Research can be brokered to the courts to accurately contextualize policy issues and identify transformative solutions that counter inequity. Using a critical lens, we studied this phenomenon, examining the networks that amici formed as they brokered knowledge in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) case before the Supreme Court. We analyzed four bipartite networks across different dimensions of the research amici used (i.e., venue types, methodologies, authors, and arguments). Our findings suggest that in brokering knowledge, amici exhibited what we term “tempered criticality” rather than seeking to influence broader transformational change. Yet, it is important to recognize that their behavior is informed by their embedded context and the limitations of the legal system in creating systemic change. We discuss implications for research and policy.
AbregoL. J.Negrón-GonzalesG. (Eds.). (2020). We are not dreamers: Undocumented scholars theorize undocumented life in the United States. Duke University Press.
AlstonJ. A. (2005). Tempered radicals and servant leaders: Black females persevering in the superintendency. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(4), 675–688.
4.
AnchetaA. N. (2006). Civil rights, education research, and the courts. Educational Researcher, 35(1), 3–44. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3700032
5.
AndradeL. M.LundbergC. A. (2022). Benevolent intentions, dangerous ideologies: A critical discourse analysis of presidents’ letters after the threat of the repeal of deferred action for childhood arrivals. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 15(2), 254. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/dhe0000223
6.
AnguianoC. A.NájeraL. G. (2015). Paradox of performing exceptionalism: Complicating the deserving/underserving binary of undocumented youth attending elite institutions. Association of Mexican American Educators Journal, 9(2), 45–56. https://amaejournal.utsa.edu/index.php/AMAE/article/view/175/166
7.
BaekC.Steiner-KhamsiG. (2024). The rise of knowledge brokers in global education governance. Edward Elgar Publishing.
8.
BakerD. J.ShookL. M.Ramirez-MendozaJ.BennettC. T. (2023). Race below the fold: Race-evasiveness in the news media’s coverage of student loans (EdWorking Paper No. 23-771). Annenberg Institute at Brown University. https://doi.org/10.26300/t1k7-as63
9.
BellD. (1980). Brown v. Board of Education and the interest-convergence dilemma. Harvard Law Review, 93(518), 518–533. https://doi.org/10.2307/1340546
BenutoL. T.CasasJ. B.CummingsC.NewlandsR. (2018). Undocumented, to DACAmented, to DACAlimited: Narratives of Latino students with DACA status. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 40(3), 259–278. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/0739986318776941
12.
BlondelV. D.GuillaumeJ. L.LambiotteR.LefebvreE. (2008). Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2008(10), P10008, 1–13.
13.
BonacichP. (1972). Factoring and weighting approaches to status scores and clique identification. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 2, 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.1972.9989806
BorgattiS. PMehraA.BrassB. J.LabiancaG. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323(5916), 5916–5895. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1165821
BrownsonR. C.ChriquiJ. F.StamatakisK. A. (2009). Understanding evidence-based public health policy. American Journal of Public Health, 99(9), 1576–1583. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2008.156224
18.
CaneloK. S. (2022). The Supreme Court, ideology, and the decision to cite or borrow from Amicus Curiae briefs. American Politics Research, 50(2), 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X211032111
CashmoreJ.ParkinsonP. (2014). The use and abuse of social science research evidence in children’s cases. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20(3), 239. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/law0000010
21.
ChandlerC. R.TsaiY. M. (2001). Social factors influencing immigration attitudes: An analysis of data from the General Social Survey. The Social Science Journal, 38(2), 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0362-3319(01)00106-9
22.
CherneyA.PoveyJ.HeadB.BorehamP.FergusonM. (2012). What influences the utilisation of educational research by policy-makers and practitioners?: The perspectives of academic educational researchers. International Journal of Educational Research, 56, 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.08.001
23.
ChinW. Y. (2019). Legal inequality: Law, the legal system, and the lessons of the Black experience in America. Hastings Race and Poverty Law, 16(2), 109–140.
24.
CoburnC. E.MataW. S.ChoiL. (2013). The embeddedness of teachers’ social networks: Evidence from a study of mathematics reform. Sociology of Education, 86(4), 311–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040713501147
25.
CollinsP. H.BilgeS. (2020). Intersectionality. John Wiley & Sons.
26.
CollinsP. M. (2004). Friends of the court: Examining the influence of amicus curiae participation in US Supreme Court litigation. Law & Society Review, 38(4), 807–832.
27.
CollinsP. M.Jr.CorleyP. C.HamnerJ. (2015). The influence of amicus curiae briefs on U.S. Supreme Court opinion content. Law & Society Review, 49(4), 917–944. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12166
28.
CollinsP. M.Jr.MartinekW. L. (2015). Judges and friends: The influence of amici curiae on US court of appeals judges. American Politics Research, 43(2), 255–282.
29.
ContrerasF. (2009). Sin papeles y rompiendo barreras: Latino students and the challenges of persisting in college. Harvard Educational Review, 79(4), 610–631. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.79.4.02671846902gl33w
30.
CooperA.RodwayJ.MacGregorS.ShewchukS.SearleM. (2020). Knowledge brokering: “Not a place for novices or new conscripts.” In MalinJ. R.BrownC. (Eds.), The role of knowledge brokers in education: Connecting the dots between research and practice (pp. 90–107). Routledge.
CrenshawK.HarrisL. C.HoSangD.LipsitzG. (Eds.) (2019). Seeing race again: Countering colorblindness across the disciplines. University of California Press.
35.
CrowleyM.ScottJ. B.FishbeinD. (2018). Translating prevention research for evidence-based policymaking: Results from the Research-to-Policy Collaboration Pilot. Prevention Science, 19, 260–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-017-0833-x
36.
DeBray-PelotE.McGuinnP. (2009). The new politics of education: Analyzing the federal education policy landscape in the post-NCLB era. Educational Policy, 23(1), 15–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904808328524
37.
DeCuirJ. T.DixsonA. D. (2004). “So when it comes out, they aren’t that surprised that it is there”: Using critical race theory as a tool of analysis of race and racism in education. Educational Researcher, 33(5), 26–31. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3699853
DennoK. (2006). The scientific shortcomings ofRoper v. Simmons. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 3, 379.
40.
Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 591 U.S. ___ (2020).
41.
DoucetF. (2019). Centering the margins: (Re)defining useful research evidence through critical perspectives. William T. Grant Foundation.
42.
EricksonR. J.SimonR. J. (1998). The use of social science data in Supreme Court decisions. University of Illinois Press.
43.
FarberS. (2019). The amicus curiae phenomenon theory, causes and meanings. Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems, 29(1), 1–61.
44.
Farley-RippleE.MayH.KarpynA.TilleyK.McDonoughK. (2018). Rethinking connections between research and practice in education: A conceptual framework. Educational Researcher, 47(4), 235–245.
45.
FiskeS.BersoffD.BorgidaE.DeauxK.HeilmanM. (1991). Social science research on trial: Use of sex stereotyping research in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. American Psychologist, 46(10), 1049–1060. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.10.1049
46.
FlanaganC.LevineP. (2010). Civic engagement and the transition to adulthood. The Future of Children, 20(1), 159–179. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27795064
47.
FrankenbergE.GarcesL. M. (2007). The use of social science evidence in Parents Involved and Meredith: Implications for researchers and schools symposium: The future of school integration in America. University of Louisville Law Review, 46(4), 703–752. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/branlaj46&i=711
48.
GámezR.LopezW.OvertonB. (2017). Mentors, resiliency, and ganas: Factors influencing the success of DACAmented, undocumented, and immigrant students in higher education. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 16(2), 144–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192717697755
49.
GarcesL. M. (2013). Social science research and the courts: Informing post–Grutter v. Bollinger developments in higher education cases. Educational Policy, 27(4), 591–614. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813490067
50.
GarcesL. M.HingaB.Rios-AguilarC. (2021). Boundary crossing between academia and law: Understanding researchers’ participation in legal cases pertaining to educational equity. The Journal of Higher Education, 92(4), 648–675. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2020.1860648
51.
GarcesL. M.MarinP.HornC. L. (2017). The U.S. Supreme Court’s use of non-legal sources and amicus curiae briefs in Fisher v. University of Texas. Journal of College and University Law, 43(2), 167–194. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/jcolunly43&i=184
52.
GarcesL. M.MarinP.HornC. L. (2021). Arguing race in higher education admissions: Examining Amici’s use of extra-legal sources in Fisher. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 14(2), 278–289. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000146
53.
GarcíaJ. (2020). “Lo que yo en realidad quería hacer”: Rationales of Latina/o DACA recipients for pursuing careers as teachers. The Urban Review, 52(5), 830–852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-019-00545-y
54.
GarciaL. D.TierneyW. G. (2011). Undocumented immigrants in higher education: A preliminary analysis. Teachers College Record, 113(12), 2739–2776. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811111301210.
55.
GershensonS.PolikoffM. S.WangR. (2020). When paywall goes AWOL: The demand for open-access education research. Educational Researcher, 49(4), 254–261. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20909834
56.
GildersleeveR. E. (2017). Making and becoming in the undocumented student policy regime: A post-qualitative [discourse] analysis of U.S. immigration and higher education policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(31), 1–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.2286
57.
GonzalesR. G.EllisB.Rendón-GarcíaS. A.BrantK. (2018). (Un)authorized transitions: Illegality, DACA, and the life course. Research in Human Development, 15(3–4), 345–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427609.2018.1502543
58.
GonzalesR. G.Suárez-OrozcoC.Dedios-SanguinetiM. C. (2013). No place to belong: Contextualizing concepts of mental health among undocumented immigrant youth in the United States. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(8), 1174–1199. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/0002764213487349
59.
GonzalesR. G.TerriquezV.RuszczykS. P. (2014). Becoming DACAmented: Assessing the short-term benefits of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). American Behavioral Scientist, 58(14), 1852–1872. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214550288
GranovetterM. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510.
62.
HarperS. (2021). AERA 2020 President Shaun Harper calls on researchers to accept responsibility for educational and social problems. American Educational Research Association. tinyurl.com/4xps4jny
63.
HarrisS. S. (2023, January). Memorandum to those intending to file an Amicus Curiae brief in the Supreme Court of the United States. Supreme Court of the United States: Office of the Clerk. https://www.supremecourt.gov/casehand/AmicusGuide2023.pdf
64.
HoeweJ.ZeldesG. (2012). Overturning anti-miscegenation laws: News media coverage of the lovings’ legal case against the State of Virginia. Journal of Black Studies, 43(4), 427–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934711428070
65.
HornC. L.MarinP.GarcesL. M.MikschK.YunJ. T. (2020). Shaping educational policy through the courts: The use of social science research in amicus briefs in Fisher I. Educational Policy, 34(3), 449–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818773902
66.
HsinA.OrtegaF. (2018). The effects of deferred action for childhood arrivals on the educational outcomes of undocumented students. Demography, 55(4), 1487–1506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-018-0691-6
67.
IonG.MarinE.ProteasaC. (2019). How does the context of research influence the use of educational research in policy-making and practice?Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 18, 119–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-018-9236-4
68.
JayakumarU. M.AdamianA. S. (2015). Toward a critical race praxis for educational research. Journal Committed to Social Change on Race and Ethnicity (JCSCORE), 1(1), 22–58.
69.
JayakumarU. M.GarcesL. M.ParkJ. J. (2018). Reclaiming diversity: Advancing the next generation of diversity research toward racial equity. In PaulsenM. B. (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 11–79). Springer.
70.
JewellC. J.BeroL. A. (2008). “Developing good taste in evidence”: Facilitators of and hindrances to evidence-informed health policymaking in state government. The Milbank Quarterly, 86(2), 177–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2008.00519.x
71.
KantamneniN.DharmalingamK.TateJ. M.PerlmanB. L.MajmudarC. R.ShadaN. (2016). DREAMing big: Understanding the current context of academic and career decision-making for undocumented students. Journal of Career Development, 43(6), 483–497. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/0894845316633527
72.
KerriganM. R.JohnsonA. T. (2019). Qualitative approaches to policy research in education: Contesting the evidence-based, neoliberal regime. American Behavioral Scientist, 63(3), 287–295.
73.
KilduffM.BrassD. J. (2010). Organizational social network research: Core ideas and key debates. Academy of management annals, 4(1), 317–357.
74.
KirklandD. E. (2019). No small matters: Reimagining the use of research evidence from a racial justice perspective. William T. Grant Foundation.
Ladson-BillingsG. (1998). Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a nice field like education?. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(1), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/095183998236863
77.
Ladson-BillingsG. (2021). Critical race theory in education: A scholar’s journey. Teachers College Press.
78.
Ladson-BillingsG.TateW. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97(1), 47–68.
79.
LewisM. M.BrayL. E. (2019). A call for amicus briefs as a means to influence special education policy: Lessons learned from Endrew F. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 30(3), 131–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207319835191
80.
LewisM. M.MuñizR.GarcesL. M.GreenP. (2025). Educational policy, racial equity, and the courts. In Cohen-VogelL.YoungsP.ScottJ. (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (2nd ed., pp. 757–784). Routledge.
81.
LewisM. M.MuñizR.MillerV. (2022). The politicization of education law and the implications for re-envisioning the law school curriculum for racial justice. Rutgers Race and Law Review, 24(1), 1–24.
82.
LiveraniM.HawkinsB.ParkhurstJ. O. (2013) Political and institutional influences on the use of evidence in public health policy. A systematic review. PLoS One, 8(10), e77404. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077404
83.
LubienskiC.ScottJ.DeBrayE. (2014). The politics of research production, promotion, and utilization in educational policy. Educational Policy, 28(2), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813515329
MarinP.HornC.MikschK.GarcesL.YunJ. (2018). Use of extra-legal sources in amicus curiae briefs submitted in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(38), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.2823
86.
MarinP.YunJ. T.GarcesL. M.HornC. L. (2020). Bridging divides: Understanding knowledge producers’ perspectives on the use of research in law. The Journal of Higher Education, 91(2), 167–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2019.1621116
87.
MartinJ.DesingR.BorregoM. (2022). Positionality statements are just the tip of the iceberg: Moving towards a reflexive process. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 28(4), i–vii. https://doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2022044277
88.
MayV. M. (2015). Pursuing intersectionality, unsettling dominant imaginaries. Routledge.
McDonaldL. (2014). Think tanks and the media: How the conservative movement gained entry into the education policy arena. Educational Policy, 28(6), 845–880. http://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813492372
McQuillanM.EckesS.LewisM. (2022). A solution in search of a problem: Justice demands more for trans student-athletes to fulfill the promise of Title IX. Marquette Sports Law Review, 33(1), 195. https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/sportslaw/vol33/iss1/10
93.
MeunierD.LambiotteR.FornitoA.ErscheK. D.BullmoreE. T. (2010). Hierarchical modularity in human brain functional networks. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 3, 571.
MillerV.FernandezF.HutchensN. H. (2023). The race to ban race: Legal and critical arguments against state legislation to ban Critical Race Theory in Higher Education. Missouri Law Review, 88, 61.
MorganJ. M.PullinD. (2010). Social science and the courts: Challenges and strategies for bridging gaps between law and research. Educational Researcher, 39(7), 515–524. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X10383334
99.
MuñizR. (2024). Exploring litigation of anti-CRT state action: Considering the issues, challenges, & risks in a time of white backlash. Syracuse Law Review, 74, 1071–1100.
100.
MuñizR.HutchersonN. (2022). The power of research evidence use in times of crisis: How the Klaassen v. Indiana University court used extra-legal sources to ground litigants in social realities. Education Law Reporter, 399, 435–462. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4151084
101.
MuñizR.HutchersonN. (2024). Use of extra-legal sources in the SFFA decision: The evidence that informed the court’s curtailing of race-conscious admissions precedent. Education Law Reporter, 422, 1–27. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4879797
102.
MuñizR.LewisM.CavanaughG.WoolseyM. (2022). The social context of the law: A critical analysis of reliance interests in the Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California. Southern California Law Review, 95(4), 857–952.
103.
MuñizR.LewisM. M.TumerT.KaneE. (2023). The story of DACA as told by friends of the court: The role of interest convergence, color-evasiveness, and exceptionality in policy discourse. American Journal of Education, 129(3), 297–324. https://doi.org/10.1086/724305
104.
MuñizR.ZrzavyM.SvajlenkaN. (2018). DACAmented law students and lawyers in the Trump era. Center for American Progress, Immigration Report, June2018. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3524718
105.
MuñozS. M.MaldonadoM. M. (2012). Counterstories of college persistence by undocumented Mexicana students: Navigating race, class, gender, and legal status. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25(3), 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2010.529850
106.
MuñozS. M.VigilD. (2018). Interrogating racist nativist microaggressions and campus climate: How undocumented and DACA college students experience institutional legal violence in Colorado. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 11(4), 451–466. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/dhe0000078
107.
MurrayM. (2021). Race-ingRoe. Harvard Law Review, 134(6), 2025–2102.
NatowR. S. (2022). Policy actors’ perceptions of qualitative research in policymaking: The case of higher education rulemaking in the United States. Evidence & Policy, 18(1), 109–126.
110.
NessE. C.GándaraD. (2014). Ideological think tanks in the states: An inventory of their prevalence, networks, and higher education policy activity. Educational Policy, 28(2), 258–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813515328
111.
NienhusserH. K. (2014). Role of community colleges in the implementation of postsecondary education enrollment policies for undocumented students. Community College Review, 42(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552113509837
112.
NienhusserH. K. (2018). Higher education institutional agents as policy implementers: The case of policies that affect undocumented and DACAmented students. The Review of Higher Education, 41(3), 423–453. http://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2018.0014
NienhusserH. K.OshioT. (2020). Postsecondary education access (im)possibilities for undocu/DACAmented youth living with the potential elimination of DACA. Educational Studies, 56(4), 366–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2020.1757448
OlivasM. A. (2012). Dreams deferred: Deferred action, prosecutorial discretion, and the vexing case(s) of DREAM Act students. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 21(2), 463–548. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/wmbrts21&i=475
117.
OlivasM. A. (2020). Perchance to DREAM: A legal and political history of the DREAM Act and DACA. New York University Press.
118.
OlivasM. A. (2023). Plyer v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982). In KimKLappK.LeeJ. (Eds.), Feminist judgements: Immigration law opinions rewritten, (pp. 129–147). Cambridge University Press.
119.
OliverK.InnvarS.LorencT.WoodmanJ.ThomasJ. (2014). A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Services Research, 14, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-2
120.
OrtegaF.EdwardsR.HsinA. (2019). The economic effects of providing legal status to DREAMers. IZA Journal of Labor Policy, 9(5), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.2478/izajolp-2019-0005
121.
PerezW. (2009). We ARE Americans: Undocumented students pursuing the American dream. Stylus.
122.
PerezW. (2010). Higher education access for undocumented students: Recommendations for counseling professionals. Journal of College Admission, 206, 32–35. http://hdl.handle.net/10919/86898
123.
PerezW.EspinozaR.RamosK.CoronadoH.CortesR. (2010). Civic engagement patterns of undocumented Mexican students. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 9(3), 245–265. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/1538192710371007
124.
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).
125.
PopeN. G. (2016). The effects of DACAmentation: The impact of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals on unauthorized immigrants. Journal of Public Economics, 14, 98–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.08.014
PujolJ. M.ErramilliV.RodriguezP. (2009). Divide and conquer: Partitioning online social networks. CoRR.
130.
QueX.ChecconiF.PetriniF.GunnelsJ. A. (2015). Scalable community detection with the louvain algorithm. IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium. Hyderabad, India, pp. 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1109/IPDPS.2015.59
131.
RaederT.ChawlaN. V. (2011). Market basket analysis with networks. Social Network Analysis Mining, 1(2), 97–113.
132.
ReckhowS.Tompkins-StangeM.Galey-HornS. (2021). How the political economy of knowledge production shapes education policy: The case of teacher evaluation in federal policy discourse. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 43(3), 472–494.
133.
ReichG.BarthJ. (2010). Educating citizens or defying federal authority? A comparative study of in-state tuition for undocumented students. Policy Studies Journal, 38(3), 419–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00368.x
134.
RosenbergJ.RoblesS.Agustín-MéndezM. O.CathellE.CasasolaA. (2020). What happens to a dream deferred? Identity formation and DACA. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 42(3), 275–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986320936370
135.
RothsteinR. (2017). The color of law: A forgotten history of how our government segregated America. Liveright Publishing.
136.
RublinA. (2011). The role of social science in judicial decision making: How gay rights advocates can learn from integration and capital punishment case law. Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, 19(1), 179–222.
137.
RussellF. S. (2024). Amplifying Black undocumented student voices in higher education. Routledge.
138.
SablanJ. R. (2019). Can you really measure that? Combining critical race theory and quantitative methods. American Educational Research Journal, 56(1), 178–203.
139.
SalazarC. (2024). “I knew it was gonna be hard, but I always knew I had support from my parents”: The role of family on undocumented students’ college aspirations and persistence. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 25(4), 703–725. https://doi.org/10.1177/15210251211018826
140.
SalazarC.BarahonaC.Yepez-CoelloF. (2023). Where do I go from here? Examining the transition of undocumented students graduating from college. The Journal of Higher Education, 95(6), 747–777. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2023.2270105
141.
SatiJ. (2023). A punishment of the severest kind: Immigration enforcement, social degradation, and the harm of illegalization (Order No. 30492196) [Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
142.
ScottJ. (2000). Social network analysis (2nd ed.). Sage.
143.
ScottJ.JabbarH. (2014). The hub and the spokes: Foundations, intermediary organizations, incentivist reforms, and the politics of research evidence. Educational Policy, 28(2), 233–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813515327
144.
ScottJ.LubienskiC.DeBrayE.JabbarH. (2014). The intermediary function in evidence production, promotion, and utilization: The case of educational incentives. In FinniganK. S.DalyA. J. (Eds.), Using research evidence in education: From the schoolhouse door to Capitol Hill (pp. 69–89). Springer.
StadfeldC.AmatiV. (2021). Network mechanisms and network models. In ManzoG. (Ed.) Research handbook on analytical sociology (pp. 432-452). Edward Elgar Publishing.
148.
Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard and SFFA v. UNC-Chapel Hill, 600 U.S. 181 (2023).
149.
Suárez-OrozcoC.KatsiaficasD.BirchallO.AlcantarC. M.HernandezE.GarciaY.TeranishiR. T. (2015). Undocumented undergraduates on college campuses: Understanding their challenges and assets and what it takes to make an undocufriendly campus. Harvard Educational Review, 85(3), 427–463. https://doi.org/10.17763/0017-8055.85.3.427
150.
Suárez-OrozcoC.YoshikawaH.TeranishiR. T.Suárez-OrozcoM. M. (2011). Growing up in the shadows: The developmental implications of unauthorized status. Harvard Educational Review, 81(3), 438–472. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.81.3.g23x203763783m75
SuperfineB. M.ThompsonA. R. (2016). Interest groups, the courts, and educational equality: A policy regimes approach to Vergara v. California. American Educational Research Journal, 53, 573–604. http://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216645906
153.
SwanR. S.Clark-IbañezM. (2017). Perceptions of shifting legal ground: DACA and the legal consciousness of undocumented students and graduates. Thomas Jefferson Law Review, 39, 67–92. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/tjeflr39&i=79
154.
TalbotC.TalbotC. (2015). Bridging the academic–policy-making gap: Practice and policy issues. Public Money & Management, 35(3), 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2015.1027491
155.
TennantJ. P.WaldnerF.JacquesD. C.MasuzzoP.CollisterL. B.HartgerinkC. H. (2016). The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: An evidence-based review. F1000Research, 5, 632. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8460.2
156.
TerriquezV.GurantzO. (2015). Financial challenges in emerging adulthood and students’ decisions to stop out of college. Emerging Adulthood, 3(3), 204–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696814550684
157.
Texas v. United States, 86 F. Supp. 3d 591 (S.D. Tex. 2015).
158.
Texas v. United States, 549 F. Supp. 3d 572 (S.D. Tex. 2021).
159.
Texas v. United States, 50 F. 4th 498 (5th Cir. 2022).
160.
Texas v. United States, 691 F. Supp. 3d 763 (S.D. Tex. 2023).
161.
Texas v. United States, No. 23-40653, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 1132 (5th Cir. Jan. 17, 2025).
162.
TsengV. (2008). Studying the use of research evidence in policy & practice. William T. Grant Foundation.
163.
TsengV. (2012). The uses of research in policy and practice (Social Policy Report, Vol. 26, No. 2). Society for Research on Child Development.
164.
TsengV. (2022). Research on research use: Building theory, empirical evidence, and a global field. William T. Grant Foundation.
WadhiaS. S. (2015). Beyond deportation: The role of prosecutorial discretion in immigration cases. New York University Press.
167.
WassermanS.FaustK. (1998). Social network analysis methods and applications: Structural analysis in social sciences (8th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
168.
WelnerK. G. (2012). Scholars as policy actors: Research, public discourse, and the zone of judicial constraints. American Educational Research Journal, 49(1), 7–29. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41419447
WilliamsD. T.CurtisM. G.BoeJ. L.JensenT. M. (2024). What is QuantCrit doing in a nice field like family science?Journal of Marriage and Family, 86(5), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.13022
171.
YanovitzkyI.WeberM. S. (2019). News media as knowledge brokers in public policymaking processes. Communication Theory, 29(2), 191–212. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qty023
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
