Empirical research that examines various aspects of courts, judges and magistrates is conducted by a wide range of researchers, including academics, postgraduates and honours students from law, social sciences and other disciplines as well as by government departments, the courts themselves and other legal professional organisations. These varied researchers and their many research projects create opportunities for better information about and understanding of courts and judicial officers, by drawing on many different perspectives and utilizing different methodologies.

However, this multiplicity of research and researchers creates a risk of imposing so many demands on the time and good will of those being studied that the response to each project is reduced and the value of each research project is thereby diminished. Judges and magistrates and their staff do not have infinite time to respond to questionnaires, to be interviewed, to participate in focus groups, to produce court records and assist in their analysis. There is significant potential for judges and magistrates to be confused about who is doing what research for what purposes when they make their decisions about what research projects to respond to. Those of us who conduct such research have had the experience of a potential interviewee or survey respondent tell us that they have already responded to our research request, on the basis of having participated in another research project.

On December 10, 2002, as part of the Australian Law and Society conference held at the University of Wollongong, we hosted a roundtable discussion among those involved in empirical research into courts and judicial officers. The roundtable was attended by a wide range of researchers, including academics, postgraduates and honours students from law, social sciences and other disciplines as well as researchers from government departments, the courts themselves and other legal professional organisations.

The overall aim of the session was to develop ways to communicate effectively among ourselves to ensure that the timing and nature of our research is complementary, avoids overlap and repetition, produces comparable information wherever possible and generally makes the best use of the limited resources of judicial and court staff time and good will.

The roundtable discussion addressed two main questions:

• ways to maximise participation/co-operation/response from judicial officers; and
• ways for researchers in this area to communicate/share information about planned research.

Question 1: What are ways to maximise participation/co-operation/response from judicial officers?

Discussants for this question were:

• Dr Belinda Carpenter: Queensland University of Technology
• Dr Stephen Colbran: Queensland University of Technology
• Mr Garry Hiskey: Adelaide Magistrates Court

Question 2: What are ways for researchers to communicate and share information about planned research?

Discussants for this question were:

• Angela Melville: Justice Policy and Research Centre, University of Newcastle
• Ms Catherine Andersson: National Centre for Crime and Justice Statistics
• Mr Ivan Potas: Judicial Commission of New South Wales

Other participants in the round table were:

• Jennifer Clark
• Gary Edmond
• Beth Gaze
• Tony Krone
• David Mercer
• Rick Mohr
• Alex Reilly
• Gary Wickham

In addition, some researchers contributed summaries of their court related research projects:

• Chris Arup: Judicial Administration and Justice Studies Institute, Victoria University, Melbourne
• David Bamford, Sue King and Rick Sarre: Factors Affecting Remand in Custody
• Belinda Carpenter and Rachel Field: Survey of Queensland Magistrates
• Dr Stephen Colbran: Queensland University of Technology
• Dr Kathleen Daly: Race and Gender Politics of New Justice Practices in Australia and New Zealand
• Garry Hiskey, SM: Summary of Research Project, "Understanding Magistrates' Work"
• Angela Melville: Justice Policy Research Centre
• National Criminal Courts Statistics Unit, Australian Bureau of Statistics
• Ivan Potas: Research Program of the Judicial Commission
• Professor Greg Reinhardt: Australian Institute of Judicial Administration
• Victorian Law Reform Commission: Sexual Offences Reference