-
Full text
-
40
University of Bayreuth
African Studies
WORKING PAPERS
“Hanging out” with judicial and legal elites
Reflections on researching “up”
Diana Kisakye, 2023
works! 11
University of Bayreuth African Studies Working Papers (XL)
40
University of Bayreuth
African Studies
WORKING PAPERS
“Hanging out” with judicial and
legal elites
Reflections on researching “up”
CC-BY 4.0
Diana Kisakye, 2023
“Hanging out” with judicial and legal elite ii
University of Bayreuth African Studies Working Papers (XL)
Institute of African Studies (IAS)
The University of Bayreuth African Studies Working Papers are published by the Institute of African
Studies (IAS) in Bayreuth, Germany.
The IAS promotes African Studies at the University of Bayreuth by supporting scholars from a
wide range of academic disciplines from almost all faculties. It facilitates cooperation between
researchers and institutions engaged in Africa-related projects, as well as teaching, both on
campus and around the world. The IAS consists of three central bodies: the Iwalewahaus, the
Africa Multiple Cluster of Excellence, and the Africa Research Center (Forschungszentrum Afrika),
which is currently under construction.
The Working Papers give scholars the space to present empirical studies, theoretical reflections,
and report preliminary findings, ongoing projects, and current research. The Working Papers
usually reflect works-in-progress and invite discussion and feedback.
Submitted papers are subject to internal review at the University of Bayreuth. Contributions may
be submitted to the editor-in-chief: Dr. Jane Ayeko-Kümmeth (IAS@uni-bayreuth.de)
The University of Bayreuth African Studies Working Papers feature on the EPub document server
at the university library:
2005 - 2018
https://epub.uni-bayreuth.de/view/series/Bayreuth_African_Studies_Working_Papers.html
2018 - ongoing
https://epub.uni-
bayreuth.de/view/series/University_of_Bayreuth_African_Studies_Working_Papers.html
Institute of African Studies
Director: Prof. Dr. Gabriele Sommer
Vice-Director: Prof. Dr. Stefan Ouma
University of Bayreuth
Wölfelstr. 2
D-95440 Bayreuth
Phone: +49 (0)921 554511
Fax: +49 (0)921 554502
www.ias.uni-bayreuth.de
IAS@uni-bayreuth.de
iii
“Hanging out” with judicial and legal elite
University of Bayreuth African Studies Working Papers (XL)
BIGSASworks!
The Bayreuth International Graduate School of African Studies (BIGSAS) was founded in 2007 and
is part of the Africa Multiple Cluster of Excellence since 2019. It is funded by the German Research
Foundation in the framework of the Excellence Strategy of the German Federal and State
Governments. In the focus of this unique structure of multi- and interdisciplinary, creative and
innovative training are around 90 doctoral candidates, the Junior Fellows, from more than 25
African, American, Asian and European countries.
BIGSASworks! is part of the University of Bayreuth African Studies Working Papers and highlights
the academic contributions of BIGSAS doctoral candidates. The working papers provide the
opportunity to pre-publish research following internal peer advice. BIGSASworks! working
papers are edited by BIGSAS Junior Fellows with the support of BIGSAS and the Institute of African
Studies.
BIGSASworks! Series Editors
Usman Ahmad
Monika Christine Rohmer
Bayreuth International Graduate School of African Studies
Head of BIGSAS: Dr. Susanne Mühleisen
Deputy Head: Prof. Dr Alexander Stroh-Steckelberg
University of Bayreuth
Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 3
D - 95440 Bayreuth
Phone: +49 (0)921 55 5101
www.bigsas.uni-bayreuth.de
bigsas@uni-bayreuth.de
“Hanging out” with judicial and legal elite iv
University of Bayreuth African Studies Working Papers (XL)
About the author
Diana Kisakye is a PhD candidate (Political Science) at the Bayreuth International Graduate
School of African Studies (BIGSAS) and a Research Associate on the project “Multiplicity in
Decision-Making of Africa’s Interacting Markets: The Functioning of Community Law, the Role of
Market Participants and the Power of Regional Judges” within the Africa Multiple Cluster of
Excellence at the University of Bayreuth. Diana’s research interests include judicial politics,
African development politics and policy, and regional integration processes in Africa. Her
dissertation embarks on unearthing the strategies of judicial empowerment in African sub-
regional courts and, more broadly, assessing their relevance to regional integration processes in
Africa.
v
“Hanging out” with judicial and legal elite
University of Bayreuth African Studies Working Papers (XL)
Abstract
The challenges of researching “up” are widely acknowledged. Moreover, these hurdles are
intensified for law and courts field investigators where the profession’s cherished virtues –
protocol, hierarchy and decorum – hamper access to interviewees and could potentially be
detrimental to rapport building for the researcher unfamiliar with courtroom formality. This
paper draws on the author’s field experience to highlight the potential of the informal dimension
of fieldwork – “hanging out” – in traversing some of the limits of researching legal and judicial
elites. It teases out the complexities of studying judges as political actors and the peculiar
circumstances of studying legal elites in close-knit circles. Through “hanging out” at relevant court
events, strategically positioning oneself in social events and informally building rapport, the
author gained access to spaces usually closed off to outsiders. By “hanging out” with judges, the
author challenged her perceptions of absolute judicial fidelity to the law, interrogated their
professed devotion to apoliticism and the experience humanised judges and helped her deal with
her own discomfort with interviewing judges. The paper concludes by weighing the promises and
limits of the informal approach to researching legal and judicial elites, pondering ethical
considerations, the researcher’s positionality and the boundaries of continuous residence.
Key words: Researching courts, hanging out, judicial research, informality, African sub-regional
courts
“Hanging out” with judicial and legal elite vi
University of Bayreuth African Studies Working Papers (XL)
Résumé
Les difficultés liées à la recherche "vers le haut" sont largement reconnues. En outre, ces obstacles
sont d'autant plus importants pour les enquêteurs de terrain dans le domaine du droit et des
tribunaux, où les vertus chères à la profession - protocole, hiérarchie et décorum - entravent
l'accès aux personnes interrogées et peuvent potentiellement nuire à l'établissement de rapports
pour le chercheur qui n'est pas habitué à la formalité des salles d'audience. Cet article s'appuie
sur l'expérience de terrain de l'auteur pour souligner le potentiel de la dimension informelle du
travail sur le terrain - "traîner" - pour franchir certaines des limites de la recherche sur les élites
juridiques et judiciaires. Il met en évidence les complexités de l'étude des juges en tant qu'acteurs
politiques et les circonstances particulières de l'étude des élites juridiques dans des cercles très
fermés. En "traîner" lors des événements judiciaires pertinents, en se positionnant
stratégiquement dans les événements sociaux et en établissant des relations informelles, l'auteur
a eu accès à des espaces habituellement fermés aux étrangers. En “traînant" avec les juges, l'auteur
a remis en question sa perception de la fidélité absolue des juges à la loi, s'est interrogé sur leur
dévotion avouée à l'apolitisme et l'expérience a humanisé les juges et l'a aidée à faire face à son
propre malaise face aux entretiens avec les juges. L'article conclut en évaluant les promesses et
les limites de l'approche informelle de la recherche sur les élites juridiques et judiciaires, en
réfléchissant aux considérations éthiques, à la position du chercheur et aux limites de la résidence
continue.
Mots clés : Recherche sur les tribunaux, traîner, recherche judiciaire, informalité, tribunaux sous-
régionaux africains.
vii
“Hanging out” with judicial and legal elite
University of Bayreuth African Studies Working Papers (XL)
Acknowledgements
Research for this paper was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German
Research Foundation) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy – EXC 2052/1 – 390713894.
Additionally, the research for this project was conducted under the guidance of my supervisor,
Prof. Alexander Stroh-Steckelberg, within the larger research project, “Multiplicity in Decision-
Making of Africa’s Interacting Markets: The Functioning of Community Law, the Role of Market
Participants and the Power of Regional Judges (MuDAIMa),” which investigates various facets of
judicial organs in African Regional Economic Communities (RECs). Even though this article
emerges from the joint project initiative, all arguments on the methodological considerations
presented here are entirely my own.
University of Bayreuth African Studies Working Papers (XL)
Contents
Institute of African Studies (IAS) ii
BIGSASworks!
iii
About the author
iv
Abstract
v
Résumé
vi
Acknowledgements
vii
1 Introduction
1
2 Research context
2
3 Preparing for field research
4
4 Into the thick of the field
5
5 Towards intentional socialisation
9
5.1 “Hanging out” with judges, lawyers and in court
10
5.2 Pondering “continuous residence” and “research friendships”
14
6 Conclusion
16
7 References
17
8 10 Latest UBT African Studies working papers
22
University of Bayreuth African Studies Working Papers (XL)
“Hanging out” with judicial and
legal elites
Reflections on researching “up”
Diana Kisakye
1 Introduction
The challenges of “studying up” (Nader 1972) are widely recognised in political science
literature.1 While some scholars see elites as a static and fixed category with unique
methodological challenges (Beckmann and Hall 2013), others problematise the elite-non-elite
binary and prioritise the relational power dynamics between researcher and research
participants (Fujii 2012; Fujii 2017; MacLean 2006; Smith 2006). In agreement with Glas (2021:
438), the elite category is not a monolith, even if it remains useful in articulating the peculiarities
of speaking with educated and authoritative individuals as research participants, recognising that
these experiences are “fraught with variable challenges related to positionality.”2 We know that
“judges dislike being measured and ranked by academics who do not understand anything about
what qualities make for a truly great judge” (Knight and Gulati 2017: 2). As such, this paper
advances discussions on methodological considerations in the study of law and courts, through a
reflexive account of researching members of the secretive and supposedly ‘apoliticised’ judicial
profession, pondering ethics, positionality, and highlighting the role of the informal in a
predominantly formalistic professional culture.
Previous studies that reflect on fieldwork among judicial elites note the challenges of generating
and maintaining access and suggest meticulous formal techniques for approaching potential
respondents (Ward and Wasby 2010: 131), stress the gendered dynamics of attaining and
1 By and large, studying “up” has been understood as conducting research within more powerful groups - economically,
socially, politically, among others - than the researcher.
2 It is beyond the scope of this article to delve into these debates. The author aligns herself with authors that prioritize
reflexivity and nuance the location of power during interviews as relational, multi-directional and complex.
“Hanging out” with judicial and legal elite 2
University of Bayreuth African Studies Working Papers (XL)
maintaining access (Ellett 2011), and even the potential co-optation of researchers (Ellett
Forthcoming: 23). Most of these works have drawn on interviews and participant observation to
gather data (Ellett 2011; Jaremba and Mak 2014; Pavone 2022; Trochev 2018; Widner 2001), with
a few authors alluding to the informal dimension (Ellett Forthcoming), but hardly engaging it.3 My
experience researching courts in Eastern Africa was similarly permeated with access difficulty but
proved more yielding when I employed a more informal approach to accessing contacts and
conducting fieldwork. While “hanging out” is not new – it has existed in anthropological
methodological discourse as “deep hanging out” (Geertz 1998) – it has only recently been adopted
to the study of international relations and to study “up” in particular (Nair 2021).
I draw on Deepak Nair’s conceptualisation of “hanging out” while studying “up” (Nair 2021) to
think through my own approach to gaining research access, acceptance amongst the closed legal
and judicial circles and the resulting successes of the informal dimension of fieldwork. Understood
this way, “hanging out” is not accidental but deliberate and planned, and has a sense of clear start
and finish for the participants. Moreover, I incorporate discussions on issues of trust, rapport,
ethics, power and positionality, drawing on interpretivist political science scholarship with
sympathy for critical paradigms (Bourke 2014; Ellett 2011; Fujii 2012; Fujii 2017; Glas 2021;
Willis et al. 2007; Yanow and Schwartz-Shea 2015).4 Like these scholars, I reject the “detached”
researcher narrative and advocate for a reflexive research process which understands that “total
control is an illusion” (Fujii 2017: 91). The paper begins by situating the research in its context
and proceeds to illustrate how “hanging out” alleviated the difficulty of accessing research
participants enabling me to go beyond formal interviews to appreciate informal encounters and
to build rapport. It also reflects on the promises and limits of “hanging out”, the resulting tensions
and power dynamics emanating from my positionality, and highlights how “hanging out” emerged
as the thread that wove my research strategy together.
2 Research context
With the increasing “judicialisation of politics” worldwide, courts are increasingly getting
involved in resolving matters that were previously reserved for overt political channels (Hirschl
2004; Hirschl 2008; Yepes 2007). For international courts (ICs), veering into overtly politicised,
socially contentious or politically divisive issues has prompted counterattacks in various forms
(Alter and Madsen 2021). ICs, by their nature, are usually newly created international legal
regimes operating “in a context of regime complexity” with multiple authoritative and competing
decision-makers (Alter et al. 2016: 35). In this landscape, ICs frequently find themselves in a very
delicate position - facing harsh criticism, hostile reactions and potentially harmful backlash
(Caserta and Cebulak 2021; Gathii and Akinkugbe 2021; Helfer and Ryan 2021; Martinsen and
3 Ellett explicitly touches on informality when she writes: “Scholars able to spend lengthy periods of time in the field
may find it most productive to meet and interact with members of the judiciary at social functions. Building trust in
informal settings can be important in getting the meeting and in engaging in a productive interview.”
4 While long-standing debates on objectivity, subjectivity and universality of research in law and courts teases out these
complexities, ranging from validity and reliability to positionality (Halliday and Schmidt 2009; Sarat 1990; Silbey and
Sarat 1987; Trubek and Esser 1989), we hardly know how those considerations play out when “hanging out.”
3
“Hanging out” with judicial and legal elite
University of Bayreuth African Studies Working Papers (XL)
Blauberger 2021). In the African context, ICs are usually established within the rubric of Regional
Economic Communities (RECs)5 and are thus located at the intersection of fragile democratic
contexts, the complex interplay of sovereignty between national and regional supranational
politics. Consequently, their position, delegated authority and power are still being negotiated.6 It
is, therefore, not surprising that various Partner States across different RECs have sought to strip
these courts of their power (Alter et al. 2016), permanently restructuring them to curb their
growing activism7 or even succeeding in bringing them to an early demise.8
Against this background, my dissertation examines the emerging political relevance of Africa’s
REC courts through a close analysis of judicial empowerment strategies in African REC courts.
Thus, through an in-depth study of the East African Court of Justice (EACJ), my work interrogates
how international judges build and negotiate their autonomy, legitimacy and influence whilst
operating in uncertain political environments.9 Recent scholarship shows that they are checking
governments for breaches of their contractual obligations to integration processes and
entertaining disputes previously left to the confines of the legislative and executive branches
(Akinkugbe 2020; Gathii and Akinkugbe 2021). However, we hardly know much about the
individuals behind these decisions and scholarly accounts are preoccupied with the institutional,
jurisdictional, and enforcement challenges, ignoring the actors – who are no longer being kept on
the sidelines. My study perceives judicial agency as an active form of judicial empowerment and
explores judicial resourcefulness and creativity as exhibited through intentional judicial
strategies of resisting political interference and mobilising judicial allies. It also probes how those
alliances support judicial empowerment, especially as courts dive further into overtly politicised
jurisprudence. Thus, I employed “relational interviewing” (Fujii 2017) alongside observation
(participant or otherwise) and “hanging out” (Nair 2021) to get closer to the situated knowledge
that reveals perceptions and meanings that judges and their constituencies attach to the
performance and role of the REC court more broadly, but also specifically, how they actively
negotiate the limitations and challenges they face.
5 Aside from Africa’s REC courts, there other ICs at the African regional level. See Gathii and Otieno Mbori 2020 for a
great summary of all African ICs.
6 This is deliberately phrased as such; not only to include how their authority is contested, but also to grant agency to
the actors that play an active role in negotiating its position within the political landscape in the EAC.
7 The East African Court of Justice (EACJ) did not go unscathed following a controversial ruling in Anyang’ Nyong’o vs.
Attorney General of Kenya, which saw the creation of an Appellate Division and explicit threats of disbanding the Court.
See Onoria 2010; Gathii 2013; Alter et al. 2016 and Possi 2018 for detailed accounts of this case.
8 The suspension and closure of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Tribunal is an extreme example
of the fatality of counterattacks on ICs. There is consensus that the suspension was a direct result of the Tribunal’s ruling
in favour of white farmers in disputes over land seizures in Zimbabwe (Ndlovu 2011; Nathan 2013; Hansungule 2013;
Lenz 2012; Alter et al. 2016; Achiume 2017; Brett 2018; Brett and Gissel 2020).
9 Even though there are eight active ICs in Africa (Gathii and Otieno Mbori 2020), only four have compulsory jurisdiction
and offer access for non-state actors to initiate litigation (Alter 2014): the Common Market for Eastern and Southern
Africa (COMESA) Court of Justice, the East Africa Court of Justice (EACJ), the Economic Community of West African
States (ECOWAS) Court of Justice, and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Tribunal. Thus, my choice
of case study is informed by the actual political involvement of REC courts.
“Hanging out” with judicial and legal elite 4
University of Bayreuth African Studies Working Papers (XL)
3 Preparing for field research
Having commenced the research during the Covid-19 epidemic, travel was heavily restricted and
almost impossible for the first year of my research project. Within this time, the project drew on
our existing professional capital – colleagues based in Bayreuth10 and elsewhere11 – to make initial
contacts with research participants across multiple locations. I also conducted introductory
online meetings to garner contacts for future research and establish early connections with
research participants. Amidst travel restrictions, I could not undertake a “pilot trip” as I had
intended. Instead, I conducted preliminary interviews with judges, lawyers, and issue-area
experts to gain initial insights and orientation to the study.
While preparing for and conducting online interviews, I experienced a moral dilemma. On the one
hand, I sought research assistance from individuals usually out of the office, perhaps dealing with
personal and other familial responsibilities, amidst unprecedented levels of social, economic and
health anxieties brought on by the pandemic. Even if I sought assistance only at their convenience,
carefully navigating the daily stresses resulting from the COVID-19 outbreak, I was still making
additional requests from individuals dealing with the uncertainty of a health crisis. Indeed, it was
incumbent upon me to be sensitive to these issues and devise appropriate and considerate ways
of reaching out to interview participants without expectations or additional pressure. Continuous
reflexivity permitted me to see my relatively privileged status – a researcher in the Global North,
with secure internet, food and other supplies, “locked down” in the comfort of my home and
awaiting my vaccine booster shot – reaching out to far-away research participants in the Global
South, unaware of how the pandemic may have affected their daily lives but expecting their
amenability to my online interview requests. How could I stay away, sheltered and unwilling to
travel before my second vaccine, whilst hounding research participants with emails requesting an
online interview? My experience with virtual interviewing and the earlier mentioned moral
quandaries, heightened by issues of trust and rapport – especially in judicial interviews where
protocol, formality and hierarchical relations are core values – reinforced the necessity of
fieldwork. I was relieved when mobility restrictions were lifted so I could finally travel to the
field12 and eliminate the figurative firewall that prevented a more genuine rapport-building
virtually.
10 I am appreciative of Prof. Thoko Kaime for his guidance while preparing to go the field, for taking an interest in our
research and for opening up his networks to us in the relevant sites of research.
11 Likewise, I am beholden to Professors James Thuo Gathii and Chris Maina Peter who indulged my curiosity at the
start of the project, suggested very practical ways in which I could conduct the study despite the challenges brought on
by the pandemic, and whose encouragement and wisdom still guide my thoughts in this PhD journey. I am especially
grateful to my academic mentor, Prof. Rachel Ellett for her guidance throughout the research journey.
12 I use the term “field” here very loosely, cognizant and appreciative of debates that debunk the idea of the field that
is “ out there” citing an ambiguity in the boundary between the field and home (Amit 2000: 8). Indeed, the boundaries
of the field are as elastic, mobile and intermittent as the prevailing circumstances surrounding it. I am cautious of the
demarcation between the field and “home” especially as the binary does not suit my circumstances.
5
“Hanging out” with judicial and legal elite
University of Bayreuth African Studies Working Papers (XL)
4 Into the thick of the field
To examine the construction of judicial power in the East African Court of Justice (EACJ), adopting
a “multi-sited ethnography” (Marcus 1995) was crucial.13 Even though it is headquartered in
Arusha, the EACJ operates five sub-registries in Bujumbura (Republic of Burundi), Nairobi
(Kenya), Kigali (Rwanda), Kampala (Uganda) and Dar es Salaam (Tanzania). The court comprises
a First Instance and an Appellate Division, with a maximum of fifteen judges.14 Except for the
president (head of Appellate Division) and the principal judge (head of First Instance), who reside
in Arusha, all other judges serve on an ad hoc basis and are usually located in their home countries.
Therefore, accessing serving and former judges, lawyers, and other relevant national actors
necessitated conducting research across multiple locations.15 The goal was to visit the
headquarters and sub-registries, starting in Kampala and continuing a three-country research
journey.16 Next, I would travel to Arusha, attend court sessions and interview judges and the
leading litigants in the region, the Pan African Lawyer’s Union (PALU) and the East Africa Law
Society (EALS), who are both domiciled there. From Arusha, I would let the snowball effect take
shape and follow judges and lawyers to Dar es Salaam and possibly Nairobi. Accordingly, between
September 2021 and June 2022, I followed judicial and legal elites across selected cities in East
Africa, from Kampala to Bujumbura, Arusha, Dar es Salaam and Nairobi.17
Even though I had reached out to some judges and lawyers, requesting formal interviews before
my trip, accessing them proved to be thornier than I imagined. The close-knit18 legal space was
not letting me in amidst their busy schedules and other engagements. The easy access I had
imagined, based on home affiliations and relations, was faltering. The subsequent section offers a
vignette, taken from field note entries in Kampala, to illustrate the quandaries I faced with
accessing legal and judicial elites.
Access impasse19
I thought beginning my field trip in Kampala would ease me into the unknown process
of interviewing legal and judicial elites. Assuredly, my familiarity with the country,
13 The EACJ is an organ of the East African Community (EAC) and operates across multiple sites in the region.
14 Art. 24(2) EAC Treaty.
15 Alternatively, a researcher is best positioned to meet the judges in Arusha when the court is in session (usually up
to four times a year). Starting November 2021, the court now conducts a rotational system of sitting in the various
member states. Burundi pioneered the move and Uganda hosted the court in November 2022.
16 I originally selected the original three EAC states as the points of reference owing to their longevity in the community
and given that they have sent the highest number of judges to the court.
17 The order in which the research travel occurred and the selection of sites was a result of a series of informal
interactions with key judicial leaders in the EACJ as explained further in the paper.
18 In the four EAC countries in which I conducted fieldwork, only a very small relatively tight circle of lawyers tended
to dominate litigation in the EACJ. This is not to imply that the entire legal space in these countries is as small or as
connected.
19 Author’s Field notes, September 30, 2021, Kampala.
“Hanging out” with judicial and legal elite 6
University of Bayreuth African Studies Working Papers (XL)
language and people would open up the impenetrable and closed legal spheres - after
all, it is home. Unfortunately, a drought of interviewees after a three-week stay here
has disabused me of the notion. Judges are not as forthcoming, even the retired ones!
Last week, I tried reaching out to two former EAC judges, but in vain. I even offered to
follow one of them back to his village (even though I dreaded the six-hour bus journey
there), only for him to decline, citing construction work that he would be too busy
tending to entertain me. “I could shadow you as you tend to those projects,” I had
pleaded. My plea fell on deaf ears. The lady justice was no different either; she
referred me to a serving judge, saying, “I have not been at the court for so long. You
are better off meeting a serving judge,” she implored. Even my persistence,
elucidating my desire to sip from her institutional memory, did not help. While she
empathised with me and my research endeavour, here was another polite snub. Well,
“if judges are proving challenging, I will opt for lawyers then,” I mused. After all, I
know Advocate X; personally, we went to primary school together. Surely, I could
draw on that childhood connection to reminisce and perhaps build rapport. He should
be forthcoming.
That was my optimism speaking last week. The reality is that this week has not been
as positive as I had hoped it would be. Recall Advocate X: he declined my interview
request. Let me recollect the events leading to his refusal. I believe my mistake was
trying to contact Lawyer Y first, a friend and colleague of Advocate X. The two lawyers
were working on litigation at the EACJ. Lawyer Y had readily availed his contact
details online to solicit funds to push some issues of public interest litigation. Since I
did not have Advocate X’s contact, I contacted Lawyer Y via a WhatsApp introductory
message requesting an interview. He responded, inquisitive about how I had attained
his contact details. Upon learning that I had not contributed to the funding platform,
he retorted curtly, “You must first contribute, and I will spare you an hour of my time.”
Shocked by this blatant extortion, I hid my disappointment, stating that ethical
limitations prevented me from meeting his demand. Hoping to redeem myself and
secure an interview, I reached out to Advocate X. Our phone conversation started
pleasantly but took on a harsher tone when he made the connection. “You are that
researcher that undermined my friend, aren’t you?” I tried to defend my position,
insisting that I had been very respectful even though I declined to “contribute” to the
online fundraising as a precursor for Lawyer Y’s involvement in my research. My
interjection must have rubbed him the wrong way because, at this point, he
forthrightly scolded me for wasting his valuable time, yet he was in the middle of a
multi-million dollar legal suit. I pleaded for him to consider my research interview a
pro bono case, which only seemed to agitate him further. This unpleasant encounter
climaxed in his declining my interview request. Despite my best efforts to be
professional, I succumbed to my emotions, sunk into doubts about what it meant to
conduct research with legal elites and even wondered whether I was approaching the
study appropriately.
7
“Hanging out” with judicial and legal elite
University of Bayreuth African Studies Working Papers (XL)
Only later, when self-awareness set in and reflecting on my positionality, could I process my
reaction to this encounter. Indeed, positionality theory acknowledges that people have multiple
overlapping identities, which implies that meaning-making results from the various aspects of
their identity (Bourke 2014). A researcher’s positionality influences who accepts to be
interviewed, and their access, determines what information participants are willing to share and
directly bears on “the knowledge claims the researcher can advance” (Fujii 2017: 15-16). At the
time, I identified as a married female graduate student of Ugandan descent and a naturalised
German attending a German university.20 For over five months, I conducted research in
predominantly male-dominated legal and judicial spaces. Starting my fieldwork, I had the
misguided notion that, being a relatively young black female graduate student, I did not harbour
any power or privilege over my interview participants. Being primarily male, older and legally
trained individuals, I believed they held the upper hand in all our encounters. However, that was
only part of the fluid and complex power structure in the field.
Even though research power differentials are usually assumed to be unidirectional - from the
“foreign-usually-white” researcher travelling to the Global South (Doty 1996; Bourke 2014), my
experience goes beyond the usual foreignness and whiteness concerns to address the double
consciousness (insider-foreigner) that my positionality presents. The researcher’s privilege,
holistically conceptualised, encompasses several aspects such as “the ability to choose – where to
live, what to eat, how to travel, and with whom to spend time. The most fundamental privilege
that all researchers enjoy is gaining entrée into people’s worlds” (Fujii 2017: 16). Though usually
glossed over, the most privileged aspect of fieldwork is the researchers’ entitlement to pry into
people’s daily lives, professional or otherwise, whether studying up or down. My privilege had
accorded me access to online engagements and brought me closer to research participants, and
yet, as shown in the vignette above, the lawyers’ stern denial of access was unsettling for me. I had
contacted very successful and vocal male lawyers whose knowledge of the topic and social and
economic status surpassed mine – I was convinced the privilege scale was tilted in their favour.
At the time, I did not attribute their dismissal of my research as a reaction to the power dynamics
on my end. I recognised that even if I may have seemed powerless during this ordeal, there were
ignored power dynamics that I was not ready to confront – this encounter presented a learning
moment and a provocation to rethink my positionality.
On the one hand, being an insider in Eastern Africa paved the way for me to access some spaces
known for being closed off to foreign researchers. Likewise, my gender granted me access to
women-friendly spaces and may even have played in my favour when some male participants
made the time out of their busy schedules to engage in my work.21 At the same time, the privilege
of being a researcher based in Germany also opened up spaces, especially with young lawyers
whose participation in my research was driven by their need to get proximity to higher education
20 My partner did not accompany me for research visits. Even though my supervisor accompanied me to the field, in
Dar es Salaam for a week, this article focuses on the time spent in the field alone. I am grateful for his guidance and also
acknowledge the opportunities that his positionality accorded my research when we were together in the field.
21 Being relatively young and female, I was accustomed to being patronised, cross-questioned and not being taken
seriously. Thus, I carefully planned and conducted my research with older male participants, not leaving room for
manipulation or intimidation. I also learned to adjust my demeanour depending on the type of interviewee, oscillating
between non-threatening and assertive, as the research situation demanded.
“Hanging out” with judicial and legal elite 8
University of Bayreuth African Studies Working Papers (XL)
opportunities in Germany. It also granted me access to leading figures in the closed judicial arena.
For instance, my closest working relationship in the field was also pursuing his doctorate in
Germany, and I was acquainted with his supervisor. Affiliations to a German university shaped
how my interlocutors saw me if they granted me access or closed the doors. Even if my experience
emerges while studying “up” amongst mostly legal elites, it resonates with other early career
female scholars’ experiences navigating the field. Debele’s encounter while conducting fieldwork
for a religious studies project in Ethiopia is an excellent example of the highly complex insider-
outsider experience that researchers who conduct fieldwork in their home countries have to
navigate (Debele 2017).
On the other hand, affiliation with Germany also raised critical questions on the researcher-
researched dynamic, with some participants equating me to an informant for the German
government. Some expressed concerns like “How will your research directly benefit the EACJ?”22
or “After listening to our concerns, you will go off, write a book and advance your career. What are
you giving back?” As was the case in the vignette, I am a researcher from Germany requesting two
very busy and established Ugandan lawyers to avail themselves and their expertise at no direct
benefit to them. Why did I assume that these lawyers owed me their time and knowledge? What
were my expectations for how these interview situations “should” go? Undeniably, when we travel
for fieldwork, especially as scholars from the Global North heading to the Global South, we carry
a range of privileges and assumptions that accompany our existence and experience in the field.
Appreciating the challenges brought on by my positionality was fundamental as all research
interactions are “rooted in power and social relationships” (Mosley 2013: 9), and active reflexivity
should drive the research process. So what, I pondered, would help me bridge the challenge of
accessing legal and judicial elites?
As grim as gaining and maintaining access to judicial elites seemed, I quickly realised that the
solution lay in seeking support from earlier established “working relationships” (Fujii 2017). Lee
Ann Fujii, in her ground-breaking work on relational interviewing, reminds researchers not to
carry the entire burden of reaching out to relevant actors in the field on our shoulders. Instead,
we should make the most of the connections we have whilst taking their expert knowledge
seriously and imbuing them with respect, dignity and gratitude for their time (Fujii 2017: 90).
Heeding this advice, I reached out to the former registrar of the EACJ, whom I had interviewed
online and with whom I continued regular email exchanges, requesting an opportunity to “hang
out” which proved to be the breakthrough that I needed at the time.23 “Hanging out” while
studying “up” involves a combination of three facets: continuous residence amid communities of
practice, intentional engagement in informal and sociable interactions outside of the professional
22 EACJ staff, several conversations, November 2021, Bujumbura.
23 I am indebted to His Worship Yufnalis Okubo, whose readiness to assist in my research, ample kindness and genuine
interest in my work has not only opened up doors in the usually closed legal networks but has also spurred on my
confidence in my project knowing that it behoves me to tell this story respectfully, and critically. I choose to disclose
the identity of this interlocutor for four reasons: 1) because I have his consent to do so, 2) he would have been identified
anyway given that only he held that position at the said time, 3) because of the public manner in which he intervened
in my research (on social media), and 4) to show gratitude for that intervention as I view him as a co-producer of
knowledge that should be acknowledged publicly.
9
“Hanging out” with judicial and legal elite
University of Bayreuth African Studies Working Papers (XL)
realm, and participating in rapport-building activities (Nair 2021: 1307). I reflect on the three
facets, illuminating how and when I drew on “hanging out” to understand the intimate workings
of the court- to be acquainted with the people behind the legal decisions, uncover what drives
their involvement, what perceptions they hold of regional law and the regional bloc in general.
5 Towards intentional socialisation
My initial deliberate “hanging out” was in early October 2021 when I reached out to the EACJ
registrar while he was on an official trip to Uganda, where he was paying a visit to the Supreme
Court. With only a few days in Kampala, amidst several engagements, I had to swiftly arrange to
meet him without demanding too much of his time and resources. Heeding Nair’s (2021: 1313)
advice to “draw interlocutors away from professional habitats to spaces of sociable and informal
interaction”, I asked the registrar to meet at my favourite Ugandan local food restaurant.24 To my
delight and surprise, he agreed to this impromptu dining arrangement. In between mouthfuls, we
chatted about East African cuisine, compared regional delicacies and briefly recapped our virtual
meetings in the past year. In this introductory tête-à-tête, we exchanged more honestly about my
doctoral dissertation journey and duly discussed our shared interest in my research topic,
cementing the rapport we had built over the past few months and advancing it into a working
relationship. With the progression of our informal chat, I sought the registrar’s advice on how to
get access. Endowed with legitimacy within the judicial and legal sphere in the EAC, the registrar
sought to put my earlier concerns of an impenetrable legal field to rest. With only a Tweet
comprising an image of himself, the court president and me, captioned with a few details of my
research interest, the registrar broke the barriers that had hampered my research (see Figure 1).
His endorsement, couched in an unsuspecting Tweet, was a subtle message to the legal and judicial
fraternity, beseeching them to grant me access to engage me seriously as a researcher.
24 Nair advises taking interlocutors away from offices to places of recreation, such as shopping malls, restaurants, coffee
shops or even bars in an attempt to benefit from the informal rapport creating through simply “hanging out”.
“Hanging out” with judicial and legal elite 10
University of Bayreuth African Studies Working Papers (XL)
Figure 1: Tweet by Registrar His Worship Yufnalis Okubo, October 4, 2021. Image rights: Diana Kisakye. https://twitter.com/yufokubo/status/1444871560612007938.
My visibility in the field benefitted immensely from the working relationship with the registrar.
Given that I am not legally trained, there are aspects of legal procedure and etiquette with which
I am unfamiliar, and his guidance proved exceedingly valuable. His endorsement of my research,
via his social media, catered to the prevailing formality, procedure, hierarchy and politesse that
governs everyday relations between judicial and legal elites. Even though he could have extended
an invitation to me on his own accord, he deemed it more formal, appropriate and with a higher
reach if we met the court president and had his formal approval. Highlighting the support of the
court leader himself opened up and deepened my access. Following this encounter, the road ahead
was entirely shaped by my interactions with the research participants, having attained a “foot in
the door” with legal and judicial elites. Echoing Smith (2006: 648), gaining access to powerful
groups is not unique to elites only. Fostering networks, connections and relationships that bring
us closer to our research interests paves the way, as with all experiences of conducting fieldwork.
As such, I deliberately explored participation in activities that contribute to building rapport. In
the spirit of “hanging out” while studying “up,” rapport-building is “as important as the primary
goals of the research” (Nair 2021: 1307). Thus, the crux of my engagements in the field was
through participant observation at relevant court events, legal trainings, and attending court
sessions to observe the dynamics in the courtroom.25
5.1 “Hanging out” with judges, lawyers and in court
My entry point into participation with an intent to build rapport was an invitation from the court
registrar and president to visit the court and its stakeholders at an exclusive event: the High-level
25 At times, I was a “direct non-participant observer” (Portillo et al. 2013: 7) with a passive role in the engagement.
11
“Hanging out” with judicial and legal elite
University of Bayreuth African Studies Working Papers (XL)
Judicial Symposium in Bujumbura.26 This event, commemorating twenty years of EACJ existence,
would be the first time the court would sit outside Arusha to hold court sessions. This invitation
came at an opportune moment when entrée to the legal and judicial space was proving more
cumbersome than I had anticipated. I seized the opportunity to follow the Court to Bujumbura,
where I attended the Symposium, alert to chances for rapport building. Formal events led by
former and current EACJ judges and court staff advanced my understanding of the court’s
mandate, its role in promoting the rule of law, cross-border trade and investment, and its growing
jurisprudence through broad, bold and intentional interpretation of the EAC Treaty (see Figure
2). Likewise, I was granted access to formally organised social gatherings, which paved the way
for a deeper understanding of the people behind the formalistic legal profession and challenged
my assumptions of them through one-on-one conversations. For instance, I was invited to the
judicial farewell dinner for former EACJ judges,27 which allowed participants to interact
informally. Over dinner and sharing alcoholic beverages with interlocutors, without being
consumed by research-oriented questions, I could foster working relationships that would later
open up room for investigating those queries.28
Figure 2: EACJ Judicial Symposium, November 5, 2021, Bujumbura. Photo by author.
Whereas the overtly informal events, on the other hand, provided chances for casual and personal
level interactions with the most relevant actors in and outside the court (e.g. retired and sitting
EACJ judges, heads of EAC organs, the international community, bar associations, senior
government officials from the Partner States, and civil society organisations). Such internal
informal gatherings – dining sessions, judicial cocktail gatherings, and a range of other invitations
to engage in private activities – were vital in opening up, broadening and deepening my
26 The EACJ held a 20 year anniversary celebration and Judicial Symposium on 4th – 5th November, 2021 at the Royal
Palace Hotel in Bujumbura under the theme “EACJ@ 20: Upholding the Rule of Law in the integration agenda towards
the EAC we want.” Hereafter Symposium.
27 Held at Kiriri Gardens Hotel, November 5, 2021, Bujumbura. Images taken during this event remain confidential.
28 Amidst participation in social interactions of “hanging out”, I regularly wrote “field notes” (Sanjek 1990) in diverse
forms, ranging from audio phone recordings that I made after a night out to handwritten notes a few days later. My
interactions served the critical role of building connections, first and foremost, and the notes taken were only meant as
general reflections or clarifying aspects pertaining to the formal interview process.
“Hanging out” with judicial and legal elite 12
University of Bayreuth African Studies Working Papers (XL)
understanding of the legal and judicial sphere to which I was slowly acclimatising. I gained a more
intimate understanding of their attitudes, perceptions or musings on topics that arose in light-
hearted conversations – from regional politics to threats to judicial independence.
These informal encounters revealed crucial elements in my research process, steering it in a more
humane direction, which paved the way for relational interviews. Relational interviews are an
interactive form of interviewing between researcher and interviewee, grounded in a “humanist”
ethos that prioritises “the ethical treatment of all participants and continuous reflexivity” (Fujii
2017: 22). Thus, spending time with judicial elites humanised them - helping me to shed off my
earlier uneasiness with judicial interactions, building rapport, and bridging the researcher-
researched dynamic. For my study, the added value of interviews needed not only lie in the
information gathered during the interview process but also in the outcomes of the interactions
themselves, and thus, “hanging out” became just as vital as the interviews themselves. Moreover,
the attitude of judges in the more formalised interview as opposed to outside the court in informal
settings was also starkly different. In the latter, judges tended to be more open to chatting about
more politicised topics without the additional burden of being misquoted or simply exposed for
their points of view. They were also more likely to be less suspicious of the researcher who does
not carry a notepad and pen in hand but is mingling and getting to know them as “people” rather
than as “judges.” Additionally, the informal setting bridges the judicial hierarchy. In the formalised
interviews, I usually had to go through several judicial gatekeepers – from the judicial security
apparatus to the court clerks, secretaries and registry staff – to access the judges who were often
isolated in their chambers. The very set-up of the judicial interview placed a wall between the
researcher and the judge, as these differences were usually amplified by their professional
arrangement, which the less formalised set-up of a bar or a hallway chat dissipated.
Similarly, I strategically positioned myself in places where I could get close to litigating lawyers in
the EACJ. After gaining visibility within the judicial and legal circles, I negotiated my way into legal
public talks, conferences, professional meeting points and other gatherings that would get me in
the same room as my desired interviewees. One such memorable event is the one-day lawyers’
trial advocacy course.29 Through an interview, I learnt about an upcoming workshop that the East
Africa Law Society (EALS) would be hosting to instruct lawyers on litigation before regional courts
and tribunals, focusing on practice before the EACJ. Even if the event was closed, only for members
of the EALS, I managed to secure a place to attend.30 As a participant observer, I took part in
practical exercises intended to provide the delegates with “a first-hand feel of actual litigation”
before the EACJ. We were taken through the court’s jurisdiction and admissibility of applications,
written proceedings, preparation and filing of pleadings, their amendment, withdrawal, and
29 East Africa Law Society capacity building: Trial Advocacy Training for Regional Courts 2021. The EACJ and the
Uganda Law Society hosted a one-day course on trial advocacy before regional courts and tribunals for EAC lawyers
with
a
focus
on
practice
before
the
EACJ.
October
20,
2021.
Skyz
Hotel,
Kampala.
https://twitter.com/ealawsociety/status/1452632041158291467.
30 I reached out to the EALS headquarters in Arusha via telephone and convinced them that I was an interested member
of the public: a researcher who cared to learn more about practice before the EACJ. Again, my positionality and privilege
opened up this space. I drew on my connections to the facilitators and was granted access, even after meeting a deadlock
with the organisers in Kampala.
13
“Hanging out” with judicial and legal elite
University of Bayreuth African Studies Working Papers (XL)
practical exercises in drafting, preparing and filing documents. Such formal activities provided an
extra avenue for gathering supplementary data.
Even though I took part in all these very instructive, albeit unfamiliar legal proceedings, with keen
interest, the most enlightening aspect was becoming privy to the pragmatic questions that
participants asked, listening to the rationale given by the trainers (who were themselves “repeat
lawyers”31 at the court) on what types of cases they decide to litigate, and how legal elites tactfully
confront and mitigate pressures from the executive upon filing politically salient claims.
Attendance of the training provided raw insights into the legal, economic, social and political
considerations that lawyers who appear before the court grapple with on a daily routine. Most
rewarding were the informal conversations in which I engaged during the breaks – when
questions, doubts and reflections were shared. Such informal interactions allowed me to
introduce myself, explain my research objective and seek the research participants’ consent and
participation in more formalised interviews.
Finally, while I had hung out with judges and lawyers on separate occasions, it was also critical to
attend EACJ court sessions, both in Bujumbura32 and Arusha.33 Steady attendance of these sessions
in different locations made me a regular figure at the court, aided in building rapport with legal
elites and litigants, and familiarised me with court processes. Conversations with the court staff,
as they set up and cleared the courtroom before and after sessions, offered a “behind the scenes”
view of court processes. At such opportunities, I inquired into different aspects of courtroom
formality and protocol, chatted informally about the concluded sessions, and became aware of
personal anecdotes on lawyers’ and judicial courtroom behaviour and its implications. Even if it
remains confidential, this information broadened my perception of the court and its
constituencies. Observing courtroom dynamics enabled me to understand the core questions
being brought before the court, go beyond the formality, and engage the lawyers and litigants after
the sessions to clarify issues raised in the hearings and arrange interviews.
31 I draw on the concept “repeat players” (McGuire 1995) to refer to reputable and influential lawyers that frequently
litigate in the EACJ and have played a huge role in influencing judicial decision-making and expanding the reach of the
Court.
32 In November 2021, the EACJ held court sessions at eh Supreme Court in Bujumbura. The fact that we were all visitors
and not in their familiar territory came with a certain sense of freedom that I imagine played in my favour – it brought
a shared sense of comradery and gave me a chance to speak to the relevant legal elites who were rather open to engaging
a researcher.
33 While at the seat of the EACJ in Arusha, February-March 2022, I also frequently “hang out” in places that potential
interviewees frequent in a bid to cross paths and initiate an informal conversation that would result in an interview
opportunity.
“Hanging out” with judicial and legal elite 14
University of Bayreuth African Studies Working Papers (XL)
5.2 Pondering “continuous residence” and “research friendships”
Even though my research stays in each city were relatively short, I believe my six-month stay in
the EAC region following the court and relevant actors, who are just as mobile across the region,
qualifies as a continuous and uninterrupted stay among judicial and legal communities of practice
in the EAC. I was free to stay as long as the research warranted, without necessarily creating
stringent measures on my duration of stay, provided I was satisfied with my level of engagement.
The period of continuous residence need not affect the quality of the “hanging out” experience.
For me, the researcher and interlocutor relationship does not have to be restricted in longevity or
limitation of interaction, provided both adhere to the ethical and humane treatment of each other.
“Hanging out” paved the way for an alternative to ethnographic immersion that would allow for
my time and resource constraints.
Most importantly, “hanging out” enriched not only my research experience but also my life
experience – I have gained friends and mentors along the way, met some of their families, and
shared meals with them. While researchers caution of the “problematic” role of research
friendships, prioritising rapport instead (Glesne 1989: 48–50), I find that stance to be
disingenuous if one seeks to “hang out.” After all, our interactions take on an affective tone when
we “hang out” repeatedly, ranging from disagreements to critical deliberations on affective topics
or hysterical laughter through created mutual insider jokes. While it would be a stretch to call
myself an insider, I have established ethical working relationships with my interlocutors, some of
whom have become friendships. In agreement with Nair (2021: 1313), researchers should be
ethical with “fieldwork friendships.” This includes paying attention to extractive research that
simply takes the interlocutors’ interventions for their own academic gain, sometimes without
acknowledging their contributions or creating opportunities to reciprocate their kindness. During
my visit to Bujumbura, the court network administrator34 welcomed me, graciously tended to me
during my stay and was instrumental in helping me familiarise myself with the city. Even if our
34 Same reasons as in Supranote 23.
Figure 3: “Hanging out” in court, Supreme Court, November 21, 2021, Bujumbura.
Photo by author.
Figure 4: “Hanging out” with lawyers, Trial Advocacy Training, October 20, 2021, Bujumbura.
Photo by author.
15
“Hanging out” with judicial and legal elite
University of Bayreuth African Studies Working Papers (XL)
meeting had been professionally arranged by his boss, who requested him to “take care” of me
while I was in Bujumbura, I was certain I had made a friend by the end of my visit. During our
interactions, I learned of his interest in furthering his academic career and saw an opportunity to
reciprocate his kindness. Upon my return to Germany, we kept in touch and started working on a
joint paper that we presented at an academic conference.35
35 “Of paperless hybrid Courts: Embracing the administration of justice through ICT in the East African Court of Justice.”
Presented at the VAD 2022 conference “Africa-Europe: Reciprocal Perspectives,” Thursday 9 June, 2021, Freiburg,
Germany.
“Hanging out” with judicial and legal elite 16
University of Bayreuth African Studies Working Papers (XL)
6 Conclusion
The reflections on my field experience exemplify the messy, unpredictable and challenging route
of studying “up”, especially amongst legal and judicial elites whose profession thrives on formality,
secrecy and discretion. Discussing judicial matters under investigation is not only frowned upon
but is also considered unethical. As such, challenges abound for the researcher seeking to get
closer to the judges’ situated knowledge from an overtly political lens as they must walk the
tightrope between avoiding sub judice matters and seeking clarification on events that were
already decided. I witnessed the same hardships in my quest to unravel the subtleties of the
political nature of judging in African REC courts. I raised interview questions that caused suspicion
and discomfort as they seemed to question judicial fidelity to the law and apoliticism. “Hanging
out” allowed me to develop sensitivity to judicial practice and gave me the vocabulary to frame
future interview questions more appropriately.
Likewise, informal socialisation events presented opportunities to exchange with actors on
sensitive topics without them feeling interrogated. It also permitted more prolonged, dynamic,
and affective interactions, which broadened my perception of the research problem. In my
experience, informality in judicial research may be the entry point to accessing judicial attitudes
to their work and contextualising and demystifying the court process. However, the researcher
must remain ethical and keep sensitive information attained through “hanging out” confidential
or anonymised if they sought and achieved informed consent. In the same vein, the researcher
ought to reflect on the fluid and multi-directional power differentials, recognising the value that
positionality plays in creating or closing access. Indeed, even with legal and judicial elites, the
researcher’s positionality influences who agrees to participate and how they go about it.
Not limited to judicial research alone, “hanging out” enables the researcher to build ethical and
reciprocal working relationships, forge legitimacy, build rapport, and access closed research
arenas. Mutually beneficial working relationships broaden the researcher’s grasp of field realities
and offer insights into their socio-political embeddedness in networks. Moreover, “hanging out”
is not a given - it is intentional and planned, having a clear goal but also allowing for spontaneity.
The researcher ought to draw on their social and professional capital, as in my case, to get a “foot
in the door”. In sum, methodological considerations that venture beyond the formalised interview
must be engaged more rigorously. Future research could systematically think through the kinds
of information that a researcher can access through informal versus formal interviews, chart out
how individuals respond differently to similar questions depending on the research set-up, and
even contrast the use of these informal settings across different status groups.
17
“Hanging out” with judicial and legal elite
University of Bayreuth African Studies Working Papers (XL)
7 References
Achiume, Tendayi. 2017. The SADC Tribunal: Socio-Political Dissonance and the Authority of
International Courts. In International Court Authority, ed. Karen J. Alter, Mikael Rask Madsen,
and Laurence R. Helfer, 124-148. Oxford University Press.
Akinkugbe, Olabisi D. 2020. Towards an Analyses of the Mega-Politics Jurisprudence of the
ECOWAS Community Court of Justice. In The Performance of Africa’s International Courts: Using
International Litigation for Political, Legal, and Social Change, ed. James Thuo Gathii, 149–77.
Oxford University Press.
Alter, Karen J. 2014. The New Terrain of International Law: Courts, Politics, Rights. Princeton and
Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Alter, Karen J., James Thuo Gathii, and Laurence R. Helfer. 2016. Backlash Against International
Courts in West, East and Southern Africa: Causes and Consequences. European Journal of
International Law 27 (2): 293–328. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chw019.
Alter, Karen J., Laurence R. Helfer, and Mikael Rask Madsen. 2016. How Context Shapes the
Authority of International Courts. Law and Contemporary Problems 79 (1): 1–36.
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol79/iss1/1/.
Amit, Vered. 2000. Introduction: Constructing the Field. In Constructing the Field: Ethnographic
Fieldwork in the Contemporary World, 1–18. London: Routledge.
Beckmann, Matthew N, and Richard L Hall. 2013. Elite Interviewing in Washington, DC. In
Interview Research in Political Science, ed. Layna Mosley, 196–208. Cornell University Press
Ithaca, NY.
Bourke, Brian. 2014. Positionality: Reflecting on the Research Process. The Qualitative Report 19
(33):
1–9.
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2486198787/abstract/ABC004158C8744A0PQ/1.
Brett, Peter, and Line Engbo Gissel. 2020. Africa and the Backlash Against International Courts.
Bloomsbury Publishing.
Brett, Peter. 2018. Who Are Judicial Decisions Meant for? The “Global Community of Law” in
Southern
Africa.
International
Political
Science
Review
39
(5):
585–99.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512118773449.
Caserta, Salvatore, and Pola Cebulak. 2021. Territorial Disputes by Proxy: The Indirect
Involvement of International Courts in the Mega-Politics of Territory. Law and Contemporary
Problems 84 (4): 123–51. https://lcp.law.duke.edu/article/territorial-disputes-by-proxy-
caserta-vol84-iss4/.
“Hanging out” with judicial and legal elite 18
University of Bayreuth African Studies Working Papers (XL)
Debele, Serawit. 2017. Ambiguities of “Insider-Ness” in the Study of Religion: Reflecting on
Experiences
from
Ethiopia.
Fieldwork
in
Religion
11
(2):
157–69.
https://doi.org/10.1558/firn.29682.
Doty, Roxanne Lynn. 1996. Imperial Encounters: The Politics of Representation in North-South
Relations. Vol. 5. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Ellett, Rachel L. 2011. Stuck in Between: Interviewing Judges and Other Legal Elites in Africa. Law
and Courts 21 (1). http://artsandsciences.sc.edu/poli/juri/2011_Winter.pdf#page=11.
Ellett, Rachel L. Forthcoming. In Defense of Interviews. In Data and Methods in the Comparative
Study of Legal Institutions. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fujii, Lee Ann. 2012. Research Ethics 101: Dilemmas and Responsibilities. PS: Political Science &
Politics 45 (04): 717–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096512000819.
Fujii, Lee Ann. 2017. Interviewing in Social Science Research: A Relational Approach. 1 Edition. New
York: Routledge.
Gathii, James Thuo, and Harrison Otieno Mbori. 2020. Reference Guide to Africa’s International
Courts: An Introduction. In The Performance of Africa’s International Courts, ed. James Thuo
Gathii, 300–344. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gathii, James Thuo, and Olabisi D Akinkugbe. 2021. Judicialization of Election Disputes in Africa’s
International
Courts.
Law
and
Contemporary
Problems
84
(4):
181–218.
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5025&context=lcp.
Gathii, James Thuo. 2013. Mission Creep or a Search for Relevance: The East African Court of
Justice’s Human Rights Strategy. Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 24 (2): 249–
96. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2178756.
Geertz, Clifford. 1998. Deep Hanging Out. The New York Review of Books 45 (16): 69–72.
Glas, Aarie. 2021. ‘Positionality, Power, and Positions of Power: Reflexivity in Elite Interviewing’.
PS: Political Science & Politics 54 (3): 438–42. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096520002048.
Glesne, Corrine. 1989. Rapport and friendship in ethnographic research. International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education 2: 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839890020105.
Halliday, Simon, and Patrick Schmidt. 2009. Conducting Law and Society Research: Reflections on
Methods and Practices. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hansungule, Michelo. 2013. The Suspension of the SADC Tribunal. The Strategic Review for
Southern
Africa
35
(1):
135-145.
https://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/40305/Hansungule_Suspension_2013.p
df?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
19
“Hanging out” with judicial and legal elite
University of Bayreuth African Studies Working Papers (XL)
Helfer, Laurence R., and Clare Ryan. 2021. LGBT Rights as Mega-Politics: Litigating before the
ECtHR.
Law
and
Contemporary
Problems
84
(4):
59–93.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3867604.
Hirschl, Ran. 2004. The Political Origins of the New Constitutionalism. Indiana Journal of Global
Legal Studies 11 (1): 71–108. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ijgls/vol11/iss1/4/.
Hirschl, Ran. 2008. The Judicialization of Mega-Politics and the Rise of Political Courts. Annual
Review
of
Political
Science
11:
93–118.
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053006.183906.
Jaremba, Urszula, and Elaine Mak. 2014. Interviewing Judges in the Transnational Context. Law
and Method 5. https://doi.org/10.5553/REM/.000003.
Knight, Jack, and Mitu Gulati. 2017. Talking Judges. Duke Law Journal Online 67: pp. xli-li.
Lenz, Tobias. 2012. Spurred Emulation: The EU and Regional Integration in Mercosur and SADC.
West European Politics 35 (1): 155–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2012.631319.
MacLean, Lauren M. 2006. The Power of Human Subjects and the Politics of Informed Consent.
Qualitative Methods 4 (2): 13–15.
Marcus, George E. 1995. Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of Multi-Sited
Ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 95–117.
Martinsen, Dorte Sindbjerg, and Michael Blauberger. 2021. The Court of Justice of the European
Union and the Mega-Politics of Posted Workers. Law and Contemporary Problems 84 (4): 29–
57.
McGuire, Kevin T. 1995. Repeat Players in the Supreme Court: The Role of Experienced Lawyers
in Litigation Success. The Journal of Politics 57 (1): 187–96. https://doi.org/10.2307/2960277.
Mosley, Layna, ed. 2013. Interview Research in Political Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Nader, Laura. 1972. Up the Anthropologist -Perspectives Gained from Studying Up. In Reinventing
Anthropology, ed. Dell Hymes, 284-331. New York: Vintage Books.
Nader, Laura. 1972. Up the Anthropologist -Perspectives Gained from Studying Up. In Reinventing
Anthropology, 284–311. New York: Vintage Books.
Nair, Deepak. 2021. “Hanging Out” While Studying “Up”: Doing Ethnographic Fieldwork in
International
Relations.
International
Studies
Review
23
(4):
1300–1327.
https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viab001.
Nathan, Laurie. 2013. The Disbanding of the SADC Tribunal: A Cautionary Tale. Human Rights
Quarterly 35 (4): 870–92. https://doi.org/10.1353/hrq.2013.0059.
“Hanging out” with judicial and legal elite 20
University of Bayreuth African Studies Working Papers (XL)
Ndlovu, Precious N. 2011. Campbell v Republic of Zimbabwe: A Moment of Truth for the SADC
Tribunal. SADC Law Journal 1: 63-79.
Onoria, Henry. 2010. Botched-Up Elections, Treaty Amendments and Judicial Independence in the
East
African
Community.
Journal
of
African
Law
54
(1):
74–94.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021855309990179.
Pavone, Tommaso. 2022. The Ghostwriters: Lawyers and the Politics behind the Judicial
Construction of Europe. 1st ed. Cambridge, United Kingdom; New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Portillo, Shannon, Danielle S. Rudes, Jill Viglione, and Matthew Nelson. 2013. Front-Stage Stars and
Backstage Producers: The Role of Judges in Problem-Solving Courts. Victims & Offenders 8 (1):
1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2012.685220.
Possi, Ally. 2018. An Appraisal of the Functioning and Effectiveness of the East African Court of
Justice. PER/PELJ 21. http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/1727- 3781/2018/v21i0a2311.
Sanjek, Roger. 1990. The Secret Life of Fieldnotes. In Fieldnotes: The Makings of Anthropology, ed.
Roger Sanjek, 187–270. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Sarat, Austin. 1990. Off to Meet the Wizard: Beyond Validity and Reliability in the Search for a
Post-Empiricist
Sociology
of
Law.
Law
&
Social
Inquiry
15
(1):
155–70.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.1990.tb00279.x.
Silbey, Susan S., and Austin Sarat. 1987. Critical Traditions in Law and Society Research. Law &
Society Review 21 (1): 165. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053389.
Smith, Katherine E. 2006. Problematising Power Relations in “Elite” Interviews. Geoforum 37 (4):
643–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2005.11.002.
Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community. Done on November 30, 1999. Entered
into Force July 7, 2000. Amended December 14, 2006, and August 20, 2007.
https://www.eacj.org//wp-content/uploads/2012/08/EACJ-Treaty.pdf.
Trochev, Alexei. 2018. Patronal Politics, Judicial Networks and Collective Judicial Autonomy in
Post-Soviet
Ukraine.
International
Political
Science
Review
39
(5):
662–78.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512118802943.
Trubek, David M., and John Esser. 1989. “Critical Empiricism” in American Legal Studies: Paradox,
Program, or Pandora’s Box? Law & Social Inquiry 14 (1): 3–52.
Ward, Artemus, and Stephen L Wasby. 2010. “Get a Life!”: On Interviewing Law Clerks. Justice
System Journal 31 (2): 125–43.
21
“Hanging out” with judicial and legal elite
University of Bayreuth African Studies Working Papers (XL)
Widner, Jennifer. 2001. Courts and Democracy in Postconflict Transitions: A Social Scientist’s
Perspective on the African Case. American Journal of International Law 95 (1): 64–75.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2642037.
Willis, Jerry W, Muktha Jost, and Rema Nilakanta. 2007. Foundations of Qualitative Research:
Interpretive and Critical Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Yanow, Dvora, and Peregrine Schwartz-Shea. 2015. Doing Social Science in a Humanistic Manner.
In Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn, ed. Dvora
Yanow and Peregrine Schwartz-Shea, 2nd ed., 380–94. New York: Routledge.
Yepes, Rodrigo Uprimny. 2007. Judicialization of Politics in Colombia: Cases, Merits and Risks. Sur.
Revista Internacional de Direitos Humanos 4:49–65.
“Hanging out” with judicial and legal elite 22
University of Bayreuth African Studies Working Papers (XL)
8 10 Latest UBT African Studies working papers
Title
Editor(s)
Year
of
Publication
Issue
Modalities of Forgetting : A Refusal
of Memory Among Post-Conflict
Samburu and Pokot, Kenya
Jon Holtzman
2023
36
Ọ rúnmìliàn Film-Philosophy: An
African
Philosophy
throught
Cinematic Storytelling
Saheed Adesumbo Bello
2023
35
Media Transnationalism and the
Politics of ‘Feminised Corruption’
Sharon Adetutu Omotoso
2023
34
Live as African: On the Relevance
of Thomas Sankara’s Agenda for
Economic Liberation
Ndongo Samba Sylla
2022
33
‘Social media is for the elite’: Local
political communication in Ghana
in times of COVID-19
Matthew
Sabbi,
Dieter
Neubert
and
Alexander
Stroh
2022
32
Future Africa?! Timescapes and the
Flattening of Time in the Modern
Era
Susanne Lachenicht
2022
31
Disputed Meanings of Women's
Liberation: Social Tensions and
Symbolic
Struggles
During
Angolan Independence
Fábio Baqueiro Figueiredo
2022
30
beaucoup
de
peur
et
de
questionnement:
Une
étude
comparative des discours sur le
Covid-19 en Côte d'Ivoire et au
Cameroun
Martina
Drescher,
Oumarou
Boukari,
and
Carline
Liliane
Ngawa
Mbaho
2022
29
The
Committee
and
the
Uncommitted Material: Assistance
to
Members
in
Need
at
a
Pentecostal Church in Western
Kenya
Lena Kroeker and Yonatan
N. Gez
2022
28
23
“Hanging out” with judicial and legal elite
University of Bayreuth African Studies Working Papers (XL)
Fieldwork
Experiences
and
Practices in Africa
Nikitta Adjirakor, Oladapo
Opeyemi
Ajayi,
Hanza
Diman and Mingqing Yuan
2021
27
Diana Kisakye. 2023. “Hanging out” with judicial and legal elites: Reflections
on researching “up”. University of Bayreuth African Studies Working Papers 40,
BIGSASworks! 11. Bayreuth: Institute of African Studies.
