Allegations Of Bias Research Articles

Where Is the Evidence in Evidence-Based Law Reform?

Law reform bodies frequently express a commitment to evidence-based law and policy recommendations. They also endorse the importance of the transparency and democratisation of their processes. They do not, however, connect these two goals of evidence-based policy and transparency. This stands in contrast to the ongoing revolution in several fields of research towards open science and synthesis, which envisions transparency and openness as a means to improve the reliability of research. We suggest herein that several recent concerns surrounding evidence-based law reform, such as allegations of bias among officials, can be addressed through open science and synthesis. We include a novel study of 22 research syntheses commissioned by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, finding uneven adoption of even the most basic transparency measures. We end with five proposals that advance transparent evidence-based law reform, including greater disciplinary diversity among law reform staff.

THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF RECUSAL OF A JUDGE AT COMMON LAW: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

The common-law principle that no one should be a judge in his or her own cause is the basis upon which the rule against bias or apprehension of bias was founded. In constitutional parlance, this translates into the requirement that a judge or anyone under a duty to decide anything must be impartial, which is, in turn, the foundation for the recusal of a judge in adjudication. This cardinal principle of adjudication has produced an abundant case law indicating the circumstances in which a judge should, or ought to, recuse him- or herself on the ground of bias or reasonable apprehension of bias in common-law jurisdictions. This article focuses on the fundamental principles guiding the notion of recusal in the common-law courts. There is, first, a presumption of judicial impartiality, which is the preliminary but important hurdle an applicant for recusal of a judge must overcome. The inquiry proceeds no further if this presumption is not successfully rebutted early in the proceeding. The second hurdle is the test for recusal that the facts put forward in support of the allegation of bias or apparent bias must meet. This test is a two-dimensional reasonable standard test of a reasonably informed observer who would reasonably entertain an apprehension that the judge would (not might) be biased towards one party in the case. This test enables a court to determine whether the allegation of lack of judicial impartiality in any given case could lead to the recusal of the judge. The discussion that ensues is based on decided cases selected from specific Commonwealth jurisdictions where such matters have recently been dealt with. Indeed, these cases show that recusal of a judge in adjudication is, in practical terms, the application of the common-law principle of natural justice that a person cannot be a judge in his or her own cause. It is also a clear manifestation of the age-old adage that justice must not only be done, but must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.

SATs, sets and allegations of bias: The allocation of 11‐year‐old students to mathematics sets in some English schools in 2015. A response to Connolly et al., 2019

AbstractThis is a methodological critique of research by the Best Practice in Grouping Students (BPGS) project claiming teacher bias in allocating students to first‐year secondary school mathematics teaching sets (British Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 873–879). The research assumes that bias could be shown by non‐random relationships between ‘misallocations’ to sets and memberships of gender, ethnic and/or socio‐economic subgroups. This paper questions the authors’ prescriptions for correct set placements and demonstrates two ways in which non‐random relationships between subgroup memberships and (alleged) misplacements could be generated despite all students with similar scores within a school being given the same chance of a set position deemed correct by the researchers. It suggests that the BPGS project results are largely artefacts of their evaluation approach. No claim is made herein that teacher bias plays no part in set allocation, merely that, if it does, the approach by Connolly et al. could not evidence it. A lesson from the critique is that, before drawing inferences from data aggregated from diverse clusters, it is wise for researchers to investigate the way the data are generated at source and patterned by aggregation.

ROLE OF THE OFFICE OF SPEAKER AS AN ADJUDICATORY AUTHORITY UNDER ANTI-DEFECTION LAW IN INDIA: A CRITICAL STUDY

The office of the Speaker in India enjoys a constitutional status and is considered to be a person of high integrity, dignity and value ethics and thus, he was conferred with the responsibility of deciding matters arising under the Tenth Schedule. However, recently it has been observed that the elected representatives would often slip from clutches of application of law. It has been noted that decisions by the Speaker are often challenged in the courts of law as there is dissatisfaction and allegations of bias. Thus, the objectives of the author in the present research was to critically analyse the role of Speaker as an adjudicatory authority under the Tenth Schedule and to also study the conflict that has arisen between the courts and the Speakers. The author has conducted a doctrinal study and has analysed primary sources as well as secondary sources. The present research argues that there is inefficiency of Anti-Defection Law in India due to the partisan role of the Speaker and has further concluded that the august office of Speaker should be kept out of such controversial matters. Therefore, to protect and uphold the democratic principles in India, the author has suggested constitution of an independent Tribunal to decide matters of defection.

Finality, Fairness, And Consistency


 
 
 A unique feature of the ICSID framework is the built-in control mechanism that allows parties to seek annulment of an otherwise final award via Article 52 of the Convention. Unlike arbitration in other contexts, this mechanism is the exclusive means for review of an ICSID award. While scholars and practitioners regard this as one of the most innovative features of the ICSID regime, many of the grounds for annulment remain underdeveloped. In particular, annulment committees have applied the “serious departure from a fundamental rule of pro- cedure” ground inconsistently.
 Especially because challenges to arbitrators can occur dur- ing the appointment phase, during the arbitration itself, or during annulment proceedings, the proper standard for deter- mining bias remains convoluted. Accordingly, this Note exam- ines how different approaches to assessing arbitrator bias un- fold in annulment proceedings applying the “fundamental rule of procedure” ground. It argues that these differences have con- tributed to a greater number of unpredictable outcomes, under- mining a central purpose of ICSID. Two recent decisions—the Azurix and EDF annulments—highlight the divergent ap- proaches ad hoc committees have taken in addressing allegations of bias. This Note concludes by identifying the EDF approach as the most appropriate standard of review and dis- cusses possible routes for resolving differences in ICSID annul- ment decisions.
 
 

The case for Douglas Merritte: Should we bury what is alive and well?

In 2012, we (Fridlund, Beck, Goldie, & Irons, 2012) suggested that a neurologically impaired infant, Douglas Merritte, was the likeliest candidate for John B. Watson's "Albert B." In advancing the case for their alternative candidate, Albert Barger, Harris (2020) and Digdon (2020) both pronounce the Merritte case moribund. Prof. Digdon attributes our differing conclusions to logical error, selective reporting, and "confirmation bias" throughout our research. Prof. Harris goes further, (a) accusing us of withholding evidence, (b) alleging that we charged Watson unjustly with malpractice and preying on a helpless victim, (c) likening our research to that of "many popular accounts" in the history of psychology "that exist beyond the reach of traditional peer review", (d) explaining the publication of our results as failures of peer review and the editorial process, and (e) attributing interest in our findings to gullible media and a guilty readership. We present data which show that the evidential claims Profs. Digdon and Harris advance against the Merritte case are incautious and expedient, and that their criticisms of our methods and allegations of bias arise from problems with their own scholarship. Contrary to their narratives, the neurologically impaired Douglas Merritte remains the closest fit to Watson's "extremely phlegmatic" Albert. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Introductory Remarks by Priya Pillai

2020 is a significant year for the International Criminal Court (ICC). Nearly two decades have passed since the entry into force of the Rome Statute and the establishment of the ICC, and there are valid questions being asked about the efficacy and value of the court. This is impelled in part by the track-record of the ICC. There are currently nine open preliminary examinations, thirteen examinations that have been granted the authorization to proceed to the investigation stage, and four investigations that have been closed without any further proceedings. Of the few cases that have eventually gone to trial, there have been four convictions and three acquittals. There have also been allegations of bias in the selection of situations and cases, and the politicization of justice. However, the complexities that need to be navigated by the court also must not be overlooked. These include the lack of cooperation by states, difficulties in accessing information and evidence, as well as mismatched expectations from the court and what it can achieve.

Responsible gambling:The need for collaborative government, industry, community and consumer involvement

Abstract. Background: Tensions exist with various stakeholders facing competing interests in providing legal land-based and online regulated gambling products. Threats to revenue/taxation occur in response to harm minimisation and responsible gambling policies. Setting aside the concept of total prohibition, the objectives of responsible gambling are to encourage and/or restrict an individual’s gambling expenditure in terms of money and time to personally affordable limits. Stakeholder responsibilities: Governments craft the gambling environment through legislation, monitor compliance with regulatory requirements, and receive taxation revenue as a proportion of expenditure. Industry operators on the other hand, compete across market sectors through marketing and advertising, and through the development of commercially innovative products, reaping substantial financial rewards. Concurrently, governments are driven to respond to community pressures to minimize the range of negative gambling-related social, personal and economic harms and costs. Industry operators are exposed to the same pressures but additionally overlaid with the self-interest of avoiding the imposition of more stringent restrictive policies. Cooperation of stakeholders: The resulting tension between taxation revenue and profit making, harm minimization, and social impacts creates a climate of conflict between all involved parties. Data-driven policies become compromised by unsubstantiated claims of, and counter claims against, the nature and extent of gambling-related harms, effectiveness of policy strategies, with allegations of bias and influence associated with researchers supported by industry and government research funding sources. Conclusion: To effectively advance policies, it is argued that it is imperative that all parties collaborate in a cooperative manner to achieve the objectives of responsible gambling and harm minimization. This extends to and includes more transparent funding for researchers from both government and industry. Continued reliance on data collected from analogue populations or volunteers participating in simulated gambling tasks will not provide data capable of valid and reliable extrapolation to real gamblers in real venues risking their own funds. Failure to adhere to principles of corporate responsibility and consumer protection by both governments and industry will challenge the social licence to offer gambling products. Appropriate and transparent safeguards learnt from the tobacco and alcohol field, it is argued, can guide the conduct of gambling research.

Exploring the Great Schism in the Social Sciences: Confirmation Bias and the Interpretation of Results Relating to Biological Influences on Human Behavior and Psychology.

The nature-nurture debate is one that biologists often dismiss as a false dichotomy, as all phenotypic traits are the results of complex processes of gene and environment interactions. However, such dismissiveness belies the ongoing debate that is unmistakable throughout the biological and social sciences concerning the role of biological influences in the development of psychological and behavioral traits in humans. Many have proposed that this debate is due to ideologically driven biases in the interpretation of results. Those favoring biological approaches have been accused of a greater willingness to accept biological explanations so as to rationalize or justify the status quo of inequality. Those rejecting biological approaches have been accused of an unwillingness to accept biological explanations so as to attribute inequalities solely to social and institutional factors, ultimately allowing for the possibility of social equality. While it is important to continue to investigate this topic through further research and debate, another approach is to examine the degree to which the allegations of bias are indeed valid. To accomplish this, a convenience sample of individuals with relevant postgraduate degrees was recruited from Mechanical Turk and social media. Participants were asked to rate the inferential power of different research designs and of mock results that varied in the degree to which they supported different ideologies. Results were suggestive that researchers harbor sincere differences of opinion concerning the inferential value of relevant research. There was no suggestion that ideological confirmation biases drive these differences. However, challenges associated with recruiting a large enough sample of experts as well as identifying believable mock scenarios limit the study's inferential scope.

The Problems of Proving Actual or Apparent Bias: An Analysis of Contemporary Developments in South Africa

This article takes a critical look at the divergent approaches of courts in constructing the meaning of actual and apparent bias in adjudicative contexts. It argues that while proving actual bias on the part of an adjudicator may not always be easy and parties often revert to apprehended bias, an allegation of bias in any adjudication process is a matter that courts take very seriously. This notwithstanding, the courts have failed to consistently demarcate the necessary elements and threshold of proof that complainants must overcome to secure a successful challenge of decisions based on adjudicative impartiality. Upon critical evaluation of the decisions on the subject so far rendered, this article suggests that the pattern which has seemingly emerged is that which weighs the allegations of bias against the presumption of impartiality and the requirements of the double reasonableness test.

BIAS IN COLLEGIATE COURTS

AbstractThis article addresses the issues attending common law collegiate courts' engagements with allegations of bias within their own ranks. It will be argued that, in such cases, it would be inappropriate to involve the collegiate panel or any member thereof in the decision, since such involvement inevitably encounters difficulties. The common law's dilemmas require drastic solutions, but the common law arguably is ill-equipped to implement the required change. The answer, it will be argued, is legislation.

A Question of Authenticity: Status Quo Bias and the International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook

Over the past decade, transition scholars have argued that images of the future (of what sort of change is possible or probable, desirable or undesirable) play a critical role in societal transitions, and there is a long-standing tradition of analysis that points out the political significance of visions of the future. This article explores the politics of the future in sustainability transitions by looking at controversy surrounding a prominent global energy future report—the International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook—between 1998 and 2008/2009. A key theme of this controversy was that the Outlook's record on global oil supply projections demonstrated a bias towards the preservation of the status quo. Based on research interviews conducted with key participants in this controversy, and a review of Outlooks produced between 1998 and 2008, we explore the main ‘sites of contention’ in the allegation of bias from both an ‘internal’ (sympathetic) and an ‘external’ (critical) perspective. We argue that the politics of bias have less to do with one's relationship vis-à-vis the preservation of the regime, and more to do with a question concerning the speaker's authenticity.

Does AOL Discriminate Against Sexual Minorities in its Blocking System for AOL Members?

Blocking systems, usually referred to as “filtering software”, are becoming steadily more pervasive. Commercial blocking systems such as “FamilyFilter” and “CyberPatrol” are widely available on the World Wide Web. They market themselves as being able to block unacceptable content of various kinds, from pornography to hate speech. In practice, this ability is considerably circumscribed by the ambiguity and context-dependent nature of human language. For example, a page containing information on breast cancer may be inadvertently filtered out because it contains many repetitions of a word that in another context might be considered inappropriate. It is very hard for these software programs to be sensitive to context, to distinguish mere information about drugs or sex from pages that lubriciously encourage drug use or sexual experimentation. The Children’s Internet Protection Act, a recent piece of federal legislation, mandates the use of blocking systems in schools and libraries that receive certain types of federal funding. Civil liberties groups, among which is my client the Online Policy Group, oppose the mandating of the use of blocking systems, and generally believe that a filtered Internet represents a threat to freedom of speech and expression.Commercial blocking systems are not the only examples of such systems: they are merely the most visible form. Online service providers such as AOL and Earthlink incorporate blocking systems into their browsers. AOL, for example, markets a “Parental Controls” system to adults, which is intended to enable parents to control what their children see on the Internet. This immediately presents some important concerns: what does the AOL system block? Who decides what gets blocked, and what criteria are they using? And one of the problems with assuaging these concerns is that the online service providers (OSPs) cannot be wholly explicit about the criteria they use: if they were, the webmasters controlling the blocked pages could that much more easily circumvent the blocking. If we wish to study AOL’s blocking system, we must therefore do it surreptitiously, by testing various categories of webpage and determining which of them get blocked.Particular problems may arise if one believes that an OSP is using criteria biased against a specific group or Internet community. AOL’s relationship with sexual minorities over the last five years has been uncomfortable. Its CEO, Steve Case, regularly contributes to organizations which oppose homosexuality. In a widely publicized case, AOL released to the US Navy the login details of someone who had identified themselves as being a naval officer and as being homosexual. AOL chatroom monitors have been criticized for applying a double standard of obscenity to the postings of heterosexual and of homosexual chatroom participants. Given this history, it is of particular interest to determine as precisely as possible what AOL blocks, what it doesn’t block, and whether there is a pattern where AOL over-blocks “webpages containing pro-gay phraseology”, relative to “webpages containing anti-gay phraseology”. These categories, and our reasons for choosing them, are described more precisely below. If such a pattern is found, this may help to establish whether the blocking system used by AOL is facially discriminatory towards sexual minorities. We make no assertions about the intent behind blocking any particular webpage: we seek simply to ascertain whether the fact that a given page contains pro-gay or anti-gay phraseology significantly affects the likelihood that that page will be blocked at a given access level.While this seems like a vague and subjective way to model a blocking system, it in fact enables one to model it whilst preserving a significant measure of statistical objectivity. In order to defuse allegations of bias, we aim to be as explicit as possible about our methodology, and to adhere to the highest possible standards of qualitative research.The subject of blocking systems is an extremely contentious one, with enormous significance for internet users. It can be argued that one of the most valuable aspects of the internet is the wide variety of material it contains. We can tell, in the offline world, the source of much information, and its reliability; but if online service providers begin to constrain what adults may see on the internet, then it is a worthy object of an advanced policy analysis to determine what we are not allowed to see, and to suggest ways to reinforce freedom of information on the internet.

The Effect of Apparent Bias or Suspicion of Bias or Unconscious Bias may not necessarily be different from that of Actual Bias - An English Perspective

Allegations of bias of whatever type, actual or apparent or otherwise are not unknown to the world of commercial arbitration, and the English courts have always abhorred them. Judicial decisions have however made a distinction between “actual bias” and “apparent bias”, and established criteria to determine “actual bias” or “suspicion of bias” or “apparent bias”, but it is to be considered whether any effective difference, in effect, may be maintained from a practical standpoint between the various types of bias as any award rendered by a tribunal against which or a member of which, an allegation of bias has been made, would always be considered by the award-debtor to be an award vitiated by suspicion of bias.

Are University Admissions Academically Fair?

High-profile universities often face public criticism for undermining academic merit and promoting social elitism or engineering through their admissions-process. Popular statistical tests for detecting such biases, based on the significance of socioeconomic characteristics on admission probability after controlling for past test-scores, suffer from omitted characteristic bias. In this paper, we develop an empirical test that attempts to circumvent this problem. We assume that students who are better-qualified on standard observable indicators would on average, but not necessarily with certainty, appear academically stronger to admission-tutors based on characteristics observable to them but not us. This assumption can be used to reveal information about the sign of differences in admission standards across demographic groups which are robust to omitted characteristics. Using admissions-data from a selective British university, we provide empirical support for our identifying assumptions and then apply our analysis to show that male applicants face admission-standards that are significantly higher than female applicants, and private-school applicants possibly face a slightly higher threshold than state-school ones. In contrast, admission success rates are equal across gender and schooltype both before and after controlling for key covariates. Our method is the first practical application of econometric bounds-analysis to the problem of detecting taste-based discrimination; it can be used to test meritocratic fairness of other institutional decisions such as loan-approval and surgery-referrals, where allegations of bias are common.

"Hired guns," "charlatans," and their "voodoo psychobabble": case law references to various forms of perceived bias among mental health expert witnesses.

Although in principle the legal system expects and professional ethics demand that expert witnesses be unbiased and objective in their forensic evaluations, anecdotal evidence suggests that accusations of financial bias, partisanship, and other forms of nonobjectivity are common. This descriptive survey of published legal cases expands on an earlier case law review (Mossman, 1999) attempting to encapsulate and summarize key issues concerning perceptions or allegations of bias in mental health expert witness testimony. Using a series of search terms reflecting various potential forms of accusatory bias, a total of 160 published civil and criminal court cases were identified in which 185 individuals (e.g., attorneys, trial and appellate judges, other witnesses) made one or more references to clinicians' alleged lack of neutrality. Allegations most typically involved describing the expert as having an opinion that was "for sale," or as a partisan or advocate for one side, although aspersions also were made concerning "junk science" testimony and comparing mental health experts to mystics and sorcerers. Our results indicate that diverse forms of bias that go beyond financial motives are alleged against mental health experts by various players in the legal system. Means are discussed by which experts can attempt to reduce the impact of such allegations.

Parenting Coordination: The Risks of a Hybrid Conflict Resolution Process

Parenting coordination is a conflict resolution process that blends the roles of mediator, decision maker, monitor, assessor, educator, counselor, and enforcer for families involved in high‐conflict divorces. This article explores the potential benefits and risks of blending roles in terms of efficiency, effectiveness, trust, posturing, dual roles, self‐determination, and allegations of bias.

Allegations of Bias and Corruption Continue to Devil The Spine Field

Lippincott's Bone and Joint Newsletter 16(11):p 129, December 2010. | DOI: 10.1097/01.BONEJ.0000391520.41798.d1

Allegations of Bias and Corruption Continue To Devil the Spine Field

The Back Letter: November 2010 - Volume 25 - Issue 11 - p 124 doi: 10.1097/01.BACK.0000390599.18146.d2

Composite End Points, Black Box Warnings, and Allegations of Bias

American Journal of Therapeutics: May 2010 - Volume 17 - Issue 3 - p 233 doi: 10.1097/MJT.0b013e3181e0c088