The Perceptions of Academic Lawyers Concerning the Effects of the United Kingdom's Research Assessment Exercise

In this article, the authors analyse quantitative and qualitative data compiled from a large-scale postal survey of legal academics concerning the United Kingdom's Research Assessment Exercise. The purpose of the study was to measure the attitudes of academic lawyers affected by the RAE rating process and institutional responses to that process. The study reveals that a substantial number of respondents lack faith in the objectivity of the rating process, believe institutional responses to the RAE have caused damage to academic working environments, and perceive that the RAE has failed to improve the quality of legal research.     

Is there a “common law” of responsibility?

Contrary to common expectations and a good deal of legal folk wisdom, several surveys have failed to find group differences in the way people attribute responsibility and assign punishments. These nonfinding, suggest that there is a considerable degree of consensus about how to judge wrongdoing. The nature of this consensus is examined using survey data collected in two Japanese and one American cities. We examine the extent of group differences in the evaluation of inputs (here a set of hypothetical vignettes), decision rules, and punishments. The paper concludes with a discussion of the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological issues raised by these and similar findings of small group differences. Collectively, these three issues define, an agenda for future research on the nature and extent of a common law of responsibility.This is a revised version of a paper presented at the 1986 meeting of the Law and Society Association. The research was supported by seed funds from the Social Science Research Council and from the University of Michigan and by N.S.F. grant No. SOC 77-242918. Japanese data were gathered and analyzed with support from the Nihon Gakujutsu Shinkokai and Mombusho to the Japanese investigators: Yoko Hosoi, Zensuke Ishimura, Nozomu Matsubara, Haruo Nishimura, Nobuho Tomita, and Kazuhiko Tokoro. They have recently published a book on the project. (Ishimura et al., 1986).     

Drivers and Consequences of Citizen Satisfaction: An Application of the American Customer Satisfaction Index Model to New York City

Using data from two telephone surveys of New York City residents conducted during 2000 and 2001, this article employs the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) model to examine the drivers—and behavioral consequences—of overall satisfaction with local government services. While the ACSI model has been widely used to analyze customer satisfaction in the private sector and, more recently, in the federal government, it has not been tried in a local government context. Applying the ACSI model to New York City, we find the perceived quality of public schools and especially the police, as well as road conditions and subway service, are the most salient drivers of satisfaction, but the significance of each service varies across income, race, and geography. For all groups in the city, overall satisfaction drives both trust in local government officials and intentions to move out of the city. Advantages and limitations of using the ACSI model to assess the quality of local government services are discussed.     

The Tasmanian Electoral Roll Trial in the 2002 ATSIC Elections

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) elections since 1990 have used the Commonwealth Electoral Roll (CER) as a large under-specified list of potential voters. Dissatisfaction with this arrangement within the Tasmanian Aboriginal community led to a trial roll of Indigenous electors being drawn up for the 2002 ATSIC elections in that State. This paper recounts a number of contexts in which this trial was developed. It also recounts the experience of the trial itself, which did not work out as successfully as those who had promoted it had hoped. Finally it looks at lessons from the trial and options for the future.