Do Rich and Poor Behave Similarly in Seeking Legal Advice? Lessons from Taiwan in Comparative Perspective

Huang, Kuo Chang; Lin, Chang Ching; Chen, Kong Pin

doi:10.1111/lasr.12055

Cited by 12 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(33 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Important cross‐jurisdictional insights also continue to emerge; especially from the work being undertaken in the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, and Taiwan, where there is currently the most in‐depth research activity in this area. For example, studies in the United Kingdom, Australia, and Taiwan have started to expose common relationships between the use of lawyers, income, and fee mechanisms/public subsidies for legal services (Pleasence & Balmer ; Pleasence & Macourt ; Huang et al ). There is also clear indication that, as well as the much smaller proportion of lawyers in Japan, there are also important social differences between Japan and the West that inhibit wider lawyer use.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Apples and Oranges: An International Comparison of the Public's Experience of Justiciable Problems and the Methodological Issues Affecting Comparative Study

Pleasence¹,

Balmer²,

Sandefur³

2016

J Empirical Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the mid‐1990s, at least 28 large‐scale national surveys of the public's experience of justiciable problems have been conducted in at least 15 separate jurisdictions, reflecting widespread legal aid reform activity. While the majority of these surveys take their structure from Genn's Paths to Justice survey (1999), they vary significantly in length, scope, mode of administration, types of problems included, survey reference period, data structure, data analysis, and question formulation. This article draws on surveys from across the world, contrasting their methodologies, comparing their headline findings, and setting out the potential for bias as a consequence of methodological variation. The article also presents findings from five online experiments testing the impact of various question formulations on problem prevalence, use of advice, and formal processes. Specifically, the experiments test whether varying the reference period, describing problems as “legal,” offering detailed as opposed to simple problem descriptions, and describing problems as “difficult to solve” had an impact on reported prevalence of justiciable problems, and whether presenting lists as opposed to a series of individual questions had an impact on reported use of advice and processes. The experiments demonstrated that modest differences in question formulation yield significantly different results. Specifically, alteration of survey reference period did not result in a proportional change in reported problem prevalence, introducing problems as either “legal” or “difficult to solve” significantly reduced reported prevalence, and introducing use of advice/processes as multiple questions rather than as lists significantly increased reported use. The risks involved in comparative analysis (and particularly in looking beyond methodology when attempting to explain jurisdictional variation) are discussed. In relation to future studies, the importance of understanding the impact of methodological change, learning the lessons of the past, making technical details transparent, and making data available are highlighted.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Apples and Oranges: An International Comparison of the Public's Experience of Justiciable Problems and the Methodological Issues Affecting Comparative Study

Pleasence¹,

Balmer²,

Sandefur³

2016

J Empirical Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a more recent response to the Silbey critique, 6 Hull (2016) points out that scholars have expanded legal consciousness as a research paradigm to marginalized groups to illuminate the important and often positive effects of legal rights as well as the creativity and agency of "ordinary" people. Hull focuses on LGBT-related studies, but her discussion of agency and the strategic use of law among marginalized groups typifies recent legal consciousness research among scholars who have turned their attention to such groups as undocumented immigrants (Abrego 2011(Abrego , 2018, sexual minorities (Connolly 2002, Harding 2011, Hull 2003, Richman 2014 (Gallagher 2006, He et al 2013, Hoffmann 2003, Nguyen 2018, Smith 2005, prisoners (Calavita & Jenness 2014), peasants (Hudson 2001), and the poor (Hernández 2010, Huang et al 2014.…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

Legal Consciousness Reconsidered

Chua

Engel

2019

Annu. Rev. Law. Soc. Sci.

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Legal consciousness is a vibrant research field attracting growing numbers of scholars worldwide. Yet differing assumptions about aims and methods have generated vigorous debate, typically resulting from a failure to recognize that three different clusters of scholars—identified here as the Identity, Hegemony, and Mobilization schools—are pursuing different goals and deploying the concept of legal consciousness in different ways. Scholarship associated with these three schools demonstrates that legal consciousness is actually a flexible paradigm with multiple applications rather than a monolithic approach. Furthermore, a new generation of scholars has energized the field in recent years, focusing on marginalized peoples and non-Western settings. Through their findings, and as a result of broader trends across the social sciences, relational legal consciousness has taken on greater importance. Legal consciousness research should be imagined on a continuum ranging from individualistic conceptualizations of thought and action to interactive, co-constitutive approaches.

show abstract

“…62 With lawyer use increasing along with seriousness/value. See, for example, Huang et al (2014), . Evidently, "cost-benefit calculations" are applied in people's choices about whether to use lawyers (Kritzer 2008).…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Legal Needs Surveys and Access to Justice

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Do Rich and Poor Behave Similarly in Seeking Legal Advice? Lessons from Taiwan in Comparative Perspective

Cited by 12 publications

References 16 publications

Apples and Oranges: An International Comparison of the Public's Experience of Justiciable Problems and the Methodological Issues Affecting Comparative Study

Apples and Oranges: An International Comparison of the Public's Experience of Justiciable Problems and the Methodological Issues Affecting Comparative Study

Legal Consciousness Reconsidered

Legal Needs Surveys and Access to Justice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About