Social scientists’ testimony before Congress in the United States between 1946-2016, trends from a new dataset

Abstract

Congressional hearings are a venue in which social scientists present their views and analyses before lawmakers in the United States, however quantitative data on their representation has been lacking. We present new, publicly available, data on the rates at which anthropologists, economists, political scientists, psychologists, and sociologists appeared before United States congressional hearings from 1946 through 2016. We show that social scientists were present at some 10,347 hearings and testified 15,506 times. Economists testify before the US Congress far more often than other social scientists, and constitute a larger proportion of the social scientists testifying in industry and government positions. We find that social scientists' testimony is increasingly on behalf of think tanks; political scientists, in particular, have gained much more representation through think tanks. Sociology, and psychology's representation before Congress has declined considerably beginning in the 1980s. Anthropologists were the least represented. These findings show that academics are representing a more diverse set of organizations, but economists continue to be far more represented than other disciplines before the US Congress.

Technology in the time of corona: A critical institutional reading

“…Thus, they are more effective ways. Including social scientists likes science and technology scholars ( Harambam, 2020 ), anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists (and not only economists, Maher, Seguin, Zhang, & Davis, 2020 ) will introduce cross-cultural comparisons and thinking into policymaking. This may ensure government policy is culturally sensitive, based on relevant cultural competences ( Betancourt, Green, Carrillo, & Ananeh-Firempong, 2003 ), and considers the institutional complexities of technology use.…”

Identification of Congressional Witness Political Party: A Graph Theoretic Approach

“…Researchers have compiled large datasets to analyze trends in who are congressional witnesses (Ban, Park and You 2023;Maher et al 2020) and in panel diversity (Bruckner, O'Connor and Strode 2020;Coil et al 2023;Pressman 2020).…”

“…Similarly, other researchers have ignored the variation in the committee rules and practices that may vary from congress to congress and is dependent upon committee leadership (Seguin, Maher and Zhang 2023), leading to inaccurate and incomplete findings presented as fact. Prior research with gaping holes regarding congressional rules and practices have weak foundations and must be called into question (Ban, Park and You 2023;Maher et al 2020;Seguin, Maher and Zhang 2023). Thus, additional research that considers witness selection rules and practices are needed to move research forward on the issue of witness impact on legislative outcomes.…”

Trends in wildfire-related bills in California, 2001–2020

“…Prior research into legislative priorities has examined legislation through voting records or manual review of legislative text, though this approach requires extensive coding and labor [26][27][28]. By comparison, topic modeling has demonstrated significant promise in rapidly reviewing large corpuses of text, including legislation [29,30].…”