Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T12:19:56.484Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - Combining Methods for a New Synthesis in Law and Empirical Research

from Section II - PHILOSOPHY AND METHODS FOR A NEW LEGAL REALISM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2016

Elizabeth Mertz
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin Law School
Katherine Barnes
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
Elizabeth Mertz
Affiliation:
American Bar Foundation and University of Wisconsin School of Law
Stewart Macaulay
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Thomas W. Mitchell
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Get access

Summary

An unfortunate by-product of battles over prestige within law schools has been the frequent attempt to claim one particular method or field as the one and only source of empirical wisdom about law. This is particularly regrettable given that achieving a top-notch use of social science for understanding the workings of law at a practical level is (1) badly needed and (2) very difficult to achieve. Rather than wasting energy on turf battles, we urge, legal scholars should be turning their attentions to the still-neglected task of forging a truly interdisciplinary synthesis of methods and theories that would best serve the purposes of lawyers and jurists who need accurate information about law and society “on the ground.”

In this chapter, we add to a growing literature on why such a synthesis would be timely and helpful. In our view, the U.S. legal academy is well positioned to help the field of law in developing a unique interdisciplinary approach – if it is willing to work collaboratively with other parts of the academy and to move forward the project begun many decades ago by the original legal realists. Indeed, we argue, this conversation is already well underway, albeit under the radar of many traditional outlets for legal knowledge (at least in the United States, which is the arena with which we are most familiar). This is an opportunity to learn from a number of different but often-marginalized voices that have a lot to contribute, and from many generations of researchers from across the social sciences. At the same time, those social science researchers have often failed to consider the translation that is necessary if their findings are to be put to the best use in policy and “real-world” legal situations. And legal academics and practitioners are poised to provide guidance, if a cooperative ongoing discussion could be achieved.

Here, then, is a place where both legal and social science researchers have much to learn and to teach, if they can only find a common language in which to hold a shared conversation – about theory, and importantly also about method. Debates over methods in legal studies have just begun to take account of the many literatures that deal with issues of interdisciplinary translation from mixed-methods studies, science studies, and translation studies to other related fields.

Type
Chapter
Information
The New Legal Realism
Translating Law-and-Society for Today's Legal Practice
, pp. 180 - 200
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barnes, Katherine, and Mertz, Elizabeth. n.d. “Satisfaction after Tenure: Diversity in the Legal Academy.” Ms.
Barnes, Katherine, and Mertz, Elizabeth. 2012. “Is it Fair? Law Professors’ Perceptions of Tenure.” Journal of Legal Education 61: 511–537.Google Scholar
Bellos, David. 2011. Is That a Fish in Your Ear?New York: Faber and Faber.
Briggs, Charles. 1986. Learning How to Ask: A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Role of the Interview in Social Science Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Espeland, Wendy Nelson, and Stevens, Mitchell. 1998. “Commensuration as a Social Process.” Annual Review of Sociology 24: 312–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genn, Hazel. 2009. “Hazel Genn and Paths to Justice.” In Conducting Law and Society Research: Reflections on Methods and Practices, edited by Halliday, Simon and Schmidt, Patrick, 227–239. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Greene, Jennifer C., and Caracelli, Valerie J., eds. 1997. Advances in Mixed Method Evaluation: The Challenges and Benefits of Integrating Diverse Paradigms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Guinier, Lani, and Torres, Gerald. 2003. The Miner's Canary: Enlisting Race, Resisting Power, Transforming Democracy. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Halliday, Simon, and Schmidt, Patrick. 2009. Conducting Law and Society Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Knorr Cetina, Karin. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Macaulay, Stewart, Friedman, Lawrence M., and Mertz, Elizabeth. 2007. Law in Action: A Socio-Legal Reader. New York: Foundation Press.
Maxwell, Joseph, and Mittapalli, Kavitta. 2010. “Realism as a Stance for Mixed Methods Research.” In Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, edited by Tashakkori, Abbas and Teddlie, Charles, 145–168. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mertz, Elizabeth. 1993. “Learning What to Ask: Metapragmatic “Factors” and Methodological Reification.” In Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics, edited by Lucy, John A., 159–174. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mertz, Elizabeth, Barnes, Katherine, and Tung, Frances. n.d. “Defining Satisfaction.” Ms.
Mertz, Elizabeth, Barnes, Katherine, Tung, Frances, Njogu, Wamucii, Heiler, Molly, and Martin, Joanne. 2011. Project Report: After Tenure: Post-Tenure Law Professors in the United States. Chicago: American Bar Foundation.
Mertz, Elizabeth, and Rajah, Jothie. 2014. “Language-and-Law Scholarship: An Interdisciplinary Conversation and a Post-9/11 Example.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 10: 169–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monahan, John, and Walker, Laurens. 2009. Social Science in Law: Cases and Materials, edition. New York: Foundation Press.
Morgan, David L. 2008. “Paradigms Lost and Pragmatism Regained: Methodological Implications of Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods.” In The Mixed Methods Reader, edited by Clark, Vicki Plano and Creswell, John, 29–63. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morse, J.M. 1991. “Approaches to Qualitative-Quantitative Methodological Triangulation.” Nursing Research 41(2): 120–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, Laura Beth. 2010. “The Need for Multi-Method Approaches in Empirical Legal Research.” In The Oxford Handbook of Empirical Legal Research, edited by Cane, Peter and Kritzer, Herbert, 951–975. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Niglas, Katrin. 2010. “The Multidimensional Model of Research Methodology: An Integrated Set of Continua.” In Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, edited by Tashakkori, Abbas and Teddlie, Charles, 215–236. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Tashakkori, Abbas, and Teddlie, Charles, eds. 2010. Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Teddlie, Charles, and Tashakkori, Abbas. 2009. Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
White, James Boyd. 1990. Justice as Translation: An Essay in Cultural and Legal Criticism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×