{"id":{"repo_id":"de-montfort","oai_identifier":"oai:dora.dmu.ac.uk:2086/22981"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/de-montfort/oai:dora.dmu.ac.uk:2086/22981","repository":{"repo_id":"de-montfort","name":"De Montfort University","base_url":"https://dora.dmu.ac.uk/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"The Judge as Bricoleur: Bricolage in decision-making in the criminal justice system","abstract":"In this work I examine the approach of the courts to cases which depart from expected and anticipated norms. Using four case studies from areas where courts have had to respond to situations with which it may be unfamiliar, I explain how, if not properly guided, the courts risk relying on assumptions and beliefs which potentially jeopardise the rationality of the decision which is made. This question is considered in the particular contexts of (i) women who wear the Niqab in court; (ii) voice identification evidence; (iii) the offence of coercive control; and (iv) male victims of sexual assault. In my work, I illustrate how the unfamiliarity of decision-makers with each of these topics, when combined with the sociological and psychological factors which arise in these cases, creates the risk that decisions are being made which are not ‘rational’. In part, this is due to the structuralist nature of decision-making, or ‘bricolage.’ In my expository statement I will explain how a bricolage methodology enables analysis of this question. The four areas I have discussed are exemplars of four discrete areas which are outside the normal experience of decision-makers in criminal trials and serve as exemplars of how a bricolage approach is used to solve such problems and the shortcomings of this approach.","abstract_html":"In this work I examine the approach of the courts to cases which depart from expected and anticipated norms. Using four case studies from areas where courts have had to respond to situations with which it may be unfamiliar, I explain how, if not properly guided, the courts risk relying on assumptions and beliefs which potentially jeopardise the rationality of the decision which is made. This question is considered in the particular contexts of (i) women who wear the Niqab in court; (ii) voice identification evidence; (iii) the offence of coercive control; and (iv) male victims of sexual assault. In my work, I illustrate how the unfamiliarity of decision-makers with each of these topics, when combined with the sociological and psychological factors which arise in these cases, creates the risk that decisions are being made which are not ‘rational’. In part, this is due to the structuralist nature of decision-making, or ‘bricolage.’ In my expository statement I will explain how a bricolage methodology enables analysis of this question. The four areas I have discussed are exemplars of four discrete areas which are outside the normal experience of decision-makers in criminal trials and serve as exemplars of how a bricolage approach is used to solve such problems and the shortcomings of this approach.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Robson, Jeremy"],"institution":"De Montfort University","degree_name":"PhD","degree_level":"Doctoral","degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2022,"date_issued":"2022-04","date_published":"2022-04","updated_at":"2026-07-24T06:18:33Z","subjects":[],"languages":[],"rights":[],"rights_urls":["https://dora.dmu.ac.uk/bitstreams/889612ea-532c-4c6d-93f3-7e5de82e5b94/download"],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":null,"outbound_label":null,"outbound_source":null},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Robson, Jeremy"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2022-04"]},{"key":"dc:publisher.department","label":"Dc Publisher Department","values":["Faculty of Business and Law"]},{"key":"dc:publisher.institution","label":"Dc Publisher Institution","values":["De Montfort University"]},{"key":"dc:relation.isreferencedby","label":"Dc Relation Isreferencedby","values":["https://hdl.handle.net/2086/22981"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis or dissertation"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationlevel","label":"Dc Type Qualificationlevel","values":["Doctoral"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationname","label":"Dc Type Qualificationname","values":["PhD"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["https://dora.dmu.ac.uk/bitstreams/889612ea-532c-4c6d-93f3-7e5de82e5b94/download"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["https://dora.dmu.ac.uk/bitstreams/28b42695-a9ca-4813-a945-ce603497d551/download"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["In this work I examine the approach of the courts to cases which depart from expected and anticipated norms. Using four case studies from areas where courts have had to respond to situations with which it may be unfamiliar, I explain how, if not properly guided, the courts risk relying on assumptions and beliefs which potentially jeopardise the rationality of the decision which is made. This question is considered in the particular contexts of (i) women who wear the Niqab in court; (ii) voice identification evidence; (iii) the offence of coercive control; and (iv) male victims of sexual assault. In my work, I illustrate how the unfamiliarity of decision-makers with each of these topics, when combined with the sociological and psychological factors which arise in these cases, creates the risk that decisions are being made which are not ‘rational’. In part, this is due to the structuralist nature of decision-making, or ‘bricolage.’ In my expository statement I will explain how a bricolage methodology enables analysis of this question. The four areas I have discussed are exemplars of four discrete areas which are outside the normal experience of decision-makers in criminal trials and serve as exemplars of how a bricolage approach is used to solve such problems and the shortcomings of this approach."]},{"key":"dc:format.checksum.md5","label":"Dc Format Checksum Md5","values":["6cf4a6df17efd405bb1184c8d7f220eb","bd41181d9a4c38b5ebacc69a027024d9","4d245382fdb9c73beef6b99b86d086db"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["The Judge as Bricoleur: Bricolage in decision-making in the criminal justice system"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:creator":["Robson, Jeremy"],"dc:date.issued":["2022-04"],"dc:description.abstract":["In this work I examine the approach of the courts to cases which depart from expected and anticipated norms. Using four case studies from areas where courts have had to respond to situations with which it may be unfamiliar, I explain how, if not properly guided, the courts risk relying on assumptions and beliefs which potentially jeopardise the rationality of the decision which is made. This question is considered in the particular contexts of (i) women who wear the Niqab in court; (ii) voice identification evidence; (iii) the offence of coercive control; and (iv) male victims of sexual assault. In my work, I illustrate how the unfamiliarity of decision-makers with each of these topics, when combined with the sociological and psychological factors which arise in these cases, creates the risk that decisions are being made which are not ‘rational’. In part, this is due to the structuralist nature of decision-making, or ‘bricolage.’ In my expository statement I will explain how a bricolage methodology enables analysis of this question. The four areas I have discussed are exemplars of four discrete areas which are outside the normal experience of decision-makers in criminal trials and serve as exemplars of how a bricolage approach is used to solve such problems and the shortcomings of this approach."],"dc:format.checksum.md5":["6cf4a6df17efd405bb1184c8d7f220eb","bd41181d9a4c38b5ebacc69a027024d9","4d245382fdb9c73beef6b99b86d086db"],"dc:identifier.uri":["https://dora.dmu.ac.uk/bitstreams/28b42695-a9ca-4813-a945-ce603497d551/download"],"dc:publisher.department":["Faculty of Business and Law"],"dc:publisher.institution":["De Montfort University"],"dc:relation.isreferencedby":["https://hdl.handle.net/2086/22981"],"dc:rights":["https://dora.dmu.ac.uk/bitstreams/889612ea-532c-4c6d-93f3-7e5de82e5b94/download"],"dc:title":["The Judge as Bricoleur: Bricolage in decision-making in the criminal justice system"],"dc:type":["Thesis or dissertation"],"dc:type.qualificationlevel":["Doctoral"],"dc:type.qualificationname":["PhD"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T06:18:33Z"}