Predefined criteria and interpretative flexibility in legal courts’ evaluation of expertise

Abstract

This study examines two different approaches in empirical analysis of judges’ evaluation of expertise in court: first, an analyst-based approach that employs predefined normative criteria to measure judges’ performance, and second, an actor-based approach that emphasizes interpretative flexibility in judges’ evaluation practice. I demonstrate how these different approaches to investigating judges’ adjudication lead to differing understandings about judges’ abilities to evaluate scientific evidence and testimonial. Although the choice of analytical approach might depend on context and purpose in general, I contend that in assessing judges’ competence, an actor-based approach that adequately describes the way in which judges relate to and handle expertise is required to properly understand and explain how judges evaluate expertise. The choice of approach is especially important if the resulting understanding of judges’ competence is subsequently used as a basis for making normative and prescriptive claims with potential consequences for trial outcomes.

Not everything is as it seems: Digital technology affordance, pandemic control, and the mediating role of sociomaterial arrangements

“…This understanding advances a key point of sociomateriality theory: social dynamism shapes technology affordance. When users belonging to different social contexts engage with identical technological solutions, recognizably different approaches to utilization emerge, which can result in varying technology affordances and technological effects ( Taipale, 2019 ). For example, Barley (1986) examined the use of computed tomography technology (CTT) in the radiology departments of two community hospitals in Massachusetts.…”

Auswertung und Qualitätsprüfung von Sachverständigengutachten

“…Gatowski et al 2001;Canela et al 2019). Listen von Kriterien zur Beurteilung der Qualität ganzer Gutachten hatten teilweise wenig Nutzen, da Richterinnen und Richter sich in der Praxis auf Aussagen zu den im Einzelfall besonders unklaren oder strittigen Punkten konzentrierten und dabei flexibel Kriterien zur Qualitätsbeurteilung einsetzten (Taipale 2019)…”

Expertise and its Tensions

“…This blurriness furthermore underlines the importance of understanding the situated constitution of expertise (e.g. Coopmans and Button, 2014;Taipale, 2019).…”