Search

This paper contrasts the assumptions and methods used by quantitative criminologists with the approach to comparison pursued by the interpretive tradition in sociology. Whereas quantitative studies tend to conceal distinctive legislative or institutional responses in particular countries, interpretive studies make it possible to address internal debates about policy issues, as well as how practitioners exercise professional judgement. The paper considers a variety of ways in which the interpretive traditions of symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology have approached comparison. It also considers the conceptual and practical issues that might arise in conducting a qualitative comparative study about juvenile justice within East Asia focusing on Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Whereas quantitative studies tend to ask questions that interest Western researchers, interpretivism makes possible a dialogue between countries that have different institutions, philosophies and cultures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reviews the state of law and society studies in Britain by revisiting the arguments raised by C.M. Campbell and Paul Wiles in the late 1970s. It argues that the divide they identified between theoretically-oriented “sociology of law” and a-theoretical or empiricist “socio-legal studies” has widened, discusses some of the cultural and institutional reasons, and makes some practical recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]