Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Mobilizing justice in sociolegal research: a mixed methods meta-analysis

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Justice as a concept has permeated sociolegal scholarship in the U.S. since the founding of Law and Society as a field in the mid 1960s. Much of this scholarship has focused on theoretically driven areas of justice, and here we consider empirically how such concepts have been mobilized in prominent law and society journals from their inception through 2014. Based on a meta-analysis of 438 articles from Law & Society Review, Law & Social Inquiry, and Law & Policy, we present a typology of the forms of justice represented in sociolegal scholarship and describe how justice concepts are used and to what ends. We find that the justice ideas presented and how they are conceptualized and operationalized is highly contextualized and perspectival, and the perspectives represented are limited. We reflect on these findings and the first fifty years of sociolegal research in the U.S. and offer suggestions for the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data source consists of the entire population of articles containing the word “justice” or some variation thereof (e.g., just, injustice) in the title, abstract or key words from: Law & Society Review, Law & Social Inquiry, and Law & Policy (n = 438) from their inceptions through 2014.

The search culled over 500 articles, and we then removed from the sample book reviews that did not contain “justice” or some variation thereof in the review itself. The following link provides the results of the bibliographic information from the original search, from which we drew the 438 articles we used as our data source:

https://www.dropbox.com/home/SJP%20qualitative%20meta-analysis/literature/bibliographic%20information%20dataset/Working%20documents?preview=JMB.Copy+of+biliographic+information+on+data+sources.10-7-13.xlsx

Code availability

Not Applicable.

Notes

  1. Although there is no universally agreed-upon standard, K-alpha values higher than 0.8 are generally considered strong [27].

  2. No articles published in the 1960s and 1970s used the term “racial” justice in articles, therefore, these decades were removed from the model. No articles used the term “criminal” justice in the 1960s, therefore, this decade was removed from the model.

  3. No articles published in the 1960s used justice as an independent variable, therefore, that decade was removed from the model.

References

  1. Alexander, M. (2020). The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. The New Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ambrose, M. L., & Arnaud, A. (2005). Are procedural justice and distributive justice conceptually distinct? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 59–84). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Antecol, H., Cobb-Clark, D. A., & Helland, E. (2014). Bias in the legal profession: Self-Assessed versus statistical measures of discrimination. The Journal of Legal Studies, 43(2), 323–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Beckett, K. (2004). The politics of injustice: Crime and punishment in America. Sage Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Bierhoff, H. W., Cohen, R. L., & Greenberg, J. (1986). Justice in social relations. Plenum Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Biernat, M., & Kobrynowicz, D. (1997). Gender- and race-based standards of competence: Lower minimum standards but higher ability standards for devalued groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3), 544–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Black Lives Matter webpage. (2016). “We affirm that All Black Lives Matter: Guiding Principles.” Retrieved from: http://blacklivesmatter.com/guiding-principles/. Accessed Feb 2017.

  8. Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). A four-component model of procedural justice: Defining the meaning of a “fair” process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(6), 747–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Boon, M., & Van Baalen, S. V. (2019). Epistemology for interdisciplinary research – shifting philosophical paradigms of science. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 9(16), 15–28.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bryan, P. E. (1992). Killing us softly: Divorce mediation and the politics of power. Buffalo Law Review, 40, 441–523.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Calavita, K. (2016). Invitation to law and society: An introduction to the study of real law. University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Calavita, K., & Jenness, V. (2014). Appealing to justice. University of California Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Capeheart, L., & Milovanovic, D. (2007). Social justice: Theories, issues and movements. Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Center for the Study of Law & Society. (Producer). (2010). A conversation with Stewart Macaulay (Episode 2). Conversations in Law and Society. Retrieved from http://media.law.berkeley.edu/qtmedia/CSLS/20100423_CSLS_Conversations-Macaulay.mp4. Accessed Feb 2017.

  15. Center for the Study of Law & Society. (Producer). (2010). A conversation with Lawrence Friedman (Episode 3). Conversations in Law and Society. Retrieved from http://media.law.berkeley.edu/qtmedia/CSLS/20101015_CSLS_Conversations-Friedman.mp4. Accessed Feb 2017.

  16. Charmaz, K. (2011). Grounded theory methods in social justice research. The Sage handbook of qualitative research (vol. 4, pp. 359–380).

  17. Chen, J. J., & Crown, D. (2019). The gender pay gap in academia: Evidence from the Ohio State University. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 101(5), 1337–1352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Conley, J. M., & O-Barr, W. M. (2005). Just words: law, language, and power. The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Crane, D. (1967). The gate-keepers of science: Some factors affecting the selection of articles for scientific journals. The American Sociologist, 2(4), 195–201.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Derrida, J. (1997). Deconstruction in a nutshell: a conversation with Jacque Derrida. Fordham University Press. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.08523. Accessed 6 May 2021.

  22. Galanter, M. (1974). Why the “haves” come out ahead: Speculations on the limits of legal change. Law and Society Review, 9(1), 95–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Galanter, M. (2006). In the winter of our discontent: Law, anti-law, and social science. Annual Review Law & Social Science, 2, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Garth, B. (2001). Law and society: Sociolegal studies. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences. Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Garth, B., & Sterling, J. (2014). From legal realism to law and society: Reshaping law for the last stages of the social activist state. In E. Larson & P. Schmidt (Eds.), The law & society reader II. New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Gilliom, J. (2001). Overseers of the poor: Surveillance, resistance, and the limits of privacy. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(1), 77–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hoffmann, E. A. (2005). Dispute resolution in a worker cooperative: Formal Procedures and procedural justice. Law & Society Review, 29(1), 51–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hoffmann, E. A. (2003). Legal consciousness and dispute resolution: Different disputing behavior at two similar taxicab companies. Law & Social Inquiry, 28(3), 691–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hoffmann, E. A. (2001). Confrontations and compromise: Dispute resolution at a worker cooperative coal mine. Law & Social Inquiry, 26(3), 555–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hughes, S. H. (1994). Elizabeth’s story: Exploring power imbalances in divorce mediation. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 8, 553–596.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Law and Society Association (LSA). (2015). History of the Law & Society Association. Retrieved from http://www.lawandsociety.org/history/html. Accessed Feb 2017.

  33. Levanthal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Weiss (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research. Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Litowitz, D. E. (1997). Postmodern philosophy and law. University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lynn, F. B. (2014). Diffusing through disciplines: Insiders, outsiders, and socially influenced citation behavior. Social Forces, 93(1), 355–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Mauer, M. (2006). Race to incarcerate. The New Press.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Merry, S. E. (1979). Going to court: Strategies of dispute management in an American urban neighborhood. Law & Society Review, 13(4), 891–925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Milovanovic, D. (2003). An introduction to the sociology of law (3rd ed.). Criminal Justice Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Payne-Pikus, M. R., Hagan, J., & Nelson, R. L. (2010). Experiencing discrimination: Race and retention in America’s largest law firms. Law & Society Review, 44(3/4), 553–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Peters, D. P., & Ceci, S. J. (1982). Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5(2), 187–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Rosenfeld, M. (1998). Just interpretations: Law between ethics and politics. University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Savelsberg, J. J., Liu, S., Morrill, C., Seron, C., & Silbey, S. (2016). Law & Society Review at fifty: A debate on the future of publishing by the Law & Society Association. Law & Society Review, 12(1), 1017–1036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Shiffman, M. (2009). The divine law and the modern project. Modern Age, 51(1), 26–31.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Sidanius, J., Mitchell, M., Haley, H., & Navarette, C. D. (2006). Support for harsh criminal sanctions and criminal justice beliefs: A social dominance perspective. Social Justice Research, 19(4), 433–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Skitka, L. J. (2009). Exploring the “lost and found” of justice theory and research. Social Justice Research, 22(1), 98–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? (pp. 271–313). Macmillan Education UK.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Steinpres, R. E., Anders, K. A., & Ritzke, D. (1999). The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: A national empirical study. Sex Roles, 41(7/8), 509–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Stember, M. (1991). Advancing the social sciences through the interdisciplinary enterprise. The Social Science Journal, 28(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51(2), 273–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Törnblom, K., & Kazemi, A. (2010). Justice judgments of physical abuse and theft: The importance of outcome and procedure. Social Justice Research, 23, 308–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Tyler, T. R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(5), 850–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Baruch Bush, R. A. (1996). The unexplored possibilities of community mediation: A comment on Merry and Milner. Law & Social Inquiry, 21(3), 715–736.

  55. Sarat A, Suzann, R., Buckle, T., Buckle, L. G., & Thomas Buckle, S. R. (1979) . Bargaining for Justice: Case Disposition and Reform in the Criminal Courts. Law & Society Review, 13(2), 611–627.

  56. Boyarin, J. (1999). Law, literature, and the resurrection of of contract. Law & Social Inquiry, 24(1), 195–220.

  57. Tankebe, J. (2009). Self-help, policing, and procedural justice: Ghanaian vigilantism and the rule of law. Law & Society Review, 43(2), 245–270.

  58. Yeager, P. C. (2004). Law versus Justice: From Adversarialism to Communitarianism. Law & Social Inquiry, 29(4), 891–915.

  59. Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. Yale University Press.

  60. Grillo, T. (1991). The mediation alternative: Process dangers for women. The Yale Law Journal, 100(6), 1545–1610.

  61. Bordt, R. L. & Musheno, M. C. (1988). Bureaucratic co-optation of informal dispute processing: Social control as an effect of inmate grievance policy. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 25(1), 7–26.

Download references

Funding

This research benefited from participation in the Sociolegal Justice Project (SJP). SJP is a collaborative effort including scholars from a variety of universities. SJP received funding from the National Science Foundation (SES # 1022712) and the American Bar Foundation. The authors are thankful for support and guidance from a number of colleagues and institutions; however, all conclusions are our own and do not necessarily represent the views of the broader SJP collaborative.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Affairs & Administration, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA

    Shannon Portillo, Renee Dinsmore & Erika Garcia Reyes

  2. Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, University of Missouri Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, USA

    Lori Sexton

  3. Department of Political Science and Criminal Justice, California State University, Chico, Chico, CA, USA

    Sarah M. Smith

Authors
  1. Shannon Portillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lori Sexton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sarah M. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Renee Dinsmore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Erika Garcia Reyes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah M. Smith.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Not Applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix: coding scheme

Article:

Coder:

Part I. Definition and context of justice

  1. 1.

    How is the term “justice” (or “just”) used in the article? (Select all that apply)

    1. a.

      Justice appears as a common noun or adjective

    2. b.

      Justice appears as part of a larger system (e.g., “justice system,” “criminal justice system, “juvenile justice system”)

    3. c.

      Justice appears as part of a title for a person, position, agency, or law (e.g., as a proper noun)

    4. d.

      N/A – “justice” does not appear in the article

  2. 2.

    Does the article explicitly define justice?

    1. a.

      Yes

    2. b.

      No

  3. 3.

    What is the definition of justice?

  4. 4.

    Who defines justice? (Select all that apply)

    1. a.

      Author

    2. b.

      Another scholar

    3. c.

      Study respondent

    4. d.

      N/A – justice is not defined

  5. 5.

    Does the article consider implicit meanings of justice? In other words, is justice discussed without using the word “justice”?

    1. a.

      Yes

    2. b.

      No

  6. 6.

    What are the implicit meanings of justice discussed in the article? What code words for justice are used?

  7. 7.

    In what context is justice discussed, either explicitly or implicitly? (Select all that apply, and indicate which type of non-legal formal institution for option “a”)

    1. a.

      Formal institutions (non-legal)

    2. b.

      Legal channels

    3. c.

      Everyday life

Part II: types of justice

Note where in the article different types of justice appear in the text (i.e., where the exact phrase is used). When other types of justice are explicitly named (i.e., when the word “justice” is preceded by an adjective that indicates a specific kind of justice), write them into the table. Mark with an “X” all of the columns that apply.

Type of Justice

Title

Abstract

Prose

Footnote

Justice (not otherwise defined)

    

Injustice (not otherwise defined)

    

Distributive/substantive justice

    

Procedural justice

    

Social justice

    

Restorative justice

    

Criminal justice

    

Juvenile justice

    

Racial justice

    

Other:

    

Other:

    

Other:

    

Part III. Methodology

  1. 8.

    What is the methodology of the paper? (NB: For book reviews, describe the methodology of the book review itself—not the book on which it is based.)

  2. 9.

    Is the article based on empirical data (i.e., does it have a Methods section)?

    1. a.

      Yes

    2. b.

      No

  3. 10.

    How central is justice (either implicit or explicit) in the article? (Select all that apply)

    1. a.

      Justice is central to the analysis as an “independent variable” (i.e., justice is used to explain or predict another outcome of interest)

    2. b.

      Justice is central to the analysis as a “dependent variable” (i.e., justice is the outcome of interest)

    3. c.

      Justice is a secondary consideration or implication of the article (i.e., justice is not being operationalized/measured in the Methods or discussed in the Findings, but is included in the Introduction as backdrop, or arises in the Discussion or Conclusion)

    4. d.

      Justice is not a consideration in the article

  4. 11.

    Explain the role that justice plays in the article and where implicit or explicit discussions of justice are found. (For a guide, see options for question 10)

  5. 12.

    How prominent is justice as a theme (either implicit or explicit) in the article?

1

2

3

Not at all prominent

Somewhat prominent

Extremely prominent

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Portillo, S., Sexton, L., Smith, S.M. et al. Mobilizing justice in sociolegal research: a mixed methods meta-analysis. Crime Law Soc Change 77, 159–184 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-021-09974-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-021-09974-x

Search

Navigation