Whose procedural fairness?
Open accessAbstract
Thought on procedural fairness in administrative justice has traditionally focused on the relationship between public decision-makers and the person or group formally subject to the decision-making process. Yet, people who are not the direct subject of such processes but are, in various ways, able to access the experiences of others can also have salient and consequential experiences of procedural fairness. This article demonstrates empirically this phenomenon, which we label ‘vicarious administrative fairness’, and observes that it is vital to developing a fuller understanding of the sociology of administrative justice. In turn, this richer sociological understanding raises new questions about if and how institutions, including the law itself, ought to respond to it – not least as it calls into question the default, individualistic unit of analysis underpinning conventional thinking.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The difficulty of addressing social interests through individual redress poses a major difficulty and risks undermining confidence in the administrative justice system more generally.
“This poses a major difficulty and also risks undermining confidence in the administrative justice system more generally (along the same lines Meers et al. 2023; Tomlinson et al. 2023).”
From Resh(AI)ping Good Administration: Addressing the Mass Effects of Public Sector Digitalisation (2024) · cites this paper as Tomlinson et al. 2023
The Introduction and Conclusion challenge an individualistic approach to procedural fairness, and “Consequences of vicarious experiences” says unfair experiences can change how people view government processes more generally. That supports a risk to wider confidence, but the paper does not specifically discuss the difficulty of addressing social interests through individual redress. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Tyler, T. R. (2006) · doi:10.1515/9781400828609 · Cited by 5,156 · see citing works
FOUNDATION FOR A GENERAL STRAIN THEORY OF CRIME AND DELINQUENCY*
AGNEW, R. (1992) · Criminology · doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1992.tb01093.x · Cited by 5,046 · see citing works
Agnew, R. S. (2001) · Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency · doi:10.1177/0022427801038004001 · Cited by 1,625 · see citing works
Using Social Media and Snowball Sampling as an Alternative Recruitment Strategy for Research
Leighton, K., Kardong‐Edgren, S., Schneidereith, T., & Foisy‐Doll, C. (2021) · Clinical Simulation in Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.ecns.2021.03.006 · Cited by 421 · see citing works
Lind, E. A., Kray, L. J., & Thompson, L. (1998) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2785 · Cited by 268 · see citing works
Why People Cooperate: The Role of Social Motivations
Tyler, T. R. (2010) · doi:10.1515/9781400836666 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
Due Process and Fair Procedures
Galligan, D. J. (1997) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198256762.001.0001 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
Snowball Sampling and Facebook: How Social Media Can Help Access Hard-to-Reach Populations
Došek, T. (2021) · PS Political Science & Politics · doi:10.1017/s104909652100041x · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Resettling refugees: is private sponsorship a just way forward?
Lenard, P. T. (2016) · Journal of Global Ethics · doi:10.1080/17449626.2016.1247290 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Hovell, D. (2016) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198717676.001.0001 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Review article. Procedural fairness and the duty of respect
Allan, T. (1998) · Oxford Journal of Legal Studies · doi:10.1093/ojls/18.3.497 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Thomas, R., & Tomlinson, J. (2017) · Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law · doi:10.1080/09649069.2017.1363526 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Self-citation“I have Felt so Much Joy”: The Role of Emotions in Community Sponsorship of Refugees
Phillimore, J., Soto, M. R., D’Avino, G., & Nicholls, N. (2021) · VOLUNTAS International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations · doi:10.1007/s11266-021-00349-3 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
The code for Crown Prosecutors
Shaughnessy, Y. (2017) · Books | UK Encyclopedia of Law · Cited by 14 · see citing works
(2020) · McGill-Queen's University Press eBooks · doi:10.2307/j.ctv176ktqs · Cited by 14 · see citing works
The procedural fairness limitations of fitness to practise hearings: a case study into social work
Kirkham, R., Leigh, J., McLaughlin, K., & Worsley, A. (2019) · Legal Studies · doi:10.1017/lst.2018.42 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Bureaucratic Warfare: Administrative Justice and the Crisis of the ‘New Bespokism’Preprint
Tomlinson, J. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4119575 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Self-citation(2021) · Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks · doi:10.4337/9781788119085.00006 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 19 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Berthier, M., 'Letters: My Experience as a Sponsor in the Homes for Ukraine scheme' (Bedford Independent, 2022). https://www.bedfordindependent.co.uk/letters-my-experience-as-a-spon sor-in-the-homes-for-ukraine-scheme/ [Accessed 20 Jan 2023].
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Resh(AI)ping Good Administration: Addressing the Mass Effects of Public Sector Digitalisation
Sanchez-Graells, A. (2024) · Laws · doi:10.3390/laws13010009 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Tomlinson, J., Kasoulide, E., Meers, J., & Halliday, S. (2024) · Journal of Refugee Studies · doi:10.1093/jrs/feae036 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Self-citationbin Treef, M. A. M. M., Al-Qaaida, M. S., al., B. N. A. A. E., & Alasaf, K. M. (2026) · Frontiers in Political Science · doi:10.3389/fpos.2026.1804049 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Tomlinson, J., Kasoulide, E., Meers, J., & Halliday, S.
- Affiliations
- University of York (GB)
- University of Strathclyde (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Meers, Jed
- Venue
- Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2023-07-03
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 278-293
- ISSN
- 0964-9069 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-9621
- OpenAlex
- W4385984236
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 19
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 2
- FWCI
- 2.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- dx.doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (submittedVersion)
- Strathprints: The University of Strathclyde institutional repository (University of Strathclyde) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Research England Policy
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Administrative Law and Governance
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal processes and jurisprudence
- Keywords
- procedural justice, administrative justice, unit of analysis, public decision-making
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
