PERSONAL EVENTUAL

There is a risk of the researcher potentially becoming a ‘catalyst for providing if not law then learned legal discourse’ on any emerging legal field, which has a negative impact upon the researcher’s ability to perform an objective inquiry of the field in question (Dezalay and Madsen 2017, p. 33). I think that the problem lies less in the fact that objective inquiry by the researcher is made difficult. In fact, as argued above, the role of the researcher can never be fully objective in any case. Rather, the problem Dezalay and Madsen are drawing our attention to is an uncritical adoption of the political agenda of key actors in the field by the researcher: ‘any sociological inquiry into law that is situated too close to the orthodoxy of law runs the risk of being trapped by this logic of domination’ (Dezalay and Madsen 2012, p. 436). In this case,

the researcher comes to perform an implicitly complicit role in the political project of one group of actors in the legal field, when the researcher ‘takes sides’ in choosing to portray the emerging field in a certain way and not another (for a similar argument in the case of India’s religious personal laws, see Parashar 2013).34 _{In British-Muslim} family law, for example, there is an on-going debate about whether Muslim women in the field should register their nikah contract under English law and how precisely this could be achieved. Proponents of registration such as Aina Khan under the umbrella of the ‘Register Our Marriage’ campaign argue for civil registration of religious marriages to be made mandatory.35 _{Interviews conducted as part of my research,} however, raised questions regarding the broad desirability of such a legal intervention. In these on-going debates, academic research may contribute to providing weight to one side of the debate and thus further their position. Here, the researcher’s

intervention in the field has the potential to legitimise one particular point of view or perception of the field.

On the one hand, it is impossible to abstract my own experiences, position and agenda as a researcher from the research process and its outcomes because ‘in much

qualitative research the researcher is the data collection tool, as well as the one who analyzes the data’ (Webley 2010, p. 935). On the other hand, I can contribute to a more ‘objective’ debate around issues of British-Muslim family law by clearly stating the politics underlying the present thesis. The aim of doing so is to allow others to engage critically with my findings by reading my interpretation of the field in light of the position and background I am writing from. The political project underlying this study becomes more explicitly formulated by framing it through ‘citizenship studies’ at a Department of Politics and International Studies, which recognises a more activist stance of the researcher and a responsibility of the researcher to actively engage in the political fabric of current social issues.

34 _{Parashar argues that ‘legal scholars need to accept responsibility for the significant power they wield}

as discourse formers and acknowledge the power of naming legal practices’ (Parashar 2013, p. 5). See also Malik who highlights the role of scholarship in the construction of ‘minority legal orders’ as ‘law’: ‘one reason that the term “law” or “legal system” is now often applied to non-state norms and

communities is because of the emerging body of scholarship on legal pluralism, law and anthropology and socio-legal studies. These academic fields have plausibly argued that the term “law” does not necessarily depend on state recognition for its validity’ (Malik 2012, p. 21).

35 _{Briefing note for ‘Register Our Marriage (ROM) campaign on Unregistered Religious Marriages’ by}

As a researcher, I am to some extent complicit in contributing to the establishment of the field of British-Muslim family law. Specifically as a researcher of socio-legal studies, I take up an ambiguous position in the sense that I cast myself at the same time as a protagonist and an opponent of legal discourse. I am a protagonist to the extent that my own position in the field and position as expert researcher depends on me mastering legal language, concepts and dealing with networks of legal

professionals and clients on whom most of my data collection relies. On the other hand, I am an opponent of that same legal positivist discourse that distinguishes law from other social fields and has a vested interest in endowing it with an elevated status removed from more ‘messy’ politics, culture and society. Therefore, if a sociological study of law remains too closely positioned to formal law, it is at risk of losing the critical distance (Bourdieu 1987, pp. 818-19).

To rupture this close link between the object of study and the researcher, Bourdieu advanced the methodology of ‘reflexive sociology’. Reflexive sociology – as Bourdieu termed his approach after first calling it a double rupture – is based on a ‘break with ordinary conceptions of the world and the break with scholastic

conceptions of the world’ (Susen 2016, p. 62). The importance of this methodological move becomes apparent when we consider that many studies based within a university environment remain structured to a large extent by established disciplines; this makes it more difficult to maintain the critical distance called for by Bourdieu. As Shah puts it succinctly: ‘I write as a legal pluralist, although I am probably better described as someone trying to overcome my own positivist training’ (Shah 2008, p. 64). This very research project equally is situated closely to established forms of legal knowledge. As an undergraduate student of Arabic and Middle Eastern studies, I was taught Islamic law as an introductory module. Continuing into post-graduate

education, I completed a Masters degree in law, with a pioneering programme specifically focusing on ‘migration and ethnic minority law’. While being now based in a Department for Politics and International Studies and by using sociological approaches such as Bourdieu’s legal field as well as a broader framework of citizenship studies for my research, I notice how I have been socialised into certain legal doctrines and how an established understanding of legality – be it English law or Islamic law – has become naturalised in my writing, reading and interpreting. Such legal training teaches students to read legal texts in a particular way, navigate through

sources of official legal knowledge such as databases or case reports, use professional legal terminology and so on. Inevitably, this legal socialisation influences how I approach the legal field in my research project and it is important to stay aware of my own situatedness.