Empathy and Administrative Court Judges

• In Event: US Law & Courts: Courts & Judging Mini-Conference: Lower & Administrative Courts

Abstract

Introduction
I interviewed current and former judges to bear witness to some of the experiences of becoming and remaining a judge. The literature points to three broad reasons why we would expect gender to affect judicial decision-making, and an alternative explanation for why it should not. The different voice theories posit that worldviews are developed differently based on gender, while representation theories explain that female judges may take on a representational role based on their group and work toward the protection issues that concern women broadly, and information set theories posit that women have unique and valuable professional experiences. On the other hand, we may not expect differences as judges of both genders undergo identical training, hiring procedures, and institutional constraints, and this professionalization should make them more alike than dissimilar (Boyd, Epstein, and Martin 2010).
I sought to elicit responses that addressed these four sets of theories by asking semi-structures interview questions pertaining to these subjects. I also asked a minimal amount of questions related to judicial independence, approach to decision-making, and stakes to the adversely affected party to assess if empathy matters in ruling. No questions directly mentioning or implying empathy were asked so as not to prime the interviewees.

Method - Thematic Analysis
This paper seeks to describe the method of thematic analysis as one uniquely suited to understand phenomena of interest in the judicial setting by giving examples of successful theory construction and the description of complicated phenomena. Thematic analysis was developed by Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke (Braun and Clarke 2006) to give researchers practical tools for designing qualitative research projects and conducting analysis of qualitative empirical material. In this methodology, recurrent themes are identified and serve to characterize patterns of behaviors and individual perceptions.
The research followed the process of grounded theory, which starts with a general idea or question about process, in this case asking, “what elements of empathy emerge in judicial decision-making?” or “can life experiences give insight into judicial decision-making?” In utilizing the thematic analysis methodology, I follow a series of steps. First, I interview people individually to produce transcripts. Following the data collection, I read over the transcripts several times to fully absorb the text. Then, I identify categories or items that different interviewees focus on. Next, think about how these categories are related to each other in an explanatory way. Thematic analysis can be a useful tool for fostering research that is socially responsive and engaged with the community concerns of occupation and workplace, which translates well to judicial research. It can be used not only to derive theory, but also as a descriptive explanatory method (Braun and Clarke 2022).

Data Collection
Data collection involved purposeful sampling in that the judges have served in an administrative court. At least 152 two judges were contacted for the study via LinkedIn recruiting messages. Nine professional organizations were also contacted to send out invitations to their members, and two of these organizations complied. At the end of interviews, I also asked participants to tell 3 people in their network about the study. Participants agreed to the consent letter (see Appendix A: Elite Interviews), and to be video and audio recorded.
I interviewed current and former judges. Outreach involved sending a message with a scheduling site (www.MeetWithLuz.as.me) to professional organizations, judges listed in agency websites and federal registers, and through LinkedIn messages to judges whose data was publicly available. I held interviews with 21 judges. In the interviews, I ask them to describe some of their judicial decision-making, their judicial independence, and their experiences in becoming and remaining a judge.

Results
I find that the comments in the interviews can be organized into five major themes: experiences and gender, subjectivity, stakes to the adversely affected party, judicial independence, and empathy. I describe responses related to each theme and present notable quotes. I then relate these findings to the empirical and experimental analyses that I performed for my book project “How Women Rule: Judicial Empathy and Administrative Court Rulings.”

References

Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.

Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2022. “Doing Reflexive TA | Thematic Analysis.” https://www.thematicanalysis.net/doin

Author

• Luzmarina Garcia, Florida Atlantic University