Judges and Their Work

Fielding, Nigel

doi:10.1177/0964663910388857

Cited by 37 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Interviews and group discussions were conducted via AG with graduate students, and then group discussions were conducted between judges at British and U.S. courts to demonstrate that AG could be used for fieldwork outside academic settings, bringing an international dimension to research without the cost or carbon footprint of travel. The interview and group discussion data were integrated with courtroom observation and data from surveys of crime victims and witnesses to demonstrate that the established concept of ''judicial activism'' (Galanter, Palen, & Thomas, 1979) extends not only to progressive judicial radicalism but to a conservative variant that elevates judicial discretion at the expense of victim interests (Fielding, 2011).…”

Section: Integration Of Multistream Visual Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Triangulation and Mixed Methods Designs

Fielding

2012

Journal of Mixed Methods Research

Self Cite

292

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data integration is a crucial element in mixed methods analysis and conceptualization. It has three principal purposes: illustration, convergent validation (triangulation), and the development of analytic density or ''richness.'' This article discusses such applications in relation to new technologies for social research, looking at three innovative forms of data integration that rely on computational support: (a) the integration of geo-referencing technologies with qualitative software, (b) the integration of multistream visual data in mixed methods research, and (c) the integration of data from qualitative and quantitative methods. Keywords data integration, new research technologies, computer support for mixed methods Combining different methods and kinds of data in the empirical study of social phenomena goes back to the beginnings of social science (see Hesse-Biber, 2010a, for the historical lineage of the triangulation concept and Plano Clark, 2010, for an account of the rise of mixed methods in U.S. government-funded research). Mixed methods potentially offer depth of qualitative understanding with the reach of quantitative techniques. Initially, it was the more quantitative researchers such as Paul Lazarsfeld who practiced mixed methods (Jahoda, Lazarsfeld, & Zeisl, 1976), but following Campbell's papers on ''triangulation'' as a means of convergent validation (Campbell & Fiske, 1959) and the emergence of grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), whose ''constant comparative method'' involves comparing data from different sources, the triangulation metaphor also became established in qualitative research. Ivankova and Kawamura (2010) offer a comprehensive and extensive bibliometric survey of contemporary mixed methods practice. On the basis of searches of five databases (PubMed, ERIC, PsychInfo, Academic OneFile, Academic Search Premier) and two journals (Journal of Mixed Methods Research, International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches), Ivankova and Kawamura found a consistent growth in mixed methods research since 2000. Numbers rose increasingly sharply from the year 2000 (N = 10) to 2008 (N = 243). Some 689 studies were classed as full mixed

show abstract

Section: Integration Of Multistream Visual Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Triangulation and Mixed Methods Designs

Fielding

2012

Journal of Mixed Methods Research

Self Cite

292

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sociolegal scholars have discussed the importance of judicial cultures arising in different courts and courtrooms (Conley and O-Barr, 1988;Fielding, 2011; see also Griffiths et al (2013) for an early discussion of the current study), and the univariate analysis may hint at different cultures between First Tier hearing centres. Indeed, other correlations we performed lend anecdotal support to this hypothesis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Limits of Procedural Discretion

Gill

Rotter

Burridge

et al. 2017

Social & Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies of procedural in-court judicial discretion have highlighted a dilemma between the imperative to reduce it owing to its potential misuse and preserve it owing to its importance in protecting vulnerable groups. This article offers a new framework with which to enter this debate and new quantitative empirical evidence that favours the former position over the latter. Drawing upon 240 in-person observations of Britain's First Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), the article demonstrates that judicial discretionary behaviour that is either vulnerability-neutral, vulnerability-amplifying or correlated with extraneous factors outweighs vulnerability-redressing behaviour, despite the sensitivity of this particular jurisdiction and the guidelines that consequently exist for judges. These findings lend support to calls to limit judicial procedural discretion. The article concludes by offering some cost-effective suggestions about how to do so.

show abstract

“…3 There is no prima facie reason that these considerations should not apply equally to policymakers. Indeed, such questions have been addressed, at different levels of abstraction, in my own work (Annison, (2014a;2014b) and by scholars including Bauman (1989), Barker and Wilson (1997) Carlen (2008) and Fielding (2011).…”

Section: Reflexivitymentioning

confidence: 99%