Overcoming Barriers to the Use of Applied Social Research in the Courts (From Use/Nonuse/Misuse of Applied Social Research in the Courts, 1980, P 148-167, Michael J Saks and Charles H Baron, ed. - See NCJ-75219)

• NCJ Number: 75230
• Author(s): D L Horowitz; C H Baron; M P Kirby; G W Peters
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 20 pages
• Sale Source: Abt Books
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

There are major barriers to the use of social science research in litigation: some can be eliminated and some can be eased, but many are inherent in the situation.

Abstract

Specialized social science wisdom should be integrated into the adversary process, not set up apart from it. Creation of outside experts would tend to emphasize patterns and broad policies rather than concentrate attention on individual claims and grievances. Several obstacles to the use of social science research involve the nature of the research, the nature of the lawsuit as controversy, rules of evidence, the character of the adversary process, the use of expert witnesses, and the background of judges. By quickly increasing the amount of social science research used by lawyers and judges and making social scientists an intimate part of the adversary system, the scientists themselves will be able to suggest reforms with more credibility than they presently can as outsiders. Although many are concerned that the courts not use inadequate social science expertise, the emphasis should perhaps be on increasing the quality of the lawyering that takes place in the courts. Because truth is not the end in itself, but a means to the end, the role of the social scientist is limited in the adversary process. Nonetheless, social scientists have the ability to effect important changes in the way courts operate if they can accept their role of informing judges in the decisionmaking process, not replacing judges. A discussion follows, noting the many checks on the misuse of applied social science, the role of the expert witness in court, and methods of improving project evaluations. Two notes and nine references are provided.