University of Helsinki, Finland.
Public Underst Sci. 2019 Nov;28(8):883-896. doi: 10.1177/0963662519881338.
This study examines two different approaches in empirical analysis of judges' evaluation of expertise in court: first, an analyst-based approach that employs predefined normative criteria to measure judges' performance, and second, an actor-based approach that emphasizes interpretative flexibility in judges' evaluation practice. I demonstrate how these different approaches to investigating judges' adjudication lead to differing understandings about judges' abilities to evaluate scientific evidence and testimonial. Although the choice of analytical approach might depend on context and purpose in general, I contend that in assessing judges' competence, an actor-based approach that adequately describes the way in which judges relate to and handle expertise is required to properly understand and explain how judges evaluate expertise. The choice of approach is especially important if the resulting understanding of judges' competence is subsequently used as a basis for making normative and prescriptive claims with potential consequences for trial outcomes.
一是分析师导向方法，它使用预先定义的规范标准来衡量法官的表现；二是行为者导向方法，强调法官在评价实践中的解释灵活性。我展示了这些不同的方法如何导致对法官在评价科学证据和证言方面的能力的不同理解。虽然分析方法的选择可能取决于一般的背景和目的，但我认为，在评估法官的能力时，需要采用一种基于行为者的方法，该方法充分描述了法官与专业知识相关联和处理专业知识的方式，以便正确理解和解释法官如何评价专业知识。如果随后将对法官能力的理解作为做出具有潜在审判结果影响的规范性和规定性主张的基础，那么选择方法就尤为重要。
