Abstract
Editorial Vision for ER
In the Inaugural Editorial that appeared in the January–February 2013 issue of ER, we underscored our belief that high-quality research is fundamental to the improvement of policy as well as practice. As editors of the signature research journal of the largest professional educational research association, we are reminded daily of the central place that education holds in people’s aspirations for a society that is prosperous and just. We expressed a commitment to ensuring that ER contributes to the advancement of research that gives substance to these aspirations and publishes research that informs policy and that supports the analysis of important questions across the breadth of education.
Special Focus on Topical Issues
We specifically underscored in the Inaugural Editorial that a collective interest of the editorial team was a determination to link the findings, understandings, and interrogations of the research community with the policy deliberation process. It is well known that policy is not primarily driven by research and that research is as frequently used as ammunition as information. That notwithstanding, we also know that research does inform policy in particular times and on particular issues.
The high regard in which ER is held and the frequency of the journal production schedule—nine times per year—provide valuable opportunity to take advantage of policy deliberation windows and the judicial process that informs policy deliberation and formulation. It allows the journal to publish and disseminate timely, topical, and high-quality research, positioning the journal, the Association, and its contributors in having a role to play in influencing policy.
Academic Research and Judicial Deliberation
Educational and social policies are heavily influenced by judicial decisions. The Supreme Court has called upon research in making several high-profile decisions. The 1954 desegregation decision, Brown v. Board of Education, is one such landmark case in 20th-century United States. It is an important example of the Court’s use of data from social science research (e.g., the doll study by Clark and Clark, 1939, 1947) that contributed to a fundamental re-assessment of access, equality, and opportunity of schooling.
However, the path has not been smooth. Indeed, the Court has called upon research emanating from the social sciences in ways that at times are consistent with and at other times divergent from interpretations of members of the research community and for that matter the public at large. Data can be and indeed are interpreted in any number of ways.
Furthermore, the use of social science data is itself often a target of questioning. Several scholars within the legal community have referred to the “clash of cultures,” citing fundamental differences in the goals of social science research and legal decisions. They argue that courts should draw upon legal precedents and legal case analyses, rather than social science data, to inform judicial decisions (see Ancheta, 2006; Erickson & Simon, 1998).
Where then does an association such as AERA that has the advancement of scholarly inquiry in education at its core and the use of research to improve education and the public good in its mission fit into these discussions? What are the persistent issues that influence and that are influenced by both AERA’s mission and goals? What do cases such as Fisher v. Texas contribute to our understanding of complex educational issues, and what do they ask us as educational and social science researchers to address in our work?
Special Section Content
This special section of ER reproduces in full the Amicus Brief file by AERA and others and some of the issues raised in the case of pertinence to the educational research community. We invited five commentaries by noted scholars, all active in the field, to reflect on the significance of the Fisher case. At the time the commentaries went to press, the Supreme Court has not issued a decision.
The first commentary, The AERA et al. Amicus Brief in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin – Scientific Organizations Serving Society, provides an overview of how and why AERA came to take a position on an issue before the U.S. Supreme Court. The authors review the judicial precedents for the case, the role of social science data and analysis in addressing the legal issues before the Court, and a set of standards that should be met prior to a scientific association deciding to put the weight of the organization behind a position. Written by Felice Levine, the Executive Director of AERA and Angelo Ancheta from Santa Clara University law faculty, the commentary summarizes the social science research that the AERA governing council found of sufficient weight to justify the decision to file an amicus brief and to work with seven other scientific organizations who were signatories to the brief and how that weight was assessed.
The five commentaries draw attention to a number of points of interest to the research community. One, although position taking based on scientific knowledge is challenging, the empirical evidence for the societal benefits of diversity has grown considerably over the last decade, as has evidence refuting claims made by activists opposed to race-conscious admission policies, particularly the “mismatch” hypothesis. In addition, the degree to which the evidentiary base has strengthened and solidified in just one decade, since Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, is striking.
The limitations of social science research are pointed out as well, particularly the lengthy trajectory from data collection to publications. As Garces suggests, both the conduct and publication of social science research can take a long time to complete. She urges collaborations between legal advocates and social science scholars that formed around earlier cases and the current one being sustained over time, thus readying both parties for future litigation when and if needed.
A related point that cuts across the commentaries is the need to continue research that anticipates future possible litigation, without sacrificing attention to the perennial problems in our field. Chang, in particular, advances this point, arguing that it is important that the research agenda not be limited to analyses likely to be useful in litigation. He notes that there is the risk that in an attempt to be responsive to the judiciary, other areas may suffer neglect. He argues for a broad research program that delves deeply into “how or which processes and conditions” promote the benefits we seek from diversity.
The commentaries also provide interesting insight into the different trajectories of different strands of research. Malcom and Malcom-Piqueux point out that in the STEM areas, there is now more than 40 years of sustained research and programmatic effort at diversity that is a useful source of data. Moreover, they write, in the wake of Adarand and even post-Grutter, institutions that had invested heavily in diversity withdrew many of these efforts. This resulted in a natural experiment on the impact of race-neutral approaches.
Finally, Orfield captures a question that runs through all of the commentaries, Fisher, related judicial cases, and the public conscience: Are underrepresented minorities fungible, or are they very distinct groups whose contributions must each be considered separately and whose rights must each be protected? As he suggests, the replacement of one justice may revise past decisions and reduce public consciousness. Given that the debates will continue, Orfield asserts the critical role that the research community plays in providing the best evidence it can find to help inform discussions. Based on his experience in preparing the social science briefs, he argues that there is a critical mass of scholars who are prepared to take up the responsibility to collaborate to achieve this shared goal.