11-30 -2010 transcript of proceedings at polygamy reference case day 6

8/7/2019 11-30 -2010 Transcript of Proceedings at Polygamy Reference Case Day 6

1/130

1Preliminary matters

1 November 30th, 20102 Vancouver, B.C.34 (DAY 6)5 (PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED AT 10:00 A.M.)67 THE CLERK: Order in court. In the Supreme Court of8 British Columbia at Vancouver on this 30th day of9 November, 2010, recalling the matter concerning10 the constitutionality of section 293 of the11 Criminal Code, My Lord.12 MR. JONES: Thank you, My Lord. With the leave of the13 Court just a couple of housekeeping matters before

14 we get underway. First a changing of the guard.15 I'm joined at my counsel table today by Ms. Leah16 Greathead and Karen Horsman.17 A couple matters I wanted to bring to18 Your Lord's attention and get some direction.19 With respect to the Quebec Status of Women20 report that Your Lordship's has been made aware21 of. It's a 150-page report. It's in French with22 an English summary. Mr. Macintosh has requested23 that, quite reasonably so, that a translation be24 provided. We have found within our organization a25 certified French/English translator and she has26 begun work on it. It will take awhile. She's

27 doing it sort of off the corner of her desk so I28 will keep the court apprised on that. We'll get29 it done as soon as possible.30 With respect to the library, we've arranged31 for a room here and we're in the process of32 copying the materials. We'll provide bookshelves33 for the library. I would seek a direction from34 Your Lordship that we post a sign in the library35 saying that materials won't be removed from the36 library and requests can be made of the parties if37 they want copies that aren't available on the38 internet.39 THE COURT: Yes, thank you.40 MR. JONES: Thank you, My Lord. And that's all from41 me.42 THE COURT: Well, yes.43 MR. DELANEY: My Lord, just by way of introduction.44 I'm here on behalf of Dan Burnett. My name is45 Harvey Delaney on behalf of the media.46 THE COURT: Thanks, Mr. Delaney. Now, I understand --47 I had intended to give reasons on the AGBC's


2/130


1 application with respect to the publication ban2 this morning, but I understand from an e-mail from3 Mr. Jones that Ms. Lane apparently wishes to4 address the court on the issue.5 MR. JONES: That's right, My Lord.6 THE COURT: Were you aware of that, Mr. Delaney?7 MR. DELANEY: No, My Lord.8 THE COURT: Have you any -- I'm of course inclined to9 hear from her within reason. Any submissions?10 MR. DELANEY: Because I don't know what she will be11 submitting on, My Lord, it's certainly within your12 discretion to hear her now.13 THE COURT: So what is the story here, Mr. Jones?

14 MR. JONES: Well, I didn't discuss with her what she15 would say. It was clear that she was concerned16 with respect to the affidavit material regarding17 the Dr. Phil interview. She wanted to explain why18 she hadn't done any media since that interview and19 the circumstances in which that interview arose,20 which I understand was when she was still a part21 of Mr. Blackmore's family. She now of course has22 left him.23 And she was also concerned I think that the24 consequences of the internet publication to her25 hadn't been made in the court. So those are the26 only two things she mentioned in what was a very27 brief telephone conversation and I said that I28 would pass along her request.29 THE COURT: Well, I take it -- where does she live?30 MR. JONES: I'm sorry?31 THE COURT: She lives in the United States.32 MR. JONES: That's right, she does, My Lord.33 THE COURT: I take it she doesn't want to travel here.34 MR. JONES: No, My Lord. She would prefer to do it --35 I think probably telephone would be preferable to36 her. That would be my suspicion. But we could37 arrange video if it were necessary.38 THE COURT: Well, I think we can probably hear her by39 telephone but can you get back to her and find out40 when she wants to do that?

41 MR. JONES: Absolutely, My Lord.42 THE COURT: So, Mr. Delaney, we'll be delayed but43 there's no order in place for the time being.44 MR. JONES: And I should say, My Lord, with respect to45 Mr. Delaney, I apologize. We sent the e-mail to46 Mr. Burnett and I just imagined that it wasn't47 forwarded this morning.


3/130


1 THE COURT: So you will get back to us on that and keep2 your friends advised?3 MR. JONES: Yes, My Lord.4 THE COURT: Thank you very much. So I will postpone5 that ruling in light of the situation. Thanks,6 Mr. Delaney.7 MR. DELANEY: If I may be excused.8 THE COURT: Absolutely. Mr. Macintosh.9 MR. MACINTOSH: My Lord, the first witness is Professor10 Angela Campbell and I would ask that Ms. Campbell11 come to the witness stand and while she is doing12 that, My Lord, just let me advise that the13 attorneys general and Stop Polygamy in Canada have

14 advised that they take issue with Professor15 Campbell's qualifications to give her evidence.16 And in the result of that I will need to lead from17 Professor Campbell her background in greater18 detail than I ordinarily might.19 THE COURT: So we'll start with a voir dire then on the20 qualifications of the witness?21 MR. MACINTOSH: That's right. And what I would submit22 might be appropriate, My Lord, would be what is23 close to the normal process. I would lead24 Professor Campbell's qualification evidence. My25 friends who wish to cross-examine her on her26 qualifications will do so and then we could have27 the submissions if that suited Your Lordship.28 THE COURT: Certainly.29 MR. MACINTOSH: Thank you. Professor Campbell advised30 she would wish to be sworn.3132 ANGELA CAMPBELL, a33 witness, called by the34 Amicus, sworn.3536 THE CLERK: My Lord, we are entering a voir dire.37 THE COURT: I'm declaring a voir dire with respect to38 the qualifications of the witness.39 THE CLERK: Please state your full name and spell your40 last name for the record.

41 THE WITNESS: Angela Robin Campbell. C-a-m-p-b-e-l-l.42 THE COURT: Please have a seat, Professor Campbell.43 MR. MACINTOSH: My Lord, thank you. If you care to44 access it, My Lord, there are two relevant45 documents, one of which you have, one of which you46 do not. The first is one you do have which is47 Professor Campbell's first affidavit. That for


4/130

4Angela Campbell (for the Amicus)In chief on qualifications by Mr. Macintosh (voir dire)

1 you would be I believe volume 1, tab 1 in the2 materials -- in the amicus ^ sp materials -- thank3 you, My Lord -- and that has been marked by my4 record as Exhibit G for identification.5 THE COURT: Yes.6 MR. MACINTOSH: And the reserved exhibit number is7 Exhibit 59.8 THE COURT: Correct.9 MR. MACINTOSH: And there is another document, My Lord,10 on Ms. Campbell's qualifications which I'm going11 to hand to Your Lordship and I've handed to12 Ms. Campbell. And what this is, and you will see13 soon enough anyway, it's a letter our firm wrote

14 to the attorneys general because they wrote to us15 to ask about Ms. Campbell's qualifications and we16 wrote back and told them what they were in the17 hope that this application might be avoided, but18 that did not come to pass.19 However, what's in here is germane to her20 qualifications and I'll be leading evidence from21 her in that regard.22 And before I turn there, My Lord, I will be23 dealing initially with the introductory portion of24 Professor Campbell's first affidavit, and I trust25 Your Lordship has that handy.26 THE COURT: I do.2728 EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY MR. MACINTOSH:29 Q Professor Campbell, you're a professor of law at30 McGill University?31 A I am.32 Q And you're the director at the McGill Law School33 of the Institute of Comparative Law?34 A I am.35 Q And the Institute of Comparative Law, if you can36 just in a sentence or two tell His Lordship what37 that is about.38 A Sure. The Institute of Comparative Law is one of39 the two graduate entities at the faculty of law40 through which graduate students who pursue masters

41 and doctoral studies can pursue their graduate42 degrees. So there are two institutes and also a43 general faculty program. The Institute of44 Comparative Law or the ICL is one and the second45 is the Institute of Air and Space Law or the IASL.46 Q Thank you. And the Institute of Comparative Law,47 does it have a social science aspect?


5/130


1 A The Institute of Comparative Law's vocation2 primarily is to encourage the study of comparative3 law broadly understood among faculty members and4 students and comparative law is understood as law5 that compares across jurisdictions, across legal6 traditions and across disciplines.7 Q Now, your work in addition to teaching and in8 addition to being a director of that institute9 includes the conduct of academic research?10 A It does.11 Q And particularly in the area of women in12 polygamist marriage?13 A It includes that.

14 Q And you've sworn two affidavits in this15 proceeding?16 A Yes.17 Q And for the record perhaps only, My Lord, one is18 dated June 4th and the other is dated19 October 14th.20 Now, do you have handy, Professor, your first21 affidavit, the one which was sworn on June 4th?22 A Yes, I do.23 Q And if you can turn in that affidavit to tab A24 what you should have there is your curriculum25 vitae?26 A Yes.27 Q And at least up to the time that you swore this28 affidavit, that is June of 2010, everything that29 is stated in that CV is correct?30 A Yes.31 Q I don't intend to take you through all of that.32 I'll come to it from time to time. You obtained33 your combined BCL, LLB from McGill law school in34 1999?35 A Yes.36 Q And did so with what is noted in your record as37 great distinction and being on the dean's honour38 list?39 A Yes.40 Q And in 2000 you obtained your master of law from

41 Harvard law school?42 A Yes.43 Q And you clerked after that in the Supreme Court of44 Canada?45 A Yes.46 Q And you clerked there with Justice Iacobucci?47 A Yes.


6/130


1 Q And that was in 2000/2001?2 A That's correct.3 Q And then you worked as an associate lawyer with4 the Oslers firm in Toronto?5 A M'mm-hmm.6 Q In 2002?7 A Yes.8 Q You became an assistant professor at the9 University of Ottawa in 2003?10 A 2002/2003.11 Q Very well. And then you moved to McGill and12 became a professor in, I believe, 2003?13 A Yes.

14 Q And have as we have heard remained there since?15 A That's right.16 Q And broadly speaking your fields of interest in17 legal research and teaching are family law and18 criminal law and health law?19 A That's right.20 MR. MACINTOSH: Now, My Lord, just to interject if I21 may, my friends are asserting that Professor22 Campbell is not qualified to be giving the23 evidence she is giving and thus I will embark on a24 line of inquiry now that I submit is germane to25 that.26 Q And Professor Campbell, what I wish to do is to27 acquaint His Lordship with your work leading to28 your work in interviewing women in Bountiful, and29 I want to begin in 2005 with a paper you wrote at30 that time for the Status of Women Canada?31 A Yes.32 Q And the Status of Women Canada, which is not33 functioning now because of federal funding, but at34 the time it was an agency funded by the federal35 government?36 A That's right.37 Q And you wrote a paper on social, economic and38 health implications of women living in polygamy?39 A Yes.40 Q And when you did that you were writing one of the

41 four reports that were published under the42 auspices of the SWC?43 A That's right.44 Q And the publication of the SWC was Polygamy in45 Canada: Legal and Social Implications for Women46 and Children. And if I can cross reference that47 with your resume.


7/130


1 A M'mm-hmm.2 Q If we look in your resume or your CV and if we3 turn in it to page 4 we see some of the articles4 that you've published, and under item E "Policy5 Reports and Publications" we see the first one,6 "How Have Policy Approaches to Polygamy Responded7 to Women's Experiences and Rights."8 A Right.9 Q And as I understand it that references the paper

10 you wrote for the Status of Women Canada at that11 time?12 A That's the one.13 Q And insofar as it leads to what work you later did14 at Bountiful what were you saying in that paper in15 part with respect to the need for information?16 A In that paper I came to the conclusion -- based on17 a review of secondary sources primarily pertaining18 to women in polygamy, I came to the conclusion19 that there was insufficient primary material with20 respect to polygamy as it's experienced by women21 in the North American context, but especially in22 the Canadian context. There was no -- very23 little, very few in the way of primary sources on24 that particular topic. And my conclusion with25 respect to the report that was prepared for Status26 of Women was that before law reform was considered27 in connection with section 293 of the Criminal28 Code that it was critical to pursue additional29 research that would assess on the ground the way30 in which polygamy is experienced by women in31 plural marriage communities.32 Q Thank you. And when you -- in essence you advised33 the Status of Women Canada of your view in that34 regard?35 A I did.36 Q And when you were doing the research for the SWC

37 paper were you, in fact, contacted by women from38 Bountiful?39 A Yes, I was contacted by about three or four women40 from the community.41 Q And at that time did you consider it realistic to42 incorporate the input you had received from them43 at that stage?44 A When they contacted me I was actually quite45 surprised that they would have contacted someone46 from outside of their group. They were aware of


8/130

47 who I was because of the names of the commissioned


9/130


1 researchers on Status of Women's website. So they2 looked up who was being commissioned to prepare3 research for Status of Women and saw my name there4 and then contacted me by e-mail and by telephone5 and invited me to interview them.6 There was also a person who had left the7 community who did the same. And I thought that8 their argument or their claim was quite9 compelling. I felt like if -- their argument10 specifically was that it was important for them to11 be communicated with in connection with this study

12 given that their sense was that whatever13 conclusions were reached, that they would be the14 primary -- primary persons affected by those15 conclusions. And I found that that was actually16 quite a compelling argument. However there were17 three months in which to complete the research for18 Status of Women and also there was a particular19 budget that was allocated for this research, and20 time and budget together did not allow for21 conducting the kind of research that they had22 invited specifically because before pursuing that23 kind of work ethics review would have had to have24 been conducted and there just wasn't enough to do25 that kind of work well.26 Q Very well. And if we turn in the body of your27 first affidavit to page number 3 and we go to28 paragraph number 10.29 A Yes.30 Q And as I have read that paragraph, that was a31 summary of where you had come to, so to speak, at32 the end of this first SWC paper referencing a lack33 of academic literature on the implications of34 polygamy for woman in Canada, the need in your35 mind for additional research before section 293 of36 the code was further examined, and quoting from37 your report at the bottom of page 3 that as a key38 part of the methodology direct communication with

39 women in polygamy was needed in your opinion?40 A That's right.41 Q Now, that of course for an academic, by that I42 mean going into the field and actually talking to43 people, requires funding and one of your next44 steps was to seek funding to carry out the further45 study?46 A That's right.47 Q And in that regard which federal agency did you


10/130


1 approach?2 A I approached the SSHRC, or the Social Sciences and3 Humanities Research Council of Canada.4 Q And it is a federal institution?5 A It is.6 Q And you sought funding from SSHRC in 2006?7 A Yes.8 Q And that was a request to undertake empirical9 qualitative research, and the word "qualitative"10 as I understand is a term of art which we will11 come to, but to undertake empirical qualitative12 research to examine the lived experiences of women13 living in polygamy?

14 A Yes.15 Q And you were granted funding by the SSHRC after16 you put in your grant proposal?17 A Yes, I was funded.18 Q And that funding was intended to enable you to19 pursue what I'm calling field research between20 2006 and 2009?21 A Yes.22 Q And I want to stress a little bit of the review23 methodology that SSHRC employs.24 Does it bring in peer review?25 A It does. So your proposal is submitted to a26 number of peer reviewers through a process that is27 anonymized on my end, so I don't know who the28 reviewers are but the reviewers typically know who29 I am, and they are considered to be experts in the30 field and they're chosen by SSHRC, although there31 is a process in the application process where you32 can nominate reviewers but SSHRC is not bound to33 select those individuals.34 And so the number of reviewers, peer35 reviewers, who are experts in your field can range36 from two to four. And pursuant to that they37 submit reports and then there is an administrative38 committee within SSHRC that then looks at the39 reviews that have been submitted by the peers and40 assesses and weights based on evaluation of both

41 the substance of the proposed research as well as42 the academic's own publication and pedagogical43 record44 Q Thank you. And in your application to the SSHRC45 for funding you set out your experience with46 respect to conducting field research and linked47 that to a request for funding to include


11/130


1 assistance from a person trained in sociological2 field research, if I can call it that?3 A That's right.4 Q And we'll come to that, but in essence for now the5 SSHRC reviewed that request, saw your own6 background, saw your request to have this7 sociologically trained person included in the8 group?9 A M'mm-hmm.10 MR. MACINTOSH: Now, there's a letter that I've11 referenced for His Lordship and handed up to him12 and I have distributed it in the room. You have13 received it as well, and for tracking it, My Lord,

14 I would ask that it be marked. I don't care if15 it's a letter or a number.16 THE COURT: Sorry, is it this --17 MR. MACINTOSH: It's the letter of November 18th with18 the attachments to that letter.19 THE COURT: I think you should exhibit that.20 MR. MACINTOSH: Very well.21 THE CLERK: On the voir dire, My Lord?22 THE COURT: Yes.23 THE CLERK: Exhibit 1 on voir dire.24 MR. MACINTOSH: Thank you.2526 EXHIBIT 1 on voir dire: 1 clear-covered cerlox27 brief; 11 page letter dated November 18, 2010 to28 Craig E. Jones and Deborah J. Strachan from29 Ludmila B. Herbst; Tabs A - G; p/c3031 MR. MACINTOSH:32 Q Do you have that letter in front of you?33 A I do.34 Q And you can advise, Professor, that the35 information which is in there, although it's36 penned by my colleague Ms. Herbst you obviously37 give her the contents of this letter?38 A I did.39 Q And as you know this letter was responsive to a40 request by the government for information about

41 you leading up to you giving evidence?42 A M'mm-hmm, yes.43 Q And one of the aspects of information they sought44 is under heading A, "Information Transcripts," if45 possible detailing any formal education that you46 have received, sociological method or ethnographic47 or anthropological study training. And as the


12/130


1 letter points out in undergraduate you did not2 have formal courses in that regard; is that right?3 A That's right.4 Q As an undergraduate at McGill, an honours student,5 although your major was history you took several6 courses in anthropology and ethnohistory?7 A Yes.8 Q And in the undergraduate studies you were9 obviously studying scholarship, that is doctrinal10 material, written material, which drew on various11 types of empirical and social science research12 methods?13 A Yes.

14 Q Now, turning to what you actually learned in a15 more practical way in this regard at McGill, when16 you were in law at McGill you worked as a research17 assistant for a professor, Professor Van Praagh;18 is that correct?19 A Yes.20 Q And she's obviously or she is now a colleague of21 yours on the faculty?22 A Yes.23 Q And at that time when you were a student you24 collaborated with her on a project that she was25 leading, and that was studying the way in which26 Hasidic Jewish women in Montreal understood and27 evaluated the rules and norms that shaped their28 lives?29 A That's right.30 Q And as I understand this research was based at31 least in part on qualitative interviews?32 A It was.33 Q And I understand that in field work in34 sociological research there are broadly defined35 quantitative interviews on the one hand and36 qualitative on the other, and what is the basic37 difference?38 A Between qualitative and quantitative?39 Q That's right.40 A So quantitative research aims to acquire large

41 sums of aggregated data and to draw conclusions42 from these that are generalizable across a broad43 population, whereas qualitative research aims to44 acquire more an in-depth knowledge about the45 experiences of a group of individuals that is46 typically considerably smaller than the group in47 question in a quantitative study.


13/130


1 And the primary goal of a qualitative study is2 to gain a textured, deeper appreciation of those3 experiences or of a particular phenomenon4 Q All right. And when you were working under the5 direction of Professor Van Praagh as a student of6 McGill in this work with Hasidic Jewish women in7 Montreal you conducted some of the interviews of8 these women?9 A Yes.10 Q And sometimes you were with Professor Van Praagh11 in that work and sometimes you were enabled to12 conduct these interviews on your own?13 A Yes.

14 Q And just by way of example, tell His Lordship the15 kinds of issues you were visiting, so to speak,16 with these women in the qualitative interviews.17 A Okay. So this is a small religious community in18 Montreal that this professor I was working with19 was interested in and specifically her work aimed20 to understand the way in which formal legal rules21 were understood by women within the religious22 community and the way in which they saw those23 rules as affecting their choices with respect to24 family life, marriage, the number of children they25 had and other questions in this similar area.26 Q When you applied in connection with interviewing27 the women in Bountiful, when you applied for28 funding from the SSHRC I presume, and we have your29 application here, but I presume that you pointed30 out to them the work you had done in that regard31 with Professor Van Praagh?32 A I did. There is a section in the application33 process where you're invited to explain whether or34 not you'll pursue your research as part of a team35 or individually and I explained that I would do36 this work individually, and in explaining the37 rationale for choosing to do this without a38 team -- to do this work without a team I explained39 that I had had experience interviewing on a40 qualitative basis women in religious communities.

41 So there was a comparable line of inquiry that had42 been pursued and that experience was noted both in43 the application that I put to the SSHRC and to the44 SSHRC's review of my application when it was45 funded.46 Q Very well. And still, as we shall see, you had47 assistance from a student in sociology at McGill


14/130


1 when you did work in Bountiful?2 A She had training in that area.3 Q Now, I want to leave McGill as it were and go to4 Harvard and when you were there you pursued5 research under the supervision of Professor Martha6 Minow, who is now the dean at Harvard; is that7 right?8 A That's right.9 Q And in that work -- the work -- the research work10 you were doing with her was primarily what is11 called in academia primarily doctrinal; is that12 right?13 A Yes.

14 Q And doctrinal, forgive the simplification, but15 that's essentially primarily based on written16 materials?17 A That's right.18 Q But from your work you ascertained, or you and19 Professor Minow, that there were information gaps?20 A There were some.21 Q And in the result did interviewing of real people22 so to speak outside of university occur as part of23 your research?24 A Well, they were academics, so I interviewed three25 people who had expertise in the area that I was26 researching to assist with filling in some of the27 gaps that I had identified in the research.28 Q And their fields of discipline, as I understand,29 were outside law. They were in other fields?30 A In other field.31 Q And they were in the fields of medicine and -- and32 epidemiology and nutrition?33 A That's right.34 Q And also when you were at Harvard you conducted35 empirical research for a seminar led by Professor36 White as I understand?37 A That's right.38 Q And that empirical research that you did under39 Professor White included the preparation and40 distribution to parents in a certain context I

41 will come to of a questionnaire?42 A That's right.43 Q And as I understand it you designed that44 questionnaire?45 A I did.46 Q And the survey that was done in that research, you47 wrote the survey?


15/130


1 A Yes.2 Q And just in a sentence or two tell His Lordship3 what the focus group was, or at least what the4 group was that you were seeking to learn more from5 in that study?6 A The group I was aiming to get information from7 were parents with preschool-age children who were8 attending preschools or day cares in Montreal --9 in the city of Montreal.10 Q Very well. And lastly by way of your own study,11 Professor, or experience or both in what I call12 field work, you have had -- worked with the13 research ethics board at McGill -- excuse me, at

14 Montreal's Children's Hospital?15 A Yes.16 Q And there you -- on the board you have had two17 hats, if you will, a legal representative and a18 community representative?19 A Yes. That's right.20 Q And you did that work between 2004 and 2008?21 A Yes.22 Q And in that work you reviewed clinical research23 protocols?24 A Yes.25 Q And those are information submitted to health care26 professionals affiliated with the hospital?27 A That's right.28 Q And some of that research was qualitative in29 nature as well?30 A Yes.31 Q And on the research ethics board at Montreal32 Children's Hospital you gained exposure to various33 types of research projects?34 A I did.35 Q And prior to that, that was '04 to '08, when you36 were -- back when you were a law student from '9537 to '99, you had been a research assistant in the38 McGill Clinical Trials Research Group?39 A Yes.40 Q And that is under the auspices of the McGill

41 biomedical ethics unit?42 A That's right.43 Q And let me come back now to 2005 and the Status of44 Women Canada.45 A M'mm-hmm.46 Q And we've heard from what you said that they47 accepted your proposal for research occurring on


16/130


1 polygamy?2 A M'mm-hmm.3 Q And as we've heard your opinion was that more4 knowledge was needed from the field?5 A Yes.6 Q Now, in this letter that I've put in front of7 His Lordship, Exhibit 1 in this voir dire, if you8 can now move, so we don't repeat, over to page 4.9 A Okay.10 Q And now I'm at the bottom of page 4 and it says11 there, based on the Status of Women Canada12 research, SWC research, and this is pre getting13 the funding to review the women in Bountiful, you

14 had reached this view that someone with juridical15 training and expertise in family law and criminal16 law would be appropriately positioned.17 And over on page 5 of this letter is a topic18 which links into this. As I understand it among19 legal scholars there has been a body of writing20 developed on the need for carrying out empirical21 research for meaningful legal study; is that fair?22 A That's fair. There are some sources that are23 cited here that send that message.24 Q And they're -- not to be too mundane in the25 expression of it, but they're starting to say that26 before you start telling us what the law should be27 go find out how it will affect the relevant28 people?29 A Yeah, I think it's fair to communicate it that30 way, and another way of communicating it perhaps31 is to say that there are many ways of doing legal32 research that is solid and good legal research33 that will make a contribution, and that speaking34 to individuals who are affected by law is one35 important way of doing appropriate legal research.36 Q Very well. And in this letter, if you will go37 over to page 6, there's a reference to the fact38 that in addition to the experience and knowledge39 you've earned in the various projects you've40 described you've been guided by literature

41 developed by academics in law on deploying42 different empirical and qualitative research43 strategies?44 A Yes.45 Q And those are footnoted as footnote 6?46 A Yes, these are examples.47 Q Yes, yes. And when you applied to the SSHRC as


17/130


1 we've heard earlier your qualifications indicated2 you did not have formal training as a sociologist3 or qualitative researcher; correct?4 A That's correct.5 Q And as we've heard, as I've pointed out with you6 earlier, you requested funding to hire a grad7 sociology student who could assist in that8 context?9 A Yes.10 Q And appendix B to this Exhibit 1, appendix B to11 this letter, is a copy of your first application.12 It's entitled "Wives' Tales: The Role and Meaning13 of Law for Women in Polygamy." You see it's 16

14 pages. As I understand this was your first15 application to the SSHRC in 2006 requesting16 funding for the research you thought necessary in17 the field with women in Bountiful?18 A Yes, that's right.19 Q And in there if you'll turn at this tab B to20 page 7.21 A Yes.22 Q And we see in approximately the middle of the page23 under the title "Justification of Methodology24 Choice: Explanation of Specific Instruments or25 Procedures," in the second paragraph under that26 you've made points under headings first, second,27 third, and I just want to reference what you call28 second.2930 Second, given my own background as a legal31 academic rather than a sociologist I feel32 that with research assistance from a graduate33 sociology student I would be able to carry34 out an effective qualitative study. I am35 less confident about my ability to undertake36 quantitative research as it requires a37 mastery of sampling statistical analysis.3839 And the work done in Bountiful, incidentally, is40 qualitative work?

41 A I would characterize it as such.42 Q Very well. And further in the same SSHRC grant,43 if you'll go along to page 12 and there you're44 describing for them the research plan, and under45 the first heading A is a description of the46 research team and you reference yourself. You47 reference having a single investigator and that's


18/130


1 referencing yourself?2 A Yes.3 Q But then you go on in the first bullet to point4 out your expertise is essentially legal and5 particularly family, and then the second bullet6 you say:78 The field research proposed here is rooted in9 a methodology that might be characterized10 primarily as sociological.1112 So you seek research assistance from a grad13 student in sociology to assist in the design of

14 the interview strategies techniques and15 structures, and then you point out your own16 qualitative research experience at McGill.17 And going back into the body of your -- of the18 letter that we're talking about here, back at19 page 6 of the letter at Exhibit 1.20 A M'mm-hmm.21 Q We see that the SSHRC first research proposal that22 was granted in '06, and once you had that part of23 your task was to recruit the appropriate grad24 student in sociology and anthropology?25 A Yes.26 Q And that work on your part is touched upon at the27 bottom of page 6 and the top of page 7 --28 A M'mm-hmm.29 Q -- of the letter and colleagues in sociology and30 anthropology replied that they did not have a31 current grad student to recommend; however, two,32 one in sociology and one in anthropology,33 recommended, and the phrase in the letter is a34 stellar undergraduate student who was just about35 to complete her undergraduate degree and had both36 the academic ability and practical fieldwork. I37 take it that word didn't originate with you to38 describe her, it originated with one or other of39 the professors?40 A With my colleagues, yes.

41 Q And they expressed the view to you that she as an42 honours student, and I guess the person she was43 obviously, and who had been trained formally in44 qualitative methods was the appropriate person?45 A Yes.46 Q And you subsequently met that person, and47 obviously, My Lord, I would be content to name her


19/130


1 except that in the dealings with McGill that's one2 of the things that -- she is not supposed to be3 named so I am not going to name the student. And4 you met her and hired her?5 A I did.6 Q And in this material we see at tab C, appendix C7 examples of the memoranda that she prepared for8 you outlining the theoretical framework for9 Bountiful research, if we go to tab C?10 A M'mm-hmm.11 Q And her disciplines caused her to give you these12 recommendations and we see reference in paragraph13 number 1 it reflects a model and then other

14 indicators reflecting her background?15 A Yeah.16 Q And obviously you took such memoranda into account17 in your own preparation?18 A Yeah. She had done research also to prepare these19 memoranda, so it was based on her own breadth of20 knowledge but also she did extensive research to21 prepare these memos.22 Q Very well. And you were at the time reviewing23 literature independently which was addressing the24 most effective strategies for carrying out the25 empirical -- the field research?26 A That's right.27 Q And the student whom you hired, as we see at the28 bottom of page 7, was conferring in this context29 with a Professor Shaffir who is a professor of30 sociology at McMaster. She was working with31 Professor Shaffir in this context as well?32 A Yes, she consulted with him.33 Q Very well. And over at page 8 of the letter I34 will just go down to the middle of the page, and35 we see there that from all of your own work in36 this issue of preparing to do the field -- the37 field interviews, from reviewing the literature38 and from your own experience you prepared an39 article, "Wives' Tales: Reflecting on research in40 Bountiful," which was published as we see

41 referenced here, and the article itself is at --42 is at tab D of this -- of this -- with this letter43 Exhibit 1; is that right?44 A Yes.45 Q And this article at tab D, by you, we see at the46 bottom of the first page where it was published.47 It was published in the Canadian Journal of Law


20/130


1 and Society?2 A Yes.3 Q And this was published before your first field4 trip to Bountiful?5 A It was.6 Q And this article which was entitled in part, as I7 say, reflecting on research in Bountiful, was also8 peer reviewed?9 A It was peer reviewed.10 Q And the abstract for this piece is found, not at11 the beginning but the end, at page 141, is a12 distillation of what this article is saying and in13 a sentence or two what is it saying?

14 A So this article studies the way in which a legal15 scholar can and should carry out empirical16 research in a religious community with women in17 that community, particularly of a religious18 community that has come under public scrutiny and19 that's viewed as being -- commonly viewed as being20 hostile to the outside world.21 In the article I think about and review22 different types of challenges that a researcher23 doing this kind of work would face, categorizing24 these challenges as practical challenges or25 conceptual challenges and identify what these26 particular challenges would look like on the27 ground in this community, but ultimately conclude28 that even though there are some important29 challenges to be reckoned with that the research30 as a whole merits pursuit.31 Q And your first trip, Professor Campbell, was in32 2008?33 A Yes.34 Q And how did you arrange contact with the women35 whom you eventually interviewed?36 A Okay. So there were different methods. I began37 by speaking with the women who had contacted me38 when I initially did research for Status of Women39 Canada and went back to those women and had40 indicated that I now had the funding and

41 possibility to return to the community to do this42 type of work. However, I did not want to just43 rely on those individuals so I worked with44 research assistant and thereby contacted women45 whose identifying information was known through46 things like internet sites and even Canada 411,47 contacted women who had spoken out about the


21/130


1 community but also women who made their2 experiences known, so had an opportunity then to3 have some initial discussions with women this way.4 But also when in the community spoke to5 participants who had agreed to be interviewed and6 asked them if they had an idea as to others who7 may be interested in being part of the work, and8 apart from that sort of chain link or snowballing9 type of acquisition of participants I also had an10 opportunity to speak informally with many people11 onsite while I was there and in so doing many12 people had questions about the research and wanted13 to know exactly who I was, how to distinguish me

14 from someone who was either a reporter or a15 journalist versus someone who was a law16 enforcement person, given I'm a law professor, and17 in those conversations was able to speak to some18 participants who had contacted through that19 conversation an interest in being interviewed for20 this work.21 Q And in all the various steps you took did you ever22 work or seek to work through anyone who could be23 thought of as a community leader, male or female,24 in any manner?25 A No, I did not. So the literature actually warns26 about that kind of a research step which is27 commonly used. Often called the gatekeeper model.28 And the thought there is that it's possible if29 you're dealing sometimes with an ethnographic30 study that requires you to enter a community that31 is perceived as being closed or isolated, my32 worry -- I knew that that would have been a33 possibility because there had been a prior study34 done, you know, 15 years before my own research35 that had used that model, but I opted against it36 given that I felt that it was inconsistent with37 the feminist objective of my paper and research,38 which was to talk directly with the women. I also39 worried a lot about the fact that the gatekeeper40 would have some potential ability to control who I

41 spoke with and to shape potentially some of the42 comments that I heard, and all of this was based43 on my perception based entirely on media reports44 and literature although limited on the community45 before actually stepping foot in there. And the46 other problem with the gatekeeper model is that47 for me it looked as though it would reinforce the


22/130


1 patriarchal structure that I felt wasn't to be2 taken for granted as existing, as maybe this3 didn't exist. And so I didn't want to reinforce4 that by accosting some figurehead first for5 permission to enter.6 Q Yes. And in the first trip to Bountiful for you7 in 2008 you were there, as I understand, for five8 days?9 A I was.10 Q And in that first visit you recorded interviews11 with 17 people, 17 women?12 A Yes.13 Q And you had prepared questions for the women to be

14 asked and to answer?15 A I did.16 Q And in this document, Exhibit 1, we have at tab G17 the question -- interview questions which you18 designed?19 A Yes.20 Q For the interviews that you conducted 2008?21 A M'mm-hmm.22 Q And the third and fourth pages at that tab are the23 interview questions for the trip in 2009?24 A Yes.25 Q And in 2009 you were there for how long?26 A For seven days.27 Q And you interviewed, as I understand, five further28 people?29 A Yes.30 Q And so you had in the end 22 transcribed31 interviews with women in Bountiful?32 A Yeah, 22 participants and 22 interviews with --33 including some that were joint and three focus34 groups.35 Q Very well. Two of the women you interviewed had36 left what you characterize as unhappy polygamist37 marriages?38 A Yes.39 Q All right. And I want to just leave the letter40 for now. And -- though I may want to touch on one

41 point. Just let me see if I do.42 Yes, the funding you received, Professor43 Campbell, it was primarily from the SSHRC?44 A Yes.45 Q And this was funding for the Bountiful work?46 A It was.47 Q And you also received funding from Borden Ladner


23/130


1 Gervais with a research fellowship of $10,000?2 A I did.3 Q Very well. And now, I want to just touch upon4 some publications of yours before I stop asking5 you questions.6 MR. MACINTOSH: And the -- My Lord, I just wish to7 reference briefly, please, Ms. Campbell's second8 affidavit if it's -- that's in the evidence9 volume 1 at tab 2. It might be with that. Oh,10 it's the October evidence, My Lord. Sorry. Her11 second affidavit is volume 1 of tab 2 if that's12 accessible in the amicus material.13 And in there -- yeah, it should be tab 2. In

14 the October filings. Volume 1, tab 2. Sorry,15 My Lord, to spring that on you.16 And that second affidavit, My Lord, that's17 marked as Exhibit H for identification.18 THE COURT: Right.19 MR. MACINTOSH: And the reserved exhibit is 64.20 Q And do you have that affidavit,21 Professor Campbell?22 A I do.23 Q And in that affidavit if you'll turn to page 44,24 and at page 44 paragraph 145 --25 A Yes.26 Q -- you reference further research and you say:2728 Well, most of my research on polygamy is29 focussed on empirical work at Bountiful. I30 also conducted research in 2004, 2005 as part31 of my commissioned work for the Status of32 Women Canada on the circumstances of polygamy33 in different cultural and geographic34 settings, and this work studied the social,35 economic and health implications of polygamy36 for women.3738 And that obviously is a correct statement?39 A Yes.40 Q And at page 80 of that same affidavit are -- is

41 the beginning of the list of material that are42 some of the materials that you have studied, the43 books, the papers, the treatises, the monographs44 and the other writings?45 A Yes.46 Q At pages 80 through 85?47 A Yes.


24/130


1 Q All right. And in your publications I think I2 just need one more document to reference, My Lord3 and then I'm concluded on this part of her ^ cw4 case.5 If you can go again, please, Professor, to6 your first affidavit and to your resume, to your7 CV.8 A Okay.9 Q Thank you, My Lord. This is the last of the --10 THE COURT: That's fine.11 MR. MACINTOSH: -- gymnastics.12 Q And do you have your CV in front of you,13 Professor?

14 A Yes.15 Q And there are there a list of publications that16 you have made and I want to find the part, and I17 don't have it at my fingertips -- yes, I do. At18 bottom of page 2 of the CV are a list of various19 publications and what should be added there as the20 newest one, so the first one because they're21 listed in reverse chronological order, is an22 article in 2011 in the Canadian Journal of women23 and the Law and that is -- and I don't know the24 title of it, but that is addressing the merits of25 doing field research?26 A The pedagogical merits, yeah.27 Q Yes. And that -- and there are three other28 publications that I want to reference as having29 relevance and I may need you to assist me in30 picking them out.31 A Sure.32 Q One is on we touched on earlier, "Wives' Tales:33 Reflecting on Research in Bountiful" which we have34 in evidence.35 A Yes.36 Q And is that listed here?37 A That's at page 3. The second from the top.38 Q Very well. And as we noted earlier that was39 before you had gone to Bountiful to do the first40 research?

41 A Yes.42 Q That was published in the Canadian Journal of Law43 and Society. And then there's a publication just44 above that on page 3 of your CV "Bountiful Voices"45 (2009) 47, Osgoode Hall Law Journal and that again46 reflected research in Bountiful?47 A Yes.


25/130


1 Q And that again was a peer reviewed article?2 A Yes.3 Q And then is an article back at page 2 of the CV at4 the bottom of the page, "Bountiful's Plural5 Marriage" (2010), the International Journal of Law6 in context?7 A Yes.8 Q And that again was a peer reviewed article?9 A It was.10 Q And finally, in your CV if you will go to page 8,11 and just before I go to those pages, Professor12 Campbell, what course do you teach at McGill13 relevant to this topic?

14 A So currently at McGill I teach in the realm of15 family law and I also teach the graduate legal16 methodology course, which is a full year graduate17 course on legal research methods. Part of that18 course includes a segment on empirical research19 methodology. In the two years prior this course20 was instructed by another professor at McGill Law21 Faculty. In 2008/2009 I was invited to give the22 lecture on empirical research methods for the23 graduate students in that course and I'm now the24 instructor in the course.25 Q And I should have had a CV reference. If you'll26 go in your CV, please, to page 11?27 A Yes.28 Q And at the top of the page we see this is what29 you're touching on here. In October of '09 you30 were a guest lecturer in graduate legal31 methodology at McGill and then in November of '0832 a guest lecturer in graduate legal methodology,33 but you now teach that as a full-year course?34 A I do.35 Q Very well. And I was at page 8 in your resume and36 it goes in as I said in reverse chronological37 order, so just let me to go page 8 first and I'll38 go 8, 7 and 6. At page 8 -- and what this is a39 list as we see at page 6, it's a list of40 conferences and presentations and the legend for

41 it at page 6 has you as either invited or as a42 plenary speaker. If you're invited that means43 that you were asked to be a speaker on a panel?44 A Yes.45 Q And if you're plenary speaking it means you're a46 primary speaker at podium?47 A That's right.


26/130


1 Q And going to page 8 in October of 2005 about2 two-thirds of the way down that page you were3 speaking at the McGill Law Faculty Seminar Series4 "The Diverse Experiences of Women in Polygamist5 Marriages" and that was based on your research for6 Status of Women Canada?7 A Yes.8 Q Up above on that page, in May of '06 you addressed9 the Canadian Association of Law Teachers annual10 meeting in Toronto on polygamy in Canada?11 A Yes.12 Q "Legal and Social Implications for Women and13 Children." And at page 7, and I don't intend to

14 take you through all of them on the oral record15 but I will just note those appearances which I16 would submit are germane here, and, My Lord, if17 I'd started at the bottom of that page I would18 reference January of '07, a young scholar's19 conference, "Sacrificing Wives for Culture or the20 Reverse, Asking the Right Questions about21 Polygamy." And then October of '07, the Canadian22 Initiative on Law, Culture and Humanities second23 biannual conference "Developing a Feminist Legal24 Methodology with a Study of Polygamy." April of25 '08, Vermont law school faculty seminars, "Wives'26 Tales: The Promise and Challenges of Seeking the27 Narratives of Women in Polygamy," October of '08.28 November of '08. Further up, February of '09 and29 March of '09.30 And I should interrupt, Professor, when in '0931 was your second visit to Bountiful?32 A In June.33 Q Very well. And then further up, My Lord, in March34 of '09, "Being, Becoming and Belonging:35 Multiculturalism, Diversity and Social Inclusion36 in Modern CANADA," "Bountiful Voices." And37 finally, My Lord, on page 6, lectures, October of38 '09. One at Victoria, one at Vancouver, UBC. One39 at Victoria. And then November of '09 McGill Law40 Faculty Seminar Series.

41 And finally June of this year Canada Law42 Society Association annual meeting, "Pedagogical43 Relevance Empirical Research."44 MR. MACINTOSH: That concludes, My Lord, my evidence to45 lead to a submission I will be making later that46 Professor Campbell is qualified to be giving47 opinion evidence.


27/130

26Angela Campbell (for the Amicus)Cross-exam on qualifications by Mr. Samuels (voir dire)

1 And the opinion I will be seeking, My Lord, to2 have her qualified as being able to give I would3 express this way.4 I would submit that Professor Campbell is5 entitled to give opinion evidence as a legal6 scholar and qualitative researcher addressing the7 interface between the practice of polygamy and the8 legal prohibition against polygamy with emphasis9 on the polygamist communities in Bountiful.10 THE COURT: Thank you.11 MR. MACINTOSH: Thank you, My Lord.

12 THE COURT: And we'll break, but who is going to go13 first? Mr. Jones, are you?14 MR. SAMUELS: Mr. Samuels.15 THE COURT: Mr. Samuels. Thank you. We will break for16 15 minutes.17 THE CLERK: Order in court. Court is adjourned for the18 morning recess.1920 (MORNING RECESS)2122 THE CLERK: Order in court.23 THE COURT: Mr. Samuels.24 MR. SAMUELS: Thank you, My Lord.2526 CROSS-EXAMINATION ON QUALIFICATIONS BY MR. SAMUELS:27 Q Professor Campbell, I'm the lawyer acting for Stop28 Polygamy in Canada. My name is Brian Samuels.29 You've been put forward by the amicus as an expert30 to give opinion evidence as, and I'm quoting here,31 "a legal scholar and qualitative researcher32 addressing the interface between the practice of33 polygamy and the legal prohibition against34 polygamy with emphasis on the polygamist35 communities in Bountiful."36 A Yes.37 Q Right? Is it correct that you're an assistant38 professor of law at McGill?

39 A I am.40 Q You're not a tenured professor?41 A No.42 Q You're not a sociologist?43 A I am not.44 Q And you don't claim to have any specific expertise45 in sociology?46 A I do not.47 Q You're not an anthropologist?


28/130


1 A No.2 Q And you don't claim to have any specific expertise3 in anthropology?4 A No.5 Q And you're not a psychologist?6 A I'm not a psychologist.7 Q And you don't claim any specific expertise in that8 field either?9 A No.10 Q And I take it you don't have any specific11 expertise in religion or theology; is that12 correct?13 A That's correct.

14 Q Do you know what ethnography is?15 A Yes.16 THE COURT: Sorry, could you keep your voice up,17 Mr. Samuels.18 MR. SAMUELS: Sorry, My Lord.19 Q You know what ethnography is?20 A I do.21 Q Are you trained as an ethnographer?22 A I am not.23 Q You don't claim to be an expert in ethnography?24 A I do not.25 Q Would you consider the field in which you did your26 qualitative research to be in the field of27 sociology or anthropology or psychology or in some28 other area?29 A I consider it to be in the field of law primarily,30 bordering on sociology and anthropology.31 Q When my friend Mr. Macintosh was asking you32 questions you made reference to some work you did33 for Professor Van Praagh?34 A Yes.35 Q How many interviews did you actually conduct36 yourself?37 A I don't remember exactly. Probably between five38 and ten.39 Q It's my understanding from the information that's40 been provided that you've never taken any formal

41 courses in qualitative research methodology; is42 that correct?43 A That's correct.44 MR. SAMUELS: My Lord, I would like to refer to a45 binder of materials which I am going to hand up46 and which is in front of the witness and I will go47 through what is in the binder. It's put together


29/130


1 for ease of reference so that we don't have to2 flip back and forth between various other binders3 today.4 THE COURT: It's euphemistically called a witness aid,5 is it?6 MR. SAMUELS: It is. So tab 1 is the first affidavit7 of Professor Campbell and tab 2 is the second8 affidavit of Professor Campbell. Tab 3 is her9 curriculum vitae and tab 4 is the article that was10 authored by Professor Campbell I believe for the11 Status of Women in Canada. Tab 5 is the article12 that was referred to earlier this morning by13 Professor Campbell called "Wives' Tales." Tab 6

14 is a further article by Professor Campbell called15 "Bountiful Voices." Tab 7 is another article by16 Professor Campbell called "Bountiful's Plural17 Marriages." Tab 8 is the letter that my friend18 Mr. Macintosh referred to that had been written by19 his office -- by his colleague on November 18th,20 2010 with all of the attachments, and the pages21 have been numbered also for ease of reference.22 Tab 9 is an e-mail from my friend Mr. Dixon23 which simply contains the very description of the24 tendered area of expertise that I've read into the25 record.26 Tab 10 is the article by Professor Van Praagh27 that I believe Professor Campbell helped work on.28 THE WITNESS: Can I just step in there. This is an29 article that was written before I began working as30 a research assistant for Professor Van Praagh.31 MR. SAMUELS: Thank you. And tab 11 I believe is an32 exhibit to the affidavit of -- Exhibit B to the33 first affidavit of Professor Van Praagh.34 So if the court pleases we can mark this as35 an exhibit. I don't know whether --36 THE COURT: Exhibit. Any objection? Exhibit 2 on37 the --38 MR. MACINTOSH: I have no objection.39 THE COURT: Exhibit 2 on the voir dire.40 THE CLERK: Exhibit 2 on the voir dire, My Lord.

41 MR. SAMUELS: Thank you, My Lord.4243 EXHIBIT 2: 1 white 3" binder titled "Cross44 Examination of Angela Campbell", 1 page Index in45 clear plastic sleeve, tabs 1 - 11, p/c4647 MR. SAMUELS:


30/130


1 Q I would like you to turn, Professor Campbell, to2 tab 8 in Exhibit 2 at page 6, third paragraph.3 A Yes.4 THE COURT: Sorry, page.5 MR. SAMUELS: Page 6.6 Q It's actually the second full paragraph, the one7 beginning with the words "when Professor Campbell8 first requested funding?"9 A Yes.10 Q Do you see that?11 A I do.12 Q It states the first time you made application for13 funding to the SSHRC you did not have any formal

14 training as a sociologist or a qualitative15 researcher; that's correct?16 A That's correct.17 Q And that's why you decided to find a graduate18 student with some training in qualitative research19 methodology?20 A Yes.21 Q I would like you to now turn to page 28 of this22 same tab.23 A Sorry, 28 of which tab?24 Q Tab 8. This is part of your application?25 A Oh, yes.26 Q For funding?27 A I'm there.28 Q And you will see about halfway down the page29 there's a paragraph with the word "second"30 underlined?31 A Yes.32 Q That sentence says "second, given my own33 background as a legal academic rather than a34 sociologist I feel that with research assistance35 from a graduate sociology student I would be able36 to carry out an effective qualitative study."37 Those are your words?38 A They are.39 Q It's fair to say that you required the assistance40 of somebody with sociology background and formal

41 training in qualitative research methodology in42 order to properly carry out the study because you43 didn't believe that you had sufficient expertise44 at that time to do it yourself?45 A I think that's a fair comment.46 Q And as my friend Mr. Macintosh pointed out, you47 hired an undergraduate student to do this?


31/130


1 A At the end of her degree.2 Q Yes. And this student produced several memos to3 you on methodology of qualitative research;4 correct?5 A Correct.6 Q And you relied on this student for the purpose of7 determining the appropriate methodology for your8 research?9 A I think it's a bit stretched to say that I relied10 on her for that purpose. She produced research11 memos but I subsequently went to the literature12 and devised the research plan accordingly.13 Q Did the student help you formulate the questions

14 for the interview?15 A I drafted the questions and my students who16 travelled with me to Bountiful gave me feedback on17 the questions.18 Q Are you able to tell the Court whether qualitative19 research methods are designed differently for a20 sociological study as opposed to those for an21 anthropological study?22 A The qualitative literature that I have looked at23 has spoken about the literature generally, so it's24 not discipline specific.25 Q Are you able to say whether there are any26 differences recognized in the literature as to how27 studies are to be carried out depending on whether28 they are in fields of psychology or sociology or29 ethnography?30 A Yeah, again they are not discipline specific, but31 the literature does indicate that there are32 differences in the way that you would want to33 approach your qualitative research depending on34 what you're looking for. So if you're interested35 in a case study, that's quite different than36 ethnography, which is quite different than looking37 at a phenomenon that you're interested in working38 through a qualitative approach.39 Q That's according to the literature that you looked40 at?

41 A That's correct.42 Q What literature did you look at?43 A Would you like a list of text names?44 Q Yes.45 A Well, some of them are listed in the memos from46 the RA, so Creston, the SAGE manual of qualitative47 research.


32/130


1 Q You say Cresin?2 A Creston, sorry.3 Q Creston?4 A Can I just look at the actual interviews.5 Q Are you referring to Creswell?6 A Creswell, sorry yeah. And the SAGE Handbook of7 Qualitative Research. A text by Mauthner et al.8 on feminist research ethics. Those are the three9 that come to mind. The SAGE Handbook of10 Qualitative Research, though, is a very large11 text. It's a bound volume of collected articles12 and that's what I've been guided by to a large13 extent as well as the Creswell text. A text on

14 interviews, it's -- the title is "Interviews"15 generally which I've looked at more recently, and16 then the final work on feminist research ethics by17 Melanie Mauthner et al.18 Q Can you explain for His Lordship, please, what the19 difference between structured and unstructured20 interviewing is.21 A So structured and unstructured interviews as I22 understand it is -- I think this is what you're23 referring to, the way in which you approach the24 questions that you put to your research25 participants.26 Unstructured questions refer to a series of27 questions that are typically open-ended and I28 would qualify my own research as semi-structured29 in the sense that there were some structured30 questions prepared for participants but left open31 in the sense that the interview is not meant to be32 scripted and that there's a belief that the33 researcher should be open to following the line of34 reasoning and questioning -- that line of35 reasoning and answers that are put forward by the36 research participant.37 Q Are you able to tell the Court what experts in38 qualitative research say about whether structured39 or unstructured interviewing produces more40 reliable or verifiable data?

41 A No.42 Q You don't know?43 A There's -- I haven't seen a particular opinion put44 forward on that. In my view what I have read45 indicates that unstructured or semi-structured46 interviewing actually produces research that can47 allow for more depth and can equalize the playing


33/130


1 field between the researcher and the participant.2 But in terms of it verifiable or data -- or data3 that can be generalized I have not seen a4 conclusion reached as to which of these two5 methods you're speaking of is preferable.6 Q Do you know whether any of the experts in --7 whether it's Creswell or others you have referred8 to -- have any opinion on which produces --9 whether one produces more reliable data than10 another?11 A No.12 Q Do you agree that qualitative research should be13 conducted through a carefully constructed

14 interview process?15 A Yes.16 Q Are there any advantages in terms of reliability17 in having the interviewer following a carefully18 constructed and formulated format of questions?19 A In terms of advantages of having a standardized20 list of questions that you put to all participants21 it would allow for greater comparability of22 results I would presume. On the other hand23 there's a disadvantage if the researcher is24 sticking to their questions at the cost of25 allowing for the participant to tell his or her26 narrative in the way that he or she sees fits27 pursuant to a line of questions, and the28 literature is pretty clear that the researcher29 does well to leave some room for flexibility in30 the research process.31 Q You referred to peer review earlier when you32 discussed the articles that you had written.33 A Yes.34 Q Are you aware of whether peer review is a standard35 tool used by qualitative researchers in36 formulating their questions for an interview?37 A Whether the peer reviewer puts his or her38 questions to a set of peers developed for a39 verification first?40 Q I think you may have misstated that. Whether the

41 interviewer --42 MR. MACINTOSH: Make the question clearer.43 MR. SAMUELS: The question was clear.44 Q Are you aware of whether peer review is a standard45 tool used by qualitative researchers in46 formulating proposed questions?47 A No.


34/130


1 Q When you say no are you saying it's not a standard2 tool or --3 A No, I'm not aware.4 Q -- you don't know?5 A I don't know.6 Q You don't know. Okay. Do you know whether peer7 review in that sense is considered important in a8 sociological qualitative research process?9 A Sorry, again peer review, are you speaking about10 the publications that result or the process?11 Q I'm talking about the process.12 A The process -- the peer review that I am aware of13 is an ethics peer review. Not the substance.

14 Q I'm referring to the peer review of the questions15 that are being proposed, whether that's considered16 important?17 A Oh, there again I'm not aware, no.18 Q Are you familiar with the expression19 "investigative discourse analysis" as applied to20 qualitative research?21 A No.22 Q Do you know whether that is a widely used and well23 established technique among qualitative24 researchers?25 A No.26 Q Do you know whether the authorities in qualitative27 research methodology have methods that they28 recommend for doing field work in a community or29 culture where there's a reputation for secrecy?30 A I have seen some literature on that, yes.31 Q What about a reputation for deception?32 A No.33 Q When you say no --34 A I have not seen that.35 Q You're unaware of that?36 A I'm unaware of that.37 Q Do you know what the accepted practices are in the38 field of qualitative research for dealing with a39 culture of secrecy?40 A No.

41 Q Prior to doing your field work in Bountiful had42 you read or heard anything to indicate that43 Bountiful or the FLDS culture had such a44 reputation?45 A I had heard that reputation.46 Q For secrecy?47 A For secrecy.


35/130


1 Q And what about for deception?2 A I had heard that as well.3 Q Where did you hear that?4 A I heard that through the media primarily and I had5 also heard it through -- or read it through to6 reports that had been published. One was an7 unpublished masters thesis and another one was a8 report prepared by a group called the Committee on9 Polygamous Issues.10 Q You're referring to the masters thesis of one11 Marla Peters?12 A That's correct.13 Q And you read that report?

14 A I did.15 Q And you understood that she was quite clear about16 there being a culture of deception?17 A Yes.18 Q And that somebody going in to either do interviews19 or speak to people there could expect there to be20 play acting in order to tell a false story?21 A Yeah, her argument was that there would be22 performance by the individuals in the community.23 Q You understood that her research was in Bountiful?24 A I assumed as much but the community itself is not25 named in her thesis.26 Q You understood that Ms. Peters lived and worked as27 a school teacher while she was doing her research28 in the community?29 A Yeah, I understand it was a librarian and a30 janitor.31 Q But she lived and worked in the community, you32 understood that?33 A I think so, yeah. She seemed to have been moving34 in and out of the community somewhat.35 Q It's fair to say that you didn't live and work in36 Bountiful when you did your research?37 A That's absolutely fair to say.38 Q Do you know what qualitative research was called,39 the type of research where the researchers joins40 the community and lives and works with the

41 community for an extended and prolonged42 engagement?43 A I don't know if there's a particular name for44 that.45 Q But you would agree with me that the research that46 you did in Bountiful was not as extended and47 prolonged as that as understood by sociologists?


36/130


1 A Yes, I do. I think that's right.2 Q You agree with me?3 A I agree with you. Yeah. I actually had the sense4 that there were particular issues with the length5 of time that Ms. Peters stayed in the community6 that were of concern in my own research.7 Q Before a researchers embarks on field work in a8 community where there have been reports such as9 that of Ms. Peters do you know what steps are10 recommended by the authorities in the literature11 on qualitative research?12 A Yeah, so there's a series of steps that are13 recommended. One is to garner as much as possible

14 in the way of substantive knowledge on the15 community in question and on the substantive issue16 that's being examined, so on the phenomenon or the17 particular issue. So a substantive review is18 important. Then a research methodology needs to19 be developed and subsequent to that the process20 has to be -- in an institution that is academic21 typically proceeds through ethics review, which is22 a careful process, and then subsequent to that23 there is -- the review process examines and24 approves and that approval is necessary to the25 execution of the research, the research proposal26 and plan. And then there may be steps with27 respect to accessing individuals within the28 community and making plans to be in that area, if29 it's something that requires a removal from one's30 own home space. And then there's the steps of31 actually carrying out the research within the32 community under study.33 Q Do you agree with me that it would be completely34 inappropriate for a qualitative researcher who is35 approaching field work for a project in a36 community with that type of reputation to use the37 assumption that everything told to them by the38 people they interviewed was true and authentic?39 A Okay, that was a long question, so let me reframe40 it and you can tell me if I have it right. The

41 question is it completely inappropriate to assume42 everything a researcher in my situation was the43 truth?44 Q Everything you were being told.45 A Yes.46 Q Was true and authentic.47 A I disagree with that. I think it's acceptable for


37/130


1 the researcher to accept the veracity of the2 statements that were told to her.3 Q Even where there is a reputation or reports of4 secrecy and deception?5 A Even in that circumstance so long as there is6 critical reflection both on the comments that were7 revealed by research participants and others in8 the community and reflection on the substantive9 comments and on the research methods.10 Q Are you aware of a journal called American11 Behavioural Scientist?12 A I am.13 Q Do you subscribe to that?

14 A No. Do I have a subscription?15 Q A subscription.16 A Right. I don't -- yeah, I don't have a17 subscription but I don't disagree with everything18 in that journal.19 Q Do you know whether there's anything in the20 literature in the field of qualitative research21 dealing with how to conduct field research in what22 is referred to in that discipline as a cult?23 A No.24 Q Have you read any such literature?25 A I have read some literature on research in cults.26 Q Do you know whether qualitative researchers or27 sociologists have an accepted definition of a28 cult?29 A I believe so. I believe that I have read that.30 But what the definition is, I don't know whether I31 have it right. Loosely framed it's individuals32 who subscribe to the dogmatic views of one33 particular leader and who revere that individual.34 Usually the group itself is distrusting of35 individuals also outside of the community or group36 to which they belong.37 Q When you were about to conduct your field research38 in Bountiful was it your view at the time that39 Bountiful and the FLDS fell within the definition40 of a cult?

41 A I didn't know. I didn't know enough about the42 group.43 Q Now that you've been there, before you prepared44 your affidavits was it your opinion that they fall45 within that definition?46 A No. Not based on the group and the individuals47 with whom I spoke.


38/130


1 Q Do you know what methods are recommended by2 sociologists for doing field research in a cult3 environment?4 A No.5 Q Do you know what it means to triangulate data for6 a qualitative research study?7 A Yes.8 Q What did you understand that to mean?9 A It means that the methods being used need to be --10 well, a particular problem or inquiry should be11 used through a variety of methods, so more than12 just qualitative interviews it's important also13 for example to look at doctrine to validate data

14 with other observations, for example, in the15 field. So rather than relying on one source for16 information and for conclusions, to use various17 methods and to compare results using different18 methods examining the same set of questions.19 Q You're familiar with the term "qualitative20 validity" as it applies to qualitative research?21 A I believe so.22 Q Do you know what it means? Can you explain for23 the court.24 A As I understand qualitative validity means that25 there's a process through which the information26 obtained through qualitative research is validated27 or checked against another source.28 Q I would like you to turn to tab 8. You probably29 are at tab 8?30 A No, I am not actually.31 Q And turn to page 44. You see that at the top32 there is a sentence or a heading that says33 "Studying the Phenomenon"?34 A Yes.35 Q And then it says "this research is essentially36 phenomenological."37 A M'mm-hmm.38 Q Your student told you that the research project on39 Bountiful that you were contemplating falls within40 the definition of phenomenological research?

41 A Yes.42 Q And you don't have any reason to disagree with43 that?44 A I actually agree with that as well. That was my45 perception again based on Creswell's text, so that46 was a conclusion that she and I -- I had reached47 and she pursued research following that.


39/130


1 Q You've mentioned Creswell a number of times and2 your student made reference to Creswell. You will3 see on page 44 the last two bullet points refer to4 Creswell?5 A M'mm-hmm.6 Q And then on the next page, page 45 at the end of7 the first paragraph it says "there are three8 things that Creswell says" and then the whole next9 page and a half deals with Creswell's10 recommendations?11 A M'mm-hmm.12 Q Then if you look on page 47 the first bullet point13 again refers to Creswell?

14 A Okay.15 Q And on page 48 there's another reference in the16 middle of the page to Creswell?17 A Yes.18 Q Your student considered Creswell to be an19 authority on qualitative research?20 A As did I.21 Q Is it your understanding that he is a leading22 authority on qualitative research?23 A For the purposes of my research it was very24 relevant so I consider him extremely relevant, but25 where he stands in his own field I'm not aware.26 Q I would like to show you a book by Professor27 Creswell. I'm going to show you his Research28 Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed29 Method Approaches. And I'm going to provide a30 copy of the extract to the court and my friend.31 Could you put this before the witness, please. If32 you could turn, please, to page 13. Do you have33 that?34 A I do.35 Q You see there's a -- the second to last bullet36 point is called "phenomenological research"?37 A Yes.38 Q Which you said this was your type of study here?39 A M'mm-hmm.40 Q And if you go about halfway through this paragraph

41 the fourth line down after the word "method"?42 A Yes.43 Q It says:4445 And the procedure involves studying a small46 number of subjects through extensive and47 prolonged engagement to develop patterns and


40/130


1 relationships of meaning.23 Do you see that?4 A I do.5 Q And you've agreed with me that you did not have6 extensive and prolonged engagement.7 A I do agree that it was less than Peters.8 Q But you agreed with me earlier that it was not9 extensive and pronged?10 MR. MACINTOSH: Well, I don't think that was defined at11 all, My Lord.12 THE COURT: Why don't you ask the question more13 directly then, rather than suggesting she said it

14 previously.15 MR. SAMUELS: I will be happy to go back in the16 transcript and find it.17 MR. MACINTOSH: My Lord, I don't know what this18 professor means by it and it wasn't put in that19 context, that's all.20 MR. SAMUELS: I'll rely on the transcript, thank you,21 My Lord.22 THE COURT: Thank you.23 MR. SAMUELS:24 Q Is it now your evidence that you had extensive and25 prolonged engagement in Bountiful?26 A My statement as to the effect that the research27 that I had in Bountiful was perhaps less than that28 conducted by Peters, who spent over a year in her29 community. However, if you're asking me with30 respect to this barometer of extensive and31 prolonged engagement I would actually indicate32 that I have had extensive and prolonged engagement33 with the community as I understand this term, not34 necessarily being only onsite but by ongoing35 research that is not yet finished.36 Q You were there for five days conducting 1737 interviews the first time?38 A Yes.39 Q And for I think 10 days the second time?40 A Seven.

41 Q Seven days?42 A M'mm-hmm, the second time. And I just received43 SSHRC funding to return to do further research in44 the coming year.45 Q Right. Do you know why -- do you understand why46 Professor Creswell says "extended and prolonged47 engagement is needed for a phenomenological


41/130


1 study"?2 A I do, and he distinguishes that from the3 ethnography which is the first to list which he4 describes as living onsite, which is more akin to5 Peters' work. And from my understanding of6 Creswell he's suggesting that this is important in7 order to gain the depth of the narrative that he8 sees as important for the -- he indicates the9 small number of subjects through extensive and10 prolonged engagement, so getting that -- the11 in-depth understanding of how these participants12 would appreciate the phenomenon in question is --13 it is to obtain that is essential to have the

14 extensive and prolonged contact as he describes15 it.16 Q You can put that book aside for the moment,17 please?18 A Okay.19 Q Thank you.20 THE COURT: Did you want to mark the extract?21 MR. SAMUELS: Yes, thank you, My Lord.22 THE CLERK: My Lord, might be there a court copy.23 THE COURT: Would you give another copy to Madam24 Registrar? Any objections?25 THE CLERK: Exhibit 3 on voir dire My Lord.26 THE COURT: Thank you.2728 EXHIBIT 3: 4 page p/c document; first page titled29 Research Design..., Third Edition by John W.30 Creswell3132 MR. SAMUELS:33 Q Professor Campbell, you would agree with me that34 you don't claim to have and do not have any35 expertise in quantitative analysis?36 A That's right.37 Q You don't have any expertise in statistical38 analysis?39 A No, I don't.40 Q For example, you wouldn't be able to tell the

41 Court how large a sample size needs to be based on42 a given total population in order to determine43 either confidence levels or standard deviations or44 any of that?45 A That's right.46 Q And you didn't do any of that type of analysis?47 A No, I didn't.


42/130


1 Q Are you familiar with the name Denzin?2 A I am.3 Q Have you read any of his books?4 A I have. I read some of the work of Denzin.5 THE COURT: Would you spell the name, please.6 MR. SAMUELS: It's D-e-n-z-i-n.7 Q And if you look at page 46 of tab 8 which I think8 is open in front of you.9 A Yes.10 Q You see under the heading "Designing Qualitative11 Research"?12 A M'mm-hmm.13 Q In the first bullet point it says "Denzin and

14 Lincoln are consistently referred to in literature15 on qualitative methodology."16 A Yes.17 Q So it's your understanding that their book is a18 leading authority?19 A Yeah.20 Q Did you read their book before you did your work21 in Bountiful?22 A I would have read some of it, yes.23 Q If a researcher wants to be able to draw general24 conclusions to the greater population that you're25 studying based on interviews is it necessary to do26 quantitative research?27 A Can you repeat the question.28 Q Certainly. If a researcher wants to be able to29 draw general conclusions about the greater30 population that they're studying --31 A Yes.32 Q -- based on interviews.33 A M'mm-hmm.34 Q Is it necessary to do quantitative research?35 A I think so. If you're looking to generalize36 across a population, yes.37 Q And it's fair to say that without doing any38 quantitative research it wouldn't be possible to39 determine whether the sample population that you40 interviewed was representative of the opinions or

41 experiences of the population as a whole?42 A Yeah, that's fair to say.43 Q Or even a segment of the population, such as the44 Blackmore segment?45 A Again, it wouldn't be fair to say that that's46 generalizable across half of the group, no.47 Q So any comments you obtain from the sample of


43/130


1 women that you interviewed you could not2 extrapolate that into any larger group, it's only3 applicable to the specific women you interviewed?4 A I think that's right.5 Q Do you use any computer software for qualitative6 data analysis?7 A I don't.8 Q Are you familiar with the type of products9 available for such analysis?10 A I am.11 Q Can you name some of the products that are12 typically used?13 A Invivo primarily. There's another one but I can't

14 remember what it's called.15 Q Do you know what functions the software performs?16 A Typically coding functions to organize by theme17 the research data that a person has gathered.18 Q Are you trained in using that software?19 A I am not.20 Q Do you know whether software -- this type of21 software for data analysis is commonly used by22 people who do qualitative research?23 A Many do use it, yes.24 Q You referred to the students who helped you with25 this research project. Did they also help you26 carry out the interviews?27 A They were present for the interviews.28 Q Did they help you in writing the papers that you29 published?30 A I wrote the papers. Very often my student31 research assistants give me comments on the draft32 once it's complete. As do my colleagues often.33 Q Did you acknowledge your students' help in your34 paper?35 A I do. They are acknowledged in the outset of my36 papers.37 Q Now, we talked about triangulation of data a few38 moments ago.39 A We did.40 Q You would agree with me that one way to

41 triangulate data would be to use documents to42 corroborate witness statements?43 A I am not aware of that.44 Q So for example if an interview subject tells a45 researcher that women in the community no longer46 marry under the age of 16 you would agree with me47 I presume that in order to verify the data and


44/130


1 triangulate it you could go to the vital2 statistics for the community?3 A I think that's fair, yeah.4 Q And that's a typical way in which triangulation is5 done?6 A It's one of the ways, sure.7 Q You didn't do that, did you?8 A No, I did not.9 Q Are you familiar with the concept in the field of10 qualitative research of what is called post hoc11 evaluation for reliability and validity?12 A No.13 Q Are you able to tell the Court whether there's any

14 debate in the field of sociological qualitative15 research regarding whether it's better to test for16 reliability and validity during the design and17 implementation of the study rather than after the18 study is complete?19 A M'mm-hmm. I have seen some writing on that20 particular issue and my appreciation is that the21 latter is what is preferred according to the22 sources I have seen.23 Q That it's better to test after?24 A After.25 Q Are you familiar with the International Institute26 for Qualitative Methodology?27 A No.28 Q It's a Canadian organization. You've never heard29 of it?30 A No.31 Q Then I think it's fair to say you're not a member32 of it?33 A That's fair.34 Q Do you subscribe to the International Journal of35 Qualitative Methods?36 A No.37 Q There's an article written on post hoc evaluation38 for reliability from that journal. I take it you39 haven't seen --40 A I have not.

41 Q -- the study?42 A No.43 Q And you haven't disagree with me if I told you44 they conclude that evaluating it after the fact is45 not an acceptable way to do it?46 A I haven't seen the study so ...47 Q If I showed you the study would you be able to


45/130


1 comment on what they say about it?2 A If I had to chance to read it.3 Q Well, okay. I guess probably no

11-30 -2010 transcript of proceedings at polygamy reference case day 6

Documents