and Giza. In addition, I interviewed eight judges and ten court experts. I also observed court proceedings in two family courts in Giza and Cairo over a period of six months in 2007. Then, over a period of three months in 2009–2010, I observed court proceedings in a Giza family court as well as mediation sessions conducted by court experts there. In addition, I reviewed thirty written court judgments of some of the khul‘ and fault-based divorce cases that we researched.
For the research on the interplay between marriage practices and the studied legal reforms, we conducted interviews with a hundred women and men of different marital statuses in Cairo and Giza. The interviews were conducted in our office premises, except for some that were conducted in the workplace of the interviewees.
The question of resources and access to interlocutors is important, particularly in a study like this where fairly extensive field research was undertaken. Needless to say, being based at a research institution in a university provided us with invaluable resources. Specifically, the SRC provided us with transportation, which made undertaking fieldwork in different governorates possible. In addition, my institutional affiliation and professional ties with colleagues at the SRC facilitated my access to a number of key interlocutors such as prominent lawyers and judges, members of the National Council for Women, members of the Women’s Committee at the NDP, members of nongovernmental women’s rights organizations, religious scholars, and public thinkers. Our institutional affiliation and resources made no difference with regard to access to the courts. In fact, in the first few months of the research, I repeatedly tried to organize access to courts through formal institutional arrangements but nothing materialized. Rather, our access to the courts came about informally and organically. We were able to establish initial contact with two settlement specialists through our interlocutor lawyers, and these specialists in turn helped us establish contact with other specialists at other courts. Also, my contacts with judges were established through various informal ways. With some of the judges, I was able to establish contact and secure permission for interviews and observation after spending many hours at the door of their courtrooms and sending my verbal requests with the bailiffs. With others, establishing contact was facilitated by other judges whom I had already met and interviewed. And with some judges, the contact was established through personal ties with friends and colleagues. The ties I had already established with interviewed judges facilitated access to court experts.
My interviews with six of the judges took place in various court premises in Cairo, Giza, and Alexandria. As for the interviews with the judges who were based in Banha and Munufiya, they were conducted in the Judges Club in Giza, upon their request. The interviews varied in length and depth. For example, I was able to conduct several follow-up interviews with two judges since I was also observing the proceedings in their courtrooms for a period of time. With three judges, I had an unplanned group interview that lasted for an hour and a half, whereas I conducted longer scheduled individual interviews with three other judges. Again, the interviews with the court experts also varied in length and depth. With five of the court experts, I was able to conduct a series of short individual interviews over a period of many months as I was conducting court observations in Cairo and Giza. With the other five court experts, I conducted a one-hour group interview and then short half-hour follow-up interviews with three of the court experts over the course of two days when I was conducting field research in Alexandria.
My access to courtroom proceedings for observation also varied. On some days, I was granted more or less full access and thus I was allowed to attend all court sessions for the day, and talk to the court personnel afterward. On other days, I was sent away because either the judge who facilitated my access was not there, or because the judiciary panel was too busy or did not want a researcher around on that particular day. On the whole, I was able to conduct fairly regular observations in one court in 2007—twice a week over a period of six months—and again in 2009–2010, although the observations in the latter court were once a week for three months. My observations in the third court (conducted in 2007), however, were much less regular. Hence, the findings of this research need to also be assessed in light of these data limitations. Thus, this study does not claim to be based on data that is nationally representative or entirely systematic. Still, I believe the collected data was sufficiently adequate and varied to yield noteworthy findings. Again, neither the size nor the profile of the disputants was representative nationwide. Also, only one-time interviews were conducted with all the disputants except for one. In other words, we did not repeatedly meet with the disputants and spend a lot of time with them to learn about different aspects of their lives. I spent extensive time with only one disputant, and conducted a series of life story interviews with her as I followed her trajectory to fault-based divorce over several years. I wrote about this disputant elsewhere (Al-Sharmani 2014a). But overall, it was not possible to conduct extensive field research on a larger number of disputants, given the multifaceted focus of our research and our human resource constraints. Again, these constraints are relevant to the limitations of this study.
A number of works drawing on this research have already been published. However, this book provides a much more developed and in-depth analysis of the multifaceted findings of this research.
Organization of the Book
The book is divided into five chapters. Chapter 1 traces the efforts of the main actors who were behind the establishment of the new family courts. My aim is to shed light on the varied and sometimes divergent understandings and aims of the different actors who were involved in these efforts, as well as the rushed and top-down process through which the new law was codified, resulting in the establishment of a court system with challenges and contradictions.
Chapter 2 examines the practices of the new family courts. I investigate how the new courts system—with its special features of pre- and while-litigation mediation as well as specialized judiciary panel—facilitates or hinders women’s access to justice. I explore how those working in the new family courts understand and undertake their roles. I also examine disputants’ experiences of court mediation, highlighting the latter’s mixed and uneven functions and effects as both an alternative mechanism of dispute resolution and as part of the litigation process. In addition, I examine the kinds of dialogues that take place between disputants and court personnel and the gender discourses that they reflect and sustain. My overall aim is to identify and reflect on the main limitations as well as the benefits—albeit limited—of the new courts system as a pathway to the legal empowerment of women.
Chapter 3 sheds light on women disputants’ use of khul‘ as a legal option. I examine common motivations and goals for seeking this type of divorce. I highlight the familial and social contexts in which these women’s lives are embedded and how these contexts shape their trajectories to this type of divorce. The chapter also examines the legal processes and experiences entailed in women’s pursuit of khul‘ in the courtroom in order to identify the benefits of this law as well as its challenges and limitations for women. In relation to this latter point, my goal is to investigate if khul‘, in the way it is used and implemented, functions as a no-fault divorce and how it compares to fault-based divorce in terms of plaintiffs’ legal strategies, goals, and experiences. This chapter draws partially on a published book chapter (Al-Sharmani 2012), but it presents a much more developed analysis that is informed by a larger body of data than what was used in the earlier published material.
Chapter 4 examines the role that family law plays outside legal texts and courtroom practices. I investigate if and how the legal script of marriage and marital rights relate to and shape marriage practices in the society. Does it influence women’s and men’s aspirations, goals, and strategies as they pursue or navigate marriage relationships? In particular, I investigate the impact of the new personal status laws which have been introduced since 2000 on the social discourses and practices of marriage.
