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.

To understand the varying impact of law, we must compare the effects of legal institutions with the effects of rival institutions and the impact one law with the impact of another. We must also ask how the setting in which institutions compete and laws are implemented—very often an organization—shapes outcomes. Using the competition between legal, medical, and familial institutions in infant intensive care units as an example, this article elaborates a theory of institutional competition and therefore of the influence of law in organizations. I show that institutions, including legal institutions, gain influence by working through internal organizational processes. Thus, the impact of law on medical decisionmaking varies with whether legal actors have learned how to be present when decisions are to be made, make legal issues into organizational problems, introduce choice points that require action, and alter the possibility space of eligible solutions. Using variations among the major categories of laws that govern the practice of infant intensive care, the article also shows how organizational and institutional theories help explain why some laws have more impact than others.

Resource mobilization and gender socialization theories go a long way toward explaining why so many sexually harassed women opt not to report their problems, but they shed little light on why some still choose to take action and sue. This article examines how relationality can affect a sexually harassed woman's decision to sue. An analysis of 31 litigation narratives shows that regardless of the severity of the harassment, or the amount of legal aid available, maternal responsibilities, marital commitments and parental approval can become pivotal considerations. Some considered the integrity of familial ties to be priceless assets worth suing for. Others deemed them too valuable to risk losing in a contest over rights. These narratives confirm feminist assertions that relationships—especially familial ones—often play a central role in the choices that women make. They also challenge popular assumptions about what constitutes a “personal choice” and under what circumstances women are likely to chose to litigate.

Media coverage of litigation may affect perceptions and thereby behavior of litigants, judges, juries, legislators and business decisionmakers. Their behavior influences various legal, social, political and economic outcomes. For product liability verdicts during 1983 to 1996 involving automobile manufacturers, we examine the amount of coverage in several dozen newspapers. We find almost no articles reporting on any of 259 verdicts for the defendant. Econometric analysis focuses on determinants of the amount of coverage of 92 verdicts for plaintiffs, 16 of which include punitive damages. Key determinants include the award amount, the nature of injuries, the vehicle's recall history, and especially the existence of a punitive component of damages regardless of its size.

Feminists' opposition to a state trial judge in a retention election provided an opportunity to explore important issues about legal consciousness and differences between negative and affirmative resistance. Three questions about legal consciousness and resistance are addressed: What effect does an encounter with an allegedly bad judge have on people's legal consciousness? Under what circumstances will people engage in negative or affirmative resistance against a legal encounter they perceive as unjust? What instrumental effects on institutional practices and what constitutive effects on legal consciousness can such resistance have? The article draws on narrative analysis to explore the conditions for transformation of legal consciousness and mobilization of political action in a judicial retention election.

One striking feature of American courts is the widespread practice of plea bargaining. Paradoxically, the practice rewards precisely those who appear guilty. Contrary to popular perception of plea bargaining as an innovation or corruption of the post-World War II years, this study shows the practice to have emerged early in the American republic. Amid social conflict wrought by industrialization, immigration, and urbanization during the Age of Jackson, politicians acutely realized the potential for revolution in Europe. Local political institutions being spare and fragmentary, the courts stepped forward as agents of the state to promote social order necessary for healthy market functioning, personal security, and economic growth. Plea bargaining arose during the 1830s and 1840s as part of a process of political stabilization and an effort to legitimate institutions of self-rule—accomplishments that were vital to Whig efforts to reconsolidate the political power of Boston's social and economic elite. To this end, the tradition of episodic leniency from British common law was recrafted into a new cultural form—plea bargaining—that drew conflicts into courts while maintaining elite discretion over sentencing policy.