lawyer.

00:03:14: And then we started to go together, to court and to observe tribes together.

00:03:21: so this was the first maybe new approach in our pluridisciplinary approach because at that time's...and it started in two thousand seventeen.

00:03:31: So of course the idea of having pluri-disciplinary groups is not a new idea But many times, and this you can see in edited book of pluridisciplinary research it's like everyone is contributing from its own discipline.

00:03:52: And there isn't necessarily a collective work on the research itself You see?

00:03:58: It more every one giving his perspective.

00:04:01: We put them together somehow In collection for example.

00:04:05: Our approach was very different because we were looking at objects.

00:04:10: So we went to court together.

00:04:12: I mean, of course not always and you know some of us were teaching him etc.

00:04:16: but as far is we could?

00:04:17: We want to gather to court.

00:04:19: And then we were meeting maybe once a month or every two months sometime officially sometimes not officially Sometimes simply after being in court and You know your little discuss about what you've seen What do you think?

00:04:34: so this is About Us.

00:04:36: and Then Of Course there Is the Meeting with The Actors.

00:04:39: Again, you have some official interviews.

00:04:41: 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 in part a constructed interview.

00:04:53: And then the idea more generally to look about different access actually when we do such research.

00:05:01: This something after I theorize how to study courts.

00:05:06: So first is to look at the legal doctrine because many times when we have socio-legal studies, somehow the legal component of it a little bit overlooked and don't really do legal analysis.

00:05:23: And I think that legal analysis is an important part of this research because it's the language used in this place.

00:05:32: So, whatever a legal doctrine and how they are transformed for what purpose So for this, the eye of an international lawyer or the lawyer is important.

00:05:54: And they work on top of these.

00:05:56: 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 part who are the Court of Appeal, whether constitutional court gave a decision at the Supreme Administrative Court etc.

00:06:24: So all this legal work was also an important component.

00:06:30: So this was the first act.

00:06:31: The second acts were questions of actors, with sociologists and it's much an approach to see the laboratory as a place where things are happening in itself.

00:06:50: And this, of course we have the sociologists and political scientists who could really contribute to these.

00:06:55: but then what was interesting for me as an international lawyer is that I learned a lot.

00:07:03: So even through their gaze i could refine my own analysis in vis-versa you see.

00:07:10: so it's very interesting also because all the time learning things actually from your colleagues.

00:07:19: Yeah, so the idea of the actors are going into two strides.

00:07:25: First is to understand or to follow the bios of those actors where they come from.

00:07:33: you know how their development of career and kind of network that you could see.

00:07:39: And this second thing is the interaction in the court room itself.

00:07:45: So this could be also more an anthropological look, you know about how they're ritual are taking account of architecture etc.

00:07:52: so In these sense we have both.

00:07:55: one is more individual The bio and second is interaction.

00:07:59: but their interaction Is not only confined to the courtroom because it can go More broadly into courthouse or corridors And offices where where we will do the interviews.

00:08:14: So in a way, doing court ethnography is not only courtroom it's also courthouse and offices.

00:08:24: So this leads me to the third point, which is the institution.

00:08:28: It's to understand a dynamic of the institution because they analyze over courtroom.

00:08:35: so it's what you see right?

00:08:36: It's one case judges are deciding on cases by basis and through procedure that predetermined.

00:08:45: But for sure, the decision is a part of wider routine.

00:08:49: and why their professional routine?

00:08:51: A wider hierarchy or wider economy of justice where then you need to be more efficient, more rapid

00:08:58: etc.?

00:08:59: So this I think it's important also to see the analysis of one court that are observing within the wider structure.

00:09:13: And especially, you will have here the question of efficiency versus justice.

00:09:18: The question what knowledge do judges have from before going to see this particular case?

00:09:25: How does knowledge is constructed?

00:09:27: who are helping the judges know or what kind of formation and

00:09:33: etc.,

00:09:33: so that's an entire universe about the institution.

00:09:37: And of course, whether or not they are like maybe some you know influence from other institution or competition.

00:09:44: But mainly bureaucracy issues and Hiroshi.

00:09:49: And then lastly, of course is the political environment and to understand what is the wider political environments.

00:09:55: So that's why they're political environment.

00:09:57: for example if it's terrorism with its migration because our second research was on immigration.

00:10:03: If it's immigration than two understand what politically role the law has.

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

00:10:16: But at end-of-the-day what's role in this institution?

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

00:10:42: So these are four axes that I thought were interesting.

00:10:52: Yeah, and we did.

00:10:53: So after we finished the terrorism research I did a similar research on the asylum court in France.

00:11:01: so again it was a pluridisciplinary.

00:11:04: here We also involve a lot of our students.

00:11:06: This is really good way to involve students because there are lots hearings about asylums where they send students.

00:11:14: you know we constructed the grid And this was the student as an actor, as a public.

00:11:22: 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.

00:11:33: so This is one thing.

00:11:35: 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 they did lawyers.

00:11:53: I did the interprets and one did the rapporteur of the clerk.

00:11:58: 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.

00:12:10: And then individual interviews to see them in court.

00:12:16: It was quite long process but with over eighty interviews really interesting Here not lucky.

00:12:27: We could do this because we had our founder, which is also in power at Ministry of Justice.

00:12:35: So with these letter from the founder and president of the court really gave us access to all the actors.

00:12:42: he was sending one email you know to all those hundred and fifty reporters or three hundred reporters please if someone's interested in collaborating the researcher, and this is how we got access to the actor.

00:13:00: Just following up on you being in charge of the actors and conducting interviews did that mean?

00:13:05: That In the courtroom setting You were also focusing On The clock on the prosecutor like if you went for an observation because I think that's one Of the questions that each of us observers in courtrooms has.

00:13:18: but there Is so much going on that it sometimes hard To understand what you're going to focus on.

00:13:24: Did you, when you were in charge of say the clerks did you just look at what they were doing?

00:13:29: In a day and court.

00:13:31: Yeah thank you for your question You know.

00:13:33: so For example if I was working on The Interprets So yeah Of course!

00:13:40: So you will more focus On the interprets And then i could talk with her After hearing.

00:13:46: Then she would tell me how it Was.

00:13:49: But of course, you are also a tune off the more general.

00:13:54: Now it depends what do we need when you focus to look?

00:14:00: So in this particular research me and Sarah the co-director knew very well this court because our self were judges there before.

00:14:12: so we knew really well.

00:14:15: But of course, you always learn something new.

00:14:18: Then for me it was a new experience to live this court setting from the perspective on The Interpretant and that's really interesting because I'm now sitting more next-to-her not truly next door but behind her and trying to sit through her eyes.

00:14:41: And then you've got a completely different way of seeing the... You know, it's more anthropological like this.

00:14:48: So I will sit with her in the waiting room for three hours until she is 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.

00:15:03: so It's a different experience than from you know, just being in the courtroom or seeing this.

00:15:09: Yes so this is what we did and one that worked on the rapporteur.

00:15:14: she was ten days uh...in his office.

00:15:17: So not only in hearings but also in offices 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.

00:15:34: To an immediate rejection.

00:15:35: 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.

00:15:52: And then of course the challenge is how you do something together, right?

00:15:56: In writing.

00:15:57: I mean yeah so as i said in The Terrorism we had a lot of discussion together and then you know... We construct a report or now it's book but It was co-authoring.

00:16:10: So its not like chapter by chapter Its quartering.

00:16:14: It needs a strong editorial work together for the co-authoring.

00:16:21: Of course, everyone misses their own thing but you need to have an outline of how they can do it.

00:16:26: and now with the immigration report which is only going to be published in two weeks' time I hear that we had more than two jurists.

00:16:37: so they really did the chapter on law.

00:16:41: We had the chapter about what actors described by actor.

00:16:48: And the first chapter described the entire bureaucracy and institution, you know?

00:16:52: So it's like at beginning we show how a file is moving within the institution.

00:17:00: then we had one ethnographer because we didn't have the applicant We did not want to do them interview with us.

00:17:06: It was too much...we wanted more than that but we nevertheless took an ethnographer who So we had like from the file perspective and then, from a human perspective walking in court.

00:17:16: You know how he managed to arrive at the courtroom etc?

00:17:21: This is an opening chapter that we have by actors.

00:17:25: And then there are legal doctrines.

00:17:31: It's not easy for co-authors but you need to think well about how you construct this co-authoring while the work should be well distributed.

00:17:42: It's not one person that is writing for everyone, but you need a strong editing work and here you shouldn't need maybe one or two to do the editing work in processes of co-authoring.

00:18:00: Thanks Sharon!

00:18:01: I

00:18:02: think

00:18:03: we have been talking about a lot benefits of kind of interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary integration and collaboration.

00:18:13: I think there are also quite a lot of challenges that comes with that in terms of integrating different conceptual theoretical models, integrating different experiences...I wonder how you experience that?

00:18:27: And how have you overcome that in your work especially being so cross-disciplinary?

00:18:33: Yeah, I guess this you know.

00:18:35: it depends on your group and It depends on the approach that is should be more or less defined from the start like The general approach.

00:18:44: And then of course its grounded research.

00:18:46: so we really open to see what happen right?

00:18:50: So i think in the terrorism research We had a really extreme good group.

00:19:00: We were four confirmed researchers that we did already courted geographies and everyone in his approach.

00:19:09: And, you know to come to court I mean we would not pay the extra money...we didn't have millions!We just did research right?And And also our minds were connected.

00:19:25: I don't know how to explain this, so... This is kind of an alchemy that just happened!

00:19:30: You can tell you why it happens and maybe… But it does not always happen, but in particular research was really good.

00:19:44: I respect enough each other, so to give this space too.

00:19:48: So it just happened really naturally and i didn't see any particular challenge in this sense because when you brought something... It was built upon an etc.

00:20:01: Then the immigration research, we answered a call for crisis This term of crisis.

00:20:14: From a theoretical perspective, we had already the framing of crisis.

00:20:19: We needed to follow this idea through whatever we would find.

00:20:24: so here is our approach You know, then it was a crisis for lawyers.

00:20:30: So they will focus on this and from the institution we have those sociologists work of the idea that high classes become routine in how they frame their work as an institution.

00:20:42: And what does it mean?

00:20:43: What does it means well-being to workers Their ideas about justices like good justice is rapid justice etc.

00:20:53: We had these ideas.

00:20:56: Yeah, and here it was more me and Sarah that we were the real coordinators.

00:21:01: So like this... It was less an equal engagement as had in the terrorism research.

00:21:09: Here some were paid for something very specific so they did one chapter but then there is a work of us to coordinate everything.

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

00:21:23: It was too much and even in the report is too long.

00:21:28: maybe next time we will not do things so big because I don't know who's going to read all this... So the challenges were really with the team but there are other challenges like what can be said or not say?

00:21:43: This is a big challenge.

00:21:45: you know, how... You work with different actors that maybe we should have actually do more meeting within the different groups of actors.

00:21:54: This could be really interesting.

00:21:55: but again… How far can you go?

00:21:58: With an institution your are studying!

00:22:00: Yeah so I think that maybe the challenges are not at theoretical level –I don't think there is a problem of intellectual ideas it's more the extent to which people will be engaged and involved.

00:22:17: Because a different theoretical approach, I mean you discuss them in any way from beginning... You form group that think those approaches coexist well together.

00:22:28: Yeah i was thinking about how The first project on terrorism trials How you got into contact with other researchers coming disciplines and

00:22:42: did

00:22:42: you decide to start a project?

00:22:44: Yeah, it's good question.

00:22:47: I think they contacted me.

00:22:48: so at that time i was working... It was long ago my PG was about international law in domestic court.

00:23:00: then I went to Berkeley to study the military commission in Guantanamo and the Israeli military corps.

00:23:06: Those are work that I did along, like PhDs and postdocs when they came back to Paris.

00:23:12: so i presented somewhere my work on Guantanamo And of course it was them.

00:23:17: So It Was Nine Eleven terrorism.

00:23:19: then you had The Bataclan attack in two thousand fifteen.

00:23:23: Then this group started to form itself because they wanted to do this research and follow the trial in front, then contacted me.

00:23:32: They knew that I did it on other... So yeah there were two of them, they contacted me And then I proposed him for us.

00:23:40: but he's already doing these also You know?

00:23:43: It was more a group from through work.

00:23:49: We didn't know each-other all of us.

00:23:52: The first one yes Because they knew about his call to appeal the ground, but they didn't contact me.

00:23:59: And I proposed a fourth one and this is how we were created.

00:24:02: yeah...and in the asylum court.

00:24:04: so it was me and Sarah because uh i mean i work with her for another thing and then we thought let's do this!

00:24:11: Then when colleagues, friends.

00:24:18: We wanted to work together on something but they didn't have necessarily too much time so you know... They took one actor and then we took one of my students to continue And after that I did a call because we were looking for jurists.

00:24:35: You may just ask Sharon cause i'm not quite aware about the set-up with this project Who was the funder?

00:24:40: Was it difficult to acquire their funding or how does that go?

00:24:44: Yeah, but you know the funder is.

00:24:46: so they changed their name like three times since we started.

00:24:50: So to tell you how long it worked?

00:24:54: It was Institut droit et justice Like Justice and Law whatever the night now with Robert de la Terre But its an institution which is funded half by the Ministry of Justice And Half By The French Center S Which Is The French National Research And they do twice a year or once every year, I don't know.

00:25:15: A call and they finance groups which are pre-disciplinary.

00:25:20: so as Nina said this is like condition right but stand me wrongly, it's France and its very low financement.

00:25:31: I mean i'm speaking about a few thousand like... maybe forty-thousand something like this?

00:25:38: It's not a lot of money right?

00:25:41: You can may be higher one or two postdocs but even though for the entire period you will have research.

00:25:50: So of course, the one who had a position didn't get any money for this.

00:25:56: But it allows to have people that don't have positions or trips if you need to go somewhere which was not our case.

00:26:04: The funder is not about the money because really there wasn't much money but more so as you can reach... all the actors, because it's like Ministry of Justice.

00:26:16: No one will tell you no I don't want to go...to be

00:26:18: interviewed.".

00:26:19: You know?

00:26:19: It does so.

00:26:20: this and then the distribution of the study also is really interesting because they distribute the study to the actor.

00:26:29: So in a way when we write these reports We write to judges To lawyers To the actors Not necessarily to academics.

00:26:37: Also academics Of course if anyone wants read us.

00:26:39: but It's really, there is like an institutional aspect in this.

00:26:43: This is why I liked to do it with them.

00:26:46: When

00:26:47: 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.

00:27:03: Do you have as somebody has...who Has done a lot Of research In this space?

00:27:07: 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?

00:27:14: Yeah, I think this is what i'm doing.

00:27:16: It's saying also to my students you should go and not... You don't need anything actually!

00:27:23: Just take the court which is next your place where you are.

00:27:30: then you can just do it without necessarily funding.

00:27:35: Of course If you have funding okay whatever The research itself, I mean if you have your own... If you need funding for your own position say okay.

00:27:44: 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 to be alone But of course you can do it alone.

00:27:59: I personally like not to be alone, so you can go with your students also.

00:28:05: You're one colleague two colleagues whatever and once you are on the ground then learn by yourself how do get the access?

00:28:14: How do negotiate things what is interesting for you... What for you is interesting, right?

00:28:24: And go with it.

00:28:25: and if you are more interested to go in the offices or got the offices You're more interested in a courtroom.

00:28:30: Go into the court room.

00:28:31: If you are interested in one particular actor then go for it, you know.

00:28:37: I think that good research is really because you like what she do.

00:28:41: So I think this will be my first recommendation just to do what you liked.

00:28:46: maybe Just as to say A final word is that I really think it's important.

00:28:52: pass on this.

00:28:54: you know, this approach.

00:28:55: And I'm doing it with my students and I see... You know?

00:28:58: ...I had a graduate student master and she was following along the trial in Germany….

00:29:05: …and she wrote her master thesis about these and now she got the price of the best thesis.

00:29:11: that sounds… But you know!

00:29:12: And I was so happy because once you open those doors for your students they even discovered them because its not something it's always been thought, right?

00:29:27: And then maybe you take them the first time to court.

00:29:31: So I always take my students all ways.

00:29:34: or will I take them to see terror trials or asylum court of whatever?

00:29:38: Or if there is a big decision in constitutional courts?

00:29:40: so you take your student should do it into groups or wherever You bring that actors and people get the taste for it.

00:29:51: a really good thing to transmit.

00:29:56: And also, like this student feel that it's also concrete you know?

00:30:01: It's not only theoretical but there is also professional aspect and they can also project themselves as one of those professions.

00:30:12: so maybe once with them then we'll be rapporteur when students say okay now I want to do law i want to be lawyer whatever.

00:30:18: So I feel, you know that this is really also a good not only as a researcher but also the teacher.

00:30:25: And these are something that could absolutely integrate in your classes and it's super!

00:30:33: Thank You so much, Chabon.

00:30:34: This has been really worthwhile listening to you.

00:30:37: thankyou for taking your time... ...and thank you everyone for listening!

00:30:41: Bis zum nächsten

00:30:58: Mal!