Critiquing Fox and Van Sickel’s Exploratory Study: An Adequate Analysis of Gender Dynamics and Judicial Behavior in Criminal Trial Courts

Abstract

By reading the output of Richard Fox and Robert Van Sickel’s "Gender Dynamics and Judicial Behavior in Criminal Trial Courts: An Exploratory Study" an inference in respect to its merit and scholarly contribution to the criminal justice system was reached; which was that it provided authentic implications toward the aspects of gender issues and the judicial behavior that is associated with these instances.  Furthermore, the study presents findings about the differences in men and women and how their gender results in particular decision-making processes that reflect a stereotypical or non-stereotypical understanding of female and male roles within the American culture.  Finally, the analysis of the article presents the findings and methodologies that have credibility, as well as the flaws that are associated with this specific publication.      

Introduction

              The purpose of Fox and Van Sickel’s (2000) study was to explore the coalescence of gender and whether it influenced judicial behavior in local criminal courts.  Moreover, they used prior empirical and quantitative data to make the necessity of their study understandable.  As they claim that some studies have produced efficient results in regards to gender roles and judicial decision-making processes, they also state that the particularities of the past research fail to properly explain the role of gender and other influences in judicial professionalism.  Hence the reason for the research taking on a basis of “uncovering the potential workings of the past theoretical assumptions (p. 262).”  Also, the two scholars posited data that contradicts many other stereotypes and academic inferences in respect to females having a nurturing element in their day-to-day activities, especially in the legal field.  By using a coding system and a multivariate analysis they were able to determine which roles that the judges in their sample took on.  That is, the decision or verdicts given by the judges either had a feminine or masculine voice (stereotypical tendencies). 

Additionally, Fox and Van Sickel (2000) also suggest that many of the past research efforts accept the idea that women will behave and be treated differently from men in the majority of the legal processes (p. 261).  Their study also has implications of providing data that has intentions of removing the idea that females are treated differently, or expected to behave differently, when compared to males within the legal profession (p. 261).  Although this particular suggestion is unfortunately still a work in progress, the practicality and results of their study do present notions about this transition being possible.  However, with the lack of studies on the concentration it is reasonable to suggest that much more research and time will have to be completed in order to have a full turn-around of the preconceived notions.  More interestingly, Fox and Van Sickel (2000) admit to the fallacies of their study, as most other scholars who conduct research do.  Specifically, it is inferred that because of the size of their sample that it is not logical to have their findings cross-apply to the entire decision-making processes in judges throughout the entire United States, particularly because of the selectiveness (p. 266).  To counteract this bias, it is also suggested that the sample was selected because it provides an authentic representation of both male and female judicial decisions (judges to be exact), as well as a “potential basis for future studies (p. 266).”  This is somewhat of a contradictory implication, nonetheless the methods and findings of the study are scientifically motivated as well as reasonable in respect to its transferability. 

Respectively, this critique will address not only the fallacies, but will also allow for a comprehensiveness of the authenticity in their study and how it can help establish further studies, as well as contribute to the effectiveness of the aforementioned judicial processes.  In brief, this critique will posit an overall analysis of the work and make a conclusion about whether or not the enhancement that is posited has any merit.  Utilizing other research will be a major portion of this critique so that any claims which are made can be validated and not misinterpreted.  Lastly, by referencing past quantitative and qualitative studies an understanding of the fallacies and perks of this study can be fully described and, in turn, present additional feedback for scholars to implicate in their research or analyses. 

Critiquing the Research Methods

Developing a practical methodology for social science research is the fundamental process for every scholar; the methodology should be tuned toward the specific research or study that is being undergone (Bachman & Scott, 2012, pp. 115-116).  Fox and Van Sickel (2000) did properly conduct these standards for the most part, yet there were some fallacies in regards to the structure of their analysis.  To be more precise, they developed a system by selecting an even sample of both male and female jurists (p. 266).  The scholars also initiated a process of observing specific instances so that a comparison could be made for specific adjudication procedures, and they chose environments which had different political cultures and broad gender dynamics (p. 266).  Both of these tactics are reliable; however, the problem lies with the number of jurists selected (twenty-eight) and that the judges (or courts) who were chosen to be observed was based on the proximity to the authors.  This can be considered a flaw because the size and characteristics of the sample is not a valid representation of the entire population of judges in the United States, and that since there are fifty-one different criminal justice systems in this country, as well as a variety of local courts, the circumstances that were observed are influenced by the particular culture in which they reside in (Northeastern United States, Northwestern United States, specific cultures of the state or county…etc.). 

Regardless, the study was attempting to study the decision-making processes of both female and male jurists, therefore the environments should not drastically affect the outcome of the study.  However, the scholars also forgot to posit that the criminal procedures in these observed situations could have been influenced by the personal perceptions of each judge, and the personal lives of the judges.  For example, a judge’s decision-making could be influenced by their ideologies about specific crimes as well as the day-to-day stressors, or having no stress, in their personal occurrences.  To give this claim more merit, turning to a study by Margaret S. William (2009) is feasible; she discusses how the characteristics of a political structure in a state does influence the decision-making processes of judges in state courts (pp. 162-167).  Moreover, she also posited how the personal philosophies or daily situations that a judge is involved with can make their way into the courtroom (pp. 162-168). 

Basically, the burdensome agenda of campaigning, other electoral or political processes, and personal stressors can be a direct influence on how a judge manages their cases loads, as well as setting the tone for the criminal procedures for other legal professionals who enter the particular setting (pp. 162-168).  This is not mentioned in Fox and Van Sickel’s (2000) research; it appears that they presented their findings without acknowledging how the personal thoughts or activities of a jurist can impact the outcome of the criminal court procedures that come before them.  In respect to feminine and masculine voices, it is reasonable to infer that a woman may be more inclined to be stricter when disposing of criminal court processes, and that a male may not be as strict so that any hoopla or typical stereotypes could be inferred.  This idea can also be transitioned into the stereotype that suggests that women or male judges are more apt to take a certain route because of the personal perception that they have about their gender, an inferiority or superiority complex.

Accordingly, the next section of this critique emphasizes the other intrinsic factors that were used to determine the findings.  Specifically, it addresses the fallacies and appropriateness of the coding and categorizing of the legal professionals’ race, gender, and age.  Lastly, a brief analysis of the study’s consideration toward the way in which a judge came to power, their political affiliation, and type of crime or criminal proceeding that was being observed will be conducted.        

Critiquing the Multivariate Analysis and Operationalization

During this portion of Fox and Van Sickel’s (2000) study they sought to provide adequate findings by using methods that described what the feminine and masculine voice traits were.  In addition, not only did they differentiate the theorized voice traits, but they also categorized them into the judicial style and behavior that the particular judge conveyed (pp. 267-268).  This is plausible because of the basis of their study, which was how gender and other variables influenced the decision-making processes in judges and if the results led to the theorized perspectives (stereotypes of men and women). 

Again, the voice traits were categorized into feminine and masculine perspectives.  Meaning that the stereotypes that men and women are known for were defined and properly ordered so that if a judge did display the defined perspectives it could be coded and processed in an order to analyze the findings; this was done by simply using a scheme that put the outcome of the cases into three possible descriptions (pp. 269-270).  Additionally, the approach that Fox and Van Sickel (2000) used to operationalize the judicial styles was quite remarkable.  Particularly, they cited judges in verbatim or paraphrased them in respect to how they dealt with attorneys or criminal offenders (pp. 272-273).  By doing this, they were able to use the theorized stereotypes and developed scheme to categorize the judicial behavior and style that the judge was exhibiting.  As for the multivariate analysis, Fox and Van Sickel (2000) used a simple coding process, by giving a judge a “0” if they sided with the defense and a “1” if they sided with the prosecution.  This, in turn, gave them the opportunity to categorize the observed judges into strict or lenient perspectives, again, the theorized feminine or masculine perspectives. 

Turning to the fallacies of the operationalization, it is difficult to do without presenting general or vague problems.  The scheme and agenda that Fox and Van Sickel (2000) used was ingenious. Nonetheless, a publication by Mark A. Hill and Ronald F. Wright (2008) posits information about how legal professionals have a tendency to borrow research techniques that other social sciences use but augment it to fit the standards of their study (pp. 63-67).  The dilemma that arises with this approach is also inferred by Hill and Wright (2008), specifically they discuss how content analysis is somewhat flawed in legal studies.  In verbatim, they state:

           

Content analysis requires the researcher to explain the selection of cases and themes in enough objective detail to allow others to replicate the steps.  This method’s persuasiveness depends on the community’s ability to reproduce the findings rather than the author’s rhetorical power to proclaim them. (p. 66)

            The flaw in Fox and Van Sickel’s (2000) study does exactly what Hill and Wright (2008) discuss in their article.  In particular, the coding and scheme that they developed is quite logical, however it does fail to bring any interpretation into it by other legal scholars.  When discussing judicial opinions or decision-making processes in the legal field there should be a proclivity to present the findings or methodology in a legal fashion, as well as remind the audience of the legal implications that are a part of the particular situation (not only the type of crime and criminal procedure, but an explanation of the particularities of the setting and people within it).  By not doing this, Fox and Van Sickel (2000) correlated their study to a causal relationship of stereotypes and judicial outcomes by using typical social science research methods.  This is not a major problem, but when there is research that is based around legal and criminal justice professions it would be logical to include the opinions and interpretations of those who work within the setting.  Content analysis does provide reliable findings that can be replicated, but when the results are replicated and do not include insight from others while the study is being undergone it fails to provide a valid interpretation.  The fact remains that even with basic methodologies there are professionals (other social scientists) who do not know much about the legal system.  Therefore, by adding more external viewpoints or explanations any attempts of replication can be done without enduring confusion about the particular field of study.  Clarification is a key element in social science research and should be implemented so that others who do not have the expertise can comprehend the study without projecting a bias or misinterpretation of the study’s elements. 

            As for the characteristics of the legal professionals in the study, it can used to present other stereotypes or elements that influenced the outcome of the case.  However, because the exact nature of the crime and political affiliation was unknown the disclosing of the judges’ race and age was unnecessary, but it does allow for a more thorough explanation of the characteristics that a judge has and, in turn, can be posited that the people who belong to a specific races or age groups are more or less inclined to act in a common manner.  Joel B. Grossman (1966) discusses this idea in his article.  He suggests that most of social science research has a generalization and fails to exemplify the particularities of the subjects who are being observed (pp. 151-153).  This claim does have some merit, especially when referring to Fox and Van Sickel’s (2000) study, however the particularities of the legal professionals that were presented by Fox and Van Sickel’s (2000) were necessary in order to gain a full understanding of the decisions that these subjects made; although not all of the demographics (political affiliation and crimes) were posited.  Again, for this research project’s operationalization and conceptualization it was unnecessary for the scholars to posit information about the professionals’ age and race.  The only flaw that can be conjured up is that there could have been a more thorough explanation of the personal attributes of the jurists and other legal professionals, as well as the stressors that they endured on a daily basis.  Hence the reason for suggesting this earlier on in this critique and labeling this lack of information as a fallacy in the study.  Overall, the lack of personal information (other than race and age) on the jurists does present the idea that a judge will take on a feminine or masculine voice without having any external influences.  This perception or lack of understanding by Fox and Van Sickel (2000) is a stereotype in itself and does not adhere to the ethics of social science research.  Not presenting the other influences in decision-making is an assumption of the professionalism of legal professionals, basically it suggests that they are always able to fair and impartial, yet this article and many others posit otherwise. 

Summation of the Findings

            The findings of the study were vital for comprehending how the preconceived notions about gender stereotypes and judicial decisions are a farce.  Strikingly, Fox and Van Sickel (2000) produced results that suggest that the opposite male and female tendencies occur when rendering decisions in criminal court processes.  In addition to these findings, they were also able to discover a theme of decision making for the categories of people, and not only in respect to gender (race and age as well).  Fox and Van Sickel (2000) also posited that there were no clearly defined gender patterns in jurist decision-making processes (p. 276).  Meaning that both male and female judges exhibited both the masculine and feminine voice traits, however the consistency of their study did have a result that presented the idea that women were more likely to side with the prosecution and men did the opposite (siding with the defense) (pp. 276-277).  Once again, it is reasonable to infer that the sample was not large enough to indicate masculine and feminine tendencies for all judges, however the purpose of their research does allow for a starting point of trend studies in this particular concentration (p. 277). 

            All in all, the research from Fox and Van Sickel (2000) does provide an adequate analysis for judicial tendencies in respect to male and female stereotypes in the short term.  Although the research becomes inconsistent because of the length of the study and the lack of other variables that may contribute to a judge’s procedural methods; again, the unavailability of the external influences does bring a skepticism that throws this study to the wayside.  Nonetheless, the findings of the study are an ideal presentation for examining the trends in judicial decision making and also call for a systematic inference to be further conducted, which was part of the reason for this specific research effort.  Using a larger sample and lengthier process is recommended, by observing the feminine or masculine voice traits of judges or other legal professionals through an extended period of time it could further validate the findings that Fox and Van Sickel (2000) proposed.  Finally, if this study were to be pursued, Fox and Van Sickel (2000) call for an agreed-upon methodology, one of the fallacies that were aforementioned. 

Personal Conclusion

            My perspective on the study is both a positive and negative association because the particularities of the study do infer logical scientific data, but it also implies that short-termed observed instances are ineffective for sociological observations.  In contrast, many short-termed observations can provide valid interpretations or conclusions; however, when a study uses anthropological and psychological factors as a method to discover an authentic conclusion then the validity of such findings can be considered to have many flaws.  Meaning that implementing cultural stereotypes and psychological dispositions into a study does call for a more longitudinal approach.     

Moreover, it is relevant to consider the aforementioned external influences that shape the decision-making processes.  This personal ideology stems from the prevalent interactions among society.  Spatial influences, regardless of how major or minor they are, are unavoidable and do permeate into an individual’s or group’s livelihood.  So, to not examine these influences or implement them into a study that requires these variables is questionable.  More precisely, to mention how political affiliation influences the decision-making of judges and not present detailed information about such is contradictory and also questionable.  In brief, the study by Fox and Van Sickel (2000) was fascinating and scientifically approached.  However, as with most other research projects there are always setbacks, criticisms, and thorough examinations of the methods being used.  This is not to say that this or many other research efforts are invalid, it is simply the role of a social scientist to be fair and logical.  Questioning everything seems to a natural tendency in this profession, and a necessary characteristic as well. 

References

Bachman, R. & Schutt, R. (2012). Fundamentals of Research in Criminology and Criminal

Justice.  Thousand Oaks: CA

Fox, R. & Van Sickel, R. (2000). Gender dynamics and judicial behavior in criminal trial courts.

The Justice System Journal, 21(3), 261-280. Retrieved from           

http://www.jstor.org/stable/27977029.

Grossman, J. (1966). Social backgrounds and judicial decision-making. Harvard Law Review,

79(8), 1551-1564. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1339008.

Hill, M. & Wright, R. (2008). Systematic content analysis of judicial opinions. California Law

Review, 96(1), 63-122.  Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20439171.

Williams, M. (2009). Individual explanations for serving on state courts. The Justice System               

            Journal, 30(2), 158-179. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27977442.