Predefined criteria and interpretative flexibility in legal courts' evaluation of expertise.

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.