234 ANALYZING DATA
communities are the institutional sponsors of specific frames, and identifying the amount of re-
sources that accompany sponsorship is central to studying the careers of knowledge claims. I will
return to this point shortly.
We should first, however, bring in the notion of commitment or “interest.” Swaffield (1998,
206), for example, uses the metaphor of a frame to link individual language use to broader group-
ings of attitudes and interests, described by Sabatier (1988) as advocacy coalitions. In showing
that contests over the meaning of particular terms in the policy arena express different advocacy
positions and that policy advocacy is linked to broader patterns of interest, Swaffield (1998, 200)
explains that “the challenge for policy analysis is to develop methods of interpretation which
reveal the significance of [plural meanings].”
The same challenge applies in legal studies. In examining the significance of competing knowl-
edge claims in the legal academy, we must first link frames with interpretive communities. How
can researchers identify members of interpretive communities? One way is to identify shared
assumptions embedded in research products (papers, articles, and books). Another way is to ex-
amine citation patterns and acknowledgments. It also pays to track down the institutional affilia-
tions of major contributors to the discourses with which one is concerned. If one is studying an
interpretive community that is tied to an academic center of unusual influence (say, a particular
law school, a center for survey research methods, or a center noted for a particular diagnostic
approach), others are likely to have studied these academic centers (Kalman 1986; Seligman
1978). These studies are good resources for identifying interpretive communities, as are intellec-
tual histories of academic disciplines (e.g., D. Ross 1991).
Once frames are linked to interpretive communities, the next step is to attend to institutional
resources held by interpretive communities. The institutional power of interpretive communities
is a key variable here, for this power can privilege even weak knowledge claims. Indicators of
power—that is, control of institutional resources such as faculty positions and symposia funds,
placement of students as law clerks, prestige of university affiliations, and individual reputation
—must be identified. Prestige and reputation are a significant though intangible resource, and
they are hard to measure. Publications in “top” law journals are also an important resource and
more easily identified (though of course the definition of “top” may be contested). For legal
academics, as for academics generally, networks among members of interpretive communities
nourish the knowledge claims of their members. Networks are of enormous help in the accumu-
lation of academic currency (e.g., citations, jobs, officer standing in professional organizations,
editorships, contributions to edited volumes, etc.), and this currency can support knowledge claims
in both direct and indirect ways.
Of course, “losing” claims are also attached to particular interpretive communities. By focus-
ing on the networks among the losers, we can study the accessibility and transmission of perspec-
tives that may, one day, gain in credibility. Indeed, one might do a comparative analysis between
winning and losing sides on an issue at one point in time, in terms of their relative “assets.” A key
point to remember is that conventional knowledge and dominant perspectives often inspire resis-
tance, and it is important to identify the ways heterodox perspectives survive and circulate.
A key question remains to be discussed. This chapter has referred to Fairman’s win in the
1950s. But what is the evidentiary basis for such a claim? For researchers interested in studying
competition among knowledge claims, there are several things to look for in determining who
“wins.” One major indicator is that subsequent adherents to the winner’s position will offer a
reduced defense of that position. As we saw previously, a simple citation to Fairman’s article was
sufficient for Alexander Bickel. When mention of the losing claim disappears, this signals that
the contest is no longer even recognized. Ratcheted up defenses of viewpoints are also important