Social Science in Government Regulation of Equal Employment Opportunity

政府规制平等就业机会中的社会科学

• 批准号: 0514700
• 负责人: Robin Stryker
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 项目类别: Standard Grant
• 财政年份: 2005
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2005-09-01 至 2009-08-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=0514700&HistoricalAwards=false
• 关键词: Social; Science; Government; Regulation; Equal

Project Abstract: Social Science in Government Regulation of Equal Employment Opportunity This project describes and explains the use, non-use and misuse of economic, sociological, psychological and statistical knowledge and experts in equal employment opportunity-affirmative action (EEO-AA) law enforcement in the United States, 1965-present. Enforcement includes private and government litigation in federal court, formal and informal policies pursued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCC) and the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice (CRD), and efforts by government actors, regulated social actors, lawyers and social scientists to change equal employment laws or policies. Results will provide the first systematic, over time account of how, by whom, under what conditions, with what consequences, and what kind of sociological, psychological, economic, statistical and other social science knowledge and experts have been mobilized in the EEO-AA regulatory arena. Research questions to be answered are: what actors and interests are served by expanding, contracting or otherwise changing the role played by social science and scientists in equal employment law enforcement? What conflicts over the role of social science have occurred within the equal employment law and policy arena? How have these been resolved? To what degree, how, under what conditions, and with what consequences has social science expertise succeeded in becoming institutionalized in the regulatory system absent, or in spite of, political attack? To what degree have counter-mobilizations against such expertise occurred? How and to what degree have such counter-mobilizations succeeded in reducing or banishing the presence or influence of particular types or uses of social science from the EEO-AA regulatory arena? These questions are generated by the project's politics of science explanatory framework, which proposes that variation in government use of social science results from variation in the specific confluence of conflicts among different types of actors, with different interests in, and resources for, promoting particular kinds or roles of social science in law making and enforcement. To accomplish its goals, the project collects in-depth interview data from social scientists, lawyers, politicians and policy makers involved in enforcing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Analysis of interview data is combined with analysis of documents from government and non-government, public and non-public records. New findings about use of social science in equal employment law will be synthesized with the principal investigator's prior findings about use of social science in US labor-management relations law and antitrust law. Scholarly significance rests both on providing new data and findings about EEO-AA law, and on using these to improve more general theories of causes and consequences of government reliance on social science in advanced industrial democracies. This project also has broader impact. EEO-AA law has been at the forefront of US public debate. Because use of scientific expertise affects the nature, effectiveness and quality of policy debate and public programs, better understanding of the role of social science in EEO-AA law will contribute to improved policy making and policy outcomes, and, potentially, to improved social science itself.

项目摘要：政府对平等就业机会监管中的社会科学本项目描述并解释了1965年至今美国平等就业机会平权行动（EEO-AA）执法中经济学、社会学、心理学和统计学知识和专家的使用、不使用和误用。执行包括联邦法院的私人和政府诉讼，平等就业机会委员会（EEOC）、劳工部联邦合同合规办公室（OFCC）和司法部民权司（CRD）所追求的正式和非正式政策，以及政府行为者、受监管的社会行为者、律师和社会科学家为改变平等就业法律或政策所做的努力。结果将提供第一个系统的，随着时间的推移，如何，由谁，在什么条件下，有什么后果，以及什么样的社会学，心理学，经济学，统计学和其他社会科学知识和专家被动员到EEO-AA监管领域。要回答的研究问题是：通过扩大、缩小或以其他方式改变社会科学和科学家在平等就业执法中所扮演的角色，服务于哪些行为者和利益？在平等就业法和政策领域中，社会科学的角色发生了哪些冲突？这些问题是如何解决的？在没有或尽管受到政治攻击的监管体系中，社会科学专业知识在何种程度上、如何、在何种条件下以及带来何种后果成功地制度化了？针对这些专业知识的反动员在多大程度上发生？这种反动员如何以及在多大程度上成功地减少或消除了EEO-AA监管领域中社会科学的特定类型或用途的存在或影响？这些问题是由该项目的科学政治解释框架产生的，该框架提出，政府对社会科学使用的变化是由于不同类型的行为者之间冲突的具体汇合的变化造成的，这些行为者在促进法律制定和执行中特定类型或角色的社会科学方面具有不同的利益和资源。为了实现其目标，该项目从参与执行1964年《民权法案》第七章和1963年《同工同酬法案》的社会科学家、律师、政治家和政策制定者那里收集了深度访谈数据。对访谈数据的分析结合了对政府和非政府、公共和非公共记录文件的分析。关于在平等就业法中使用社会科学的新发现将与首席研究员之前关于在美国劳资关系法和反垄断法中使用社会科学的发现综合起来。学术意义在于提供有关EEO-AA法律的新数据和发现，并利用这些数据和发现来改进先进工业民主国家政府依赖社会科学的因果关系的更一般的理论。这个项目也有更广泛的影响。EEO-AA法一直处于美国公众辩论的前沿。由于科学专业知识的使用会影响政策辩论和公共项目的性质、有效性和质量，因此更好地理解社会科学在EEO-AA法中的作用将有助于改善政策制定和政策结果，并有可能改善社会科学本身。