IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v98y2017i5p1677-1690.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Working Knowledge: Organizational Location and the Construction of Expert Authority in Court

Author

Listed:
  • Timothy L. O'Brien

Abstract

Objective This article investigates the role of organizations in the construction of expert authority by examining legal disputes about the credibility of expert witnesses who work for consulting firms, in academia, and in private practice offices and clinics. Methods I analyzed 472 deliberations of expert witness credibility summarized in judicial opinions from civil rights, patent infringement, and medical malpractice cases in U.S. district courts. Binary logistic regressions tested whether lawyers’ challenges to experts’ credibility or judges’ decisions to admit or exclude experts’ testimony differed according to experts’ organizational location. Results Challenges to experts’ credibility and decisions about their admissibility reflected the organizational context of experts’ labor. Overall, consultants were most likely and private practitioners were least likely to overcome credibility challenges and be admitted into court. Conclusions Legal negotiations of experts’ credibility depend on their organizational location. This suggests that organizations may also shape the attribution of expertise in other settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Timothy L. O'Brien, 2017. "Working Knowledge: Organizational Location and the Construction of Expert Authority in Court," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 98(5), pages 1677-1690, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:98:y:2017:i:5:p:1677-1690
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.12381
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12381
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.12381?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:98:y:2017:i:5:p:1677-1690. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.