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

该奖项由2009年《美国复苏和再投资法案》(公法111-5)资助。“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·斯佩思的美国最高法院司法数据库。这适用于社会科学家以及越来越多的法律学者进行的研究；它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，几份同行评议期刊的清单表明，这是关于法院的罕见文章，其数据来自另一个来源。顶级出版社出版的专著也经常依赖于该数据库，近年来受到公众关注的许多关于法院的数字研究自由地使用了它所保存的数据。Spaeth的产品是法律和社会科学世界中罕见的生物之一：这项发明极大地推动了一大片研究领域的发展。毫无疑问，数据库使许多学科的学者能够进行具有最高学术价值的原创性、开创性的研究。然而，无论数据库的价值多么宝贵，它现在开始显示出它的时代。沿着这些思路，我们看到了两个主要问题。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，数据库|侧重于现代(1946年后)的法院，没有跟上学术兴趣的步伐。历史制度主义及其各个子集推动学者们拓宽了他们的时间视野。在公法领域，分析人士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，阐明当今的做法和模式。在国家科学基金会的支持下，我们已经解决了第一个问题，并使数据库与21世纪的技术保持一致。我们现在解决第二个问题。具体地说，我们通过增加更多的案件来扩大数据库的范围：在1792年，也就是法院作出第一项公布裁决的那一年到1946年之间解决的19 675起案件，这是目前数据库中最早的一年。我们希望，关于法院的系统的历史数据将创造一个更有价值的公共、多用户数据库，它将激励学者及其学生探索新的调查途径，并重新探讨尚未用可靠和有效的数据解决的持久问题。简而言之，该项目不仅促进了学术水平最高的学术成就；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.