Autumn term 2016
Our autumn term started with a workshop we organized in the Critical Legal Conference (University of Kent, Canterbury) in September on Parrhêsia. In October, we worked on our research plans for the purposes of obtaining further funding from the Academy of Finland, and submitted an application for research on Structures of Legal Argumentation: Analysis, Critique and Genealogy.
In November and December we resumed our normal functions in case laboratory. We carried out our plan to experiment the method of BEM (Basis, Ends, Means) analysis of legal grammar with selected four cases from our materials. This period included four sessions of case laboratory, held in the premises of Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies. At the end of the autumn term, we organized a Field Day for wrapping up the work done so far and for deciding about the future work.
In November and December we resumed our normal functions in case laboratory. We carried out our plan to experiment the method of BEM (Basis, Ends, Means) analysis of legal grammar with selected four cases from our materials. This period included four sessions of case laboratory, held in the premises of Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies. At the end of the autumn term, we organized a Field Day for wrapping up the work done so far and for deciding about the future work.
9 November, Case Laboratory
Samuli Hurri presented the case of S.A.S.
23 November, Case Laboratory
Kati Nieminen presented the case of Castells.
14 December, Case Laboratory
Sanna Mustasaari presented the case of S.H.
15 December, Case Laboratory
Ukri Soirila presented the case of Vona.
20 December, Field Day
Field Day was organized in Cafe Bergga in Kallio, where we invited Professor Juha Karhu from the University of Lapland. As our guest, he commented and discussed our work done so far and future plans. For the future, we decided to proceed from analysis of grammar (the BEM-analysis) to analysis of rhetoric. This is to focus on the choices that structures of legal argumentation make available. For the spring term 2017, we agreed to focus on developing four specific methods of analyzing rhetoric in legal cases, and moreover, on the following distribution of work:
- Strategies of narration of facts: Samuli Hurri and Ukri Soirila
- Strategies of composition of argumentation: Samuli Hurri and Kati Nieminen
- Strategies of conceptualization and contextualization: Samuli Hurri and Sanna Mustasaari
- Strategies of analogy and distinguishing between facts of the cases: collectively
Each method will be first developed and then tested to the four cases of S.A.S, Castells, S.H., Vona.
