Article contents
Extract
This collection, which brings together critical reviews of the literature on a variety of contemporary issues in law and social science, has its origins in two judgments about our field that may appear contradictory but in fact are complementary. On the one hand, the empirical data and generalizations produced during the last several decades seem to call for, and amply to deserve, compilation and summary of the kind often found in propositional inventories. But at the same time recent scholarship often seems stagnant, further documentation (or falsification) of a well-established (or generally discredited) hypothesis, one more entry in a sterile, and ultimately unresolvable, theoretical debate—a by-product of the demands of tenure-review committees rather than the expression of any real intellectual engagement. If this judgment is fair, reflective and critical reassessment of the field is essential to break the hold of existing preoccupations and to formulate new questions. These dual motives will be apparent throughout this volume. Here I will offer my view of the kind of reappraisal that is needed, explain how the topics and authors were selected, and suggest some of the ways in which the essays that follow contribute to the task.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Law & Society Review , Volume 14 , Issue 3: Contemporary Issues in Law and Social Science , Spring 1980 , pp. 429 - 443
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1980 Law and Society Association.
Footnotes
The material in this volume is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. SOC 77-13266. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
H. Laurence Ross, director of the Law and Social Science Program when the grant was made, was extraordinarily helpful and supportive throughout, as have been his successors, Stephen L. Wasby and Felice Levine, and the directors of the Division of Social and Economic Science, Herbert Costner and B.W. Rubinstein. I also want to express my gratitude to all those who contributed to this project by proposing topics and participating in the selection process.
References
- 5
- Cited by