Comparative Sociolegal Trajectories

This review offers a methodology for the comparative analysis of different sociolegal research cultures by tracing the distinct trajectories of their scholarly communities and academic traditions. Drawing on sociolegal studies and the sociology and history of science, we examine both microsociological (individual) and macrosociological (structural) dimensions to reveal how historical contingencies, institutional dynamics, and personal scholarly pathways have shaped each national approach to nondoctrinal legal scholarship. Employing four conceptual heuristics (intellectual histories, institutional economies, epistemic communities, and scholarly agency), we highlight the interplay between biography and academic structure, challenging dominant narratives of disciplinary development. While acknowledging the interdisciplinary and contested nature of sociolegal scholarship, we propose a comparative case study methodology through which to disentangle, and make sense of, the complexity of sociolegal studies in different cultures.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Annual Review of Law and Social Science
Published
2026-04-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-042224-070656
Primary Topic
Comparative and International Law Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparative Sociolegal Trajectories

Christian Boulanger, Naomi Creutzfeldt, Jennifer Hendry (文林言)
Annual Review of Law and Social Science
Comparative and International Law Studies
article

Comparative Sociolegal Trajectories

Christian Boulanger, Naomi Creutzfeldt, Jennifer Hendry (文林言)
article en

Abstract

This review offers a methodology for the comparative analysis of different sociolegal research cultures by tracing the distinct trajectories of their scholarly communities and academic traditions. Drawing on sociolegal studies and the sociology and history of science, we examine both microsociological (individual) and macrosociological (structural) dimensions to reveal how historical contingencies, institutional dynamics, and personal scholarly pathways have shaped each national approach to nondoctrinal legal scholarship. Employing four conceptual heuristics (intellectual histories, institutional economies, epistemic communities, and scholarly agency), we highlight the interplay between biography and academic structure, challenging dominant narratives of disciplinary development. While acknowledging the interdisciplinary and contested nature of sociolegal scholarship, we propose a comparative case study methodology through which to disentangle, and make sense of, the complexity of sociolegal studies in different cultures.

Annual Review of Law and Social Science
University of Leeds (GB), Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK), University of Kent (GB), Max Planck Institute for Legal History and Legal Theory (DE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 33%
Comparative and International Law Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.