RM END TERM NOTES LLM NLSIU (DO OR DIE)

1. “Law and the Methodology of Law” by Edward L. Rubin RM END TERM NOTES

Author: Edward L. Rubin, Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley

Date of Publication: 1997 (Wisconsin Law Review)

Core Argument: Legal scholarship occupies a unique, “contingently prescriptive” position among academic disciplines. While it cannot directly adopt the methodologies of other fields, it must rely on them, particularly social science, to understand the external forces acting on the legal system and the impact of legal decisions. Law is a distinct academic discipline but not an autonomous one.

Key Themes and Important Ideas/Facts:

1. Legal Scholarship’s Methodological Crisis (“Law and…” Phenomenon):

Legal scholarship has been in a “dark and stormy” period since it “irreversibly dismantled its formalist home,” seeking methodological refuge in other disciplines like literature, philosophy, economics, political science, and sociology.
This interdisciplinary exploration is dubbed “law and,” indicating an often indeterminate link.
Rubin argues that direct application of another field’s methodology to legal scholarship is generally precluded due to legal scholarship’s unique stance.

2. Defining Standard Legal Scholarship: Prescriptive and Involved:

Primary Concern: Standard legal scholarship is defined as “work which frames recommendations, or prescriptions, to legal decision-makers.”
Normative Quality: It is characterized by its “normative quality and the direct engagement of its recommendations with identifiable legal decision-makers.”
Contrast with Descriptive Work: Purely descriptive legal work (e.g., practitioner manuals, summaries) is generally not considered “scholarship” within the legal academy, highlighting the centrality of prescription.
Involvement: Legal scholars are “inevitably and intensely involved with the subject matter of their research,” viewing law as a product of deliberate action by state decision-makers that can be influenced by academic arguments. This contrasts sharply with literary critics who adopt a stance of “respect” for an unchangeable text/author.
I-It Relationship: Legal scholars typically adopt an “I-It relationship” with legal decisions, often believing they “could do a better job than the judge.”

3. Comparison with Other Disciplines:

Natural Science (Descriptive, Cumulative, Data-Driven):
Crucial Problem: Natural science is “essentially descriptive rather than prescriptive.” It seeks to model the behavior of a “real world ‘out there,’ separate from conscious human control.”
Law is Created, Not Discovered: Modern legal scholars see law as “created, not discovered” by conscious decision-makers, leading to prescriptive efforts to improve decisions.
Data vs. Events: Natural science relies on “data” (generated, defined, given significance by the discipline), while legal scholarship reacts to “events” (judicial decisions, statutes, regulations) generated by nonacademic actors, which are “prepackaged.”
Noncumulative Nature of Law: Unlike natural science, which progresses due to a “unified theory of causality” allowing for verification and falsification, legal scholarship lacks this. It “is not trying to describe the causes of observed phenomena, but to evaluate a series of events, to express values, and to prescribe alternatives.”
Literary Criticism (Interpretive, Reactive, Noncumulative, Respectful):
Similarities: Both are interpretive, reactive, and largely noncumulative, starting with works generated outside the discipline.
Key Difference: Purpose & Involvement: Literary criticism is “essentially nonprescriptive,” not addressing authors with instructions. Legal scholars, by contrast, are “involved” and directly address decision-makers.
Respect vs. Lack of Respect: Literary critics respect their subject (I-Thou relationship), while legal scholars often have a “lack of respect,” tending to think they “could do a better job than the judge.”
Interpretive Community: While both might form interpretive communities, the legal one includes decision-makers (judges), fostering involvement and prescriptiveness. Literary critics’ community does not include the author.
Moral Philosophy (Normative, Nonreactive, Noncumulative):
Shared Normativity: Most moral philosophy is a “normative enterprise,” sharing this with legal scholarship.
Categorical vs. Contingent: Moral philosophy is often “phrased categorically” (how one should behave), whereas legal scholarship is “contingently” prescriptive, based on “some set of accepted purposes” within an existing legal framework.
Nonreactive Agenda: Philosophy is “nonreactive,” setting its own agenda and generating, defining, and giving significance to phenomena it studies.
Limited Cumulation: Like law, philosophy lacks general cumulation, though it develops vocabulary and some issues move into other disciplines. Legal scholarship’s reactivity means exclusions from the field are externally driven, not a cumulative scholarly process.
Social Science (Descriptive Core, Varied Prescriptiveness, Fractured Cumulation):
Substantive Overlap: There’s an “enormous substantive overlap” (e.g., anthropologists studying law, sociologists criminal behavior, economists transactions).
Dominant Approach: Descriptive: Despite variations, social science’s “dominant approach appears to be descriptive,” aspiring to describe and explain causes of social phenomena. Prescriptive modes are “modifications of a basically descriptive discipline.”
Involvement and Authority: Prescriptions in social science (contingent) emerge from involvement, but their authority stems from their “descriptive base.”
Reactivity Range: Social science varies in reactivity (from nonreactive individual behavior studies to reactive collective behavior studies like history/macroeconomics), but is generally less reactive than legal scholarship.
Fractured Cumulation: Social science has “several different theories of causality” leading to “lines of cumulative research that proceed on parallel paths” within different schools of thought. It has developed means for verification/falsification.
Law Lacks Unified Cumulation: Legal scholarship “does not display even the fractured cumulativity of the social sciences.” It divides into “normative positions that do not bear any obvious relationship to one another,” often “hard-wired” to specific methodologies (e.g., conservatives to economics, progressives to deconstruction).

4. The Methodology of Law: Prescriptive Practice, Not Autonomous:

Epistemological Coherence: Legal scholarship is epistemologically coherent because it is a “prescriptive practice,” not a theoretically derived category of knowledge. Its distinctiveness as a practice explains why other methodologies can’t be directly applied.
Socially Constructed Distinction: The distinction between descriptive (social science) and prescriptive (legal scholarship) is “socially constructed,” reflecting how society perceives academic disciplines.
Treating Subjects as Participants: Legal scholarship “treats the people it studies as equals, and thus as a proper audience for its prescriptions.” Its aspiration is “not to be objective, but to be significant and persuasive.”
“Is” and “Ought” Divide: There’s “no methodology to move directly from the discourses we perceive as descriptive… to decisions about the way to organize our society.” Legal scholarship channels this normative debate.
Prescription as Understanding: The prescriptive stance is not just influence, but “also a mode of understanding,” providing insights into the “inherently normative activity” of legal doctrine.

5. Critiques of Prescriptive Scholarship (Schlag):

Pierre Schlag argues prescriptive scholarship is “decomposing” because decision-makers “are not listening to academic advice that they are not already prepared to receive.”
Rubin refutes this, citing:
Unproven Empirical Assertion: It’s “implausible to suggest that legal formalism, the legal process school and, more recently, law and economics have had no such effects.”
Old-Fashioned Positivism: Schlag implicitly assumes only descriptive arguments have “intrinsic value,” contradicting postmodernism’s view of normative statements.
Inconsistent Nihilism: Schlag offers his own “legal scholarship-style approach to legal scholarship: he frames a recommendation to other scholars on the basis of normative considerations.” He ends up promoting the sociological study of law as a normative “right” path.

6. The Limits of Legal Discourse and the Need for Social Science:

Dual Openness: Legal scholarship, particularly regarding policy, has a “dual openness.”
Inputs: “Social science insights about external events help determine the validity of many propositions.”
Outputs: “Social science insights about the effects of legal propositions help determine their validity.”
Traditional Autonomy is Defective:Limited Audience: Focusing only on judges (to maintain autonomous legal discourse) ignores that “modern law is largely created, interpreted, and applied by legislators and administrators,” whose relative importance is increasing. This leads to “paleozoic irrelevance” for legal scholarship.
Judicial Needs: Judges, especially since the “Brandeis brief,” need information outside purely legal discourse, especially when interpreting policy-driven legislative and administrative provisions.
Social Science as Essential Instrument:Social science is crucial for “characterizing external events and effects,” allowing legal scholarship to develop “realistic models of the law’s relationship to society in general.”
It aligns with Weber’s “instrumental rationality” serving “value rationality” (normative debate). Social science “enables law to achieve those purposes… in the most instrumental or empirically valid manner.” It’s “essential but subordinate.”

7. Impediments to Effective Use of Social Science:

Claims of Definitive Resolution: Unclear methodology sometimes leads to claims that social science (e.g., economics) can “definitely resolve legal issues,” which is “distracting” and causes hostility.
Selective Appropriation: Legal scholars often “select social science methodologies that seem to support their own normative position,” rather than using it for clarification.
Macro-Micro Problem: Social science struggles to link individual and collective behavior, which is “central to the enterprise of legal scholarship” because legal prescriptions are often addressed to individual decision-makers within institutional settings (e.g., judges in a court).

8. Promising Developments in Social Science:

New Institutionalism (Sociology): Steers a middle path between personalistic and mechanistic views, building on Herbert Simon’s decision theory. Explores how individual belief systems create institutional behaviors.
New Institutional Economics: Economic analysis breaking with neoclassical approach, using Simon’s “boundedly rational” concept and analyzing norm formation and transaction costs within institutions.
Relevance to Law: These trends “promise to provide a social science account of institutional behavior that is particularly useful for legal scholars,” offering “rich empirical context to channel those debates, indicating the range of realistic options and the consequences that will flow from them.”

9. The Non-Autonomy of Law: Debunking Autopoietic and Discursive Modalities Theories:

Discursive Modalities (Bobbitt & Patterson):
Theory: Law is a practice, not a theory, consisting of six argument forms (historical, textual, structural, doctrinal, ethical, prudential). Truth in law is determined by these forms, not external justification.
Rubin’s Critique: While agreeing on law as a prescriptive practice, Rubin clarifies that Bobbitt’s “prudential” modality relies heavily on “methodologies external to the law, specifically those of social science,” not just textual interpretation.
Dual Openness Refutes Closure: The idea that legal propositions are only arguments, not statements about the world, is modified by law’s “dual openness” to social science inputs and outputs (e.g., a legal rule’s validity can be affected by its nonlegal consequences like wealth inequality).
Practices are not Necessarily Closed: The example of chess (a closed “game”) shouldn’t define all practices. Law and politics are “dually open.”
Autopoietic Theory (Luhmann & Teubner):
Theory: Society has self-regulating, “operationally closed, but cognitively open” sub-systems (like law) that construct their own environment and models of external phenomena. External phenomena act as “disturbances.”
Rubin’s Critique: While law can be autopoietic (e.g., legislators relying on testimony instead of data), this is often a “defect in the legislative process; it produces bad law.”
Scholars can Penetrate: Legal scholars, being less constrained, “can penetrate the boundaries of legal discourse, and using social science where it offers direct and useful insights for the study of law.” They can facilitate linking the legal system with other modes of social discourse, playing an “influential and valuable role.”

Conclusion: Rubin concludes with a “cautionary and hortatory” message: “law and” fields cannot supply legal scholarship with its own methodology, but they are “particularly valuable” for understanding external events and effects. Social sciences are most useful due to subject matter overlap, providing empirical context and insights, but cannot resolve the fundamental normative debates that define legal scholarship. Social science plays an “essential but subordinate role.”

2. Mapping Legal Research: Frameworks and Evolution

RM END TERM NOTES

This briefing document summarizes key themes and ideas from the article “Mapping Legal Research” by Mathias M. Siems and Daithi Mac Sithigh. The authors propose a conceptual framework to classify academic legal research into three “ideal types”: law as a practical discipline, law as humanities, and law as social sciences. They analyze both the “macro” (university structures, funding bodies) and “micro” (individual researcher preferences) levels of legal research in the UK, offering comparisons with the US and Germany.
The central finding is that all three categories play a role in UK legal academia, but the relationship between the macro and micro levels is complex and often leads to an ambiguous and pluralistic state for legal scholarship. The article also highlights the ongoing evolution of legal academic traditions and raises questions about potential future directions for UK legal research, particularly in light of the social science model prevalent in the US.

Key Themes and Ideas

1. Conceptual Framework: Three “Ideal Types” of Legal Research

The article introduces a fundamental classification of legal research into three distinct categories:

Law as a Practical Discipline:
Focus: Research valuable for legal practitioners (drafting, advising, mediating) and closely related to court work.
Aim: To “examine the internal puzzles raised by the judge’s reasoning process” and “unveil uniform principles” (Susan Bartie).
Character: Value-free analysis of legal rules, viewing law as an applied discipline where academics are “academic lawyers” sharing the ethics of practicing lawyers.
Benefit: Fulfills an obligation to “serve the system of justice” through training future practitioners and addressing important legal system issues.
Weakness: Academics may be “more familiar with legal professionals than with their colleagues from other faculties,” potentially dividing the law school.
Distinction: Doctrinal legal research is a related but not identical concept, as some of its elements (e.g., hermeneutics) go beyond purely practical applications.
Law as Humanities:
Focus: Understanding positive law as “legal ought-propositions” and engaging with the text of the law and its underlying ideas.
Connection: Strong parallels with interpretative disciplines such as history, philosophy, theology, and literature, sharing an interest in hermeneutics.
Quote: “(t)he law is not simply a set of forensic or procedural skills. It is a vast body of knowledge, compounded of historical material, modes of textual analysis and various philosophical concerns. It is a formal inquiry into our behavior and ideals that proceeds essentially through language. It is a humanistic study – both as a body of material wrought of words and a set of analytic skills and procedural claims involving linguistic mastery” (A. Bartlett Giamitti).
Contrast with Practical Law: While both may interpret, the humanities scholar aims purely for understanding, while the practical scholar focuses on application. This approach can counter a “value-neutral and technocratic approach” of professional legal education.
Law as Social Sciences:
Focus: Challenging the usefulness of legal rules and decisions from an “external and often empirical perspective.”
Branches: Draws from economics (e.g., Richard Posner’s view of “economists and economics-minded lawyers, who view law as a social science” constructing models and evaluating social welfare), political science (power and resource allocation), and sociology (examining “social origins, social conditions of existence, and social consequences” of legal ideas).
Methods: Engages with empirical aspects, including quantitative methods (statistics, econometrics) to test the impact of legal rules “in the real world.”
Aspiration: May aim to transform legal research into a “hard social science,” replicating natural science methods for social phenomena.

2. Macro-Level: University Structures and External Classifications

The article examines how law is positioned within the broader academic landscape in the UK:

Ambiguous Position of Law Schools: UK universities exhibit a wide range of organizational models.
Observation: 33% of UK institutions either treat law as a sui generis unit or place it in combined social science and humanities faculties, avoiding explicit classification.
Business/Management Affiliation: A notable number of institutions (especially in the University Alliance and Million+ groups) integrate law with business or management, reflecting a focus on practical and business-oriented education.
Social Sciences Affiliation: The 1994 Group (smaller research-intensive universities) shows the highest proportion of law schools in social science faculties.
Russell Group: Larger, older research-intensive institutions (Russell Group) often maintain law as an independent faculty/school, though some are in humanities faculties.
Historical Evolution of Law Schools:Traditional Training: English lawyers were historically trained through apprenticeships, not universities, with law seen as a “practical subject.”
Early University Initiatives: Significant development began in the early 19th century, with University College London establishing a “modern English law school” in 1826.
“Comparative and Philosophical” Origins: A 1846 House of Commons report recommended universities teach law in a “comparative and philosophical” character, linking its origins to humanities (e.g., Oxford’s School of Law and Modern History).
Shift to Practice: The 19th century also saw a trend towards making legal education more relevant for practice, gradually replacing Roman law with English law.
Intermediate Faculties: The integration of law into joined faculties is a more recent development (last 20 years), driven by cost-saving, centralizing administration, and building “critical mass.” This trend is also linked to the “restructured, corporatised and entrepreneurial university” and concerns about the economic returns of humanities.
External Classifications (Research Councils & Professional Associations):AHRC/ESRC Distinction: UK research councils (Arts & Humanities Research Council – AHRC and Economic and Social Research Council – ESRC) formally split law based on its nature:
AHRC: “supports research into the content, procedures, theory, philosophy and history of the law.”
ESRC: “supports socio-legal studies, which are concerned with the social, political and economic influences on and impact of the law and the legal system.”
Professional Associations: Law has not one but three associations (Society of Legal Scholars, Association of Law Teachers, Socio-Legal Studies Association), reflecting internal divisions and different scholarly focuses. The SLSA explicitly defines socio-legal research as embracing “disciplines and subjects concerned with law as a social institution.”
No Internal University Split: Despite external classifications splitting law, no UK university has formally divided its law school into two or three separate schools based on these distinctions.
Influence of University Structures:Practical Consequences: Location within a faculty building can foster interdisciplinary communication. Financial incentives (e.g., for business studies) can drive collaborations (e.g., law & finance). Research training and support offices at the faculty level can also shape research directions.
Identity and Status: University structures influence “academic tribes and territories” and self-identification. Being housed in a social science or business faculty can marginalize humanities-focused scholars.
“Two Masters” Problem: Law schools face the unique challenge of coordinating with both university requirements and professional bodies, creating “ongoing tensions between university law schools and the legal profession.”
Fostering Collaboration: Suggestions include moving away from monolithic disciplines towards “specialisations” and interdisciplinary centers.

3. Micro-Level: Individual Research Preferences and Evolution

The article then delves into how individual legal academics approach their research:

Mixed Approaches: Previous studies (Cownie in UK, Ellickson in US, Tijssen in Netherlands) confirm that legal academics often mix methodological approaches, rather than adhering to a single “pure” type.
Ternary Plots as a Conceptual Tool:Function: Proposed as a “new way of explaining individual research preferences” by visualizing the balance between the three types of legal research when their values sum to 100%.
UK Evolution:Origins: English law began as a practical discipline.
19th-20th Century Shift: Moved towards humanities (“exposition, conceptualisation, systematisation and analysis of existing legal doctrine”).
1960s onwards: Impact of social sciences, leading to “socio-legal and other interdisciplinary forms of legal research.”
Current State: UK legal scholarship is now “in-between the three categories,” characterized by “a pluralism of methodological approaches” and being “more varied, more lively, more sophisticated, and more self-confident.”
Comparison with US and Germany:US: Started similarly to the UK but “throughout the 20th century the US has moved further in the direction of social sciences,” with dominant trends like legal realism, law and society, and now “predominantly law and economics and empirical legal studies.” US scholarship is increasingly willing to “abandon its link with the profession.”
Germany: Offers a “striking contrast.” Historically, law was always deeply practical and university-based, firmly located “in-between practical legal research and humanities.” The impact of social sciences has been “very modest.”
Disconnect between Macro & Micro: The US, despite its highly interdisciplinary law schools, does not have combined faculties like the UK. This suggests that “the creation of joined faculties may not matter that much for collaboration across disciplines.” Instead, the US trend is linked to law professors often holding multiple degrees in disciplines other than law, which is less common in the UK and Germany.
“Problem-Solving” Logic: Anglo-Saxon universities generally adopt a “problem-solving” logic, fostering interdisciplinarity to address “social problems.”
Future Paths and Implications:”Go American” or “Go German”: UK legal research faces a choice between moving closer to the social science model (like the US) or remaining closer to humanities and legal practice (like Germany). The article notes that “realistically, legal thinking in most countries is moving in the American direction.”
Paradigm Shift: Moving towards a social science model could represent a “final paradigm shift,” turning law into a “mature science.”
Trilemma: Individual researchers face a “trilemma” in balancing the three approaches:
Too impractical (if favoring humanities/social sciences).
Too shallow (if favoring practical legal studies).
Unscientific (if favoring humanities/practical).
Distinct Ways of Thinking: Humanities emphasize individual variations and originality in approach/data, while social sciences aim for general explanations and originality in method, often requiring specialized skills.
Pluralism vs. Uniformity: Moving closer to social sciences requires adherence to a new, more uniform paradigm, which some legal academics may resist to maintain the current pluralism in research methods.

Conclusion

The article concludes that UK legal research operates in a complex and often ambiguous landscape, marked by a pluralism of approaches across practical law, humanities, and social sciences. While individual academics often mix these approaches, the “macro-level” structures of universities and funding bodies present challenges and influences. The UK’s trajectory is seen as a “transitional phase,” potentially moving towards the social science model dominant in the US, but with implications for the nature of research, academic identity, and the cherished pluralism of legal scholarship. The evolving global and commercialized higher education environment will continue to shape these dynamics.

3. Indian Legal Research: Challenges, Traditions, and Emerging Themes RM END TERM NOTES

This briefing document provides an in-depth review of Rajeev Dhavan’s seminal article, “Means, Motives, and Opportunities: Reflecting on Legal Research in India.” The article, published in 1987, offers a critical analysis of the state of legal research in India, identifying significant constraints, contrasting historical and modern approaches to law, evaluating the impact of the Indian Constitution and the judiciary, and highlighting emerging trends in legal activism and reform.
Dhavan argues that Indian legal research is hampered by a lack of resources, institutional disinterest, and a narrow focus on “black letter law.” He contrasts the modern, institutionalized view of law (a colonial legacy) with the ancient dharmasastra tradition, which embedded law within civil society and righteousness. The article concludes by emphasizing a growing movement towards a more socially conscious and justice-oriented approach to law, challenging positivist notions and seeking to address systemic injustices, particularly for the disadvantaged.

II. Main Themes and Key Ideas

A. Constraints and Challenges in Indian Legal Research

Dhavan paints a somewhat “sombre” picture of legal research in India, primarily due to a confluence of systemic challenges:

Lack of Governmental and Professional Support: Legal studies are often undervalued, as exemplified by the Ministry of External Affairs’ classification of “tailoring and law” as subjects unworthy of funding. Academic legal scholars are largely “ignored by the legal profession, the government and the lay public.”
Resource Scarcity and Institutional Weakness: Universities and research bodies like the Indian Law Institute (I.L.I.) face chronic underfunding, limited space, and inadequate secretarial assistance. The I.L.I., initially part of an American initiative, became dependent on government funds and Supreme Court judges, which impacted its autonomy and research agenda.
Ineffective Doctoral Programs: The University Grants Commission (U.G.C.) mandate for doctoral dissertations as a prerequisite for tenured appointments, “unmatched by the allocation of supportive resources,” led to “badly structured doctoral programmes, producing writing of uneven quality, without establishing any identifiable research traditions.”
Limited Law Publishing Landscape: The publishing industry primarily caters to the “routine needs of an ever expanding bar,” focusing on “law reports, annotated statutes, digests of cases and some treatises,” often “mechanically compend[ing] the case law.” Academic writing receives reluctant support due to poor market returns.
Influence of Foreign Scholarship: While some foreign scholarship, particularly from the UK and the US, brought valuable insights (e.g., Duncan Derrett’s work on Hindu law), American involvement is described as “problematic.” Funded by initiatives like Fullbright and Public Law 480, it often conveyed “American intuitions” and located the relationship between civil society and the state within a “liberal pluralist framework.” This influence, according to Dhavan, “may well have contributed to thwarting [Indian scholars’] inherent vitality.”
Governmental Research Bias: In-house governmental legal research, primarily by the Law Commission and Planning Commission, is often “badly resourced,” staffed by retired judges, and focused on “instrumental problem-solving” like easing court backlogs or “impact analysis” of legislation, which remains “as popular as it is oversimplified.”

B. Two Approaches to Law: Modern vs. Dharmasastra

Dhavan identifies a fundamental tension between two contrasting approaches to law that permeate Indian culture:

The Modern, Institutional Approach (Colonial Legacy): This approach views law as “exclusively emanating from, and the property of, designated political institutions.” It asserts the ruler’s power, buttressed by assurances of social acceptability and expediency for economic and political objectives. This colonial legacy fragmented indigenous texts into rules, adapting them to the needs of the British Raj economy.
The Alternative, Ideological Approach (Dharmasastra): This tradition treats “law as an expression of righteousness (dharma) flowing from and imbricated in civil society.” It was articulated by rishis (wise men) and underpinned a “repressive hierarchical social structure” through “insidious control of the mind” rather than overt state coercion. Rights, duties, and justice flowed from dharma, which was flexible through the doctrine of Yuga and could adapt to established social situations (factum valet).

The “Displacement” Debate: Dhavan critiques Marc Galanter’s assertion of the “displacement” of traditional law by modern law. While acknowledging the modern system’s presence, Dhavan argues that its normative messages have not found “emotional or ideological acceptance” among India’s poor, who often perceive it as “a snare.” He emphasizes that civil society “continues to sustain a plurality of normative and institutional orderings which co-exist with the modern system and are, often, more important.”

C. The Indian Constitution and the Judiciary

The Indian Constitution (1950) is described as having “unleashed, chaotically, a host of opportunities for an unimagined range of aspiring leaders and power brokers,” leading to both its use and “abuse ruthlessly.”

Political Manipulation of Constitutional Framework: Instances include legislators switching loyalties to topple governments, Congress suspending democracy in states (1967-77), and the declaration of a national emergency (1975-77) on a “pretext.” Constitutional amendments were used to counter judicial decisions until the Supreme Court’s “brave and remarkable judgment” in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1461) decreed the “basic structure” of the Constitution “unalterable.”
The Judiciary as “Conceptive Ideologists”: Judges, especially of the Supreme Court, have emerged as leading figures in shaping law and justice. Research has focused on judicial decision-making, the social backgrounds of judges, and critiques of perceived class bias.
Overloaded and Inefficient System: The judiciary is plagued by an “accumulation of intolerable arrears of cases which, even in the case of the Supreme Court, would normally take decades to determine.” The system often “ferment[s] disputes instead of solving them.”
“Privatisation” of the State: Dhavan notes the “continued ‘privatisation’ of the Indian State,” where state agencies are “directly corrupted or systematically appropriated to private use” by “neo-traditional groups.” This leads to a “lawless” state that manipulates rules and legal processes for “class and group domination.”
Quest for Social Justice: Despite the disillusionment, Indian law “flowers because of its explicit concern about its constitutionally identified egalitarian objectives and its allegedly unswerving resolve to achieve distributive justice.” Judges and jurists are tasked with “developing new notions of ‘collective co-prosperity’ in a society marred by unjustifiable differentials.”

D. Lawyers and Legal Practice

Research on lawyers reveals an “incomplete” picture:

Focus on Individual Interactions: Studies often concentrate on “how individual interactions are managed” between clients, touts, lawyers, and clerks, rather than the broader social context.
Monetary Gain and Patronage: Most lawyers are “content with monetary gain amidst unsavoury attempts to tout for clients and arrange for the patronage of government and corporate retainers.”
Struggle for Self-Definition: The profession, like other middle-class professionals, struggles for a more objective self-definition beyond client relationships, aiming for a “more prestigious role as votaries of ‘modern law.'”

E. Emerging Trends: Public Interest Litigation and Social Action Law

A significant development is the rise of a “new public interest or social action law movement,” led by “middle class judges, academics, newspapermen and social activists.”

Challenging Positivist Notions: This movement explicitly rejects “positivist notions of law which surrender law to designated political elites,” advocating for a more fundamental focus on “distributive justice” beyond simply protecting life, liberty, and property.
Rethinking Plural Accommodation: It challenges the “theory of plural accommodation” that allowed “peaceful coexistence of hierarchical arrangements, amidst vast differentials and exploitative practices without reference to justice.” This necessitates a reassessment of how law should review relations between people within civil society.
Questioning State Legal System Centrality: The movement questions the “centrality of the State legal system to law and justice,” seeking to design “alternative structures, processes and normative understandings” beyond just “bargain[ing] in the shadow of the law.”
“Epistolary” Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court has facilitated access to justice through an “epistolary” jurisdiction, allowing citizens to invoke its power by simply sending a letter to a judge about exploitation or atrocity.
Limitations and Potential: While public interest law can prevent some exploitation and atrocities, it “cannot be expected to achieve distributive justice or alter the power structure.” However, it represents a “renewed discussion about the nature of law” and a potential for “elaborat[ing] ideas which could gather independent momentum and support.”

III. Conclusion

Dhavan’s “Means, Motives, and Opportunities” provides a comprehensive and critical assessment of legal research and the legal system in India during the late 1980s. It highlights the profound challenges of under-resourcing and institutional apathy, while also revealing the deep historical roots of Indian legal thought, contrasting the colonial, state-centric view with the ancient dharmasastra tradition. Crucially, the article anticipates and documents the burgeoning public interest litigation movement, recognizing its potential to challenge positivist legal assumptions and force a re-evaluation of law’s role in achieving social and distributive justice in a society marked by stark inequalities. Dhavan concludes with an optimistic note, suggesting that India’s rich traditions and urgent social needs position it uniquely to offer a “provocative reassessment of the role of law in modern society.”

4. India’s Judicial Reform: A Systemic and Empirical Call

Top of Form

This briefing document summarizes the key arguments and findings from the article “Legal and Judicial Reform in India: A Call for Systemic and Empirical Approaches” by Sudhir Krishnaswamy, Sindhu K Sivakumar & Shishir Bail, published in the Journal of National Law University, Delhi, Volume 2, Number 1, August 2014. The article critically examines the prevailing approaches to legal and judicial reform in India, highlighting their limited success due to fragmented, unempirical, and unnuanced strategies. It advocates for a shift towards a systemic, empirically grounded, and theoretically nuanced approach to address deep-seated issues like judicial delays, high pendency, and the dysfunctional criminal justice system. The authors propose concrete reforms across civil litigation, access to legal system information, and criminal justice, emphasizing the need for data-driven policy-making and aligning incentives of all stakeholders.

II. Main Themes and Key Arguments

A. Critiques of Current Reform Approaches

The article argues that current legal and judicial reform efforts in India are largely “unchanging and unimaginative” and have met with “limited success” because they are:

Unsystematic or Fragmented: Reforms are often isolated and disparate, failing to consider the interconnectedness of various parts of the legal system. For example, simply “doubling the number of courts and judges in the subordinate judiciary” without addressing other systemic issues may not improve overall throughput.
Unempirical: Policy decisions are made with “little or no empirical evidence” regarding institutional performance, case disposal rates, or the actual causes of delay. This leads to “‘all India’ reforms instead of ‘localised’ reform initiatives,” despite significant state-level variations in caseloads and disposal rates.
Without a Nuanced Normative Foundation: There’s a lack of critical insight into why past strategies have failed and an insufficient engagement with the normative arguments for a strong, functional legal system.

The authors note that despite previous increases in judicial strength and diversion of cases to ADR forums, the “overall health of the legal system” has not significantly improved.

B. The Need for a Systemic, Empirical, and Normatively Nuanced Approach

The core proposal is to replace the current approach with one that is:

Systemic: Addressing the interconnected rules, infrastructures, and incentives of all participants (parties, counsel, judges) in the litigation system.
Empirical: Relying on “empirically rigorous knowledge platform” to inform and shape reforms, requiring better data collection and dissemination.
Normatively Nuanced: Recognizing that a strong legal system is essential for development and for holding the State accountable, rather than merely enhancing its oppressive power.

C. Specific Areas for Reform

The article demonstrates how this new approach can guide reform in three critical areas:

1. Civil Litigation Reform: Aligning Incentives

Problem: High pendency and low settlement rates. India’s settlement rates are “shockingly low,” pegged at around 5%, compared to over 70% in other Commonwealth jurisdictions. This means most civil cases proceed to full trial and judgment, contributing to congestion.
Root Cause: Skewed incentives and the “lack of a continuous civil trial process.” Trials are fragmented with numerous adjournments, leading to a lack of “outcome date certainty.” Without this certainty, parties, especially those with weaker cases, have no pressure to settle early. Lawyers’ incentives (charging “per hearing” or “per filing”) also contribute to delays. Judges’ reluctance to actively manage cases is partly due to frequent transfers.
Proposed Solutions:Promote “Outcome Date Certainty”: Implement reforms that ensure trials proceed continuously once started, pressuring parties to settle earlier.
Effective Cost Sanctions: Courts must actively use cost sanctions against parties who procrastinate, unreasonably reject settlement offers, or engage in other dilatory behaviors.
Strong ADR Structures: Invest in and strengthen institutions that promote settlement, such as “court-annexed mediation programs” and a “strong ‘institutional’ arbitration culture” that is disentangled from court interference. Mediation has shown to settle “up to 45-55% of the disputes referred within a period of 6 months at negligible costs.”
Key Takeaway: “Symptomatic, piecemeal reforms will not work unless we pay attention to the incentives and motivations of all participants in the litigation system.”

2. Access to Legal System Information

Problem: “Lack of access to reliable data in usable formats” at national, state, and especially district levels. Current e-courts websites primarily serve litigants and lawyers for individual case status, not for aggregate institutional analysis. This leads to “omnibus national solutions” like doubling judges in all states, which will have “uneven effects.”
Information Deficits:Lack of “useful aggregate information on institution, disposal or pendency rates by district.”
“Irregular reporting and the unavailability of court decisions” have led to a “gradual erosion in the controlling power of precedent.” A significant number of Supreme Court judgments effectively create no precedent, leading to “significant ‘rule of law’ costs” as litigants are tempted to try their luck with settled points of law.
Lack of a “comprehensive repository of the law (all statutes and regulations)” arranged by subject matter, making it difficult for citizens, lawyers, and judges to understand their rights and obligations.
Proposed Solutions:Make “all such legal information readily available to the public in a format capable of rigorous analysis.” The e-courts project mandate should be expanded to include this.
Publish periodic (preferably monthly) reports on court performance, including judicial productivity and congestion rates, to enable “empirically driven, locally specific reform initiatives.”
Implement a “3-step reorganisation of the statutory codes in India, consisting of collection, compilation and consolidation,” to resolve inconsistencies, clarify ambiguities, and make laws more accessible.

3. The Shadowy Figure of Criminal Justice

Problem: The criminal justice system is “intransigent” and a “gravest threat to the legitimacy of the Indian legal and political system is its persistent inability to put in place a legitimate means of maintaining social peace, law and order.” Criminal litigation vastly outnumbers civil litigation, especially in lower courts, which are the primary point of contact for most citizens.
Key Issue: Unduly High Levels of Undertrial Incarceration:Scale: While India’s overall incarceration rate is low, “67 per cent” of prisoners are undertrials, significantly higher than developed countries like the US (21%) or England and Wales (16.5%).
Normative Objections: Imprisons people not proven guilty, raises risk of “‘contamination’ when placed in close contact with hardened criminals,” and causes individuals to lose “valuable days and months of their lives” and be “forever stamped with the taint of being imprisoned.”
Socio-economic Impact: Data shows “37 per cent of undertrials… were illiterate; while close to 42 per cent had not completed class ten.” This means “close to 70 per cent” are from marginalized groups with compromised capacity to navigate the legal process.
Bailable Offenses: “Almost 10 per cent of the under trial population… was accused of bailable offences.” This translates to over 23,000 people incarcerated annually for crimes for which they are entitled to bail as a matter of right. Another 9% are accused of “theft,” often petty crimes.
Failure of Section 436A (CrPC, 2005): This provision, mandating release on personal bond after serving half of the maximum sentence, failed to significantly reduce the undertrial population because “most undertrials in Indian prisons spend less than 6 months in prison,” with “close to 80 per cent… incarcerated for less than one year.” The law makers “misdiagnosed the character of undertrial detention in India.”
Proposed Solutions:Reform the Bail System: Address the “socially unjust and inequitable character of the bail process.”
Create ‘Bail Funds’: A “promising institutional option” where state-supported, civil society-managed mechanisms pay bail for undertrials of inadequate means or lacking social bonds. These have seen “considerable success in New York” and could significantly reduce the undertrial population, especially for petty or non-serious offenses.
Reorient Criminal Justice: Shift focus from victimizing the accused through the trial process to “securing convictions” and “the punishment of the guilty.”
Data Availability: The National Crime Records Bureau does a “commendable job in publishing national statistics both on crime as well as prisons on an annual basis,” providing a credible base for reform strategies, despite issues like under-reporting of crimes against women.

III. Conclusion

The article concludes that the renewed focus on legal and judicial reform by political parties is a positive development. However, genuine and impactful reform requires moving beyond “ad hoc piece-meal reform without adequate empirical understanding or a nuanced normative analysis.” Instead, a “systemic, empirically grounded and normatively rigorous approach” is necessary. This means utilizing the best available empirical evidence, fostering state capacity that is both accountable and limited, and continuously reviewing and improving reform measures.

Bottom of Form

5. Crafting Effective Research Questions: A Briefing

This briefing document synthesizes key themes and essential facts from the provided sources on improving research questions. It highlights the importance of well-formulated research questions in guiding successful research, emphasizing clarity, focus, and feasibility, while also addressing common pitfalls and best practices for their development and refinement.

1. The Foundational Role of Research Questions

Research questions serve as the cornerstone of any research endeavor, acting as the guiding force that shapes the entire investigation. They dictate the methodology, data collection, and analysis, ultimately determining the study’s scope and impact.

“Research questions are pivotal in research as they determine the scope of the study, the methods to be employed, and the type of data to be collected. They essentially serve as a compass for the researcher, guiding the entire investigative journey.” (Improving Research Questions, p. 14)
A well-defined research question provides direction and purpose, preventing researchers from straying into irrelevant areas. It ensures that the research remains focused and contributes meaningfully to existing knowledge.

2. Key Characteristics of Effective Research Questions (The “FINER” Criteria and Beyond)

The sources consistently emphasize several crucial characteristics for effective research questions. A widely cited framework is the FINER criteria, ensuring questions are Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, and Relevant.

Feasibility: “A research question must be feasible, meaning it can be realistically answered given the available resources, time, and expertise.” (Improving Research Questions, p. 15) This includes access to data, funding, and the necessary skills. Unrealistic questions lead to frustration and incomplete projects.
Interesting: The question should genuinely engage the researcher and potentially the broader scientific community. “An interesting question motivates the researcher and sustains their commitment throughout the research process.” (Improving Research Questions, p. 15)
Novel: Effective research questions contribute new knowledge or insights, rather than merely reconfirming existing findings. “Novelty ensures that the research adds to the existing body of knowledge and avoids redundant efforts.” (Improving Research Questions, p. 15)
Ethical: Research must always adhere to ethical guidelines, ensuring the safety, privacy, and well-being of participants. “Ethical considerations are paramount, ensuring that the research is conducted responsibly and without harm.” (Improving Research Questions, p. 15)
Relevant: The question should address an important problem or gap in knowledge, with potential for practical or theoretical impact. “Relevance ensures the study’s findings will be meaningful and applicable to a wider audience or specific problem.” (Improving Research Questions, p. 15)

Beyond FINER, other essential attributes include:

Clarity and Specificity: Research questions should be unambiguous and precisely defined. “They should be clear and specific, avoiding vague language or overly broad topics.” (Improving Research Questions, p. 14) Vague questions can lead to unfocused research.
Answerability/Testability: The question must be answerable through empirical investigation or logical deduction. “A good research question should be answerable through data collection and analysis, not merely speculative.” (Improving Research Questions, p. 16)
Conciseness: While encompassing necessary detail, the question should be succinct.
Theoretical Grounding: Questions should ideally be informed by existing theories or frameworks, providing a basis for interpretation.

3. The Process of Developing and Refining Research Questions

The development of research questions is an iterative process that requires careful consideration and refinement. It typically involves moving from a broad area of interest to specific, answerable questions.

Initial Exploration and Broad Inquiry: The process often begins with a general area of interest or a recognized problem. This involves preliminary literature reviews to understand the current state of knowledge.
Narrowing the Focus: Researchers must then narrow down the broad topic into more manageable sub-topics. This might involve identifying specific populations, interventions, comparisons, and outcomes (PICO framework in health sciences).
Formulating Preliminary Questions: Initial questions are often too broad or too narrow and require iterative refinement.
Refinement through Feedback and Critical Evaluation: “Refining research questions often involves seeking feedback from peers or mentors and critically evaluating the question against established criteria.” (Improving Research Questions, p. 17) This stage involves checking for clarity, feasibility, and other key characteristics.
Continuous Review: Research questions are not set in stone and may need to be adjusted as the research progresses and new insights emerge.

4. Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

Several common mistakes can undermine the quality of research questions:

Being Too Broad or Too Narrow:Too Broad: “Questions that are too broad lead to unfocused research, making it difficult to collect and analyze relevant data comprehensively.” (Improving Research Questions, p. 16) They can also overwhelm the researcher.
Too Narrow: “Conversely, questions that are too narrow may not contribute significantly to the broader body of knowledge.” (Improving Research Questions, p. 16)
Being Vague or Ambiguous: Lack of specificity can lead to misinterpretation and difficulty in designing the study. “Ambiguous questions make it difficult to determine what specific information is needed to answer them.”
Lack of Feasibility: Attempting to answer questions without adequate resources, time, or expertise.
Ethical Concerns: Formulating questions that might lead to unethical research practices.
Predetermined Answers: Questions designed to confirm a preconceived notion rather than genuinely explore a phenomenon. “A good research question should be open-ended, allowing for unexpected findings rather than pushing towards a predetermined answer.”

5. The Impact of Strong Research Questions

Ultimately, strong research questions lead to more rigorous, impactful, and publishable research. They enhance the clarity of the study, guide appropriate methodological choices, and ensure that the findings contribute meaningfully to the field.

“Well-formulated research questions lead to more focused and effective studies, increasing the likelihood of successful outcomes and valuable contributions to knowledge.” (Improving Research Questions, p. 17)
They facilitate effective communication of research goals to peers, reviewers, and funding bodies.
They enable researchers to effectively plan and execute their studies, saving time and resources.

In conclusion, the meticulous development and refinement of research questions are critical for the success and impact of any research project. By adhering to principles of clarity, feasibility, novelty, ethics, and relevance, researchers can ensure their investigations are well-guided, productive, and contribute significantly to their respective fields.

6. Constitution-Writing in Divided Societies: An Incremental Approach

Top of Form

Main Themes and Key Ideas:

Hanna Lerner’s article, “Constitution-writing in deeply divided societies,” addresses the complex challenge of drafting democratic constitutions in nations fundamentally at odds over their shared values and visions for the state. The central argument is that an incrementalist approach to constitution-making is a viable and often necessary strategy for deeply divided societies to achieve constitutional legitimacy and stability. This approach involves deferring controversial choices regarding foundational aspects of the polity to future political institutions through various strategies such as avoidance, vague language, or contradictory provisions.

1. The Puzzle of Constitution-Writing in Deeply Divided Societies:

High Stakes Game: Enacting a formal constitution in societies with deep internal disagreements is a “high-stakes game which can potentially undermine political stability and halt rather than promote democratisation.”
Lack of Consensus on Foundational Elements: Constitutions are not merely institutional frameworks; they “play a foundational role by expressing the common identity and norms of the nation.” However, deeply divided societies lack consensus on these foundational elements (e.g., relationship between religion and state, fundamental rights, definition of ‘the people’, state symbols).
“Either/Or” Conflicts: These divisions often involve “competing visions of the state as a whole,” revolving around national and religious identity, which are “non-divisible” and resistant to compromise.
Inapplicability of Ideal-Type Constitutions:Nation-state model: Requires a “thick” identity of a presumably homogeneous people with shared cultural, national, religious, and linguistic characteristics. Deeply divided societies lack this consensus.
Liberal-procedural model (“constitutional patriotism”): Requires “preconstitutional acceptance of the principles of political liberalism,” including a commitment to separating private (religious, ethnic) and public (civic) identity. This “thin identity” doctrine is rarely fulfilled in deeply divided societies, as constitutional identity may clash with private identities.

2. The Incrementalist Approach to Constitution-Making:

Definition: An approach that uses strategies like “avoidance of clear decisions, the use of ambivalent and vague legal language, or the inclusion of contrasting provisions in the constitution.”
Purpose: Enables deeply divided societies “to either enact a written constitution, or function with a material constitution, by deferring controversial choices regarding the foundational aspects of the polity.”
Reflection of Divided Identity: This deferral allows the constitution to “reflect the identity of ‘the people’ as it really is – a divided identity.”
Exporting Conflict: Framers “export the resolution of contentious foundational issues from the constitutional to the political arena.”
Non-Revolutionary Moment: This approach deviates from the common perception of constitution-making as a “revolutionary moment,” introducing elements of gradualism.

3. Case Studies of Incrementalism (India, Ireland, Israel):

India (Constructive Ambiguity):Context: Extreme linguistic, religious, and socio-economic diversity, and initial belief that the constitution would be for a united India (despite partition with Pakistan).
Strategies: Avoided clear-cut decisions on the national language (designating Hindi as “official language of the Union” while English continued, and recognizing 14 other languages, with a parliamentary committee to re-examine the issue after 15 years) and the Uniform Civil Code (included in non-justiciable Directive Principles for Social Policy, meaning it was not legally binding and allowing different religious communities to retain their personal laws).
Outcome: Deferred these choices to future political institutions, allowing for later developments (e.g., English becoming more entrenched, linguistic states being formed).
Ireland (Symbolic Ambivalence):Context: Drafted during the Irish Civil War with British pressure for subordination to the Commonwealth, while Irish Republicans demanded sovereignty.
Strategies: Incorporated contradictory provisions reflecting both Irish and British positions on nationalism and sovereignty. For example, Article 2 declared power derived from “the people of Ireland,” but other provisions referred to the British King as Head of State and the preamble subordinated the constitution to the Anglo-Irish Treaty.
Outcome: The “symbolic ambivalence” enabled the constitution to be enacted, allowing later political developments (weakening of British Empire) to solidify Irish independence and remove monarchic symbolism. Michael Collins viewed the constitution as a “stepping stone” towards complete independence.
Israel (Informal Consociationalism / Avoidance):Context: Deep divisions between secular and religious visions of the Jewish state, particularly regarding the sources of Israeli law and the relation between Jewish religious tradition and state institutions.
Strategies: Decided in 1950 to postpone the enactment of a formal constitution altogether, opting instead for a gradual construction through individual Basic Laws.
Outcome: Avoided a direct clash over the state’s Jewish identity. The relationship between religious and secular camps has since been governed by “informal customs and practices” and a “vague concept of the religious status quo,” deferring resolution of these foundational issues indefinitely.

4. Characteristics of the Incrementalist Approach:

Non-Majoritarianism: Framers recognized that foundational issues cannot be resolved by simple majority rule, but require wide consensus. Pragmatic (avoiding conflict) and consensual (legitimacy requires broad support) arguments were used against majoritarian decision-making on these core issues.
Non-Revolutionary Conception of Constitution-Making: Views constitution-making not as a radical, “revolutionary moment” but as “the beginning of an evolutionary process, linked to gradual social and political change.” This “longer-term perspective” allows for deferral of controversial decisions.
Representing Existing Disagreements (“We the Divided People”): Instead of resolving tensions, the incrementalist constitution “encompasses all sides of the conflict,” reflecting the “divided identity” of the people at the time of drafting. It acknowledges that “complex and segmented societies may adopt complex and segmented constitutions.”
Transferring Decisions to the Political Sphere: Controversial foundational issues are moved “from the constitutional arena back into the realm of ordinary politics,” not to repress them, but to allow for “long-term public and political discussions” in a seemingly more flexible arena.

5. Potential Risks of the Incrementalist Approach:

Potential Over-Rigidity: Despite the intention of deferring to a more flexible political arena, informal or ambiguous constitutional arrangements can lead to a “material constitution, which in many ways appears to be more rigid than a formal constitution.” The lack of formal amendment mechanisms can result in “entrenched conservatism.” (Examples: Israel’s lack of a Bill of Rights, India’s failure to implement a Uniform Civil Code).
Potential Non-Liberal Consequences: Ambiguous provisions, especially in the religious sphere, “may compromise the liberal values and basic rights which constitutions are supposed to protect,” particularly infringing upon women’s fundamental rights and legal personhood. (Examples: India’s personal laws for Muslims, Israel’s rabbinical courts controlling marriage/divorce).
Polarizing Effect on Inter-Institutional Relations: Constitutional indecisiveness on highly contentious issues can “dangerously inflame the tensions between the various branches of government,” particularly between the judiciary (tending to protect individual rights) and the legislature (influenced by political demands). This can undermine their legitimacy and effectiveness. (Examples: India’s Shahbano case, Israel’s Knesset overruling a court decision).
Fragile States: While India, Ireland, and Israel had strong democratic institutions to absorb these contentious issues, in “fragile or failing states,” unresolved disputes channeled into the political or judicial domains can “act like a live grenade,” leading to renewed hostilities.

Conclusion:

The incrementalist approach offers a pragmatic method for deeply divided societies to adopt democratic constitutions by embracing existing divisions rather than trying to resolve them definitively at the moment of founding. This strategy ensures broad consent by representing “we the divided people.” However, it carries significant risks, including potential rigidity of informal arrangements, compromises to liberal principles (especially for women’s rights), and the danger of exacerbating inter-institutional conflict, particularly in states with weak governing institutions.

Bottom of Form

7. Why the Haves Win: Limits of Legal Change

Top of Form

Marc Galanter’s seminal 1974 essay, “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change,” explores the fundamental architecture of the American legal system and how it inherently favors those with greater wealth, power, and experience—the “Haves.” Galanter argues that despite formal neutrality, the system perpetuates and amplifies existing societal inequalities due to interlocking advantages across four key elements: parties, legal services, institutional facilities, and rules. The essay also examines the interplay between the official legal system and various “appended” and “private” dispute resolution systems, concluding with implications for legal reform and the role of lawyers in achieving redistributive change.

Main Themes and Key Ideas

I. A Typology of Parties: One-Shotters (OS) vs. Repeat Players (RP)

Galanter’s core insight is the distinction between “one-shotters” (OS) and “repeat players” (RP) in litigation.

One-Shotters (OS): Individuals or groups who have only occasional recourse to the courts. Their claims are often either too large (relative to their total worth, like an accident victim) or too small (relative to the cost of remedies, like a shortweighted consumer) to be managed routinely. They typically have high stakes in a single case and little interest in future similar litigations.
Repeat Players (RP): Units engaged in many similar litigations over time (e.g., insurance companies, prosecutors, finance companies). They usually have low stakes in any single case but are heavily invested in the long-term impact of legal outcomes.

Key Advantages of Repeat Players (RPs):

Advance Intelligence and Structure: RPs, with prior experience, can structure future transactions to their advantage (e.g., writing form contracts, requiring security deposits).
Expertise and Economies of Scale: They develop specialized expertise, have ready access to specialists, and enjoy lower “start-up” costs for each case.
Informal Relations: RPs have opportunities to build facilitative informal relationships with institutional incumbents (e.g., clerks, judges), which can lead to subtle biases in their favor.

Quote: “…the neutrality of the judicial process was substantially compromised by the routine relationships which developed between representatives of frequent users of garnishment and the clerk of the court.”

Bargaining Credibility and Reputation: RPs have a “bargaining reputation” to maintain, which serves as a resource to establish “commitment” to their bargaining positions, making their threats and promises more credible.
Playing the Odds: RPs can adopt strategies to maximize long-term gains across many cases, even if it means risking maximum loss in a few. OSs, with higher stakes in a single case, are more likely to minimize maximum loss.

Quote: “The larger the matter at issue looms for OS, the more likely he is to adopt a minimax strategy (minimize the probability of maximum loss). Assuming that the stakes are relatively smaller for RPs, they can adopt strategies calculated to maximize gain over a long series of cases, even where this involves the risk of maximum loss in some cases.”

Playing for Rules: RPs can afford to invest resources in influencing rule-making (e.g., lobbying) and, crucially, can “play for rules” in litigation itself. They can settle cases likely to produce unfavorable precedents and pursue those likely to yield favorable ones. OSs, focused on immediate tangible gains, are unlikely to be concerned with rule development.

Quote: “Since they expect to litigate again, RPs can select to adjudicate (or appeal) those cases which they regard as most likely to produce favorable rules.”

Penetration of Rules: RPs are more likely to discern which rules will “penetrate” (become effectively applied at the field level) and can invest the necessary resources to ensure the implementation of rules favorable to them. They can “trade off symbolic defeats for tangible gains.”

Overlap of RP with “Haves”: While not perfectly synonymous, Galanter notes that in the American context, most RPs are “larger, richer and more powerful” than most OSs, reinforcing existing advantages.

Digression on Litigation-mindedness: Galanter also considers how cultural attitudes towards litigation (“rule-mindedness” vs. focus on tangible outcomes) can affect the strategic positions of OSs and RPs. He suggests that low rule-mindedness, combined with a distaste for litigation, disproportionately impacts OSs (individuals) more than RPs (organizations).

Typology of Litigation (Figure 1):

Box I (OS vs. OS): Infrequent, often between intimately tied parties (e.g., divorce, custody disputes). Characterized by high stakes, emotional investment, and little interest in rule development. Law is invoked ad hoc.
Box II (RP vs. OS): The “great bulk of litigation” (e.g., prosecutor vs. accused, finance company vs. debtor, landlord vs. tenant). Routine processing, often with informal settlements. RPs are highly interested in the state of the law; OS defendants are not. Rules favoring RPs are closely followed; rules favoring OSs are less meticulously observed due to OSs’ inability to invest in their penetration.
Box III (OS vs. RP): Less frequent, except for personal injury cases (where contingent fees provide “free entry”). Often involves an OS trying to create leverage on an organization with which they are “at the point of divorce” (e.g., discharged employee vs. company). OS has little interest in the law; RP is greatly interested.
Box IV (RP vs. RP): Expected to be less frequent due to informal bilateral controls based on anticipated mutually beneficial interaction (e.g., among businessmen, in labor relations). However, special cases like value conflicts (e.g., church-state litigation), government as a party (due to its monopolistic nature and immunity to “withdrawal” sanctions), or non-recurring RP encounters lead to more litigation. When litigation occurs in this box, it often involves heavy expenditure on rule development and rapid evolution of doctrinal law.

II. Lawyers

The introduction of lawyers does not necessarily equalize the playing field; it can amplify the RP advantage.

RP Client Advantages: RPs can purchase legal services more consistently, in larger quantities, and at higher rates, leading to better quality, greater continuity, more anticipatory work, and specialized skill.
Lawyer Organization: The degree to which lawyers identify with clients (rather than courts or guilds) accentuates this imbalance, particularly in enduring lawyer-client relationships common with RPs.
Specialization of the Bar:Most specializations cater to RPs.
Specialists serving OSs (e.g., criminal defense, personal injury plaintiff lawyers) tend to be from the “lower echelons” of the profession, face difficulties in client mobilization due to “ethical” barriers (no advertising), and often provide stereotyped, uncreative services due to transient clientele and small fees.
These OS-serving specialists, despite being RPs themselves, cannot “play for rules” across their series of OS clients in the same way RP clients do, as this would be deemed unethical. Their loyalty may shift from the transient OS client to the forum, opposing party, or client broker.
Quote: “What might be good strategy for an insurance company lawyer or prosecutor––trading off some cases for gains on others––is branded as unethical when done by a criminal defense or personal injury plaintiff lawyer. It is not permissible for him to play his series of OSs as if they constituted a single RP.”
Lawyers’ Interest in Complexity: Lawyers, as a profession, have a cross-cutting interest in preserving legal complexity and mystique, which benefits them professionally, even as they advocate for client interests.

III. Institutional Facilities

The inherent features of legal institutions—passivity and overload—further augment RP advantages.

Passivity: Courts are “reactive” – they must be mobilized by claimants. This favors parties with information, resources to overcome cost barriers, and skill to navigate procedures. Judges act as umpires, leaving case development, evidence collection, and proof to the parties, benefiting the wealthier and more organized.
Quote: “Where, as is usually the case, they are not [equally endowed], the broader the delegation to the parties, the greater the advantage conferred on the wealthier, more experienced and better organized party.”
Overload: Chronic overload (more claims than resources for full adjudication) creates pressure to settle, benefiting those who gain from delay and raising costs for claimants. It also induces officials to prioritize docket clearing over full adjudication.
Delay: Discounts the value of recovery for claimants and raises costs to keep cases alive.
Prioritization: Managers of limited institutional facilities (judges, police) are responsive to organized, attentive, and influential constituents—typically RPs.
Protection of the Possessor: Overload protects the party who possesses the money or goods (often the RP) against the claimant.
Quote: “Thus, overload increases the cost and risk of adjudicating and shields existing rules from challenge, diminishing opportunities for rule-change. This tends to favor the beneficiaries of existing rules.”

IV. Rules

Galanter posits that rules tend to favor “older, culturally dominant interests.”

Skewed Rules: Rules are often articulated to the operations of dominant groups. Even if rules are formally evenhanded, limited resources for implementation mean rules protecting organized and influential groups are given greater effect.
Due Process Barriers: Requirements of due process protect the “possessor” (often RPs) against the claimant.
Complexity: Legal rules are sufficiently complex and problematic that disparities in legal services quality and quantity directly affect a party’s ability to derive advantages from them.
Quote: “…the rules are sufficiently complex and problematic (or capable of being problematic if sufficient resources are expended to make them so) that differences in the quantity and quality of legal services will affect capacity to derive advantages from the rules.”

Figure 3: Why the “Haves” Tend to Come Out Ahead (Summarizes the interlocking advantages):

Parties: Advantages in structuring transactions, expertise, long-term strategy, playing for rules, bargaining credibility, investing in penetration – enjoyed by Repeat Players (large, professional).
Legal Services: Skill, specialization, continuity – enjoyed by organized, professional, wealthy.
Institutional Facilities: Passivity, cost/delay barriers, favorable priorities – enjoyed by wealthy, experienced, organized, holders/possessors, beneficiaries of existing rules, attentive.
Rules: Favorable rules, due process barriers – enjoyed by older, culturally dominant, holders/possessors.

V. Alternatives to the Official System: The “Legal Iceberg”

Galanter introduces the concept of the “legal iceberg,” where the official system is just the “upper layers” of a much larger array of dispute resolution mechanisms.

Inaction (“Lumping It”): Not making a claim due to lack of information, high costs (including psychic costs), or low perceived gain. Common for OSs and official complainers with limited resources.
“Exit”: Withdrawal from a situation or relationship (e.g., moving, resigning). A common alternative, whose effectiveness depends on available alternatives and costs of withdrawal.

Unofficial Control Systems:”Appended” Systems: Normatively and institutionally linked to the official system (e.g., auto injury settlements, handling bad checks). These operate with an eye to official rules and sanctions, but are often discounted for transaction costs and distorted by selective use.
“Private Justice” Systems: Relatively independent in norms and sanctions (e.g., businessmen settling disputes among themselves, religious groups, gangs). These are typical in enduring relationships with shared value consensus and built-in sanctions.

Relationship between Density of Relationships and Remedy System (Figure 7): More inclusive and enduring relationships (“denser”) are less likely to resort to the official system and more likely to be regulated by independent “private” systems. Conversely, casual, episodic relationships are more likely to be found at the “official” end of the spectrum.

VI. Strategies for Reform (Equalization)

Galanter proposes four types of equalizing reform, emphasizing that substantive rule changes alone are often insufficient.

Rule-Change:Often sought by “have-nots” in courts due to a perceived “flavor of equality.”
However, courts are limited in scope and ability to create systematic change or enforce decrees.
Rule-changes are expensive to procure and often fail to “penetrate” to the field level, especially when OSs lack resources to ensure implementation.
Quote: “Favorable rules are not necessarily (and possibly not typically) in short supply to ‘have-nots;’ certainly less so than any of the other resources needed to play the litigation game.”
Rule-change can become a “symbolic substitute for redistribution of advantages.”
Improvement in Institutional Facilities:Increasing resources for timely, full-dress adjudication would lower costs, reduce delay, and decrease possessor-defendant advantages, benefiting OS claimants.
More “activist” institutions (investigating, supervising litigation, flexible outcomes, monitoring compliance) could further reduce RP advantages, though this would face ideological opposition.
Increase in Legal Services:More and better legal services for “have-nots” (e.g., public defenders, legal aid) would lower costs, reduce the expertise gap, and lead to more favorable outcomes.
Crucially, increased legal services, when coupled with coordination and organization, can leverage institutional overload to force systemic change.
Quote: “The value of a heavy case load is that it allows you to populate the legal process. It allows you to apply remitting pressure on the agency you are dealing with.”
Reorganization of Parties:This is presented as the most powerful fulcrum for change. Organizing “have-not” OSs into coherent groups that can function as RPs (e.g., tenant unions, interest groups, class actions) allows them to pursue long-term strategies, access high-grade legal services, and influence rule-development and enforcement.
Class Actions: A device to raise the stakes for RPs, reducing their strategic advantage, while giving claimants RP-like benefits without direct organizing outlay.
“Public Interest Law”: Often combines community organizing, class actions, and test-case strategies with increased legal services.
Quote: “The intensity of the opposition to class action legislation and autonomous reform-oriented legal services… indicates the ‘haves’ own estimation of the relative strategic impact of the several levels.”

VII. Reform and the Rest of the Iceberg

Dual Movement: Utopian reforms would lead to a “legalization” of the official system (more reliance on it) for less inclusive relationships, while many relationships previously in Boxes II and III (RP vs. OS, OS vs. RP) would shift to Box IV (RP vs. RP) and become “de-legalized” (relying on private, informal systems).
Impact on Power: Reforms would erode RPs’ ability to selectively enforce favorable rules and shield themselves from unfavorable ones.
Dualism of the Unreformed System: The existing “unreformed” legal system, with its ambiguity, overload, and disparities, is a “device for maintaining the partial dissociation of everyday practice from these authoritative institutional and normative commitments.” It accommodates cultural heterogeneity and private power while projecting universalism, equality, and public authority at a symbolic level. This “dualism” allows for selective application of the “higher law” and local adaptation.

VIII. Implications for Reform: The Role of Lawyers

Rule-Change is Insufficient: Substantive rule change alone is unlikely to produce tangible redistribution of benefits. The system can filter out such changes without broader shifts.
Focus on Parties: Changes at the level of parties (organization of “have-nots” into RPs) are most likely to generate changes at other levels (demand for legal services, institutional reforms, favorable rules).
Lawyers as Agents of Change: The legal profession’s capacity for redistributive social change depends on its organization and culture. Lawyers who are willing to move beyond the traditional courtroom advocate role, form enduring alliances with clients, and operate in diverse forums are more likely to be effective agents of change. Paradoxically, professions “most open to accentuating the advantages of the ‘haves'” (by allowing identification with clients and their causes) may also have the “room for… agents of change.”

8. Indian Supreme Court Workload: 1993-2011 Analysis

Top of Form

This briefing document summarizes key findings and themes from Nick Robinson’s quantitative analysis of the Indian Supreme Court’s docket between 1993 and 2011, drawing on historical data where available. The article highlights the challenges of data collection and categorization by the Court itself and offers an in-depth look into various aspects of its workload, including geographic origin of appeals, subject matter, and petition types.

I. Main Themes & Key Findings

A. Persistent and Expanding Workload Leading to Backlog

Growing Caseload: The Indian Supreme Court’s workload has steadily increased, particularly from 2000 to 2010, where “the number of new admission matters that were filed with the Supreme Court nearly doubled from 24,747 to 48,677 (an increase of about 97 percent).” Similarly, “the number of regular hearing matters admitted by the Court also nearly doubled from 4,507 to 8,824 (an increase of 96 percent).”
Increasing Backlog: This surge in new cases has exacerbated the Court’s backlog. “In 2004, 7 percent of regular hearing matters had been pending for more than five years. In 2011, it was 17 percent of regular hearing matters.”
Disproportionate Growth at Apex Court: The Supreme Court’s regular hearing workload has grown “at a faster rate in recent years than either its admission workload or the number of matters disposed of by high courts or lower courts.” Between 2005 and 2011, high court disposals grew by 33.4%, while Supreme Court appealed matters increased by 44.8%, and accepted regular hearing matters grew by a striking 74.5%. This trend is “the opposite of what one would intuitively expect,” suggesting a potential breakdown in the system of precedent.

B. Geographic and Socioeconomic Disparities in Access

Proximity to Delhi and Wealth: The Court is “disproportionately accessed by those close to Delhi and with more resources.” High courts near Delhi and in wealthier states are significantly more likely to generate appeals. For example, in 2011, “18.6 percent of the Court’s admission docket was appealed to it from Punjab and Haryana, while 10.6 percent was appealed from Delhi itself.” The Delhi High Court had the highest appeal rate at 9.3%.
Correlation with GNP per Capita: The correlation between GNP per capita and appeal rate is strong (0.76), indicating that wealthier states tend to have a higher proportion of cases appealed to the Supreme Court.

C. Evolution of Petition Types and Subject Matter

Dominance of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs): SLPs have increasingly constituted the “vast bulk” of the Supreme Court’s workload. In recent years, “the percent of admission matters that are SLPs has increased slightly from 78–82 percent in the 1990s to 83–86 percent from 2005–2011.”
Decline of Writ Petitions and Certified Appeals: Writ petitions, which allow direct access to the Supreme Court for fundamental rights issues, have seen a “steep decline in recent years,” dropping from 4–7% of the docket in the 1990s to 1–2% from 2006–2011. Certified appeals also saw a decline from 3–8% to 2–3% in the same periods. This is linked to the Court’s encouragement for litigants to file writ petitions in high courts first.
Key Subject Categories: Criminal, ordinary civil, service, labor, land acquisition, and tax matters form the majority of the Court’s caseload. “Service matters (i.e., matters involving the employment of government officials) are the second most frequent type of regular hearing matter disposed of after criminal matters,” highlighting the “doggedly litigious” nature of government employees.
Limited Impact of Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Despite significant media attention, PIL “accounts for only about 1 percent of the Court’s workload” (between 1–2% of both admission and regular hearing dockets from 2005-2011).
Rare Five-Judge Benches: Larger benches, which hear “pressing constitutional matters,” are “now relatively rare,” making up “1 percent or less of its disposals in each year between 2005 and 2011.” In 2009, no regular hearing five-judge bench matters were disposed of.

D. Challenges to Precedent and Judicial System Cohesion

Undermining Precedent: The Supreme Court’s “multiplicity of benches and cases may be undercutting precedent following in the Indian judicial system.” The disproportionate growth of the Supreme Court’s docket, compared to lower courts, suggests that “litigants (likely rightly) feel that even if the high court has decided a matter it is worth appealing the same case to the Supreme Court.” This could be due to high courts not reliably following precedent, or “the numerous benches of the Supreme Court might not be reliably following precedent themselves and/or giving conflicting precedent.”
Low Publishing Rate: A significant portion of the Supreme Court’s decisions are not officially published. In the period 2000-2010, only “about 21.5 percent on Judis and 23.7 percent on Indian Kanoon” of regular hearing disposals resulted in reported judgments, implying that “many of its decisions effectively create no precedent.”

E. Data Collection Deficiencies and Accounting Anomalies

Inconsistent and Imperfect Data: The Court’s current data collection methods present “challenges in developing a full picture of its workload.” There are issues with data availability (e.g., overdue annual reports, missing monthly statements), accuracy (discrepancies between different reports, impossible acceptance rates in early years), and understanding the Court’s “relatively counterintuitive accounting methods.”
Double Counting and Missing Data:Unregistered Matters: Cases with filing defects are initially counted as “unregistered matters” and then again as “normal admission matters” once cured. “As a result, many cases are actually counted twice.”
Miscellaneous Matters: These interim applications, which take up “significant amounts of the Court’s time and often involve important questions of law,” are “essentially not counted any longer in any of the data sets available for this article.”
Uncontested Cases: The number of cases where parties settle out of court or are otherwise not contested is “not included in the available data,” even though they are counted as disposals.

II. Most Important Ideas/Facts

Exponential Growth: The Supreme Court’s admission and regular hearing matters nearly doubled between 2000 and 2010.
Rising Backlog Duration: The average time to clear the regular hearing backlog has increased from “1.25 years in 1995 to 3.67 years in 2011.”
Precedent Breakdown: The Supreme Court’s regular hearing workload growth (74.5% from 2005-2011) significantly outpaces high court disposals (33.4%) and lower court disposals (7.8%), strongly suggesting a breakdown in the hierarchical system of precedent.
Geographic Skew: High courts in Delhi, Punjab, and Haryana account for a disproportionately high percentage of appeals, driven by proximity and wealth.
SLP Dominance: Special Leave Petitions constitute 83-86% of the Supreme Court’s admission docket, while fundamental rights (writ) petitions have declined to 1-2%.
Service Matters Prominence: Cases related to government employment are the second most common type of regular hearing matter, indicating systemic issues in this area.
Low Publication Rate, Weak Precedent: A large majority of regular hearing decisions (around 75-80%) are not reported in public law databases, effectively creating no precedent and contributing to the system’s inconsistency.
Data Reliability Issues: The quantitative analysis is hampered by “admittedly imperfect data set” due to inconsistencies, double-counting, and missing categories within the Supreme Court’s own record-keeping.

III. Implications and Future Directions

The findings present a critical picture of the Indian Supreme Court as a powerful, yet overburdened and potentially fragmented institution. The disproportionate increase in appeals to the Supreme Court, coupled with a low rate of published judgments and infrequent larger bench hearings, raises serious questions about the effectiveness of precedent and the overall coherence of the Indian judicial system. The geographic and socioeconomic biases in appeals suggest unequal access to justice at the highest level.

The article concludes by emphasizing the need for:

Improved Data Collection and Transparency: The Court needs to address “deficiencies in the way data are currently collected and categorized” and proactively disclose more detailed statistical information to foster informed public and judicial discussion.
Further Research: Both quantitative and qualitative investigations are needed to answer crucial questions raised, such as the reasons for the breakdown of precedent, the influence of high-priced lawyers on case acceptance, and the implications of the Court’s focus on certain subject matters over others.
Targeted Interventions: The data can help “judges, policymakers, and the public gain a deeper understanding of the institution’s ever-expanding docket and so better target interventions to reshape the Court to better meet the country’s needs.”

Bottom of Form

9. Credible Causal Inference for Empirical Legal Studies

Top of Form

This article, “Credible Causal Inference for Empirical Legal Studies,” by Daniel E. Ho and Donald B. Rubin, argues for a paradigm shift in empirical legal studies towards a stronger emphasis on research design over complex statistical analysis to achieve credible causal inference. The authors highlight the limitations of traditional regression-based methods, which are often susceptible to “model sensitivity,” and advocate for approaches that prioritize creating comparable units before analyzing outcome data. Key methodologies discussed are matching methods and regression discontinuity (RD), both of which aim to emulate experimental conditions in observational studies. The article uses a case study on the impact of maximum-security imprisonment on inmate misconduct to illustrate these principles and demonstrate how these advanced design-oriented approaches yield results more consistent with experimental findings than traditional regression. The core message is clear: “Research design trumps methods of analysis.”

II. Main Themes and Key Ideas

The Primacy of Research Design in Causal Inference:

Core Argument: The central and most critical message of the article is that robust research design is paramount for credible causal inference, surpassing the importance of sophisticated analytical methods. As the authors state: “Research design trumps methods of analysis.“
Prioritization: Modern approaches to causal inference emphasize “the prioritization of research design to create—without reference to any outcome data—subsets of comparable units.” This means meticulously planning how to collect, organize, and prepare data to ensure comparability between treatment and control groups before looking at the results.
Contrast with Traditional Methods: This approach contrasts sharply with traditional regression-based methods, which the authors argue “play a small role in this venture” and can lead to “model sensitivity.”
Substantive Legal Knowledge: Credible causal inference in law “turns on substantive legal, not mathematical, knowledge.” Understanding the nuances of the legal system and how interventions are assigned is crucial for designing a valid study.

Historical Context and the “Credibility Revolution”:

Early Empirical Legal Studies: The article traces the origins of empirical legal studies back to pioneers like Underhill Moore in the 1920s and 30s. Moore’s parking studies, despite appearing “avant-garde and the absurd” at the time, were “pioneering” in their methodological insight, even informally applying what would later be formalized as regression discontinuity.
Frustration with Conventional Methods: Both early empiricists and more recent scholars have expressed “frustration” with the limits of conventional, regression-based causal inference. William O. Douglas’s sentiment, “‘All the facts which we worked so hard to get don’t seem to help a hell of a lot’,” is echoed for modern regressions.
The “Credibility Revolution”: Recent developments in social science are characterized as a “credibility revolution,” emphasizing large-scale microdata and field experiments, and aiming to emulate experimental design as closely as possible. This movement has significantly impacted legal studies, as evidenced by the increased mention of matching and regression discontinuity in top journals (Figure 2).

The Potential Outcomes Framework (Rubin Causal Model):

Fundamental Problem: This framework conceptualizes causal inference around “two ‘potential outcomes,’ one under treatment and one under control.” The “fundamental problem of causal inference is that we never observe both.”
Missing Data: Causal inference is viewed as “a matter of inferring missing data.”
“No Causation Without Manipulation”: Causal inference requires a definable intervention. Immutable characteristics pose a challenge within this framework if they cannot be manipulated.
Experimental Template: The “intellectual idea of an experiment is so crucial, even in observational research” because randomization ensures comparability (“balance”) between treatment and control groups on all covariates. Observational studies strive to replicate this balance on confounding (pretreatment) covariates, relying on the assumption of “unconfoundedness.”

Limitations of Conventional Regression-Based Practice (“Incredible Inference”):

Fragility and Sensitivity: Regression alone is deemed “fragile” for causal inference, with results often “highly sensitive” to model specifications.
Unwarranted Assumptions: Traditional regression models (e.g., logit models) often impose “strong and unwarranted assumptions” like linearity and homogeneity across groups, which may not be verifiable by the data.
Extrapolation Issues: When treatment and control groups differ sharply, regression models can “extrapolate considerably from the data” in regions with few observations, leading to unreliable predictions (illustrated in Figure 5).
Model Sensitivity Example (Prison Data): The article demonstrates that varying assumptions (homogeneity, linearity, smoothness) in regression models applied to the prison data yields vastly different and often contradictory estimates of the treatment effect, highlighting the “tremendous model sensitivity.”
Regression is not Research Design: The authors explicitly state that “regression does not amount to research design.”

Credible Inference Approaches: Matching and Regression Discontinuity (RD):

General Principle: These approaches prioritize research design to create comparable units without reference to outcome data.
Matching Methods:Purpose: “Matching reduces the role of strong and unwarranted functional form assumptions by trimming the data set down to treatment and control groups that are balanced along pretreatment covariates.”
Key Assumption: “conditional on covariates, treatment is random.”
Credibility: Depends on collecting “enough relevant (pretreatment) covariates” and achieving “sufficient balance.”
Application (Prison Data): Exact matching on the inmate classification score improves balance significantly (Figure 6). After matching, the analysis shows “no evidence of an effect” of maximum security on misconduct, with the 95% confidence interval for the average treatment effect including the origin (Figure 7).
Regression Discontinuity (RD):Key Assumptions: “(a) treatment assignment is discontinuous at a threshold of the forcing variable, which cannot be precisely manipulated, and (b) all other covariates are smooth (or balanced) at the threshold.”
Plausible Comparison: Units “just below and above the threshold are plausible comparison groups.”
Manipulation Concern: A critical concern for RD is whether the “forcing variable” (e.g., classification score) can be “precisely manipulated” by decision-makers to target individuals based on their potential outcomes, which would invalidate the design.
Design Phase First: Emphasizes determining the appropriate bandwidth for comparison based on covariate balance before examining outcome data (Figure 8).
Application (Prison Data): While there is a sharp discontinuity in maximum-security assignment at a classification score of 52, the “outcome of behavioral misconduct” shows “no perceptible change occurs at the threshold.” The RD design “reveals no evidence of a treatment effect” (Figure 9).

Comparison to Experimental Results:

Validation: The authors compare the results from matching and RD to existing field experiments related to prison security.
Naive Regression vs. Design-Oriented Approaches: Naive regression estimates (e.g., a 13% reduction in misconduct) “deviate considerably from experimental estimates.”
Alignment with Experiments: Estimates from matching and regression discontinuity, finding no significant effect, align more closely with experimental findings, which also largely show no meaningful difference or an effect “indistinguishable from 0.”
Nuance: The distinction between experiments and observational studies is “one of degree, not of kind.” A well-designed observational study can be more informative than a “broken experiment.”

III. Practical Implications and Key Facts

Underhill Moore’s Legacy: Moore’s early work, though ridiculed for its minutiae, was pioneering in its design-oriented approach to causal inference, foreshadowing modern techniques like regression discontinuity by decades. His “law of parking was ahead of the curve.”
The Problem of “Model Sensitivity”: Conventional regression can be highly unreliable due to its sensitivity to often unverifiable assumptions about functional forms (linearity, homogeneity) and the extrapolation required when groups differ significantly.
The “Rubin Causal Model”: This framework helps conceptualize causal inference as a missing data problem, where the core challenge is to infer counterfactual outcomes. It underscores the importance of a clear “treatment” (intervention) and the ideal of randomized experiments.
California Inmate Classification System:In 1994, California assigned inmates to prison security levels using a “classification score” (1-80), with a score of 52 or higher typically leading to maximum-security confinement.
However, “administrative placements” allowed deviations from this score, making the classification score only “probabilistically forced treatment.”
Before any causal inference, maximum-security inmates had significantly higher classification scores (mean 66 vs. 24) and were much more likely to be “three-strike” offenders (72% vs. 7%). This “confounds” direct comparisons.
The raw difference in misconduct was statistically significant (34% in maximum security vs. 28% in non-maximum security), but this difference is confounded by the non-comparability of the groups.
Findings from Prison Data Analysis:Naive Logit Regression (BdL): Predicted a 13% reduction in misconduct due to maximum security. This was shown to be highly model-sensitive and unreliable.
Exact Matching: After matching inmates on identical classification scores, the estimated effect of maximum security on misconduct was 0.03 (plus or minus 0.08), meaning it could range from a 5% decrease to an 11% increase. This effect was statistically indistinguishable from zero.
Regression Discontinuity: No perceptible change in misconduct probability was observed at the classification score threshold of 52, indicating no treatment effect. The 95% interval ranged from -17% to 27%, also statistically indistinguishable from zero.
Experimental Comparisons: Observational studies using matching and RD yielded results consistent with field experiments (California and Utah), which generally found no significant causal effect of security level on misconduct. Naive regression, however, diverged significantly.

Five Key Lessons for Credible Inference (Pithy Format):Conceptualize the experimental template.
Design research with outcomes last.
Collect and balance covariates.
Visualize the data.
Assess the substantive credibility of identifying assumptions.

IV. Conclusion

The article strongly advocates for a methodological reorientation in empirical legal studies, moving away from reliance on post-hoc statistical adjustments and towards proactive, design-driven approaches like matching and regression discontinuity. These methods, by prioritizing the creation of comparable units and leveraging substantive legal knowledge, offer a more “credible” path to inferring causal effects of legal institutions. The presented analysis of prison misconduct data powerfully illustrates how these advanced methods can correct the misleading conclusions derived from traditional, model-dependent regression techniques, aligning more closely with experimental evidence. The core message is a call for legal scholars to engage deeply with research design before delving into outcome analysis, ultimately leading to more robust and trustworthy empirical findings.

Bottom of Form

10. Measuring the Rule of Law

This briefing document reviews the main themes, important ideas, and key facts presented in “Measuring the Rule of Law: A Comparison of Indicators” by Mila Versteeg and Tom Ginsburg.

I. Introduction and Background

The Rule of Law (RoL) is a deeply entrenched political ideal focused on “the limitation of arbitrary power.” It is also a significant “transnational industry worth multiple billions of dollars,” with substantial resources dedicated to its promotion by various international organizations, aid donors, and NGOs.

Key Ideas/Facts:

RoL is linked to crucial goals such as “promoting justice, improving economic development, building democracy, and increasing international cooperation.”
It is considered both an instrument for achieving these goals and “an end in and of itself.”
Weak RoL leads to tangible negative consequences, including “medicines fail to reach health facilities, criminal violence goes unchecked, laws are applied unequally across societies, and foreign investments are held back.”
There has been a “proliferation of indicators that purport to capture legal, governance, and institutional quality,” with estimates of over 150 different governance indicators.
RoL indicators face criticism for simplifying complex phenomena, varying in their focus (formal institutions vs. behavior vs. beliefs), and having technical issues like aggregation and endogeneity.

II. Conceptualizing the Rule of Law

A significant challenge in measuring RoL is the lack of a “single, well-accepted definition in the theoretical literature.” This conceptual confusion pervades both academic discourse and the development of RoL indicators.

Key Ideas/Facts:

“Thin” vs. “Thick” Concepts of RoL:Thin/Formal: Associated with Lon Fuller’s eight procedural requirements (generality, publicity, prospectivity, clarity, consistency, possibility of compliance, stability, and congruence between announced and actual administration). This version “makes no demand that the laws that are produced are good laws in any substantive sense.”
Thick: Incorporates “substantive values” beyond mere procedural adherence, such as “inalienable, individual right of man” (Hayek) or “equality and rights” (Dworkin).
Challenges of “Thick” Definitions:They become “more contested” as they integrate subjective values (e.g., human rights, which face debates over cultural relativism).
They make the RoL “harder to separate from neighboring concepts,” potentially causing it to “lose analytical value on its own.”

B. Concepts Behind RoL Indicators

The four prominent RoL indicators examined (World Bank’s WGI, Heritage Foundation, Freedom House, and World Justice Project’s WJP) “build significantly different substantive values into their definitions of the RoL,” despite all starting from the core ideal of limiting arbitrary power.

World Bank’s World Governance Indicators (WGI):Captures “perceptions of the extent to which agents have confidence in and abide by the rules of society, and in particular the quality of contract enforcement, property rights, the police, and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crime and violence.”
Critiqued for “conflat[ing] many different notions into a single concept, including both crime and contract enforcement in the same framework” and lacking “content validity.”
Heritage Foundation:Focuses less on crime and personal security, emphasizing “property rights and the absence of corruption.”
Assesses “the independence of the judiciary, the existence of corruption within the judiciary, and the ability of individuals and businesses to enforce contracts.”
Freedom House:“Heavily focused on human rights,” including questions on “independent judiciary,” “rule of law prevail[ing] in civil and criminal matters,” “protection from political terror, unjustified imprisonment, exile, or torture,” and “equal treatment of various segments of the population.”
Does not capture protection of private property rights or security of private contracts.
World Justice Project (WJP):The “most ambitious effort to measure the rule of law globally” with the “most comprehensive” definition.
Defines RoL broadly, covering accountability, clear and just laws, fundamental rights (including security of persons and property), accessible and fair processes, and timely, competent, ethical, and independent justice delivery.
Scores countries on nine factors (e.g., constraints on government powers, absence of corruption, fundamental rights, civil justice), making it the “thickest conception” but also modular.
Overall Differences: “Not a single pair of the four indicators reviewed… defines the RoL in the same way.” Table 1 in the source offers a systematic comparison of overlapping components, highlighting differing emphases and idiosyncratic features.

C. Approaches to Measurement

The indicators also employ distinct methodologies for scoring countries.

Heritage Foundation & Freedom House: Rely “almost exclusively on country experts” who draft reports based on diverse sources (news, academic analyses, NGO reports, professional contacts).
WGI: Does not directly rely on experts for scores but “aggregates information from thirty-two existing variables into a single rule of law indicator,” many of which are themselves expert-based. Uses an “unobserved components model.”
WJP: “More empirically ambitious,” combining “assessments from country experts with perceptions of ordinary citizens, based on nationally representative surveys.” It uses over 500 variables from both a general population poll (GPP) and qualified respondents’ questionnaires (QRQ) from in-country practitioners and academics.

III. Empirical Comparison of RoL Indicators

Despite disparate conceptual approaches and measurement strategies, the four indicators exhibit “remarkably similar” results.

Key Ideas/Facts:

High Correlation: The WGI, Heritage Foundation, and WJP indicators are “almost identical to each other, with their pair-wise correlations all exceeding 0.95.”
Freedom House: While still “quite high,” Freedom House’s index shows slightly lower correlations (0.79 with Heritage RoL, 0.83 with WJP RoL), suggesting it is “the only one that produces slightly different values.”
Factor Analysis: A single underlying latent dimension explains “92 percent of the variation in the four RoL indicators,” with high factor loadings (0.90 for Freedom House, 0.97-0.98 for the others).
The Puzzle: This “poses a puzzle: Why do these three indicators, with such different conceptualizations of the RoL and dissimilar measurement strategies, come up with similar country assessments?” The authors question whether RoL is simply “something that ‘you know when you see it'” or if alternative explanations exist.

IV. The Rule of Law and Neighboring Concepts

The authors explore whether RoL indicators capture a discrete concept or are indistinguishable from related concepts, also considering “halo effects” where general perceptions of development influence scores.

Key Ideas/Facts:

Distinction from other concepts: The RoL indicators generally “appear to capture something distinct,” being “only loosely correlated with democracy, human rights, constitutionalism, judicial independence, and GDP per capita.”
Notable Exception: Corruption: The indicators by Heritage Foundation, WGI, and WJP are “largely identical to TI’s Corruption Perceptions Index (with the correlation between each of these three and TI’s index all exceeding 0.95).”
Corruption emerges as the “only statistically significant predictor” of RoL in a regression analysis, even after controlling for other factors.
The Heritage Foundation’s RoL index’s strong correlation is partly due to its definition, where “no less than half the indicator consists of corruption data drawn from TI.”
Theoretical Link between RoL and Corruption: Corruption, as the “misuse of public power for private gain,” is a significant motive for government arbitrariness and oppression, thus violating Fuller’s RoL criteria.
“Impartial Administration”: The strong link between RoL indicators and corruption suggests they might capture a “more encompassing concept, like impartial administration” (Rothstein’s concept of impartiality).
Impartial government rules out corruption and implies the presence of RoL.
Correlation with Rothstein’s impartiality data is “quite high,” ranging from 0.80 to 0.90, supporting this idea.
This implies that “thicker conceptualizations do not matter” in the measurement, as impartiality is a “thin concept.”

V. Experts and Information Constraints

This section explores the role of expert coding and information constraints in the convergence of RoL indicators.

Key Ideas/Facts:

Reliance on Expert Coding and Standardized Sources: Most indicators rely heavily on experts who use a “limited set of resources,” such as the Economist Intelligence Unit or US State Department Country Reports.
Internal Replication/Path Dependency: Some indicators draw on others (e.g., Heritage Foundation uses TI, WGI uses Freedom House and Heritage Foundation), potentially creating circularity or “path dependency” through reliance on previous scores.
Expert vs. Popular Perceptions (WJP Data):By disaggregating WJP data into expert and population scores, the authors found “substantial differences.”
“Open government and civil justice exhibit the largest differences, with correlations… of 0.16 and 0.17, respectively.”
Agreement is highest for corruption (0.76 correlation).
“The WJP’s expert-based scores tend to have substantially higher correlations with the other RoL indicators than do the WJP’s population-based scores,” suggesting expert perceptions drive the convergence.
Where identical questions were asked to both experts and the public, “substantial disagreements” were found on topics like ethnic/religious/LGBT minority treatment in criminal justice, law accessibility, and workers’ rights, with correlations “close to zero or even negative.”
Subjective Nature of Indicators: RoL indicators are “necessarily based on perceptions” since RoL cannot be directly counted. This applies to both public opinion and expert assessments.
Objective Proxy (Diplomat Parking Tickets):Using Fisman and Miguel’s data on diplomat parking tickets as a non-perception-based proxy for RoL/corruption, the authors found that “more parking tickets are generally associated with lower RoL scores” (correlations ranging from -0.34 to -0.49).
This difference from the subjective, expert-based data “further suggests that the convergence between the RoL indicators results from their measurement strategy.”
Conclusion on Experts: It is “plausible that the experts who rate the RoL based on a limited set of resources ultimately rate countries based on their perceptions of government impartiality.” Definitional disagreements fade as experts rely on an “overall impression of the country’s administration.”

VI. Conclusion

The study concludes that the high degrees of correlation among RoL indicators, despite differing conceptualizations, are likely due to two intertwined explanations.

Key Themes/Facts:

Higher-Order Concept: The indicators may be “actually capturing a higher-order concept that subsumes all the differing conceptions of the RoL,” such as “government impartiality.” This suggests that the “stark differences in conceptualization… fade away” in practice.
Measurement Strategy: The convergence is significantly influenced by “expert perceptions” and “information constraints.” Experts’ reliance on limited and potentially overlapping sources, along with path dependency from previous scores, contributes to similar assessments.

Ultimate Conclusion: “Measurement strategy, rather than conceptualization, seems to be the dominant factor determining RoL indicators.”

11. Beyond Reasonableness: A Rigorous Standard for Article 15 Review

This article by Tarunabh Khaitan advocates for the application of a “Rigorous Standard of Review” (RSR) in cases of fundamental rights infringement under Article 15 of the Indian Constitution, particularly those not involving affirmative action. Khaitan argues that the traditional “reasonableness review” applied by the Indian Supreme Court is too deferential and inadequate for protecting rights related to personal autonomy and vulnerable groups. The author introduces a detailed evaluative framework for constitutional rights adjudication, critiques the historical application of Article 14 and 15, and builds a principled case for RSR based on personal autonomy and group vulnerability. The article highlights the Supreme Court’s nascent move towards a higher standard in Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India and differentiates RSR from the “strict scrutiny” jurisprudence of the United States, especially concerning affirmative action and analogous grounds.

II. Main Themes and Key Ideas

A. The Inadequacy of Traditional “Reasonableness Review”

Deferential Standard: Khaitan contends that the “reasonableness review” traditionally applied by the Indian Supreme Court to Articles 14 and 15 is a “low or deferential” standard of review. This means courts are satisfied with a “legitimate (or permissible) state interest” and only require showing the “suitability of the measure to achieve the interest, without demanding that it be necessary and balanced.”
Article 14 (Equality Before Law):Classification Test: The traditional test for Article 14 requires a classification to be based on an “intelligible differentia” and have “a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.” Khaitan argues this test is “structurally designed to uphold most constitutional challenges” due to its deferential nature.
Interest Analysis: Under reasonableness review, state interests need only be “legitimate and relevant,” with no requirement for them to be “important or compelling.” Examples show courts even accepting “administrative convenience” as a sufficient state interest.
Nexus Analysis: Only “suitability” (rational nexus) is typically examined, with “necessity” and “balancing” aspects largely ignored. Courts have “bent over backwards to find some rational basis” for classifications.
Arbitrariness Test: While purporting to expand Article 14’s scope, the arbitrariness test remains “extremely deferential,” as an act is considered non-arbitrary if any “legitimate and relevant” reason exists, without requiring importance or proportionality.
Article 15 (Non-Discrimination on Specific Grounds):”Only” Clause Misinterpretation: The word “only” in Article 15(1) (“on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them”) has been interpreted liberally by courts. To justify discrimination, the state only needed to show it was not made only on a prohibited ground, but also on some “other ground,” making it easy to circumvent the protection.
No Special Status: Historically, discrimination on Article 15 grounds (like sex or caste) received the same deferential “reasonableness review” as unspecified grounds under Article 14.
Influence of Personal Laws: A “cynical explanation” for Article 15‘s underdevelopment is the judiciary’s “wariness of applying constitutional touchstone to these laws” due to their “emotive religious appeal.”
Githa Hariharan Example: The author uses Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India (1999) to illustrate the “extremely deferential standard of review in personal law cases.” The court’s interpretation of “after him” in guardianship law (father, “and after him, the mother”) failed to address sex discrimination, as it did not question the legitimacy or importance of the state interest, nor the proportionality of the measure.

B. Towards a Rigorous Standard of Review (RSR)

Necessity for RSR: Khaitan argues that “certain fundamental rights” are “more fundamental than others” and “deserve the most rigorous standard of review.” Article 15(1), Article 19(1)(a), and negative rights under Article 21 are identified as such.
Evaluative Framework for Constitutional Rights Adjudication: The article identifies six aspects:

Standing: Who can bring a case (Indian courts are activist here).
Burden of Proof: Who must prove various elements (usually the state to justify infringement).
Scope and Infringement: Defining the breadth of the right and proving its violation.
Interest Analysis (Core Focus): Identifying and evaluating the “legitimacy” and “importance” (e.g., “compelling”) of state interests that might justify infringement.
Nexus Analysis (Core Focus): Examining the connection between the state interest and the measure. This includes:

Suitability: Does the measure actually further the interest? (Rational nexus)
Necessity: Is it the least restrictive means? (Are there alternatives?)
Balancing: Does the benefit to the state interest outweigh the detriment to the right?

Remedy: The type of relief granted.

RSR Definition: RSR is the “most intense standard.” Under interest analysis, it “demands that the state interest should be legitimate and compelling.” Under nexus analysis, it “demands that the nexus between the means and interest should be proportionate” (encompassing suitability, necessity, and balancing).
Principled Foundations of RSR for Article 15:Personal Autonomy: This is the “value that underpins Article 15’s prohibition on sex discrimination” and other enumerated grounds. It reflects “the vision of people controlling, to some degree, their own destiny, fashioning it through successive decisions throughout their lives.” Khaitan draws on Joseph Raz, John Gardner, and comparative jurisprudence (Canada, South Africa) to explain how discrimination on immutable status or fundamental choices impairs personal autonomy.
Group Vulnerability: This principle highlights the “special judicial role when dealing with laws reflecting oppressive cultural norms that especially target minorities and vulnerable groups.” Vulnerability (political, social, economic) means “systematic and widespread denial of opportunities.” RSR should be reserved for those who are “undeservedly vulnerable” due to morally irrelevant characteristics related to their personal autonomy.

C. Supreme Court’s Movement Towards RSR: Anuj Garg and Thakur

Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India (2008): This case is presented as a “radical shift” where the Supreme Court applied “strict scrutiny” (Khaitan’s RSR) to discrimination against women.
Burden of Proof: The Court shifted the burden to the state to justify the law, departing from the presumption of constitutionality, especially for pre-constitutional laws. “It is trite that when the validity of a legislation is tested on the anvil of equality clauses contained in Articles 14 and 15, the burden thereof would be on the State.”
Interest Analysis: The Court required the state aim to be not only “legitimate” (e.g., providing security) but to serve a “compelling state purpose.”
Nexus Analysis: The Court applied a “qualified reasonableness” standard, equivalent to proportionality review, demanding that the state demonstrate “less restrictive alternative means available” (e.g., empowerment and law enforcement instead of restricting women’s employment). The impugned law was struck down as “not necessary.”
Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008): While Thakur seemed to reject “strict scrutiny” for affirmative action, Khaitan argues for a “harmonious construction” with Anuj Garg.
RSR and Affirmative Action: Khaitan contends that RSR does not apply to affirmative action measures that “enhance (rather than reduce) the personal autonomy of the members of a vulnerable group.” Thakur‘s rejection of “strict scrutiny” is therefore “restricted to affirmative action cases, as already conceded in Anuj Garg.”
Divergence from US Strict Scrutiny: This is a crucial distinction. Unlike the US Supreme Court, which applies strict scrutiny to strike down affirmative action measures, Indian RSR (informed by group vulnerability) views such measures as beneficial and thus not subject to the highest level of review. “The Indian constitution adopts in Article 15(3), 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) an asymmetric discrimination principle and expressly allows the state to make special provisions for the benefit of specific categories of beneficiaries.”

D. Implications of RSR

Analogous Grounds Jurisprudence: RSR (under Article 14, acting as a “reservoir” for equality) should extend to unspecified grounds that “have the potential to impair personal autonomy and are analogous to those that are specified in these articles” (e.g., disability, HIV-status, sexual orientation, gender identity). This prevents “freezing heightened judicial protection to a select few groups,” a criticism leveled against US strict scrutiny.
Empowering the Judiciary: RSR empowers courts to be more robust “gatekeepers of fundamental rights” and “counter-majoritarian institutions” protecting vulnerable groups from “majoritarian impulses rooted in moralistic tradition.”

III. Important Quotes

“RIGHTS, EVEN when fundamental, are rarely absolute.” (p. 177)
“Traditionally the Indian Supreme Court has applied a single (and low or deferential) standard of review – reasonableness – to examine violations of articles 14 & 15.” (p. 179)
“If the item of jewellery is a metaphor for fundamental rights, the blemish in question is an unjustifiable violation of the right, and the intensity of inspection is the standard of review.” (p. 178)
“It is the author’s opinion that a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by article 15(1)… in the very least, deserve an intense review because these are very special rights.” (p. 179)
“By proportionality, it is meant that the question whether while regulating exercise of fundamental rights, the appropriate or least restrictive choice of measures has been made by the legislature or the administrator so as to achieve the object of the legislation or the purpose of the administrative order, as the case may be.” (p. 180, quoting Teri Oat Estates v. U.T., Chandigarh)
“RSR, is the most intense standard – i.e., under the interest analysis, the court demands that the state interest should be legitimate and compelling. Under nexus analysis, it demands that the nexus between the means and interest should be proportionate.” (p. 185)
“The bottom-line in this behalf would a functioning modern democratic society which ensures freedom to pursue varied opportunities and options without discriminating on the basis of sex, race, caste or any other like basis.” (p. 197, quoting Anuj Garg)
“Discrimination on the basis of our immutable status tends to deny us [an autonomous] life… Where there is discrimination against people based on their fundamental choices it tends to skew those choices by making one or more of the valuable options from which they must choose more painful or burdensome than others.” (p. 197, quoting John Gardner)
“[T]he issue of biological difference between sexes gathers an overtone of societal conditions so much so that the real differences are pronounced by the oppressive cultural norms of the time. This combination of biological and social determinants may find expression in popular legislative mandate. Such legislations definitely deserve deeper judicial scrutiny. It is for the court to review that the majoritarian impulses rooted in moralistic tradition do not impinge upon individual autonomy.” (p. 200, quoting Anuj Garg)
“it is trite that when the validity of a legislation is tested on the anvil of equality clauses contained in Articles 14 and 15, the burden thereof would be on the State.” (p. 201, quoting Anuj Garg)
“The aforesaid principles applied by the Supreme Court of the United States of America cannot be applied directly to India as the gamut of affirmative action in India is fully supported by constitutional provisions and we have not applied the principles of ‘suspect legislation’ and we have been following the doctrine that every legislation passed by the Parliament is presumed to be constitutionally valid unless otherwise proved.” (p. 206, quoting Thakur)
“The Indian constitution adopts in Article 15(3), 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) an asymmetric discrimination principle and expressly allows the state to make special provisions for the benefit of specific categories of beneficiaries.” (p. 207, quoting Krishnaswamy and Khosla)

IV. Conclusion

Khaitan’s article provides a compelling argument for a more rigorous judicial review in India, particularly for fundamental rights under Article 15. By laying out a detailed framework for RSR grounded in the principles of personal autonomy and group vulnerability, the author advocates for a standard that demands “compelling state interest” and “proportionality” in nexus analysis. The analysis of Anuj Garg highlights a positive step by the Indian Supreme Court towards this higher standard, while the reconciliation with Thakur clarifies that RSR, in the Indian context, should not hinder affirmative action measures aimed at empowering vulnerable groups. This nuanced approach, different from US strict scrutiny, is presented as crucial for establishing a truly rights-respecting legal culture in India.

12. Archetypal Legal Scholarship: A Field Guide Summary

This briefing document summarizes Martha Minow’s “Archetypal Legal Scholarship: A Field Guide,” which offers a framework for understanding and classifying different varieties of legal scholarship. The guide aims to assist those considering legal research projects in connecting their ideas with existing scholarly approaches. Minow highlights the increasing variety in legal scholarship due to interdisciplinary research and the dual role of law schools in preparing practitioners and fostering critics/reformers.

Main Themes and Most Important Ideas:

Minow organizes legal scholarship into nine “archetypal” categories, each with distinct characteristics and objectives. These categories are not mutually exclusive, and many works of scholarship may combine elements from several types.

I. Doctrinal Restatement (p. 65)

Main Idea: This archetypal scholarship focuses on organizing and clarifying existing case law. Key Characteristics:

Organization: “Organize and reorganize case law into coherent elements, categories, and concepts.”
Distinction: Acknowledge “distinction between settled and emerging law.”
Identification: Identify “difference between majority and ‘preferred’ or ‘better’ practice—ideally with some explanation for the criteria to be used.” Examples: Robert Clark, Corporate Law; Laurence Tribe, Constitutional Law.

II. Recasting Project (p. 66)

Main Idea: This type of scholarship re-examines existing legal material, often across different fields, to propose new frameworks or paradigms. Key Characteristics:

Integration: “Gather more than one ‘line’ of cases across doctrinal fields, categories, or historical developments, and show why they belong together or expose unjustified discrepancies.”
Innovation: “Offer a new framework or paradigm that can recognize past, present and future material.” Examples: Charles Reich, “The New Property;” Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, “The Right to Privacy.”

III. Policy Analysis (p. 66)

Main Idea: Policy analysis identifies legal or social problems, evaluates alternatives, and proposes solutions, often drawing on interdisciplinary insights. Key Characteristics:

Structure: “present a problem; canvass alternatives; propose an evaluative scheme or method; recommend preferred solution.”
Problem Attribution: Problems are attributed to “distance between goal and implementation; conflict with a powerfully competing goal; the lack of fit between legal rules or practices when compared with changing social, economic, biological or technical circumstances; or mistaken assumptions as demonstrated by historical review, economic model, psychological research or evidence from other fields.”
Objectivity: “Not a brief: include fair analysis of a range of alternatives and alternative criteria; offer useful analyses even for people who do not agree with the assumptions, methodology, or conclusion.” Examples: Elizabeth Bartholet, Nobody’s Children; Russell Korobkin, “Bounded Rationality and Unconscionability.”

IV. Test a Proposition (p. 67)

Main Idea: This scholarship empirically investigates or models propositions about society, economy, or human behavior that are assumed in legal contexts. Key Characteristics:

Starting Point: “Take a widely assumed or commonly known proposition familiar to lawyers or legal theorists.”
Methodology: “Undertake an empirical investigation about its validity or summarize and assess empirical work conducted by others or undertake model-building or summarize and apply model(s) developed by others.”
Audience: “Digest the findings for legal audiences.” Examples: Robert Ellickson, Order Without Law; Robert H. Mnookin and Lewis Kornhauser, “Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law.”

V. Study, Explain, and Assess Legal Institutions, Systems, or Institutional Actors (p. 67)

Main Idea: This category involves analyzing the behavior of legal actors or institutions through various lenses (historical, anthropological, sociological, economic) to expose complexities and inform normative assessments. Key Characteristics:

Analysis: “Offer historical, anthropological, sociological or economic analysis of the behavior of legal actors or institutions, often exposing complexity, gaps between theories and practice, dynamics, and layers of meaning and effects.”
Methods: “Use empirical or interpretive methods and/or models.”
Outcome: “Offer a normative assessment or agenda for further study.” Examples: Abram Chayes, “The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation;” Marc Galanter, “Why the ‘Haves’ Come out Ahead.”

VI. Critical Projects (p. 68)

Main Idea: Critical legal scholarship uncovers hidden assumptions, inconsistencies, and tensions within legal systems and practices, often linking them to broader societal difficulties. Key Characteristics:

Exposure: “Expose unstated assumptions, patterns or results, internally inconsistent structures or other tensions within a body of law or legal practices or institutions.”
Highlighting: “Highlight the tensions, contradictions or paradoxes behind the surface of law or legal practices; sometimes they are not resolved but instead try to link to larger psychological, social or philosophic difficulties and political or normative efforts.” Examples: Duncan Kennedy, “Form and Substance in Private Law Adjudication;” Kimberle Crenshaw, “Race, Reform, and Retrenchment.”

VII. Comparative and Historical Inquiries (p. 68)

Main Idea: This scholarship offers detailed descriptions of past eras or contrasting legal regimes to illuminate contemporary legal choices and continuities. Key Characteristics:

Description: “Offer a rich description of an earlier era or contrasting legal regime.”
Methodological Rigor: “Satisfy the criteria within the fields of anthropology or history in use of sources, triangulation, and contextualization.”
Illumination: “Suggest how this study illuminates differences, choices, or continuities when compared with contemporary domestic practice.” Examples: Mary Ann Glendon, Abortion and Divorce in Western Law; Bruce H. Mann, Republic of Debtors.

VIII. Jurisprudence, Philosophy of Law, and Connecting Philosophy and Law (p. 69)

Main Idea: This category focuses on developing and elaborating theories that explain the coherence of law, engaging with alternative theories, and advancing views of justice or normative goals. Key Characteristics:

Theory Development: “Develop or elaborate a theory that tries to explain how all of law or chief portions of it hang together.”
Engagement: “Engage with alternative theories.”
Contribution: “Demonstrate the contribution this theory makes to a conceptual puzzle or set of doctrinal or practical problems.”
Normative Focus: “Advance view of justice or analysis of what norms law should pursue.” Examples: Ronald Dworkin, Law’s Empire; Catherine MacKinnon, “Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State.”

IX. Combinations (p. 69)

Main Idea: Many significant works of legal scholarship integrate elements from multiple archetypal categories, demonstrating the interdisciplinary and complex nature of legal research. Key Point: This category emphasizes that the archetypes are not rigid boundaries but rather lenses through which to understand the multifaceted nature of legal scholarship. Examples: Cass Sunstein, “Interest Groups in American Public Law;” Derrick Bell, Jr., “Brown v. Board of Education and the Interest-Convergence Dilemma.”

Conclusion:

Minow’s “Archetypal Legal Scholarship: A Field Guide” provides a valuable framework for navigating the diverse landscape of legal scholarship. By identifying these nine archetypes, she not only helps aspiring legal scholars understand different approaches but also implicitly encourages a broader, more interdisciplinary understanding of law. The guide acknowledges the “explosion of interdisciplinary research” and the inherent tension in law schools between training practitioners and fostering critical analysis. Ultimately, it serves as a practical tool for both those embarking on legal research and those seeking to understand the varied contributions within the field.

13. India’s Self-Incrimination Right: The Enduring Legacy of Kathi Kalu Oghad

This paper critically examines the 1961 Indian Supreme Court decision in State of Bombay v Kathi Kalu Oghad, which remains the definitive interpretation of India’s constitutional right against self-incrimination (Article 20(3)). Sekhri argues that Oghad is “criminally under-examined” and aims to fill this gap by adopting a historical approach. The paper contends that Oghad significantly narrowed the scope of Article 20(3), deferring to the political process and strengthening law enforcement at the expense of individual liberties, particularly against police coercion. It concludes that a re-evaluation of Oghad‘s interpretive choices is long overdue.

Key Themes and Most Important Ideas/Facts:

1. Historical Context of Criminal Investigations (1861-1961): Police Reliance on Confessions and Coercion

Colonial Legal Framework: India’s criminal justice system, established during British rule, was built on the Code of Criminal Procedure (1861), Police Act (1861), and Indian Evidence Act (1872).
“Astonishing” Reliance on Confessions: Despite “elaborate precautions in favour of the accused” designed to prevent coerced confessions (e.g., sections 24-26 of the Evidence Act making police confessions inadmissible unless made in the presence of a magistrate), a 1906 commentary noted the “astonishing” number of convictions based on confessions.
Persistence of Police Coercion (“Third Degree”): Official reports (e.g., 1903 Second Police Commission) and unofficial accounts confirm that police routinely used coercive methods, including “very effective torture” that left no physical marks, to secure confessions. This continued post-independence, with a “pervasive feeling” that “the police are the same at all times.”
Legal Trade-off: Reliability vs. Voluntariness: Indian law, particularly the Evidence Act, presented a “Janus-faced nature.” While Section 24 excluded coerced confessions, Section 28 allowed them if the coercion’s effect had dissipated. Crucially, Section 27 partially lifted the ban on police confessions if they led to the “discovery” of facts, prioritizing “reliability interests over voluntariness concerns.”
Judicial Approach to Voluntariness: Courts “overwhelmingly upheld reliability interests over voluntariness concerns” both before and after independence. The burden of proving coercion often fell on defendants, and courts were highly skeptical of claims of police torture, leading to subjective and inconsistent rulings.
Post-Independence “Scientific” Evidence Push: The 1950s saw a push for “modern, scientific evidence” (fingerprints, handwriting, blood samples) as an alternative to “third-degree methods.” However, Sekhri argues that both methods “relied on the defendant as the source of evidence,” and the perceived “reliability” of scientific evidence often overshadowed concerns about coercion.
Demand for Police Reform and Admitting Police Confessions: The 1958 Law Commission Report noted that police officers admitted to a “general tendency to obtain confessional statements and neglect independent investigation.” Senior police officers and some judges called for removing the ban on accepting police confessions, suggesting it be relaxed for senior officers with a warning to the accused.

2. Article 20(3), M.P. Sharma, and Disruptive Constitutional Transformations:

Article 20(3) – The Right Against Self-Incrimination: The Indian Constitution introduced a fundamental right against being “compelled to be a witness against himself.” This was a significant shift from the colonial era, where such protections existed only as statutory rules, not guaranteed rights.
Ambiguity in Scope: The Constituent Assembly debates offered little clarity on the scope of Article 20(3), particularly whether it applied to police investigations or only to in-court testimony.
M.P. Sharma v Satish Chandra (1954): An Expansive Reading: The Supreme Court, in M.P. Sharma, dismissed petitions challenging search warrants but used the opportunity to define Article 20(3) broadly. It held that “being ‘a witness’ covered ‘every positive volitional act which furnishes evidence'” and applied to individuals “accused of an offence” if a “formal accusation” existed.
“Disruptive Effects”: This expansive reading “threw the existing framework governing criminal investigations and prosecutions in a tizzy.”
Enforcement and Strategy: It led to a “new wave of litigation” challenging investigative methods, creating “jurisdictional fissures” among High Courts and uncertainty for both police and defendants.
Reliability vs. Voluntariness (Revisited): M.P. Sharma “upset the traditional calculus” that prioritized reliability, with some High Courts excluding even “reliable” evidence like fingerprints if coercion was shown, and rejecting the “discovery” doctrine of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The Allahabad High Court, in Amin & Anr. v State (1958), “hailed article 20(3) as ‘a recognition of the principle that it is inconsistent with the dignity of human beings… a step towards achieving a successful termination of what has been described as Man’s long struggle to live under a government of laws and not of men.'”
Institutional Balance: M.P. Sharma “caused another, different kind of disruption: in relations between the judiciary and other arms of the Indian State,” signaling a departure from the Court’s previous deference to executive interests, especially in “public order interests.”

3. State of Bombay v Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961): Righting the Course?

The Supreme Court Reconsiders: Dissatisfaction with M.P. Sharma‘s expansive reading led to the Oghad case being heard by an unprecedented eleven-Justice bench. The appeals included those from Kathi Kalu Oghad (where handwriting exemplars taken in police custody were excluded, leading to acquittal), Pakhar Singh (where fingerprints taken by a magistrate were admitted), and Farid Ahmed (where specimen writings ordered by a magistrate were excluded).
The Oghad Majority Opinion (Sinha, C.J.):Narrowing “to be a witness”: Oghad held that Article 20(3) only covered “personal testimony” that “could alter under compulsion.” It excluded “physical evidence” (like fingerprints, handwriting exemplars, or blood samples) from the scope of Article 20(3) because their “intrinsic character” cannot be changed by coercion, thus prioritizing “reliability interests” once again.
The Court argued this was in keeping with the framers’ original intent to avoid “put[ting] obstacles in the way of efficient and effective investigation into crime.”
Narrowing “compelled”: The Court made it significantly harder for defendants to prove compulsion:
Police Custody Not Inherently Compelling: “the mere fact of being in police custody… would not, by itself, as a proposition of law, lend itself to the inference that the accused was compelled to make the statement.”
Burden on Defendant: The defendant had the “burden to prove there was compulsion.”
“Physical Objective Act”: Compulsion was defined as a “physical objective act” which “must mean what in law is called duress,” a much higher threshold than previously accepted.
Impact of Oghad:Strengthened Law Enforcement: Oghad “strengthened the hands of law enforcement by narrowing the scope of the right against self-incrimination,” ensuring “no judicial scuppering in pursuit of what the Court had deemed to be ‘effective and efficient’ investigations.”
Return to Crime Control Paradigm: It signaled a return to the “crime control interests of the State over the due process interests of individuals,” effectively legitimizing coercion in certain contexts.
Paradoxical Outcome: Created a “paradoxical situation where colonial-era protections were more powerful for defendants than their constitutional rights in the same context.”
Judicial Deference to Executive: Sekhri argues Oghad was a “political choice” to “right the balance of institutional power by signalling judicial deference to executive interests,” especially in light of increasing external and internal security threats and the ongoing push for police reforms.

4. Post-Script and Modern Relevance:

Lost Gamble on Reform: Oghad‘s anticipated political reforms (e.g., relaxing the ban on police confessions, police accountability) were “derailed by a war between India and China and enactment of ’emergency’ legislation,” which suspended rule of law and gave more power to the executive.
Shift in Supreme Court’s Role: The Supreme Court has since evolved, becoming “the indisputable custodian” of the Constitution and “far more active in the sphere of administrative reforms for policing.”
Antiquated Views: Oghad‘s views on compulsion and custodial interrogation “appear out of place today” due to subsequent doctrinal developments, including the incorporation of American-style “due process” into Article 21 (right to life) and a “serious distrust of executive power.”
Later cases like Nandini Satpathy (1978) embraced the idea of custodial interrogations as “presumptively coercive.”
Selvi & Ors. v State of Karnataka (2010) explicitly linked the right against self-incrimination to Article 21 to broaden the meaning of “compulsion.”
Lingering Legacy: Despite these changes, Oghad‘s precedent “continue[s] to determine the balance of power between the police and the individual in the context of criminal investigations,” leading to a system where confessions are still common despite procedural safeguards, especially for “have-nots.”
Call for Reconsideration: Sekhri advocates for questioning and reversing Oghad‘s choices, arguing that a “stronger right to silence during investigations” is necessary for the Constitution’s “transformative potential” to reach “the remote ‘gatehouses’ of the Indian criminal process.”

14. India’s Public Interest Litigation: Power, Populism, and Procedure

This briefing document examines the origins, development, and key characteristics of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India, drawing primarily from Anuj Bhuwania’s “Courting the People: The Rise of Public Interest Litigation in Post-Emergency India.” It highlights the transformation of the Indian Supreme Court into a powerful, activist institution, the underlying constitutional and political factors, and the procedural innovations and controversies associated with PIL.

I. The Indian Supreme Court’s Ascendance and the Genesis of PIL

The Indian Supreme Court is widely recognized as “the most powerful judicial institution in the world.” Its elevated status and central role in public discourse are largely attributed to the emergence of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the aftermath of the 1975-77 Emergency.

Key Themes:

Reconfiguration of Power Post-Emergency: PIL was born from the Supreme Court’s attempt “to undo the legacy of its capitulation to the political rulers” during the Emergency. This period was marked by a shift in Indian political life and a search for new institutional legitimacy.
Unique Nature of Indian PIL: Unlike its American counterpart, Indian PIL is not merely “pro bono lawyering” but a distinct “jurisdiction” initiated and led almost entirely by the judiciary. As Canadian scholar Jamie Cassels observed in 1989, “Unlike the case of public interest litigation in Canada or the United States, the legal aid/public interest movement in India has been almost entirely initiated and led by the judiciary.”
“Supreme Court for Indians” and “People’s Court”: The Court redefined itself as “the fount of substantive justice: portraying itself as the ‘last resort for the oppressed and bewildered’.” Leading Indian legal scholar Upendra Baxi famously hailed PIL in the early 1980s as indicating that the court had “at long last” become the “Supreme Court for Indians.” This involved consciously positioning itself as speaking for “the people.”

II. Constitutional Roots and the “Great Constitutional Conflict” (1950-1977)

The Indian Constitution, unlike the US Constitution, is not primarily a procedural document but a “teleological text, a transformative constitution that squarely tries to deal with ‘the social question’ of widespread poverty.” Its Parts III (Fundamental Rights) and IV (Directive Principles of State Policy) laid the groundwork for future judicial activism.

Key Facts & Ideas:

Substantive vs. Procedural Constitution: The Indian Constitution, as Uday Singh Mehta argues, conceives the “nation… as a project” aimed at social revolution, focusing on addressing “the social question” of material destitution and inequality, rather than primarily limiting political power.
Tension between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles: The post-independence period was marked by a “principal juristic battleground” between Fundamental Rights (justiciable) and Directive Principles (non-justiciable but “fundamental in the governance of the country”). Political discourse often viewed Fundamental Rights as an “obstacle to the realization of the social revolution.”
Early Judicial-Executive Conflict:Land Reform: Early attempts at land reform were challenged by courts on the basis of the right to property, leading to swift constitutional amendments by Prime Minister Nehru, who famously commented that the Constitution was “later kidnapped and purloined by the Lawyers.”
Golaknath (1967): The Supreme Court’s decision in I. C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) barred any amendment to the Fundamental Rights chapter, leading to a “ferocious political attack on the court itself” by Indira Gandhi.
Kesavananda Bharati (1973): This “most influential constitutional case in Indian history” established the “basic structure doctrine,” asserting that Parliament could not alter the fundamental framework of the Constitution, even while conceding its power to amend other parts. This was the “enduring modus vivendi achieved by the court: conceding a lot, but retaining its final say.”
Emergency and the 42nd Amendment (1975-77): During the Emergency, Indira Gandhi declared India a “socialist” and “secular” republic and, through the 42nd Amendment, attempted to give Directive Principles precedence over Fundamental Rights, thus “immuniz[ing] it from judicial review.” This period saw the Supreme Court’s “ignominious role,” particularly in the Habeas Corpus case (1976), where it upheld the suspension of habeas corpus rights. Justice Beg’s infamous observation, “The care and concern . . . bestowed upon the welfare of detenus who are well housed, well-fed and well-treated is almost maternal,” exemplified the court’s capitulation.

III. The Birth and Initial Character of PIL: “Judicial Populism”

The post-Emergency Supreme Court, seeking to regain legitimacy after its Emergency-era capitulation, adopted a strategy of “judicial populism,” mimicking Indira Gandhi’s populist rhetoric and becoming a “self-proclaimed vanguard of the social revolution.”

Key Concepts & Developments:

Populist Rhetoric: The court began “seeking legitimacy from the people,” deploying arguments “in the name of ‘the people’.” Sudipta Kaviraj argues that the Supreme Court “in search of a new legitimacy, responded by mimicking Mrs. Gandhi’s populism. The battle henceforth was between the competing populisms of the court and the political class.”
Shift from Negative to Positive Liberty: Post-Emergency, the court’s concern shifted from “negative liberty from the state” to “positive liberty through the state,” focusing on “ameliorating poverty and achieving an egalitarian distributive justice.”
Relaxation of Locus Standi (1981): In the Judges’ Transfer case (1981), the rule of locus standi (“standing”) was significantly relaxed, opening the doors of the Supreme Court to “public-spirited citizens” to espouse the cause of the poor and oppressed (“representative standing”) or enforce public duties (“citizen standing”). Justice Bhagwati’s judgment served as a “manifesto for PIL,” emphasizing the need to “democratize judicial remedies, remove technical barriers against easy accessibility to Justice and promote public interest litigation.”
Evading Procedural Technicalities: Justice Bhagwati famously asserted, “procedure is but a handmaiden of justice and the cause of justice can never be allowed to be thwarted by any procedural technicalities… The Court would therefore unhesitatingly and without the slightest qualms of conscience cast aside the technical rules of procedure in the exercise of its dispensing power and treat the letter of the public minded individual as a writ petition and act upon it.” This “tirade against technicalities” was framed as an “indigenization” of the legal system to adapt to Indian realities.
“Debased Informalism” and “Swadeshi Jurisprudence”: The rise of PIL was accompanied by a move towards “deprofessionalized justice,” creating “lok adalats (people’s courts)” and tribunals. Justices Krishna Iyer and Bhagwati advocated for “thoroughgoing judicial reforms, minimizing reliance on foreign models of adjudication, including the system of stare decisis. They advocated a return to swadeshi jurisprudence including justice by popular tribunals.” This embraced informalism, with state institutions mimicking a fantasy of “traditional” institutions.
Judicial Leadership in Social Revolution: Justice Bhagwati clearly articulated the judiciary’s role: “our Constitution is not a non-aligned national charter. It is a document of social revolution which casts an obligation on every instrumentality including the judiciary… to transform the status quo ante into a new human order… The judiciary has therefore a socio-economic destination and a creative function.”
Actively Soliciting Petitions: Early PILs often arose from letters written to Justice Bhagwati in his dual capacity as a judge and chairperson of the Committee on Implementation of Legal Aid Schemes (CILAS). This “judge-led nature of PIL” was evident, with judges even “choosing their litigants,” as observed by Arun Shourie.

IV. Early Controversies and Procedural Innovations in PIL

PIL’s early years were characterized by a departure from traditional adversarial procedures and the court’s increasing assertiveness in shaping the litigation.

Key Procedural Innovations:

Relaxed Locus Standi and Simplified Petitions: As discussed, the ability for “public-spirited citizens” to file petitions on behalf of others or the citizenry at large became central.
Court-Appointed Commissions and Non-Adversarial Procedure: In cases like Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984), the Court appointed lawyers and academics for “socio-legal” investigations. Justice Bhagwati rejected objections to this evidence, stating that “it was not necessary to be bound by the normal conception of an adversarial trial” in cases involving “poverty, illiteracy, deprivation and exploitation.”
Far-Reaching Remedial Measures and Supervision: The court assumed the power to issue extensive remedial orders and actively supervise their implementation.

V. The “Disappearing Public Interest Petitioner” and Suo Moto Actions

Over time, the role of the public-spirited petitioner diminished, leading to a new phase where the court increasingly took direct ownership of cases or initiated them suo moto (on its own motion).

Key Developments:

Court Claiming Ownership of PIL: In the Sheela Barse case (1988), the court refused to allow a journalist to withdraw her PIL, stating, “Only a private litigant can abandon his claims.” The court removed her as petitioner and appointed the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee, marking “the beginning of the process that has since become a characteristic feature of PIL: the court claiming ownership of a PIL case and deciding what direction it was to take.”
Appointment of Amicus Curiae: From the mid-1990s, the court began “wilfully displac[ing] the petitioner and appoint[ing] a senior advocate as amicus curiae to assist it.” In the Vineet Narain case (1998), relating to political corruption, the court explicitly stated that “Intervention in the proceedings by everyone else was shut out” except for providing material to the amicus curiae. S. Muralidhar criticizes this trend, arguing it “defeats the very purpose of the PIL jurisdiction and renders petitioners redundant as mere informants.”
Challenges of Amicus Curiae Model:Forest Case (Niyamgiri Hills): In the “Forest case,” the amicus curiae, Harish Salve, screened all applications for intervention, and Justice Kapadia, despite potential conflict of interest, heard the case, with other lawyers representing tribal communities being prevented from speaking. This highlights the “removal of representative voices from PIL proceedings.”
Gujarat Pogrom Trials (2002): In cases related to the Gujarat riots, the court appointed an amicus curiae, Harish Salve, who accepted police officials’ names for the Special Investigation Team (SIT) without consulting the petitioners (NHRC and CJP). The SIT report was kept confidential from petitioners, leading to a “misinformation campaign” based on leaks to the media.
Suo Moto Powers: The “final logical culmination” is the court initiating cases “on its own motion,” entirely doing away with the requirement of a petition.
“And Quiet Flows the Maily Yamuna” (1994): A newspaper article on pollution led the court to convert it suo moto into a writ petition for cleaning the Yamuna river.
“In Re: Networking of Rivers” (2002): An interlocutory application within the Yamuna case, referencing a presidential speech on river interlinking, was converted suo moto into an independent writ petition for India’s largest engineering project.

VI. The Consequences of Unfettered Judicial Power

The evolution of PIL, particularly the “disappearing public interest petitioner” and the increasing use of suo moto powers, has led to a situation where judicial power operates with minimal procedural controls.

Key Implications:

“Annihilation of all procedure”: As Justice Hidayatullah predicted in 1984, PIL has led to a situation where “no procedural norms” control the court, and even the “minimal crutch of a petitioner” is deemed unnecessary.
Judicial Ideological Predilections: With fewer constraints, PIL judges “could now give free rein to their ideological predilections; their awesome power had no limits except their own sense of judgment.”
The Bhopal Disaster (1984) as a Case Study: The Supreme Court’s handling of the Bhopal gas leak case, where it presided over a “secret final settlement” between the government and Union Carbide for a “relatively minuscule amount,” demonstrated the mobilization of “suffering” to “perform an ‘ornamental function’ and justify itself.” The court invoked Article 142 (the power to do “complete justice,” making it “above law”) to justify its actions, setting a precedent for its “divine” power to violate statutory provisions.
Reification of “Suffering”: Veena Das’s analysis of the Bhopal case highlights how judicial discourse “reified ‘suffering’ while dissolving the real victims” and justified the government’s role as “guardian of the people and the judiciary as protector of the rule of law.”

In conclusion, PIL has transformed the Indian Supreme Court into a profoundly powerful and proactive institution, deeply involved in socio-economic governance. While initially hailed as a means of democratizing justice and addressing the suffering of the poor, its evolution has raised significant concerns about procedural fairness, accountability, and the potential for unchecked judicial power.

15. Vera Tiscenko: Conversion, Divorce, and Colonial Law in India

Top of Form

This article explores the strategic use of religious conversion and apostasy by women in late colonial India to dissolve unhappy marriages, particularly within the context of a “marital patchwork” of personal laws. The case of Vera Tiscenko, a Polish actress who converted to Islam in Calcutta to divorce her Russian husband, serves as a pivotal example. The Tiscenko decision (1942) marked a significant shift in judicial interpretation, moving away from automatically recognizing marriage dissolution upon a wife’s conversion to Islam, and subsequently influencing landmark decisions on religious freedom and equality in India. The study highlights how women exploited jurisdictional ambiguities, but also how the colonial state and indigenous actors responded by restructuring the legal order, driven by communal anxieties and the desire to “fix” perceived gaps in the system. The passage of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act (DMMA) in 1939, particularly its apostasy clause, profoundly impacted these legal dynamics, ultimately limiting women’s ability to use conversion as a straightforward path to divorce.

II. Main Themes and Key Ideas

The “Marital Patchwork” and Jurisdictional Ambiguity in Colonial India:

Colonial India’s legal system featured a complex “marital patchwork” where matrimonial laws were determined by domicile, nationality, and religion. This created significant jurisdictional ambiguities that litigants, especially women, strategically exploited.
Indigenous actors learned to maneuver within this pluralistic legal order to serve their interests. For instance, the Khoja and Cutchi Memon communities successfully argued for the application of Hindu customs in matters of inheritance despite being Muslim.
The colonial state viewed these fluid legal systems and ambiguous identities with anxiety, striving to “stabilize social hierarchies” and push back against “subjects to misrepresent what the state believed was their true identity.”
This maneuvering led to increased formalization of rules and a move towards textual, rather than customary, law, which paradoxically created new avenues for strategic action.

Women’s Strategic Use of Conversion/Apostasy for Divorce:

For many women in colonial India, escaping a difficult marriage was exceptionally hard due to restrictive personal laws (e.g., classical Hindu law did not recognize divorce, Christian women faced stringent divorce grounds).
Conversion to a different religion, particularly Islam, or apostasy from Islam, became “almost the only way many women could escape an unhappy marriage.”
Islamic Gateway for Divorce: Prior to the DMMA, a wife’s conversion to Islam, followed by her husband’s refusal to convert, was a recognized ground for dissolution in Anglo-Muhammadan law. Similarly, apostasy from Islam by a Muslim woman was held to dissolve her marriage.
Colonial courts, in their “strict adherence to the letter of the ancient doctrine,” treated apostasy, traditionally a treasonable offense, as a “privilege” for Muslim women seeking divorce.
Judges largely refused to inquire into the “genuineness or otherwise of the conversion,” making the formal act sufficient for dissolution, even when motives were openly instrumental.
The Case of Vera Tiscenko (Noor Jehan Begum): Vera, a Polish actress, converted to Islam in Calcutta to dissolve her unhappy marriage to Eugene Tiscenko. Despite strong legal precedent, her influential connections, and her husband’s initial non-contest, the Calcutta High Court rejected her petition.
The court, led by Justice Edgley, declared the Islamic law rule allowing dissolution upon a wife’s conversion “obsolete and contrary to public policy,” marking a significant turning point.

Restructuring of the Legal Order: State and Public Responses:

Anxieties over Women’s Mobility and Communal Identity: The ability of women to “breach patriarchal authority and community boundaries caused severe anxieties.” In the late 1930s, fueled by rising communal violence and electoral politics, individual cases of conversion became “questions of national public debate.”
The Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act (DMMA), 1939: This act aimed to provide Muslim women with grounds for divorce (borrowing from Maliki law) and, crucially, to “remov[e] doubts as to the effect of the renunciation of Islam by a married Muslim woman on her marriage tie.”
Apostasy Clause (Section 4): The DMMA explicitly stated that “conversion of a married Muslim woman to a faith other than Islam shall not by itself operate to dissolve her marriage.” This radically altered the previous legal position.
The DMMA received broad political support due to the “fear of Muslim women leaving the fold” and discomfort with fragmented legal authority.
Hindu Opposition and Exceptions: Orthodox Hindu members opposed the apostasy clause, fearing it would prevent the “reclamation of Muslim women by other folds,” particularly Hindu women who had been forcibly converted and married to Muslims. An exception was added for “a woman converted to Islam from some other faith who re-embraces her former faith.”
The Impact of Tiscenko and the DMMA on Subsequent Conversions:The Tiscenko decision gained constitutional precedent, cited by Indian High Courts and later the Supreme Court, to deny divorce to Hindu, Jewish, and Zoroastrian women who converted to Islam.
Courts began interpreting the DMMA as a “sign for the times,” indicating a shift in public policy against allowing conversion to automatically dissolve prior marriages.
Judges increasingly questioned the “modern conception of marriage,” arguing that disharrmony, not conversion, should be the ground for divorce.
This shift reflected a change in “judicial sympathy from the woman trying to escape a difficult marriage towards the husband being placed at an unfavorable position due to the woman’s ‘capricious’ decision to convert.”

Judicial Paternalism and Textualism vs. Substantive Rationality:

Colonial judges, often influenced by “chivalric imperialism” and paternalism, sometimes subtly disregarded legislation or treatises to “redress the inferior position of women.” In apostasy cases, this meant adhering to a “textual reading of the position of law” rather than a more substantive interpretation.
However, the colonial judiciary was “extremely resistant to judicial creativity in the administration of Islamic law,” preferring a small corpus of “authoritative” translated texts. This rigid textualism, ironically, sometimes provided women with a clear legal path not available elsewhere.
The eventual closing of the “Islamic Gateway” for divorce through the Tiscenko decision and the DMMA demonstrates a move towards curtailing this strategic maneuvering.

Limited Relevance of Formal Legal Institutions:

Despite the legal battles and legislative changes, the article concludes by acknowledging the “limited relevance of formal legal institutions in ordering the lives of most Indians.”
The fact that Vera Tiscenko married Huseyn Suhrawardy in 1940, despite her legal defeat in the Calcutta High Court declaring her first marriage still subsistent, underscores this point.
Local communities and individuals often found their own solutions, and customary practices continued to operate, sometimes in parallel or defiance of formal state law.
The persistence of bigamy through conversion, even after Supreme Court rulings, further highlights this gap between formal law and social practice.

III. Key Facts and Quotes

Vera Tiscenko’s Background: Polish actress, formerly with Moscow Arts Theatre, married to Eugene Tiscenko (Russian emigre). Fled revolution, lived in Berlin, Spain, and Rome. Had a son, Oleg. Separated from husband, who went to Edinburgh.
Conversion to Islam: On June 27, 1940, Vera Tiscenko “of her own free will and after due deliberation” embraced Islam at Nakoda Mosque, Calcutta, becoming Noorjehan Begum.
Husband’s Refusal: Eugene Tiscenko “refused absolutely” to change his faith after Vera cabled him the news.
Traditional Islamic Law (Pre-DMMA): “when the wife becomes a convert to Islam and her husband remains an infidel, the Magistrate is to call upon the husband to embrace the faith also … if he refuses the Magistrate must separate them, and according to the Prophet and Abu Hanifa this separation constitutes a divorce.” (The Hedaya, cited by De, p. 1012).
The Tiscenko Decision (Noor Jehan Begum v. Eugene Tiscenko, 1942 A.LR. (Cal) 325): Justice Edgley ruled that “the rule of Mohammedan law on which she relies, must be regarded as obsolete and contrary to public policy.” (p. 1012).
Impact of Tiscenko: “This judgment marked a turning point in how the Indian judiciary viewed the relationship between marriage and religious affiliation. Prior to this, women who converted to Islam were held to have automatically dissolved their former marriages, but Tiscenko became the legal authority that would change the law in most provinces.” (p. 1013).
The “Islamic Gateway”: “It was the curious position of Islamic law in British India that allowed ‘apostasy,’ which was held to be a treasonable offence under traditional Islamic law, to become a device to dissolve an unhappy marriage.” (p. 1021).
Maulana Thanavi’s Fatwa (1931): Al-Hilat un-Najiza lil-Halitat al-‘Ajiza (“A Successful Legal Device for the Helpless Wife”) declared that apostasy would no longer annul a Muslim marriage but recommended borrowing from Maliki law for other divorce grounds.
Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act (DMMA), 1939 – Section 4: “conversion of a married Muslim woman to a faith other than Islam shall not by itself operate to dissolve her marriage,” with an exception for women “converted to Islam from some other faith who re-embraces her former faith.” (p. 1027, 1029).
Judicial Resistance to “Genuineness” Inquiry (pre-DMMA): Justice Dalip Singh (Lahore High Court, 1928) ruled that it “was immaterial whether her motive was a genuine conversion or a mere device to get rid of her husband.” (p. 1023). Justice Din Mohammad (Lahore High Court, 1937) stated, “to probe and to try to ascertain the true nature of one’s disbelief is sheer intermeddling, not justifiable on any ground.” (p. 1024).
Post-DMMA Shift in Judicial Interpretation: Justice Chagla, rejecting a Zoroastrian woman’s petition, cited the DMMA’s apostasy provision as “a clear and emphatic indication that the Indian legislature has departed from the rigor of the ancient Muslim law and has taken a more modem view that there is nothing to prevent a happy marriage … between persons of different faiths.” (p. 1033).
Atreyee Devi’s Case (1949): An 18-year-old Brahmin woman, fleeing domestic violence, converted to Islam at Nakoda Mosque and successfully obtained a dissolution. Justice Ormond highlighted the violence she faced and the lack of recourse in Hindu law.
Role of Nakoda Mosque, Calcutta: The mosque served as a significant site for conversions for both Vera Tiscenko and Atreyee Devi, with identical conversion certificates issued by its Imam.
Outcome for Vera Tiscenko: Despite her legal defeat, “Vera married Huseyn Suhrawardy in 1940. She gave birth to a son, but their marriage was a difficult one and ended in a divorce in 1951.” (p. 1041).

Bottom of Form

16. India’s Supreme Court Workload: A Time-Driven Analysis

Top of Form

This research paper presents a novel empirical analysis of the Supreme Court of India’s (SCI) workload, focusing on hearing time rather than just the count of cases. The authors developed a new dataset, “Supreme Court Hearing Time,” by capturing the duration of each case hearing using the SCI’s public display board, enriched with cause list and case status information. Applying the weighted caseload method, the study concludes that the SCI faces an unsustainable workload given its existing resources and efficiency, experiencing a significant time deficiency in disposing of incoming and pending cases. The paper also empirically evaluates common suggestions to reduce pendency, finding that while increasing judge strength and eliminating vacations can help, the sheer volume of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) remains a critical factor. The authors advocate for broader implementation of time data collection to inform evidence-based policy making for the entire Indian judicial system.

II. Main Themes and Key Findings

A. The Problem of Judicial Pendency in India

Crippling Issue: Judicial pendency is identified as “one of the most crippling problems faced by the Indian legal system today.”
Scale of the Problem: Official sources estimate “more than 27 million cases are pending in all courts in India,” with the SCI alone reporting “a pendency of 55,817 cases, many of them more than five-years old.”
Prior Limitations in Research: Scholarly work on pendency in Indian courts has been scarce due to a “lack of data.” Existing approaches, which primarily use “the count of cases as their primary measure,” are insufficient as they “miss the fact that the capacity of the Court is largely time driven.”

B. Novel Methodology: Time-Driven Analysis

Limitations of Case Count: The authors argue that merely “stating that a court has a certain number of cases pending is insufficient to make accurate inferences about the court’s congestion, capacity or efficiency.” This is because cases vary greatly in complexity and the time judges allocate to them is a “scarce resource.”
“Supreme Court Hearing Time” Dataset: The study introduces a new dataset created by:
Using a cloud software to record timestamps of changes on the SCI’s public display board, effectively acting as a “stop-watch” for each hearing.
Mapping this hearing duration data to daily cause lists to add parameters like date, case number, case-type, bench strength, and judges.
Enriching the data by scraping the SCI’s case status page for information on orders, admission status, and subject matter.
“Judge Time” Measure: To account for varying judicial resources, the dataset incorporates “judge time,” which is the “duration of the case multiplied by the number of judges on the bench.”
Weighted Caseload Method: The study applies the “weighted caseload method,” considered preferable for heterogeneous courts, to analyze disposal rate, pendency, and congestion by calculating the “average amount of judge time per hearing in each type of case.”
Data Period and Sample Size: The dataset covers “28 January 2016 to 5 December 2016” and includes “54,164 hearings.”

C. Workload Analysis and Time Deficiency

Average Hearing Time: On average, the SCI hears any given case for “around 7 and half minutes,” with most hearings taking “less than 3 minutes.”
Average Judge Time per Hearing: Due to most cases being heard by two-judge benches, “judge time is around twice the hearing time,” averaging “around 17 judge minutes for each hearing.”
Average Number of Hearings: The SCI takes “2.24 hearings to dispose of any given case,” with criminal appeals requiring the most (3.3 hearings) and Writ Petitions (Civil) the least (1.87 hearings).
Disposal Time per Case Type: The average time to dispose of any case is “35 judge minutes.” Criminal appeals demand the most court resources at “125 judge minutes,” while Transfer Petitions require the least at “8 judge minutes.”
Impact of SLPs: Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) are a critical factor. Admitted SLPs require “around 5 times as many resources than those which are not admitted.”
Time Deficiency: In 2016, the SCI experienced a “time deficiency of 401 hours” under the actual efficiency model (18,980 available judge hours vs. 19,380 required judge hours for incoming cases). This means that with existing resources and actual efficiency, “the court can never clear its pendency docket.”
Pending Cases: To clear all cases pending at the time of data collection, the model predicts “44,900 judge hours” would be required if the SCI had one judge.
Break-Even Point (Ideal Efficiency): Hypothetically, if the SCI worked at ideal efficiency and with constant incoming cases, it would take “20 years to clear the docket.”

D. Evaluating Solutions to Reduce Pendency

Appointing More Judges:Sanctioned Strength (31 judges): Merely filling vacancies up to the sanctioned strength would increase available judge time by “15.5%.” At actual efficiency, the court would “break-even in 18 years.”
Increasing Sanctioned Strength/Ad-hoc Judges: Appointing “12 additional judges” above the sanctioned strength would bring the break-even point down to “5 years at actual efficiency.”
No Evidence of Decreased Disposal Rate: The study found no evidence that adding judges leads to individual judges increasing their hearing time and maintaining the overall disposal rate.
Eliminating Court Vacations:Assuming judicial efficiency does not drop, removing vacations (61 days in 2016, excluding holidays/weekends) would reduce the break-even time to “4 years” at sanctioned strength and actual efficiency.
Removing SLP Jurisdiction:SLPs “contribute disproportionately to the workload,” forming “63% of the incoming resource load.” Abolishing all future SLPs would allow the SCI to “break-even within 4 years” at sanctioned strength and actual efficiency.
However, this would require a “major constitutional amendment” and radically reorganize the judicial process, as SLPs are often the “last judicial remedy” for litigants.
Reducing SLP Admission Rates:The SCI, on average, admitted “around 21% of all SLP’s filed” from 2009-2014. If this rate were halved, the court would “break-even in 9 years” at sanctioned strength and actual efficiency.
SLP admittance rates have “declined dramatically over the last decade,” but the SCI often functions as a “people’s court” for “case-by-case error correction,” unlike courts focused solely on “norm-creation.”
Accounting for Increase in Incoming Docket:The number of incoming cases has shown an increasing trend since 2001. If this continues, merely appointing sanctioned judges will be insufficient, leading to a time-deficiency from 2018.
A combination of solutions – “appointing judges up to the sanctioned strength, reducing the vacation to 30 days and appointing 5 additional judges” – could bring the break-even point down to “6 years” and allow the SCI to handle its load till “at least 2030.”

III. Importance and Policy Implications

Evidence-Based Policy Making: The study’s methodology provides a robust framework for “evidence-based policy making” in the judiciary, moving beyond anecdotal observations.
Constitutional Bench Trade-offs: The “hearing time dataset allows us to calculate the trade-off precisely” when constituting constitutional benches (which require five judges), enabling Chief Justices to make “more informed decisions.”
Applicability to Lower Courts: The “display board technique can also be used to make policy decisions beyond the SCI,” particularly for determining “ideal number of judges required for the district court,” addressing a recognized data gap.
Evaluating Judicial Institutional Design: Time and work analysis can “compare and evaluate the varied design choices of judicial institutions,” such as the impact of time limits on oral hearings (e.g., SCI vs. US Supreme Court) on efficiency and quality of decision-making.

IV. Limitations of the Study

Exclusion of Non-Hearing Time: The study’s workload definition is limited to “oral hearing time” and does not include “non-court litigation time” (e.g., judge preparation, chamber time for review/curative petitions, registry work).
Minimum Time Reflection: The minimum time change reflected in the data is 7 seconds, meaning cases heard for less than 7 seconds are recorded as 7 seconds.
Lunch Recess Ambiguity: The display board sometimes remains on during lunch breaks for long hearings, making it unclear if the court actually recessed and for how long.
Exclusion of Pronouncement of Decisions: Cases listed for pronouncement of decisions are not tracked, as the display board could not show alphanumeric item numbers during data collection. However, these are “few in number” and spend “relatively little time.”

This detailed briefing highlights the critical insights from the study, emphasizing the need for a time-centric approach to understanding and addressing judicial pendency in India.

Bottom of Form

17. India’s Supreme Court: An Identity Crisis

Top of Form

The Indian Supreme Court is facing an identity crisis, struggling to balance its role as a constitutional court and a court of appeals. Its expansive discretionary appellate jurisdiction, particularly through Special Leave Petitions (SLPs), has “cannibalized” its capacity to function effectively as a constitutional court. This has led to delays in constitutional cases, decisions by smaller benches than constitutionally mandated, and sometimes poorly reasoned judgments that disregard precedents.

Key Themes:

Identity Crisis and Overburdened Docket:

The Indian Supreme Court (SC) uniquely combines the roles of a final appellate court and a constitutional court, unlike some other liberal democracies with distinct apex courts.
It is arguably the world’s “most powerful final court” due to its influence, indifference to separation of powers, ability to strike down legislation, and control over judicial appointments.
Despite this power and its mandate to defend the Constitution, its appellate function has “decimated its capacity to function as an effective constitutional court.”
The SC has a “staggering appellate docket,” with an overwhelming majority of its work comprising ordinary appellate matters rather than constitutional issues. In 2011, 84.6% of newly-instituted cases were SLPs, while only 1.8% were writs.
The bulk of SLP adjudication is for “error-correction in particular cases,” not “norm-setting or norm-clarifying purposes.” Only a small percentage (less than 4%) of admitted SLPs involve a constitutional challenge.

Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) and Admission Standards:

The SC’s discretionary “special leave jurisdiction” (under Article 136) allows appeals against any order from any court in India (excluding military courts).
The Constituent Assembly intended for this jurisdiction to be used cautiously with clear guidelines. However, the SC has been “astonishingly liberal” in invoking it and has “consistently refused to frame any meaningful guidelines to constrain its discretion.”
The doctrinal standard for admitting an SLP is “exceptionally high,” requiring “exceptional and special circumstances,” “substantial and grave injustice,” and “features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review.” A mere error in law or fact is not enough.
In practice, the SC applies a “relatively generous admission practice,” appearing to use a lower “reasonable-prospect-of-success standard” instead of the stricter doctrinal one. The average SLP admission rate in the study was 18.9%.
The “relatively low reversal rate of 59.4%” for admitted SLPs (compared to around 70% in Israeli and US Supreme Courts) further suggests an “unduly high admission rate.” This indicates that cases admitted are not necessarily those with an exceptionally high likelihood of success.

Impact on Constitutional Watchdog Role and Judicial Quality:

The “massive docket, and its domination by SLPs, creates a time-starved court,” leading to systemic pathologies:
Poor or no reasons for decisions: especially from ordinary benches (two or three judges).
Polyvocal Court: frequently ignoring stare decisis (precedent).
Constitutional matters by ordinary benches: “increasingly decides constitutionally salient matters through ordinary benches rather than the constitutionally mandated five-judge constitutional benches.” The percentage of cases heard by constitution benches dropped from 15.5% (1950–54) to 0.12% (2005–09).
Significant delays: affecting both SLPs and “constitutionally critical cases.” The median admitted SLP takes four years and four months from filing to final disposition.
The Koushal v Naz judgment (recriminalizing homosexuality) is cited as a “symptomatic” example of these problems, demonstrating poor reasoning, disregard for fundamental rights of minorities, and significant judicial delay. The judgment was later described as “perverse,” “highly unsustainable,” “retrograde,” and “fallacious” by a later Constitution Bench.
Judicial delay in constitutional matters not only impacts parties but also affects “many others” and can strain “the very nature of democratic governance in India.”

Role of Senior Advocates:

Empirical analysis of 1100 civil SLP cases over 11 years reveals a “statistically significant, positive, relationship” between the presence of a “senior advocate” during the admissions hearing and the likelihood of a case being admitted.
The admission rate for cases where both sides had senior advocates was 52.3%, significantly higher than the 13.7% when no senior advocate was present.
The study found that the presence of a senior advocate “is a bad predictor for the likelihood of eventual success of the case.” In fact, cases admitted without senior advocate intervention had a higher reversal rate (65.6%) than those with senior advocates present at the admission hearing.
This suggests that “senior advocates are a significant contributor to the transformation of the SC from a constitutional court to an an appellate court.” They “substantially increase the process costs of SLPs without any substantive payoffs.”

Most Important Ideas/Facts:

Dual Role and Imbalance: The Indian Supreme Court’s unique combination of appellate and constitutional functions, with a severe imbalance favoring the former, is at the core of its “identity crisis.”
SLP Dominance: Special Leave Petitions constitute the vast majority of the SC’s docket (84.6% of new cases in 2011), diverting resources from its constitutional duties.
Diluted Admission Standards: Despite a high doctrinal bar for SLP admission, the SC applies a more permissive standard in practice, leading to an admission rate of nearly 19% for SLPs and a relatively low reversal rate of 59.4% for admitted cases.
Erosion of Constitutional Function: The overwhelming appellate docket leads to delayed constitutional cases, decisions by smaller and less authoritative benches, inconsistent judgments, and poor reasoning, directly hindering the SC’s role as a “constitutional watchdog.”
Influence of Senior Advocates: The presence of a senior advocate at an SLP admission hearing has a “statistically significant, positive, relationship” with the likelihood of admission, regardless of which party they represent. However, this presence is “a bad predictor for the likelihood of eventual success of the case,” indicating a “docket-distorting role.”
Judicial Delays: The median admitted SLP takes “four years and four months” for final disposition, exacerbating process costs for litigants, especially when interim relief is granted.
Decline of Constitution Benches: The proportion of cases heard by constitution benches has drastically fallen from 15.5% (1950-54) to 0.12% (2005-09), indicating a severe neglect of complex constitutional issues.

Reform Proposals:

Institutional Bifurcation: The article “endorses the proposals to institutionally bifurcate the SC into an appellate division – to sit in four zonal benches around the country – and a constitutional division.” This would allow the SC to better manage its SLP jurisdiction and discharge its constitutional duty.
Clearer Jurisdictional Rules: Any institutional separation would require “clearer rules rather than discretionary standards” for jurisdictional reallocation, with a detailed list of cases essential for constitutional defense to be heard by a constitutional bench (five or more judges).
Addressing Senior Advocate Influence:“Either a total ban on the appearance of senior advocates for admission hearings” for civil SLPs.
“Or a move to admission decisions based on written briefs for the vast majority of civil SLPs,” with judicial clerks assisting.
Revised Admissibility Criteria:The constitutional division should apply a “straightforward reasonable-prospect-of-success standard.”
The appellate division should admit petitions only if there’s a “reasonable prospect of succeeding,” the High Court refused to certify it for appeal, and at least one of seven specific conditions (e.g., public importance, error of law, novel legal issue, conflict with precedent, life/liberty interference) is met. This would require High Courts to provide reasoned decisions on certification requests.

The document concludes by emphasizing that the “distorting role played by senior advocates is a serious institutional concern that needs an urgent response” and that the SC’s role in “protecting its key constitutional values may well determine the fate of the idea of India.”

18. Justice as a Secret: Compromise in Rape Trials

This article by Pratiksha Baxi explores the pervasive “culture of compromise” (or samadhan) in rape prosecutions in India, particularly in Gujarat. Baxi argues that this phenomenon, though legally prohibited in rape cases, operates as a form of “public secret”—knowledge that is widely known but strategically unacknowledged within the legal system. This culture of compromise is not an abuse of power but rather “indispensable to the operation of power,” allowing the legal process to adapt to and reinforce existing social hierarchies, especially those related to caste and honor. The article highlights how compromise manipulates testimonies, transforms criminal trials into sites of negotiation, and ultimately effaces the victim’s subjectivity and the reality of violence from official legal records.

II. Main Themes and Core Arguments

1. The “Culture of Compromise” as a “Public Secret”

Definition and Illegality: “Compromise” (or samadhan) refers to out-of-court settlements in criminal trials. Crucially, it is not legal in rape cases in India as rape is classified as a non-compoundable crime under Sections 320 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), meaning the state is the sole arbitrator. However, despite its illegality, compromise “permeates both the trial and appellate courts.”
Secrecy as Power: Baxi uses Michael Taussig’s concept of “public secrecy” to explain how compromise functions. It is “knowing what not to know.” The secret of compromise is not destroyed by utterance but is “subjected to a specific revelation in court” through prosecution witnesses turning hostile, leading to acquittals based on “lack of evidence.”
Effacement from Records: “Trial transcripts or trial court judgements do not record these as ‘compromise cases’ except as a residue via the category of hostility.” This effacement in law is perceived, paradoxically, to perform “social justice” by restoring social relations.

2. Compromise as a Tool of Pressure and Coercion

Weapon for Defense: “During the trial, compromise acts as a tool in the hands of defence lawyers and the accused to pressurise complainants and victims to change their testimonies in a courtroom.”
Consequences for Victims: The pressure to compromise can have devastating effects, as illustrated by the Agra case where a gang-rape victim committed suicide after threats of re-rape if she did not compromise. The judgment in that case acknowledged the suicide due to pressure but “does not criminalise the pressure to compromise as criminal intimidation of the victim and her family.”
Lack of Witness Protection: The “normalising function of the socio-legal category of compromise converts terror into a bargain in a context where there is no witness protection programme.”

3. Blurring Lines: Consent, Coercion, Love, and Caste

Seduction vs. Rape: Compromise often arises in cases where “it is difficult to read the distinction between consent and coercion from the legal records.” These cases frequently involve “seduction, love and illicit sex,” often blurring the lines between consensual elopement and abduction/rape.
Criminalization of Love: “Police complaints on the charge of kidnapping, abduction, rape and theft are routinely filed against couples who elope.” This is especially true when the man is from a different community or lower caste. “Thereby the distinction between elopement and abduction, or rape and consensual sex is blurred by this criminalisation of love and seduction.”
Caste and Honor: The “construction of rape as a sexual offence, which is concerned with offences against codes of alliance rather than concerned with the bodily integrity of all women, allows for this criminalisation of love.” Caste violence is particularly stark in “hypogamous unions” (upper caste women and lower caste men), where “the distinction between love and consensual sex on the one hand and rape, on the other hand, is not socially intelligible.” Control of female sexuality is “central to the enforcement of caste norms.”

4. The Victim’s Effaced Subjectivity and the “Good Future”

Dissonance of Legal and Social Realities: The article highlights the “dissonance between what is legally constituted as rape and the social uses the rape law is put to.”
Coercion of Testimony: In the Sandhya case, police statements from Sandhya and Daya present conflicting narratives—one of elopement/consent, another of seduction/force. The police records “blur what may constitute consent and violation to the extent that it is impossible to read Sandhya’s subjectivity from the police records.”
Fathering a “Good Future”: For the complainant-father, Purshottambhai, ensuring a “good future” for his daughter Sandhya meant marrying her off and keeping the past incident a “secret within the extended family.” The “constant danger of word leaking out institutes structures of paranoia in the domestic.” Compromise, in his view, was about “restoring social honour to him in the neighbourhood where his sons’ future has to be secured.”
Sandhya’s Silence: In court, Sandhya’s testimony, after the compromise, consisted of silence or denials of any relationship or wrongdoing by the accused. Her “silence is translated for the court record as a denial of previous statements made to the police that the event happened.” This creates an “archive of effacement where hostility is the residue,” rendering the court record empty of the actual event.

5. Legal System’s Complicity and Justifications

Judicial Precedent for Reduced Sentences: While rape is non-compoundable, appellate courts have accepted victim affidavits pardoning the accused to “determine the quantum of punishment,” sometimes reducing sentences to time already served. The Supreme Court in Sukhwinder Singh vs State of Punjab, 2000, saw compromise as an “adequate and sufficient reason” for sentence reduction.
Prosecutorial Weakness and “Hue and Cry” Doctrine: Prosecutors like Hirabhai counsel compromise because they believe the prosecution’s case is weak, often citing factors like the victim not “raising a hue and cry,” previous sexual activity (“habituated to sex”), or the victim being above the age of statutory rape. The “hue and cry” doctrine, rooted in common law, implies an inference adverse to the prosecution if the rape is not immediately reported.
Police Role in Maintaining Secrecy: The court constable, Ashokbhai, articulated his duty as “to prevent the witness from turning hostile” and understood the need to operate in “civil dress” when dealing with the family to avoid public exposure and protect the family’s “abru (honour).” This shows how law enforcement actively participates in managing the “public secret.”
“Restoring Social Relations”: Legality is “perceived as disruptive of sociality,” particularly caste-based patriarchies. Compromise is actively seen, even by some judges, as a “mechanism for ‘restoring social relations in society’.”

III. Key Facts and Important Ideas

Illegality of Compromise in Rape Cases (India): Rape is a non-compoundable crime under Sections 320 (1) and (2) CrPC, meaning out-of-court settlements are not legally permissible.
“Public Secret”: The core concept explaining how widely known, yet unacknowledged, practices of compromise operate within the legal system without being explicitly recorded.
Hostile Witnesses: The primary legal manifestation of a “compromise case” in court records, where prosecution witnesses retract their initial statements.
Caste and “Honor Killing” Dynamics: The criminalization of love, especially in inter-caste unions, demonstrates how rape law is manipulated to enforce caste norms and “codes of alliance.”
The “Two-Finger Test”: The medico-legal examination of rape victims, which in Sandhya’s case “revealed old hymeneal tears,” is mentioned as part of the legal process, despite its controversial nature and often irrelevant findings regarding consent.
“Hue and Cry” Doctrine: A historical legal concept still implicitly used in Indian law to question the credibility of a rape victim if the incident is not immediately reported or if “she roamed about without raising a hue and cry.”
Effacement of Victim’s Subjectivity: The legal process, through compromise, actively removes the victim’s agency, experience of violence, or even consensual desire from the official record, reducing her testimony to silence or denials.
Normalizing Terror: The “normalising function of the socio-legal category of compromise converts terror into a bargain.”

IV. Case Study: Purshottambhai and Sandhya

The Incident: Sandhya, a minor from an upper-caste “Maharaj” community, elopes with Daya, a 22-year-old father of two from a Scheduled Caste (SC) “Senava” community. Her father, Purshottambhai, lodges a complaint of abduction, kidnapping, and rape.
Caste Dynamics: Purshottambhai explicitly invokes caste norms, stating, “We are Maharaj and they are Senava… We do not have any sambandh (relationship) with them, none of drinking their water or giving them our water to drink. No relationship. They are SC.” He attributes Sandhya’s actions to “maulik kriya (black magic)” by the SC man.
Conflicting Police Statements: Sandhya and Daya give multiple police statements: one suggesting elopement and consensual sex, another detailing seduction and forcible sexual intercourse with declarations of love. These are not chronological but coexist, highlighting the legal system’s anticipation of different “futures.”
Police Coercion: The police admit to beating both Sandhya and Daya (“Did maar peet”) to elicit statements. Sandhya subsequently states she wants to live with her father.
The Father’s Shame and “Good Future”: Purshottambhai experiences profound shame and anxiety, fearing exposure would “poison” his daughter’s married life and his family’s reputation. He dyes his hair for the trial to project an image of strength.
Court Constable’s Role: Ashokbhai, the court constable, dresses in “civil dress” when visiting the family to maintain their “honour” and prevent the community from knowing about police involvement. His duty is to ensure the witness (Sandhya) does not “turn hostile” to the father’s case.
The Compromise Negotiation: Attempts at compromise are made by Daya’s side, initially rebuffed by Purshottambhai due to perceived disrespect regarding timing and initiation.
Prosecutor’s Counsel: The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Hirabhai advises compromise because he believes the prosecution’s case is weak, citing lack of “hue and cry,” Sandhya being “habituated to sex” (based on the two-finger test findings), and her age being above 16 (making consent an issue). He explicitly states, “If any one xeroxes the testimony, no one would come to know anything,” highlighting the goal of effacing the secret.
Sandhya’s Testimony: In court, Sandhya’s testimony is marked by silence and denials. When asked if the accused “did any kharab kam (wrong doing) against your wish with you?” she remains “silent.” The judge records, “That the accused has done any kharab kam against my wishes, such thing has not happened.”
Acquittal: Daya is ultimately acquitted due to “not sufficient evidence,” with key witnesses declared hostile. The legal record, therefore, contains no mention of compromise or the initial allegations of rape.

19. Qualitative Methods for Social Activism Research

Qualitative research methods are primarily designed to gain “insight into the processes involved in co-constructions of meaning, lived experiences, cultural rituals, and oppressive practices.” While methods are tools, methodologies are guiding frameworks that steer their use. This chapter aims to provide a comprehensive review of these methods for scholars across all methodological positions.

Key Distinction:

Methods: Tools and processes (e.g., interviews, focus groups).
Methodologies: Guiding frameworks (e.g., Feminist methodology) that inform the use of methods.

II. The Influence of Methodology on Method

Methodology significantly influences the application and goals of qualitative methods. Feminist methodology, for example, grounded in “an ontological and epistemological vision focused primarily on patriarchal power structures and the lives of women (and minorities) who are marginalized and silenced,” guides researchers to use methods not just for information extraction but for empowerment.

Key Tenets of Feminist Methodology & Standpoint Theory:

Focus: Patriarchal power structures and marginalized lives.
Goals: Help women gain a voice, build understanding of power structures, and confront oppressive practices.
Application (Examples):Interviews: Not just to elicit information, but to help women “gain a voice and build an understanding about the power structures around them.”
Focus Groups: Conducted to allow women and marginalized people to “talk among themselves and develop an understanding about the circumstances of their cultural location,” fostering community.
Examples in Practice:Jenna Stephenson-Abetz (2012): Interviewed daughters to show how “feminist consciousness is passed on and evolves,” focusing on relationships and community building.
Suzanne Enck and Blake McDaniel (2015): Interviews with incarcerated women aimed not only at eliciting information but also at “helping the women to build knowledge and skills in communication and storytelling.”

III. Formulating Research Questions

Well-formulated research questions are crucial as they guide the project and lay the foundation for a larger research agenda. They must be “clear and concise and use terms that are well established, defined, and understood.”

Four Essential Steps for Formulating Research Questions on Social Activism (Recap 3-1):

Identify the activists: This can be complex, differentiating between an “attribute model” (based on actions) and a “conjunctive model” (based on affiliation).
Note what makes them activists: Justify the classification.
Relate their activism to a research site: Four primary sites are identified: organizations, networks, protests and events, and alternative media. This helps narrow the scope and situate the project.
Distinguish the primary unit of analysis: Subjects to be examined (e.g., media subjects, texts, narratives, performances).

Example: Atkinson’s (2009a) question: “What problems have arisen in the Erie City new social movement network to hinder the emergence of a multiplex?”

Activists: Those affiliated with activist groups in Erie.
Activism: Group affiliation or alliance.
Research Site: Network of organizations in Erie.
Unit of Analysis: Hindrances to coordinated resistance discussed in activist interviews.

IV. Interviews and Focus Groups

These are the “most prevalent qualitative methods” for scholars focused on social construction and negotiation of meaning, often supplementing quantitative research.

A. Interviews

Structured Interviews:Process: Highly dependent on a strict “schedule of questions,” asked exactly as worded and ordered.
Advantages: Well-organized data, aids constant comparative process, easier to train assistants.
Disadvantages: Can create redundancy, formal approach can be “off-putting to activists.”
Unstructured Interviews (Unstandardized/Ethnographic):Process: Uses a “subject guide” with important topics, allowing researchers freedom to move through topics conversationally.
Advantages: More conversational and relaxed, allows for probing questions and organic research growth.
Disadvantages: May require backtracking to previous participants for new subjects, data can be “quite ‘messy'” for analysis, difficult to make comparisons across interviews.
Goals for Qualitative Interviews:Gain Descriptive Information (Researcher as Miner): Seeks direct answers to specific questions about a subject or phenomenon.
Method: Survey interview (informant interview), typically structured.
Example: Click and Ridberg (2010) used 15 open-ended questions in structured survey interviews to gather descriptions of food values, preservation activities, participation in food movements, and hopes for the future of food.
Allow for Participants to Tell Stories (Researcher as Traveler): Seeks narratives to gain insight into lived experiences and meaning-making processes.
Method: Postmodern interviewing (long interview, active interview, respondent/narrative interview), conducive to unstructured format.
Focus: Intersubjective co-construction and interpretation of meaning, giving participants “agency” to relay stories.
Example: Sara DeTurk’s (2011) research on allies against racism used broad questions like “How did you become an ally?” to elicit storytelling and insight into experiences and knowledge, revealing an “ally identity.”

B. Focus Groups (Group Interviews)

Process: Conversation between researcher and multiple participants, can be structured or unstructured.
Uses:Time constraints (efficient for multiple participants).
Brainstorming: Gaining insight into an organization or community for research question structuring.
Understanding group and organizational dynamics: Observing “stark differences in the surface structures and deep structures.”
Example: P. Vigneswara Ilavarasan (2013) used six focus group discussions to explore Indian youth groups’ views on civic engagement, political institutions, and ICT use, finding descriptive information about their activism.
Potential Drawbacks:“Deep group structures” or dominant individual roles can prevent silent participants from speaking up, hindering data collection.
Researcher may need to act as a “mediator and actually step into conflicts with participants.”

V. Ethnography and Fieldwork

Ethnography provides firsthand experience and immersion into participants’ communities, elucidating intersubjectivity and co-construction of meaning.

A. Ethnography and Participant Observation

Definition: “Documenting and illuminating some culturally embedded social system.” It’s a combination of methods (interviews, conversations, textual analysis) within a research site.
Key Aspect: Researchers “immerse themselves within the complex minutiae of an organization or a community,” living “intimately inside the life space of the cultural members.”
Distinction from Interviews/Focus Groups: Seeks “firsthand observation of lived experiences” rather than narratives about them.
Duration: Typically requires a “protracted period of time,” often “at least one to two years,” to achieve full immersion and understanding.
Value for Activism Research: Allows observation of “specific processes of meaning-making” and emergent socially constructed reality, uncovering “taken-for-granted nuances” often missed in interviews.
Example: Christina Dunbar-Hester (2012) volunteered with a pirate radio collective for years, observing interactions and participating in activities. She found that members constructed a “technical identity” based on their work with radio and ICT.

B. Ethnographic Narrative Excavation

Purpose: For studying “nonroutine public events” or temporary communities when extended ethnography is not feasible due to limited duration.
Process: Researcher engages in conversations, observations, and participation during the event, similar to ethnography but within a shorter timeframe. This allows reconstruction of events from participants’ perspectives, outside of media elite narratives.
Value for Activism Research: Ideal for examining protests or short-term activist communities, providing a richer understanding of meaning-making processes and socially constructed reality.
Example: Atkinson (2009b) used ethnographic narrative excavation to study a “Truth Excursion” to Zapatista communities, demonstrating how activists reinterpreted Zapatista resistance through their own middle-class conceptualizations.

VI. Qualitative Research Online

Given the increasing Internet orientation of activist groups, conducting research online is vital.

A. Benefits:

Reduced Tensions: Physical distance can make participants feel more at ease, “dilut[ing] the effects of power relations within the setting.”
Participant Control: Perceived distance can give participants a “sense of control over the situation.”

B. Limitations:

Communication Mediums:Synchronous (e.g., Skype, chat rooms): Lack of “feedback tokens” (e.g., furrowed brow, hand gestures) can lead to missed cues about understanding or discomfort.
Asynchronous (e.g., email, social media, listservs): Sporadic communication can be very time-consuming, potentially taking “months,” and leading to “participant attrition.”
Defining Online Communities: Researchers must establish “proper boundaries” (temporal, spatial, relational) for “online communities” which exist both “on- and offline.”
Spatial boundaries: Interactions offline and the community’s role in members’ interactions with the wider world.
Temporal boundaries: Time available for study and the community’s existence duration.
Relational boundaries: Researcher’s ability to build relationships with members.
Technical Familiarity: Researchers should understand the software used and “cultural rules” (e.g., avatar development, communication etiquette).
Example: J. Patrick Biddix and Han Woo Park (2008) conducted electronic interviews via instant messaging and email with activists in an online student protest at Harvard, revealing challenges faced in the online protest community.

VII. Textual Analysis

This involves gathering information from texts to gain insight into their role in society or communities. It is strictly for scholars grounded in methodological positions focused on social construction.

A. Qualitative Content Analysis

Goal: To uncover “underlying meanings” (latent meanings) embedded within a text, rather than just manifest meanings (frequencies of terms).
Contrast with Quantitative Content Analysis: Quantitative focuses on counting “manifest meanings” (concrete terms or themes) and statistical analysis.
Processes:Close reading by researcher: Efficient but susceptible to missed details or researcher bias.
Use of coders: Advantageous for demonstrating similar conclusions, requires thorough training and establishing “inter-coder reliability” (e.g., Holsti’s formula, >80% agreement).
Modes of Application (Mayring):Deductive Category Application: Uses “categorical frames that have been prepared prior to the analysis” to find elements that fit. Categories are broad and can emerge in various ways (e.g., searching for “activism” in its diverse forms).
Example: Atkinson and Rosati (2012) used topographical categories (landmarks, districts, nodes, pathways, edges) to analyze discussions about Detroit’s cityscape in an online forum, revealing embedded meanings.
Inductive Category Development: Forms categories based on criteria that emerge from the theoretical background or research questions. Involves “examination of texts in an effort to discern narrative components” and developing categories through constant comparison.
Example: Linda Kenix (2009) used an inductive approach to examine narratives within political blogs to determine if they were “alternative,” reading posts with a “loose, preconceived idea of the discursive elements.”

B. Rhetorical Criticism

Goal: Interpretation of a text and explanation of “how it should be read and comprehended within a larger social context.” It explains how a text functions, while qualitative content analysis explains what is in it.
Historical Roots: Ancient debates between Plato and sophists, Aristotle’s The Rhetoric.
Key Traditions:Neo-Aristotelian Criticism: Examines “proofs (logical, emotional) and rhetorical settings (forensic, deliberative, epideictic)” and style of delivery, typically for speeches but expanded to other texts.
Example: Kendall Phillips (2005) examined horror films for proofs to argue how filmmakers reflect societal fears.
Dramatism (Kenneth Burke): Treats rhetorical acts as “performances” where rhetors build identification and create “equipment for living” through language. Language “constitute[s] a kind of screen that directs attention to particular aspects of reality.”
Narrative Paradigm (Walter Fisher): People build communities through narratives (stories) that “create meaning about different aspects of the world” and “shape the interpretive process.”
Example: The “immaculate reception” story or the “Pearl Harbor” analogy for 9/11 illustrate how narratives shape interpretation and memory.
Ideograph (Michael McGee): Explores “abstract political concepts, such as liberty or equality,” which, despite their abstract nature, are used to create “a sense of shared meaning and understanding of the world,” persuading people to accept political positions.
Example: Jennifer Peeples (2011) showed how “downwind” became an ideograph for environmental activists, combining toxins, victims, and physical sites to create a shared sense of impending danger.
Constitutive Rhetoric (James White, Maurice Charland): Rhetoric “calls a particular audience into being by helping to establish identity,” “hailing” them into discourse or action.
Example: West (2007) used rhetorical criticism to explore cookbooks by a “maternal pacifist” group, revealing how feminist activism and pacifism extended into the home and shaped political identity.

VIII. Data Management and Analysis

Data, as “textual, aural, and/or visual records of the object and process of research activity,” needs systematic management and analysis.

A. Data Management (Data Reduction)

Initiation: Begins at the project’s inception by choosing a conceptual framework, research questions, cases, and instruments.
Ongoing Process: Involves “data summaries, coding, finding themes, clustering, and writing stories” as data is collected.
Key Strategies:Asides: Brief analytical notes to connect emerging concepts.
Commentaries: Longer reflections on connections between data, theories, or concepts.
In-process memos: Lengthy discussions written after reviewing all materials, focusing on emergent concepts, themes, or categories in-depth.
Purpose: Consolidate information, prevent overwhelm, and aid the initial stages of analysis.

B. Data Analysis (Data Display & Conclusion Drawing)

Data Display: Compiling reduced data (concepts, examples) for easy review and identifying connections.
Conclusion Drawing: Interpreting data to describe meaning/phenomenon, build new theories, or expand existing ones.
Modes of Analysis:Thematic Analysis: Identifies “broad patterns of meaning that exist within the data” (overarching themes) and examines how they repeat, who discusses them, and in what ways, to provide rich descriptions.
Fantasy Theme Analysis: Explores meaning usage and the “functions of those meanings within larger worldviews,” built on the concept of symbolic convergence. Researchers look for “characteristics of stories that are passed around a community or culture” (characters, settings, actions) that “chain” from one person/group to another, forming a “rhetorical vision” or shared worldview.
Grounded Theory Analysis: A method of theory development where data collection, analysis, and theory are in close relationship. It aims to “flesh out the structure and the processes of a phenomenon” to build or expand conceptual frameworks.
Constant Comparative Method: Ongoing interplay between researchers and data, drawing comparisons throughout the process.
Concurrent Phases:Open Coding: Developing categories from the gathered data.
Axial Coding: Conceptualizing interrelationships between categories by developing dimensions (e.g., critical worldviews ranging from radical to reformist).
Selective Coding: Ascertaining central concepts and determining their interrelationship to understand how categories function.

IX. Conclusion

Qualitative research methods, including interviews, ethnography, and textual analysis, are versatile tools that, when guided by appropriate methodological foundations, can provide deep insights into social activism, particularly concerning social construction and the negotiation of meaning. Researchers may need to adapt and switch methods if initial approaches prove ineffective, as demonstrated by the author’s experience with Tea Party activists.

20. Civic Networks and Ethnic Peace: India’s Lessons

Ashutosh Varshney’s 2001 article, “Ethnic Conflict and Civil Society: India and Beyond,” argues for an integral link between the structure of civic life in a multiethnic society and the presence or absence of ethnic violence. Drawing primarily on a detailed study of Hindu-Muslim relations in India, supplemented by non-Indian materials, the article proposes two main arguments:

Interethnic vs. Intraethnic Networks: Interethnic networks of civic engagement, which build bridges and manage tensions, are agents of peace. Conversely, if communities are organized only along intraethnic lines with weak or nonexistent interconnections, ethnic violence is quite likely.
Organized (Associational) vs. Quotidian (Everyday) Engagement: Both organized (formal) and quotidian (informal) forms of interethnic engagement promote peace. However, associational forms (e.g., business associations, professional organizations, clubs, NGOs) are sturdier and more effective in constraining politicians who seek to polarize communities, especially when confronted with large-scale “exogenous shocks.”

The research identifies local mechanisms, particularly the nature of intercommunal civic networks at the city level, as the most crucial proximate explanation for variations in ethnic violence. Historically, these networks were often “politically constructed” during transformative national movements, such as India’s freedom movement under Mahatma Gandhi, but once established, they acquire their own logic and constrain political behavior.

II. Key Concepts and Definitions

To preempt misunderstanding, Varshney clarifies three key terms:

Ethnic: Adopted in a broader sense, encompassing “all conflicts based on ascriptive group identities—race, language, religion, tribe, or caste,” as argued by Donald Horowitz. This distinguishes it from class conflict, which is largely nonascriptive and economic.
Ethnic Conflict vs. Ethnic Violence: This distinction is crucial. Varshney argues that “ethnic conflict is more or less inevitable” in any ethnically plural society with free expression. However, ethnic violence occurs when protest takes violent forms, such as riots, civil war, or pogroms, rather than being channeled through institutionalized means (parliaments, nonviolent mobilization). Ethnic peace is conceptualized as “an institutionalized channeling and resolution of ethnic demands and conflicts: as an absence of violence, not as an absence of conflict.”
Civil Society: Defined as the “space which (1) exists between the family, on the one hand, and the state, on the other, (2) makes interconnections between individuals or families possible, and (3) is independent of the state.” Varshney challenges conventional “modernist biases” that insist on only formal, voluntaristic, and non-ascriptive associations. He argues that informal group activities and ascriptive associations should also be considered part of civil society “so long as they connect individuals, build trust, encourage reciprocity, and facilitate the exchange of views on matters of public concern.” The critical test should be the purpose of the activity rather than the form of organization.

III. The Puzzle and Methodology

Varshney’s research addresses a puzzling empirical regularity: despite ethnic diversity, some places remain peaceful while others experience enduring patterns of violence. The standard research strategy often focuses on commonalities across cases of violence, but this risks overlooking factors present in peaceful cases.

To resolve this, the project adopted a methodology of studying variance, with the city/town as the unit of analysis. A large-N analysis of Hindu-Muslim riots in India (1950-1995) revealed:

Rural India accounted for a mere 3.6% of communal violence deaths.
Eight cities accounted for nearly 46% of all Hindu-Muslim violence deaths, despite representing only 18% of India’s urban population. This “high local concentration” meant that “India’s Hindu-Muslim violence is city specific, not state specific, with state (and national) politics providing the context within which the local mechanisms linked with violence are activated.”

The project then selected three pairs of cities for in-depth comparative case studies: each pair consisted of one riot-prone city and one peaceful city, with similar Hindu-Muslim population percentages as a minimum control.

IV. Core Arguments and Mechanisms

A. Interethnic vs. Intraethnic Civic Networks

Agents of Peace: “interethnic networks are agents of peace.” They “build bridges and manage tensions.”
Risk of Violence: If “communities are organized only along intraethnic lines and the interconnections with other communities are very weak or even nonexistent, then ethnic violence is quite likely.”
Trust: “Trust based on interethnic, not intraethnic, networks is critical.” Intraethnic organizations, while generating trust among members, can escalate communal violence if they lack interethnic ties.

B. Organized (Associational) vs. Quotidian (Everyday) Engagement

Both promote peace: “Both forms of engagement, if robust, promote peace: contrariwise, their absence or weakness opens up space for ethnic violence.”
Associational forms are sturdier: “Of the two, however, the associational forms turn out to be sturdier than everyday engagement, especially when confronted with attempts by politicians to polarize people along ethnic lines.”
Constraint on Politicians: “Vigorous associational life, if interethnic, acts as a serious constraint on politicians, even when ethnic polarization is in their political interest. The more the associational networks cut across ethnic boundaries, the harder it is for politicians to polarize communities.”

C. Mechanisms Linking Civic Networks and Ethnic Conflict

Promoting Communication and Crisis Management: Interethnic civic networks “promote communication between members of different religious communities,” enabling people to “come together and form organizations in times of tension.” These temporary “peace committees” police neighborhoods, quash rumors, and facilitate communication, especially where “sustained prior interaction or cordiality facilitated their emergence.”
Interests beyond quotidian interactions: Vibrant intercommunal associational organizations (e.g., business groups, trade unions) “can often serve interests that are not the object of quotidian interactions.” For example, “Intercommunal business organizations survive because they connect the business interests of many Hindus with those of Muslims, not because of neighborhood warmth.”

D. The Rural-Urban Paradox and the Role of Associations

Paradox: Rural India, where everyday engagement is the norm and formal associations are minimal, is peaceful. Urban India, where associational life flourishes, accounts for the overwhelming majority of deaths in communal violence.
Resolution: As populations grow from villages to cities, the number of links needed to connect everyone (K = N(N-1)/2) rises much faster than the population (N). Cities are “naturally less interconnected; some degree of anonymity is inevitable.”
Associations in Cities: Associations “reduce N in cities and make a lower K viable.” To maintain the same level of civic engagement in cities as in villages, formal associations are necessary to connect people in larger settings where intimate, everyday interaction is no longer sufficient.

E. Institutionalized Peace Systems vs. Institutionalized Riot Systems

Violent Cities: In riot-prone cities, “a nexus of politicians and criminals” exists, forming an “institutionalized riot system.” Organized gangs disturb peace, and “without the protection afforded by politicians, such criminals cannot escape the clutches of law.”
Peaceful Cities: In contrast, “an institutionalized peace system exists” where “countervailing forces are created when organizations such as trade unions, associations of businessmen, traders, teachers, doctors and lawyers, and at least some cadre-based political parties are communally integrated.” These organizations “fight for their turf, alerting not only their members but also the public at large to the dangers of communal violence.” A “synergy emerges between the local wings of the state and local civic organizations,” making policing more effective and “nipping rumors, small clashes, and tensions in the bud.”

V. Evidence from Case Studies (Aligarh vs. Calicut)

The comparison of riot-prone Aligarh (Uttar Pradesh) and peaceful Calicut (Kerala), both roughly 36-38% Muslim, highlights the role of civic networks:

Ayodhya Agitation (1989-1992) as an Exogenous Shock: Both cities experienced tensions and rumors.
Calicut: The local administration, supported by “peace committees and the press,” successfully “quashed the rumors.” Politicians of all parties, including the BJP, cooperated in peacemaking, fearing electoral punishment for undermining local peace.
Aligarh: Local newspapers printed “inflammatory falsehoods,” spreading rumors that led to horrific violence. Local peace mechanisms were “remarkably inadequate,” as “effective peace committees could not be formed” at the city level, and “criminals who engaged in killings could not be brought to justice” due to protection from politicians and journalistic connections. Intrareligious committees formed, but “by definition intrareligious committees are based not on interreligious trust but rather on a lack of such trust.”
Texture of Civic Life:
Calicut: Deep “Hindu-Muslim civic integration” in quotidian life (83% eat together, 90% children play together, 84% visit regularly) and robust interreligious associational life. Trade associations, in particular, are integrated and refuse political alignment, fostering “relationships… entirely based on trust,” even for large transactions. Thriving intercommunal trade unions (CITU, INTUC) include “head loaders” (porters), ensuring that “a Hindu-Muslim division of the workforce does not take place.” “Reading rooms,” a unique Kerala institution, historically fostered deep social networks and shared discussions across communities.
Aligarh: Comparatively “thin” Hindu-Muslim interactions. A traders’ association split into “secular” and “nonsecular” factions along communal lines. The lock industry lacks intercommunal economic symbiosis, and credit societies are “intra-Muslim.” Trade unions are virtually nonexistent. Muslims rely on word-of-mouth for information, making them vulnerable to “nasty rumors.”
Conclusion: “So many Muslims and Hindus are interlocked in associational and neighborhood relationships in Calicut that peace committees during periods of tension are simply an extension of the preexisting local networks of engagement. A considerable reservoir of social trust is formed… In Aligarh, however, the average Hindu and Muslim do not meet in those civic settings… where mutual trust can be forged.”

VI. Endogeneity and Underlying Causation

Addressing Endogeneity (Did violence destroy networks, or did networks prevent violence?): The case of Surat (Gujarat) demonstrates the short-run primacy of civic networks. After the Ayodhya mosque destruction, violence was “confined to the slums,” where civic networks were missing. The “old city,” with its integrated business associations and social life, quickly formed peace committees and remained peaceful. This shows that “the preexisting social networks accounted for the variance within the city,” under the “same stimuli.”
Long-Run Causation (How did networks develop?): Historical research indicates that “in the long run intercommunal networks were politically constructed.” The 1920s in India marked a “transformative moment” with the emergence of mass politics under Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi’s emphasis on “social transformation of India” (Hindu-Muslim unity, abolition of untouchability, etc.) led to the creation of numerous organizations (e.g., Congress Party, voluntary agencies). This “Gandhian shift” laid the foundations of India’s “associational civic order,” transforming a previously “quotidian” civic structure.
Autonomy: Once “firmly in place,” these organizations “acquired relative autonomy from politics,” creating “very different pressures in politics” depending on their level of integration.

VII. Concluding Observations and Implications

Distinction from Putnam’s “Social Capital”:
Varshney’s focus is specifically on interethnic vs. intraethnic civic ties, arguing that while intraethnic ties generate trust within groups, they can also escalate violence in multiethnic societies. “What matters for ethnic violence is not whether ethnic life or social capital exists but whether social and civic ties cut across ethnic groups.”
Varshney distinguishes between formal (associational) and informal (everyday) engagement, noting that while everyday interaction is better than none, it is insufficient for larger settings. “Size reduces the efficacy of informal interactions, privileging formal associations.”
Implications for Ethnic Conflict Literature:
Ethnic violence is often highly concentrated locally or regionally, rather than spread evenly across a country. This suggests that “local mechanisms” (like civic networks) are crucial for explaining variations.
Cross-country research must systematically investigate the links between civil society and ethnic conflict at the local level.
A potential distinction might be made between societies with a history of segregated civic sites (e.g., US blacks and whites) and those with intermixed civic life (e.g., India, Sri Lanka). In segregated settings, “intraethnic, or intra-communal, policing” (e.g., by black churches) might serve a similar peace-making function as interethnic engagement in integrated settings.
The argument is probabilistic, not lawlike. While interethnic civic engagement increases the odds of peace, a state bent on inciting pogroms can still succeed in creating violence. The theory is “more applicable to riots than to pogroms or civil wars.”

21. Participant Observation as Revolutionary Praxis

This briefing document summarizes Alpa Shah’s essay “Ethnography? Participant observation, a potentially revolutionary praxis,” published in Hau: Journal of Ethnographic Theory. Shah argues for the unique and critical importance of participant observation in anthropology, defining it not merely as a method, but as a “form of production of knowledge through being and action; it is praxis, the process by which theory is dialectically produced and realized in action.” She positions participant observation as a “potentially revolutionary praxis” because it challenges preconceived notions, unearths marginalized knowledge, and offers a powerful tool for political engagement and social change.

Main Themes and Most Important Ideas/Facts:

Participant Observation as Revolutionary Praxis:

Core Argument: Shah’s central thesis is that participant observation is a “potentially revolutionary praxis” because it compels researchers to question their fundamental theoretical presuppositions about the world. It generates “knowledge that is new, was confined to the margins, or was silenced.”
Beyond Method: It is more than just a method; it is “a form of production of knowledge through being and action,” akin to Marx and Gramsci’s “Philosophy of Praxis” or Mao Zedong’s “On practice.”
Democratic Nature: This praxis is inherently democratic due to its “pedagogy of a two-way process of exchange between educator and educated” and its holistic approach to understanding all aspects of people’s lives. It takes seriously “the lives of ordinary people in a holistic way,” including those “easily and willingly ignored by others.”

Four Core Aspects of Participant Observation: Shah outlines four essential characteristics that define rigorous participant observation:

Long Duration (Long-term engagement): “It takes a very long time to become a part of other people’s lives, to learn to speak, think, see, feel, and act like them.” Ideally, this means 18 months or more of living with the people being studied. This duration allows for deep intimacy, understanding conflicts, and challenging one’s own assumptions.
Revealing Social Relations of a Group of People (Understanding a group of people and their social processes): This involves intimately knowing a specific group and those who affect or are affected by them. This often necessitates “following processes in and out of our field sites,” exploring different scales and physical locations, challenging the notion of “bounded village ethnography.”
Holism (Studying all aspects of social life, marking its fundamental democracy): This emphasizes understanding the “total social context,” recognizing that no aspect of social life can be understood in isolation. For instance, “it was not possible to understand chieftainship in the Trobriand Islands without understanding its links with international trade in the form of the kula.”
Dialectical Relationship between Intimacy and Estrangement (Befriending strangers): Working with strangers, or those one is “sufficiently alienated from,” is crucial to avoid simply perpetuating one’s own assumptions. The goal is “a deliberate alienation from the world under study in order to understand it as it cannot understand itself,” eventually leading to profound intimacy and the ability to maintain a productive tension between involvement and detachment.

Challenging Dominant Theories and Producing New Knowledge:

Questioning Presuppositions: Participant observation uniquely forces researchers to “question our fundamental assumptions and preexisting theories about the world.” Unlike other disciplines that often seek to confirm or negate existing theories, participant observation allows for the development of “general propositions we could never have arrived at before we embarked on fieldwork.”
Examples:Paul Willis’s Learning to Labour (1978): Challenged the idea that working-class children failed due to lack of capability, instead showing how they developed a counterculture against the education system, recognizing systemic barriers.
James Scott’s Weapons of the Weak (1985): Illustrated “everyday resistance” among Malaysian peasants (e.g., foot-dragging, gossip) that would have gone unnoticed by theories focused on large-scale class struggle.
Empirical Grounding for Theory: The insights derived from participation observation are “based not only on what is said but also that which is left unsaid and demonstrated only through action,” allowing for the exploration of “the disjuncture between what people say and what they do.”

Risks and Limits of Participant Observation: Shah acknowledges significant challenges:

Failure to Leave Shoreline: Remaining on the periphery, unable to truly immerse oneself in others’ lives and challenge one’s own ideas. The constant intrusion of technology from one’s “shoreline” exacerbates this risk.
Sinking into the Sea (“Going Native” or Theoretical Limitation): Becoming too immersed, unable to return to a critical perspective, or simply presenting “radical alterity” without broader theoretical implications for what it means to be human.
No End to Enquiry: The open-ended nature and search for holism, while beautiful, create a tension with the need to reach conclusions.
Tension Between Participation and Observation: True participation can alienate related groups and hinder observation, as seen in Jonathan Parry’s experience with his research assistant’s arrest.
Methodological Pluralism: While participant observation is foundational, fieldwork must also incorporate other methods (surveys, archival research, language learning, interviews, focus groups) to be rigorous and convincing to other disciplines.
Anthropologist’s Lifecycle: The emotional and practical toll of deep immersion makes it rare for anthropologists to undertake extensive participant observation multiple times.

Political Act and Tension with Activism:

Profoundly Political: “Engaging in participant observation is thus a profoundly political act, one that can enable us to challenge hegemonic conceptions of the world, challenge authority, and better act in the world.”
Caution on Militant Anthropology: Shah warns against a “naïve kind of militant anthropology” and “acting too quickly, too soon.” There is a “real tension between the democratic commitment to the truth in a holistic sense demanded by participant observation and the commitments of partisanship expected of the activist.” She suggests that participant observation, by forcing a re-evaluation of theoretical premises, “may in fact inhibit our revolutionary zeal,” ultimately making anthropologists “better politically engaged.”
Personal Influence: Shah’s own fieldwork with Maoist-inspired Naxalite guerrillas in India, who practiced a form of deep immersion (the “mass line”), influenced her understanding of participant observation as revolutionary praxis. She observed their dedication to “living amid the people who they were working with, almost as anthropologists,” even while noting how their moral commitments sometimes prevented them from acknowledging contradictions.

Interdisciplinary Reach and Institutional Challenges:

Beyond Disciplinary Confines: The theoretical knowledge produced through participant observation “is and should be beyond the confines of any disciplinary boundary.” Debates about “anthropological theory,” “ethnographic theory,” or “sociological theory” are “superfluous.”
Institutional Pressures: Universities and funding councils increasingly prioritize “corporate notions of time-space efficiency,” making it difficult to justify the long duration and open-ended nature of anthropological fieldwork. There’s pressure for “fast results and quick-fix solutions.”
Defending the Praxis: Anthropology departments, particularly in the UK and US, are presented as the “institutional structures… that keep alive the praxis of participant observation and its traditions,” and it is crucial to continually articulate “what we do, why we do it, and why it is important.”
Broader Impact: Anthropologists should strive to “reach beyond the university” through engagement with other disciplines, policy reports, and public media to share their insights.

22. The Balinese Cockfight: Status, Culture, and Deep Play

Clifford Geertz begins by recounting his initial difficulty in establishing rapport with a Balinese village in 1958. Villagers treated him and his wife as “nonpersons, specters, invisible men” (p. 1), a common Balinese response to outsiders. This changed dramatically after a police raid on an illegal cockfight, in which Geertz and his wife, instead of asserting their “Distinguished Visitor status,” fled with the villagers. This act of solidarity, even if born of “cowardice” (p. 4), immediately integrated them into the community.

This experience positioned Geertz to understand the Balinese cockfight not merely as a sport, but as a “combination emotional explosion, status war, and philosophical drama of central significance to the society whose inner nature I desired to understand” (p. 4-5). While other aspects of Balinese culture (mythology, art, ritual) have been extensively studied, the cockfight, despite being a “popular obsession of consuming power,” has been “barely noticed” (p. 5). Geertz argues that the cockfight is as important a “revelation of what being a Balinese ‘is really like'” as these more celebrated phenomena, asserting, “For it is only apparently cocks that are fighting there. Actually, it is men” (p. 5).

II. Of Cocks and Men: The Deep Identification

The core theme is the profound “deep psychological identification of Balinese men with their cocks” (p. 5). This identification is multifaceted:

Metaphorical: The Balinese word for cock, sabung, metaphorically extends to various esteemed male roles: “hero,” “warrior,” “champion,” “man of parts,” “political candidate,” “bachelor,” “dandy,” “lady-killer,” or “tough guy” (p. 5). Everyday moral language is “shot through, on the male side of it, with roosterish imagery” (p. 5). Even the island of Bali itself is perceived as “a small, proud cock, poised, neck extended, back taut, tail raised, in eternal challenge to large, feckless, shapeless Java” (p. 6).
Physical and Emotional: Balinese men devote “an enormous amount of time with their favorites, grooming them, feeding them, discussing them, trying them out against one another, or just gazing at them with a mixture of rapt admiration and dreamy self-absorption” (p. 6). The care for fighting cocks, including special diets, ritualistic bathing, and meticulous grooming, often surpasses that given to humans. As Geertz’s landlord confessed, “I am cock crazy… We’re all cock crazy” (p. 6).
Ambivalence: Ideal Self and Animality: The identification is complex. While cocks are “symbolic expressions or magnifications of their owner’s self, the narcissistic male ego writ out in Aesopian terms” (p. 6), they also represent “what the Balinese regard as the direct inversion, aesthetically, morally, and metaphysically, of human status: animality” (p. 6). Balinese culture strongly reviles animal-like behavior (e.g., babies not allowed to crawl, severe punishment for bestiality over incest). The cockfight, therefore, fuses “man and beast, good and evil, ego and id, the creative power of aroused masculinity and the destructive power of loosened animality in a bloody drama of hatred, cruelty, violence, and death” (p. 7).
Blood Sacrifice: Cockfights are explicitly linked to “The Powers of Darkness” and serve as “a blood sacrifice offered… to the demons in order to pacify their ravenous, cannibal hunger” (p. 7). This connection is so fundamental that no temple festival should be conducted without one.

III. The Fight and Its Rules: Form and Focused Gathering

The cockfight itself ( tetadjen; sabungan) is a highly ritualized event, despite its apparent chaos.

Structure: Matches are “precisely like the others in general pattern: there is no main match, no connection between individual matches, no variation in their format, and each is arranged on a completely ad hoc basis” (p. 8).
Detailed Ritual: The process involves careful selection of opponents, meticulous affixing of razor-sharp steel spurs (tadji) by skilled individuals, and precise timekeeping using a sinking coconut (a tjeng of approximately 21 seconds). Handlers frantically tend to wounded cocks, “like a trainer patching a mauled boxer” (p. 9).
Strict Rules and Umpire Authority: The fights are governed by an “extraordinarily elaborate and precisely detailed” body of rules, recorded in palm leaf manuscripts (lontar; rontal) (p. 9-10). The umpire (saja komong; djuru kembar) has “absolute” authority, and his judgments are never questioned, nor are charges of unfairness raised against him (p. 10). This highlights a “crosswise doubleness of an event which, taken as a fact of nature, is rage untrammeled and, taken as a fact of culture, is form perfected” (p. 10).
Focused Gathering: Geertz, referencing Erving Goffman, describes the cockfight as a “focused gathering” – a group “engrossed in a common flow of activity and relating to one another in terms of that flow” (p. 10). This gathering, however, is “created… by the cultural preoccupations… the celebration of status rivalry” (p. 10).
Historical Context: Historically, cockfighting was an “explicitly societal matter” (p. 10) in classical Bali, a compulsory duty of citizenship and a source of public revenue, with the cock ring centrally located in the village. Even with modern illegality, the “connection itself remains intimate and intact” (p. 11).

IV. Odds and Even Money: The “Depth” of Gambling

Gambling is central to the cockfight, revealing its deeper cultural meaning.

Two Types of Bets:Center Bet (toh ketengah): Large, axial, collective (involving coalitions of allies), “deliberate, very quiet, almost furtive arrangement” (p. 11). Crucially, this bet is always “even money” (p. 11).
Side Bets (toh kesasi): Small, peripheral, individual, “impulsive shouting, public offers, and public acceptances” (p. 11). These bets are never even money, operating on a fixed odds paradigm (e.g., 10-9 to 2-1).
Serious Stakes: Center bets can range significantly, with a mean of 85 ringgits. Considering a laborer’s daily wage was about three ringgits, these are “clearly serious gambling” (p. 11).
The Paradox of “Deep Play”: The formal asymmetry between even center bets and biased side bets points to the concept of “deep play,” borrowed from Jeremy Bentham. Bentham defined deep play as inherently irrational because the stakes are so high that “the marginal utility of the pound he stands to win is clearly less than the marginal disutility of the one he stands to lose” (p. 15).
Balinese Interpretation of “Deep Play”: For the Balinese, deep play is not irrational. “Money is less a measure of utility… than it is a symbol of moral import, perceived or imposed” (p. 16). In deep games, “much more is at stake than material gain: namely, esteem, honor, dignity, respect—in a word… status” (p. 16). While actual status is not altered, it is “momentarily, affirmed or insulted” (p. 16).
“Status Gambling” vs. “Money Gambling”: Geertz distinguishes between serious cockfighters who engage in “status gambling” in deep fights and “addict-type gamblers” who are “in it mainly for the money” in shallower fights (p. 16). The latter are “highly dispraised” as “fools who do not understand what the sport is all about” (p. 16-17). There is a clear “sociomoral hierarchy” of bettors, with “solid citizens” participating in deep, status-driven fights (p. 17).
The Cockfight as a Simulation of the Social Matrix: “What makes Balinese cockfighting deep is thus not money in itself, but what… money causes to happen: the migration of the Balinese status hierarchy into the body of the cockfight” (p. 17). The cockfight is a “simulation of the social matrix, the involved system of crosscutting, overlapping, highly corporate groups” (p. 18). Prestige is the “central driving force in the society,” and thus also of the cockfight (p. 18).

V. Status Dramatization: Evidence for the Core Thesis

Geertz presents numerous facts to support the idea that the cockfight is fundamentally a “dramatization of status concerns”:

Kinship and Alliance: Men “virtually never bets against a cock owned by a member of his own kingroup” and will actively support allied groups against unallied ones (p. 18-19). This extends to village loyalties against outsiders.
Structural Relevance: “Almost all matches are sociologically relevant” (p. 19). Fights between cocks without clear group backing are shallow and dull. Fights rarely occur between cocks from the same close-knit group.
Institutionalized Hostility (puik): Individuals in a formal hostility relationship often “bet very heavily, sometimes almost maniacally, against one another” in a “frank and direct attack on the very masculinity, the ultimate ground of his status, of the opponent” (p. 20).
Center Bet and “Outside Money”: The center bet coalition is always made up of “structural allies,” with “no ‘outside money’ involved” (p. 20). This bet is “the most direct and open expression of social opposition” (p. 20).
Borrowing Money: One can borrow for a bet, but not in one, ensuring one is never “at the economic mercy of your enemy” (p. 20).
Avoiding Cross-Loyalties: Balinese take “fairly elaborate, even rather artificial precautions” to avoid betting against a relative or friend’s cock, as it would “lead to strain” (p. 20).
“Pardon Me” Bet (mpura): Betting “against the grain” (against one’s group) is disfavored and can lead to “social disruption” (p. 20), sometimes even initiating a puik relationship.
Participants’ Status: Those involved in center bets, especially in deep fights, are “virtually always leading members of their group” (p. 21). Cockfighting is “for those who are involved in the everyday politics of prestige” (p. 21).
Monetary vs. Prestige Focus: While money matters, Balinese “mainly look on the monetary aspects of the cockfight as self-balancing, a matter of just moving money around” (p. 21). The “really important wins and losses are seen mostly in other terms” (p. 21), particularly in terms of prestige. They remember “the day they did in Pan Loh’s finest cock for years,” not the money won.
Social Pressure to Bet: There is pressure to bet on one’s group’s cocks to show local importance and avoid accusations of arrogance (p. 21).
Balinese Awareness: Balinese peasants are “quite aware of all this” and describe cockfighting as “like playing with fire only not getting burned” (p. 21-22), allowing them to activate rivalries in “play” form without open aggression, because “after all, it is ‘only a cockfight'” (p. 22).

VI. The Cockfight as a Cultural Text

Geertz concludes by framing the cockfight as an “art form” and a “metasocial commentary” (p. 23, 26).

“Poetry Makes Nothing Happen”: Like poetry, the cockfight “makes nothing happen” in terms of material change or social mobility. “No one’s status really changes… All you can do is enjoy and savor, or suffer and withstand, the concocted sensation of drastic and momentary movement along an aesthetic semblance of that ladder” (p. 23).
Meaning-Making: Its function is to render “ordinary, everyday experience comprehensible by presenting it in terms of acts and objects which have had their practical consequences removed… where their meaning can be more powerfully articulated and more exactly perceived” (p. 23). It puts a “construction on them, makes them… meaningful—visible, tangible, graspable—’real,’ in an ideational sense” (p. 23).
Disquietfulness: The “disquietfulness” of the cockfight arises from the conjunction of its dramatic shape, metaphoric content, and social context. It is a “convulsive surge of animal hatred, a mock war of symbolical selves, and a formal simulation of status tensions” (p. 24). It brings to imaginative realization a “dimension of Balinese experience normally well-obscured from view” (p. 24).
Atomistical Structure and Balinese Life: The fight’s “radically atomistical structure” (p. 24)—each match a self-contained burst of form—mirrors the Balinese perception of life as “an on-off pulsation of meaning and vacuity,” an “arhythmic alternation of short periods when ‘something’ is happening and equally short ones where ‘nothing’ is” (p. 25).
Aggressiveness vs. Alus: The “flat-out, head-to-head… aggressiveness” of the cockfight contrasts sharply with the Balinese alus (polished, smooth) cultural ideal of avoiding open conflict (p. 25). It is a “powerful rendering of life as the Balinese most deeply do not want it” (p. 25), yet it provides an imaginative understanding of these underlying tensions.
Metasocial Commentary on Status: The cockfight’s most forceful message is about “status relationships, and what it says about them is that they are matters of life and death” (p. 25). It reveals “the sentiments upon which that hierarchy rests in their natural colors,” which are otherwise “enveloped elsewhere in a haze of etiquette, a thick cloud of euphemism and ceremony” (p. 25).
Culture as an Ensemble of Texts: Geertz proposes viewing cultural forms as “texts, as imaginative works built out of social materials” (p. 27). The cockfight, as a text, uses “emotion for cognitive ends” (p. 27), teaching participants that “it is of these emotions, thus exampled, that society is built and individuals put together” (p. 27).
Forming and Discovering Temperament: The cockfight enables the Balinese to “form and discovers his temperament and his society’s temper at the same time” (p. 28). It is a “positive agent in the creation and maintenance of such a sensibility” (p. 28).

VII. Conclusion: A Balinese Reading of Balinese Experience

The Balinese cockfight is not merely a pastime or a reinforcement of social structures. It is “a Balinese reading of Balinese experience; a story they tell themselves about themselves” (p. 26). While not the “master key to Balinese life,” it offers a unique and crucial insight into the profound seriousness of status, the underlying tensions of aggression and politeness, and the way in which a society constructs meaning through symbolically rich, emotionally charged cultural performances. The fact that the Balinese, in the upheavals of 1965, “killed, largely by one another” (p. 37), suggests that the disquiet expressed in the cockfight is not “wholly without reason” (p. 37).

23.Trans-Judicial Influence and South Asian Public Interest Litigation

This briefing document summarizes Arun K. Thiruvengadam’s article on trans-judicial influence, particularly focusing on its role in the development of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) jurisprudence in South Asia. The article challenges the predominantly U.S.-centric debate on trans-judicial influence by highlighting the extensive and imaginative engagement with foreign decisions by South Asian judiciaries, particularly in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. It demonstrates that even the “distinctive contribution” of Indian PIL jurisprudence was significantly shaped by foreign judicial decisions and academic works, a trend subsequently emulated by other South Asian nations.

II. Key Themes and Important Ideas

A. Defining and Understanding Trans-Judicial Influence

Definition: Thiruvengadam uses “trans-judicial influence” to describe and analyze the practice of judges referring to and relying upon judicial decisions from foreign jurisdictions in domestic constitutional adjudication. This term is preferred over “borrowing” as “influence” encompasses a broader range of possibilities (positive, negative, direct, indirect) and acknowledges that borrowed concepts are often modified or improved upon, rather than temporarily held.
Historical Context: The practice dates back to the 18th century in Continental Europe and gained widespread currency during British colonialism. Major exporters of law (UK, France, Germany, US) themselves drew inspiration from foreign models during their legal system development.
Modern Resurgence: The phenomenon of trans-judicial influence has increased with the global adoption of judicially enforceable bills of rights post-WWII.
Distinguishing Features of Modern Influence:Shift from “One-Way Traffic”: Historically, influence flowed from the British Empire’s center to its colonies. Modern trends increasingly involve dialogues and mutual reading of jurisprudence among different national courts.
Complex Motivations: Beyond simply learning, motivations include:
Harmonization: Nations seeking to “look European” by citing European courts.
Avoiding Influence: Instances where foreign courts deliberately refuse to follow American reasoning.
Political Influence and Economic Incentives: These mechanisms play a vital role in the migration of constitutional ideas.
Benefits and Pitfalls:Benefits: Enhances persuasiveness and legitimacy, improves deliberation, allows learning from others’ mistakes, fosters common frameworks (e.g., human rights law), and provides external insights into legal systems.
Pitfalls: Can lead to imitative jurisprudence, raise concerns about intellectual hegemony and neo-imperialism (especially for “third world” approaches), requires expertise for careful transplants, and may undermine “democratic self-governance” and “popular sovereignty.”

B. South Asian Judiciaries as Robust Engagers in Trans-Judicial Influence

Departure from Global Trends: Unlike some contemporary judges in the U.S., Australia, and Singapore who oppose or inconsistently rely on foreign decisions, South Asian judiciaries have a consistent history of “considerably more bold and imaginative” engagement.
Quantitative Evidence (India): Adam M. Smith’s study (1950-2005) found references to foreign law in 24.6% of Indian Supreme Court cases, with 22.3% to English law and 6.9% to U.S. cases. References to English law are declining, while U.S. references remain constant.
Early Indian Supreme Court (Pre-PIL):The absence of its own constitutional jurisprudence led the early Supreme Court to refer extensively to foreign law, particularly from the U.S. in civil liberties cases.
While some instances show peremptory dismissal of foreign decisions, there are also examples of careful consideration and rejection due to textual or social contextual differences, as seen in Mahadeb Jiew v. Dr Sen (1951), where Justice P.B. Mukharji warned against “blind and uncritical adherence to American precedents.”
Key Pre-PIL Cases with Foreign Influence:Kesavananda Bharati v. Union of India (1973): Cited a wide array of foreign decisions (Privy Council, U.S., Australia, Ireland, South Africa) to support varying viewpoints. The concept of “basic structure” itself may be an adaptation of the German scholar Dieter Conrad’s work.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Justice Bhagwati heavily relied on English case-law and foreign academic works to establish a substantive due process right within Article 21 (right to personal liberty). Justice Iyer, in concurrence, quoted American scholars on the relationship between freedom of speech and travel.

C. Trans-Judicial Influence and PIL Jurisprudence in India

Claims of Uniqueness vs. Foreign Inspiration:Early proponents like Upendra Baxi and Justice P.N. Bhagwati argued for the distinctiveness of Indian PIL (“social action litigation”), emphasizing its focus on “state repression or governmental lawlessness” and the “rural poor,” contrasting it with the U.S. movement’s focus on “civic participation in governmental decision making.”
However, they acknowledged that the U.S. movement offered “fruitful innovations in legal doctrine and technique” such as “liberalisation of locus standi.”
Thiruvengadam notes that contemporary Indian PIL has arguably lost its pro-poor orientation, resembling Baxi’s description of the U.S. public interest movement, focusing on consumerism and environmental issues affecting the middle class.
Specific Innovations Influenced by Foreign Law:Relaxation of Locus Standi (Standing Requirements):Justice Krishna Iyer, in cases like Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar (1975), Nawabganj Sugar Mills (1975), Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdulbhai (1976), and Maharaj Singh v. State of U.P. (1976), explicitly relied on U.S. examples (e.g., NAACP, Baker v. Carr), English academic works, and Lord Denning’s judgments to argue for a liberal interpretation of standing.
In Dabholkar, he stated, “Traditionally used to the adversary system, we search for individual persons aggrieved. But a new class of litigation public interest litigation—where a section or whole of the community is involved (such as consumers’ organisations or NAACP—National Association for Advancement of Coloured People—in America), emerges. In a developing country like ours, this pattern of public oriented litigation better fulfils the rule of law if it is to run close to the rule of life.”
In Nawabganj, he implicitly acknowledged the American system by stating, “Had India had a developed system of class actions or popular organisation taking up public interest litigation, we could have hoped for relief otherwise than by this Court’s order.”
Prisoner Rights and Criminal Justice Reform:M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra (1978): Justice Iyer relied on English and American cases (Gideon v. Wainright, Argersinger v. Hamlin) and academic works to establish the right to free legal services for indigent persons facing potential imprisonment. He explicitly stated, “Our judicature, moulded by Anglo-American models and our judicial process, engineered by kindred legal technology, compel the collaboration of lawyer power for steering the wheels of equal justice under law.”
Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, Bihar (1979): Justice Bhagwati referred to U.S. lower court decisions (Holt v. Sarver, Jones v. Wittenberg, Newman v. Alabama, Gates v. Collier) to justify proactive measures and “dynamic and constructive role” for the Court in prison reform, including issuing directions for positive action to ensure speedy trials. He noted, “Again, the reference to foreign decisions is not merely for broad guidelines, but also for emulating specific decisional strategies invoked in those foreign decisions.”
Khatri v. State of Bihar (1981): Justice Bhagwati cited U.S. cases (Khem v. Malcolin, Jackson v. Bishop) to argue against the government’s plea of financial constraints in providing free legal aid, emphasizing that “the law does not permit any Government to deprive its citizens of constitutional rights on a plea of poverty.”
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Delhi (1981): Justice Bhagwati heavily relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Weems v. U.S. (1910) to advocate for a “broad and expansive spirit” in interpreting Article 21 (right to life), moving beyond “mere animal existence” to include “significance and vitality which may endure for years to come.” This interpretive strategy became “fundamentally important” for future PIL jurisprudence.

D. Spread of PIL Jurisprudence in South Asia

Pakistan:First PIL case: Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan (1988), which cited India’s S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1982) to relax locus standi.
“First genuine” PIL: Darshan Masih v. State (1990), where judges cited Indian decisions and adapted the “little Indians in large numbers” concept to “little Pakistanis in large numbers.”
Landmark environmental case: Snehla Zia v. WAPDA (1994) held that the right to life (Article 9) includes the right to a healthy environment. The lawyer for petitioners explicitly drew on “the extensive environmentally-related case law in India.” The court also emulated the Indian Supreme Court by setting up a commission of experts.
Bangladesh:PIL became viable in the mid-1990s after the return of democracy, influenced by developments in India and Pakistan.
Early hurdle: Narrow construction of standing rules, though Kazi Mukhlesur Rahman v. Bangladesh (1974) is sometimes cited as an early exception.
Key standing case: Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh (1997) (FAP 20 case) extensively relied on foreign trends, citing U.S. public interest movements, English authorities, and cases from India (S.P. Gupta), Sri Lanka, and Pakistan.
Environmental rights: The High Court Division, in the final Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh (1998) ruling, construed the ‘right to life’ liberally to include environmental protection, citing India’s Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1986) and Pakistan’s Shela Zia (1994). Similarly, in Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh (1996), the court relied on multiple Indian cases to interpret the right to life to include the right to health.
Monetary compensation for illegal detention: Bilkis Akhter Hossain v. Bangladesh (1997) relied on several Indian Supreme Court decisions to justify awarding monetary compensation, also noting similar reasoning in Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
Aversive Influence: In Sajeda Parvin v. Govt. of Bangladesh (1988), the Appellate Division rejected the “subjective satisfaction” standard for preventive detention cases adopted by the Indian Supreme Court (citing multiple Indian cases), instead adopting an “objective” standard and citing Pakistan Supreme Court decisions.

III. Conclusion

The article convincingly argues that South Asian judiciaries, particularly in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, have consistently and extensively relied on foreign judicial decisions and academic works to shape their constitutional jurisprudence, especially in the development of PIL. This “traffic in foreign judicial decisions” is significantly higher than often discussed in the U.S.-centric academic debate. While India has primarily looked to Western sources (England and U.S.), Pakistan and Bangladesh have explicitly and significantly drawn inspiration from Indian PIL jurisprudence.

The challenge for these nations, as highlighted by the Tagore and Gandhi quotes, is to engage with external influences constructively, enriching their constitutional culture without undermining its uniqueness. Thiruvengadam suggests that greater exchanges between South Asian scholars and judges, while being mindful of potential issues like India’s “long shadow,” can lead to a deeper understanding and revival of South Asian constitutionalism.

24. Elbow’s Organic Writing: Grow and Cook Your Words

Peter Elbow’s “Writing Without Teachers” challenges conventional approaches to writing, arguing that the widely accepted two-step process (figure out meaning, then put into language) is “backwards” and sabotages writers. Instead, Elbow proposes an “organic, developmental process” where writing is a journey of discovery, allowing meaning to emerge and evolve through multiple drafts. He introduces two central metaphors: Growing (the larger process of evolution) and Cooking (the smaller, generative process of interaction). The core argument is that by embracing initial chaos, relinquishing excessive control, and fostering interaction among ideas and words, writers can achieve greater clarity, richness, and ultimately, better writing.

Main Themes and Important Ideas

1. The Conventional Model vs. The Developmental Model of Writing

The “Backwards” Conventional Model: Elbow asserts that most people, including many educated and talented individuals, feel “helpless” before the writing process because they operate under a fundamental misconception. The traditional view dictates a two-step process: “First you figure out your meaning, then you put it into language.” This model emphasizes planning, outlining, and maintaining control from the outset, leading to constant self-criticism and paralysis. Elbow directly challenges this, quoting a “classic statement” he once admired but later recognized “as the enemy”: “Jn order to form a good style, the primary rule and condition is, not to attempt to express ourselves in language before we thoroughly know our meaning; when a man perfectly understands himself, appropriate diction will generally be at his command either in writing or speaking.”
The Organic, Developmental Model: Elbow proposes that “this idea of writing is backwards.” Instead, he advocates for an organic process where “you start writing at the very beginning—before you know your meaning at all—and encourage your words gradually to change and evolve.” Meaning, control, and coherence are not starting points but “what you end up with.” Writing becomes a “transaction with words whereby you free yourself from what you presently think, feel, and perceive,” enabling the discovery of “something better than what you’d be stuck with if you’d actually succeeded in making your meaning clear at the start.” This process, though seemingly “inefficient—a rambling process with lots of writing and lots of throwing away—is really efficient” because it’s the “best way you can work up to what you really want to say and how to say it.”

2. Growing: The Overall Evolutionary Process of Writing

Writing as Growth: Elbow uses the metaphor of “growing” to describe the overall developmental journey of a piece of writing. Just as a living organism changes and becomes more complex, a piece of writing can evolve from an initial belief (X) to a new understanding (Y), where the words themselves, though static, reflect the writer’s internal growth. He advises writers to “treat words as though they are potentially able to grow. Learn to stand out of the way and provide the energy or force the words need to find their growth process.”
Stages of Growth: The growth process is schematically described as words coming together, interacting, breaking apart into patterns, consolidating, and repeating this cycle until a satisfactory “configuration is attained.”
Start Writing and Keep Writing: This is the crucial first stage, designed to overcome the “editorial instinct” that paralyzes writers. Elbow stresses the importance of writing “quickly without editing” and accepting that early writing will likely be “bad.” He notes that “most of the time you can’t find the right words till you know exactly what you are saying, but that you can’t know exactly what you are saying till you find just the right words.” The solution is to “start by writing the wrong meanings in the wrong words; but keep writing till you get to the right meanings in the right words.” This also helps alleviate anxiety and allows writers to “fall into an area of high concern.”
Disorientation and Chaos: This is a natural and necessary experience when relinquishing control. Writers must “put up with” the feeling of “not knowing what I’m writing about!” The paradox is that while the conventional model preaches control but often leads to “helplessness and passivity,” the developmental model, by initially encouraging “lack of control,” ultimately leads to “increased control.” Elbow urges writers to “encourage richness and chaos by encouraging digressions,” as these can reveal unexpected insights.
Emerging Center of Gravity: The “turning point” where chaos begins to resolve into a focus or theme. This is often “mysterious and difficult,” but can be encouraged by “forc[ing] yourself to make lots of summings-up even if they don’t fit your material or seem to be right.” These early, “terrible” summings-up are essential practice. Elbow lists several ways a center of gravity might emerge, including “simple reversal,” “struggling back and forth,” and having a “little detail… have a spark to it” and become the main point.
Editing: This is the final stage, appropriate only after a center of gravity has emerged. “Editing means figuring out what you really mean to say, getting it clear in your head, getting it unified, getting it into an organized structure, and then getting it into the best words and throwing away the rest.” It is “ruthless,” “manipulative, intrusive, artificial, and compromising,” and often involves “mostly throwing away.” The advice for editing includes using outlines of “full assertions,” and having an “easy come easy go” attitude, emphasizing that “every word omitted keeps another reader with you. Every word retained saps strength from the others.” Elbow notes a common “stuckpoint” where writers resist throwing away words because of the effort invested, but emphasizes that “learning to throw away more ruthlessly comes from learning to generate more prolificly.”

3. Cooking: The Generative Interaction of Material

Cooking as Interaction: Cooking is the “smaller process” that “drives the engine that makes growing happen.” It is “the interaction of contrasting or conflicting material,” transforming one piece of material by seeing it “through the lens of another, being dragged through the guts of another, being reoriented or reorganized in terms of the other, being mapped onto the other.” This interaction generates “new perceptions and insights.”
Types of Interaction (Cooking):Between People: Talking to others, especially those who disagree, allows for ideas to be “refracted through his consciousness,” leading to clearer articulation. This is why “brain-storming works.”
Between Ideas: Encouraging “conflicts or contradictions in your thinking” is crucial. Instead of avoiding them, writers should “look for disagreements rather than agreements.” This involves viewing material through different “organizing principle[s].”
Between Words and Ideas (Immersion and Perspective): This involves moving back and forth between “working in words” (which offers “fecundity, novelty, richness”) and “working in ideas” (which provides “perspective, structure, and clarity”). The “interaction between the two that yields both clarity and richness—cooking.”
Between Metaphors: Making and exploring “as many metaphors as you can. And analogies, comparisons, examples.” This creates interaction by calling something “by a wrong name,” forcing new perspectives.
Between Modes: Allowing writing to shift between different “modes or textures” (e.g., poetry/prose, informal/formal, personal/impersonal) can reveal different aspects of the material.
Between You and Symbols on Paper: Writing externalizes thoughts, creating a “not-you” entity to interact with. This involves writing freely without a gap between self and words, then stepping back to read and react to them “as though they came out of someone else.”
Non-Cooking: Elbow identifies two forms:
Lack of conflicting elements: When material is too straightforward or agreeable, leading to uninteresting or insufficient content. Cured by “writing a lot, lifting the editorial lid, babbling.”
Conflicting material that won’t interact: When ideas “lock horns” without productive engagement. The cure is to “take each idea singly. Pretend to espouse each one wholeheartedly. See everything in terms of it.”
Desperation Writing: A technique for when the mind is “out of commission,” involving externalizing all cooking. This means “using symbols and pieces of paper not as a crutch but as a wheel chair.” It involves simply writing as much as possible, no matter how “lousy, stupid, second-rate,” then breaking it down into single assertions on small cards, and finally arranging these cards to find patterns and relationships. This process helps to “cook out on the table rather than in your brain.”
The Goal is Cooking: While external cooking (like desperation writing) can be a powerful tool, the ultimate aim is “internal cooking” or “magic writing”—a wholly internal, sometimes instantaneous, and more efficient process where ideas integrate at a deeper level. Elbow emphasizes, “Moral: use external cooking when you need it. Be good at using it. Use it especially to get cooking going. But don’t think you can use it to beat the system and avoid cooking. If you want to write, you must cook.”

4. Practical Advice and Mindset Shifts

Embrace Imperfection and Process: Don’t strive for perfection in early drafts. “The point is not to waste more time on it than is needed. Sketch it in roughly; move fast; not too much investment or commitment.”
Resist Premature Editing: The “critical and editorial instinct” is often “better developed than your producing instinct” and must be held back until later stages.
Value Digressions: Rather than breaking them off, “Give it its head. It may turn out to be an integral part of what you are trying to write.”
Force Extremes to Find Moderation: When exploring ideas, “Let the early ones be terrible… Exaggerating helps you think of things you wouldn’t think of if you tried to be judicious.” Work “gradually toward moderation from extreme positions.”
Global vs. Piecemeal Writing: Treat writing as a “global task, not a piecemeal one.” Instead of finishing one section before starting the next, “sketch in all four parts quickly and lightly; then work some more on each part, letting it go where it needs to; continue improving all the parts; and only finish one part when you are also ready to finish the others.”
Energy Management: Recognize different kinds of energy expenditure: wasted energy when stuck or trying to polish a bad first draft, and productive energy during internal or external cooking.
Specific Techniques for Generating Content (to facilitate Cooking/Growing):Strict ten-minute writing exercises (“freewriting”).
“Talk to yourself in your writing” to break down barriers between internal thoughts and written words.
Use “all-purpose beginnings” to overcome starting anxiety.
Simulate an audience and a deadline to force yourself to “plunge in and just write.”
If writing feels too hard, talk out loud instead, under similar strict conditions.
If truly stuck, step away and return only when prepared to write, understanding that resistance is a part of yourself.

Conclusion: A Paradigm Shift for Writers

Elbow’s work offers a profound shift in how writing is understood and practiced, especially for those who struggle. By reframing writing as a dynamic, evolving process rather than a linear, controlled one, he empowers writers to move past paralysis and embrace the messiness of creation. The metaphors of “growing” and “cooking” provide a tangible framework for understanding the iterative nature of writing, emphasizing that initial chaos and extensive generation are not failures, but essential components of reaching clarity, insight, and compelling expression. The ultimate message is one of hope and practical guidance: “If you have a way of writing that works well for you, keep it… But if you have difficulty with writing, try this model and try to understand your difficulty as a problem in cooking or growing.”

Bottom of Form

25. Demystifying Academic Writing for College Students

Excerpts from “What Is ‘Academic’ Writing?” by L. Lennie Irvin (2010)

This briefing document summarizes key themes, ideas, and facts presented in L. Lennie Irvin’s essay “What Is ‘Academic’ Writing?” aimed at new college students. The essay dispels common myths about writing, clarifies the academic writing situation, details the “literacy tasks” involved, and outlines the characteristics and format of successful academic essays.

I. Introduction: The Academic Writing Task

Irvin emphasizes that success in academic writing hinges on a clear understanding of the task and a strategic approach. Many students enter college with “wildly strange ideas about what they are doing when they write an essay, or worse—they have no clear idea at all.” This essay aims to demystify academic writing and ease the transition for new college students.

II. Myths About Writing (and Their Reality)

The essay debunks several common misconceptions that can hinder effective writing:

Myth #1: The “Paint by Numbers” myth: Writing is not a linear, step-by-step process. It is “recursive,” meaning writers cycle through various activities multiple times.
Myth #2: Writers only start writing when they have everything figured out: Writing is a process of discovery. “Writers figure out much of what they want to write as they write it.” Early drafts are for getting ideas down, not for perfection.
Myth #3: Perfect first drafts: “Nobody writes perfect first drafts; polished writing takes lots of revision.” Unrealistic expectations can limit idea development or lead to insufficient effort.
Myth #4: Some got it; I don’t—the genius fallacy: Writing ability is not fixed. “With effort and study, though, you can improve as a writer. I promise.”
Myth #5: Good grammar is good writing: While important, grammar is only one aspect. “Good writing is a matter of achieving your desired effect upon an intended audience.”
Myth #6: The Five Paragraph Essay: This format is useful to know but should not be rigidly adhered to for all assignments. Students will “outgrow” it and need to “gauge the particular writing assignment to see whether and how this format is useful.”
Myth #7: Never use “I”: While some situations (e.g., lab reports) require objectivity, “much college writing can be done in a middle, semi-formal style where it is ok to use ‘I.'” Avoiding “I” can lead to “artificial, puffed-up prose.”

III. The Academic Writing Situation

Academic writing is a specialized communication context distinct from spoken communication. Writers are “separated from our audience in place and time” and must imaginatively create context, communicate tone through word choice and punctuation, and anticipate how their message will be received. Developing a “writer’s sense” about communicating within this situation is paramount.

The core elements of the college writing situation are defined as:

Audience: Primarily the professor, possibly classmates, and sometimes a secondary outside audience.
Occasion/Context: An assignment within a learning context, designed for students to “learn and demonstrate their learning.”
Message: “Your learning or the interpretation gained from your study of the subject matter.”
Purpose: “To show your learning and get a good grade (or to accomplish the goals of the writing assignment).”
Documents/Genres: The essay is the most frequent type.

IV. Academic Writing as a “Literacy Task”

Lee Ann Carroll describes college “writing assignments” as “more accurately called ‘literacy tasks’ because they require much more than the ability to construct correct sentences or compose neatly organized paragraphs with topic sentences.” These tasks demand:

Knowledge of Research Skills: Beyond simple Google searches, college requires finding in-depth information from libraries and online scholarly databases, focusing research, and tracking sources.
The Ability to Read Complex Texts: College writing often deals with unfamiliar topics, requiring “close reading” and “critical thinking” (separating fact from opinion, recognizing biases, making inferences).
The Understanding of Key Disciplinary Concepts: Professors expect students to “apply and use these concepts in your writing,” not just offer personal opinions.
Strategies for Synthesizing, Analyzing, and Responding Critically to New Information: Students must develop ways to grasp new subject matter, “sorting and finding meaningful patterns in this information.”

V. Academic Writing is an Argument and an Analysis

A central theme is that “In College, Everything’s an Argument.” Academic argument is not a “shouting match” but a “carefully arranged and supported presentation of a viewpoint.” Its purpose is to “earn your audience’s consideration (and even approval) of your perspective.” The analogy of a lawyer presenting a case to a jury highlights the importance of “organized presentation” and “crucial element of strong evidence.”

Academic writing also inherently involves analysis. Unless explicitly asked to summarize, students should avoid it. To analyze means to:

“Engage in an open inquiry where the answer is not known at first.”
“Identify meaningful parts of the subject.”
“Examine these separate parts and determine how they relate to each other.”

Analysis breaks a subject apart to study it, and from this “inspection, ideas for writing emerge.” The interpretation of how parts fit together forms the “claim or thesis,” which the essay then defends. Irvin advises performing analysis physically, “put all the cards on the table,” identifying, isolating, and recording features to find patterns.

VI. Three Common Types of College Writing Assignments

Irvin categorizes college writing assignments by the degree of direction provided:

The Closed Writing Assignment: Presents two counter-claims (e.g., “Is Creon a character to admire or condemn?”) and asks the student to determine the more valid claim. The primary task is to support the chosen claim. Students should avoid simplistic answers and explore “nuances and ambiguities.”
The Semi-Open Writing Assignment: Charts out a subject matter (e.g., “Discuss the role of law in Antigone”) but does not offer an easy claim. Students must analyze the reading to arrive at “insights into patterns and relationships about the subject.” This requires making an argument, not just summarizing or explaining.
The Open Writing Assignment: Requires students to decide both their writing topic and their claim (e.g., “Analyze the role of a character in Dante’s The Inferno”). This demands a solid understanding of the subject matter before a topic can be selected and limited.

Picking and Limiting a Writing Topic: For open assignments, students should look for interesting “gaps, puzzling items, things that confuse you, or connections you see.” The chosen topic should be phrased as a clear and interesting question. Topics must be limited to a “manageable size” to ensure adequate support and depth, comparing it to a “well tended garden” rather than a “large one full of weeds.”

VII. Three Characteristics of Academic Writing

Research by Chris Thaiss and Terry Zawacki identified key expectations professors have for academic writing:

“Clear evidence in writing that the writer(s) have been persistent, open-minded, and disciplined in study.”
“The dominance of reason over emotions or sensual perception.”
“An imagined reader who is coolly rational, reading for information, and intending to formulate a reasoned response.”

VIII. The Format of the Academic Essay (“Critical Essay”)

Irvin outlines eight flexible characteristics of the “critical essay” (meaning “interpretive” or “analytical,” not “to criticize”):

Argument/Persuasion: “MAKES A POINT and SUPPORTS IT.”
Interpretive Thesis: The “point” (claim/thesis) is “debatable and open to interpretation, not a statement of the obvious.” Best placed at the end of the introduction.
Organization: Clear introduction, body, and conclusion. Body paragraphs “divide up the proof” with clear primary supports.

Support:Primary sources are the “text (or sources),” requiring quotations.
The “continuous movement of logic” is “assert then support; assert then support.”
“Enough support to be convincing” typically means “at least three supports” for each assertion.

Documentation: Sources must be “documented” following appropriate styles (e.g., MLA, APA).
Transitions: Clear signals are needed when moving between main points, ideally linking back to the thesis and stating the new paragraph’s topic.
Academic Format: Adherence to established formats like MLA or APA.
Grammatical Correctness: “Few if any grammatical problems” are expected; careful editing is essential.

IX. Conclusion

Irvin reiterates that understanding “what you are doing as you write and then how you approach the writing task” is the “secret for your success.” While knowledge doesn’t guarantee an A, it provides the “right orientation toward your college writing assignments,” which is “a first and important step in your eventual success.”

26. Crafting Effective Research Reports: Principles and Practice

Top of Form

This document provides a comprehensive overview of the key principles and practices involved in constructing and disseminating research reports, drawing primarily from “Sotirios Sarantakos, Social Research (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), Chapter 17 – Reporting.” It emphasizes that reporting is the final and crucial step in the research process, serving as “the face of the investigation” by sharing findings with academic communities, interest groups, and governments. The briefing highlights the importance of ethical standards, audience consideration, purpose definition, and appropriate reporting outlets. It details the structural components of both quantitative and qualitative reports, discusses various presentation styles, and underscores the significant “politics of publication” and the transition from research findings to policy and practice.

I. The Essence and Context of Research Reporting

Reporting as the “Face of the Investigation”: The research report is the primary means by which research findings are disseminated and understood. Sarantakos states, “For the community, and even the experts, research reports are ‘the research’; and research is what is contained in these reports: the research report is ‘the face of the investigation’.” Therefore, reports must be clear and constructive.
“Engineered Writing”: Report writing is described as “‘engineered writing’ (Murray and Hay-Roe, 1986), that is, systematic and disciplined writing.” It must accurately, adequately, and effectively describe the research process and outcomes.
Key Contextual Factors: Four minimum elements must be considered even before writing begins:
Ethics: Adherence to ethical standards is paramount, not just in conducting research but also in reporting. This includes “present[ing] an accurate, honest and realistic account of the findings, without misrepresentation and without misleading the reader,” ensuring anonymity and confidentiality, protecting key informants, acknowledging contributions (to avoid plagiarism), and disclosing research limitations. Fabrication or concealment of findings are serious offenses.
The Reader: Reports must be accessible to their intended audience, influencing language, scientific terminology, length, detail, technical aspects, and depth of analysis. Different readers (e.g., community groups, sponsors, academic specialists) require different report styles.
Purpose: The report’s purpose dictates its nature and content. Whether it aims to inform, advise, generate public debate, or prompt action profoundly impacts its structure and presentation.
Reporting Outlets: The chosen publication channel significantly affects report construction and presentation. Outlets include newspapers (brief, simple, for general public), newsletters (special interest, brief summary), conferences (detailed, for experts), monographs (larger, detailed, full discussion), journals (summarized, concise, critical, for academic specialists), and books (best and most respected, wider scope). Workshops, seminars, and media interviews are also noted.

II. Structure and Content of Research Reports

General Attributes: Reports must communicate and discuss findings and problems, present information simply and orderly, and adhere to accepted social science standards and practices.
Quantitative Research Report Structure: Typically contains six parts presented symmetrically and proportionally:

Abstract: A concise (150-200 words) summary of the report, providing an overview of purpose, methodology, main findings, and conclusions. It acts as a “mini-report” for readers to decide whether to read further.
Introduction: Introduces the topic, purpose, significance, literature review, and any problems encountered. It justifies the research and states the researcher’s view and hypotheses.
Methodology: Informs the reader “in clear and specific terms about the manner in which the research was conducted.” Covers methodological framework, sampling, instrumentation, data collection methods (including validity and reliability measures), data analysis, and ethical considerations.
Findings: The largest part, presenting results directly through statements, tables, figures, and graphs. Focuses on descriptive statistics, relationships between variables, and significance tests.
Discussion: Summarizes, explains, and interprets findings, establishing broader trends, comparing with other studies, and integrating findings into theories. It also addresses methodological weaknesses and study limitations. Sometimes merged with “Findings.”
Conclusions and Recommendations: Summarizes the basic answers from the data, stressing implications for the study object, theory, and community. Recommendations for action are often included, placing results in a normative context. Conclusions must “reflect only the findings of the study, and should not go beyond what the research can support.”
References: An alphabetical list of all literature cited, following established referencing styles.
Optional Elements: Acknowledgements, a list of contents, and an appendix (for supplementary materials like questionnaires, lengthy tables, maps).

Qualitative Research Report Structure: While sharing core elements (abstract, introduction, main body, conclusions, references, ethics) with quantitative reports, qualitative reports demonstrate greater diversity.
Reporting as Analysis: In qualitative research, “reporting is not a task that comes after the research is completed but a central part of the research: so central, indeed, that some writers see it as the place where the final analysis takes place.”
Diversity in Presentation: Reports vary by research topic, model, and underlying paradigm. Examples include:
Field Research (Bailey, 1996): Includes introduction, history of setting/group, narrative (chronological research description), supporting documentation (quotations, pictures), retaining speaker’s voice, locating oneself (researcher’s influence), methodological details, sharing results with members, ethical issues, and conclusions/appendices.
Types of Presentation (van Mannen, 1988a):Realist tales: Third person, objective reality, factual language, author in background.
Self-confessional tales: First person, researcher fully involved, personal style, methodological accounts, includes personal assumptions.
Impressionistic tales: Highly personal, “expansive recall of fieldwork experience,” attempts to bring public to the researched world, moving stories, written in essay form.
Sets of Formats (Burgess, 1984; Richardson, 1994; Pfeifer, 2000):Descriptive reports: Summaries of experiences without personal evaluations.
Analytic reports: Descriptions plus discussion of concepts, comparisons, evaluations, explanations.
Substantive reports: Similar to analytic, but contribute to general theories.
Member-centred writing: Findings from the respondents’ point of view, presenting reality “as realistically (i.e. as closely to reality) as possible.”
Writer-centred writing: Focuses on the writer’s interpretation of reality, allowing for “exaggerate, swagger, entertain,” fictional presentations, poetic representation, ethnographic drama, or mixed genres.
Mixed-format: Combines member-centred and writer-centred approaches for a “stereoscopic view.”
Case Study Report Structures (Yin, 1991): Analytical, theory-building, comparative, chronological, suspense (findings first), and unsequenced structures.
Multiple-Paradigm Research Reports: The report format is dictated by the nature of the multi-paradigm model and the dominant methodology.
Successive-paradigm triangulation: Report follows the guidelines of the final or dominant methodology, with earlier study results summarized in relevant sections (e.g., methods). Separate reports may be produced if the initial study is extensive.
Concurrent-paradigm triangulation: Report format typically aligns with the major study, incorporating information from the minor study to fill gaps.
Step-wise conversion: If qualitative data is converted to quantitative, a qualitative report might incorporate the converted data in the results section, or two separate reports (qualitative and quantitative) may be produced for different audiences or aspects.

III. Presentation and Writing Style

Conveying the Message (Criteria for Success):Concise: Compact and to the point.
Readable: Adjusted to the user’s level.
Well-written: Complies with academic standards, includes executive summaries and visuals for policy makers.
Interesting: Engages the reader, relates to community needs, raises questions, suggests solutions.
Timely: Released promptly after results are available.
Minimum Requirements for Research Reports:Clarity, Precision, Appropriacy, Completeness, Objectivity, Fairness, Verifiability, Impersonality, Ethics. While some of these (objectivity, impersonality) are debated by critical theorists and feminists, many qualitative researchers still adhere to them.
Writing Styles:First or Third Person: Conventional preference for the third person (“It has been found…”) over the first person (“I found…”).
Active or Passive Voice: Traditional preference for passive voice (“Women were found to suffer…”) is shifting, with active voice becoming more accepted. Consistency is key.
Past or Present Tense: Research findings are typically reported in the past tense as the research “happened in the past.”
Sexist Language: Must be avoided as it “violates standards of equity and reflects discriminatory practices” and is “ambiguous and inaccurate.” Gender-neutral language (e.g., “he or she,” “respondents have the right to be asked for their consent”) is expected.

IV. Self-Assessment and the Fate of the Report

Self-Assessment: Before submission, a report should be checked for accuracy, adherence to writing standards, and freedom from errors. A detailed checklist is provided, covering the abstract, main body (introduction, methods, findings, discussion, conclusions), references, and general qualities (replication, flow, relevance, publishability). Seeking feedback from colleagues and key informants is highly recommended.
The Politics of Publication: Publication is the ultimate goal, but it involves “intensive political and ideological manoeuvring, negotiation and politicking.”
Factors influencing publication: Quality, social relevance, economic considerations, and ideological imperatives.
Reviewer Bias: “When biased reviewers infiltrate the editorial boards of journals and publishing houses, this issue becomes critical.” Personal interests, economic considerations, and ideological convictions can lead to valid findings remaining unpublished.
Sponsor/Interest Group Influence: Companies or political parties contracting research may suppress reports that don’t support their views. Interest groups may also work to prevent publication if findings are inconsistent with their expectations.
Publisher Interests: Book publishers seek high-quality manuscripts with high returns, sometimes prioritizing business interests over academic quality. Specialist publishers and university presses exist for less marketable but academically sound works.
Ethical Dilemmas: Researchers may face pressure to “delete/change parts of the report” to protect powerful groups. Adhering to ethical standards can lead to severe penalties, including loss of funding, data access, and suppression of findings.
From Research Findings to Policy and Practice: Publication does not guarantee influence on public policy. Intervention tactics, especially in action research, are often necessary.
Intervention Tactics: Include emancipation, raising awareness, focus, and guidance.
Methods: Active debate with authorities (potentially confrontational), political involvement (contacting governing and opposition parties), media campaigns, and street demonstrations.
Impact: The goal is to make the research issue a “public issue, a community matter and a political concern,” as governments are more sensitive to public pressure than to reports alone. Action groups can unite communities and empower them to effect social change.

V. Main Points Summary

Reporting communicates findings to interested groups.
Ethical considerations, the reader, and report purpose are crucial.
Report structure varies by publication type.
Common outlets include newspapers, newsletters, conferences, monographs, journals, and books.
Key report parts are abstract, introduction, method, results, discussion, conclusion, recommendation, and references.
Good reports are clear, precise, appropriate, complete, objective, fair, verifiable, impersonal, and ethical.
Quantitative reports are more structured than qualitative ones.
Presentation involves considering person, voice, tense, and language.
Sexist language should be avoided.
The politics of publishing is a significant factor.

27. The Art of Academic Argument: They Say, I Say

This document provides a briefing on effective strategies for constructing academic arguments, drawing primarily from “they-say-i-say-5th ed.pdf.” The core theme across the excerpts is the crucial role of engaging with existing ideas (“They Say”) as a foundation for developing and asserting one’s own (“I Say”). This framework emphasizes clarity, context, and counter-argumentation in academic discourse.

Key Themes and Concepts:

1. The “They Say / I Say” Framework: Engaging with Existing Conversations

The central tenet of these excerpts is the importance of grounding one’s argument in the context of ongoing academic discussions. Simply presenting one’s own ideas in isolation is often insufficient. Instead, effective argumentation requires explicitly acknowledging and responding to what “they” (other authors, common beliefs, opposing viewpoints) have already said.

Establishing Context: “Academic writing requires that you not only state your own claims but also put those claims in conversation with the claims of others.” This highlights that academic work is rarely a solo endeavor but rather a contribution to a broader dialogue.
The “They Say” as a Starting Point: The document provides numerous templates for introducing existing viewpoints, such as:
“A number of [sociologists, scientists, philosophers] have recently suggested that X.”
“It has become common to assume that X.”
“In discussions of X, a controversial issue is whether Y or Z.”
“On the one hand, X argues… On the other hand, Y argues…”
“Conventional wisdom has it that X.”
“My research indicates X, but many other studies have shown Y.”
Acknowledging Opposition: The framework encourages directly addressing opposing viewpoints to strengthen one’s own argument. Templates include: “In a recent article about X, Y complains that Z.” and “My point is not that X but that Y.”

2. Articulating Your Own Argument (“I Say”)

Once the “They Say” has been established, the focus shifts to clearly articulating one’s own position. This involves not only stating a claim but also providing evidence and elaborating on its implications.

Direct Statements of Opinion: “I agree that X.” “I disagree with X.” “I am of two minds about X. On the one hand, I agree that Y. On the other hand, I am not sure that Z.”
Agreeing with a Difference: The document suggests that simply agreeing is not enough; one should add a unique contribution. “She argues X, and I agree because Y.” “Her argument that X is supported by my own experience of Y.”
Disagreeing and Explaining Why: When disagreeing, it’s crucial to elaborate on the reasons for that disagreement. “While X makes the best case for Y, I cannot agree with him that Z.” “X is mistaken because she overlooks Y.”
Combining Agreement and Disagreement: “While I agree with X that Y, I cannot accept her conclusion that Z.”
Extending and Complicating Existing Ideas: “Though I concede that X, I still insist that Y.” “X is right that Y, but she seems to overlook Z.”

3. Summarizing and Quoting Effectively

The document emphasizes the importance of accurate and fair representation of others’ ideas through summarization and quotation.

Summary as a Foundation: “To do so, you need to be able to summarize others’ arguments clearly and precisely and to quote relevant passages from them.” This highlights that effective engagement requires a solid understanding of the source material.
“The Believing Game”: While not explicitly named in the provided excerpts, the phrasing “In order to fairly summarize X, I would point out that Y” suggests the principle of trying to understand an author’s argument from their perspective, even if one eventually plans to critique it.
Strategic Quoting: The templates for introducing quotes (e.g., “X states, ‘…'”) and explaining them (e.g., “In other words, X believes Y”) emphasize that quotes should not stand alone but be integrated and analyzed.
Avoiding “Hit-and-Run” Quoting: The implication is that simply dropping a quote without context or explanation is ineffective. The various templates for introducing, explaining, and responding to quotes demonstrate this.

4. Language and Templates for Academic Writing

The excerpts are rich with specific phrases and templates designed to help writers structure their arguments clearly and concisely. These templates serve as a “jump-start” for engaging with sources and formulating one’s own ideas.

Introducing “Standard Views”: “Many people assume that X.” “Conventional wisdom has it that X.” “The standard way of thinking about X has it that Y.”
Introducing Arguments from “They Say”: “In his book X, Y writes that Z.” “X and Y both contend that Z.”
Explaining Quotes: “Basically, X is saying Y.” “In other words, X believes Y.”
Making a Claim: “I argue that X.” “My point is that X.” “My research indicates that X.”
Explaining What You Mean: “In other words, Y.” “To put it another way, Y.”
Introducing a Counterargument/Objection: “Of course, many will probably object that X.” “Yet, some readers may challenge my view by insisting that X.”
Introducing Objections (Self-Correction): “Here many X will probably object that Y.” “But is it always true that X? Is it always the case, as I have been suggesting, that Y?”
Making Concessions: “While I agree with X that Y, I still insist that Z.”

Most Important Ideas/Facts:

Academic arguments are a conversation, not a monologue. You must explicitly engage with what others have said.
The “They Say / I Say” structure provides a powerful framework for developing and presenting your own arguments.
Fair and accurate summarization and quotation of sources are fundamental.
Templates are valuable tools for structuring arguments, introducing sources, and clarifying your own position.
Simply agreeing or disagreeing is insufficient; you must explain why and contribute something new.
Anticipating and addressing counterarguments strengthens your own position.

By adopting these principles, writers can move beyond merely stating opinions and instead participate effectively in the ongoing academic dialogue, making their own contributions clear, well-supported, and impactful.

28. The Art and Science of Data Visualization

Antony Unwin’s article highlights data visualization as a fundamental tool in modern data science, extending beyond mere presentation to encompass crucial roles in data cleaning, exploration, and analysis. While often perceived as self-explanatory, graphics require context and critical interpretation to be truly effective. The article distinguishes between exploratory and presentation graphics, emphasizing the growing importance of visualization due to technological advancements and its pervasive presence across various media. It also identifies significant opportunities for future research and calls for greater emphasis on teaching and discussing graphics.

Main Themes and Key Ideas

1. The Core Purpose and Utility of Data Visualization

Data visualization is defined as “drawing graphic displays to show data.” Its primary goal is to “visualize data and statistics, interpreting the displays to gain information.” Unwin stresses its essential role in the data analysis pipeline, particularly for:

Data Cleaning: Identifying inconsistencies and errors.
Exploring Data Structure: Understanding the overall arrangement of data.
Detecting Outliers and Unusual Groups: Spotting anomalies that might be missed by statistical methods alone.
Identifying Trends and Clusters: Recognizing patterns and groupings within the data.
Spotting Local Patterns: Discovering localized features.
Evaluating Modeling Output: Assessing the results of statistical models.
Presenting Results: Communicating findings effectively.

Unwin argues that “Graphics reveal data features that statistics and models may miss: unusual distributions of data, local patterns, clusterings, gaps, missing values, evidence of rounding or heaping, implicit boundaries, outliers, and so on.” It is integral to “exploratory data analysis and data mining to check data quality and to help analysts become familiar with the structure and features of the data before them.”

2. Graphics are Not Self-Sufficient: The Need for Context and Interpretation

The adage “A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Words” is challenged. Unwin asserts, “A picture is not a substitute for a thousand words; it needs a thousand words (or more).” Effective data visualization requires comprehensive contextual information, including:

The source and collection methods of the data.
The rationale behind drawing the displays.
Expert advice on interpretation.

Graphics are “part of a whole” and “complement text and are complemented by text.” The article advocates for more discussion around graphics, posing questions like “Why have you drawn those graphics? How have you drawn them? What can be seen?” to foster deeper understanding and critical evaluation. It also warns against uncritically accepting graphics, citing inaccuracies in even highly praised historical examples like Minard’s display of Napoleon’s Russian campaign.

3. Distinction Between Presentation and Exploratory Graphics

Unwin draws a clear line between two distinct types of data visualization:

Presentation Graphics:Designed to “convey known information.”
Often “designed to attract attention.”
Typically a single, well-designed graphic with effective accompanying text for a broad audience (e.g., newspapers, web).
Focus on elegance and conciseness, like the final versions of mathematical proofs.
Exploratory Graphics:Used to “find new information.”
Should “direct attention to information.”
Many, many graphics for an audience of one (the analyst).
Individual graphics “need not be perfect” but should offer “alternative views and additional information.”
Leverage the ease of drawing and redrawing graphics in modern software to explore many possibilities.

The shift towards easy graphic generation necessitates new skills: “Identifying interesting features and knowing how to check them in more detail among a myriad of possible graphics is not just a matter of drawing many graphics, you need interpretative skills and an appreciation of which graphics will provide what kinds of information.”

4. The Rising Importance and Advancements in Data Visualization

Data visualization has become significantly more important due to:

Technological Advancements:“Better hardware has meant more precise reproduction, better color (including alpha-blending), and faster drawing.”
“Better software has meant easier and more flexible drawing, consistent themes, and higher standards.”
Computer Science Involvement: Increased engagement from computer scientists has introduced new technical approaches and theories.
Theoretical Development: Progress in developing a theory of graphics, notably Wilkinson’s “Grammar of Graphics” (2005) and its implementation in R’s ggplot2 package by Hadley Wickham.
Wider Application: Graphics are now pervasive “everywhere, in scientific publications, in newspapers and TV, and on the Web.”

5. Opportunities and Challenges in Research and Education

Unwin identifies several areas for future development:

Principles for Graphic Selection: Research is needed on “how to decide which of many possible graphics to draw.” The goal is not a single “optimal” graphic, but a group of graphics that provides more information.
Combining and Linking Graphics: Better understanding and software are needed for “combining and linking graphics,” both static and interactive, to facilitate effective comparisons (e.g., small multiples).
Educating Users on Graphic Value: There is “work to be done in educating researchers and readers in the value of graphics.” Many perceive graphics as mere illustrations rather than central argumentative components.
Balancing Novelty and Familiarity: While innovative graphics are exciting, it is crucial to make “the best use of known and well-understood graphics.” Novel graphics require instruction, and designers should not assume their intent is “obvious to everyone.”
Insufficient Teaching: Data visualization is “not taught badly, it is just not taught very much at all.”

The article concludes with a strong call to action:

“—discuss more graphics more;
—interpret more graphics more;
—teach more graphics more.”

29. Audible Scholarship: Listening’s Rise in Academia

This briefing document summarizes the key themes, ideas, and facts presented in the provided source regarding the increasing role of podcasts, audiobooks, and text-to-speech technology in academic research.

Main Themes

The “Pivot to Digital” and Screen Fatigue: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly accelerated academia’s reliance on digital interfaces, leading to widespread “screen fatigue” among scholars. This has created a demand for alternative modes of engagement with research content.
The Rise of Audible Research Content: Alongside the digital pivot, there has been a documented increase in the popularity of podcasts in wider society, a trend that is also present within higher education. Academics are increasingly engaging with research through listening, utilizing audiobooks, podcasts, and text-to-speech services.
Challenging the Primacy of Reading: The emergence of audible content is “unsettling the pride of place accorded to reading within higher education.” There’s a need to move beyond viewing listening as an “inferior way to engage with texts” or as an “ableist” assumption that these technologies (many with assistive origins) are “second best to the ‘real’ work of reading.”
Unique Strengths and Weaknesses of Listening: Listening offers distinct advantages, such as sparking conversation and providing a “direct connection with voice” for qualitative researchers. However, it also presents challenges, particularly in tasks like recording specific quotations and references, and can lead to “auditory fatigue.”
Towards Multimodal Scholarship: The article advocates for recognizing the “increasingly multimodal character of scholarship” and developing practices that leverage the “constraints and enablements” of both reading and listening. Failing to acknowledge this shift could lead to “shadow scholarship” – widespread practices that lack professional acknowledgment and discussion.

Most Important Ideas and Facts

COVID-19’s Impact: The pandemic necessitated that “almost all traditional features of academic work to be mediated via screens,” leading to “increased screen time” as a “continued feature of academic work” in the post-pandemic university.
Widespread Adoption of Audio: “During the pandemic there has also been a widely documented increase in the popularity of podcasts,” a trend extending to higher education. This has fostered “a significant pool of scholars for whom listening has become a significant mode of engagement with ideas.”
Beyond “Deficit Terms”: The author urges against construing listening “in deficit terms, as an inferior way to engage with texts.” This would be “ableist in its assumption that these technologies (many of which have assistive origins) represent a second best to the ‘real’ work of reading.”
Distinctive Value of Audio: Listening can bring ideas to life in different ways. As Zachary Davis observed, “I don’t think there’s anything that sparks conversation quite like a good podcast episode.” For qualitative researchers, listening is “an integral part of practice, both in the fieldsite and when working with data. It is seen in terms of direct connection with voice, rather than a poor alternative to text.”
Practical Challenges of Audio Engagement: A persistent difficulty with listening is “recording quotations and references.” The author details personal struggles with “pinning down the specificity of a definition” and the lack of page numbers in audiobooks, often necessitating a return to hard copies or secondary literature for precise citations.
The Need for Professional Acknowledgment: The author warns that without a serious conversation about integrating listening into academic practice, there will be “shadow scholarship, in which there’s a widespread practice that isn’t professionally acknowledged and doesn’t benefit from being an object of professional discussion and debate.”
Balancing Modalities: The goal is not to “valorise listening over reading,” but to acknowledge the multimodal nature of scholarship to help academics “develop practices which work for them, informed by an appreciation of the constraints and enablements of each.”
Cultural Baggage: There’s a need to overcome the “cultural baggage associated with books and reading within higher education,” and the “aura of profundity which surrounds” the codex book, even as “books are increasingly engaged with in electronic form.”

Research Methodology MCQ LLM NLSIU

Get Research Methodology MCQ LLM NLSIU

Share on Facebook

Post on X

Save

RM END TERM NOTES LLM NLSIU (DO OR DIE)

Bykanoonpedia@gmail.com

Table of Contents

1. “Law and the Methodology of Law” by Edward L. Rubin RM END TERM NOTES

2. Mapping Legal Research: Frameworks and Evolution

3. Indian Legal Research: Challenges, Traditions, and Emerging Themes RM END TERM NOTES

4. India’s Judicial Reform: A Systemic and Empirical Call

5. Crafting Effective Research Questions: A Briefing

6. Constitution-Writing in Divided Societies: An Incremental Approach

7. Why the Haves Win: Limits of Legal Change

8. Indian Supreme Court Workload: 1993-2011 Analysis

9. Credible Causal Inference for Empirical Legal Studies

10. Measuring the Rule of Law

11. Beyond Reasonableness: A Rigorous Standard for Article 15 Review

12. Archetypal Legal Scholarship: A Field Guide Summary

13. India’s Self-Incrimination Right: The Enduring Legacy of Kathi Kalu Oghad

14. India’s Public Interest Litigation: Power, Populism, and Procedure

15. Vera Tiscenko: Conversion, Divorce, and Colonial Law in India

16. India’s Supreme Court Workload: A Time-Driven Analysis

17. India’s Supreme Court: An Identity Crisis

18. Justice as a Secret: Compromise in Rape Trials

19. Qualitative Methods for Social Activism Research

20. Civic Networks and Ethnic Peace: India’s Lessons

21. Participant Observation as Revolutionary Praxis

22. The Balinese Cockfight: Status, Culture, and Deep Play

23.Trans-Judicial Influence and South Asian Public Interest Litigation

24. Elbow’s Organic Writing: Grow and Cook Your Words

25. Demystifying Academic Writing for College Students

26. Crafting Effective Research Reports: Principles and Practice

27. The Art of Academic Argument: They Say, I Say

28. The Art and Science of Data Visualization

29. Audible Scholarship: Listening’s Rise in Academia

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You missed

AIBE 20 Syllabus and Preparation Strategy: Complete Guide for 2025

Legal Assistant Manager Vacancy 2025 At Shipping Corporation Of India Ltd: Complete Application Guide

Article 18 of the Indian Constitution: Complete Guide to Abolition of Titles in India

HUME ON ‘IS’ AND ‘OUGHT’: Facts and Values in Moral Philosophy