In just its last two terms, the Supreme Court has overturned several rulings supporting access and opportunity for marginalized groups, with further challenges looming. One such challenge is to Plyler v. Doe (1982) in which the Court found that a Texas law seeking to exclude undocumented children from public schools was unconstitutional. Extra-legal sources, such as research-based journal articles, are increasingly incorporated into Supreme Court Justice’s opinions and in legal briefs prepared by amici-curiae, or friends of the court. As such, this study will use an embedded case study design to examine the collaborative process that is undertaken as social scientists and legal advocates produce new research evidence for use in a potential challenge to Plyer. Artifacts, observations, and interviews will be collected as participants co-design a research agenda and engage in research together in small groups. Findings will offer tangible resources to support the production of research in justice-oriented court cases, and they will provide important insight into the conditions needed to improve the use of research.
How can collaboration between social science researchers and legal advocates be facilitated to produce research evidence that can be used if/when the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Plyler v. Doe (1982) is challenged? How does participation in research co-design improve legal advocates’ use of research and social scientists’ production of research?
