Making Law and Courts Research Relevant

Regular price €65.99
Quantity:
Ships in 10-20 days
Delivery/Collection within 10-20 working days
Shipping & Delivery
bench diversity impact
Brandon Bartels
Bright Line Rules
Category=GPS
Category=JHBC
Chris Bonneau
Common Language
Comparative Empirical Work
Constitutional Court Orders
constitutional interpretation
Court's Legitimacy
Courts Research Relevant
Diffuse Support
empirical legal studies
eq_bestseller
eq_isMigrated=1
eq_isMigrated=2
eq_nobargain
eq_non-fiction
eq_society-politics
Federal Judicial Selection
institutional reforms
judicial behavior
Judicial Deference
Judicial Elections
judicial legitimacy theory
judicial policy
judicial politics
judicial process
Judicial Review
Judicial Selection
law and courts
Law Reviews
Normative Implications
normative implications in judicial research
political methodology
political science methodology
Political Science Scholarship
racial bias in courts
Retention Elections
Social Science Research
State Court Justices
State Judicial Selection
State Supreme Court Elections
Supreme Court Races
Supreme Court's Legitimacy
Violated

Product details

  • ISBN 9781138021921
  • Weight: 362g
  • Dimensions: 152 x 229mm
  • Publication Date: 02 Oct 2014
  • Publisher: Taylor & Francis Ltd
  • Publication City/Country: GB
  • Product Form: Paperback
Secure checkout Fast Shipping Easy returns

One of the more enduring topics of concern for empirically-oriented scholars of law and courts—and political scientists more generally—is how research can be more directly relevant to broader audiences outside of academia. A significant part of this issue goes back to a seeming disconnect between empirical and normative scholars of law and courts that has increased in recent years.

Brandon L. Bartels and Chris W. Bonneau argue that being attuned to the normative implications of one’s work enhances the quality of empirical work, not to mention makes it substantially more interesting to both academics and non-academic practitioners. Their book’s mission is to examine how the normative implications of empirical work in law and courts can be more visible and relevant to audiences beyond academia. Written by scholars of political science, law, and sociology, the chapters in the volume offer ideas on a methodology for communicating normative implications in a balanced, nuanced, and modest manner. The contributors argue that if empirical work is strongly suggestive of certain policy or institutional changes, scholars should make those implications known so that information can be diffused. The volume consists of four sections that respectively address the general enterprise of developing normative implications of empirical research, law and decisionmaking, judicial selection, and courts in the broader political and societal context.

This volume represents the start of a conversation on the topic of how the normative implications of empirical research in law and courts can be made more visible. This book will primarily interest scholars of law and courts, as well as students of judicial politics. Other subfields of political science engaging in empirical research will also find the suggestions made in the book relevant.

Brandon L. Bartels is Associate Professor of Political Science at George Washington University. His research focuses on judicial decision making, the U.S. Supreme Court, and public perceptions of law, courts, and institutional legitimacy. His work has been published in the American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, Journal of Politics, Public Opinion Quarterly, and other outlets.

Chris W. Bonneau is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Pittsburgh. His research focuses on judicial selection and has been published in journals such as the American Journal of Political Science, Journal of Politics, and others. He is co-author of In Defense of Judicial Elections and Strategic Behavior and Policy Choice on the U.S. Supreme Court.