Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T09:56:52.127Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Making Connections: Law and Society Researchers and Their Subjects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2024

David M. Engel
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This essay explores the theme of the 1998 annual meeting of the Law and Society Association: “Making Connections across Disciplines, Theories, and Methods,” focusing in particular on the connections between researcher and subject and between researcher and researcher. The essay discusses three recent articles, by Joseph Sanders and V. Lee Hamilton, by Barbara Yngvesson, and by Margaret Montoya. These articles illustrate recent creative efforts by law and society researchers to forge new kinds of connections to their subjects. The articles also illustrate fundamentally different conceptions of the role of the researcher and of the methodologies on which sociolegal studies might be based. These differing conceptions are considered as part of a more general argument that epistemological contradictions are an essential part of our efforts to apprehend the world we seek to describe. They connect law and society researchers to one another and ensure the vitality of our field.

Type
1998 Presidential Address
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , 1999 , pp. 3 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by The Law and Society Association.

Footnotes

*

Thanks to Joe Sanders, Lee Hamilton, Barbara Yngvesson, and Margaret Montoya for inspiration. Thanks to Frank Munger for his usual insights and encouragement. Thanks to Jaruwan Engel for making it possible for me to write during a difficult time. This essay is dedicated to the memory of my father, Edwin A. Engel.

References

Abu-Lughod, Lila (1991) “Writing against Culture,” in Fox, Richard G., ed., Recapturing Anthropology: Working in the Present. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.Google Scholar
Ashbery, John (1975) Self-Portrait in a Convex Mirror. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Clifford, James (1986a) “Introduction: Partial Truths,” in Clifford & Marcus, eds. 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifford, James (1986b) “On Ethnographic Allegory,” in Clifford & Marcus, eds. 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifford, James, & Marcus, George E., eds. (1986) Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier, Jane Fishburne (1973) Law and Social Change in Zinacantan. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, Jean M., & Schuman, Howard (1974) Conversations at Random: Survey Research as Interviewers See It. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
de Certeau, Michel (1983) “History, Ethics, Science, and Fiction,” in Han, N. et al., eds., Social Science as Moral Inquiry. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Feeley, Malcolm M. (1979) The Process Is the Punishment: Handling Cases in a Lower Criminal Court. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Greenhouse, Carol J. (1995) “From Carol Greenhouse” (letter), in “Annual Meeting: A Critical View,” LSA Newsletter 11 (Nov.).Google Scholar
Hans, Valerie P., & Vidmar, Neil (1986) Judging the Jury. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macaulay, Stewart (1963) “Non-Contractual Relations in Business: A Preliminary Study,” 28 American Sociological Rev. 55.Google Scholar
Montoya, Margaret E. (1994) “Máscaras, Trenzas, y Greñas: Un/Masking the Self While Un/Braiding Latina Stories and Legal Discourse,” 17 Harvard Women's Law J. 185.Google Scholar
Rossi, Peter H., & Anderson, Andy B. (1982) “The Factorial Survey Approach: An Introduction,” in Rossi, P. H. & Nock, S. L., eds., Measuring Social Judgments: The Factorial Survey Approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Sanders, Joseph, & Hamilton, V. Lee, with Denisovsky, Gennady, Kato, Naotaka, Kawai, Mikio, Kozyreva, Polina, Kubo, Takashi, Matskovsky, Michael, Nishimura, Haruo, & Tokoro, Razuhiko (1996) “Distributing Responsibility for Wrongdoing inside Corporate Hierarchies: Public Judgments in Three Societies,” Law & Social Inquiry 815.Google Scholar
Tokoro, Razuhiko (1998) “Stories from the Front: Negotiating Cross-Cultural Research Projects,” in Sarat, Austin et al., eds., Crossing Boundaries: Traditions and Transformations in Law and Society Research. Evanston, IL: Northwestern Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Santos, Santos Boaventura de (1995) Toward a New Common Sense: Law, Science and Politics in the Paradigmatic Transition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schneider, David M. (1968) American Kinship: A Cultural Account. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Smigel, Erwin (1969) The Wall Street Lawyer: Professional Organization Man? Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Woolgar, Steve (1988a) “Reflexion on Woolgar and Ashmore,” in Woolgar, ed. 1988c.Google Scholar
Woolgar, Steve (1988b) “Reflexivity Is the Ethnographer of the Text,” in Woolgar, ed. 1988c.Google Scholar
Woolgar, Steve, ed. (1988c) Knowledge and Reflexivity: New Frontiers in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Yngvesson, Barbara (1997) “Negotiating Motherhood: Identity and Difference in ‘Open’ Adoptions,” 31 Law & Society Rev. 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar