Women “doing” the judiciary: rethinking the justice argument for descriptive representation
AffiliationUniv Arizona, Sch Govt & Publ Policy
MetadataShow full item record
PublisherROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
CitationSuzanne Dovi & Francy Luna (2020): Women “doing” the judiciary: rethinking the justice argument for descriptive representation, Politics, Groups, and Identities, DOI: 10.1080/21565503.2020.1789882
JournalPOLITICS GROUPS AND IDENTITIES
RightsCopyright © 2020 Western Political Science Association.
Collection InformationThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
AbstractIn this paper, we explore how political scientists can improve the study of gender diversity in the judiciary by drawing on the normative and theoretical literature on representation generally, and on descriptive representation specifically. In particular, we examine an undertheorized argument within the literature on descriptive representation, namely, the justice argument. Using Nancy Fraser's discussion of two justice frameworks, specifically, the recognition and redistribution frameworks, we argue that political scientists should evaluate the justice effects of a diverse judiciary usingmultipleconceptions of justice. In this way, we use normative theory to generate new research directions in the study of judicial diversity.
Note18 month embargo; published online: 21 July 2020
VersionFinal accepted manuscript