View Item 

Show simple item record

Methods of Presenting Scientific Evidence in Court

dc.contributor.authorChesler, Mark A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorKalmuss, Debraen_US
dc.contributor.authorSanders, Josephen_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-04-14T14:06:35Z
dc.date.available2010-04-14T14:06:35Z
dc.date.issued1983en_US
dc.identifier.citationCHESLER, MARK; KALMUSS, DEBRA; SANDERS, JOSEPH (1983). "Methods of Presenting Scientific Evidence in Court." Sociological Methods & Research 4(11): 443-468. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/68903>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0049-1241en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/68903
dc.description.abstractThis article presents and analyzes lawyers' and scientists' views of the advisability of using alternatives to the party witness format (e.g., scientific panels) in school desegregation cases. Scientists' and attorneys' desires to control the presentation of evidence and courtroom interaction is one factor explaining their preference for panels or party witness formats. In addition, control is seen as a means of influencing several other issues: selection of an appropriate form of dispute settlement in this litigation; management of potential bias in social science scholarship and testimony; and determination of the proper role of expert witnesses. These issues are investigated with a sample of lawyers and scholars who tried and testified in 17 school desegregation cases across the nation.en_US
dc.format.extent3108 bytes
dc.format.extent2485934 bytes
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.publisherSAGE PUBLICATIONSen_US
dc.titleMethods of Presenting Scientific Evidence in Courten_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelSociologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelSocial Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumUniversity of Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherJohns Hopkins Universityen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherUniversity of Houstonen_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/68903/2/10.1177_0049124183011004004.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/0049124183011004004en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBELL, D. (1980) “Brown v. Board of Education and the interest-convergence dilemma.”Harvard Law Rev.93: 518.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBELL, D. (1976) “Serving two masters: integration ideals and client interests in school desegregation litigation.”Yale Law J.85: 470.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBRODSKY, S. and A. ROBEY (1973) “On becoming an expert witness: issues of orientation and effectiveness.”Professional Psychology3: 173-176.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCAHN, E. (1956) “Jurisprudence.”New York University Law Rev.31: 182.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCAHN, E. (1955) “A dangerous myth in the school desegregation cases.”New York University Law Rev.30: 150.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCLARK, K. (1959-1960) “The segregation cases: criticism of the social scientists' role.”Villanova Law Rev.5: 224.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCLARK, K. (1953) “The social scientist as an expert witness in civil rights litigation.”Social Problems3: 211-214.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCROWFOOT, J. and M. CHESLER (1981) “Implementing `attractive ideas': problems and prospects,” in W. Hawley (ed.) Effective School Desegregation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEDMONDS, R. (1974) “Advocating inequality: a critique of the civil rights attorney in class action desegregation suits.”Black Law J.3: 176-183.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGALANTER, M. (1974) “Why the haves come out ahead: speculations on the limits of legal change.”Law and Society Rev.9: 95.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGOULDNER, A. (1964) “Engineering and clinical approaches to consulting,” in W. Benniset al. (eds.), Planning of Change. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJANOWITZ, M. (1972) “Professionalization of sociologists.”Amer. J. of Sociology71: 105-135.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKALMUSS, D. (1981) “Scholars in the courtroom: two models of applied social science.”Amer. Sociologist16, 4: 212-223.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKALMUSS, D. M. CHESLER and J. SANDERS (1982) “Political conflicts in applied scholarship: expert witnesses in school desegregation litigation.”Social Problems30, 2: 168-178.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKANTROWITZ, A. (1977) “The science court experiment.”Trial13: 48-54.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLADD, E. and S. LIPSET (1975) The Divided Academy: Professions and Politics. New York: Norton.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLOEWEN, J. (1982) Social Science in the Courtroom. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLONGSHORE, D. “Social psychological research on school desegregation: toward a new agenda,” in D. Monti (ed.) Impact of Desegregation: New Directions in Testing and Measurement 14: 39-52.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMc CONAHAY, J. (1978) “The effects of school desegregation upon students' racial attitudes and behavior: a critical review of the literature and a prolegomenon to future research.”Law and Contemporary Problems42, 3: 77-107.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMILLER, N. (1980) “Making school desegregation work,” in W. Stephan and J. Feagin (eds.) School Desegregation: Past, Present and Future. New York: Plenum.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNAKAMURA, R. and F. SMALLWOOD (1980) The Politics of Policy Implementation. New York: St. Martin's Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNYHART, J. (1981) Science, Technology and Judicial Decision-Making. Cambridge: Sloan School of Management, MIT.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceORFIELD, G. (1978) “Research, politics and the anti-busing debate.”Law and Contemporary Problems42, 4: 141-173.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePETTIGREW, T. (1979) “Tension between the law and social science: an expert witness' view,” p. 23 in Schools and the Courts, vol. 1. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Education Management.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSANDERS, J., B. RANKIN-WIDGEON, D. KALMUSS, and M. CHESLER (1981-1982) “The relevance of irrelevant testimony: why lawyers use social science experts in school desegregation cases.”Law and Society Rev.16: 408-428.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSPERLICH, P. (1980) “Social science evidence and the courts: reaching beyond the adversary process.”Judicature63: 280-289.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSTREET, D. and E. WEINSTEIN (1975) “Problems and prospects of applied sociology.”Amer. Sociologist10: 65-72.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVan den HAAG, E. (1960) “Social science testimony in the desegregation cases: a reply to Professor Kenneth Clark.”Villanova Law Rev.6: 69-79.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVon EULER, M. (1977) “Meeting the court's new research needs.”Education and Urban Society9, 3: 277-302.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWEBER, M. (1946) “Science as a vocation,” in H. H. Gerth and C. W. Mills (eds. and trans.) Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWEINBERG, P. (1978) “Science court controversy: are our courts and agencies adequate to resolve new and complex scientific issues?”Record33: 8.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWILLIAMS, P. (1957) “The practitioner speaks: witness performance as viewed by the U.S. Attorney General.”J. of Social Issues13, 2: 24-26.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWOLF, E. (1977) “Courtrooms and classrooms,” in R. Rist and R. Anson (eds.) Education, Social Science and the Judicial Process. New York: Teachers College Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWOLF, E. (1976) “Social science and the courts: the Detroit schools case.”Public Interest43: 102-120.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYUDOF, M. (1981) “Implementing desegregation decrees,” in W. Hawley (ed.) Effective School Desegregation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
10.1177_0049124183011004004.pdf
Size:
2.370MB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.