Cultural Expertise versus Strategic Ignorance: Confronting Cultural Diversity In and Out of Court in Poland

IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q2 AREA STUDIES
S. Burdziej
{"title":"Cultural Expertise versus Strategic Ignorance: Confronting Cultural Diversity In and Out of Court in Poland","authors":"S. Burdziej","doi":"10.1177/08883254221096169","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Based on a systematic analysis of three databases of court decisions and a comprehensive overview of out-of-court use of cultural expertise in dispute resolution across various institutional contexts, this article investigates how Polish authorities tackle emerging issues of cultural diversity. Although Poland remains one of the European Union’s (EU) most ethnically and culturally homogeneous countries, increased immigration and internal pluralism bring new challenges for the courts and other public institutions involved in dispute resolution. Increasingly, generic references and commonsense understandings are replaced by more precise indications of sources, uses of academic sources or reports by non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and appointment of relevant experts. On the other hand, judges still tend to attempt their own interpretations and usually reject motions to instruct social scientists as expert witnesses, choosing the approach once aptly described as “strategic ignorance.”2 Thus, in this article, I look at how Polish courts justify instruction (or rejection of motions to instruct) social scientists as expert witnesses and where they draw the line between common sense and expert interpretations of culture. I also survey the rising demand for cultural expertise in dispute settlement in immigration services, detention centers, the military, and education.","PeriodicalId":47086,"journal":{"name":"East European Politics and Societies","volume":"37 1","pages":"413 - 434"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"East European Politics and Societies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08883254221096169","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Based on a systematic analysis of three databases of court decisions and a comprehensive overview of out-of-court use of cultural expertise in dispute resolution across various institutional contexts, this article investigates how Polish authorities tackle emerging issues of cultural diversity. Although Poland remains one of the European Union’s (EU) most ethnically and culturally homogeneous countries, increased immigration and internal pluralism bring new challenges for the courts and other public institutions involved in dispute resolution. Increasingly, generic references and commonsense understandings are replaced by more precise indications of sources, uses of academic sources or reports by non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and appointment of relevant experts. On the other hand, judges still tend to attempt their own interpretations and usually reject motions to instruct social scientists as expert witnesses, choosing the approach once aptly described as “strategic ignorance.”2 Thus, in this article, I look at how Polish courts justify instruction (or rejection of motions to instruct) social scientists as expert witnesses and where they draw the line between common sense and expert interpretations of culture. I also survey the rising demand for cultural expertise in dispute settlement in immigration services, detention centers, the military, and education.
文化专长与战略无知:在波兰法庭内外应对文化多样性
本文对三个法院判决数据库进行了系统分析,并全面概述了不同制度背景下在庭外使用文化专业知识解决争端的情况,在此基础上,调查了波兰当局如何应对新出现的文化多样性问题。尽管波兰仍然是欧洲联盟(欧盟)种族和文化最单一的国家之一,但移民和内部多元化的增加给参与争端解决的法院和其他公共机构带来了新的挑战。一般性的参考文献和常识性的理解越来越多地被更精确的来源说明、非政府组织对学术来源或报告的使用以及相关专家的任命所取代。另一方面,法官仍然倾向于尝试自己的解释,通常拒绝指示社会科学家作为专家证人的动议,选择了曾经被恰当地描述为“战略无知”的方法。2因此,在这篇文章中,我研究了波兰法院如何证明指示(或拒绝指示)社会科学家作为专家证人的正当性,以及他们在常识和专家对文化的解释之间的界限。我还调查了移民服务、拘留中心、军队和教育部门对解决争端的文化专业知识日益增长的需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: East European Politics and Societies is an international journal that examines social, political, and economic issues in Eastern Europe. EEPS offers holistic coverage of the region - every country, from every discipline - ranging from detailed case studies through comparative analyses and theoretical issues. Contributors include not only western scholars but many from Eastern Europe itself. The Editorial Board is composed of a world-class panel of historians, political scientists, economists, and social scientists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信