As I begin this second volume as editor of the Review, I want to note with appreciation the crucial role played by reviewers of manuscripts for the Law & Society Review. I have been delighted to find that reviewers generally provide detailed and instructive evaluations of content and analysis. Even when a reviewer finds a manuscript unsuitable for publication, the evaluation almost always provides useful advice on how the author can approach the research question in future work. (There are exceptions: a reviewer whose only response was “too simplistic”) As a result of the expertise and impressive investment of time contributed by these anonymous reviewers, nearly every submission published in the Review is improved by the review process.

The articles in this issue of the Review offer some unusual insights about the costs, obstacles, and opportunities encountered in sociolegal research. Sociolegal scholarship recognizes and regularly attempts to remove the blinders from doctrinal legal analysis, but it often neglects the blinders that arise from the familiar analytic approaches of its own traditions. Traditional doctrinal legal analysis is criticized for relying on untested assumptions about human behavior, equating law on the books with law in action, and attending only to the public face of law. But there are also limitations in the methodological approaches used in standard empirical analysis, and they too can profoundly distort our images of sociolegal phenomena. The articles in this issue show how careful and skeptical analysis of imperfect data can reduce these distortions and increase our knowledge about legal phenomena.

This article focuses on the emergence of sociolegal studies over the past twenty-five years through an analysis of the development of the Law and Society Association. The paper takes the view that this scholarly field is best understood from a broad-based, multidisciplinary perspective that includes, but does not privilege, legal scholarship. Also, the article argues that sociolegal studies has been pluralistic, self-reflective, and dynamic since its inception and that current critiques must be examined in light of this past. Three areas of contemporary concern—the centrality of law; the impact of policy, politics, and reform motives; and the nature of science—are assessed in terms of sociolegal studies specifically and social science inquiry more generally. Opportunities for growth and change are considered.

Informal methods for dealing with conflict within both Japanese and Amish society have been interpreted as being the natural result of, and an important source of support for, traditional cultures. On closer examination we find similar patterns of intentional manipulation of informalist ideology as elements of strategy in the midst of conflict. In both cases, we find informalist ideology being selectively invoked to provide legitimacy to one or more partisan sides in ways which disguise such maneuvers from the majority of their constituent populations. Successful promotion of this ideology sustains the notion, both at the popular level and heretofore among scholars of dispute processing, that nonlaw methods for dealing with conflict have some special ingredient which makes them functionally superior to legalistic methods. If the Japanese and the Amish are in any way representative of a more general case, it apparently takes hard work to preserve anti-legal methods of dispute management.

We often ask why the Japanese are nonlitigious and look into the unique culture that may explain it. It is more appropriate to ask why Japan has maintained a complex industrialized society without much reliance on law. For the nonlitigious society does not come about spontaneously. Instead, it was made possible only by careful management. I elaborate this process of management through the detailed analysis of automobile accident compensation disputes in Japan.

Does referring a case to juvenile court or diverting it affect a person's future delinquent/criminal behavior? Labeling theory suggests that it does, arguing that formal processing by the juvenile justice system is part of a deviance amplification process that ultimately results in increased criminal/delinquent activity. But critics point out that a higher rate of future offending among those referred to court, often interpreted as evidence supporting the deviance amplification argument, could be nothing more than a selection artifact. Specifically, those referred to juvenile court may have more attributes that are related to future offending than do those who are diverted from the system. Under this scenario, differences between these groups in later offending could simply reflect preexisting differences in criminal propensity. This article discusses approaches for testing the deviance amplification argument against the alternative hypothesis of a selection artifact.

Researchers often rely on published opinions to draw conclusions about cases decided by the courts, determinants of court decisions, and broader social phenomena. We demonstrate that 80 to 90 percent of employment discrimination cases filed in federal court do not produce a published opinion. There are good theoretical reasons to believe that the process generating a published opinion is not random and thus that samples of published cases will not be representative of all cases. Through a direct comparison of published and unpublished cases, we show that the two actually do differ in significant and predictable ways. Examining several studies that use cases with published opinions for a variety of purposes, we show how our understanding of the operation of employment discrimination law changes—in some instances, dramatically—when we look at all cases, whether or not they have published opinions.

Ever since coming under colonial rule, Africans in South Africa have operated informal courts which the state courts have not recognized. Using fieldwork data, we contrast two such nonstate judicial structures in Cape Town. We describe the street committees, constituted by the older generation as a subsidiary form of local government coexisting uncomfortably alongside formal apartheid authorities. We then show the explosive consequences of the development from 1985 of youth-run people's courts, which attempted to redefine community values. We conclude with a discussion of our findings in the context of existing theoretical work on informal justice and draw some tentative conclusions on possible developments in a post-apartheid era.

In an increasingly competitive world marketplace, can cross-national variations in law—in this case, in labor law—produce markedly different economic outcomes? In both The Netherlands and the United States, law has helped rationalize the hiring of port labor and provide dockworkers greater security. However, American longshoremen have captured a larger share of the productivity gains flowing from the mechanization of cargo handling than have Dutch dockworkers. Because of constraints imposed by American longshore unions, container terminals in Rotterdam are more efficient and less costly to users. These differences can in part be explained by American labor law, which encourages a more adversarial, self-seeking union posture than does the labor law structure in The Netherlands. Probably more important, however, are economic factors, which expose Dutch dockworkers (but not West Coast longshoremen) to competition from ports in other nations. Similarly, international competition, intensified by the technological revolution in transportation, seems likely to impel cross-national convergence in many spheres, leveling differences in law and in legally influenced outcomes.

This article is about claims manipulation and the influence of context on the careers and outcomes of disputes. We explore eleven cases in which civil tort action was used when citizen opponents petitioned the government (lawsuits called SLAPPs or “strategic lawsuits against public participation”). Rather than being totally contingent on interactional and situational factors, these disputes followed two general trajectories of transformation, depending on whether they arose from an “internal” or “external” setting. Disputes initially tied to a broad cultural or political claims base were transformed into more narrow and concrete claims. Yet the original political claims of the lawsuit targets were less likely derailed.