Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T22:28:40.793Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legal Theory for Legal Empiricists

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Hanoch Dagan ,
Roy Kreitner  and
Tamar Kricheli-Katz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is a widespread view that one does either theory or empirical work, and that theory and empiricism represent distant concerns, opposing worldviews, and perhaps distinct mentalities or personalities. This prevalent view has deep roots and is also the result of pragmatic and understandable tendencies toward division of intellectual labor. Against this view, this essay suggests that the relations between theory and empirical study ought to be understood as more intimate and that making legal theory an explicit focus can improve empirical scholarship. We pursue this claim by articulating a basis for legal theory and by showing how that basis illuminates both the application and design of empirical research on law. Legal theory, we argue, follows jurisprudence in interrogating the law as a set of coercive normative institutions. The upshot of this approach is a recognition that an interdisciplinary analysis of law must rely on both a theory (explicit or implicit) of the way law's power and its normativity align and an account of the way in which this discursive cohabitation manifests itself institutionally. We thus argue that legal theory is necessary in order to draw fruitfully on empirical research and further claim that legal theory provides guidance both for setting up an empirical research agenda on law and for designing research into specific topics.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , Spring 2018 , pp. 292 - 318
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2018 

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

Aigner, Dennis J., and Cain, Glen G. “Statistical Theories of Discrimination in Labor Markets.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 30 (1977): 175–87.Google Scholar
Albiston, Catherine. Institutional Inequality and the Mobilization of the Family and Medical Leave Act: Rights On Leave. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.Google Scholar
Albiston, Catherine, Correll, Shelley, Tucker, Traci, and Stevens, Christina. “Laws, Norms and the Caretaker Penalty.” Manuscript in progress.Google Scholar
Austin, John. 1832. The Province of Jurisprudence Determined. Edited by Hart, H. L. A. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, [1832] 1954.Google Scholar
Ayres, Ian, and Siegelman, Peter. “Race and Gender Discrimination in Bargaining for a New Car.” American Economic Review 85 (1995): 304–21.Google Scholar
Baker, Tom, and Griffith, Sean J. Ensuring Corporate Misconduct: How Liability Insurers Undermines Shareholder Litigation. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2010.Google Scholar
Bertrand, Marianne. “New Perspectives on Gender.” In Handbook of Labor Economics, Vol. 4, edited by Card, D. and Ashenfelter, O., 1543–90. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2011.Google Scholar
Blau, Francine D., and Kahn, Lawrence M. “Gender Differences in Pay.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 14 (2000): 75–99.Google Scholar
Cohen, Felix S. “Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach.” Columbia Law Review 35 (1935): 809–49.Google Scholar
Constable, Marianne. Just Silences: The Limits and Possibilities of Modern Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Correll, Shelley J., and Benard, Stephen. “Biased Estimators? Comparing Status and Statistical Theories of Gender Discrimination.” Advances in Group Processes 23 (2006): 89–116.Google Scholar
Dagan, Hanoch. Reconstructing American Legal Realism & Rethinking Private Law Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
Dagan, Hanoch. “Doctrinal Categories, Legal Realism, and The Rule of Law.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 163 (2015): 1889–917.Google Scholar
Dagan, Hanoch, and Kreitner, Roy. “The Character of Legal Theory.” Cornell Law Review 96 (2011): 671–92.Google Scholar
Dagan, Hanoch. “The Interdisciplinary Party.” Critical Analysis of Law 1, no. 1 (2014): 23–31.Google Scholar
Dickson, Julie. “Is Bad Law Still Law? Is Bad Law Really Law?” In Law as Institutional Normative Order, edited by Del Mar, M. and Bankowski, Z., 161–83. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, 2009.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B., Erlanger, Howard S., and Lande, John. “Internal Dispute Resolution: The Transformation of Civil Rights in the Workplace.” Law and Society Review 27, no. 3 (1993): 497–534.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B., Krieger, Linda H., Eliason, Scott R., Albiston, Catherine R., and Mellema, Virginia. “When Organizations Rule: Judicial Deference to Institutionalized Employment Structures. American Journal of Sociology 117 (2011): 888–954.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B., Uggen, Christopher, and Erlanger, Howard S. “The Endogeneity of Legal Regulation: Grievance Procedures as Rational Myth.” American Journal of Sociology 105 (1999): 406–54.Google Scholar
England, Paula. Comparable Worth: Theories and Evidence. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter, 1992.Google Scholar
Erlanger, Howard, Grant, Bryant, Larson, Jane, Mertz, Elizabeth, Nourse, Victoria, and Wilkins, David. “Is It Time for a New Legal Realism?” Wisconsin Law Review 2005 (2005): 335–64.Google Scholar
Fischman, Joshua B. “Reuniting ‘Is' and ‘Ought’ in Empirical Legal Scholarship.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 162 (2013): 117–68.Google Scholar
Fiske, Susan T., Cuddy, Amy J. C., and Glick, Peter. “Universal Dimensions of Social Cognition: Warmth and Competence.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11, no. 2 (2007): 77–83.Google Scholar
Galster, George, and Constantine, Peter. “Discrimination Against Female‐Headed Households in Rental Housing.” Review of Social Economy 49, no. 1 (1991): 76–100.Google Scholar
Gneezy, Uri, and Rustichini, Aldo. “A Fine Is a Price.” Journal of Legal Studies 29 (2000): 1, 5–9, 15.Google Scholar
Goldin, Claudia. Understanding the Gender Gap: An Economic History of American Women. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Gulati, Mitu, and Nielsen, Laura Beth. “Introduction: A New Legal Realist Perspective on Employment Discrimination.” Law and Social Inquiry 31 (2006): 797–800.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. The Concept of Law. London: Oxford University Press, 1961.Google Scholar
Huq, Aziz Z., Tyler, Tom R, and Schulhofer, Stephen J. “Why Does the Public Cooperate with Law Enforcement? The Influence of the Purposes and Targets of Policing.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 17 (2011): 419–50.Google Scholar
Kalev, Alexandra, Dobbin, Frank, and Kelly, Erin L. “Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies.” American Sociological Review 71 (2006): 589–617.Google Scholar
Kelsen, Hans. General Theory of Law and the State. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1945.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Duncan. “The Hermeneutic of Suspicion in Contemporary American Legal Thought.” Law Critique 25 (2014): 91–139.Google Scholar
Kreitner, Roy. “Biographing Legal Realism.” Law and Social Inquiry 35 (2010): 765–91.Google Scholar
Krieger, Linda H. “The Content of Our Categories: A Cognitive Bias Approach to Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity.” Stanford Law Review 47 (1995): 1181–85.Google Scholar
Krieger, Linda H., and Fiske, Susan T. “Behavioral Realism in Employment Discrimination Law: Implicit Bias and Disparate Treatment.” California Law Review 94 (2006): 997–1026.Google Scholar
Leiter, Brian. “Legal Realisms, Old and New.” University of Valparaiso Law Review 47 (2013): 949–64.Google Scholar
Macaulay, Stewart. “The New versus the Old Legal Realism: ‘Things Ain't What They Used to Be.’” Wisconsin Law Review 2005 (2005): 365–404.Google Scholar
Mertz, Elizabeth. The Language of the Law: Learning to Think Like a Lawyer. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Moore, Sally. Social Facts and Fabrications: “Customary” Law on Kilimanjaro, 1880–1980. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
Nelson, Robert L., and Bridges, William P. Legalizing Gender Inequality: Courts, Markets and Unequal Pay for Women. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
New Legal Realism Project, The. “About the New Legal Realism Project.” 2011. http://www.newlegalrealism.org/about.html, 2011.Google Scholar
Nourse, Victoria, and Shaffer, Gregory. “Varieties of New Legal Realism: Can a New World Order Prompt a New Legal Theory?” Cornell Law Review 95 (2009): 61–138.Google Scholar
O'Neill, June, and Polachek, Solomon. “Why the Gender Gap in Wages Narrowed in the 1980s.” Journal of Labor Economics 11 (1993): 205–28.Google Scholar
Pager, Devah. Marked: Race, Crime, and Finding Work in an Era of Mass Incarceration. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Pashukanis, Evgeny B. The General Theory of Law & Marxism. Translated by Barbara Einhorn. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, [1924] 2002.Google Scholar
Penner, J. E. “Decent Burial for Dead Concepts.” Current Legal Problems 58 (2010): 313–42.Google Scholar
Pildes, Richard H. “Institutional Formalism and Realism in Constitutional and Public Law.” Supreme Court Review (2013): 1–54.Google Scholar
Pinkston, J. C. “A Test of Screening Discrimination with Employer Learning.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 59 (2006): 26–284.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. Frontiers of Legal Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
Pound, Roscoe. “The Need of a Sociological Jurisprudence.” Green Bag 19 (1908): 607–15.Google Scholar
Pound, Roscoe. “Mechanical Jurisprudence.” Columbia Law Review 8 (1908): 605.Google Scholar
Priest, George L. 1983. “Social Science Theory and Legal Education: The Law School as University.” Journal of Legal Education 33 (1983): 437–41.Google Scholar
Ridgeway, Cecilia L. 2011. Framed by Gender: How Gender Inequality Persists in the Modern World. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
Ridgeway, Cecilia L. “Why Status Matters for Inequality.” American Sociological Review 70 (2014): 1–16.Google Scholar
Ridgeway, Cecilia L., and Correll, Shelley J. “Unpacking the Gender System: A Theoretical Perspective on Cultural Beliefs and Social Relations.” Gender and Society 18 (2004): 510–31.Google Scholar
Ripstein, Arthur. Force and Freedom: Kant's Legal and Political Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009.Google Scholar
Schlegel, John Henry. American Legal Realism and Empirical Legal Science Durham, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1995.Google Scholar
Solan, Lawrence M., and Darley, John M. “Causation, Contribution, and Legal Liability: An Empirical Study.” Law and Contemporary Problems 64, no. 4 (2001): 265–98.Google Scholar
Stern, Stephanie M. “Outpsyched: The Battle of Expertise in Psychology‐Informed Law.” Jurimetrics 57 (2016): 45–80.Google Scholar
Twining, William. “Legal R/realism and Jurisprudence: Ten Theses.” In The New Regal Realism: Translating Law‐and‐Society for Today's Legal Practice, edited by Macauley, Stewart, Mertz, Elizabeth, and Mitchell, Thomas W. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R., and Schulhofer, Stephen J. “Mechanisms for Eliciting Cooperation in Counterterrorism Policing: Evidence from the United Kingdom.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 8 (2011): 728–61.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R., Schulhofer, Stephen J., and Huq, Aziz Z. 2010. “Legitimacy and Deterrence Effects in Counter‐Terrorism Policing: A Study of Muslim Americans.” Law and Society Review 44 (2010): 365–401.Google Scholar
Ulen, Thomas S. “A Nobel Prize in Legal Science: Theory, Empirical Work, and the Scientific Method in the Study of Law.” University of Illinois Law Review 2002 (2002): 875–920.Google Scholar
Van Zandt, David E. “Discipline‐Based Faculty.” Journal of Legal Education 53 (2003): 332–39.Google Scholar
Weinrib, Ernest J. The Idea of Private Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995.Google Scholar