A landmark sociolegal work in Britain, the Paths to Justice project exemplifies very well the possibilities of large-scale social research on law. Well beyond what any junior scholar or student might undertake, the scale of the project may be uncommon among Law and Society scholars, yet it puts into sharper relief some important problems found in work on smaller scales. A project such as this involves many contributors, including professional interviewers to assist in the fieldwork, and the consequences of going into the field with a faulty research device (a survey or interview schedule) grow significantly. Although the researcher can largely control the content of a structured survey questionnaire, using research assistants or interviewers to conduct qualitative interviews means a loss of control and the danger of feeling distant from the material when it comes to analysis. In this conversation, Hazel Genn candidly reflects on the practices that most enabled her to manage these concerns during the project, while suggesting how no scholar can hope to avoid all mistakes and blind spots.

Paths to Justice may be an especially important example of sociolegal research for its relationship to activity in the policy-making process. The project began amid the reforming atmosphere of late-1990s Britain. The Master of the Rolls Harry Woolf (later Lord Chief Justice) proposed major revisions to the civil justice process, which were ultimately adopted as the Civil Procedure Rules of 1999. The new Rules aimed at improving access to justice by simplifying civil procedure and making legal proceedings more accessible and affordable.