Skip to main content

On writing


By Susan Sterett
Law & Society Review Co-Editor

One thing I know for sure after having co-edited Law and Society Review for almost three years is that just about every college and university would like more publications from faculty members. Many colleges and universities around the world want people to write for peer-reviewed journals, so like other journals, Law and Society Review has been getting an increasing number of submissions. Some journals have big backlogs. Some journals have stopped accepting submissions. Everyone is overwhelmed with content. How can you prepare your paper for LSR? This post will point to a few resources that could help, based in my experience from editing, conversations with other editors, and my conversations at the wonderful 2017 sociolegal studies early career workshop at the University of Cape Town. All have made me rethink how I submit to journals.

A few thoughts, most of which are readily found on the internet. Even so, many people may not be aware of them, and we all have a hard time following suggestions. Repetition could help.

To start with the manuscripts that are submitted to LSR: 
Most pieces could use clearer theorizing, which includes clearer situating within sociolegal studies, or, to state it simply, clarifying why people not interested in your particular topic should care. Think about your paper’s fit with the journal. If you can’t find relevant pieces from LSR to cite, maybe it’s not the right journal. I’ve talked to enough editors of other journals to know fit and theorizing are common problems. Most pieces could use a clearer statement of data and methods as well. The Academy of Management has great guidelines for theorizing and explaining data and methods under Publishing in AMJ, which you can tweak to revise your paper for LSR.

Sociolegal scholarship is rich, with many opportunities to build on existing work. You can also theorize within sociolegal studies by critiquing a predominant focus, or discussing what it misses. Mihaela Serban wrote for the LSR blog about how often theorizing centers on the Global North. Critique Global North sociolegal theorizing, if it fits your work. If you write from a world that funds scholarship on immediate policy recommendations, write on that focus and what it does to theorizing sociolegal processes. Somehow, though, you need to engage the central mission of the journal. Why would you want to be in the journal otherwise?

Other resources and tips
Wendy Belcher’s Writing Your Journal Article in 12 Weeks is invaluable. Other useful texts include Lisa Ede’s Work in Progress, and the blog Patter. Anne Lamott’s Bird by Bird is entertaining on work, patience and managing self-criticism. (Gretchen Rubin synthesizes Lamott’s tips in a blog post.) For helpful coaching, try the National Center for Faculty Development and Diversity. For inspiring stories about professing while Black, see Terri Givens. For thoughts on writing and rejection, see the 2018 symposium in PS: Political Science and Politics. Most of what I mention is centered in the global North; share work from other perspectives.

Most of the advice on academic writing advice focuses on practices. Practical advice is great. However, it doesn’t help keep sight of why you write. If it’s only to get or hold onto a job, you could have a hard time finding your voice. Anne Lamott argues in Bird by Bird: “Writing has so much to give, so much to teach, so many surprises. That thing you had to force yourself to do--the actual act of writing--turns out to be the best part. It’s like discovering that while you thought you needed the tea ceremony for the caffeine, what you really needed was the tea ceremony.” We all might learn something.

A couple of key points from all of the above
Write every day, or every weekday. Start with one thing you want to fix in an existing manuscript. Say, a misplaced parenthesis in a reference. Then you’ll see another small task and then you will be writing. Don’t write every day you feel like it, or every day you don’t hate everything you say or write, or every day when your family members are getting along or your colleagues are nice to you. 

Write every weekday.
If you don’t have a manuscript you can work with, write a few words. Write about how you can’t write. As Belcher argues, you will eventually get sick of yourself and something will happen that’s good. Be patient, and write bad first drafts.

Turn down Radio KFKD. 
If Anne Lamott’s Radio KFKD (pp. 116-122) broadcasts voices in your head about why you can’t or shouldn’t write, or about why you should but that sadly every word you actually write is awful, turn down the volume. Recognizing the radio station helps. Lamott recommends taking a deep breath. She also recommends putting the voices into little bottles and stoppering the bottles and watching them try to get out. That requires too much imagination for me. Talk back to a voice. Pet a dog. Go for a walk. Stop having an opinion about your writing. Look at your work kindly, like you would for a friend.

Tastes and intellectual homes differ. Write in a format that works for you—vocabulary, structure, tone. Craft it with a place in mind and find the right place for it, with the right audience. Think about the structure of articles as like form for poetry—a sonnet, say. It structures what you can say, but you can still say quite a lot.

Checklist for submission
Work through a checklist of tasks required to finish the piece. Belcher has a good list. So does the political scientist Mirya Holman, list available here. Her checklist is both systematic and funny.
Then send it in. 
A big difference between people who got published in LSR and you? They sent in a manuscript. Let someone else reject you. Don’t take yourself out without giving yourself a chance.

Popular posts from this blog

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…

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 …