|
Showing 1 - 4 of
4 matches in All Departments
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.
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.
What motivates political actors with diverging interests to respect
the Supreme Court's authority? A popular answer is that the public
serves as the guardian of judicial independence by punishing
elected officials who undermine the justices. Curbing the Court
challenges this claim, presenting a new theory of how we perceive
the Supreme Court. Bartels and Johnston argue that, contrary to
conventional wisdom, citizens are not principled defenders of the
judiciary. Instead, they seek to limit the Court's power when it
suits their political aims, and this inclination is heightened
during times of sharp partisan polarization. Backed by a wealth of
observational and experimental data, Bartels and Johnston push the
conceptual, theoretical, and empirical boundaries of the study of
public opinion of the courts. By connecting citizens to the
strategic behavior of elites, this book offers fresh insights into
the vulnerability of judicial institutions in an increasingly
contentious era of American politics.
What motivates political actors with diverging interests to respect
the Supreme Court's authority? A popular answer is that the public
serves as the guardian of judicial independence by punishing
elected officials who undermine the justices. Curbing the Court
challenges this claim, presenting a new theory of how we perceive
the Supreme Court. Bartels and Johnston argue that, contrary to
conventional wisdom, citizens are not principled defenders of the
judiciary. Instead, they seek to limit the Court's power when it
suits their political aims, and this inclination is heightened
during times of sharp partisan polarization. Backed by a wealth of
observational and experimental data, Bartels and Johnston push the
conceptual, theoretical, and empirical boundaries of the study of
public opinion of the courts. By connecting citizens to the
strategic behavior of elites, this book offers fresh insights into
the vulnerability of judicial institutions in an increasingly
contentious era of American politics.
|
|