Response to Jochelson and Murchison.

• Date: 01 January 2016
• Author: Riddell, Troy

I thank Professors Jochelson and Murchison for their response to my paper, but, with respect, I remain unconvinced. The most significant problem that I identified with their approach was the methodology by which they tried to capture whether the Court's discourse in section 24(2) cases was reflective of activism and restraint. Jochelson and Murchison (2016) respond to the charge that their Likert scales are ambiguous and, more importantly, do not capture the essence of the Court's discourse by claiming that "some subjectivity exists" (113) in any coding exercise and that their study builds on previous literature. But they never directly engage with the substantive critique. For example, how do they justify arbitrarily...