[author]He Xin

[content]

Capture problems in the field

He Xin

Professor of the Faculty of Law, the University of Hong Kong

 

This article originated from Professor He Xin's keynote speech at the sixth "General Lecture Hall of Law and Anthropology" hosted by the Legal Anthropology Cloud Reading Club (wechat Public account "Legal Anthropology World") on December 8, 2023, as a keynote speaker. The topic of his lecture was "Capturing Problems in the Field".

 

The topic I'm going to talk about today is "Capturing Problems in the Field", mainly to share some of the confusions I encountered and some lessons I learned in the field. Many classmates and friends often think that there might be a large number of problems in the fields. Because as long as you go into the fields, you will naturally encounter many interesting things. Take it back, then make some records, and it can be written as an empirical article, but this is a big misunderstanding of the field. In the process of fieldwork, seeking out problems is actually also a form of research. We have many ways to do research. The mainstream approach is clearly to look for problems in the study or by reading and researching literature in the library. In a sense, fieldwork is a way to assist research. At least that's how I view these issues as a legal scholar rather than someone with an anthropological background.

As an auxiliary approach, what unique features does the field have in its way of asking questions and finding problems? When many people went to the fields, they discovered many phenomena, made many fresh observations, raised interesting questions and gained valuable insights. However, they have no idea how to capture these discoveries and turn them into real academic problems. If you pay attention, you will notice that I used the word "capture", which means how to capture problems. This indicates that these problems may exist and require very careful consideration to catch them. To a certain extent, it bears a great resemblance to business people seizing business opportunities and soldiers seizing fighter jets. Because these opportunities require one to make efforts to be aware of their existence and then seize them in a certain specific situation.

Therefore, by going to the field in such a way to understand the basic operational rules of this society, the enforcement of a specific law, the operation of a certain social institution, and the interaction points of certain factors, one can know what problems they should look for? Many people often look for problems by reading some books and then taking "seeking common ground" as their research approach. I think this kind of thinking often ends in failure or it's hard to find interesting problems. For instance, what kind of work do people think lawyers do? Help the parties involved. Then let's go to the fields and find that they are helping the parties involved. At this point, perhaps we haven't come up with a novel topic. What I want to express is that the key to seeking and capturing problems lies in "seeking differences". In fact, it all depends on how you can find some differences in the field from what you have read and understood.

Let me start with some of my own failed experiences. It was about ten years ago when I was invited by a local leader to conduct research there. At that time, he said, "Come and do some research here, and then learn about the implementation of the local marriage law. Will the interaction between the marriage law and marriage customs trigger some interesting thoughts?" Later, I went to that place for research. When I arrived, the local person who received me was even more worried than the leader who invited me for the research. He was worried about my safety and tried every possible way to say that he needed to find someone to accompany me on the research locally. At that time, I needed to go from the provincial capital to a very remote place. Later, he found a lawyer. This lawyer is also a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. He took very good care of me all the way. Finally, after the lawyer accompanied me to that city, I learned that it was actually his hometown. Therefore, he was very familiar with the local situation and could fully meet all my investigation requirements. For instance, which institutions are to be visited? What kind of people are you going to interview? What kind of places are interesting to visit? He made detailed arrangements for all the activities. During this process, he did his best to answer countless questions that I wanted to know. After collecting a large amount of data on the spot during the investigation, I found that for some reasons, the research I had originally planned couldn't proceed. Finally, the project was put on hold.

Many years later, I came across an article about the special forms of lawyers' practice, which was exactly the research I wanted to do at that time. It was only after reading that article that I realized the reason why I couldn't carry on at that time was that I had overlooked the key issues. For this reason, I am particularly moved: I have spent so much effort and made such great efforts to collect materials, but the most important materials are right in front of me, yet I turn a blind eye to them. I thought of that lawyer who had been with me for over ten days, always by my side except when I was sleeping. At that time, if I wanted to interview more lawyers like him, he would surely do his best to help me get in touch and also tell me how local lawyers usually handle cases. How's it going? And all kinds of stories in between. These materials were all very novel to me at that time. Why would I neglect such an important material? Why turn a blind eye to the key issues in the fields? The reason is quite simple. At that time, I didn't have a good grasp of the relevant literature and research status of lawyers' practice. I had no idea what the existing forms of lawyers' practice were, nor did I think about what challenges the emergence of new types of lawyers would bring to lawyers' practice.

It can be said that the key to being able to capture problems in the field lies in the degree of grasping and understanding of the literature, as well as the formation of a theoretical framework. Afterwards, in the fields, when encountering "differences" or novel things, can we immediately and keenly identify and capture the problems, and then conduct specialized research on them? The story I just shared is the biggest mistake I have ever made in the field so far. But from another perspective, this experience might also have its rewarding side.

Although I didn't conduct similar research later, a master's student from the Law School of the University of Hong Kong reached out to me on his own initiative. He shared with me what he is doing about LGBT [LGBT is an abbreviation for phrases such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender in English, and is also known in Chinese as "rainbow Tribe", "rainbow Group", "sexual minority", etc. The term first appeared in the United States in 1988. In the 1990s, "LGBT" was used as a neutral term to refer to the above four groups as a sign of respect. Although the acceptance of different groups within the LGBT community varies and there is still controversy, the use of the term "LGBT" is still regarded as having positive implications for inclusiveness and has now been recognized and adopted by the majority of LGBT communities and LGBT media in many English-speaking countries. - Editor's Note] Research on the case. He downloaded all the cases he could find from the Judgments Online and read many of my previous books and articles about domestic violence. He was particularly inspired by the idea of "deleting" domestic violence. He found that judges also engaged in similar "deletion" behavior when handling cases related to LGBT issues. When many judges are hearing such cases, they may choose to reject them, turn a blind eye to them, or handle them by evading the issue. He will apply my research ideas on "deleting" domestic violence to the process of judges handling LGBT lawsuits. Most LGBT lawsuits are property claims. Therefore, he also considered issues such as how to clearly divide the joint property of the couple when they have lived together for a long time. By what criteria should it be divided? During the marriage, issues such as whether the gifted property should be returned. I carefully read his research results. The research was very well done and the questions were also very interesting. I encouraged him to adopt the method of conducting field investigations for further observation.

Before I went abroad to study, the phenomenon of LGBT people had basically never been publicly exposed in China. Many people believe that society has a very low tolerance for such groups. However, through the study of over 1,000 judgments, this master's student found that this was not the case - the tolerance of society is actually quite large. Not only can they live together openly, with some even cohabiting for ten years or more, but they can also take their disputes to court and disclose their identities. During the trial process, the court actually recognized their identities to a certain extent: the first way of recognition was that the court did not directly refuse to accept such cases; The second way of recognition is to judge in its open and flexible manner. This approach is particularly worthy of further study. In addition, a thorough study can be conducted on the transformation of society's tolerance for LGBT people. We can observe the process of this transformation and also make some comparisons. For instance, we can compare the cases of Myanmar, Singapore, the United States and China. In short, to accurately capture a problem and not miss it, one must grasp its development and trend, thoroughly study the existing research results, and then in this process, some new problems may arise.

Let me give another failed experience that occurred during my first field investigation. Recently, Professor Zhao Xiaoli from Tsinghua University published a book on law and literature. This book contains a photo of him and me taken during our field research in northern Shaanxi back then, and that failed experience occurred at that time. At that time, I felt very lucky to be able to work on a project for Teacher Zhu Suli together with Teacher Zhao Xiaoli and Teacher Qiang Shigong. Teacher Zhu Suli also sent the three of us to Teacher Qiang Shigong's hometown to conduct field research. The field time was about seven to ten days. During this period, all kinds of things happened and I also encountered all kinds of interesting people and events. One of the most famous incidents might be well-known to everyone - Teacher Zhu Suli even wrote about it as "Why 'Delivering the Dharma to the Door'?" This article. The case in this article tells the story of how a rural credit cooperative went to a borrower's home on the edge of a desert to collect the loan repayment. The day this material was collected was very accidental. That morning, we had breakfast in a small restaurant and discussed the work plan for a while. Later, we saw that the other table of people having breakfast beside us was the loan collector from the credit cooperative, and there was also the local police chief among them. We chatted together and only then did we learn that they were going to collect the loan repayment at that time. At that time, Teacher Qiang Shigong proposed to change the plan and not follow the previous plan for the time being. He suggested going with the people from the credit cooperative first. After a day of trekking, I basically recorded the entire process completely. I was running around, busy taking photos, serving tea, pouring water and other bit parts. These were obviously the things I should have done at that time. However, the feelings during this process are still fresh in my memory to this day.

At that time, I thought that this case occurred at the edge of the desert. Although the scenery there was unique, we had traveled so far just to investigate such a matter. We really couldn't figure out what the meaning was. These things seemed to be all too normal. The process is quite simple. Someone has taken out a loan. You lead a group of people to collect the loan. If you can't find the borrower, you go to the village director to mediate. Finally, both sides mediate and the case is settled. I myself don't think there's anything interesting about it, nor have I found anything unique. At that time, I merely regarded that research as a social survey task that students needed to complete. I'm just doing something for my senior brothers. However, after sending this story to Teacher Zhu Suli, Teacher Zhu Suli immediately wrote "Why 'Delivering the Dharma to the Door'?" [Su Li: "Why 'Delivering Law to the Door'?", Sociological Studies, No. 2,1998, pp. 47-57.] I still remember this article. At that time, Teacher Zhu Suli was very excited to tell us that this article was soon accepted by "Sociological Studies", and the chief editor even praised him enthusiastically. Finally, this article also became the most important one in Teacher Zhu Suli's "Sending Law to the Countryside". Why can Teacher Zhu Suli spot the problem while I turn a blind eye to it? Although I am the one who has recorded the entire process and collected first-hand materials, why is there such a big difference?

The reason is quite simple. Teacher Zhu Suli has a very clear understanding of the development process of Chinese law, the country's capabilities and limitations, and can keenly identify where the key to the problem lies. He is not only very familiar with the literature in this regard, but also has a very clear understanding of the relationship between the state and society. Laws are not enacted and implemented naturally; rather, they require some kind of power hub - a power network - to be realized. Teacher Qiang Shigong's article on "The Power Network" is no different. Although that article does not have too much "seeking differences" thinking, it is more about "seeking common ground" thinking. His viewpoint might have originated from reading Foucault's works. Foucault's talk about the operation of power requires a network. Teacher Qiang Shigong discovered the reality that the judicial system at the grassroots level in China would be unable to fulfill its tasks without relying on the network of government institutions. Therefore, being able to identify problems and transform some common, habitual and unremarkable events into an interesting article, regardless of whether it is a famous one or not, I think this is closely related to the degree of understanding of literature and the grasp of the entire social pattern.

I'd like to share a bit more of my successful experiences. Of course, in a certain sense, they are also experiences of failure. Many years ago, I went to the Pearl River Delta for research. It was after the 2008 financial crisis that many foreign-funded factories in the Pearl River Delta region, due to a shortage of funds, could no longer operate, and some investors fled. The factory buildings of these factories are all rented, and there are very few raw materials left. The land is also provided by local governments at very low prices. Among them, many were investors absding with their funds, which led to a large number of workers taking to the streets to demand their wages. They couldn't get their wages back and going to the government was of no use either. Their only option was to block the roads on the streets. At that time, I was conducting research in a court in the Pearl River Delta. The classmate who introduced me to the research informed me of the above-mentioned situations and told me about such a phenomenon: whenever workers blocked the road or caused trouble on the street, the court had to immediately take action and go to the street to persuade the workers not to block anymore and to file a lawsuit in court. The court would handle it as soon as possible and help the workers get their money back. I think this phenomenon is well worth studying, but I have no idea how to start writing about it. Later, I shared this story with my collaborator. He was a professor of sociology at the University of California at that time. After hearing this story, he immediately said that he could write a good article. One reason is the change in the structure of the courts. Originally, the principle of handling cases in courts was "no action, no judgment", which was a passive judicial system. This is basically the case all over the world. But now, such an active judicial institution has suddenly emerged, even going out on the street to persuade people to file a lawsuit in court as soon as possible, and the court will soon issue a judgment. Another reason is that most of the existing related research has focused on studying the behavior of the protesters. Because the actions of the protesters are easier to investigate, there are protesters everywhere on the streets. Researchers can easily communicate face-to-face with the protesters, who will confide all their grievances, strategies and means to the researchers. So, it is very convenient to enter the field investigation.

However, this story provides another subject, that is, the government, including the courts, and how they responded to the labor protests. This is "The Court on the Street - A Grassroots Government's Tolerance for Workers' Collective Resistance" [Su Yang, He Xin: "The Court on the Street - A Grassroots Government's Tolerance for Workers' Collective Resistance", published in Peking University Law Review, No. 2,2011, pp. 482-500.] The source of this article. This article, after its publication, had a very significant impact and aroused many reactions. The key point lies in that it seized upon issues that existing literature had not focused on. And by starting from this question, we offer a new understanding.

Returning to the topic, it is of great significance to grasp the literature. If one can identify the loopholes in existing research and seize the academic development trends, this issue will become a turning point. Once such a turning point is seized, it may reverse the orientation of subsequent similar research and even gain more attention as a result. Focusing on issues such as the internal logic and action patterns of courts and relevant government departments in responding to labor protests has actually become a research with path breakthroughs.

From this, it can be seen that whether to go to the field or not may not be the most important thing. The key work is the understanding of the literature and the academic acumen of the story itself. This academic sense is the most important and fundamental. Therefore, I have repeatedly emphasized that whether it is students or young colleagues, the key is to return from the field, read and understand the literature carefully, and discover the loopholes in it. If this is not achieved and one directly goes to the fields, it might lead to a situation where one "grabs everything at once", grasping a lot of things and feeling that each one has a new understanding, but in the end, one cannot truly write an article.

Regarding the question raised by some students that during the process of "seeking differences", there might be many discoveries, and how to choose the "difference". I think at this point, it might be necessary to look at the degree of novelty of the "difference". The novelty of this depends on which literature it is compared with. See which questions are truly likely to raise bigger ones. At this point, it is not only necessary to make preparations in advance, but also to continue reading literature afterwards. This might be even more important than going to the field itself. Whether one can make a discovery or not always emerges in the process of repeated deliberation and wavering between this literature and actual experience. Who knows, there might be a moment when a discovery will come.

The story I just mentioned about "deleting" domestic violence, if it could be considered a successful and somewhat astonishing one at that time, was also related to my reading of literature later. When I went to the court for research at that time, sitting inside the court, I was completely stunned. This was also mentioned in my English works. It was the first divorce case I encountered during my research at the court. The woman in this case claimed that her face had been beaten over 600 times, and she was beaten in front of her own father and also in front of her son, crying and sobbing. And I, this inexperienced so-called law professor, sat there, with only sympathy left and no other thoughts. My mind was basically led by the stories of the parties involved. After observing the entire process, I still have no idea how to write it. Of course, a thought would arise spontaneously, that is, to figure out how to protect this victim. In fact, this is not enough. The idea itself is rather cliched and not interesting enough. Later, I went back to read literature and suddenly found that there were also cases of domestic violence in the mediation systems of other countries. Then I conducted further research carefully. I have found that the phenomenon of "deletion" of domestic violence cases in mediation in China is particularly serious. The reason is quite simple. Judges in courts act as both referees and mediators, possessing both powers. Therefore, when mediating, they tend to completely forget about domestic violence. In practice, the reason why judges cannot take domestic violence into account is that if they do, it is impossible to mediate. Considering domestic violence would affect the outcome that judges want to mediate. If mediation and trial were separate, this situation would not be so serious.

If a summary is to be made, it would be that literature is more important than fieldwork. Fieldwork can be omitted, but literature must be read. If you just go to the fields, that's not enough. You must read the literature repeatedly. Read before going there, read when going there, and continue reading when coming back. Only in this way is it possible to find interesting questions. The above is the first question I talked about today.

Next, I would like to slightly emphasize the ability of observation. When you go to the fields, if you want to catch problems, you still need basic observational skills. Of course, the sharper the observation ability, the better, which is also related to the previous question. To have acute observational skills, one must first have an understanding of the literature. If one has no understanding of the literature at all, it is impossible to sharpen one's observational ability. The ability to observe requires training. For instance, some people may have poor communication skills and find it hard to get along well with others in the fields. "Being naturally familiar" itself is a kind of ability. I have many such friends, especially those from Northeast China and Beijing. They have a natural ability to get along well with others and soon get along particularly well with everyone. The ability to observe is the same. Some people are born with this ability to observe. I may not have this ability myself, but often I come across some colleagues, or students, or even my assistants who possess it. Some of their observations made me feel extremely excited. The stories I'm about to tell are not necessarily my own experiences. Some of them are those of my assistants, my students, and my friends.

The earliest observation was about a very simple matter. For example, observing jurors. What do jurors do in the court? In the Chinese court system, even after the promulgation of the "Juror Law of the People's Republic of China" (hereinafter referred to as the "Juror Law"), jurors have played a very auxiliary role and do not undertake substantive work. But our observation occurred before the enactment of the Juror Law. At that time, the role of jurors was actually more marginalized, and they were highly dependent on the courts. Because many of the jurors at that time might have been retired or temporarily unemployed, they could receive a certain amount of jury fees when they came to the court to serve as jurors. At this point, the jurors' perspective of observation is quite ordinary and not very difficult. Because we will find that jurors may arrive at the court early in the morning to wait for the trial. For instance, if the court session starts at eight o 'clock, they will arrive at 7:30 or 7:50. Most of the jurors were probably just standing in the corridor waiting for the court session. Because they don't have their own office, like other parties involved, they have to wait. However, there were also some jurors who did not simply stand there waiting. Instead, they went into the court's library to clean up and organize documents. Sometimes, they even greeted other court-related staff who were coming to the library. This is very interesting. Why do jurors do these things? He came to the court not only as a participant in the court trial, but also had a very basic dependence on the court. He hopes to "please" the court or its staff to some extent, make some contribution to the court and leave a good impression on it. If you study it carefully at this point, you will find that when this juror does this, why don't the other jurors do the same? This juror might be around forty or a little over forty. Fearing being laid off, he is particularly looking forward to this job. If such a juror were to be included in the trial process, to what extent would he comply with the judge's arrangement for him? To what extent can he put forward independent opinions? It is obvious that the dependency relationship between jurors and the court is particularly clear, so it is very difficult for them to put forward independent opinions. These things are right there and very simple. If you can capture them and regard them as an opening, you will discover more interesting things.

Another story is about what happened recently. This story is about a colleague and a student of mine who were conducting research at the procuratorate and wanted to ask the prosecutor some questions. Just then, they happened to encounter a colleague from the public security department visiting. This visiting colleague from the public security department is of a similar rank to that of a prosecutor, and there are no leaders from the public security department present. They are basically some middle-level cadres at the same level. After this colleague from the police station arrived, he brought a box of tea to the prosecutor. I think this is actually a very important detail. Since the power order among our public security, procuratorial and judicial organs is basically arranged in the order of public security, procuratorate and court, to a large extent, we can say that public security has the greatest power among them and emphasizes the centralism of investigation. Because the public security has the power to investigate. As soon as the public security authorities launch an investigation and find the evidence, the case is basically settled. Therefore, the power of the public security authorities is very significant. The so-called public security is the one who "cooks", the procuratorate is the one who "serves the meal", and the court is the one who "eats the meal". There is clearly a huge difference in the power of "cooking" and "serving food", but why would a colleague from the police force give tea to a prosecutor? The reason is quite interesting. Apparently, this police officer had a request for help from the prosecutor. If studied carefully, it will be found that the status between police officers and prosecutors has undergone profound changes. The previously discussed investigative doctrine, or the situation where the police were merely "cooking", may gradually be replaced. Because the power of the procuratorate has become increasingly greater. They gradually seized the most crucial power in the entire criminal trial. In cases of pleading guilty and accepting punishment, the procuratorate has the right to make sentencing suggestions. Because of their right to make sentencing suggestions, it will have an impact on the effectiveness of the police's evidence collection and the methods of evidence collection. Therefore, when the public security authorities find themselves seeking help from the procuratorate in many situations, they dare not act rashly. There are many things that need to be consulted with the procuratorate and require its cooperation and assistance. This is why the change we just mentioned occurred - the police officers delivering tea to the prosecutors instead of the opposite situation. At this point, an especially acute observational ability is needed. You know this matter is very small. It's not because of anything else. But if it's for something else, such as when two people have a particularly good relationship, it's also possible. Then, you can further ask what's going on. Maybe you can open up a gap from here. Therefore, the ability to observe requires some factor to be facilitated.

How is your understanding of the literature? What's your understanding of the matter itself? Do you have a clear understanding of this world? Cao Xueqin often said, "All things in the world are knowledge," which is exactly what he meant. Because the object of study in social sciences or legal anthropology is the operation of society. If you don't have a clear understanding of the fundamental laws of society, I think it will be very difficult for you to make interesting and insightful discoveries.

When we talk about doing academic research, it is actually inseparable from our understanding of society. Since learning merely refers to the study of society through concepts, classifications and means, fundamentally, it depends on our understanding of society and how we conduct learning. These two are highly consistent and inseparable. I often tell my students that if they only go to school to pursue a doctoral degree, it might not be suitable for them to study legal sociology or legal anthropology. They might accumulate some social experience and have some life lessons, which would make this issue clearer. In a certain sense, these two are highly correlated. I also mentioned in the book that if one has no interest in studying and understanding society, there is no need at all to study sociology, social sciences, or legal sociology. But if you are particularly interested in the operation of society, its laws, and the interaction between people, I think this discipline belongs to you and you should make efforts to study it.

Let me give one last example. I saw the research results of a foreign doctoral student, which focused on the review of death penalties in China. The topic of death penalty review has its sensitivity; it's not that it can't be studied. Because death penalty review is a process in criminal trials to achieve punishment and criminal justice. The figures regarding the death penalty are state secrets and stipulated by law. We have no interest in learning about them either. However, this doctoral student wants to understand the process of death penalty review, but what he studies is many factors involved in death penalty review, such as judges and lawyers. I think his observation of lawyers is extremely acute. The judges of the Review Division of the Supreme People's Court are all senior judges. This is because they either have extensive experience and long-term expertise in the Supreme People's Court or are elites selected from courts across the country. Therefore, they speak with great caution. This doctoral student quoted such a sentence in his book that really shocked me. It was written in the article that a judge of the Supreme Court's Review Division said, "I have never found a lawyer's opinion useful." What message does this statement reveal? First and foremost, the most direct question is whether the lawyers conducting death penalty reviews have truly provided valuable opinions? Judging from the judge's very affirmative words, it is obvious that there is no such thing. One can delve further into whether judges completely do not need the opinions of these lawyers. Obviously not. If we have a little understanding of this death penalty review, we will find that the death penalty review work is very meticulous, the judges are very serious, and they are very capable. Many of their similar deeds have also been published online. So why did this judge view lawyers in this way? The author attaches great importance to this sentence. He further studied the composition of lawyers for death penalty review through this sentence. For instance, what kind of lawyer would handle cases involving death penalty review? He soon discovered that, on the whole, it was not big-name lawyers or very famous ones. Most of the lawyers were novices, recent graduates, or those who had never handled similar cases before. In fact, the author also clearly points out that there are no professional lawyers specializing in death penalty reviews in China at all. Most lawyers just do it intermittently, handling cases when they have them and not when they don't.

The author further investigated, for instance, what was the average time this death penalty review lawyer spent on each death penalty review case? This is a death penalty review case. It is a very important case, concerning the life and death of a person. For inexperienced and immature lawyers, or even those who are not professional lawyers, if they merely spend a very short time presenting so-called opinions, to what extent are these opinions valuable? To what extent can it assist the judges of the Supreme Court's Review Division in re-examining and reviewing cases? Most or even the vast majority of death penalty review lawyers, as well as those handling criminal cases, are not professional lawyers. They are reluctant to invest time and lack special skills, thus unable to offer any valuable or helpful suggestions. The greatest enemy of criminal lawyers is not as we often see in Western literature or as reported by Western media. Teacher Liu Zhong made it very clear in his article that he, of course, also cited such literature from others.

What I want to say is that you need to cultivate your acute observation and capture abilities. Once such a small gap is encountered, it will be found that there may be a lot of content hidden within, and one can re-examine what a career positioning is. What are their abilities? Why is there such a big difference in professional ability between lawyers and prosecutors or judges? So much so that judges of the Supreme Court would say they have not seen the opinion of a death penalty review lawyer as useful and valuable, and those death penalty review lawyers work so hard to find potential flaws in each case so that their review work can be carried out completely. Therefore, in the fields, one needs to have the ability to know the autumn from a single leaf and the ability to see the leopard through a tube. This is often inseparable from daily training, that is, the understanding of the literature and the industry itself. Now, we have found that there is such a combination of these two aspects that can help you better capture and identify problems in the field, and then make the problem bigger. At this point, you will encounter some major problems, and of course, you will be very excited. But if you haven't encountered such problems, you can start with some minor ones, answer them gradually, and then go to other places to look for relevant materials for certification. Because going back to what was said earlier, it means that looking for materials in the fields is just one way for us to find them. Other methods can also be used to find such materials. It just depends on what each person's preferences are. For instance, Teacher Liu Zhong is particularly fond of reading archives and biographical novels. Therefore, he can discover a lot of valuable things from the autobiographies of some lawyers themselves. I think this is very good.

If the situation described by the interviewee in the field does not match the reality, I think there are two ways to respond. The first reason is the issue of insufficient trust. When you are in the field, what people say to you might be what they think they should say to you, rather than what they truly want to say in their hearts. He belongs to the category often mentioned in sociology - the state of performance. He looks at what kind of person you are and then, in what kind of occasion, what kind of performance he should give. This performance might not be entirely his real place either. In this state, what might need to be done is to increase trust to overcome this difference. If he has been speaking official jargon, lies or cliches all along and you think it's meaningless, then I don't think this path might work.

The remedy lies in the second aspect. I think it's more necessary to observe through other means. One of the greatest advantages that the field offers is that it allows you to observe. The field can enable you to verify in different ways, which is extremely crucial. I have also mentioned this point on other occasions. For instance, when a judge was chatting with me, he mentioned that in the first round of divorce cases, judges basically just return the cases and never grant a divorce at all. At this point, what he said made sense, or his analysis was also very reasonable. But I'm not saying to accept everything immediately. Instead, I'm looking for an opportunity to attend the court hearing right away. After listening to several court hearings, have further communication with the judge. At this point, it was discovered that the situation he mentioned could be verified from the side. Therefore, the first step to consider is whether you can find a way to increase this trust relationship and make him feel at ease with you. You have to let him know exactly what kind of person you are? You have to pass his "exam" for you. When he has a deeper understanding of you and treats you as a living person, as a friend, rather than you using him as a research subject, writing about him, reporting on him, and then possibly having a negative impact on him, etc. After he overcomes such a psychological feeling, I think you can achieve it. He wouldn't be so obvious and keep telling you those completely untrue things. The second point is that it needs to be verified through different channels and in different ways.

 

Regarding the issue of choosing a field spot, since different people may have different difficulties, not all the places you want to go are accessible. Even today when I want to go to certain places to do research on certain topics, I actually can't go. When conducting certain research, it may depend on opportunities. It is these opportunities, including school letters of introduction or recommendations from teachers. But I am very skeptical of this kind of letter of introduction. Because I have suffered a lot in this regard, I basically never use this approach at all. In many cases, it may be necessary to consider your specific relationship to get involved. Your relationship might be quite accidental. This makes it so that for some topics you particularly want to study, there may not be such an entry point to get into. But I also have another feasible way, and that is to make a long-term investment. If you are particularly eager to learn about a certain topic and if the community is basically open and not so sensitive, as long as you have enough time, you can always overcome it.

I can give you many examples in this regard. I might have mentioned them in the book as well. How could a girl from another country, such as a female student, study the legal awareness of prostitutes in China? How could this American professor go to Africa to study the development changes, management methods and management culture of Chinese enterprises? I think all of these are extremely difficult. Including the example I just mentioned, which studied the death penalty review of the Supreme Court, the author was an American student. To be honest, I have no idea how well he speaks Chinese. I believe he can speak a little Chinese, but that doesn't mean his Chinese is very fluent. Just think, he has to go to another country to study such a sensitive issue, yet he can still capture so much important information and do it very well, so well that it makes me feel quite ashamed myself. So, I think what you need to do is to give yourself a little confidence and a little patience. Just like a battlefield, how you break into this fortress requires you to think of more solutions. Here I can't offer an immediate miracle drug or a key that allows you to open the door after taking it. You may need to act according to the situation and rely on different resources to have different entry points. Since this class of ours is also an open one, I can't share very personal stories either. If it were in my class, I would talk about some very strange personal experiences. Sometimes it's really like you search hard but can't find anything, yet you get it without much effort. It was just a coincidence that you got involved for some reason. But before that, you would keep being turned away and encounter great difficulties. This might precisely mean that the method you are seeking might not be correct. There are still some shortcuts or places where you can apply your ingenuity that you haven't found. You need to think more, and also a little bit of luck, a little bit of "lucky"!

Regarding the source of the problem, I think there are multiple sources. It could be derived from literature, personal life, or even news. I'd like to explain why I feel that this literature is more important than the field. Fundamentally speaking, it is because what we are doing is an academic matter. The basis for knowledge innovation in the academic circle refers to the update of knowledge in literature. Only when such changes occur in the literature and are updated with records can they be regarded as an innovation of knowledge. So, it is an academic dialogue. If what happens in the field may be wonderful, but in fact it is not significant in the literature, it actually cannot form a particularly important academic issue. This is the most fundamental reason. So why do I say that literature is more important than fieldwork? Many people may be very familiar with fields. However, as scholars, it is impossible for us to understand the field better than the people in it. For instance, when we study some matters related to taxi drivers, they might know more than we do, and even more. However, this does not mean that this taxi driver can become a very good scholar. In their field practice, they have learned a lot of practical situations. This does not mean that by writing down their experiences, they are doing great research or making academic contributions. On the contrary, we just need to understand certain aspects, certain fragments and certain stories of taxi drivers' lives. When we place this story in the comparative system within this academic field, we will find that it enhances our understanding of certain academic insights. This is to say, why literature is more important than fieldwork.

When it comes to the question of whether talent or effort is more important, talent is necessary. However, I have been constantly emphasizing that when it comes to doing research, I completely agree with Shi Yigong's words that talent is the least important ability. I dare not talk about my experience because no matter how stupid or bad I describe myself, everyone knows that I am an undergraduate student from Peking University. But I have cultivated some students who are not undergraduates at Peking University. From my observations of the young people around me, I think the most important thing for achieving success is long-term persistence and hard work. I think people with talent will learn faster, but that doesn't mean they have the ability to keep learning. If the ability to keep learning can also be regarded as a kind of talent, then I agree that this talent is more important. But that requires a simple distinction. I am particularly persistent in pursuing it myself. I think it can be learned by oneself. When I went to northern Shaanxi in 1996, to be honest, my mind was completely blank. There was only one book in my bag, which was Yu Minhong's book about GRE vocabulary. Later on, I would find that I might also go to the fields, make some observations, and then write articles based on such observations. I think it can be learned, through summarization, through reflection, and through step-by-step learning. I don't think academia is completely monopolized by particularly intelligent people. Especially in the field, it requires a great deal of time, and then very meticulous observation, as well as repeated understanding, thinking and discussion with the literature. At this point, I realized that as long as you are willing to invest time and effort, and have a certain ability to understand, and as long as you write diligently and try and make mistakes, it can be cultivated.

The power relationship that emerges during an interview becomes increasingly difficult as it progresses. This is a fundamental rule. How to change? At this point, we need to return to the trust relationship we just mentioned. That's why it is said that the protesters are the easiest to study, the petitioners are the easiest to study, and the migrant workers are the easiest to study. Because their social status is relatively low. I mentioned in the book that during the research process, when you met someone pulling a cart or a tricycle, he was very happy to chat with you. That's the situation. If you want to move up to the position of an official, it might have been fine a few years ago, but now or at a more sensitive time, when you reach a provincial-level official, even if you had a good relationship with them before, they might become very cautious. If you want to reach the national level, it might be even more difficult. Then if you want to prepare to control the situation, it will actually be quite difficult. Frankly speaking, I don't have much experience in this regard. I often look for other breakthroughs. When I can't find a breakthrough, I'll try other ways.

How long is an appropriate time for field investigation? In an article, I specifically mentioned that previous anthropological research particularly required time, often one year, two years, three years or even longer. It requires very meticulous and in-depth observation. In fact, especially for us "amateurs", who were originally in the legal field and now need to conduct some field research. There is definitely a significant time constraint. The duration is short. It all depends on what kind of topic you have, how much preparation you have made, and what kind of resources you have. All these are relevant. I don't think it will take a particularly long time. From my own experience, I think a lot of things have already been dealt with within a week. If your question is very clear and your preparation is very thorough, this time is sufficient. This is very important. I have also particularly emphasized on other occasions before that you know what kind of questions you want to ask? What kind of information do you need? When you arrive, who will you talk to? Then when you are about to enter the archives room, do you know which book to turn to? Which page was photocopied? I think this is very important. If it's very clear in advance, this period of time won't be too long.

From my own perspective, if I go out to do fieldwork nowadays, being able to stay for one or two weeks is already a very luxurious thing. The duration is not fixed and depends on what kind of research you are doing. Sometimes you have to wait for the words of the parties involved, one by one. That might take one or two months, or even two or three months. Just like I have a student who can only wait at the entrance of that court to conduct a survey on the legal awareness of the parties involved. If I merely want to understand the handling of a certain type of case, I think it would be enough to spend a few days asking seven or eight people, then attend some court hearings and gather some materials.

Finally, I think there won't be any problem for the "post-2000s" generation to go to the fields. I believe that many people feel very nervous when they enter the fields, and this is quite normal. Because a great deal of our time is spent facing books, teachers, classmates and libraries. Going into society, one has to deal with real people and interact with them, which in itself is a huge challenge. In class, I would tell the students that a field project requires a series of skills, including social skills, communication skills, questioning skills, recording skills and preparation skills. None of these things he has to face are dead. Unlike looking up archives in a library or reading materials online, literature is lifeless and can be repeatedly examined, but the field is something completely different. There are many fleeting opportunities in the fields. A long time ago, Teacher Zhao Xiaoli told me that the thing that Tian Ye was most worried about was that he wouldn't be able to understand the language after going there, as the dialects were too different. When one almost understood, they had to leave. This is a very troublesome and difficult problem to solve. The second problem is that after leaving, I found that the question I really wanted to ask was not asked. To a large extent, this is related to the preparatory work. You should be clear in your mind about what problem you are researching. It is particularly important to note that every night during the field investigation, we need to sort out and write field notes to see what problems still exist and what questions need to be asked the next day. Experience is accumulated gradually. I don't agree to define a person's fieldwork ability by the year of birth. I believe that students can grow through learning. As long as they are determined to do it, it is not a very difficult thing.

The original text was published in the 9th issue of "Legal Anthropology Forum". Thanks to the wechat public account "Legal Anthropology World" for authorization in reprinting.

 

Assistant Editor: Chen Yixuan

Responsible Editor: Tan Baijun

Read by Ji Weidong