This chapter builds upon the research design outlined in Chapter 1 and the conceptual framework set out in Chapter 2 to explain how the research for this thesis was conducted. The chapter starts by explaining how participants were chosen (Section 4.2), and who was interviewed (Table 4).
Section 4.3 then sets out how the interviews were conducted, explaining they were conducted face-to-face (Section 4.3.1) and one-to-one (Section 4.3.2). The practical details such as location are also explained (Section 4.3.3), as well as how long the interviews were (Section 4.3.4), how they were recorded (Section 4.3.5), and how ethical considerations were addressed (Section 4.3.6). Section 4.4 then explains the content of the interviews, first setting out the reasons for conducting interviews of a semi-structured nature (Section 4.4.1), and then describing how the interview questions were identified using a Case Study Protocol (Appendix E) and Interview Schedules (Appendix D). Section 4.5 explains how the interviews were transcribed (Section 4.5.1), coded using Nvivo (Section 4.5.3), and analysed (Section 4.5.4).
4.2 Identification of Research Participants
In order to gain an in-depth understanding of how various contextual factors affect judicial removals processes in practice, qualitative data in the form of interviews with stakeholders in the removals process was sought. The data sought, therefore, was not intended to be representative of all removals processes conducted to date, nor of the views of all of the categories of participants interviewed, but rather indicative of the factors that may affect removals processes and the way in which they impact judicial independence. To this end, in-depth interviews were conducted with thirty-six participants: 17 whose work related mainly to the federal level, 7 whose work related mainly to the ACBA, and 11 whose work related mainly to Tucuman. In order to maximise the value of the data, efforts were made to gather the views of a wide range of participants, and to conduct the interviews in a way that allowed for each participants views to be explored in detail.
Page 117 of 366 4.2.1 Categories of Participants
In order to encourage open and honest dialogue, all participants were promised anonymity. To this end, the names of the participants do not appear in this thesis, nor are the full interview transcripts included as this may identify the participants. Given that this thesis does not examine individual cases of judicial removals but rather looks at the processes on a conceptual level, the inclusion of participants’ names is not necessary. The focus on concepts instead of individual cases and experiences allows for the effective extrapolation of findings that have wider applicability and relevance.
In order to provide transparency about the data, and to effectively analyse the various points of view, participants were however categorised by type and assigned a corresponding code that is used when quoting them throughout this thesis. Participants were first categorised according to which jurisdiction they work in. Thereafter, they were categorised in terms of the type of stakeholder in the removals process they represent: 1. Those potentially subject to the judicial removals processes being studied, i.e. lower-court judges from the three jurisdictions; 2. Those who conduct judicial disciplinary processes, i.e. councillors, employees or advisors to the JCs, legislative committees, and impeachment juries; and 3. Those who file complaints against judges or otherwise have an interest in certain judges being investigated. For this latter category, it made sense to target lawyers given that they frequently deal with the courts, have an understanding of the importance of judicial independence, and may at some point in their career consider filing a complaint against a judge. Lawyers who were known to have experience or knowledge of the removals process were sough, including lawyers who were known to have filed complaints, and lawyers working for NGOs that monitor judicial independence.
Where possible, a range of opinions were also sought within each of these sub-categories. A combination of lawyers in private practice, prosecutors, and lawyers working for NGO were therefore interviewed. Both judges who had been subject to removals processes and those who had not were also interviewed. This had the benefit of gaining the opinion of those who have first-hand experience of the process whilst also balancing out any bias they may hold with the opinion of those who have no direct experience of the process, but who have an interest in the fairness of the proceedings given that it affects the integrity of their institution, and that it may
Page 118 of 366 affect them directly at some point in their career. Five of the fifteen judges interviewed had been subject to removals processes that had resulted in either a resignation or a removal. This however does not necessarily mean that the other judges did not have any experience of the removals process; the majority of complaints investigated by a JC or PIC do not end in the removal or resignation of the judge in question. Of the ten sitting judges that I interviewed, four voluntarily told me that they had experienced having a complaint filed against them.462 This means that at least nine of the fifteen judges interviewed had some experience of the process.
As can be seen in Table 4 below, at least one person from each of the sub-categories in each jurisdiction was interviewed, ensuring a diversity of perspective from the point of view of various stakeholders in each jurisdiction. It should however be noted that these categories and sub-categories are artificial to some extent given that many of the participants had during the course of their careers fit into a number of these categories.463 The majority of judges that I interviewed had previously worked as lawyers and therefore were familiar with the other side of the fence so to speak. Many of the people working for the JCs had also at some point worked as lawyers or judges. Some of the former judges had returned to working in private practice. Additionally, some of the lawyers and judges had also in the past served on JCs, or had served as elected politicians.
Some had played a key role in the drafting of laws relating to the court proceedings, anti-corruption, and the creation of the ACBA jurisdiction. Many of the participants in all categories also taught law at local universities.
In addition, many lawyers working in Buenos Aires, both in private practice and for NGOs, were able to comment on both the federal and ACBA jurisdictions. Where this was the case, the interviews focused mainly on the federal level as this is where the bulk of their experience lay, and therefore these lawyers have been classified as ‘federal lawyers’, however, they were also asked about and provided valuable commentary on the differences between the federal and ACBA levels. All of the participants interviewed specifically about the ACBA level were also able
462 I did not specifically ask whether or not judges had experienced complaints being filed against them as it was not the purpose of the interview to gain personal experiences, and I did not feel that it was necessary to ask intrusive questions about this. It is possible that some of the other judges that did not volunteer this information also have had complaints filed against them.
463 The in-depth nature of the interviews allowed to draw on any relevant participant knowledge and experience, although in order to ensure a range of perspectives were represented overall, questions were focused on the category assigned to each participant as shall be discussed further in Section 4.4 below.
Page 119 of 366 to provide some commentary on the federal level. In addition, some participants at the federal and ACBA levels were able to provide some minor commentary about the province of Tucuman, and some of the participants from the province of Tucuman were able to provide valuable commentary about the federal level.
The flexible and in-depth nature of the interviews allowed for these diverse experiences to be effectively explored. Participants were nevertheless assigned to the categories that reflected the most relevant experience of the participants. As shall be explained in Section 4.4, interview questions were also tailored to these roles. Therefore, when interviewing former judges that had been subject to a removals process, they have been classified as ‘former judges’, as this is the most relevant categorisation for this study. Even if they were practising as lawyers at the time of the interviews, they were asked for their perspectives as former judges who have experienced the removals processes, not as litigants who may consider filing a complaint against a judge.
Similarly, where lawyers or judges who were councillors of a JC were interviewed, they have been classified as ‘councillors’ and asked questions that reflect their experience working in the council, rather than as judges or lawyers. The past roles of each individual participant have not been provided as it is likely that this would identify them.
Page 120 of 366
ACBA Level (7) 5 sitting judges 1 city prosecutor 1 councillor (of 9) Province of
In addition to the diversity of views that came with interviewing different stakeholders, further diversity was also actively sought. This included diversity in life experience as well as views held.
Insofar as possible, the diversity of participants in terms of age, number of years of relevant professional experience, and gender were sought.464 Of these, gender is the easiest to measure:
twenty-nine men and eight women were interviewed. There are at least two women represented in each jurisdiction, and two subcategories: judges and those working for a JC. No female lawyers were interviewed.465 In terms of age, whilst participants were not asked to provide their date of birth, enough information on the participants was gathered to deduce that on one end of the scale, a participant in their early thirties was interviewed, and on the other end of the scale, there
464 This was achieved by asking to be put in contact with a range of people through the snowballing technique described in Section 4.2.2 below. Whilst I could not have complete control of the characteristics of the people referred to me, I could help my contacts identify participants that would be useful to me by describing the type of participant I wanted to be put in touch with.
465 The opportunity simply did not arise as I was not put in touch with any female lawyers via the snowballing technique described in Section 4.2.2.
Page 121 of 366 was a participant in their late seventies. Between these two extremes, there was diversity in the age and experience of the remaining participants.
More importantly, a diversity in opinion, regardless of categorisation, was sought. This included both views on the nature of judicial accountability – whether participants felt the judiciary should be self-governing, or whether they should be held accountable by an outside institution such as the JC – and political views or affiliations. This was more difficult to evaluate given that a participant’s opinion could not be reliably known before being interviewed, and also because participants were not asked to specifically identify, nor were they subsequently categorised, into crude political classifications. Rather, the subtleties of each opinion were taken into account on their own merits during the analysis of the collected data. Nevertheless, an attempt was made during the process of identifying participants to reach participants of different opinions, and I continued collecting data until satisfied that a range of opinions had been collected. I was satisfied that data saturation had been reached once I had interviewed at least one participant from each category in each jurisdiction, when I felt that I had gained an insight into the issues from the perspective of each stakeholder and from various points of view which became clear when the same opinions started to be voiced over and over again and I was no longer collecting new points of view.466
4.2.2 Identifying Participants: the Snowballing Technique
Participants were identified by word of mouth through a network of personal and professional contacts. As a first step, I identified relevant first-degree contacts in my personal and professional networks. This included anyone with ties to Argentina who was likely to know judges or lawyers, and who I felt knew me and understood my research well enough to be willing to introduce me to their contacts. Eleven first-degree contacts were identified, nine of whom were Argentinean.
Many were professional contacts that I had made whilst working at law firms in Barcelona and London. Three of them were lawyers/academics that I had met through my doctoral research,
466 Michael Quinn Patton, Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (4th Edn, Sage Publications 2015) 300-301.
Patton explains that it is important to purposefully seek the opinion of a variety of categories of participants in addition to looking for data saturation, to avoid a situation where data saturation is reached from the
perspective of only one group of people. See also YS Lincoln and EG Guba, Naturalistic Inquiry (Sage 1985) 202.
Page 122 of 366 who did not know me well but with who I had discussed my research and whom saw value in it.
The remainder were personal contacts.
I did not interview any of these eleven first-degree contacts given that these contacts did not have any knowledge or experience of the judicial removals process: most of them were either not legal professionals or not living in Argentina at the time. The two first-degree contacts that were lawyers practising in Argentina told me that they did not have any knowledge or experience of the judicial removals process. Instead, using a snowballing technique, my participants put me in contact with contacts of theirs that they felt may be interesting for me to interview, or who may in turn be able to put me in touch with people who it would be interesting for me to interview. The participants therefore were made up of thirteen second degree contacts, eighteen third-degree contacts, four fourth degree contacts, and one fifth degree contact. Participants themselves often referred me on to other potential participants: seven participants referred me to other people who I also ended up interviewing. This number, however, does not mean much as many other participants also offered to refer me to people but I refused because they were offering to refer me to someone I had already interviewed/been put in touch with.
With a couple of exceptions, my first degree contacts did not know each other, which was beneficial for me as I was able to tap into a number of different social circles. In particular, I knew that two of my contacts had been actively involved in the UCR opposition party, and that one of my participants came from a family that had been actively involved in Kirchnerist politics, which I hoped would help ensure some diversity in opinion in the people they referred me to. Helpfully in this regard, one participant that I interviewed referred me to two further participants, telling me that he had specifically chosen two people with very different views on the judiciary (although he did not tell me what these were, nor who held which views). I nevertheless found that the legal world in Argentina appears to be small and I quickly found that I was being referred to the same people over and over again by many different sources. On two occasions this was helpful as I had not had any luck getting hold of the participant through the first channel, but was more successful through the second.
The use of the snowballing technique for identifying participants had various benefits. First of all, given that I was living in England at the time, and had never lived in Argentina, it would have
Page 123 of 366 been challenging to identify relevant participants and to get them to agree to be interviewed, from afar. The snowballing technique therefore allowed me to tap into many networks beyond my own limited contacts. This also allowed for the inclusion of the broad range of people and opinions sought, as explained in Section 4.2.1 above. Secondly, given the important and sensitive nature of the topic being discussed, and that I was a complete outsider in all respects,467 I felt that it was more likely that participants would agree to be interviewed if I was vouched for by someone they know. This may, I felt, have helped them feel that they could trust me with their experiences and opinions, and protect their anonymity.
Therefore, it was beneficial to be referred to participants by first- degree contacts who could vouch for my professionalism, or other participants who had already met me and been interviewed by me. In this respect, it was useful that a large majority of my first degree contacts knew me well, and were able to vouch for both my trustworthiness and my professional abilities.
It was also helpful that my first degree contacts are highly regarded individuals, many of them legal professionals themselves. Others had worked in politics on the national level, or were the sons and daughters of people of considerable repute.
The importance of trust appeared to be confirmed by my experience contacting potential participants. I found that everyone that I was referred to directly by my first degree contacts or by other participants agreed to be interviewed by me. In cases where I was referred by a first-degree contact to someone who in turn referred me to someone else (ie third first-degree contacts), my success rate was still very good, but one person refused to be interviewed.468 Where the chain grew longer and I attempted to contact fourth or fifth degree contacts, I found that there were some people who I could not get hold of; in most cases as they simply did not answer the telephone. I chose not to insist further in many of these cases given that I had already obtained sufficient participants by that time.
467 See Patton (n 466) 480-483 on the challenges of cross-cultural interviewing, including the need to respect differing norms and values, and not assume the right to ask intrusive questions.
468 In that particular case, I sent a third-degree contact information about my study, including the participant information sheet, but he refused on the basis that he did not agree with the methodology that I was using to study the topic. He set out the approach he thought I should be taking – essentially a philosophical analysis of the polarization of politics as the underlying problem – in an email. I had been warned by my second-degree contact that this may happen due to the strong views this person apparently holds.
Page 124 of 366 A third benefit of using the snowballing technique was that my personal experience of the Argentinean culture, and anecdotal evidence from other researchers that had conducted interviews in Latin America, suggested that it would be very difficult to obtain responses from potential participants without a personal connection or being able to go and see them in person and introduce yourself. This again was evidenced in my experience by the difficulty I had getting a response from fourth or fifth degree contacts.
I however believe that an additional reason for the success of the snowballing technique in this study was because my contacts (at all degrees) believed my research to be relevant and
I however believe that an additional reason for the success of the snowballing technique in this study was because my contacts (at all degrees) believed my research to be relevant and