Skip to main content

Publishing law and society research from outside North America: Reflections from an Eastern European Perspective


By Mihaela Serban

Associate Professor of Law & Society, Ramapo College of New Jersey

Together, the Law & Society Review (LSR) and Law & Social Inquiry (LSI), the main law and society journals in the United States, have published 603 research articles in the past ten years (excluding symposia and book reviews). Only 15 articles had as their geographical focus Central and Eastern Europe, Balkans, Russia, and Eurasia (CEE), and almost half of these were on Russia. This is a remarkably low number (2.5-percent), despite a significant increase in the number of articles not focused on the United States published since 2000. Overall, there is unequal representation of various regions and countries, reflecting the global economy of power, the range of national and regional law and society traditions, and their geographic and political closeness to the United States (China, India, Canada, and Israel, for example, are all well represented).

Why so few articles from a region that has been a veritable law and society laboratory since at least 1989? Major impediments, perhaps also applicable to other regions, include: the low number of submissions from and on the region, lack of awareness of law and society as an autonomous research and publication space, a hyper-positivist legal tradition in many of the countries of the region that discourages interdisciplinary research, and distinctive academic traditions, contexts, and networks.

As a graduate student and early career academic originally from Romania, I gradually became aware of the effects of implicit academic socialization that privileges North American law and society research for these journals (the overly US focused and Eurocentric tradition has been noted before). I hope these reflections will be helpful to other students and scholars from the region. I learned that top journals like the LSR value the theoretical contribution of articles, their sound empirical basis (regardless of methodology), and their reach to a relatively broad scholarly audience. The theoretical contribution as understood by the journal’s North American readers and editors requires authors to engage with US law and society scholarship, signaling that the author belongs to a specific scholarship community. Western-based authors already know this is expected, but it is less transparent to non-North American authors. Knowing that there is a law and society “canon” in the first place, and having access to it, are significant obstacles. Language, of course, is a separate and more general obstacle for non-native speakers.

As an author, it has been challenging to reach a broad scholarly audience as I have to situate regionally-specific topics in a particular North American sub-field, and separately to justify why a regional/national study has general appeal. Practically, this means addressing multiple scholarly literatures (North American and context-specific), which raises the bar while posing unique “word limit” challenges. Other structural barriers include the low number of peer reviewers, and the very competitive publication market (LSR’s acceptance rate is around 7-10 percent).

As a peer reviewer, I noticed some common challenges for authors from the region. Some, like descriptiveness, are partially intrinsic to writing about a non-US locale. Others, like weak theoretical frameworks and not addressing the relevant North American law and society literature, arise from a lack of awareness of the structural requirements for these journals. As an author interested in publishing sociolegal work in the US, but whose specific focus is CEE, I think carefully about my audience and always try to understand the field and what the journal publishes. Past issues of the LSR and LSI and the presidential addresses and responses offer a good sense of “the pulse” of law and society. I also pay close attention to the structure of articles published and the motivations of their authors for writing them, and consequently try to have a clear organizational structure. The first time I received a “revise and resubmit” response (the result of the peer-review process), I did not immediately know it was a good outcome. I addressed, however, every point raised by the reviewers in revision, even those I eventually rejected. I work and rework my argument until it becomes as clear as possible, and pay special attention to addressing the theoretical “value added” of my research (the “so-what” question). Ultimately, however, this is a two-way street, and hopefully the North American law and society community, and implicitly its flagship journals, will be increasingly more open to other scholarly traditions.

Popular posts from this blog

Comment: Making valid claims in social science research: A comment on Jenness and Calavita

By Tom Tyler, Yale Law School

I am writing to comment on several methodological issues raised by the article by Valerie Jenness and Kitty Calavita, entitled “It depends on the outcome”: Prisoners, grievances, and perceptions of justice”. I am pleased that the methodology blog for Law and Society Review has been created and provides a forum to discuss research design issues. I will address three aspects of the study: operationalization of the variables; statistical analysis; and inclusiveness of the literature review.

The Jenness/Calavita paper studies California prisons using data collected through interviews with prisoners. The paper says that it tests the perceptual procedural justice model, in particular there are frequent references to the Tyler model, in a prison setting. The study concludes that “prisoners privilege the actual outcome of disputes as their barometer of justice” showing “the dominance of substantive outcomes” (from the abstract)”.

I agree with Jenness and Cala…

The Roots of Life Without Parole Sentencing

By Christopher Seeds, New York University



Since the early 1970s, life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (LWOP)—an extreme prison sentence offering no reasonable possibility of release—has emerged as a routine legal sanction and penal practice in the United States. A century, even several decades ago, this would have been unexpected. Yet today, with more than 50,000 prisoners so sentenced and hundreds of laws authorizing it, LWOP is firmly entrenched in American penal policy, in judicial and prosecutorial decisionmaking, and in public discourse. Two general theses—one depicting LWOP as a replacement penalty for capital crimes; another linking LWOP with tough-on-crime sentencing policy of the mass incarceration era—have served as working explanations for this phenomenon. In the absence of in-depth studies, however, there has been little evidence with which to carefully evaluate these narratives.

My article, “Disaggregating LWOP: Life Without Parole, Capital Punishment, and …

Europeanization or National Specificity? Legal Approaches to Sexual Harassment in France, 2002–2012

By Abigail Saguy, UCLA

Sexual harassment represents a massive problem for working women worldwide. A recent social media campaign has brought increased awareness to this fact. In late 2017—after three-dozen women accused Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein of sexual harassment, assault, or rape—millions of women posted “Me Too” on Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook, and other social media platforms. Taking inspiration from African American activist Tarana Burke—who, in 2007, started an offline “Me Too” campaign to let sex abuse survivors know that they were not alone—actress Alyssa Milano launched this online Me Too campaign to shift the focus from Weinstein to victims. She hoped this would “give people a sense of the magnitude of the problem.”[1] While some posted simply, “Me Too,” others provided wrenching detail about abuse they had sometimes never before shared publicly. In France, a similar social media campaign flourished, under the hashtag “balance ton porc,” loosely translated as “sq…