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

该奖项是根据2009年美国复苏和再投资法案（公法111-5）资助的。二十年来，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·斯佩斯的《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，也越来越多地适用于法律学者；它适用于定量和定性研究，以及那些本质上更具描述性的研究。事实上，几份同行评议期刊的清单显示，这篇关于最高法院的文章很少从其他来源获得数据。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许多关于最高法院的数字研究也充分利用了该数据库的数据。在法律和社会科学界，斯佩斯的发明是一种罕见的生物：它极大地推动了一大片研究领域的发展。毫无疑问，该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、开创性研究。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，我们看到了两组主要问题。首先，对于许多学者和他们的学生来说，数据库很难使用。其次，强调现代（1946年后）法院的数据库bbb没有跟上学术兴趣的步伐。历史制度主义及其各种分支促使学者们拓宽了他们的时间视野。在公法领域，分析家们创造了一个真正的家庭手工业，专门研究19世纪和20世纪初的法院。即使是在21世纪扎根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，并阐明当前的实践和模式。在美国国家科学基金会的支持下，我们解决了第一个问题，并使数据库与21世纪的技术保持一致。我们现在讨论第二个问题。具体地说，我们扩大了数据库的范围，增加了更多的案件：在1792年（法院首次公布判决的年份）和1946年（目前数据库中最早的年份）之间解决了19,675个案件。我们的希望是，有关最高法院的系统的历史数据将创建一个更有价值的公共、多用户数据库，这将激励学者和他们的学生探索新的研究途径，并重新审视那些尚未用可靠和有效的数据解决的持久问题。简而言之，该项目不仅促进了最高水平的学术成就；它还通过提供一个高度可靠、全面和适应性强的数据库，对研究最高法院的学者群体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.