Alumna insights – Work of a researcher and a judge
I am Maiju Auranen, an alumna (Master of Laws, 2015) and a doctoral researcher at the University of Turku law faculty. Currently, I work in the Turku Court of Appeal as a junior judge (asessori/assessor). In this text I want to bring insight to certain similarities between the work of a researcher and a judge, which might not always occur in the mind in terms of career choices. The text is based on my personal experiences from the perspective of my dual role in both worlds.
I entered the one-year court training program (auskultointi/auskultering) in autumn 2016. The training experience was educational both judicially and in terms of developing communicative skills. Ever since I have worked in the court system; I started as a referendary (esittelijä/föredragaren) in the Turku Court of Appeal and since 2023 I have worked as a junior judge.
Junior judges work in a three-year training program. The first two years can be completed by working as a judge in an appeal or an administrative court. The final year may be completed as a district court judge (käräjätuomari/tingsdomare) or a supreme court referendary.
Typically, judges are driven in their work by interest in everyday legal practice. The work is comprised mostly of deciding individual and unique cases according to the law. The work of a judge, especially in the appellate courts but also on the district court level, consists mainly of reading and writing as does most intellectual work. Judges produce varying texts such as decisions, different requests for statements, alongside court summaries and minutes from sittings. The reading materials are not only the obvious such as statutes and precedents, but a large part consists of texts produced either by experts from varying fields, the parties themselves or legal scholars.
The visible side of the work occurs through oral hearings where the parties and the witnesses are heard on a case. The role of the presiding judge is to ensure that the matter is not only handled according to law, but also to ensure that the parties experience the procedure as fair and just. The experience of the parties, especially the party that will lose the case, is very important. The judgement should always be written in a comprehensible manner so that the parties can perceive the judgement as reasonable.
When it comes to my role as a doctoral researcher it is not difficult to note the similarities between the institutions. Firstly, both are autonomous and independent by law with distinct but many complementary functions. The court independence is realized in statutes and in how judicial power is exercised according to (and being only bound by) the law in individual cases, similarly the university autonomy found in statutory laws is a key element in safeguarding scientific freedom. Both of these legal safeguards aim at keeping out political influence from the everyday function of these institutions.
My dual researcher-judge role is not uncommon, as knowledge on conducting research assists in ameliorated reasoning, and on the other hand experience from legal practice and court realism contributes to my research increasing its “real world” applicability.
My research is progressing calm and steady. Curiosity of scientific discovery is not the sole motivation for me but the innovative, intellectually stimulating and supportive academic community. I have gladly noticed that these elements are something that both the court and the university share: curiosity, innovative thinking and collegiality at its core. These elements, as well as increased cooperation between these institutions, might become vital should these establishments face unforeseeable external pressure, as exemplified by the current events outside of Finland leads us to think. Freedom of science and independence of the courts are norms that guarantee the continuation of democratic societies of which demands are according to the European Court of Human Rights “pluralism tolerance and broadmindedness”.
Maiju Auranen
