How Things Work - Doha Academy of Tertiary Studies

evidence 119
the parties and through the medium of witnesses, records, documents,
exhibits, concrete objects, etc. for the purpose of inducing belief in the
mind of the court or jury as to their contention.” The interesting thing
pointed out here is that the evidence itself does not resolve the issue but
advances one belief over others in human minds. Evidence is presented
to convince human juries and judges and guide their judgment. They
then issue a verdict.
A court trial often has the appearance of an exercise of personal
judgment. On television it appears as an emotional event— histrionics
mixed with forensics. But dispassionate workings of the law have reduced
many legal proceedings to a rubric, checking off a set of standardized
elements. Another example: To establish the validity of a will, the attorney
must show five elements: (1) the intent to transfer property, (2) the
capacity to write the will (a sound mind), (3) the will in writing, (4) the
decedent’s signature, and (5) witnesses to the signing. The legal transfer
of complex property has been reduced to a relatively simple technical
matter, but the evidence still must be judged relevant.
Such formal protocol is essential to the vitality of the law. But is
such reduction of social process otherwise in the best interests of society?
Should a will be allowed to perpetuate a house of prostitution? Should a
will be allowed to leave the state with expenses that the decedent should
have provided, such as the care of his or her young children? Should a
will be allowed to violate human rights principles? There is rationale
and precedent for what the law allows, but one of the costs of reducing
the law to elements is a restriction on the exercise of societal aspiration.
Qualitative research could be, but should not be, I think, so technical,
so objective, so uncaring.
In pharmaceutical research, in trials of new drugs, the publicized
evidence of effect often comes from randomized group comparison with
a placebo group. A fully tested drug is considered safe for uses controlled
by doctors. Not everyone agrees that such evidence is sufficient,
even when the testing follows scientific rules. Are pharmacology and
the law good models for finding evidence of good professional practice
(House, 2006; Sloane, 2008)? I think not. The criteria for social policy
are much more complex. And, with exceptions, past controlled experiments
of teaching, social work, and management have produced too
little evidence (Walker, Hoggart, and Hamilton, 2008). History has not
yet found workable social prescriptions based on sampling and independent
of contexts. The evidence is unbearably light.