Research Statement
Refereed Articles
Baird, Vanessa A. and Debra
Javeline. 2007. “The Persuasive Power of Russian Courts,” Political Research
Quarterly, 60 (3): 429-42.
McLaren,
Lauren and Vanessa A. Baird. 2006. “Of
Time
and Causality: A Simple Test of the Requirement of Social Capital in
Making
Democracy Work in
Baird, Vanessa A. and Amy
Gangl. 2006. “Shattering the Myth of
Legality: The Impact of the Media’s Framing of Supreme Court Procedures
on
Perceptions of Fairness,”
Baird,
Vanessa,
and Alan Stone. 1998.
“Why Privatization: The Case of German
Telecommunications,” Social Science Quarterly, 79 (March): 193 – 211.
Works in Progress
Baird, Vanessa A. What is
Wrong with Being Right, submitted to Social Justice Research
Works in Progress
Javeline, Debra and Vanessa A. Baird. Political Responses to Violence: Citizen
Participation after Beslan.
Baird, Vanessa A. and Debra Javeline. When Russian Go to Court. Book Manuscript.
Baird, Vanessa A. Why the Supreme Court Cannot Make Liberal Economic Policy: The
Effect of Profit Minded Litigants’ Strategies on the Supreme Court’s Agenda.
Baird, Vanessa A. Madness: The Political Psychology of Justice. Book manuscript.
Baird, Vanessa A. 2008. Research
Spotlight: Merging Phase I and Phase II of the United States Supreme Court
Judicial Database. Law and Courts: Newsletter of the Law and Courts Section of
the American Political Science Association, 19 (1: Winter): 17-18.
Data
Merged
Phase I and Phase II of the United States Judicial Database Zip file.
Includes merged
Spaeth and Gibson
United States Supreme Court Judicial Databases Phase I and II and the
SPSS
syntax in MS Word used to merge, create new variables and aggregate.
This file, unzipped, is very large.
The zip file also includes aggregated data used in the analysis (in Stata, Excel, Text Delimited and SPSS formats), with
policy area and year
as units of analysis (includes variables from Baumgartner and Jones Policy Agendas Database,
Songer's Courts of Appeals Databases, various measures of landmark and
salient decisions, and Martin
and Quinn scores.
Users of the data should cite the source as follows: "The data used were compiled from a variety of sources funded by the National Science Foundation by Vanessa A. Baird at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and were distributed through the Department of Political Science at the University of Colorado, Boulder. Neither NSF nor the original collectors of the data bear any responsibility for the analysis reported here."
Sources
The version
of the United States
Supreme Court Judicial Database used in this complilation can be
downloaded at the University of
Kentucky's website for the S. Sidney Ulmer Project here.
Codebook
United States Supreme Court Judicial Database, Phase II: 1953-1993 can be downloaded at ICPSR. Study 6987. Codebook
Gibson, James L. 1997.
United States Supreme Court Judicial Data Base, Phase ll: User's Guide. New
York: Peter Lang, Publishers.
Songer, Donald R.
United States Courts Of Appeals Database Phase
1, 1925
1988
[Computer file]. ICPSR
number
2086. Columbia, SC: Donald R. Songer
[producer], 1990. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for
Political and Social Research [distributor], 1998. A random sample of
cases from each circuit for each year between 1925 and 1988 was coded
for the nature of the issues presented, the statutory, constitutional,
and procedural bases of the decision, the votes of the judges, and the
nature of the litigants. The variables are divided into four sections:
basic case characteristics, participation, issues, and judges and
votes. The cases of the Appeals Courts do not actually represent all
cases handed down by Appeals Courts (as they do in Phase I and Phase II
of the Supreme Court), but rather represent a random sample of each
circuit and year.
The
Policy Agendas Datbase is distributed through the Center for
American
Politics and Public Policy
at the University of Washington and the Department of Political Science
at Penn State University, with the support of National Science
Foundation grant number SBR 9320922.
Martin and Quinn's Supreme Court justice ideal point
measures are similar in spirit to
For
more information about Martin and Quinn's
Supreme
Court's Ideal Points, visit their website: Ideal Points for the U.S.
Supreme
Court, or their article: Martin, Andrew D., and Kevin M.
Quinn. 2002. "Dynamic
Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain