Expertise of Court Judges
We argue that expert performance is not best understood and assessed in terms of general characteristics applying across all domains. Rather, it should be analyzed in the context of the specific tasks that experts in a particular domain are called on to accomplish. Drawing on a substantial line of research from psychology, we argue that considerable empirical evidence supports this domain-specific view of expert competence, that there are reasons to believe this view holds with respect to court judges, and that, to be as fair and useful as possible, assessments of judicial performance should incorporate this view.
Keywords: judicial behavior, judicial performance, judicial evaluation, expertise, competence, domain differences, gold standards, taxonomy of intellectual tasks, internal consistency, consensus and disagreement
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.