Boundary Crossing Between Academia and Law: Understanding Researchers’ Participation in Legal Cases Pertaining to Educational Equity

ABSTRACT

Social scientists’ involvement with the legal system is critical for tackling inequities in education and informing legal developments in ways that are grounded in empirical realities that document the myriad ways race shapes educational opportunity and outcomes. This study examined the experiences of social scientists who have participated in legal cases pertaining to education policy and equity. Drawing from the notion of boundary crossing to conceptualize the actions and interactions these researchers are engaged in, findings illuminate policies and practices within higher education that can support and sustain the work of other boundary crossers, as well as promising approaches for reconceptualizing interactions across the systems of education research and law that can more effectively support boundary crossing in law.

KEYWORDS:

• Educational policy
• law/legal
• racial equity
• research utilization
• boundary crossing

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. For this study, we approach the concept of equity, and racial equity more specifically, from the perspective that an individual’s life chances, educational opportunities, and ability for self-determination should not depend on factors, such as race, ethnicity, language, or immigration status. Racial equity thus requires enacting and implementing race-conscious policies and practices that attend to the myriad ways race shapes educational opportunities and outcomes (e.g., Bensimon, 2017) as informed by empirical research.

2. Involvement at different stages of a legal case implicate different roles. At the early stage in trial court, where the facts of a case are established, researchers, based on their specialized skills and knowledge, can participate as expert witnesses. Grounded on their expertise from years of study on a topic relevant to the legal dispute, they serve as a witness of “fact,” rather than on what the law requires or should require. This role involves writing expert reports, participating in depositions, and/or testifying in court. Not all expert witnesses ultimately testify, as a judge may issue a decision, or the parties may settle, without a trial. After the trial court, at the appellate level, judges are primarily focused on resolving issues of law (as opposed to issues of fact) with information and arguments primarily submitted via legal briefs. These appellate briefs can be submitted by the main parties or friends-of-the-court (amicus curiae), who are individuals or organizations with an interest in the outcome of the case. Thus, at this stage (court of appeals or Supreme Court) researchers can participate by helping contribute to such briefs.

3. We initially invited twenty-three individuals for interviews. Three declined due to insufficient involvement in areas relevant to the study, two could not be reached for scheduling, and one declined due to a conflict. We omitted three researchers whom we interviewed because they did not serve as expert witnesses and only contributed to appellate briefs; while the latter also represent a form of boundary crossing, we sought consistency in experiences as an expert witness.