Gaining access to a research field is not a single moment, or a technical step to overcome. Rather, it is a continuous sometimes emotionally charged process. In this blog post, I argue that researchers’ backgrounds and emotions are a crucial dimension of how access is negotiated, sustained, and experienced.
This post is based on my ongoing fieldwork in criminal trials involving intimate partner violence (IPV) at Austrian regional courts. Taking a self-reflective approach, I explore what it meant to enter the legal field without a professional background in law or ethnographic training. I reflect on how my personal background sparked my interest in entering the legal field in the first place, on my initial attempts to enter this field, and on my emotional reactions to this.
A Very Brief Introduction to the Austrian Legal System
Austria is a civil law country with a judiciary structured into general courts and courts of public law. General courts handle both civil and criminal matters across four levels: district courts, regional courts, higher regional courts, and the Supreme Court. Regional courts hear all criminal cases not assigned to district courts, including offenses carrying a potential custodial sentence of more than one year and certain crimes regardless of statutory sentencing ranges.
Criminal trials at regional courts are oral and open to the public, which in principle makes courtroom observation a feasible research method. Hearings are publicly listed in the judiciary’s online hearing calendar. Courts sometimes offer guided tours, welcome school classes, and provide information about courtroom rules and visitor conduct. In practice, it is common to see members of the public attending trials.
My Personal Background
My entry into this research is closely tied to my personal and academic background. I studied psychology and developed an early interest in feminist social psychology. I was fortunate to encounter feminist psychologists who helped me situate “personal” experiences within broader structural contexts, and provided me with a way of looking at social phenomena, such as violence against women, that has shaped my research to this day. During my master’s program, I worked at a women’s counseling center and the Association of Autonomous Austrian Women’s Shelters. I provided counseling for women affected by violence, most of whom had experienced violence within intimate partnerships. Through this work, I gained insight into women’s experiences with the criminal justice system. At the same time, I became aware of how little I understood the legal system myself. Like many of the women I worked with, I experienced the criminal justice system as opaque. After completing my master’s degree and beginning my PhD, my interest in the legal sphere deepened. Initially, my interest was vague: I wanted to understand what actually happens in criminal trials involving IPV. Over time, this focus crystallized around emotions in court proceedings, a shift that I believe is rooted in my socialization as a psychologist. I entered the field with the assumption that legal professionals—as human beings—must have emotions, and regularly face emotionally charged situations, often without the kind of training that other professionals such as psychologists receive.
Approaching the Legal Field
Nearly a year passed before I began my actual fieldwork. I felt deeply curious, but also afraid of what I might encounter and not truly prepared for these situations. For this reason, I read ethnographic accounts of legal settings (e.g., Bergman Blix and Wettergren 2015; FitzGerald 2024; Griffiths 2020; Roach Anleu et al. 2016). My first step was to join a guided tour offered by a regional court. I hoped this would allow me to familiarize myself with the building before attending hearings. I vividly remember my first visit: passing through the entrance and security checkpoint, I felt my chest tighten and a strong sense of unease. Visitors are asked to state the purpose of their visit, and bags are searched. The tour focused largely on the court’s history and took place mainly in a memorial site where executions had occurred during the National Socialism. After about an hour, I found it increasingly difficult to concentrate—due to the atmosphere of a space heavy with violence and history. When the tour ended, I felt relieved and exhausted. In retrospect, I would not choose this approach again, as it did little to familiarize me with the spatial arrangements of the court. After this experience, it took another six months before I felt able to return.
First Attempts to Access Court Hearings
About a year and a half into my PhD, I felt an increasing pressure to start collecting data. I turned to the hearing calendar to identify suitable trials. At first, I struggled to understand it at all. I lacked the knowledge required to decipher legal terminology and abbreviations. Consulting a lawyer friend made me realize just how much prior knowledge is needed to simply read the calendar. Identifying IPV-related cases was even more challenging, as the calendar does not indicate whether a case involves IPV. Hence, my initial choices were unsystematic and guided by my assumptions about which offenses might involve IPV. Over time, however, I learned that certain criminal provisions—such as the offense of continuous violence (§ 107b)—are particularly indicative of such cases.
Crossing the Threshold: Doors and Bodies
Once I began attending hearings, the experience felt real. Although I knew how to enter the building, finding the correct courtroom proved difficult. I wandered long corridors and soon realized how central doors are to court life. Hearings are often moved or canceled at short notice, and these changes are communicated through notes on courtroom. Early on, I missed these cues, waiting outside empty rooms or arriving late after a hearing had been moved elsewhere, unsure whether I was allowed to enter once a hearing had begun. Over time, I learned that it is accepted to enter and exit courtrooms even when proceedings are ongoing. Inside the courtroom, uncertainty shifted to my body. I did not know where to sit, when to stand, or how to move, and felt out of place. During the first hearing I attended, I was glad that someone from the public was present, so I copied their behavior to avoid doing something inappropriate. Even though the first observations lasted less than an hour, they left me exhausted. I learned that observations require a slower rhythm that allows for a pause afterward.
My Lessons Learned
My experience has taught me that research—especially research of this kind—takes time. Observing court proceedings requires methodological preparation and inner work, such as building emotional readiness and a sense of security to enter this particular space. Field access is not a single hurdle to overcome but an ongoing emotional process. Researchers are situated social beings and have affinities, needs, and affective dispositions. Emotions shape how we enter a field, how we perceive and navigate it, and how we sustain our presence over time. For me, entering the legal field meant acknowledging and accepting uncertainties, allowing myself to feel unsettled, and at the same time trying to cultivate an open research stance. Methodologically, I treat my affective experiences as an integral part of writing observation protocols and analysis, and I encourage others to do the same. Paying attention to what one feels—or does not feel—in court offers early indicators of social phenomena, such as the structure and organization of a field.
References
Bergman Blix, Stina, and Åsa Wettergren. 2015. “The Emotional Labour of Gaining and Maintaining Access to the Field.” Qualitative Research 15(6):688–704. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794114561348.
FitzGerald, Sharron. 2024. “On Being a ‘Passive Observer’: The Corporeal and Affective Dimensions of Power in Observational Research on Trafficked Women in Criminal Proceedings.” Qualitative Research 24(1):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941241264487.
Griffiths, Anne. 2020. “Ethnography and Law in a Transnational World: Knowledge, Power and Discourse.” Pp. 54–65 in Research Handbook on the Sociology of Law, edited by J. Přibáň. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Roach Anleu, Sharyn, Stina Bergman Blix, Kathy Mack, and Åsa Wettergren. 2016. “Observing Judicial Work and Emotions: Using Two Researchers.” Qualitative Research 16(4):375–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794115579475.