California State University, Sacramento
Department of Public Policy and Administration

PPA 298B:
California Judicial Administration Fellowship Seminar
Spring 2002

Instructor: Scott Graves
Office phone: (916) 278-6906 (leave message)
Email: gravargas@msn.com
Home phone: (916) 736-2010 (not after 9 p.m.)

COURSE OVERVIEW

This course, a continuation of PPA 298A, has two primary objectives. The first is to introduce judicial administration fellows to key analytical perspectives drawn from the fields of public administration, public law, and judicial behavior. To this end, seminars will focus on the following themes: bureaucracy; organizational culture; ethics; public management; judicial decision-making; the relationship between the courts and administrative agencies; the role of courts as policy-makers; and the impact of judicial decisions as public policy.

The second objective is to enhance fellows’ research, writing, and public speaking skills. This will be accomplished in four ways. First, seminar discussions will review key aspects of the research and report-writing process, as well as highlight the ethics and politics of doing research. Second, fellows will write, individually and in teams, research proposals, essays, and a major research paper (in fact, you will submit two drafts of the research paper for evaluation). Third, time will be set aside at each seminar to return and discuss the graded writing assignments, and for fellows to share their experiences regarding the team writing and research process. Fourth, fellows will participate in seminar discussions and will have opportunities to make formal oral presentations.

REQUIRED READINGS

There are two required books for this course: (1) Wayne C. Booth, Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph M. Williams, The Craft of Research (University of Chicago Press, 1995); and (2) James Q. Wilson, Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It (Basic Books, 1989). The Center for California Studies will make these books available to you. Additional readings will be copied by the Center and provided to you throughout the semester. (Some readings may be dropped and others substituted if publishers charge outrageous fees for the use of their copyrighted material.) In addition, the Center will purchase the American Political Science Association style manual, which you will follow when writing your papers.

The readings represent a lighter load than you would find in a typical graduate seminar (of course, they won’t feel light if you put them off until the last minute!). Read critically and economically. Be prepared to offer your own analysis of the readings at every seminar. As I indicate below, 10% of your grade is based on informed participation in seminar discussions.

ATTENDANCE

The seminar is a required part of the fellowship experience. Consistent attendance is expected. Mentors are aware of this requirement and have been instructed to ensure that fellows are able to attend seminar meetings. Nonetheless, fellows may need to miss a seminar due to illness or unavoidable conflicts with placement obligations. I hope and expect that this will occur no more than once (we only have seven five-hour seminar meetings). If you must miss a meeting, call or email me in advance. Missing any seminar without prior clearance will lower your participation grade and possibly trigger a salary dock and administrative review of your fellowship status.

Any individual assignments due during a seminar meeting that you miss must be submitted in advance by email as a Word for Windows attachment (send it to Donna; she will print it and give me the hard copy). Since faxes generally are of poor quality and harder to read, I will accept faxed papers only under emergency circumstances.

SEMINAR PARTICIPATION

Each seminar will feature at least two discussions one will focus on academic literature related to public administration and/or judicial process; the other will serve as a forum for reviewing (1) the research process and (2) progress on the team research projects that fellows will carry out during the semester.

Fellows are expected to participate in seminar discussions. I will get the discussion going and serve as facilitator, but I generally will not lecture. Thus, the overall quality of learning depends in large part on the active participation of each fellow. However, note that quality is as important as quantity. I will be taking into account both how much you participate in discussions as well as the quality of your comments, questions, insights, and arguments. Strive to make comments that are informed by (or refer to) the assigned readings and that fall within the ambit of the discussion. Listen respectfully to your colleagues. Participation will comprise 10% of the final grade.

ASSIGNMENTS & EVALUATION

Assignments

All assignments involve writing essays, memos, and the research paper. There are no exams. Fellows will complete written assignments individually and in teams. All assignments are due on the assigned dates at the start of seminar.

Individual assignments. Fellows are required to write four short papers (3 to 4 double-spaced pages each). These papers will focus on assigned readings and will be used to stimulate seminar discussion. Fellows also are required to develop an exploratory research proposal (a single-spaced, 2 to 3 page memo due in mid January) presenting their preliminary research topic ideas. Individual assignments comprise 45% of the final grade.

Team assignments. Team assignments revolve around the research papers fellows are required to submit at the end of the semester. Team-based research has three goals: (1) to allow far-flung fellows to work together; (2) to improve your research and writing skills; and (3) to produce high-quality papers of interest to court administrators and state policy-makers. Research papers may be published by the Center for California Studies and/or by the court system itself. They also could be submitted for publication in law or social science journals, depending on subject matter and quality.

Team assignments begin in January, when fellows exchange their exploratory research proposals and select two or three topics to pursue in research teams for the remainder of the semester (tentative team topics will be discussed at the Jan. 30 seminar). Each team will submit and present their final research proposal during the February seminar and produce two research paper drafts -- an initial draft in May and a final draft in June, both of which will be graded. Teams will present their research findings on two occasions -- to their peers during seminar in June as well as to an audience of judges and court officials in July (possibly the closed-door meeting of the Judicial Council). Team assignments comprise 45% of the final grade.    

Late assignments

Fellows should strive to turn in assignments on the due date. Often you will have three or four weeks (and never less than two weeks) to work on an assignment. Team assignments must always be submitted on time. Occasionally, a fellow may be unable to submit an individual assignment due to placement obligations or for other reasons. In such cases, alternative arrangements should be made with me prior to the due date. Non-excused late assignments will be penalized two-thirds of a grade for each 48-hour period they are late.

Evaluation

Your work will be graded. I will use a graduate school grading scale, in which grades lower than a B- signify unsatisfactory performance. Passing grades are as follows: A; A-; A-/B+; B+; B; B-. Grades in the "A" range signify excellent work overall; in the "B" range, various levels of satisfactory work.

Evaluation standards specific to each assignment will be described in handouts that I will distribute throughout the semester. In general, however, any paper you submit must meet the following criteria to receive the highest grade:

The author-date system has two basic features. (1) You cite the author’s last name, publication year, and the page reference (if there is one) parenthetically within the text -- e.g., (Graves 1999, 42) -- rather than in footnotes. (2) All citations are alphabetized in a "references" or "works cited" list at the end of the paper. Each citation prominently displays the author’s last name and the publication date so the reader can easily locate the reference. Of course, there are numerous rules -- from how to cite different kinds of sources and where to put (and where not to put) commas and periods in the references -- which is why it’s useful to refer to the style manual.

Assignment weights

Your final spring semester grade will be determined as follows:

Individual assignments (45%)

  5% Exploratory research proposal
10% Short paper #1
10% Short paper #2
10% Short paper #3
10% Short paper #4

Team assignments (45%)

  5% Final research proposal, including Feb. 15 group presentation
10% First draft of research paper
20% Final draft of research paper
  5% Practice presentation of research findings
  5% Formal presentation of research findings

Seminar participation (10%)

SEMINAR MEETINGS AND ASSIGNMENTS IN BRIEF*

Pre-seminar Mon., Jan. 14 Due: Exploratory research proposal (individual)
Seminar 1: Wed., Jan. 30 Due: Fellows will (1) comment on colleagues’ research proposals and (2) discuss which topics they would prefer to investigate. (Fellows will form two or three research teams by the end of the seminar.)
Seminar 2: Fri., Feb. 15 Due: (1) Short paper #1 (individual) and (2) final research proposals (team). Teams will present final drafts of their research proposals. Presentation will be graded.
Seminar 3: Fri., March 15 Due: Short paper #2 (individual)
Seminar 4: Fri., April 12 Due: Short paper #3 (individual)
Seminar 5: Fri., May 17 Due: First draft of research paper (team)
Seminar 6: Fri., June 7 Due: Short paper #4 (individual)
Seminar 7: Fri., June 28 Due: Final draft of research paper (team). Teams will present research findings during seminar (view it as a "dress rehearsal" for the formal presentations you will make in July). Practice presentation will be graded.
Post-seminar: Date/place TBA Due: Teams formally present their research findings to an audience of judges, court administrators, and other interested parties. Formal presentation will be graded.

* In addition to these specific assignments, fellows are responsible for doing all of the assigned reading listed in the "detailed course outline" that follows.

DETAILED COURSE OUTLINE

Pre-seminar (Mon., Jan. 14)

Assignment due: Exploratory research proposal (individual). Submit by 5 p.m. by fax to Center for California Studies or by email to Donna.

Seminar 1 (Wed., Jan. 30, San Francisco, 8:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m.)

Graded assignment to be returned: Exploratory research proposal (individual)

 1.1 Program/Seminar Updates

1.2 Syllabus Review and Course Introduction

1.3 Observation: Case Arguments, First District Court of Appeal

1.4 Return and Discuss Exploratory Research Proposals

1.5 Discussion: Research Topics -- Narrowing the Field to Two or Three

Read and be prepared to discuss:

  • Booth et al., The Craft of Research, all of parts I & II, but skim chaps. 5 and 6.

Recommended:

  • Donald W. Jackson, "Program Evaluation in Judicial Administration," in Larry C. Berkson, Steven W. Hays, and Susan J. Carbon, Managing the State Courts: Text and Readings (St. Paul, MN: West, 1977), pp. 346-56.
  • W. Lawrence Neuman, Social Research Methods (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1994), chaps. 1-6.
  • Jeffrey D. Straussman, Public Administration (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1985), chap. 12.

1.6 Fellows Check-In (optional)

Seminar 2 (Fri., Feb. 22, Sacramento)

Assignments due: (1) Short paper #1 (individual); (2) final research proposal (team)

2.1 Program/Seminar Updates

2.2 Discussion: Goals, Tasks, Behavior & Organizational Culture

Read and be prepared to discuss:

  • Wilson, Bureaucracy, chaps. 1-6.

Recommended:

  • Charles T. Goodsell, The Case for Bureaucracy: A Public Administration Polemic (Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 1983).
  • Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1980).
  • J. Steven Ott, The Organizational Culture Perspective (Chicago: Dorsey Press, 1989).
  • Hal G. Rainey, "Building an Effective Organizational Culture," in James L. Perry, ed., Handbook of Public Administration (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996), pp. 151-66.
  • David H. Rosenbloom and Robert S. Kravchuk, Public Administration: Understanding Management, Politics and Law in the Public Sector, 5th ed. (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2002), chap. 4.
  • Edgar H. Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985).
  • Herbert A. Simon, Administrative Behavior, 3rd ed. (New York: Free Press, 1976 [1947]).
  • Dwight Waldo, The Administrative State (New York: Homes and Meier, 1984 [1948]).
  • Max Weber, "Bureaucracy," chap. 8 in H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, trans. and eds., From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1946).

Also be prepared to discuss:

  • Short paper #1.

2.3 Team Research Proposals: Final Draft Presentations

Be prepared to discuss:

  • Your final team research proposals.

2.4 Discussion: Survey Research and Ethical and Political Issues in Research

Read and be prepared to discuss:

  • Booth et al., The Craft of Research, part V, "Research and Ethics."
  • W. Lawrence Neuman, Social Research Methods (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1994), chaps. 11 and 18.

2.5 Training: CSUS Library Web Site Resources

2.6 Fellows Check-In (optional)

Seminar 3 (Fri., March 15, Los Angeles)

Assignment due: Short paper #2 (individual)

Graded assignments to be returned: (1) Short paper #1 (individual); (2) final research proposal (team)

3.1 Program/Seminar Updates

3.2 Discussion: The Ethics of Public Service

Read and be prepared to discuss:

  • Douglas J. Amy, "Why Policy Analysis and Ethics are Incompatible," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 3 (Summer 1984), pp. 573-91.
  • Dennis Thompson, "The Possibility of Administrative Ethics," Public Administration Review 45 (1985), pp. 555-61.
  • David Nacht, "The Iran-Contra Affair," and David Rudenstine, "Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers," in Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson, eds., Ethics and Politics: Cases and Comments, 3rd ed. (Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1997), pp. 57-66 and 161-70.

Also be prepared to discuss:

  • Short paper #2.

Recommended:

  • Arthur Isak Applbaum, "The Remains of the Role," Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration 6 (October 1993), 545-57.
  • Paul Appleby, Morality and Administration in Democratic Government (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1952).
  • Stephen K. Bailey, "Ethics and the Public Service" Public Administration Review 24 (1964), pp. 234-43.
  • Guy Beneveniste, "On a Code of Ethics for Policy Experts," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 3 (Summer 1984), pp.561-72.
  • Carl J. Friedrich, "The Nature of Administrative Responsibility," in Friedrich, ed., Public Policy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1940).
  • Herman Finer, "Administrative Responsibility in Democratic Government," Public Administration Review 1, (Autumn 1941), pp. 335-50.
  • Carol W. Lewis and Bayard L. Catron, "Professional Standards and Ethics," in James L. Perry, ed., Handbook of Public Administration (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996), pp. 699-712.
  • Mark T. Lilla, "Ethos, Ethics, and Public Service," Public Interest 63 (Spring 1981), pp. 3-17.
  • Michael Quinlan, "Ethics in the Public Service," Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration 6 (October 1993), 538-44.
  • John A. Rohr, Public Service, Ethics, and Constitutional Practice (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1998).
  • John A. Rohr, "Ethics in Public Administration: A State-of-the-Discipline Report," in Naomi B. Lynn and Aaron Wildavsky, eds., Public Administration: The State of the Discipline (Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 1990), pp. 97-123.

3.3 Discussion: Making & Supporting Claims in Research Papers

Read and be prepared to discuss:

3.4 Return and Discuss Short Paper #1 and Team Research Proposals

3.5 Fellows Check-In (optional)

Seminar 4 (Fri., April 12, Sacramento)

Assignment due: Short paper #3 (individual)

Graded assignment to be returned: Short paper #2 (individual)

4.1 Program/Seminar Updates

4.2 Discussion: Management of Public Organizations

Read and be prepared to discuss:

  • Wilson, Bureaucracy, chaps. 7-9.
  • Larry C. Berkson, Steven W. Hays, and Susan J. Carbon, Managing the State Courts: Text and Readings (St. Paul, MN: West, 1977), chap. 2 (reading C) and chap. 7 (introductory note and readings A through E).

Also be prepared to discuss:

  • Short paper #3.

Speaker:

  • Michael Roddy, Regional Administrative Director, Northern and Central California, Administrative Office of the Courts, Judicial Council of California.

Recommended:

  • Graham T. Allison, "Public and Private Management: Are They Fundamentally Alike in All Unimportant Respects?" in Jay M. Shafritz and Albert C. Hyde, eds., Classics of Public Administration, 3rd ed. (Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1992), pp. 457-75.
  • Barry Bozeman, ed., Public Management: The State of the Art (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993).
  • Mark W. Cannon, "Judicial Administration to the Twenty-first Century," Public Administration Review 45 (November 1985), pp.679-85.
  • Arie Halachmi and Geert Bouckaert, eds., The Enduring Challenges in Public Management (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995).
  • Philip Heyman, The Politics of Public Management (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988).
  • Harry O. Lawson, H.R. Ackerman, Jr., and Donald E. Fuller, Personnel Administration in the Courts (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1979), esp. chap. 1.
  • Douglas McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960).
  • David M. O’Brien, "Managing the Business of the Supreme Court," Public Administration Review 45 (November 1985), pp.667-78.
  • Hal G. Rainey, Understanding and Managing Public Organizations (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991).
  • Judith Resnik, "Managerial Judges: The Potential Costs," Public Administration Review 45 (November 1985), pp.686-90.

4.3 Discussion: Drafting and Revising Research Papers

Read and be prepared to discuss:

  • Booth et al., The Craft of Research, all of part IV, but skim chap. 12.

Recommended:

  • Howard S. Becker, Writing for Social Scientists: How to Start and Finish Your Thesis, Book, or Article (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986).
  • James H. Boren, When In Doubt, Mumble: A Bureaucrat’s Handbook (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1972).

4.4 Return and Discuss Short Paper #2 4.5 Fellows Check-In (optional)

Seminar 5 (Fri., May 17, Sacramento)

Assignment due: First draft of research paper (team)

Graded assignment to be returned: Short paper #3 (individual)

5.1 Program/Seminar Updates

5.2 Discussion: Decision-Making by Trial Court and Appellate Court Judges

Read and be prepared to discuss:

  • Robert A. Carp and Ronald Stidham, Judicial Process in America, 5th ed. (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2001), chaps. 10 and 11.

Recommended:

  • Lawrence Baum, The Puzzle of Judicial Behavior (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1997).
  • Lawrence Baum, The Supreme Court, 5th ed. (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1995), chap. 6.
  • Lee Epstein, ed., Contemplating Courts (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1995).
  • Lee Epstein and Jack Knight, Choices Justices Make (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1998).
  • Malcolm M. Feeley and Edward L. Rubin, Judicial Policy Making and the Modern State: How the Courts Reformed America’s Prisons (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998), select chapters.
  • James L. Gibson, "Decision Making in Appellate Courts," in John B. Gates and Charles A. Johnson, eds., The American Courts: A Critical Assessment (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1991), pp. 255-78.
  • Herbert Jacob, "Decision Making in Trial Courts," in John B. Gates and Charles A. Johnson, eds., The American Courts: A Critical Assessment (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1991), pp. 213-33.
  • Walter F. Murphy, Elements of Judicial Strategy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964).

5.3 Discussion: Developing Effective Relations with Legislatures

Read and be prepared to discuss:

  • Anne M. Khademian, "Developing Effective Relations with Legislatures," chap. 10 in James L. Perry, ed., Handbook of Public Administration (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996), pp. 171-95.

Speaker:

  • June Clark, Senior Attorney, Office of Governmental Affairs, Administrative Office of the Courts, Judicial Council of California.

5.4 Discussion: Reflections on the Team Writing and Research Process

Be prepared to discuss:

  • First draft of your team research paper.

5.5 Return and Discuss Short Paper #3

5.6 Fellows Check-In (optional)

Seminar 6 (Fri., June 7, Sacramento)

Assignment due: Short paper #4 (individual)

Graded assignment to be returned: Research paper first draft (team)

6.1 Program/Seminar Updates

6.2 Discussion: Administrative Agencies, Policy-Making, and Judicial Intervention

Read and be prepared to discuss:

  • Wilson, Bureaucracy, chap. 15.
  • Phillip J. Cooper, "Conflict or Constructive Tension: The Changing Relationship of Judges and Administrators," Public Administration Review 45 (November 1985), pp. 643-52.
  • Roger C. Cramton, "Judicial Law Making and Administration," Public Administration Review 36 (September/October 1976), pp. 551-55.
  • Malcolm M. Feeley and Edward L. Rubin, Judicial Policy Making and the Modern State: How the Courts Reformed America’s Prisons (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998), chap 1.
  • Donald L. Horowitz, "The Courts as Guardians of the Public Interest," Public Administration Review 37 (March/April 1977), pp. 148-54.

Also be prepared to discuss:

  • Short paper #4.

Recommended:

  • Nan Aron, Liberty and Justice for All: Public Interest Law in the 1980s and Beyond (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1989).
  • David L. Bazelon, "The Impact of the Courts on Public Administration," Indiana Law Journal 52 (1976), pp. 101-10.
  • Raoul Berger, Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977), esp. chaps. 16-19.
  • Phillip J. Cooper, "Public Law and Public Administration: The State of the Union," in Naomi B. Lynn and Aaron Wildavsky, eds., Public Administration: The State of the Discipline (Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 1990), pp. 256-84.
  • Phillip J. Cooper, Hard Judicial Choices: Federal District Court Judges and State and Local Officials (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988).
  • Phillip J. Cooper, Public Law and Public Administration (Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield, 1983), esp. chaps. 3 and 4.
  • Roger C. Cramton, "Judicial Law Making and Administration," Public Administration Review 36 (September/October 1976), pp. 551-55.
  • Nathan Glazer, "Towards an Imperial Judiciary?" The Public Interest 41 (Fall 1975), pp. 104-23.
  • Rosemary O’Leary, "The Impact of Federal Court Decisions on the Policies and Administration of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency," Administrative Law Review 41 (1980), pp. 549-74.
  • Rosemary O’Leary and Jeffrey D. Straussman, "The Impact of Courts on Public Management," in Barry Bozeman, ed., Public Management: The State of the Art (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993), pp. 189-205.
  • Rosemary O’Leary and Charles Wise, "Public Managers, Judges, and Legislators: Redefining the ‘New Partnership,’" Public Administration Review 52 (1991), pp. 316-27.
  • Jeremy Rabkin, Judicial Compulsions: How Public Law Distorts Public Policy (New York: Basic Books, 1989).
  • David H. Rosenbloom, Public Administration and Law: Bench v. Bureau in the United States (New York: Marcel Dekker, 1983), esp. chap. 2.
  • David H. Rosenbloom, "The Judicial Response to the Rise of the American Administrative State," American Review of Public Administration 15 (Spring 1981), pp. 29-51.
  • David H. Rosenbloom and Robert S. Kravchuk, Public Administration: Understanding Management, Politics and Law in the Public Sector, 5th ed. (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2002), chap. 2.
  • David H. Rosenbloom and Rosemary O’Leary, Public Administration and Law, 2nd ed. (New York: Marcel Dekker, 1997).
  • Peter Woll, American Bureaucracy, 2nd ed. (New York: W.W. Norton, 1977), chap. 3.

6.3 Return and Discuss Team Research Papers (First Draft)

Read and be prepared to discuss:

  • Your colleagues’ first-draft research papers.

6.4 Fellows Check-In (optional)

Seminar 7 (Fri., June 28, Los Angeles)

Assignment due: Final draft of research paper (team)

Graded assignment to be returned: Short paper #4 (individual)

7.1 Program/Seminar Updates

7.2 Discussion: The Impact of Judicial Decisions as Public Policy

Read and be prepared to discuss:

  • Bradley C. Canon and Charles A. Johnson, Judicial Policies: Implementation and Impact (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1999), chap. 7.
  • Malcolm M. Feeley and Edward L. Rubin, Judicial Policy Making and the Modern State: How the Courts Reformed America’s Prisons (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998), chap. 9.

Recommended:

  • Lawrence Baum, The Supreme Court, 5th ed. (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1995), chap. 6.
  • Robert A. Carp and Ronald Stidham, Judicial Process in America, 5th ed. (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2001), chap. 12.
  • Lee Epstein, ed., Contemplating Courts (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1995).
  • George E. Hale, "Federal Courts and the State Budgetary Process," Administration & Society 11 (November 1979), pp.357-68.
  • Linda Harriman and Jeffrey D. Straussman, "Do Judges Determine Budget Decisions? Federal Court Decisions in Prison Reform and State Spending for Corrections," Public Administration Review 43 (July/August 1983), pp. 343-51.
  • Charles A. Johnson, "Judicial Decisions and Organizational Change: A Theory," Administration & Society 11 (May 1979), pp. 27-51.
  • G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial Policymaking, 2nd ed. (Belmont, CA: West/Wadsworth, 1999), chap. 10.

7.3 Practice Presentations

Be prepared to present to your colleagues:

  • The research problem, methodology, data sources, analysis, findings, etc. contained in the final draft of your research paper.

7.4 Return and Discuss Short Paper #4

7.5 Fellows Check-In (optional)

Post-seminar (date TBA, location TBA)

Assignment due: Formal presentations of research findings (team)

Graded assignment to be returned: Final draft of research paper (team)

BACK