An access process is an access process is an access process. There is something appealing in letting the various elements of negotiating access to a courtroom to be like Gertrud Stein’s roses, a stylistic device in which the concepts are almost sufficient in themselves and say all that needs to be said. To allow oneself to use the persuasive power of linguistic repetition to distil a much more complex process into a concentrate that readers can fill with the flavour of their own experiences and perspectives. However, as I believe that we learn the most when we leave common ground and end up in places where we are a little bit uncomfortable and tinged with unease, I will try to seek some unbeaten paths down the access road. In this post, I will share some thoughts on the implications of time and timing in matters of obtaining and negotiating access for courtroom ethnography in Sweden.

As the research project I am currently working in brought these matters to a head, these experiences can offer some perceptive insights. The project is devoted to a high-profile case in Sweden (see link below for more information), and the trial is expected to last for almost three years. Previously I have observed court proceedings lasting a couple of weeks at the longest and the exceptional length of this trial does raise different questions in relation to negotiating access. As previous courtroom ethnographers have emphasized, time and trust go hand in hand and time is crucial for gaining and maintain access and building report (Uhnoo, Bladini and Wettergren 2023; Bergman Blix and Wettergren 2015). Drawing on my previous experience, I naively thought that time – being time – would solve most access issues and make shadowing with the legal professionals and reoccurring interviews possible. Spending time in the field usually conveys devotion and reliability, convincing even the most research-sceptical, legal professionals about your sincerity and ambition, which in turn may spur interest and trust from their side. However, while time usually is a treasured friend in gaining access, I would like to argue that in exceptionally long trials temporality can also turn out to be a foe.

While legal professionals might be impressed that you show up in court every day for two weeks, after a couple of months that feeling subsides and your stubbornness might not be ‘rewarded’ with more access (even though, you will probably not lose the access out of the blue either). Within longer time frames, the premises for negotiating access change. At best, trust and relational stances becomes stagnant and your initial efforts to build a report will endure. However, if you were not able to gain access to the extent you wished for in the beginning of the trial, how many second chances do you have? In what intervals can you try to revoke an early ‘no access’ response without appearing as a nag? At worst, the extended time frames comes with a greater risk of breaches the circle of trust that you as a researcher was able to establish in the beginning of a trial, turning access into non-access. Furthermore, choices you made early on in the research project (i.e. how and when to approach different professionals, research/researcher presentations), may catch up with you later, raising suspicion about who your allies (really) are among your research participants.

I also believe that many legal professionals may participate in a research project, primarily shorter engagements like interviews, for the sake of the good (research) cause. In other words, legal professionals decide to participate in research because they feel an obligation to support research. This was true at least for the participants in my PhD thesis with prosecutors in Sweden (Törnqvist 2017). The goodwill of legal professionals may be an easy entry into this ‘elite’ group, yet it is a shibboleth that can only be used a few times. In a shorter trial, one or two interviews may cover all central parts of the hearing. In a trial where the opening statement alone encompasses several months, you need to carefully portion out these occasions – with respect of the different moments in the trial as well as balancing your own interest of building trustful relations and gaining access. Eager to build trust and report early on during the court trial I am currently observing, in retrospect I wish I had proceeded with a more long-term plan for when and how to approach the different legal professionals involved.

The dimension of time and timing are aspects of access that I believe we need to think more about and one way forward is to engage in how the anticipation and rhythms of a criminal court trial shape access negotiations (Tavory 2018). To start this conversation, I suggest that we as researchers should delve deeper into the issues of maintaining access without losing sight on how we gain access in the first place.

Link to our research project: Justice and accountability for business involvement in international crimes.

References

Bergman Blix, S., & Wettergren, Å. (2015). The emotional labour of gaining and maintaining access to the field. Qualitative research, 15(6), 688-704.

Tavory, I. (2018). Between situations: Anticipation, rhythms, and the theory of interaction. Sociological Theory, 36(2), 117-133.

Törnqvist, N. (2017). Att göra rätt: En studie om professionell respektabilitet, emotioner och narrativa linjer bland relationsvåldsspecialiserade åklagare (Doctoral dissertation, Kriminologiska institutionen, Stockholms universitet).

Uhnoo, S., Bladini, M., & Wettergren, Å. (2023). Negotiating Access. In: Flower & Klosterkamp (eds) Courtroom Ethnography: Exploring Contemporary Approaches, Fieldwork and Challenges (pp. 33-46). Cham: Springer International Publishing.