Where Is the Evidence in Evidence-Based Law Reform

Bibliographic Data

ID6173828
AuthorsJason Chin (0000-0002-6573-2670, The University of Sydney), Jason M Chin, Malgorzata Lagisz (0000-0002-3993-6127, Environmental Earth Sciences), Shinichi Nakagawa (0000-0002-7765-5182, Environmental Earth Sciences)
Year2022
Volume45
Issue4
Publication date2022-12-01
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueUniversity of New South Wales Law Journal (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0313-0096 • E-ISSN: 1839-2881
PublisherUniversity of New South Wales Law Journal (PUBLISHER • AU)
DOI10.53637/fmhk9486
OpenAlexW4311437808
LanguageEN
References cited3

Law reform bodies frequently express a commitment to evidence-based law and policy recommendations. They also endorse the importance of the transparency and democratisation of their processes. They do not, however, connect these two goals of evidence-based policy and transparency. This stands in contrast to the ongoing revolution in several fields of research towards open science and synthesis, which envisions transparency and openness as a means to improve the reliability of research. We suggest herein that several recent concerns surrounding evidence-based law reform, such as allegations of bias among officials, can be addressed through open science and synthesis. We include a novel study of 22 research syntheses commissioned by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, finding uneven adoption of even the most basic transparency measures. We end with five proposals that advance transparent evidence-based law reform, including greater disciplinary diversity among law reform staff

Commission · Democracy · Democratization · Law and economics · Law reform · Open Science · Openness to experience · Political science · Publishing · Sociology · Transparency (behavior · Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis · Law · Law in Society and Culture · Legal Education and Practice Innovations · Psychology

Tools

Open DOI