15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Handmaidens, partners or go-betweens: Reflections on the push and pull of the judicial and justice policy audience

      ,
      Oñati Socio-Legal Series
      Onati International Institute for the Sociology of Law

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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. 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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Varieties of Participation in Public Services: The Who, When, and What of Coproduction

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Distinguishing Different Types of Coproduction: A Conceptual Analysis Based on the Classical Definitions

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Beyond Empiricism: Policy Inquiry in Post positivist Perspective

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Oñati Socio-Legal Series
                Oñati Socio-Legal Series
                Onati International Institute for the Sociology of Law
                2079-5971
                January 01 2023
                July 06 2023
                Article
                10.35295/osls.iisl.1707
                d60bac64-cde0-42db-a74f-4c609d16f570
                © 2023

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article