Lazy data? Using administrative records in research on judicial systems

Brian Opeskin

doi:10.35295/osls.iisl.1624

Authors

Brian Opeskin University of Technology Sydney

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1624

Keywords:

administrative records, courts, empirical research, government agencies, archivos administrativos, tribunales, investigación empírica, agencias gubernamentales, judges, jueces

Abstract

Social science research on courts and judges requires data that are typically generated through interviews, observation, or surveys for the purpose of answering specific research questions posed by the researcher. However, traditional methods of data collection are not always feasible. As an alternative, this paper examines the use of administrative data, which have been collected for non-research purposes, in judicial research. Using research undertaken by the author in Australia over the past decade as case studies, the paper examines potential sources of administrative data on courts and judges, how they can be acquired, and the uses to which they can be put. The paper then assesses the advantages and disadvantages of using administrative data, which vary substantially according to the data source. The paper concludes by agreeing with Babbie (2020) that ‘with so much data already collected, the lack of funds to support expensive data collection is no reason for not doing good and useful social research’ on judicial systems.

La investigación en ciencias sociales sobre tribunales y jueces requiere datos que suelen generarse a través de encuestas, entrevistas u observación con el fin de responder a preguntas de investigación concretas planteadas por el investigador. Sin embargo, los métodos tradicionales de recopilación de datos no siempre son factibles. Como alternativa, este artículo examina el uso de datos administrativos, que han sido recogidos con fines ajenos a la investigación, en la investigación judicial. Utilizando como estudios de caso las investigaciones realizadas por el autor durante la última década, el artículo examina las fuentes potenciales de datos administrativos sobre tribunales y jueces, cómo pueden ser adquiridos y los usos que se les puede dar. A continuación, el artículo evalúa las ventajas e inconvenientes de la utilización de datos administrativos, que varían sustancialmente según la fuente de datos. El artículo concluye coincidiendo con Babbie (2020) en que “con tantos datos ya recopilados, la falta de fondos para apoyar la costosa recopilación de datos no es razón para no hacer una investigación social buena y útil” sobre los sistemas judiciales.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Views 169
Downloads:
13(S1)_Opeskin_OSLS 127
XML_13(S1)_Opeskin_OSLS 5

Author Biography

Brian Opeskin, University of Technology Sydney

Brian Opeskin joined Macquarie Law School in December 2008 as Professor of Legal Governance. He is currently co-director of the Centre for Legal Governance, a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Law, and a member of the Australian Research Council's College of Experts.

Brian previously held positions as Head of the Law School at the University of the South Pacific in Vanuatu (2006-2008); Commissioner and then Deputy President of the Australian Law Reform Commission (2000-2006), legal academic at Sydney University Law School (1989-2000); and Associate to Justice Mason at the High Court of Australia (1985-1986).

He undertook his undergraduate degrees in economics and law at the University of New South Wales. He then pursued postgraduate study at Oxford University on a Shell Australia scholarship, before returning to Australia to take up an academic appointment. He also has a Master of Social Research in Demography from the Australian National University.

Brian researches and teaches in the broad field of public law, and has written extensively in the areas of constitutional law; courts and judges; migration law; and public international law. While at the Australian Law Reform Commission, he was the Commissioner in charge of five public inquiries, including inquiries into federal judicial power, the protection of human genetic information, gene patenting and human health, sentencing of federal offenders, and sedition laws.

His current research examines issues of governance and legal policy relating to international migration, judges and court systems. He has a particular interest in interdisciplinary research that examines the intersections between principles of public law and demographic processes, and has a special interest in Pacific legal systems.

References

Adams, T., Jones, S.H., and Ellis, C., 2015. Autoethnography: Understanding Qualitative Research. Oxford University Press.

Allen, R.G.D., 1975. Index Numbers in Theory and Practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Anseel, F., et al., 2010. Response Rates in Organizational Science, 1995–2008: A Meta-analytic Review and Guidelines for Survey Researchers. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 335–349.

Appleby, G., et al., 2022. Judicial Education in Australia: A Contemporary Overview. Journal of Judicial Administration, 31(4), 187–206.

Appleby, G., et al., 2017. Temporary Judicial Officers in Australia. Acton: Judicial Conference of Australia.

Appleby, G., and Roberts, H., 2022. The Study of Judges: The Role of the Chief Justice and other Institutional Actors. Paper presented at “Empirical Research with Judicial Professionals and Courts: Methods and Practices”, Oñati, Spain, 23–24 June.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2020. Trust in ABS and ABS Statistics: A Survey of Informed Users and the General Community, 2020 [online]. Catalogue No. 1014.0. Available at: https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/1014.0

Babbie, E., 2020. The Practice of Social Research. 15th ed. Andover: Cengage.

Bian, J., et al., 2020. Assessing the Practice of Data Quality Evaluation in a National Clinical Data Research Network through a Systematic Scoping Review in the Era of Real-World Data. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 27(12), 1999–2010.

Birkin, M., 2018. Big Data for Social Science Research. Ubiquity: Association for Computing Machinery, 2018 (January), 1–7.

Bulmer, M., 1980. Why Don’t Sociologists Make More Use of Official Statistics? Sociology, 14(4), 505–523.

Bunjevac, T., 2015. Court Services Victoria and the New Politics of Judicial Independence: A Critical Analysis of the Court Services Victoria Act 2014 (Vic). Monash University Law Review, 41(2), 299–328.

Cameron, W., 1963. Informal Sociology: A Casual Introduction to Sociological Thinking. New York: Random House.

Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking, 2017. The Promise of Evidence-Based Policymaking. Washington, DC.

Connelly, R., et al., 2016. The Role of Administrative Data in the Big Data Revolution in Social Science Research. Social Science Research, 59, 1–12.

Conquergood, D., 2002. Performance Studies: Interventions and Radical Research. Drama Review, 46(2), 145–156.

Costa, M., Gomes, D., and Silva, M., 2016. The Evolution of Web Archiving. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 18(3), 191–205.

Council of Chief Justices of Australia and New Zealand, 2017. Guide to Judicial Conduct. 3rd ed. Melbourne: Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration.

Dillon, H., 2008. Judicial Technique: Giving Proper and Sufficient Reasons for Decision. The Judicial Review, 8, 107–133.

Dobbin, S., et al., 2001. Surveying Difficult Populations: Lessons Learned from a National Survey of State Trial Court Judges. Justice System Journal, 22(3), 287–314.

Doyle, C., and Bagaric, M., 2005. Privacy Law in Australia. Sydney: Federation Press.

Durkheim, E. (with G. Simpson, ed.), 1951. Suicide: A Study in Sociology. London: Free Press. (Originally published in 1897).

Ellis, C., Adams, T., and Bochner, A., 2011. Autoethnography: An Overview. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 12(1), Art. 10.

Epstein, L., et al., 2021. The U.S. Supreme Court Justices Database [online]. Last Modified 17 January 2021. Available at: https://epstein.usc.edu/justicesdata

Feldman, M., Kenney, M., and Lissoni, F., 2015. The New Data Frontier. Research Policy, 44(9), 1629–1632.

Fitzmaurice, G., Laird, N., and Ware, J., 2011. Applied Longitudinal Analysis. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons.

Garfinkel, H., 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Garfinkel, S., 2018. Privacy and Security Concerns When Social Scientists Work with Administrative and Operational Data. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 675(1), 83–101.

Gleeson, M., 2003. Judicial Selection and Training: Two Sides of the One Coin. Australian Law Journal, 77(9), 591–597.

Greenleaf, G., Mowbray, A., and Chung, P., 2013. The Meaning of “Free Access to Legal Information”: A Twenty Year Evolution. Journal of Open Access to Law, 1(1), 1.

Hannaford-Agor, P., 2022. How Exactly Does It Get Done Here? Conducting Cross-Jurisdictional Research with Judges and Court Staff. Paper presented at “Empirical Research with Judicial Professionals and Courts: Methods and Practices”, Oñati, Spain, 23–24 June.

Hannaford-Agor, P., Graves, S., and Spacek-Miller, S., 2015. The Landscape of Civil Litigation in State Courts. Williamsburg: National Center for State Courts.

High Court of Australia, 2022. Annual Reports [online]. Canberra: High Court of Australia. Available at: https://www.hcourt.gov.au/publications/annual-reports/annual-reports

Kitsuse, J., and Cicourel, A., 1963. A Note on the Uses of Official Statistics. Social Problems, 11(2), 131–139.

Larsen, M., et al., eds., 2021. Administrative Records for Survey Methodology. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

Mack, K., and Roach Anleu, S., 2008. The National Survey of Australian Judges: An Overview of Findings. Journal of Judicial Administration, 18(1), 5–21.

Magrath, P., 2019. Law Reporting and Public Access in the Courts: Is Too Much a Good Thing? Part 1: The English Experience. Legal Information Management, 19(4), 224–229.

McIntyre, J., 2019. The Judicial Function: Fundamental Principles of Contemporary Judging. Singapore: Springer.

National Center for State Courts (NCSC), 2022. National Open Court Data Standards (NODS) [online]. Williamsburg: NCSC. Available at: https://www.ncsc.org/consulting-and-research/areas-of-expertise/data/national-open-court-data-standards-nods

National Center for State Courts (NCSC), and Conference of State Court Administrators, 2020. State Court Guide to Statistical Reporting, vers 2.2.1.

National Health and Medical Research Council, and Australian Research Council, 2018. National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research.

Oakley, J., and Opeskin, B., 2016. Banter from the Bench: The Use of Humour in the Exercise of Judicial Functions. Australian Bar Review, 42(1), 82–106.

Office of the National Data Commissioner, 2020. Data Availability and Transparency Bill 2020, Exposure Draft, Consultation Paper. Canberra: Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Opeskin, B., 2011. The High Cost of Judges: Reconsidering Judicial Pensions and Retirement in an Ageing Population. Federal Law Review, 39(1), 33–70.

Opeskin, B., 2013. The State of the Judicature: A Statistical Profile of Australian Courts and Judges. Sydney Law Review, 35(3), 489–517.

Opeskin, B., 2015. Models of Judicial Tenure: Reconsidering Life Limits, Age Limits and Term Limits for Judges. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 35(4), 627–663.

Opeskin, B., 2017. The Supply of Judicial Labour: Optimising a Scarce Resource in Australia. Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 7(4), 847–878.

Opeskin, B., 2021a. Dismantling the Diversity Deficit: Towards a More Inclusive Australian Judiciary. In: G. Appleby and A. Lynch, eds., The Judge, the Judiciary and the Court: Individual, Collegial and Institutional Judicial Dynamics in Australia. Cambridge University Press, 83–115.

Opeskin, B., 2021b. Future Proofing the Judiciary: Preparing for Demographic Change. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

Opeskin, B., 2022. Rationing Justice: Tempering Demand for Courts in the Managerialist State. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 45(2), 531–569.

Opeskin, B., and Appleby, G., 2020. Responsible Jurimetrics: A Reply to Silbert’s Critique of the Victorian Court of Appeal. Australian Law Journal, 94(12), 923–935.

Opeskin, B., and Parr, N., 2014. Population, Crime and Courts: Demographic Projections of the Future Workload of the New South Wales Magistracy. Journal of Judicial Administration, 23(4), 233–252.

Petrila, J., 2018. Turning the Law into a Tool Rather than a Barrier to the Use of Administrative Data for Evidence-Based Policy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 675(1), 67–82.

Poulos, C., 2021. Essentials of Autoethnography. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Roach Anleu, S., and Mack, K., 2022. Collaboration, Access and Independence in Empirical Research with Judicial Officers. Paper presented at “Empirical Research with Judicial Professionals and Courts: Methods and Practices”, Oñati, Spain, 23–24 June.

Rowland, D., 2003. Demographic Methods and Concepts. Oxford University Press.

Ryan, J., 2010. A History of the Internet and the Digital Future. London: Reaktion Books.

Silbert, G., 2020. The First 24 Years of the Victorian Court of Appeal in Crime. Australian Law Journal, 94(6), 455–471.

Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision, 2022. Terms of Reference [online]. Melbourne/Canberra: Productivity Commission. Available at: https://www.pc.gov.au/about/core-functions/performance-monitoring/terms-of-reference

Tufte, E., 1983. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Cheshire: Graphics Press.