Varieties of truth: psychology–law discourse as a dispute over the forms and content of knowledge

Purpose. Despite much comment and theorizing in the psychological literature on the proper relationship between psychology and law, the fact remains that little use is made of psychological research in the legal arena. The purpose of this paper is to consider why this might be and to suggest an expl...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Brown, Mark 1965- (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Published: 1997
In: Legal and criminological psychology
Year: 1997, Volume: 2, Issue: 2, Pages: 219-245
Online Access: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Check availability: HBZ Gateway

MARC

LEADER 00000caa a22000002 4500
001 1847459358
003 DE-627
005 20230616144141.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 230606s1997 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1111/j.2044-8333.1997.tb00345.x  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1847459358 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1847459358 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 2,1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Brown, Mark  |d 1965-  |e VerfasserIn  |0 (DE-588)1047510081  |0 (DE-627)778809242  |0 (DE-576)401123715  |4 aut 
109 |a Brown, Mark 1965- 
245 1 0 |a Varieties of truth  |b psychology–law discourse as a dispute over the forms and content of knowledge 
264 1 |c 1997 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a Purpose. Despite much comment and theorizing in the psychological literature on the proper relationship between psychology and law, the fact remains that little use is made of psychological research in the legal arena. The purpose of this paper is to consider why this might be and to suggest an explanation that focuses upon the way these different fields hold widely divergent views on truth. Argument. It is argued that the failure of law to avail itself of psychological knowledge is not due to institutional boundary disputes or procedural conflicts but rather reflects fundamental differences in the legal and psychological criteria for knowledge. Popper's distinction between methodological nominalism and essentialism is used to demonstrate the core differences between legal and psychological requirements for understanding, but it is emphasized that while these ultimately lead to different forms of knowledge, the disciplines have in fact developed similar institutional procedures for generating and regulating knowledge production. Conclusions. It is therefore concluded that resolution of the stand-off between psychology and law will not be achieved by tinkering with surface procedures but requires a fundamental re-evaluation of what constitutes acceptable knowledge to occur within each discipline. Instances where this has occurred (e.g. legal realism in law, critical psychology) demonstrate that it is not beyond the capacity of either party to accommodate change and point towards further avenues for development in the psychology-law discourse. 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Legal and criminological psychology  |d Hoboken, NJ [u.a.] : Wiley, 1996  |g 2(1997), 2, Seite 219-245  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)320441695  |w (DE-600)2005001-X  |w (DE-576)090886615  |x 2044-8333  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:2  |g year:1997  |g number:2  |g pages:219-245 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8333.1997.tb00345.x  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
856 4 0 |u https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2044-8333.1997.tb00345.x  |x Verlag  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
936 u w |d 2  |j 1997  |e 2  |h 219-245 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4329496763 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1847459358 
LOK |0 005 20230606085723 
LOK |0 008 230606||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-2619  |c DE-627  |d DE-2619 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-2619 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a krzo 
ORI |a SA-MARC-krimdoka001.raw