IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/uhejxx/v91y2020i2p167-191.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bridging Divides: Understanding Knowledge Producers’ Perspectives on the Use of Research in Law

Author

Listed:
  • Patricia Marin
  • John T. Yun
  • Liliana M. Garces
  • Catherine L. Horn

Abstract

Legal challenges continue to play central roles in critical higher education policy discussions. There are, however, wide gaps in understanding between the legal and research communities about the rigor and value of social science in legal decision-making—gaps that need to be addressed to improve the use of research in law. This study focuses on an underexamined viewpoint in the research use process—the producers of research—to examine their normative views about what sources should influence the law and how social scientists should participate in the development of amicus curiae briefs, an important venue through which social science research is introduced to the courts. Drawing from responses to a survey of scholars cited in Fisher, findings highlight the critical roles higher education researchers can play in the research use process. Findings also suggest that members of the social science and legal communities may need to consider a broader set of responsibilities in their work. If research is to be useful in informing solutions to intractable challenges in education and other areas of society, the relationships and understandings between the legal and social science communities must be strengthened.

Suggested Citation

  • Patricia Marin & John T. Yun & Liliana M. Garces & Catherine L. Horn, 2020. "Bridging Divides: Understanding Knowledge Producers’ Perspectives on the Use of Research in Law," The Journal of Higher Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 91(2), pages 167-191, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:uhejxx:v:91:y:2020:i:2:p:167-191
    DOI: 10.1080/00221546.2019.1621116
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00221546.2019.1621116
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00221546.2019.1621116?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:uhejxx:v:91:y:2020:i:2:p:167-191. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/uhej .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.