The ASA's missed opportunity to promote sound science in court

Sociological Methods and Research

Volumn 40, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 605-620

  Mitchell, Gregory ^a   Monahan, John ^a   Walker, Laurens ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF LAW   (United States)

Author keywords

employment discrimination; experts; qualitative research; social science and law

Indexed keywords

EID: 82455212330     PISSN: 00491241     EISSN: 15528294     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0049124111412714     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. American Sociological Association. 2011a. "Action of the 2010-2011 American Sociological Association Council on Preparing an Amicus Curiae Brief on Walt-Mart v. Dukeset al.by Unanimous Email Vote of Those Responding." Retrieved April 1, 2011 (http://www.asanet.org/images/asa/docs/pdf/January_27_2011_Council_Minutes.pdf).
2. American Sociological Association. 2011b. "Brief of Amici Curiae American Sociological Association and the Law and Society Association in Support of Respondents." Retrieved April 1, 2011 (http://www.asanet.org/images/press/docs/pdf/Amicus_Brief_Wal-Mart_v__Dukes_et_al.pdf).
3. Baumeister Roy F.,Leary Mark R.Writing Narrative Literature Reviews.Review of General Psychology. 1997;1:311-20.
4. Beck Nathaniel.Causal Process 'Observation': Oxymoron or (Fine) Old Wine.Political Analysis. 2010;18:499-505.
5. Bernard H. RussellSocial Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2000:.
6. Bernardin H. John,Hennessey H. W.,Peyrefitte Joseph.Age, Racial, and Gender Bias as a Function of Criterion Specificity: A Test of Expert Testimony.Human Resource Management Review. 1995;5:63-77.
7. Bielby William T.Dukeset al.v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; 2003:.
8. Bielby William T.Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. U.S District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky; 2008:.
9. Collier David,Brady Henry E.,Seawright Jason.Outdated Views of Qualitative Methods: Time to Move On.Political Analysis. 2010;18:506-13.
10. Corbin Juliet,Strauss AnselmBasics of Qualitative Research. 2008. Basics of Qualitative Research. 3rd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2008:.
11. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
12. Dobbin FrankInventing Equal Opportunity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2009:.
13. Dukes et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 2004. "Memorandum and Opinion on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification." U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Federal Rules Decisions 222:137-88.
14. Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. 2000. Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. 2nd ed.Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.
15. Fink ArleneConducting Research Literature Reviews. 2010. Conducting Research Literature Reviews. 3rd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16. Firebaugh GlennSeven Rules for Social Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2008:.
17. Fiske, Susan T. and Eugene Borgida. 2002. "Social Framework Analysis as Expert Testimony in Sexual Harassment Suits." Pp. 575-77 in Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: Proceedings of New York University 51st Annual Conference on Labor, edited by Samuel Estreicher. Frederick, MD: Kluwer Law International.
18. Greiner D. James.Causal Inference in Civil Rights Litigation.Harvard Law Review. 2008;122:533-98.
19. Hart Melissa,Secunda Paul M.A Matter of Context: Social Framework Evidence in Employment Discrimination Class Actions.Fordham Law Review. 2009;78:37-70.
20. HartMelissa and others. 2011. "Brief Amicus Curiae of Civil Procedure Professors in Support of Respondents." Retrieved April 1, 2011 (http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-277_respondent_amcu_civilprocedureprofessors.authcheckdam.pdf).
21. Hennessey H. W.,Bernardin H. John.The Relationship Between Performance Appraisal Criterion Specificity and Statistical Evidence of Discrimination.Human Resource Management. 2003;42:143-58.
22. Hodson RandyAnalyzing Documentary Accounts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1999:.
23. King Gary,Keohane Robert O.,Verba Sidney S.Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1994:.
24. LiptakAdam. 2011. "Supreme Court to Weigh Sociology Issue in Wal-Mart Discrimination Case." New York Times, March27, p. A17. Retrieved April 1, 2011 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/us/28scotus.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=liptak%20and%20sociology&st=cse).
25. Maxwell Joseph A.Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. 2005. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. 2d ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2005:.
26. Merriam Sharan B.Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2009:.
27. Mitchell Gregory.Good Causes and Bad Science.Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc. 2010;63:133-47.
28. Mitchell Gregory,Walker Laurens,Monahan John.Beyond Context: Social Facts as Case-Specific Evidence.Emory Law Journal. 2011;60:1109-55.
29. Monahan John,Walker LaurensSocial Science in Law: Cases and Materials. 1998. Social Science in Law: Cases and Materials. 4th ed.New York: Foundation Press.New York: Foundation Press; 1998:.
30. Monahan John,Walker Laurens,Mitchell Gregory.Contextual Evidence of Gender Discrimination: The Ascendance of 'Social Frameworks.'.Virginia Law Review. 2008;94:1705-39.
31. Monahan John,Walker Laurens,Mitchell Gregory.The Limits of Social Framework Evidence.Law, Probability and Risk. 2009;8:307-21.
32. Nagareda Richard A.Common Answers for Class Certification.Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc. 2010;63:149-70.
33. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2009:.
34. Nelson Robert L.,Bridges William P.Legalizing Gender Inequality. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 1999:.
35. Neuendorf Kimberly A.The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2002:.
36. Reskin Barbara M.Elliset al.v. Costco Wholesale Corporation. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; 2006:.
37. Reskin Barbara M.Pufferet al.v. Allstate Insurance Company. U.S. District for the Northern District of Illinois; 2008:.
38. Roth Louise MarieSelling Women Short: Gender and Money on Wall Street. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2006:.
39. Ruane Janet M.Essentials of Research Methods: A Guide to Social Science Research. Malden, MA: Blackwell; 2005:.
40. Saldaña JohnnyThe Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2009:.
41. Walker Laurens,Monahan John.Social Frameworks: A New Use of Social Science in Law.Virginia Law Review. 1987;73:559-98.
42. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 2011. "Brief for Petitioner."Retrieved April 1, 2011 (http://www.impactfund.org/documents/cat_95-100/WMSCOTUSOpeningBrief.pdf).