•  
  •  

Home > Law > DePaul Law Review > Vol. 75 > Iss. 2

 

Abstract

Public and scholarly concerns about “integrity” issues relating

to empirical social science research, while already significant,

continue to grow. While problems with the status quo are relatively

obvious and easy to identify, less clear, however, is whether a fixed,

universal set of “norms” or “best practices” should be implemented

to address research integrity concerns or, in contrast, whether

important differences across empirical research genres, scholarly

fields, or research designs warrant different responses. Locating

jury consultants’ empirical work-product in the broader universe of

empirical social science genres provides necessary context, which

assists with the task of identifying which research integrity or

transparency reforms make the most sense. This inquiry also

uncovers a dilemma. On the one hand, empirical work by jury

consultants for their proprietary clients raises comparatively fewer

research integrity threats. On the other hand, jury consultants’

work-product still matters, as it seeks to influence trial outcomes

either directly or indirectly. As such, even paid-for-hire proprietary

jury consultant work-product should not completely escape

transparency and integrity concerns, especially mock jury studies

and related survey work. Given jury consultants’ position in the

broader empirical social science context, private contract law is

likely the proper instrument to mediate research integrity or

transparency concerns. For private contracts to successfully

perform the necessary work on the research transparency front,

however, they will likely require more and better training from law

schools so that the attorneys and their clients who use jury

consultant services can become better and more sophisticated

onsumers of the services and empirical work product that they

purchase.

Download

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS