Difference between revisions of "Scheffer2020"
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Year=2020 | |Year=2020 | ||
|Language=English | |Language=English | ||
| + | |Address=London | ||
|Booktitle=Legal Rules in Practice: In the Midst of Law's Life | |Booktitle=Legal Rules in Practice: In the Midst of Law's Life | ||
|Pages=133–162 | |Pages=133–162 | ||
| + | |URL=https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003046776-10/verbatim-records-testing-ceremony-thomas-scheffer | ||
|DOI=10.4324/9781003046776-10 | |DOI=10.4324/9781003046776-10 | ||
|ISBN=978-1-00-304677-6 | |ISBN=978-1-00-304677-6 | ||
|Abstract=In administrative and judicial hearings, verbatim records carry truth and power effects. The record-keeping is essential for the production of decidability. The following analysis explores the procedural translations between talk and text in German asylum hearings. Here, the German asylum procedure appears as a fine-tuned apparatus, operating by various text-talk-productions, each ascribed to specific rule-informed usages. Record-keeping, as one of those productions, bridges talk and text in strategic ways. It systematically gears oral contributions towards their usability as recorded evidence ready to account for the final decision. The analysis identifies two basic interrelated styles, each operating as a bundle of maxims applied in the course of the hearing. The styles engage and challenge all participants differently: officer, asylum-seeker, and interpreter. In order to render every case decidable, the record-keeping applies a methodological individualism by co-producing a case for which ultimately (1) only the asylum seeker is held responsible and that (2) can be refuted for all procedural purposes. | |Abstract=In administrative and judicial hearings, verbatim records carry truth and power effects. The record-keeping is essential for the production of decidability. The following analysis explores the procedural translations between talk and text in German asylum hearings. Here, the German asylum procedure appears as a fine-tuned apparatus, operating by various text-talk-productions, each ascribed to specific rule-informed usages. Record-keeping, as one of those productions, bridges talk and text in strategic ways. It systematically gears oral contributions towards their usability as recorded evidence ready to account for the final decision. The analysis identifies two basic interrelated styles, each operating as a bundle of maxims applied in the course of the hearing. The styles engage and challenge all participants differently: officer, asylum-seeker, and interpreter. In order to render every case decidable, the record-keeping applies a methodological individualism by co-producing a case for which ultimately (1) only the asylum seeker is held responsible and that (2) can be refuted for all procedural purposes. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 02:51, 16 August 2023
| Scheffer2020 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | INCOLLECTION |
| Key | Scheffer2020 |
| Author(s) | Thomas Scheffer |
| Title | Verbatim Records and the Testing Ceremony: On the Production of Decidability in German Asylum Hearings |
| Editor(s) | Baudouin Dupret, Julie Colemans, Max Travers |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Courtroom, Legal, Law, Record-keeping, Ethnomethodology, Asylum-seeker |
| Publisher | Routledge |
| Year | 2020 |
| Language | English |
| City | London |
| Month | |
| Journal | |
| Volume | |
| Number | |
| Pages | 133–162 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.4324/9781003046776-10 |
| ISBN | 978-1-00-304677-6 |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | Legal Rules in Practice: In the Midst of Law's Life |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
In administrative and judicial hearings, verbatim records carry truth and power effects. The record-keeping is essential for the production of decidability. The following analysis explores the procedural translations between talk and text in German asylum hearings. Here, the German asylum procedure appears as a fine-tuned apparatus, operating by various text-talk-productions, each ascribed to specific rule-informed usages. Record-keeping, as one of those productions, bridges talk and text in strategic ways. It systematically gears oral contributions towards their usability as recorded evidence ready to account for the final decision. The analysis identifies two basic interrelated styles, each operating as a bundle of maxims applied in the course of the hearing. The styles engage and challenge all participants differently: officer, asylum-seeker, and interpreter. In order to render every case decidable, the record-keeping applies a methodological individualism by co-producing a case for which ultimately (1) only the asylum seeker is held responsible and that (2) can be refuted for all procedural purposes.
Notes
