Randomized Control Trials in the United States Legal Profession

Dados Bibliográficos

ID12795168
AutoresD James Greiner (0000-0001-8506-9338, Harvard University Press, autor correspondente), Andrea Matthews (0000-0002-2293-183X, Harvard University Press)
Ano2016
Volume12
Fascículo1
Páginas295-312
Data de publicação2016-05-05
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessNão
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoAnnual Review of Law and Social Science (BOOK_SERIES)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 1550-3585 • E-ISSN: 1550-3631
EditoraAnnual Reviews (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110413-030732
OpenAlexW3125067816
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas5
Referências citadas48

We assemble studies within a set that we label randomized control trials (RCTs) in the US legal profession. These studies are field experiments conducted for the purpose of obtaining knowledge in which randomization replaces a decision that would otherwise have been made by a member of the US legal profession. We use our assembly of approximately 50 studies to begin addressing the question of why the US legal profession, in contrast to the US medical profession, has resisted the use of the RCT as a knowledge-generating device

Control (management · Economics · Field (mathematics · Legal profession · Management · Medical education · Medical profession · Pathology · Political science · Public relations · Randomized controlled trial · Set (abstract data type · Artificial Intelligence in Law · Computer Science · Law · Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems · Legal Education and Practice Innovations · Medicine