{"title":"专业人员反馈:荷兰司法部门镜像会议焦点小组共同制作法庭服务","authors":"M. van Gils, F. Baardman, P. Langbroek","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2021.1881664","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Mirrormeetings are focusgroups used by courts in the Netherland to gather feedback on the functioning of court services and judges in different fields of law. Different categories of court users are consulted on their experiences with court proceedings in different legal fields. In the set-up of those meetings judges and court staff are the listening audience of the conversation between court users about issues brought up by moderators of the session. That conversation is intended to mirror the court work. In this article we share the results of an inquiry into the functioning of mirrormeetings as a feedback instrument. Our study shows how courts and judges value the feedback they receive. However, because courts control the organisation and content of mirrormeetings to a considerable extent, there may be a risk of missing out on relevant, but unforeseen feedback. Furthermore, the follow up of mirrormeetings in terms of change in routines or in judicial behaviour is traceable to a limited extent. Therefore, it is difficult to assess if and how intended adaptations are implemented.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":"13 1","pages":"164 - 179"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Feedback for professionals: co-production of court services by mirrormeeting-focusgroups for the judiciary in the Netherlands\",\"authors\":\"M. van Gils, F. Baardman, P. Langbroek\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/0098261X.2021.1881664\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Mirrormeetings are focusgroups used by courts in the Netherland to gather feedback on the functioning of court services and judges in different fields of law. Different categories of court users are consulted on their experiences with court proceedings in different legal fields. In the set-up of those meetings judges and court staff are the listening audience of the conversation between court users about issues brought up by moderators of the session. That conversation is intended to mirror the court work. In this article we share the results of an inquiry into the functioning of mirrormeetings as a feedback instrument. Our study shows how courts and judges value the feedback they receive. However, because courts control the organisation and content of mirrormeetings to a considerable extent, there may be a risk of missing out on relevant, but unforeseen feedback. Furthermore, the follow up of mirrormeetings in terms of change in routines or in judicial behaviour is traceable to a limited extent. Therefore, it is difficult to assess if and how intended adaptations are implemented.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45509,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Justice System Journal\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"164 - 179\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Justice System Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2021.1881664\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Justice System Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2021.1881664","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
Feedback for professionals: co-production of court services by mirrormeeting-focusgroups for the judiciary in the Netherlands
Abstract Mirrormeetings are focusgroups used by courts in the Netherland to gather feedback on the functioning of court services and judges in different fields of law. Different categories of court users are consulted on their experiences with court proceedings in different legal fields. In the set-up of those meetings judges and court staff are the listening audience of the conversation between court users about issues brought up by moderators of the session. That conversation is intended to mirror the court work. In this article we share the results of an inquiry into the functioning of mirrormeetings as a feedback instrument. Our study shows how courts and judges value the feedback they receive. However, because courts control the organisation and content of mirrormeetings to a considerable extent, there may be a risk of missing out on relevant, but unforeseen feedback. Furthermore, the follow up of mirrormeetings in terms of change in routines or in judicial behaviour is traceable to a limited extent. Therefore, it is difficult to assess if and how intended adaptations are implemented.
期刊介绍:
The Justice System Journal is an interdisciplinary journal that publishes original research articles on all aspects of law, courts, court administration, judicial behavior, and the impact of all of these on public and social policy. Open as to methodological approaches, The Justice System Journal aims to use the latest in advanced social science research and analysis to bridge the gap between practicing and academic law, courts and politics communities. The Justice System Journal invites submission of original articles and research notes that are likely to be of interest to scholars and practitioners in the field of law, courts, and judicial administration, broadly defined. Articles may draw on a variety of research approaches in the social sciences. The journal does not publish articles devoted to extended analysis of legal doctrine such as a law review might publish, although short manuscripts analyzing cases or legal issues are welcome and will be considered for the Legal Notes section. The Justice System Journal was created in 1974 by the Institute for Court Management and is published under the auspices of the National Center for State Courts. The Justice System Journal features peer-reviewed research articles as well as reviews of important books in law and courts, and analytical research notes on some of the leading cases from state and federal courts. The journal periodically produces special issues that provide analysis of fundamental and timely issues on law and courts from both national and international perspectives.