Social science research offers critical race theory (CRT) scholars a useful methodology to advance core CRT claims. Among other things, social science can provide CRT with data and theoretical frameworks to support key empirical claims. Social psychology and sociology in particular can help to explain how race constructs key aspects of social experience—for example, the role of race in suspicion of African Americans as potentially criminal and the use of excessive force by law enforcement. At the same time, a collaboration between CRT and social science risks undermining CRT critiques of objectivity and neutrality and potentially limits the theory's ability to combat structural forms of racial inequality. CRT scholars can mitigate these risks by choosing social science methods carefully and by recognizing that social science is only one among several modes of knowledge production.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. Adarand v. Pena 515 U.S. 200 1995.
  2. Armour J. 1994. Race ipsa loquitor: of reasonable racists, intelligent Bayesians, and involuntary negrophobes. Stanford Law Rev. 46:781–816 [Google Scholar]
  3. Banaji MR, Nosek BA, Greenwald AG. 2004. No place for nostalgia in science: a response to Arkes and Tetlock. Psychol. Inq. 15:279–89 [Google Scholar]
  4. Barnes M, Chang R. 2012. Analyzing stops, citations, and searches in Washington and beyond. Seattle Univ. Law Rev. 35:673–93 [Google Scholar]
  5. Barnes M, Onwuachi-Willig A. 2005. By any other name? On being “regarded as” black, and why Title VII should apply even if Lakisha and Jamal are white. Wis. Law Rev. 2005:1283–343 [Google Scholar]
  6. Blumenbach JF. 1795 (1865). On the natural variety of mankind. The Anthropological Treatises of Johann Friedrich Blumenbach and transl. T Bendyshe 145–276 London: Longman, 3rd ed.. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bridges K. 2011. Reproducing Race: An Ethnography of Pregnancy as a Site of Racialization Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press [Google Scholar]
  8. Bridges K. 2013. The dangerous law of biological race. Fordham Law Rev. 82:21–80 [Google Scholar]
  9. Brooks RL. 2008. Conley and Twombly: a critical race theory perspective. Howard Law J. 52:31–72 [Google Scholar]
  10. Brown D. 2004. Fighting racism in the twenty-first century. Washington Lee Law Rev. 61:1485–99 [Google Scholar]
  11. Butler P. 2010. The white Fourth Amendment. Tex. Tech Law Rev. 43:245–54 [Google Scholar]
  12. Carbado D. 2002. (E)Racing the Fourth Amendment. Mich. Law Rev. 100:946–1043 [Google Scholar]
  13. Carbado D. 2009. Yellow by law. Calif. Law Rev. 97:633–92 [Google Scholar]
  14. Carbado D. 2011. Critical what what?. Conn. Law Rev. 43:1593–643 [Google Scholar]
  15. Carbado D. 2013. Discrimination on the basis of racial orientation Presented at Divers. Incl. All Work. Group Meet., June 21–22, Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. Cent. Leadersh. Ethics, Columbia Bus. Sch., New York [Google Scholar]
  16. Carbado D, Gulati M. 2000. Working identity. Cornell Law Rev. 85:1259–308 [Google Scholar]
  17. Carbado D, Gulati M. 2003. The law and economics of critical race theory. Yale Law J. 112:1157–828 [Google Scholar]
  18. Carbado D, Gulati M. 2009. Race to the top of the corporate ladder: what minorities do when they get there. Res. Law Econ. 24:237–70 [Google Scholar]
  19. Carbado D, Gulati M. 2013. Acting White: Rethinking Race in Post-Racial America New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  20. Carbado D, Harris C. 2008. The new racial preferences. Calif. Law Rev. 96:1139–214 [Google Scholar]
  21. Cho S. 2008. Embedded whiteness: theorizing exclusion in public contracting. Berkeley Raza Law J. 19:5–26 [Google Scholar]
  22. Cho S. 2009. Post-racialism. Iowa Law Rev. 95:1589–645 [Google Scholar]
  23. Coase R. 1960. The problem of social cost. J. Law Econ. 3:1–44 [Google Scholar]
  24. Correll J, Wittenbrink B, Park B, Judd CM, Sadler MS, Keesee T. 2007. Across the thin blue line: police officers and racial bias in the decision to shoot. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 92:1006–23 [Google Scholar]
  25. Crenshaw K. 1988. Race, reform, and retrenchment: transformation and legitimation in antidiscrimination law. Harvard Law Rev. 101:1331–87 [Google Scholar]
  26. Crenshaw K. 1996. Introduction. Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement K Crenshaw, N Gotanda, G Peller, K Thomas xiii–xxxii New York: New Press [Google Scholar]
  27. Crenshaw K. 2011. Twenty years of critical race theory: looking back to move forward. Conn. Law Rev. 43:1253–352 [Google Scholar]
  28. Crenshaw K, Peller G. 1993. Reel time/real justice. Denver Univ. Law Rev. 70:283–96 [Google Scholar]
  29. Culp JM Jr, Harris A, Valdes M. 2003. Subject unrest. Stanford Law Rev. 55:2435–52 [Google Scholar]
  30. Delgado R. 1984. Commentary: the imperial scholar: reflections on a review of civil rights literature. Univ. Pa. Law Rev. 132:561–78 [Google Scholar]
  31. Delgado R. 1992. The imperial scholar revisited: how to marginalize outsider writing, ten years later. Univ. Pa. Law Rev. 140:1349–72 [Google Scholar]
  32. Delgado R, Stefancic J. 1994. Failed Revolutions: Social Reform and the Limits of Legal Imagination. Boulder, CO: Westview [Google Scholar]
  33. Eberhardt J, Purdie V, Goff P, Davies P. 2004. Seeing black: race, crime, and visual processing. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 87:876–93 [Google Scholar]
  34. Ellickson R. 1991. Order Without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  35. Farber D, Sherry S. 1997. Beyond All Reason: The Radical Assault on Truth in American Law New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  36. Finneran L, Kelly M. 2003. Social networks and inequality. J. Urban Econ. 53:282–99 [Google Scholar]
  37. Freeman A. 1988. Racism, rights and the quest for equality of opportunity: a critical legal essay. Harvard Civ. Rights-Civ. Lib. Law Rev. 23:295–392 [Google Scholar]
  38. Gilliam F, Iyengar S. 2000. Prime suspects: the influence of local television news on the viewing public. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 44:560–73 [Google Scholar]
  39. Gómez L. 2004. A tale of two genres: on the real and ideal links between law and society and critical race theory. The Blackwell Companion to Law and Society A Sarat 453–70 Oxford, UK: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  40. Gómez L. 2008. Manifest Destinies: The Making of the Mexican American Race New York: NYU Press [Google Scholar]
  41. Gómez L. 2012. Looking for race in all the wrong places. Law Soc. Rev. 46:221–45 [Google Scholar]
  42. Gómez L. 2013. Taking the social construction of race seriously in health disparities research. See Gómez & Lopez 2013 1–22 [Google Scholar]
  43. Gómez L, Lopez N. 2013. Mapping “Race”: Critical Approaches to Health Disparities New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  44. Gould SJ. 1981. Evolution as fact and theory. Discover 2:34–37 [Google Scholar]
  45. Gouldner A. 1975. The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology New York: Basic Books [Google Scholar]
  46. Guthrie R. 1998. Even the Rat Was White: A Historical View of Psychology Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2nd ed.. [Google Scholar]
  47. Haney-López IF. 2000. Institutional racism: judicial conduct and a new theory of racial discrimination. Yale Law J. 109:1717–884 [Google Scholar]
  48. Harris A. 1994. Foreword: the jurisprudence of reconstruction. Calif. Law Rev. 82:741–85 [Google Scholar]
  49. Harris C, Kidder W. 2004. The black student mismatch myth in legal education: the systemic flaws in Richard Sander's affirmative action study. J. Blacks High. Educ. 46:102–5 [Google Scholar]
  50. Harvey H. 2012. Race, markets, and Hollywood's perpetual antitrust dilemma. Mich. J. Race Law 18:1–61 [Google Scholar]
  51. Herrnstein RJ, Murray C. 1994. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life New York: Free Press [Google Scholar]
  52. Horkheimer M. 1937 (1972). Traditional and critical theory. Critical Theory: Selected Essays transl. MJ O'Connell 188–243 New York: Continuum [Google Scholar]
  53. Houh E. 2006. Still, at the margins. Law Soc. Rev. 40:481–91 [Google Scholar]
  54. Ioannides S, Nielsen K. 2007. Economics and the social sciences: synergies and trade-offs. Economics and the Social Sciences: Boundaries, Interaction and Integration S Ioannides, K Nielsen 1–30 Northampton, MA: Elgar [Google Scholar]
  55. Johnson K, Onwuachi-Willig A. 2005. Cry me a river: the limits of a systemic analysis of affirmative action in American law schools. Afr.-Am. Law Policy Rep. 17:1–28 [Google Scholar]
  56. Kang J. 2005. Trojan horses of race. Harvard Law Rev. 118:1489–593 [Google Scholar]
  57. Kang J. 2010. Implicit bias and the pushback from the left. St. Louis Univ. Law J. 54:1139–49 [Google Scholar]
  58. Kang J. 2012. Bits of bias. Implicit Racial Bias Across the Law J Levinson, RJ Smith 132–45 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  59. Kang J, Bennet M, Carbado D, Casey P, Dasgupta N. et al. 2012. Implicit bias in the courtroom. UCLA Law Rev. 59:1124–86 [Google Scholar]
  60. Krieger LH. 1995. The content of our categories: a cognitive bias approach to discrimination and equal employment opportunity. Stanford Law Rev. 47:1161–248 [Google Scholar]
  61. Lane KA, Kang J, Banaji MR. 2007. Implicit social cognition and law. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 3:427–51 [Google Scholar]
  62. Lawrence C III. 1987. The id, the ego, and equal protection: reckoning with unconscious racism. Stanford Law Rev. 39:317–88 [Google Scholar]
  63. Lawrence C III. 2012. Listening for stories in all the right places: narrative and racial formation theory. Law Soc. Rev. 46:247–57 [Google Scholar]
  64. Lee C. 2012. Reasonableness with teeth: the future of Fourth Amendment reasonableness analysis. Miss. Law J. 81:1133–82 [Google Scholar]
  65. Matsuda M. 1987. Looking to the bottom: critical legal studies and reparations. Harvard Civ. Rights-Civ. Lib. Law Rev. 22:323–400 [Google Scholar]
  66. Mills CW. 1959. The Sociological Imagination Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  67. Obasogie OK. 2006. Race in law and society: a critique. Race, Law, and Society I Haney-López 445–64 Burlington, VT: Ashgate [Google Scholar]
  68. Obasogie OK. 2008. Beyond best practices: strict scrutiny as a regulatory model for race-specific remedies. J. Law Med. Ethics 36:491–96 [Google Scholar]
  69. Obasogie OK. 2011. Race, genetics, and the regulatory need for race impact assessments. Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture S Krimsky, K Sloan 255–70 New York: Columbia Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  70. Obasogie OK. 2013. Foreword: critical race theory and empirical methods. UC Irvine Law Rev. 3:183–86 [Google Scholar]
  71. Obasogie OK. 2014. Blinded by Sight: Seeing Through the Eyes of the Blind Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  72. Onwuachi-Willig A, Houh E, Campbell M. 2008. Cracking the egg: Which came first—stigma or affirmative action?. Calif. Law Rev. 96:1299–352 [Google Scholar]
  73. Parks GS. 2008a. Introduction. Critical Race Realism: Intersections of Psychology, Race, and Law GS Parks, SE Jones, WJ Cardi xv–xvi New York: New Press [Google Scholar]
  74. Parks GS. 2008b. Toward a critical race realism. Cornell J. Law Public Policy 17:683–745 [Google Scholar]
  75. Parks GS. 2012. Judging racism. Cardozo Law Rev. De Novo 2012:238–47 [Google Scholar]
  76. Parks GS, Rachlinski JJ. 2010. Implicit bias, election '08, and the myth of a post-racial America. Fla. St. Univ. Law Rev. 37:659–715 [Google Scholar]
  77. Parks GS, Roberson Q. 2011. “18 million cracks”: gender's role in the 2008 presidential campaign. William Mary J. Women Law 17:321–45 [Google Scholar]
  78. Paul-Emile K. 2012. The regulation of race in science. George Washington Law Rev. 80:1115–73 [Google Scholar]
  79. Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney 442 U.S. 256 1979.
  80. Posner RA. 1997. The skin trade. New Repub. 217:1540–43 [Google Scholar]
  81. Quintanilla V. 2011. Beyond common sense: a social psychological study of Iqbal's effect on claims of race discrimination. Mich. J. Race Law 17:1–61 [Google Scholar]
  82. Quintanilla V. 2012. Judicial mindsets: the social psychology of implicit theories of the law. Neb. Law Rev. 90:611–46 [Google Scholar]
  83. Raghunandan D. 1989. Walking on three legs: science, common sense, and ideology. Soc. Sci. 17:92–100 [Google Scholar]
  84. Richardson LS, Goff P. 2012. Self-defense and suspicion heuristic. Iowa Law Rev. 98:293–334 [Google Scholar]
  85. Roberts DE. 1991. Punishing drug addicts who have babies: women of color, equality, and the right of privacy. Harvard Law Rev. 104:1419–82 [Google Scholar]
  86. Roberts DE. 1995. The genetic tie. Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 62:209–74 [Google Scholar]
  87. Roberts DE. 1997. Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction and the Meaning of Liberty New York: Pantheon [Google Scholar]
  88. Roberts DE. 2001. Shattered Bonds: The Color of Child Welfare New York: Basic Books [Google Scholar]
  89. Roberts DE. 2004. The social and moral cost of mass incarceration in African American communities. Stanford Law Rev. 56:1271–305 [Google Scholar]
  90. Roberts DE. 2008. The racial geography of child welfare: toward a new research paradigm. Child Welf. 87:125–50 [Google Scholar]
  91. Roberts DE. 2011a. Fatal Invention: How Science, Politics, and Big Business Re-create Race in the Twenty-First Century New York: New Press [Google Scholar]
  92. Roberts DE. 2011b. What's wrong with race-based medicine? Genes, drugs, and health disparities. Minn. J. Law Sci. Technol. 12:1–21 [Google Scholar]
  93. Roberts DE. 2012a. Debating the cause of health disparities: implications for bioethics and racial equality. Cambridge Q. Healthc. Ethics 21:332–41 [Google Scholar]
  94. Roberts DE. 2012b. Prison, foster care, and the systematic punishment of black mothers. UCLA Law Rev. 59:1474–500 [Google Scholar]
  95. Robinson R. 2008a. Perceptual segregation. Columbia Law Rev. 108:1–89 [Google Scholar]
  96. Robinson R. 2008b. Structural dimensions of romantic preferences. Fordham Law Rev. 76:2787–819 [Google Scholar]
  97. Roithmayr D. 2000. Barriers to entry: a market lock-in model of discrimination. Va. Law Rev. 86:727–99 [Google Scholar]
  98. Roithmayr D. 2003. Locked in inequality: the persistence of discrimination. Mich. J. Race Law 9:31–74 [Google Scholar]
  99. Roithmayr D. 2004. Locked in segregation. Va. J. Soc. Policy Law 12:197–259 [Google Scholar]
  100. Roithmayr D. 2008. Them that has, gets. Miss. Coll. Law Rev. 27:373–406 [Google Scholar]
  101. Roithmayr D. 2010. Racial cartels. Mich. J. Race Law 16:45–79 [Google Scholar]
  102. Roithmayr D. 2014. Reproducing Racism: How Everyday Choices Lock In White Advantage New York: NYU Press [Google Scholar]
  103. Rosen J. 1996. The Bloods and the Crits. New Repub. 215:2427–42 [Google Scholar]
  104. Ross D. 1992. The Origins of American Social Science Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  105. Rudy-Cooper F. 2006. Against bipolar black masculinity: intersectionality, assimilation, identity performance, and hierarchy. UC Davis Law Rev. 39:853–903 [Google Scholar]
  106. Sander R. 2004. A systemic analysis of affirmative action in American law schools. Stanford Law Rev. 57:367–483 [Google Scholar]
  107. Tennessee v. Garner 471 U.S. 1 1985.
  108. Tushnet M. 1984. An essay on rights. Tex. Law Rev. 62:1363–404 [Google Scholar]
  109. Valdes F, Culp J, Harris A. 2002. Crossroads, Directions, and a New Critical Race Theory Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  110. Wallerstein I. 2003. Anthropology, sociology, and other dubious disciplines. Curr. Anthropol. 44:453–65 [Google Scholar]
  111. Washington v. Davis 426 U.S. 229 1976.
  112. Williams P. 1992. The Alchemy of Race and Rights Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  113. Wilson HT. 1986. Critical theory's critique of social science: episodes in a changing problematic from Adorno to Habermas, part II. Hist. Eur. Ideas 7:287–302 [Google Scholar]
  114. Zuberi T, Bonilla-Silva E. 2008. Telling the real tale of the hunt: toward a race conscious sociology of racial stratification. White Logic, White Methods: Racism and Methodology T Zuberi, E Bonilla-Silva 3–30 Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error