Conceptual issues in researching the impact of judicial review on government bureaucracies

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Attempts to understand the impact of judicial review are undertaken for a variety of reasons, most generally because such an understanding tells us something about the ways in which courts matter. This, of course, is of interest for a multitude of reasons to those working in a broad range of contexts across a spectrum of disciplines from constitutional law, political science, and socio-legal studies to organisational and political theory. The rich variety of approaches that may be adopted when studying impact offers researchers considerable scope, but it carries dangers particularly for those attempting to make use of research that may have been undertaken within particular disciplinary frameworks or in the context of other jurisdictions. In the previous chapter, Peter Cane argued, for example, that the impact of judicial review can be effectively researched only in the light of the assumed or asserted purposes and functions of judicial review and that these are likely to vary depending on jurisdictional factors and the approach being taken. Given the opportunities for researchers and the risks that are associated with cross-disciplinary and cross-jurisdictional research, it is important for those working in this field to be clear about the nature and purpose of their research as well as the ground to be covered. Perspectives, approaches and goals may vary widely, but clarification, particularly in relation to the basic conceptual building blocks of the work to be undertaken, should always be sought when designing research.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 19 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.