Doctoral Dissertation Research: The Social Construction of the Admissibility of Expert Testimony after Daubert v. Merrell Dow, Inc.

在与审判有关的主题上有资格作为专家的专家经常被要求提供与该诉讼或案件有关的科学意见。 专家证人、律师和法官都参与了一个过程，其中一些意见被重新定义为对法官或陪审团有帮助的证据。 在法庭这样的对抗性环境中，专家证词从“科学”到“法律的科学”的转变是如何发生的，特别是当参与者在知识、技能和动机上往往存在差异时？ 本研究的主要目的是通过将希拉·雅萨诺夫（Sheila Jasanoff）提出的科学社会学原理应用于专家证言可采性的建构，来考察法庭过程中的协商运动，以探讨专家证言的建构和解构如何塑造“法律的科学”。Jasanoff认为，理解科学社会学将使法官和律师受益，提醒他们注意对抗制作为理解科学的一种方式的缺点，为他们提供评估专家证词的更原则性的基础，并对法院从事科学事实调查时发生的事情提出更清晰的解释。 到目前为止，Jasanoff的想法还没有被实证研究。 本研究将通过考察专家证言可采性的社会建构来检验Jasanoff的理论。 Lexis/Nexis在线数据库上公布的联邦地区法院案例样本，是在1993年美国最高法院判决Daubert诉Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals，Inc.之后发布的。(509美国579，113 S.C. 2786，1993）将进行内容分析，以调查Daubert及其后代对科学事实的影响。“这项研究的更广泛的影响包括以下几点：这项研究中开发的方法将通过为这一领域的未来研究提供技术和分类方案，对科学和法律领域的其他研究人员具有价值。这项研究不仅对研究这些问题的学科，如社会学，社会心理学和传播学，而且对来自许多不同学科的科学家，他们向法院和决策者，法官和律师提供专家证词，他们争论并决定使用这种证词，以及法律的教育者，他们必须为未来的律师和法官做好准备，以迎接法庭上专家证词所带来的挑战。

Specialists who are qualified as experts on a subject relevant to a trial often are called upon to offer scientific opinions relevant to that lawsuit or case. Expert witnesses, attorneys, and judges all participate in a process in which some of those opinions become redefined as evidence that will be helpful to the judge or jury. In an adversarial setting such as a courtroom, how does this movement of expert testimony from the status of "science" to "legal science" take place, particularly when the participants often differ in knowledge, skill, and motivation? The primary purpose of this research is to examine negotiated movement in the courtroom process by applying the tenets of the sociology of science, as theorized by Sheila Jasanoff, to the construction of the admissibility of expert testimony, in order to investigate how the construction and deconstruction of expert testimony shapes "legal science." Jasanoff argued that understanding the sociology of science will benefit judges and attorneys by alerting them to the shortcomings of the adversary system as a way of understanding science, by providing them with a more principled basis for evaluating expert testimony, and by presenting a clearer accounting of what occurs when courts engage in scientific fact finding. To date, Jasanoff's ideas have not been studied empirically. This research will test Jasanoff's theory by examining the social construction of the admissibility of expert testimony. A sample of Federal district court cases published on the Lexis/Nexis online database following the 1993 U.S. Supreme Court decision Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 1993) will be content analyzed to investigate the impact of Daubert and its progeny on scientific "fact." The broader impacts of this research include the following: The methodology developed in this research will be of value to other researchers in science and law by providing a technique and classification scheme for future studies in this area. This research has implications not only for disciplines in which these issues are studied, such as sociology, social psychology, and communications, but also for scientists from many diverse disciplines who provide expert testimony to the courts and policy makers, judges and attorneys who argue and decide the use of such testimony, and legal educators who must prepare future attorneys and judges to meet the challenges posed by expert testimony in the courtroom.