Planes y proyectos

2.3.1 To plav on mv home ground or to try and arrange an away fixture.

Should I choose my own court as the setting for an in-depth study of courtroom interaction? A setting of which I had a detailed and intimate knowledge, not only of the court and its procedures but also of its people? Or should I select a 'foreign' setting, a court where I

would be less familiar with the organisation, more detached from its people and even more importantly, a setting where I would not be immediately recognised and responded to as an insider, as an influential member of the group being studied, but rather in the preferred role of the researcher? The geographical location and the practical benefits to be gained from researching in my own court were overwhelming in terms of both time and convenience, but the question I kept asking was, could I remain in my own court and still be objective? What advice could I glean from the literature? What had other researchers concluded? I read that participant observers often selected field settings based, in part, on their previous involvement in the setting (Adler, 1981: Hayano, 1982: Rambo, 1987). Indeed the researcher may already be a participant before deciding formally to conduct research in the setting (Jorgensen, 1989, pp30-31). But as Jorgensen also pointed out, there are a number of other considerations which need to be dealt with before the appropriate decision can be taken. Is the setting accessible? At least I knew that my own court was. Is the range of participant roles that the researcher can assume adequate for what is trying to be achieved? I was already a participant, I also knew that I could observe, although I could not be sure how the 'subjects' would respond to my 'new role'. In addition I also had ready made contacts with some of the other groups and agencies who were associated with the courts although in some instances any access to these areas might well have to be facilitated by a 'gatekeeper1. Will the researcher be able to remain in the setting long enough to obtain the required information? In my own court I knew that there were no limits. Whilst I knew the answers to these questions in respect of my own court, I was not so confident in answering them for other courts. Neither, Jorgensen reminds us, are ail settings totally open. Within most complex organisations there are 'cliques of people whose activities are kept secret from non-members'. Even 'public' establishments are not always totally visible to the general public and that includes researchers. Appropriately Jorgensen mentions the criminal trial as a typical example, 'Almost everyone may observe a criminal trial. ..Access may be gained by assuming the role of a spectator, a role readily available to most people. Each of these settings however also contains backstage regions, closed to just anyone. ..Not everyone is invited to the judges' chambers'. Well again there should be no difficulties in my own court with this aspect either, I am a member, I am the 'judge'. The selection was made. The location of the court was convenient fora part-time research project. I could even combine some of my research effort with my formal court duties, or so I thought, and I had access not only to the setting in general, but also to some of the less accessible regions ate well. The advantages of a 'home fixture' were too numerous to ignore. As Jorgensen concluded, 'The more you know about a setting, the easier it is to make an informed decision whether or not it will be possible to investigate the topic of interest' (Jorgensen, 1989, pp40-45). I knew my setting well and I had made an informed decision.

2.3.2 An appropriate setting to enable the objectives of the study to be fulfilled.

The setting, as previously described, is a medium sized and very busy court. It possesses most of the elements which one would expect to find in a typical magistrates' court. In addition it is a court which was in a state of change, preparing to move from an inadequate set of old buildings into a new ultra-modern courthouse. It was also in the act of bringing its old and laborious recording and financial systems into the twentieth century and the age of computerisation. The court also had the benefits of having a mixed bench, lay magistrates and a stipendiary magistrate, which presented the opportunity to compare 'amateur1 and 'professional' justice. Along with all other courts it was having to contend with the policies of efficiency which were being imposed by the 'political masters'. A proposed reorganisation in the managerial structure of the courts, performance indicators, cash limiting and fixed term performance related contracts for senior members of staff. The court and its magistrates were having to grapple with the various and sometimes quite demanding changes in legislation, the Children Act 1989, the Road Traffic and Criminal Justice Acts of 1991 to name just three. The setting was therefore considered by the researcher to be eminently suitable for the purpose of the research.

The researcher was also 'at home' in this environment. He had been a member of this particular Bench for a considerable period. As an experienced and 'senior* magistrate he chaired the courts on a regular basis. He had been a member of the Probation Liaison Committee for a number of years and also sat on the 'court team ' and 'bail hostel' sub­ committees. For two years prior to the commencement of the project he had also been a member of the Lord Chancellor’s Local Advisory Committee and as such was involved in the interviewing of candidates for the magistracy. During the early part of the research period he was elected to the Magistrates' Courts Committee.

To prevent a totally 'blinkered' view based solely on the events of one court, plans were also made for the observer to attend at other magistrates' courts at Hull and Sheffield as well as the Crown Court at Doncaster. These visits were intended to enable these courts to be used as comparator courts and also to expose the researcher to less familiar environments.

2.4 PERMISSION AND CONSENT - The privileged insider.

It is one thing to select the desired research setting, it can prove to be far more difficult to gain access to that setting. Not everyone welcomes being put under the microscope and this applies particularly to the powerful elites and institutions. The experience of some researchers indicates that to some closed groups research may be 'ideologically anathema'. Other groups feel threatened, that they may be exploited or else the research may result in damaging disclosures (Homsby-Smith, 1993, p54). On the other hand there are some who claim that the reason for the reluctance of bureaucracies and the powerful people who control them is simply to obscure the truth (Encel, 1978, p47). What does not appear to be in doubt is the ability of these groups to either deny access completely, or to vastly reduce the amount of

access. Even the so called open institutions may become decidely closed and react defensively, erecting barriers against anything which is perceived as an external threat from hostile intruders (Homsby-Smith, 1993, p59). Even where access is granted to a setting this may require extensive negotiation with, and permission from a 'gatekeeper, if not for access to the setting itself, permission may well have to be negotiated to access some of the less public elements of the setting (Arber, 1993, p37). My only knowledge of these and other pitfalls was what I had read in the literature. At no time did I experience this type of response although I was aware that other requests to the court to assist in academic research had been refused. I also realised that in the past both the courts and the magistrates had been subjected to quite severe criticisms, my own review of the literature had indicated as much. I was soon to realise that I was a privileged researcher, and this of course was due to my 'insider* status. I was not seen as the hostile intruder or as an external threat, it was also considered unlikely that I would be interested in exploiting the situation or that I would make any damaging disclosures. But these are all assumptions, in reality it was not considered necessary to discuss such matters. Neither did anyone try to hijack the agenda (Fielding, 1993, p160). What I was offered was a very positive promise of support.

Jorgensen writes, The most ideal situation is one in which the authorities and other participants in the setting welcome the researcher, where overt access is gained by seeking permission from the highest possible authority and convincing everyone in the setting that the researcher can be trusted. The more the people in the setting, especially those in positions of authority, are prepared to support the research, the more likely is successful access to the setting (Jorgensen, 1989, p46). In my case most of the criteria set down by Jorgensen appeared to have been achieved.

But can constraints be inadvertently placed on the researcher, not because there is a lack of trust but because there is a high degree of trust? Can an assumption that 'we are in safe hands with this researcher*, or 'this researcher will not reveal any damaging disclosures', in practice inhibit the researcher's 'quest for the truth of the matter1? This was a dilemma to which I gave a great deal of thought. I concluded that as a social scientist I must ensure that the research would be carried out with a high level of objectivity and in reality I did not see my research being constrained to either a greater or lesser extent than that of any other researcher who would also be bound by the ethics, the rules of confidentiality and the protection of the individuals anonymity and privacy which are said to be the cornerstones of any social research.