My primary research method is human-centered design (aka user-focused design or design thinking), a method that relies extensively on empirical data; interdisciplinary research; prototypes before solutions; ongoing iterative solutions; and ongoing user-consultation throughout the design process. Most human-centered design approaches rely on five phases: i. empathize with users and discover their problems; ii. pick the users and problems you will address; iii. brainstorm and design solutions for identified problems; iv. test and retest solutions; and v. deploy user-focused solutions and continue consultation. This multi-phase process and its paramount focus on data, users, testing, and evidence contrasts traditional, legal reform methods: typically, politicians’ ideological and intuition-based views are paramount. Many jurisdictions—e.g., the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and British Columbia—are relying on human-centered design to deliberately design legal reforms: they are focussing on user needs and problems; gathering and analyzing extensive legal data; and iterating reforms.
My secondary research methods are data science and machine learning; law & economics; cognitive psychology and neuroscience; and legal doctrine. These methods will facilitate furthering my empirical knowledge about judicial decisions’ users; making empirical predictions about decisions and decision-making; and designing user-focused solutions.
Using these blended research methods, I will seek to address five questions in my research:
How might we improve judicial decision-making and judicial decisions?
Does the current process for making and writing decisions contribute to delay and inconsistency?
How can judicial decision-writing be redesigned to advance access to justice and social justice; address the legal data deficit; and improve outcomes, e.g., should judges use standardized structures and content to reduce the influence of cognitive bias and heuristics in their decision-making?
What judicial contexts are more amenable to reforms—e.g., trial vs. appellate; civil vs. criminal—and how can reforms be effectively implemented?
What are the benefits and drawbacks of attempting to design new judicial decisions, e.g., how might potential reforms interact with constitutional principles, like judicial independence?
This research method and these research questions are founded in my previous research on judicial decisions and decision-making.