The Family Law Reform Now edited collection invited experts, primarily academic colleagues, to propose reforms to family law. Each proposal was paired with a response from another expert, who was asked to engage constructively with the author’s ideas by recognising their strengths, whilst also identifying areas requiring reflection. The aim was to create a structured dialogue through which proposals could be tested and strengthened. Through co-editing the collection, I came to view the proposal/response format not only as an editorial device, but as a methodology of scholarly exchange. There is methodology in how we organise academic conversation, with the structures that we use affecting the knowledge that emerges, and the extent to which we open our ideas up for revision and enhancement.

Initially, I viewed the proposal/response format as a means of enriching the collection for readers by ensuring that each reform proposal was considered from more than one perspective. The format was designed to foster more informed and nuanced consideration of reform ideas, including by policymakers; it has subsequently been praised as such by the current Law Commissioner for Property, Family and Trust Law, Lisa Webley. What I had not anticipated, however, was the extent to which adopting the format might shape the thinking of the authors themselves. The responses therefore performed an unexpected amount of intellectual work.

Proposal authors were not provided with an opportunity to amend their proposal on receipt of the written response. Since publication of the collection, though, conversations with these authors have indicated that the proposal/response format helped them, in an ongoing way, to view their arguments from a different angle. It enabled them to identify overlooked assumptions and recognise new avenues for research. As Andy Hayward, one of the authors, has emphasised:

“The response helped to prompt further thought and critical reflection on the arguments being made in my chapter. […] The response directed me to […] lines of argumentation and academic scholarship that I have subsequently explored, analysed and cited in my […] writing.”

Andy has explained how the response led him to question the ‘compensatory’ model for cohabitation law reform proposed within his chapter; he came to recognise that this “more tentative model, [whilst] politically expedient, […] may ultimately turn out deficient, in terms of whether it would adequately protect cohabitants upon relationship breakdown.” Following publication of the collection, Andy now favours his respondent’s chosen cohabitation model, rather than the one advocated in his chapter, demonstrating the capacity of the book’s format to shift author opinions.

It is, of course, commonplace to receive informal verbal feedback on our work at conferences, written feedback from anonymous reviewers or in the peer review processes within our institutions. The proposal/response approach differs to this, given its public nature, lifting the curtain on the processes by which our positions are sharpened and reworked. It makes visible the fact that legal scholarship, especially work exploring reform possibilities, can be approached as a shared endeavour for analysis, instead of as a matter of individual authorship. As Sharon Thompson, another proposal author, emphasised, the format “offers a […] deliberate forum in which a fresh pair of eyes can engage with [issues] that the original author may have been too close to see clearly.” In her subsequent book, Sharon acknowledged the contribution of her respondent, Alison Diduck, to the shaping and expansion of the scope of her reform proposal. Alison had pointed out that the proposal, concentrating on a Law Commission draft Bill from 1988, could go further, remaining too tied to the rhetoric of property (and, by extension, individual autonomy). As a consequence, in The Road to Equal Partnership, Sharon introduced a series of presumptions moving beyond the parties’ implied intentions regarding property distribution. This evidences that the critical reflection that took place as part of the proposal/response process extended well beyond the collection itself.

Editing the collection has led me to view the proposal/response format not simply as a means of evaluating knowledge, but as a part of the process of knowledge production around law reform. I came to appreciate that even the editorial choices about how contributors were paired were not neutral, but helped to shape the conditions of the resulting conversation, influencing the questions that are asked and the forms of critique that are possible.

The use of the responses moreover challenged any assumption that a reform argument is most persuasive when presented without visible disagreement. By identifying obstacles, tensions, omissions and/or alternatives, the respondent can help the proposal author to revise and improve their ideas, and develop their thinking more widely, rather than merely evaluating a singular proposal. The response can operate as a public stress test, raising questions around whether a proposal accounts for relevant complexities and identifying practical implications. This deliberative approach, entailing aspects of productive disagreement, encourages careful and responsible thinking about policy change, and directs focus towards what is achievable.

The dialogic structure of the proposal/response approach has much to offer. It permits bold ideas for change, while challenging any tendency to think about law reform in linear terms. It serves not as an endpoint, but a catalyst for continuing intellectual development and a reminder of the iterative nature of reform. Significantly, it also highlights that the best thinking is rarely produced in isolation. Whilst it is unrealistic to expect reform always to be backed by consensus, we need to advance the best available option, refined through conversation and debate.