Empirical research in law

References

• Patricia A Adler and Peter Adler (1998) ‘Observational Techniques’ in Norman K Denzin and Yvonna S Lincoln (eds) Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials, Sage, 79.
   Google Scholar
• Michael Adler and Jonathan Simon (2014) ‘Stepwise Progression: The Past, Present, and Possible Future of Empirical Research on Law in the United States and the United Kingdom’ 41(2) Journal of Law and Society 173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paul Ali, Lucinda O'Brien and Ian Ramsay (2015) ‘A quick fix? Credit repair in Australia’ 43 Australian Business Law Review 179.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paula Baron (2007) ‘Thriving in the Legal Academy’ 17(1–2) Legal Education Review 27.
   Google Scholar
• Howard Becker (1967) ‘Whose side are we on?’ 14(3) Social Problems 239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abraham Blumberg (1967) ‘The Practice of Law as Confidence Game: Organizational Cooptation of a Profession’ 1 Law and Society Review 15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Philippe Bourgois (2003) In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio, Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed.
   Google Scholar
• Christina L Boyd (2015) ‘In Defense of Empirical Legal Studies’ 63 Buffalo Law Review 363.
   Google Scholar
• Anthony Bradney (1998) ‘Law as a Parasitic Discipline’ 25(1) Journal of Law and Society 71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anthony Bradney (2003) Conversations, Choices and Chances: The Liberal Law School in the Twenty-First Century, Hart.
   Google Scholar
• Anthony Bradney (2010) ‘Empirical Legal Research in the Law School Curriculum’ in Peter Cane and Herbert M Kritzer (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Empirical Legal Research, Oxford University Press, 1025.
   Google Scholar
• Kylie Burns and Terry C Hutchinson (2009) ‘The Impact of “Empirical Facts” on Legal Scholarship and Legal Research Training’ 43(2) The Law Teacher 153.
   Google Scholar
• Maureen Cain (1979) ‘The General Practice Lawyer and the Client: Towards a Radical Conception’ 7 International Journal of the Sociology of Law 331.
   Google Scholar
• Peter Cane and Herbert M Kritzer (2010) ‘Introduction’ in Peter Cane and Herbert M Kritzer (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Empirical Legal Research, Oxford University Press, 1.
   Google Scholar
• Terry Carney (1993) ‘Graduate Research Seminars: Theory or Praxis’ 4 Legal Education Review 165.
   Google Scholar
• Judith Cashmore and Patrick Parkinson (2014) ‘The Use and Abuse of Social Science Research Evidence in Children’s Cases’ 20(3) Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elizabeth Chambliss (2008) ‘When do Facts Persuade? Some Thoughts on the Market for “Empirical Legal Studies”’ 71(2) Law and Contemporary Problems 17.
   Google Scholar
• Janet Chan (2013) ‘Ethnography as Practice: Is Validity an Issue?’ 25(1) Current Issues in Criminal Justice 503.
   Google Scholar
• Erwin Chemerinsky (2009) ‘Why Not Clinical Education?’ 16 Clinical Law Review 35.
   Google Scholar
• Richard Collier (2004) ‘“We're All Socio-Legal Now?” Legal Education, Scholarship and the “Global Knowledge Economy”: Reflections on the UK Experience’ 26(4) Sydney Law Review 503.
   Google Scholar
• Alfred F Conard et al (1964) Automobile Accident Costs and Payments, University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Robert Cooter (2011) ‘Maturing into Normal Science: The Effect of Empirical Legal Studies on Law and Economics’ 5 University of Illinois Law Review 1475.
   Google Scholar
• Anne M Corbin and Steven B Dow (2007) ‘Breaking the Cycle: Scientific Discourse in Legal Education’ 26 Temperence Environmental Law & Technology Journal 191.
   Google Scholar
• Penny Darbyshire (2011) Sitting in Judgment: The Working Lives of Judges, Hart.
   Google Scholar
• Philip Darbyshire, Colin MacDougall and Wendy Schiller (2005) ‘Multiple Methods in Qualitative Research with Children: More Insight or Just More?’ 5(4) Qualitative Research 417.
   Google Scholar
• Eve Darian-Smith (2004) ‘Ethnographies of Law’ in Austin Sarat (ed) The Blackwell Companion to Law and Society, Wiley Blackwell, Malden, MA, 545–568.
   Google Scholar
• Margaret Davies (2002) ‘Ethics and Methodology in Legal Theory: A (Personal) Research Anti-Manifesto’ 6 Law Text Culture 7.
   Google Scholar
• Gwynn Davis (1988) Partisans and Mediators: The Resolution of Divorce Disputes, Clarendon.
   Google Scholar
• Shelly Day Sclater and Felicity Kaganas (2003) ‘Contact: Mothers, welfare and rights’ in A Bainham, B Lindley, M Richards and L Trinder (eds) Children and Their Families: Contact, Rights and Welfare, Hart, 155.
   Google Scholar
• Steven B Dow (2011) ‘Rethinking Legal Research: Preparing Law Students for Using Empirical Data’ (3) Michigan State Law Review 523.
   Google Scholar
• Kim Economides (2014) ‘Socio-Legal Studies in Aotearoa/New Zealand’ 41(2) Journal of Law and Society 257.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gary Edmond (2011) ‘Bacon's Chickens? Re-thinking Law and Science (and Incriminating Expert Opinion Evidence) in Response to Empirical Evidence and Legal Principle’ in J Gleeson and R Higgins (eds) Constituting Law: Legal Argument and Social Values, Federation Press.
   Google Scholar
• John Eekelaar, Mavis Maclean and Sarah Beinart (2000) Family Lawyers: The Divorce Work of Solicitors, Hart.
   Google Scholar
• Theodore Eisenberg (2011) ‘The Origins, Nature, and Promise of Empirical Legal Studies and a Response to Concerns’ 5 University of Illinois Law Review 1713.
   Google Scholar
• Lee Epstein and Gary King (2002) ‘The Rules of Inference’ 69 University of Chicago Law Review 1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patricia Ewick and Susan S Silbey (1998) The Common Place of Law: Stories from Everyday Life, University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Julie van den Eynde and Arthur Veno (2013) ‘Participatory Action Research with High-risk Groups: Best Practice for Researchers’ Safety and Data Integrity’ 25(1) Current Issues in Criminal Justice 491.
   Google Scholar
• Malcolm Feeley (1979) The Process is the Punishment: Handling Cases in a Lower Criminal Court, Russell Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Malcolm Feeley (2001) ‘Three Voices of Socio-Legal Studies’ 35 Israel Law Review 175.
   Google Scholar
• Malcolm M Feeley (2007) ‘Legality, Social Research, and the Challenge of Institutional Review Boards’ 41(4) Law & Society Review 757.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belinda Fehlberg (1997) ‘Violence and Sexually Transmitted Debt: Part 2’ 3(3) Current Family Law 123.
   Google Scholar
• Michelle Fernando (2011) Judicial Meetings with Children in Australian Family Law Proceedings: Hearing Children’s Voices (PhD Thesis, University of Tasmania).
   Google Scholar
• Joshua B Fischman (2013) ‘Reuniting “Is” and “Ought” in Empirical Legal Scholarship’ 162 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryant G Garth (1998) ‘Justice and Power in Law and Society Research: On the Contested Careers of Core Concepts’ in Bryant Garth and Austin Sarat (eds) Justice and Power in Sociolegal Studies, Fundamental Issues in Law and Society Research, Northwestern University Press, Vol 1.
   Google Scholar
• Joseph L Gastwirth and Michael D Sinclair (2004) ‘A Re-Examination of the 1966 Kalven-Zeisel Study of Judge-Jury Agreements and Disagreement and Their Causes’ 3 Law, Probability and Risk 169.
   Google Scholar
• Hazel Genn, Martin Partington and Sally Wheeler, (2006) ‘ Law in the Real World: Improving Our Understanding of How Law Works’ http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/socio-legal/empirical /.
   Google Scholar
• Tracey E George (2006) ‘An Empirical Study of Empirical Legal Scholarship: The Top Law Schools’ 81 Indiana Law Review 141.
   Google Scholar
• Tracey E George and Chris Guthrie (2002) ‘Joining Forces: The Role of Collaboration in the Development of Legal Thought’ 52 Journal of Legal Education 559.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tracey E George and Albert H Yoon (2014) ‘The Labor Market for New Law Professors’ 11(1) Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tom Ginsburg and Gregory Shaffer (2012) ‘The Empirical Turn in International Legal Scholarship’ 106(1) American Journal of International Law 1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jack Goldsmith and Adrian Vermeule (2002) ‘Empirical Methodology and Legal Scholarship’ 69(1) University of Chicago Law Review 153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christine B Harrington and Sally Engle Merry (2010) ‘Empirical Legal Training in the US Academy’ in Peter Cane and Herbert M Kritzer (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Empirical Legal Research, Oxford University Press, 1044.
   Google Scholar
• D R Harris (1983) ‘The Development of Socio-Legal Studies in the United Kingdom’ 3(3) Legal Studies 315.
   Google Scholar
• Michael Heise (1998–99) ‘The Importance of Being Empirical’ 26 Pepperdine Law Review (2006) 807.
   Google Scholar
• Michael Heise (2011) ‘An Empirical Analysis of Empirical Legal Scholarship Production, 1990–2009’ 5 University of Illinois Law Review 1739.
   Google Scholar
• Joni Hersch and W Kip Viscusi (2012) ‘Law and Economics as a Pillar of Legal Education’ 8 Review of Law and Economics 487.
   Google Scholar
• Michael Herzfeld (2001) Anthropology: Theoretical Practice in Culture and Society, Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Lilian H Hill (2007) ‘Thoughts for Students Considering Becoming Qualitative Researchers: Qualities of Qualitative Researchers’ 7(1) Qualitative Research Journal 26.
   Google Scholar
• Paddy Hillyard (2007) ‘Law's Empire: Socio-Legal Empirical Research in the Twenty-First Century’ 34 Journal of Law and Society 266.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paddy Hillyard and Joe Sim (1997) ‘The Political Economy of Socio-Legal Research’ in Philip A Thomas (ed) Socio-Legal Studies, Dartmouth, 45.
   Google Scholar
• Susan F Hirsch (1998) Pronouncing and Persevering: Gender and the Discourses of Disputing in an African Islamic Court, University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Daniel E Ho and Larry Kramer (2013) ‘The Empirical Revolution in Law’ 65 Stanford Law Review 1195.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosemary Hunter (2008a) ‘Would You Like Theory With That? Bridging the Divide Between Policy-Oriented Empirical Legal Research, Critical Theory and Politics’ 41 Special Issue: Law and Society Reconsidered 121.
   Google Scholar
• Caroline Hunter (2012) ‘Introduction: Themes, Challenges and Overcoming Barriers’ in Caroline Hunter (ed) Integrating Socio-Legal Studies into the Law Curriculum, Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Rosemary Hunter (2014) ‘Review Essay – Penny Darbyshire: Sitting in Judgment: The Working Lives of Judges’ 22 Feminist Legal Studies 89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosemary Hunter et al (2006) Women and legal aid: Identifying disadvantage – final report, Griffith University and Legal Aid Queensland. http://www.griffith.edu.au/centre/slrc/
   Google Scholar
• Rosalind Hurworth (2004) ‘Theory, Practice or Both? Views of Experts’ 4(1) Qualitative Research Journal 61.
   Google Scholar
• Terry Hutchinson (2004) ‘Where to Now? The 2002 Australasian Research Skills Training Survey’ 14(2) Legal Education Review 63.
   Google Scholar
• Terry Hutchinson (2010) Researching and Writing in Law, Lawbook, 3rd ed.
   Google Scholar
• Terry Hutchinson and Nigel Duncan (2012) ‘Defining and Describing What We Do: Doctrinal Legal Research’ 17(1) Deakin Law Review 83.
   Google Scholar
• Terry Hutchinson (2013) ‘Empirical Facts: A Rationale for Expanding Lawyers’ Methodological Expertise’ 3(2) Law and Method 53.
   Google Scholar
• Richard Ingleby (1992) Solicitors and Divorce, Clarendon.
   Google Scholar
• Dana C Jack (1999) ‘Ways of Listening to Women in Qualitative Research: Interview Techniques and Analysis’ 40(2) Canadian Psychology 91.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Felicity Kaganas and Shelly Day Sclater (2004) ‘Contact disputes: Narrative constructions of ‘good’ parents’ 12 Feminist Legal Studies 1–27.
   Google Scholar
• Harry KalvenJr and Hans Zeisel (1971) The American Jury, University of Chicago Press, 2nd ed.
   Google Scholar
• Melissa A Kelly and Daniel J Kaczynski (2007) ‘Misconceptions Students Bring to Qualitative Research: Aligning Prior Conceptions with Instructional Practice’ 6(2) Qualitative Research Journal 31.
   Google Scholar
• Herbert M Kritzer (2009a) ‘Empirical Legal Studies Before 1940: A Bibliographic Essay’ 6(4) Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 926.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herbert M Kritzer (2009b) ‘Conclusion: Research is a Messy Business: An Archeology of the Craft of Sociolegal Research’ in Patrick Schmidt and Simon Halliday (eds) Conducting Law and Society Research: Reflections on Methods and Practices, Cambridge University Press, 264.
   Google Scholar
• Katherine R Kruse (2011–2012) ‘Getting Real about Legal Realism, New Legal Realism, and Clinical Legal Education’ 56(2) New York Law School Law Review 659.
   Google Scholar
• Nicola Lacey (1996) ‘Normative Reconstruction in Socio-Legal Theory’ 5(2) Social and Legal Studies 131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wayne R La Fave (1965) Arrest: The Decision to Take a Suspect into Custody, Little Brown.
   Google Scholar
• Robert M Lawless (2015) ‘What Empirical Legal Scholars Do Best’ 87 Temple Law Review 711.
   Google Scholar
• Frans L Leeuw (2015) ‘Empirical Legal Research: The Gap between Facts and Values and Legal Academic Training’ 11(2) Utrecht Law Review 19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marett Leiboff (2013) ‘Talkin ‘Bout Law’s Generations: Pop Culture, Intellectual Property and the Interpretation of Case’ 29(1) Law in Context 95.
   Google Scholar
• Richard Lempert (2008) ‘Empirical Research for Public Policy: With Examples from Family Law’ 5(4) Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 907.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynn M LoPucki (2015a) ‘Disciplining Legal Scholarship’ 90 Tulane Law Review 1.
   Google Scholar
• Lynn M LoPucki (2015b) ‘Dawn of the Discipline-Based Law Faculty’ 65 Journal of Legal Education 506.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arlie Loughnan and Rita Shackel (2009) ‘The Travails of Postgraduate Research in Law’ 19 Legal Education Review 99.
   Google Scholar
• Jenny Lovric and Jenni Millbank (2004) ‘Relationship Debt and Guarantees: Best Practice v Real Practice’ 15(7) Journal of Banking and Finance Law and Practice 89.
   Google Scholar
• Stewart Macaulay (1963) ‘Non-Contractual Relations in Business: A Preliminary Study’ 28 American Sociological Review 59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stewart Macauley (1979) ‘Lawyers and Consumer Protection Laws’ 14 Law and Society Review 115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roderick Macdonald (2003) ‘Still “Law” and Still “Learning”?’ 18(1) Canadian Journal of Law and Society 5.
   Google Scholar
• Catrina A MacKenzie, Julia Christensen and Sarah Turner (2015) ‘Advocating Beyond the Academy: Dilemmas of Communicating Relevant Research Results’ 15(1) Qualitative Research 105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Catharine A MacKinnon (1989) Toward a Feminist Theory of the State, Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lisa Maher (2001) Sexed Work: Gender, Race and Resistance in a Brooklyn Drug Market, Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Richard J Maiman, Lynn M Mather and Craig A McEwen (1994) ‘Lawyers, Mediation, and the Management of Divorce Practice’ 28(1) Law & Society Review 14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desmond Manderson (2002) ‘Law: The Search for Community’ 26 Journal of Australian Studies 147.
   Google Scholar
• Desmond Manderson and Richard Mohr (2002) ‘From Oxymoron to Intersection: An Epidemiology of Legal Research’ 6 Law Text Culture 159.
   Google Scholar
• Philip Manning (2009) ‘Three Models of Ethnographic Research: Wacquant as Risk Taker’ 19(6) Theory & Psychology 756.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynn M Mather, Craig A McEwen and Richard J Maiman (2001) Divorce Lawyers at Work: Varieties of Professionalism in Practice, Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Michael McCann (1994) Rights at Work: Pay Equity Reform and the Politics of Legal Mobilization, University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Justin McCrary, Joy Milligan and James Phillips (2016) ‘The PhD Rises in American Law Schools, 1960–2011: What Does it Mean for Legal Education’ 65 Journal of Legal Education 543.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barbara Miller (2002) Cultural Anthropology, Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Robert Mnookin and Lewis Kornhauser (1979) ‘Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: The Case of Divorce’ 88(5) Yale Law Journal 950.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• David Moore and Lisa Maher (2002) ‘Editorial: Ethnography and multidisciplinarity in the drug field’ 13(4) International Journal of Drug Policy 245.
   Google Scholar
• Underhill Moore and Charles C Callahan (1943) ‘Law and Learning Theory: A Study in Legal Control’ 53 Yale Law Journal 1.
   Google Scholar
• W T Murphy and Simon Roberts (1987) ‘Introduction’ 50 Modern Law Review 677.
   Google Scholar
• Craig Allen Nard (1995) ‘Empirical Legal Scholarship: Re-Establishing a Dialogue Between the Academy and Profession’ 30 Wake Forest Law Review 347.
   Google Scholar
• Sandra Nutley (2003) ‘Bridging the policy-research divide: Reflections and lessons from the United Kingdom’ 10 Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration 19.
   Google Scholar
• Sandra Nutley, Alison Powell and Huw Davies (2013) Provocation Paper for the Alliance for Useful Evidence (Research Unit for Research Utilisation, School of Management, University of St Andrews).
   Google Scholar
• Ann Oakley (1981) ‘Interviewing Women: A Contradiction in Term’ in Helen Roberts (ed) Doing Feminist Research, Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Patrick Parkinson and Judy Cashmore (2008) The Voice of a Child in Family Law Disputes, Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Patrick Parkinson, Atlanta Webster and Judy Cashmore (2010) ‘Lawyers’ Interviews with Clients about Family Violence’ 16(2) University of New South Wales Law Journal Forum 77.
   Google Scholar
• Odette Parry, Paul Atkinson and Sara Delamont (1994) ‘Disciplinary Identities and Doctoral Work’ in Robert G Burgess (ed) Postgraduate Education and Training in the Social Sciences, Jessica Kingsley, 34.
   Google Scholar
• Martin Partington (2008) ‘Law's Reality: Case Studies in Empirical Research on Law: Introduction’ 35 Journal of Law and Society 1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richard A Posner (1987) ‘The Decline of Law as an Autonomous Discipline: 1962–1987’ 100(4) Harvard Law Review 761.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roscoe Pound (1910) ‘Law in Books and Law in Action’ 44 American Law Review 12.
   Google Scholar
• Maurice Rosenberg (1964) The Pretrial Conference and Effective Justice, Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Winifred Ann Sandler (1984) ‘The Minneapolis Anti-Pornography Ordinance: a Valid Assertion of Civil Rights?’ 13(4) Fordham Urban Law Journal 909.
   Google Scholar
• Austin Sarat and William L F Felstiner (1986) ‘Law and Strategy in the Divorce Lawyer’s Office’ 20(1) Law & Society Review 93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Austin Sarat and William L F Felstiner (1995) Divorce Lawyers and Their Clients: Power and Meaning in the Legal Process, Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Austin Sarat and Susan Silbey (1988) ‘The Pull of the Policy Audience’ 10(2&3) Law & Policy 97.
   Google Scholar
• Austin Sarat and Jonathan Simon (2003) ‘Cultural Analysis, Cultural Studies, and the Situation of Legal Scholarship’ in Austin Sarat and Jonathan Simon (eds) Cultural Analysis, Cultural Studies, and the Law: Moving Beyond Legal Realism, Duke University Press, 1.
   Google Scholar
• Patrick Schmidt and Simon Halliday (2009) ‘Introduction: Beyond Methods – Law and Society in Action’ in Patrick Schmidt and Simon Halliday (eds) Conducting Law and Society Research: Reflections on Methods and Practices, Cambridge University Press, 1.
   Google Scholar
• Peter H Schuck (1989) ‘Why Don't Law Professors Do More Empirical Research?’ 39 Journal of Legal Education 323.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shari Seidman Diamond and Pam Mueller (2010) ‘Empirical Legal Scholarship in Law Reviews’ 6 Annual Review of Law and Social Science 581.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nan Seuffert (1996) ‘Locating Lawyering: Power, Dialogue and Narrative’ 18(4) Sydney Law Review 523.
   Google Scholar
• Cassandra E Sharp (2012) ‘Let’s See How Far We’ve Come: The Role of Empirical Methodology in Exploring Television Audiences’ in Peter Robson and Jessica Silbey (eds) Law and Justice on the Small Screen, Hart, 111.
   Google Scholar
• Lawrence W Sherman and Ellen G Cohn (1989) ‘The Impact of Research on Legal Policy: The Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment’ 23 Law & Society Review 117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawrence W Sherman et al (1992) ‘The Variable Effects of Arrest on Crime Control: The Milwaukee Domestic Violence Experiment’ 83 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 137.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avrom Sherr (1986) ‘Lawyers and Clients: The First Meeting’ 49(3) Modern Law Review 323.
   Google Scholar
• Avrom Sherr (1999) Client Interviewing for Lawyers: An Analysis and Guide, Sweet & Maxwell.
   Google Scholar
• Alicia Snijders and Eileen Webb (2014) ‘Problems Encountered With Telecommunication Sales and Service to Refugees and Humanitarian Migrants in Perth's Northern Suburbs: The Tip of the Iceberg?’ 21(3) Competition and Consumer Law Journal 205.
   Google Scholar
• Hilary Sommerlad and P Sanderson (1998) Gender, Choice and Commitment: Women Solicitors in England and Wales and the Struggle for Equal Status, Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Christine Rogers Stanton (2014) ‘Crossing Methodological Borders: Decolonizing Community-Based Participatory Research’ 20(5) Qualitative Inquiry 573.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brian Tamanaha (2006) Law as a Means to an End: Threat to the Rule of Law, Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Margaret Thornton (2007) ‘The Law School, the Market and the New Knowledge Economy’ 17(12) Legal Education Review 1.
   Google Scholar
• Max Travers, Judy Putt and Deirdre Howard-Wagner (2013) ‘Editorial: Special Issue on Ethnography, Crime and Criminal Justice’ 25(1) Current Issues in Criminal Justice 463.
   Google Scholar
• David M Trubek and John Esser (1989) ‘”Critical Empiricism” in American Legal Studies: Paradox, Program, or Pandora's Box?’ 14(1) Law & Social Inquiry 3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mariana Valverde (2012) Everyday Law on the Street: City Governance in an Age of Diversity, University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• van Dijck Gijs (2011) ‘Empirical Legal Studies (ELS)’ 142(6912) Weekblad voor privaatrecht, notariaat en registratie 1105.
   Google Scholar
• Douglas W Vick (2004) ‘Interdisciplinarity and the Discipline of Law’ 31(2) Journal of Law and Society 163.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jane Margaret Wangmann (2009) ‘She said … ’ ‘He said … ’: Cross Applications in NSW Apprehended Domestic Violence Order Proceedings (PhD Thesis, University of Sydney).
   Google Scholar
• Jane Wangmann (2012) ‘Incidents v Context: How Does the NSW Protection Order System Understand Intimate Partner Violence?’ 34 Sydney Law Review 695.
   Google Scholar
• Janet Weinstein (1999) ‘Coming of Age: Recognizing the Importance of Interdisciplinary Education in Law Practice’ 74 Washington Law Review 319.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenore J Weitzman (1985) The Divorce Revolution: The Unexpected Social and Economic Consequences for Women and Children in America, The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lisa Whitehouse and Susan Bright (2014) ‘The Empirical Approach to Research in Property Law’ 3 Property Law Review 176.
   Google Scholar
• Sharon Witherspoon (2002) ‘Research Capacity: A Crisis in Waiting?’ 37(1) Socio-Legal Newsletter 1.
   Google Scholar
• Kathryn Zeiler (2016) ‘The Future of Empirical Legal Scholarship’ 66(1) Journal of Legal Education 78.
   Google Scholar