Views of State Courts Leaders and Key Stakeholders on Issues and Trends Affecting State Courts

Abstract

/^\ne of the difficulties of specialization is that experts in different fields may become so idiosyncratic in their focus and methods that they miss the opportunity to learn from those outside their specialty areas. The differences in perspectives between those who lead and manage the operation of state courts and those who study the operation of state courts as academic social scientists is an example of this problem. Judges and court managers face daily pressures to see that cases are decided justly and promptly, with prudent use of finite resources. Social-science scholars, on the other hand, face constant pressures to publish to achieve tenure and maintain professional status. This may often cause a focus on narrow issues considered most pressing or most immediate ly relevant to other specialists in the same field. This leads judges and court managers in one direction, to focus on the state of their dockets and their interactions with such other stakeholders as lawyers and elected officials. It leads social-science scholars toward critical analysis of recent work by colleagues and an effort to demonstrate appro priate methodological rigor, with the unfortunate consequence at times that their work products may become opaque, impenetrable, and potentially irrelevant to judges and court managers. To the extent that social scientists studying state courts wish to make their work relevant to a wider audience, it is worthwhile to learn about the components and implications of broad issues and trends that are most important to such state court leaders as chief justices, trial judges, and state and trial court administrators, as well as such key stakeholders as general counsel for large corporations and other lawyers. This article presents highlights from the results of an annual survey of constituents con ducted in February 2008 by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC). Although the survey was not conducted under rigorous methodological controls, the responses from state court stakeholders should be instructive for social scientists.