Search Content

Differences in Expert Witness Knowledge: Do Mock Jurors Notice and Does it Matter?

Description

The knowledge of experts presumably affects their credibility and the degree to which the trier of fact will agree with them. However, specific effects of demonstrated knowledge are largely unknown. This experiment manipulated a forensic expert’s level of knowledge in a mock trial paradigm. We tested the relation between low…

The knowledge of experts presumably affects their credibility and the degree to which the trier of fact will agree with them. However, specific effects of demonstrated knowledge are largely unknown. This experiment manipulated a forensic expert’s level of knowledge in a mock trial paradigm. We tested the relation between low versus high expert knowledge on mock juror perceptions of expert credibility, on agreement with the expert, and on sentencing. We also tested expert gender as a potential moderator. Knowledge effects were statistically significant; however, these differences carried little practical utility in predicting mock jurors’ ultimate decisions. Contrary to hypotheses that high knowledge would yield increased credibility and agreement, knowledge manipulations only influenced perceived expert likeability. The low knowledge expert was perceived as more likeable than his or her high knowledge counterpart, a paradoxical finding. No significant differences across expert gender were found. Implications for conceptualizing expert witness knowledge, credibility, and their potential effects on juror decision-making are discussed.

ContributorsParrott, Caroline Titcomb (Author) / Neal, Tess M.S. (Author) / Wilson, Jennifer K. (Author) / Brodsky, Stanley L. (Author)

Created2015-03

Developing Expertise & Expert Teams for High Performance: Utilizing the Expert-to-Expert Practice Framework

Description

The main purpose of this action research study was to understand the most appropriate methods to replicate expertise and expert performance in an ever-changing and dynamic global organization. It was also meant to empower team members in becoming more decisive experts within their respective fields/domains. In this study, ten (10)…

The main purpose of this action research study was to understand the most appropriate methods to replicate expertise and expert performance in an ever-changing and dynamic global organization. It was also meant to empower team members in becoming more decisive experts within their respective fields/domains. In this study, ten (10) “snackable” videos were created to support microlearning on expertise. Interviews were conducted with experts across Microsoft spanning the United States, Latin America, and Europe. Using knowledge management theory, deliberate practice, and organizational learning theory helped create the framework. Phenomenological inquiry, narrative inquiry, and digital storytelling supported the enactment of the study. The Expert-to-Expert Practice Framework (E2EPF) is a capability that was created to connect outsider knowledge with internal requirements using sensemaking, knowledge creation, and team building. It was developed to address the many challenges of building and fostering expertise within a hybrid workplace. The study was conducted during a six-month period starting from March 2022 to September 2022. Ten Microsoft experts, six team members, and one leader participated in this study that included interviews, expert panel discussions, surveys, and the development of the next generation of expert profiles. The qualitative data from this study provides a much richer understanding of the phenomenon of expertise within a global workplace. Insider experts identified that the E2EPF was able to create a differentiated experience for their practice within a relatively short time frame. Four phenomenological themes and the essence of expertise emerged from the data which indicates the effective utilization of the practice framework.

ContributorsMcLean, Leroy (Author) / Wolf, Leigh-Graves (Thesis advisor) / Hall, Allison (Committee member) / Fitzloff, Mark (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)

Created2023

Brokered Dialogue on Broken Ground Deliberations Over Management for Helium Extraction in Northeastern Arizona

Description

Northeastern Arizona has experienced a recent increase in helium extraction activity. This qualitative case study articulates and explores various sociotechnical imaginaries – or, collectively produced social justifications for technological decisions and systems – that inform this new stage of underground helium extraction. Leveraging two years of interviews, document analysis, and…

Northeastern Arizona has experienced a recent increase in helium extraction activity. This qualitative case study articulates and explores various sociotechnical imaginaries – or, collectively produced social justifications for technological decisions and systems – that inform this new stage of underground helium extraction. Leveraging two years of interviews, document analysis, and participant observations to understand and interrogate the political and cultural origins of perceptions around helium extraction, I examined how these imaginaries and associated power dynamics influenced communication within and between stakeholder groups. In order to mitigate the power differentials between stakeholder groups, and put these imaginaries in conversation with each other, I led the development of a series of short videos that explain controversial technoscientific concepts from this research. These videos were produced in continuous collaboration with multiple disparate stakeholders, including activists, regulators, and industry members, in order to create a space for a productive conversation and reflection to explore tensions between conflicting points of view between stakeholders. This iterative work used the imaginaries of helium extraction in Arizona to produce a space for collective deliberation that can result in negotiated shared knowledge through brokered dialogue amongst these disparate groups and their competing visions of Arizona’s helium futures.

ContributorsBruhis, Noa (Author) / Jalbert, Kirk (Thesis advisor) / Richter, Jennifer (Thesis advisor) / Williams, Wendy R (Committee member) / Jenkins, Lekelia (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)

Created2022

Dialogic Cultural Relationships of Expertise, Knowledge, (Inter)dependence and Power Within the Acculturating Family: Exploring the Technolinguistic Brokering Experiences of Adolescents and Their Immigrant Non-English Speaking Mothers

Description

This dissertation explores the technolinguistic brokering experience of adolescents and (im)migrant non-English speaking mothers in acculturating families. By focusing on the performance of cultural intermediation, I examine the dimensions of technolinguistic brokering and their influence upon the Adolescent Language Technology Broker (ALTB) and mother relationship. Additionally, I explore the factors…

This dissertation explores the technolinguistic brokering experience of adolescents and (im)migrant non-English speaking mothers in acculturating families. By focusing on the performance of cultural intermediation, I examine the dimensions of technolinguistic brokering and their influence upon the Adolescent Language Technology Broker (ALTB) and mother relationship. Additionally, I explore the factors of power present as a result of the complexities of the ALTBs role to connect their mother to the English speaking community. This research uses a qualitative approach to explore concepts of expertise, knowledge, (inter)dependence, relational maintenance and quality, and power in the dialogic cultural relationship. Research indicates that expertise in the form of culture, cultural interactions, multilingual, and relational maintenance and quality contribute to the ALTBs capabilities in building cultural relationships. Moreover, to assist in dealing with power tensions created by differing levels of expertise and knowledge, ALTBs and mothers communicatively construct an (inter)dependent cultural relationship. I highlight practical implications, discuss limitations, and provide recommendations for future directions.

ContributorsCayetano, Catalina (Author) / Cheong, Pauline (Thesis advisor) / Pettigrew, Jonathan (Committee member) / Romero, Mary (Committee member) / Shin, YoungJu (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)

Created2020

Editing Engagement: Visions of Science, Democracy, and Responsibility in Gene Editing Discourse

Description

This dissertation investigates how ideas of the right relationships among science, the public, and collective decision-making about science and technology come to be envisioned in constructions of public engagement. In particular, it explores how public engagement has come to be constructed in discourse around gene editing to better understand how…

This dissertation investigates how ideas of the right relationships among science, the public, and collective decision-making about science and technology come to be envisioned in constructions of public engagement. In particular, it explores how public engagement has come to be constructed in discourse around gene editing to better understand how it holds together with visions for good, democratic governance of those technologies and with what effects. Using a conceptual idiom of the co-production of science and the social order, I investigate the mutual formation of scientific expertise, responsibility, and democracy through constructions of public engagement. I begin by tracing dominant historical narratives of contemporary public engagement as a continuation of public understanding of science’s projects of social ordering for democratic society. I then analyze collections of prominent expert meetings, publications, discussions, and interventions about development, governance, and societal implications human heritable germline gene editing and gene drives that developed in tandem with commitments to public engagement around those technologies. Synthesizing the evidence from across gene editing discourse, I offer a constructive critique of constructions of public engagement as expressions and evidence of scientific responsibility as ultimately reasserting and reinforcing of scientific experts' authority in gene editing decision-making, despite intentions for public engagement to extend decision-making participation and power to publics. Such constructions of public engagement go unrecognized in gene editing discourse and thereby subtly reinforce broader visions of scientific expertise as essential to good governance by underwriting the legitimacy and authority of scientific experts to act on behalf of public interests. I further argue that the reinforcement of scientific expert authority in gene editing discourse through public engagement also centers scientific experts in a sociotechnical imaginary that I call “not for science alone.” This sociotechnical imaginary envisions scientific experts as guardians and guarantors of good, democratic governance. I then propose a possible alternatives to public engagement alone to improve gene editing governance by orienting discourse around notions of public accountability for potential shared benefits and collective harms of gene editing.

ContributorsRoss, Christian (Author) / Hurlbut, James B. (Thesis advisor) / Maienschein, Jane (Thesis advisor) / Collins, James P. (Committee member) / Crow, Michael M. (Committee member) / Sarewitz, Daniel R. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)

Created2021