Hello ... funny to find myself back at Law School .... but here I am at the University of Sydney doing a Master of Criminology ... excited by the prospects of doing some in depth trans-disciplinary research and slightly intimidated by the amount of work that lies before me.
I officially started at university last week, meeting my supervisor and attending the first Legal Research class. My working title is "Viva Voce: Corporeality v Augmented Reality in the Courtroom" and one of my first decisions is to work out if I want to set up a comparative study? - good v bad? - or can I come up with a less loaded question? Should I take a stand immediately or, rather, step back and explore both the traditional model of oral testimony as well as the inclusion of technologies in the courtroom.
I do need to work out what I want to argue or question - hypothesis or research question - what is it that I'm really interested in? what do I want to achieve? And how will I do this?
Where I have started is to research the history of oral testimony. Certainly it seems that the body has always been implicated in truth-seeking discourses, as well as appeals to religious beliefs. I've been reading "Evidence, advocacy and ethical practice: a criminal trial commentary" by Jill Hunter and Kathryn Cronin, and "Criminal Procedure" by John B Bishop. I know Foucault has a lot to say about the body as the locus for the extortion of truth, so must get onto him.
From the Legal Research class, the need to articulate my argument and research methodology upfront was made apparent.
No comments:
Post a Comment