Skip to main content

Workshop for Junior Scholars, University of Cape Town

Convened by Mark Fathi Massoud of the University of California, Santa Cruz (USA), and Kelley Moult and Dee Smythe of the University of Cape Town (South Africa), the first Sociolegal Studies Early Career Scholars Workshop in Africa took place at the Centre for Law and Society, University of Cape Town Faculty of Law, 17-20 August 2017.

The conveners are grateful to the University of Cape Town Faculty of Law (including Dean Penny Andrews and the team at the UCT Centre of Law & Society for hosting the workshop), to the Law and Society Association for a small grant award, to the six mentors and six participants and others who attended the sessions, to Law & Society Review for its co-sponsorship of the workshop, and to the Fulbright specialist program for its support of LSR co-editor Susan Sterett’s visit and participation in all events.

The conveners selected scholars to present their work in a competitive process. Six participants and two alternates came from a range of countries, including Nigeria, Kenya, Zambia, and South Africa, with most completing PhDs in Cape Town. These new voices in South African sociolegal scholarship presented their work against a backdrop of Table Mountain -- one of the most beautiful university settings in the world.

The workshop began with an informal dinner at a local restaurant, where participants shared their backgrounds and connected with one another and their mentors. The participants had interests beyond sociolegal studies -- one is completing a novel, another writes and presents poetry, and another anonymously records vocals for the South African house-music scene.
Following the opening dinner, two days of intensive discussions of manuscripts followed. Professional development and building community is difficult at the best of times in doctoral education, where writing can feel isolating, often more so in PhD programs without coursework attached. Participants and mentors approached their work with care for one another as people, writers, and colleagues. Many participants commented that they began to see themselves as sociolegal scholars rather than as lawyers, where much of their training had been. Working together facilitated discussions of the field of law and society as a whole and its history. Discussions of methodology involved thinking through specificity, generality, and abstraction in theorizing case studies. Shorthand reminders helped participants both to be immersed in fieldwork and to theorize.  “Zooming out” of one’s case became a favorite concept. Participants learned about matching methods to questions, how to review each others’ work, matching review to the paper to write effective peer reviews (and what makes some not helpful), and how different journals process papers.  We shared thoughts to overcoming challenges in writing, including everything from taking next steps to take to developing one’s voice, implicitly drawing on excellent already published advice.  
In each of the six individual paper sessions, a senior sociolegal scholar began by presenting the early career scholar’s paper, stating where the scholarly intervention lay, and opening the conversation to the group to provide supportive and constructive feedback. The various papers engaged on topics as broad as family law, violence, food security, and health -- and each is theorizing from African experiences to change what we know in the sociolegal world. Participants commented that hearing their work in someone else’s voice contributed to intellectual growth. The conveners aim to make this an annual event and to build a network of young sociolegal scholars on the African continent.  

Popular posts from this blog

How to Tell When to Send Your Paper into a Journal

By Susan Sterett and Paul Collins

A group of faculty and graduate students in the Five College Seminar in Legal Studies in Western Massachusetts talked on a beautiful Friday afternoon about submitting a manuscript to a journal, something that feels so scary to some people they won’t do it. Other people send things in readily, and have tricks to manage any difficulties. If you don’t send it in, you won’t get it in the conversations you want to be part of. The academic conversation will be the worse for it. Still, how do you know? Especially because we are often the harshest judges of our work. Here are some alternatives the group came up with:
When an advisor, or colleague, or coauthor says it’s time;When you have gathered feedback on your work at a conference or working group and revised;When you’ve checked that it fits with the structure and format of articles in the journal you want to send it to, and it engages issues the journal engages;When you can’t stand to look at it any…

Sociolegal Studies, Disaster, Climate Change

By Susan Sterett
 The devastation in Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands, Houston and Florida, the hurricanes, the fires in California, the fires in British Columbia, are not visible enough in sociolegal scholarship, to our loss. Students and others find the overlap of humanitarian assistance, weather events, and climate change compelling; they also lose. Anthropologists who work internationally have pointed out the difficult governance in humanitarian assistance outside the United States: what is the life that is saved? What are the tools essential to saving lives? What kind of governing does lifesaving justify? How do the NGOs who contract governing in disaster, including in disastrous states, bring law? Humanitarian assistance is where many young people want to be, and it looks like where the help is. It’s often militarized, and governs in exception. Often left unacknowledged is the role of law. Yet people and organizations bring law in catastrophe and humanitarian gove…

A Brief Guide to Reading, Writing, and Giving Feedback in Socio-Legal Studies

By: Mark Fathi Massoud This piece first appeared in the Centre for Law and Society. LSR is grateful for the opportunity to reprint this post.


Part of researching and writing well in the field of socio-legal studies is reading well. Reading well involves annotating everything that you read. Each article, book or book section that you read must be “imPECCable” –

P is for Purpose: Ask yourself, what is the author’s purpose in writing this piece? Who is the audience? This objective is usually stated almost immediately in a piece of writing, usually in a preface or abstract or introduction.

E is for Evidence: What evidence does the author marshal in support of his/her purpose?

C is for Conclusion: What does the author conclude in light of the evidence gathered?

C is for Critique: Ask yourself — given the author’s stated purpose, did the author achieve what the author set out to achieve? Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the author’s work. In what ways did the reading app…