TY - JOUR
T1 - Advancing Socioeconomic Rights through Interdisciplinary Factfinding
T2 - Opportunities and Challenges
AU - Knuckey, Sarah
AU - Fisher, Joshua D.
AU - Klasing, Amanda M.
AU - Russo, Tess
AU - Satterthwaite, Margaret L.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Annual Reviews Inc.. All rights reserved.
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - The human rights movement is increasingly using interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, mixed-methods, and quantitative factfinding. There has been too little analysis of these shifts. This article examines some of the opportunities and challenges of these methods, focusing on the investigation of socio-economic human rights. By potentially expanding the amount and types of evidence available, factfinding's accuracy and persuasiveness can be strengthened, bolstering rights claims. However, such methods can also present significant challenges and may pose risks in individual cases and to the human rights movement generally. Interdisciplinary methods can be costly in human, financial, and technical resources; are sometimes challengingto implement; may divert limited resources from other work; can reify inequalities; may produce "expertise" that disempowers rightsholders; and could raise investigation standards to an infeasible or counterproductive level. This article includes lessons learned and questions to guide researchers and human rights advocates considering mixed-methods human rights factfinding.
AB - The human rights movement is increasingly using interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, mixed-methods, and quantitative factfinding. There has been too little analysis of these shifts. This article examines some of the opportunities and challenges of these methods, focusing on the investigation of socio-economic human rights. By potentially expanding the amount and types of evidence available, factfinding's accuracy and persuasiveness can be strengthened, bolstering rights claims. However, such methods can also present significant challenges and may pose risks in individual cases and to the human rights movement generally. Interdisciplinary methods can be costly in human, financial, and technical resources; are sometimes challengingto implement; may divert limited resources from other work; can reify inequalities; may produce "expertise" that disempowers rightsholders; and could raise investigation standards to an infeasible or counterproductive level. This article includes lessons learned and questions to guide researchers and human rights advocates considering mixed-methods human rights factfinding.
KW - factfinding
KW - human rights
KW - interdisciplinary methods
KW - law and social science
KW - mixed methods
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85117281238&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85117281238&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-121620-081730
DO - 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-121620-081730
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85117281238
SN - 1550-3585
VL - 17
SP - 375
EP - 389
JO - Annual Review of Law and Social Science
JF - Annual Review of Law and Social Science
ER -