Collaborative Research: Updating the U.S. Supreme Court Judicial Database

20年来，几乎所有对当代最高法院及其成员的系统分析都依赖于哈罗德·J·斯佩特的美国最高法院司法数据库。这适用于社会科学家进行的研究，也适用于越来越多的法律的学者进行的研究;适用于定量和定性研究，以及那些更具描述性的研究。事实上，一些同行评审期刊的清单显示，只有极少数关于最高法院的文章的数据来自其他来源。顶级出版社出版的专著也经常依赖该数据库，近年来受到公众关注的法院的许多数字研究都大量使用了该数据库中的数据。Spaeth的产品是法律和社会科学界的稀有产品之一：一项大大推进了大范围研究的发明。毫无疑问，数据库使许多学科的学者能够进行具有最高智力价值的原创性和开创性的研究。然而，无论数据库多么宝贵，它现在开始显示出它的年龄。沿着这些思路，我们看到两大类问题。首先，对于许多学者和他们的学生来说，数据库很难使用。第二，数据库|强调现代（1946年后）的最高法院没有跟上学术兴趣的步伐。历史制度主义及其各种分支推动学者拓宽他们的时间视野。在公法领域，分析家们创造了一个名副其实的家庭手工业，致力于研究19世纪和20世纪初的法院。即使是立足于21世纪世纪的司法专家，也开始将现代社会科学方法应用于历史数据，目的是检验制度发展的理论，并阐明当今的实践和模式。在国家科学基金会的支持下，我们解决了第一个问题，使数据库符合21世纪世纪的技术。我们现在讨论第二个问题。具体来说，我们通过增加更多的案件来扩大数据库的范围：从1792年（最高法院第一次公布判决的年份）到1946年（当前数据库中最早的年份）之间解决的19，675起案件。我们希望，有关法院的系统性历史数据将建立一个更有价值的多用户公共数据库，激励学者及其学生探索新的调查途径，并重新审视尚未用可靠和有效数据加以解决的长期问题。简而言之，该项目不仅促进了最高水平的学术价值;它还通过提供高度可靠，全面和适应性强的数据库，对研究法院的学者社区产生了更广泛的影响。

This award is funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5).For two decades now, virtually all systematic analysis of the contemporary Supreme Court and its members has relied on Harold J. Spaeth's U.S. Supreme Court Judicial Database. This holds for research conducted by social scientists and, increasingly, by legal academics; and it holds for quantitative and qualitative studies, as well as those more descriptive in nature. In fact, several inventories of peer-reviewed journals show that it is the rare article on the Court that derives its data from an alternative source. Monographs published by top presses also regularly rely on the Database, and the many numerical studies of the Court receiving public attention in recent years have made liberal use of the data it houses. Spaeth's product is one of those rare creatures in the law and social science world: an invention that has substantially advanced a large area of study. Without question, the Database has empowered scholars in many disciplines to conduct original, path-breaking research of the highest intellectual merit.And yet, however invaluable the Database, it is now starting to show its age. Along these lines, we see two major sets of issues. First, for many scholars and their students the Database is diffcult to use. Second, the Database|with its emphasis on the modern (post-1946) Court has not kept pace with scholarly interests. Historical institutionalism and its various subsets have pushed scholars to broaden their time horizons. Within the field of public law, analysts have created a veritable cottage industry devoted to studies of the Court of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Even judicial specialists who ground their work in the 21st century are beginning to apply modern social science methodologies to historical data, with the goals of testing theories of institutional development and illuminating current-day practices and patterns. With prior support from the National Science Foundation, we have addressed the first concern and brought the Database in line with 21st century technology. We now address address the second issue. Specifically, we broaden the Database's scope by adding many more cases: the 19,675 resolved between 1792, the year of the Court's first published decision and 1946, the earliest year in the current Database. Our hope is that systematic, historical data on the Court will create an even more valuable a public, multi-user Database that will stimulate scholars and their students to explore new avenues of inquiry, as well as to revisit enduring questions that have yet to be addressed with reliable and valid data. In short, the project not only facilitates scholarship of the highest level of intellectual merit; it also has a broader impact on the community of scholars studying the Court by providing a highly reliable, comprehensive, and adaptable Database.