What’s in a Word? Just vs. Fair vs. Appropriate Earnings for Self and Others

Despite Rawls’ famous call to distinguish between justice and fairness, these and other justice-related words often seem to be used interchangeably by both ordinary people and justice researchers. Based on a survey-embedded question wording experiment (N = 4534) fielded in Germany as part of the GESIS Panel, we explore the effects of three justice words— “just,” “fair,” and “appropriate”—on the sense of justice about earnings for self and others. We observe differences in the just reward, justice evaluation, and justice consequences by justice word. For example, justice evaluations of one’s own earnings are more negative, i.e., deeper in the underreward territory, signaling larger just rewards, when using “just” instead of “fair” or “appropriate” in the question wording. No such clear pattern emerges for justice evaluations of others’ earnings. Our analyses show the decreasing effect of an underreward situation on psychosocial health to be significantly stronger in the “just” condition compared to the “fair” condition but do not reveal differential consequences by justice word for measures of satisfaction and trust. Overall, the observed differences by justice words are moderate in size. Nonetheless, our findings suggest caution for justice researchers in communicating with peers and respondents and warrant further inquiry extending research on the role of “justice language” to other language–country contexts.

E-justice evaluation factors: The case of Smart Court of China

As information and communication technologies (ICT) continue to impact and shape modern society, and e-justice has gained momentum in recent years. China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) set up a trial management information system that connects all courts in China. Designed to be online, transparent, and intelligent, China’s Smart Court development began in 2016. In practice, SPC promoted modernization of the trial systems to improve the flow of information between courts throughout China. However, significant investments in ICT e-justice services have caused some to question whether these investments have achieved the expected ends. Thus, how to evaluate e-justice services becomes an urgent theoretical and policy issue in the process of e-justice construction in China. E-justice value is not clearly defined in theory in China, nor is easy to measure in practice. Because of the sensitive and complex nature of such evaluation, little research has been conducted in this regard. The objective of this paper is to fill this gap. Relevant literature is reviewed before the article moves on to describe various approaches withe regard to e-government and e-justice evaluation, as well as the characteristics of China’s Smart Court. Evaluation factors and constructs are found based on the Chinese circumstances. This study contributes to the development of a holistic evaluation framework for e-justice system. It also adds the Chinese case to the existing literature. Evaluation factors found in this article can also serve as a foundation for future development and study of e-justice services.

The Other Side of Inequality: Using Standpoint Theories to Examine the Privilege of the Evaluation Profession and Individual Evaluators

Social justice evaluation approaches advance antioppressive and culturally responsive methods to mitigate societal inequalities. However, social justice efforts will fall short if they focus solely on one side of inequality: oppression. Accordingly, this article argues that the other side of inequality—privilege—needs to be scrutinized. This article offers standpoint theories as a lens on privilege to reveal how the knowledge achieved from marginalized groups can be useful to make privilege more visible and enhance the objectivity of inquiry. In addition, a concept inspired by standpoint theories, privilege-cognizant scripts, is offered to help evaluators rethink and discover the privilege carried by the field of evaluation and our individual identities. Standpoint theories awaken evaluators to the idea that although privilege can have negative consequences for evaluation practice, it can also be used productively to advance social justice.

Evaluating evaluation

This study examines a participant’s narrative in a focus group interview dealing with the evaluation of criminal justice policy – the impact of community policing training. However, rather than look at the narrative solely in the speech of the interviewee, I analyze the integration of speech and embodied conduct like gesture, gaze, and posture in the production and negotiation of professional identities. I demonstrate the applied merits of a multimodal approach to criminal justice evaluation in the mapping between denotational text and interactional positioning, a mapping that inheres in embodied stance and broader sociocultural context.