In this article, I analyse the methodological issues that arise when I accept a judge's invitation to observe her hear women testify in criminal proceedings against their traffickers at the district courthouse in X, Germany. I develop a theoretical framework using Pierre Bourdieu's theory of embodied power and his methods of epistemic reflexivity and participant objectivation, and feminist engagements with affect theory. I use my fieldwork experience with a judicial gatekeeper and in conducting ethnographic observational research ‘behind the scenes of formal law’ to interrogate how bodies, emotions and affects inform power in the spaces of criminal law. Specifically, I approach bodies, emotions and affects as conceptual tools with which to interrogate how power transmits when I ‘enter’ and ‘read’ the field, and make claims to ‘know’ the subject under study. Core to my analysis is a critical process of self-reflection, through which I challenge the assumptions that underpin my assessment of my research participants’ ability to consent to participate in my study.
AdkinsL (2004) Introduction: feminism, Bourdieu and after. The Sociological Review52(2): 3–18.
2.
AhmedS (2004) Collective feelings: or, the impressions left by others. Theory, Culture and Society21(2): 25–42.
3.
AndrijasevicR (2010) Migration, Agency and Citizenship in Sex Trafficking. London: Springer.
4.
AnleuSRMackK (2021) Judging and Emotion: A Socio-Legal Analysis. London: Routledge.
5.
BandesSABlumenthalJA (2012) Emotion and the law. Annual Review of Law and Social Science8(1): 161–181.
6.
Bergman BlixSWettergrenÅ (2015) The emotional labour of gaining and maintaining access to the field. Qualitative Research15(6): 688–704.
7.
BohlanderM (2008) Principles of German Criminal Law. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
8.
BoscoMCL (2021) Feelings in the field: the emotional labour of the ethnographer. Anthropology in Action28(2): 8–17.
9.
BourdieuP (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge.
10.
BourdieuP (1985) The social space and the genesis of groups. Theory and Society14(2): 723–744.
11.
BourdieuP (1986) The forms of capital. In: RichardsonJG (eds) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Capital. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 241–258.
12.
BourdieuP (1990) The Logic of Practice. (R Nice, Trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
13.
BourdieuP (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14.
Brunovskis A and Surtees R (2008) Agency or illness—the conceptualization of trafficking: victims' choices and behaviors in the assistance system. Gender, Technology and Development 12(1): 53–76.
15.
BrunovskisASurteesR (2010) Untold stories: biases and selection effects in research with victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation. International Migration48(4): 1–37.
16.
CarettaMAJokinenJC (2017) Conflating privilege and vulnerability: a reflexive analysis of emotions and positionality in postgraduate fieldwork. The Professional Geographer69(2): 275–283.
17.
CarlineAGunbyCMurrayJ (2020) Rape and the Criminal Trial: Reconceptualising the Courtroom as an Affective Assemblage. London: Springer Nature.
18.
Chiseri-StraterE (1996) And reflexivity in case study and ethnographic research. In: MortensenPKirschGE (eds) Ethics and Representation in Qualitative Studies. Urbana, IL: National Council of English Teachers, 115–133.
19.
ClarkT (2011) Gaining and maintaining access: exploring the mechanisms that support and challenge the relationship between gatekeepers and researchers. Qualitative Social Work10(4): 485–502.
20.
CvetkovichA (2012) 0 Depression: A Public Feeling. Chapel Hill: Duke University Press.
21.
FergusonLYongeOMyrickF (2004) Students’ involvement in faculty research: ethical and methodological issues. International Journal of Qualitative Methods3(4): 56–68.
22.
FitzGerald S (2020) Trafficked women's presentation of self before the German courts. European Journal of Women's Studies 27(1): 57–71.
23.
Fitz-GibbonK (2016) Gaining access and managing gatekeepers: undertaking criminological: research with those ‘within’ the system. In: JacobsenMHWalklateS (eds) Liquid Criminology? Doing Imaginative Criminological Research. London: Routledge, 173–187.
24.
GallagherC (2000) White like me? In: Winddance TwineFWarrenJ (eds) Racing Research, Researching Race: Methodological Dilemmas in Critical Race Studies. New York: New York University Press, 67–99.
25.
Gorton K (2007) Theorizing emotion and affect: Feminist engagements. Feminist Theory 8(3): 333–348.
26.
GrimmPW (2017) Challenges facing judges regarding expert evidence in criminal cases. Fordham Law Review86(4): 1601–1615.
27.
HamiltonM (2020) Judicial gatekeeping on scientific validity with risk assessment tools. Behavioural Sciences and the Law38(3): 226–245.
28.
HeathSCharlesCCrowG, et al. (2007) Informed consent, gatekeepers and go-betweens: negotiating consent in child and youth-orientated institutions. British Educational Research Journal33(3): 403–417.
29.
HochschildA (1983) The Managed Heart: Commercialisation of Human Feeling. Oakland: University of California Press.
30.
HoyleCBosworthMDempseyM (2011) Labelling the victims of sex trafficking: exploring the borderland between rhetoric and reality. Social and Legal Studies20(3): 313–329.
31.
JarembaUMakE (2014) Interviewing judges in the transnational context. Law and Method2: 1–14.
32.
Lønsmann D (2016) Negotiating positionality in ethnographic investigations of workplace settings: student, consultant or confidante? In: Alessi G and Jacobs G (eds) The Ins and Outs of Business and Professional Discourse Research: Reflections on Interacting with the Workplace. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 13–36.
33.
LutzCWhiteGM (1986) The anthropology of emotions. Annual Review of Anthropology15(1): 405–436.
34.
MassumiB (1995) The autonomy of affect. Cultural Critique31(2): 83–110.
35.
McNayL (1999) Gender, habitus and the field: Pierre Bourdieu and the limits of reflexivity. Theory, Culture and Society16(1): 95–117.
36.
McRobbieA (2004) Notes on ‘What Not To Wear’ and post-feminist symbolic violence. The Sociological Review52(2): 99–109.
37.
MoiT (1991) Appropriating Bourdieu: feminist theory and Pierre Bourdieu’s sociology of culture. New Literary History22(4): 1017–1049.
38.
MorenoJ (1998) Convenient and captive populations. In: JeffreyJMastroianniASugarmanJ (eds) Beyond Consent: Seeking Justice in Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 111–130.
39.
MulhallA (2002) Nursing research and nursing practice: an exploration of two different cultures. Intensive and Critical Care Nursing18(2): 48–55.
40.
PedwellCWhiteheadA (2012) Affecting feminism: questions of feeling in feminist theory. Feminist Theory13(2): 115–129.
41.
Roach AnleuSBergman BlixSMackK, et al. (2016) Observing judicial work and emotions: using two researchers. Qualitative Research16(4): 375–391.
42.
SangheraGThapar-BjörkertS (2008) Methodological dilemmas: gatekeepers and positionality in Bradford. Ethnic and Racial Studies31(3): 543–562.
43.
SedgwickE (2003) Touching Feeling: Affect, Pedagogy, Performativity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
44.
SelaAZimermanNAlbersteinM (2018) Judges as gatekeepers and the dismaying shadow of the law: courtroom observations of judicial settlement practices. Harvard Negotiation Law Review24(1): 83–125.
45.
SkilbreiML (2011) Taking trafficking to court. Women and Criminal Justice20(1-2): 40–56.
46.
SkilbreiMLTveitM (2008) Defining trafficking through empirical work: blurred boundaries and their consequences. Gender, Technology and Development12(1): 9–30.
47.
StanleyLWiseS (1990) Method, methodology and epistemology in feminist research processes. In: StanleyL (eds) Feminist Praxis: Research, Theory and Epistemology in Feminist Sociology. London: Routledge, 20–60.
48.
StewartK (2008) Weak theory in an unfinished world. Journal of Folklore Research: An International Journal of Folklore and Ethnomusicology45(1): 71–82.
49.
Tomkins S (1991) Affect Imagery Consciousness: Anger and Fear (Vol. 3). New York: Springeromkins.
50.
WaldramJ (1998) Anthropology in prison: negotiating consent and accountability with a “captured” population. Human Organization57(2): 238–244.
